Swansea topics......

.

What a very very sad man you are. It's okay we do hate you, it's no big secret you inbred twerp.

I have come to realise "sad" simply means "correct" on this forum. Its ok. Its like when the term "troll" used to mean "saying stuff we dont want to face up to".

I think there was a time when Bristol were your main rivals, not disputing that. I just am also aware that anyone who tries to claim that today (barring 1 or 2 old fogeys stuck in their ways) is lying or at least doing their best to convince themselves otherwise.

Everytime I watch Cardiff on the telly, the only songs I tend to hear is stuff about us. I cant say I have ever heard one against Bristol City or Newport.

Okay replace sad with weird, strange or odd. Proper fruitcake, get a life.

Have you ever heard such a thing as someone trawling through a football message board database to link 'key' words?

All I can say is you are a very kindly soul GMSB because there are much harsher words than fruitcake to describe snackadatabase

For me it's Bristol City and Swansea - and then Newport County. They're the Derby games end of - at the end of the day Swansea are currently be coming to the end of a few less memorable glory years, but history shows that Swansea have spent 8 years in the top tier since they began and won 15 trophies as appose to our 19 years in the top flight and the 32 trophies won too. So for me Swansea are always playing catch up
Even the Liberty is only 21k seater stadium on the outskirts/middle of nowhere of Swansea.....

So you make the rules As I asked earlier why ask questions when you won't accept the answers?

As for your obsessive database search how many of those 'key' words were generated by Jacks like you making Swansea posts (or making pointless replies when you can't accept the answer). A better comparison would be actual Cardiff fans talking about Swansea rather than Swansea fans talking about Swansea.

Now if you have the time to trawl through the database for that answer then good luck to you but by f**k your obsessive mental disorder would be hell of a lot worse than we first thought

Rules? There are no rules, just common sense. This is a search on YOUR history not the forums history. You have commented on Swansea over 2000% more than you have on Bristol subjects. I say at least 2000% because I had to go on what was registered on like for like names, as your mentions of Swansea was off the scale and uncountable by the search engine.

It takes no time my friend, i have done it in the time it takes to reply in a timely manner. It takes 30 seconds tops to type "jacks" into your post history.

Bristol City would be my choice for sure.

Your key word results are as follows:-

"Bristol" - 141
"Wurzels" - 8

"Swansea" - broke the search, it claimed the word was used too frequently to count.
"Jacks" - 181

You talk about Swansea over 2000% more than you do Bristol.

Sad

Totally agree I have never visited a Swansea (or Bristol City) message board and have no intension of doing so. To post on one you need to register an Email belonging to you which by definition means expressing an interest in that club. which I would never lower myself to do.

So if you believe old Snackausername he has registered a dozen or more emails in an expression of interest in Cardiff City his 'football teams' main rivals (in his opinion)

That can only be described as odd in any kind of circumstance but then he searches the database for selected key words in an effort to link Swansea with Cardiff. That can only be described as an obsessive mental disorder. Yet he still thinks he is one step ahead of everyone else

He makes an utter fool of himself every time he posts.

Makes a fool of himself = makes a fool of us

I have got the forum translations now after a few years of posting.

You say Bristol are your main rivals, yet you talk about Swansea over 2000% more, steve says he has never looked at our forum yet I link a thread to him saying he was just looking on the forum. That tells me that there is some tall tales going on here

Bristol City would be my choice for sure.

Your key word results are as follows:-

"Bristol" - 141
"Wurzels" - 8

"Swansea" - broke the search, it claimed the word was used too frequently to count.
"Jacks" - 181

You talk about Swansea over 2000% more than you do Bristol.

Sad

And correct.

No they weren't.do your self a favour.view footage on you tube it was brutal late 70s culminating in the 1993 game where the jacks threw seats from the grandstand onto the family stand.

.

What a very very sad man you are. It's okay we do hate you, it's no big secret you inbred twerp.

I have come to realise "sad" simply means "correct" on this forum. Its ok. Its like when the term "troll" used to mean "saying stuff we dont want to face up to".

I think there was a time when Bristol were your main rivals, not disputing that. I just am also aware that anyone who tries to claim that today (barring 1 or 2 old fogeys stuck in their ways) is lying or at least doing their best to convince themselves otherwise.

Everytime I watch Cardiff on the telly, the only songs I tend to hear is stuff about us. I cant say I have ever heard one against Bristol City or Newport.

