I like this :lol:

I would much rather his content be fully posted here without links so he doesn't receive SEO referrals for his website and advertising revenue.

Probably a bit snide and spiteful, but I really don't like him.

Perhaps a simple rule that Fink must register and post like other forumers. His articles are not worthy of quoting. Let him post himself.

BCompSci, Hons.

Will that do? :lol:

What would Joffa do with himself?! :lol:

This.

No new articles unless they are from FFT :twisted: :lol:

How exactly does one police that?

I wrote a roar article once.

Joffa didn't repost it here. ](*,) [-( :x :cry: :(

Roar articles are sh.t in the main, if they asked for them not to be published here, well good, they are sh.t anyway. The "journos" (I'm tipping many of them aren't actually qualified journo's by the way either) with write ups with red headings are paid by The Roar from what I hear. The write ups with blue headings are submissions from Mr Joe Public to the website.

It's worth noting this.

On Fink, SBS, ESPN Asia and several other sources pay him to write his articles, so I don't see the reason why they can't be published.

Maybe a better criteria for articles posted here is that the journalists formal qualifications are the criteria?

Actually, let's just ban all external content and dry Joffa's post rate right up.

Chuck Rebecca Wilson in there for good measure too!

Can we extend that to Fink as well? :lol:

That can be arranged 8-[

:lol:

You'd have to do it over Joffa's dead body. :lol: :lol:

I know.

But still. Can we do it anyway?

The ban isn't in regards to content.

edit: what he said ^

Edited by Erebus: 25/6/2011 02:15:48 AM

IIRC the Roar articles weren't banned - they requested that they not be published here.

Articles from the Roar are banned, and Fink's articles are usually of lesser intelligence than the latest editorial from a 16 year old Sydney Olympic Ultra talking about how the FFA are bringing in the B-League very soon, so can we extend the ban to Fink articles?