Jump to content

Deppo


SuperMikey

Recommended Posts

A streaker ran across the ice during tonight's Stanley Cup final matchup in Vancouver, might have had to many Alexander Keiths but I swear it said " free Deppo" on his back...

 

Do I have to collect tokens to get one?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I swear I overheard a couple of blokes in the pub last night, far as I could earwig they were called Badge and Granty, discussing the cost of a hitman in furtive whispers. Kept on about "the thread getting annoying" and "we'll have to do something about it"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There does seem to be a strong suspicion that this is personal. If so, pursuing vendettas in this petty way doesn't exactly cover the powers that be in glory.

 

Losing any poster is depressing - but losing one of the most entertaining ones 'permanently' is self-defeating.

 

For a brief moment I am in your camp Verbal. There is a nasty whiff about this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am itk, Cork transfer off due to Deppogate. Cork impressed by all aspects of Southampton except their unofficial messageboard. Cork is apparently a pacifist who hates infighting. Saints to re-sign Pulis on a 7 year contract out of desperation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For a brief moment I am in your camp Verbal. There is a nasty whiff about this.

 

I think the problem with Deppogate is that it's based on a misunderstanding of the English language. The supposed infringements are for 'pointless' and 'sarcastic' posts.

 

'Pointless' is of course entirely in the eye of the beholder, and is therefore nothing but hopelessly subjective. It IS, though, easy to demonstrate that deppo mostly had a point to make. Easy, because deppo was only very rarely 'sarcastic'

 

His modus operandum was to adopt the point of view of someone he disagreed with, or whose post he just found unintentionally funny (like that never happens!), and turn it on its head. This is properly called satirising, not being sarcastic. Satiric take-downs almost always have a clear underlying, and very economically expressed point to them - so they were not pointless at all, and very, very few of us, I'd suggest, ever saw that they were.

 

So on neither count - pointlessness or sarcasm - could deppo have accumulated enough infractions to warrant such an absurdity as a 'life ban'.

 

Which leads me back to the only logical conclusion: it's personal.

Edited by Verbal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the problem with Deppogate is that it's based on a misunderstanding of the English language. The supposed infringements are for 'pointless' and 'sarcastic' posts.

 

'Pointless' is of course entirely in the eye of the beholder, and is therefore nothing but hopelessly subjective. It IS, though, easy to demonstrate that deppo mostly had a point to make. Easy, because deppos was only very rarely 'sarcastic'

 

'His modus operandum was to adopt the point of view of someone he disagreed with, or whose post he just found unintentionally funny (like that never happens!), and turn it on its head. This is properly called satirising, not being sarcastic. Satiric take-downs almost always have a clear underlying, and very economically expressed point to them - so they were not pointless at all, and very, very few of us, I'd suggest, ever saw that they were.

 

So on neither count - pointlessness or sarcasm - could deppo have accumulated enough infractions to warrant such an absurdity as a 'life ban'.

 

Which leads me back to the only logical conclusion: it's personal.

 

Agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the problem with Deppogate is that it's based on a misunderstanding of the English language. The supposed infringements are for 'pointless' and 'sarcastic' posts.

 

'Pointless' is of course entirely in the eye of the beholder, and is therefore nothing but hopelessly subjective. It IS, though, easy to demonstrate that deppo mostly had a point to make. Easy, because deppo was only very rarely 'sarcastic'

 

His modus operandum was to adopt the point of view of someone he disagreed with, or whose post he just found unintentionally funny (like that never happens!), and turn it on its head. This is properly called satirising, not being sarcastic. Satiric take-downs almost always have a clear underlying, and very economically expressed point to them - so they were not pointless at all, and very, very few of us, I'd suggest, ever saw that they were.

 

So on neither count - pointlessness or sarcasm - could deppo have accumulated enough infractions to warrant such an absurdity as a 'life ban'.

 

Which leads me back to the only logical conclusion: it's personal.

seems that way

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the problem with Deppogate is that it's based on a misunderstanding of the English language. The supposed infringements are for 'pointless' and 'sarcastic' posts.

 

'Pointless' is of course entirely in the eye of the beholder, and is therefore nothing but hopelessly subjective. It IS, though, easy to demonstrate that deppo mostly had a point to make. Easy, because deppo was only very rarely 'sarcastic'

 

His modus operandum was to adopt the point of view of someone he disagreed with, or whose post he just found unintentionally funny (like that never happens!), and turn it on its head. This is properly called satirising, not being sarcastic. Satiric take-downs almost always have a clear underlying, and very economically expressed point to them - so they were not pointless at all, and very, very few of us, I'd suggest, ever saw that they were.