Okay replace sad with weird, strange or odd. Proper fruitcake, get a life.

Have you ever heard such a thing as someone trawling through a football message board database to link 'key' words?

All I can say is you are a very kindly soul GMSB because there are much harsher words than fruitcake to describe snackadatabase

Not at all normal mate. He clearly doesn't get out much.

Yep, of course internet hasnt got to the Valleys of Cardiff yet, everyone still thinks you can only get the internet indoors

Trust me, get some sense and you can now be correct on the go, far more convenient

The issue with you roathie is you can never say ok.

Here we have what is the very real situation of depending on age who certain Cardiff fans perceive to be our rivals.

Take my father and myself as examples, for my father Bristol are his biggest rivals for me personally it's Swansea.

But you won't accept that as an answer, on this very thread you've had 2 cardiff fans state Bristol are for themselves the biggest rivals even going as far as explaining why and you still cannot accept it even saying quote "I don't believe you"

This is your problem, you can never be wrong you can never for one second just accept a different view. Probably why your banned from your own clubs forums. This thread is now into its 3rd page solely because you can't accept some Cardiff fans do not see Swansea as main rivals.

Thats not an issue, it is a great strength. I make my own decisions and see through when people are trying to portray something else.

If you told me that your Dad considers Bristol City as his main rivals I would indeed say "ok" as there is nothing there that points to the alternate.

If I knew your Dad however and you told me that, yet all he talks about day on day out is dissing Swansea and has an I hate Swansea car sticker... Then I will be less inclined to accept your statement. And rightly so.

I am not banned from my own clubs forum, complete myth. In fact I am a long standing respected poster that is very much involved with the clubs Trust issues

So in summary, these posters claiming to count Bristol as their main rivals barely mention them, even when they are in the same league... Yet their mentions of Swansea are so frequent that Annis' online keyword search system cannot physically count - there is lies the wuite significant difference

But surely it makes perfect sense that Bristol city have made no major signings, have made no significant sales of players and are not exactly newsworthy right now so wouldn't be discussed as much as Swansea who have signed some big prospects and are in the news for the gilfi potential sale at 50 million.

Makes sense to me.

But surely it makes perfect sense that Bristol city have made no major signings, have made no significant sales of players and are not exactly newsworthy right now so wouldn't be discussed as much as Swansea who have signed some big prospects and are in the news for the gilfi potential sale at 50 million.

Makes sense to me.

You assume I am talking about this past week? I am talking about the complete lifespan of this forum and these posters complete history dating back almost a decade.

You have played them far more than us, and have been in your league for years! yet they barely get a mention. For those reasons I believe I am well within my rights to reject the claims.

The behaviour does not fit the claim.

And your point is.......?

Far from me to speak on mr Bings behalf but, i assume his point is that he finds it amusing that when we pulled clear of Cardiff as a club many years ago - there was a visible movement on here for a few months to make Bristol City your main rivals, rather than accept the fact you were thr lessor of the two involved in the rivalry. Yet the Swansea to Bristol City posts and topics are probably around 5000:1 in ratio, and have always been.

But thats just me guessing regarding his point

The thing about being a football fan is that you support your team because they are YOUR team. Every football fan would like their team to be better than their main rival but you can't always have it your way. I've been supporting the City for 48 years and without checking (because I can't be bothered) I would guess that Cardiff have been above Swansea for more than 30 of them but would never dream of going onto a jack website to gloat about it (admittedly websites weren't around for most of that time) because quite frankly it's a bit childish and pathetic. You are lucky that you have hit the big time just as the TV money for being in the Premier League has reached phenomenal levels. You've done well, very well to be fair to you. We had our chance in our promotion season but we blew it. That's football. I'll still support my team and you will support yours. However, I do still get the feeling that deep down many Swansea fans still have a deep rooted inferiority complex to feel the need to come onto Cardiff websites to gloat about their success. For the record for the vast majority of my 48 years as a City fan I have regarded Swansea as our main rivals although I do dislike Bristol City with a high level of intensity too.

Who is gloating?

I am most certainly not here to gloat. I am usually here adding a semblance of reality to threads that are ridiculous in substance, being unrealistically negative towards Swansea. I am nothing but fair in my comments to both Swansea and Cardiff. Only one side seems to have an inferiority complex based on that.

Bristol City would be my choice for sure.