 

So on neither count - pointlessness or sarcasm - could deppo have accumulated enough infractions to warrant such an absurdity as a 'life ban'.

 

Which leads me back to the only logical conclusion: it's personal.

 

I agree with Verbal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is only right that Deppo was banned. I was recently barred from my local pub for interupting a conversation about "The Wonders of the Universe" with a Pointless and Sarcastic Remark™.

 

This. I do this all the time down the pub (like a forum), during quiz nights, at football with friends (like this forum, but with friends), and also at work. I have to say I can still go to the pub, quiz nights, football with friends, and into work!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the problem with Deppogate is that it's based on a misunderstanding of the English language. The supposed infringements are for 'pointless' and 'sarcastic' posts.

 

'Pointless' is of course entirely in the eye of the beholder, and is therefore nothing but hopelessly subjective. It IS, though, easy to demonstrate that deppo mostly had a point to make. Easy, because deppo was only very rarely 'sarcastic'

 

His modus operandum was to adopt the point of view of someone he disagreed with, or whose post he just found unintentionally funny (like that never happens!), and turn it on its head. This is properly called satirising, not being sarcastic. Satiric take-downs almost always have a clear underlying, and very economically expressed point to them - so they were not pointless at all, and very, very few of us, I'd suggest, ever saw that they were.

 

So on neither count - pointlessness or sarcasm - could deppo have accumulated enough infractions to warrant such an absurdity as a 'life ban'.

 

Which leads me back to the only logical conclusion: it's personal.

 

Agree 100%

 

I think people like boj and hypo just don't really get satire and actually feel a bit insecure around it.

 

I could certainly see the point in nearly all of deppo's posts. Have a quick look through hypo's post history and you'll see most of his posts add almost nothing of value to the thread, that's what I call pointless. If deppo's posts were pointless, people wouldn't be missing them so much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the problem with Deppogate is that it's based on a misunderstanding of the English language. The supposed infringements are for 'pointless' and 'sarcastic' posts.

 

'Pointless' is of course entirely in the eye of the beholder, and is therefore nothing but hopelessly subjective. It IS, though, easy to demonstrate that deppo mostly had a point to make. Easy, because deppo was only very rarely 'sarcastic'

 

His modus operandum was to adopt the point of view of someone he disagreed with, or whose post he just found unintentionally funny (like that never happens!), and turn it on its head. This is properly called satirising, not being sarcastic. Satiric take-downs almost always have a clear underlying, and very economically expressed point to them - so they were not pointless at all, and very, very few of us, I'd suggest, ever saw that they were.

 

So on neither count - pointlessness or sarcasm - could deppo have accumulated enough infractions to warrant such an absurdity as a 'life ban'.

 

Which leads me back to the only logical conclusion: it's personal.

 

Les Mots Juste, mon Brave.

 

Vive le Deppo!

 

Vive le satire!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In further news, Gordon Strachan weighed into the Deppogate saga, claiming "Deppo? Pah. I've got more important things to worry about than Deppo, such as a pork pie in the fridge that's reached it's expiry date."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the support guys. I'll be continuing to make lesser appearances using a couple of my less-oft used accounts such as egg and Sergei Gotsmanov. Be interesting to see if those logins get infracted quite so quickly!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As Deppogate reaches its 9th day, Southampton's pre-season preparations have been thrown into turmoil as several high profile players have rejected moves to the Saints after logging on to SWF only to see themselves described as "****e", "not good enough for Saints" "a poor man's gary neville"...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the problem with Deppogate is that it's based on a misunderstanding of the English language. The supposed infringements are for 'pointless' and 'sarcastic' posts.

 

'Pointless' is of course entirely in the eye of the beholder, and is therefore nothing but hopelessly subjective. It IS, though, easy to demonstrate that deppo mostly had a point to make. Easy, because deppo was only very rarely 'sarcastic'

 

His modus operandum was to adopt the point of view of someone he disagreed with, or whose post he just found unintentionally funny (like that never happens!), and turn it on its head. This is properly called satirising, not being sarcastic. Satiric take-downs almost always have a clear underlying, and very economically expressed point to them - so they were not pointless at all, and very, very few of us, I'd suggest, ever saw that they were.

 

So on neither count - pointlessness or sarcasm - could deppo have accumulated enough infractions to warrant such an absurdity as a 'life ban'.

 

Which leads me back to the only logical conclusion: it's personal.

 

It can only be as a result of a tawdry love affair gone wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm thinking that Deppo can only return after a transformation exhibited by Jack Nicholas in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, or John Hurt in 1984. He is gone. Apparently under ECG as we speak, and the rats are next. He will be denouncing comrades. Be worried.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...