Your key word results are as follows:-

"Bristol" - 141
"Wurzels" - 8

"Swansea" - broke the search, it claimed the word was used too frequently to count.
"Jacks" - 181

You talk about Swansea over 2000% more than you do Bristol.

Sad

And correct.

Correct? According to your 'researched' figures Swansea have been talked about 40 times more than Bristol that is not 2000% Obviously basic maths is not a strong point down west so to inform you the actual percentage difference is 12% which can easily be explained by your pointless postings

Bristol City would be my choice for sure.

Your key word results are as follows:-

"Bristol" - 141
"Wurzels" - 8

"Swansea" - broke the search, it claimed the word was used too frequently to count.
"Jacks" - 181

You talk about Swansea over 2000% more than you do Bristol.

Sad

And correct.

Correct? According to your 'researched' figures Swansea have been talked about 40 times more than Bristol that is not 2000% Obviously basic maths is not a strong point down west so to inform you the actual percentage difference is 12% which can easily be explained by your pointless postings

Nope. its basic.

Main name ''Swansea'' and ''Bristol'' cannot be compared because the Swansea mentions are too many for the algorythm to count. So we know that is in Swansea's favour exponentially, to the point it cannot be counted.

That leaves the nickname ''Jacks'' and Wurzels'', this is a ratio of 181:8

181 is 2262.5% more than 8.

Bristol City would be my choice for sure.

Your key word results are as follows:-

"Bristol" - 141
"Wurzels" - 8

"Swansea" - broke the search, it claimed the word was used too frequently to count.
"Jacks" - 181

You talk about Swansea over 2000% more than you do Bristol.

Sad

And correct.

Correct? According to your 'researched' figures Swansea have been talked about 40 times more than Bristol that is not 2000% Obviously basic maths is not a strong point down west so to inform you the actual percentage difference is 12% which can easily be explained by your pointless postings

Nope. its basic.

Main name ''Swansea'' and ''Bristol'' cannot be compared because the Swansea mentions are too many for the algorythm to count. So we know that is in Swansea's favour exponentially, to the point it cannot be counted.

That leaves the nickname ''Jacks'' and Wurzels'', this is a ratio of 181:8

181 is 2262.5% more than 8.

Your posting was Swansea 181 Bristol 141 (see above dummy) that is 12% not 2000%. You can't point fingers at Steve then expect not to be judged the same way.

Your posting was Swansea 181 Bristol 141 (see above dummy) that is 12% not 2000%. You can't point fingers at Steve then expect not to be judged the same way.

Surely you are on a wind up? you are counting the selection ''Swansea'' as zero, yet knowing that the number is so high that the in built system cannot possibly count

what you are basically saying there is similar to a farmer tasked with counting sheep and cows in a field. There are 6 sheep and a million cows. Unfortunately the cow counter computer stops at 600,000 and then breaks.

The farmer then reports back, ''There are 6 sheep and no cows, so there are far more sheep''

Unfortunately for you and your point, we can only go with what we know and can only compare like for like. And from the like for like numbers that we can count - you mention Swansea 2000%+ more than Bristol.

facts.

steve says he has never looked at our forum yet I link a thread to him saying he was just looking on the forum. That tells me that there is some tall tales going on here

I'm sure Steve will speak for himself but what I will add is that he didn't say he had actually looked at Planet Swans. What he said was 'I see that Planet Swans is going into meltdown'

There had been postings on Facebook and other media stating that all out war had broken out on Planet Swans so even those who don't read PS would have been aware of the unrest.

So again you're using narrow parameters based on your exact science logic. If only you were not so obsessed with this message board you would realise that there are other things going on.

Nice try but as usual not good enough.

Your posting was Swansea 181 Bristol 141 (see above dummy) that is 12% not 2000%. You can't point fingers at Steve then expect not to be judged the same way.

Surely you are on a wind up? you are counting the selection ''Swansea'' as zero, yet knowing that the number is so high that the in built system cannot possibly count

what you are basically saying there is similar to a farmer tasked with counting sheep and cows in a field. There are 6 sheep and a million cows. Unfortunately the cow counter computer stops at 600,000 and then breaks.

The farmer then reports back, ''There are 6 sheep and no cows, so there are far more sheep''

Unfortunately for you and your point, we can only go with what we know and can only compare like for like. And from the like for like numbers that we can count - you mention Swansea 2000%+ more than Bristol.

facts.

You posted Swansea 181 Bristol 141 I'm judging you on that.

steve says he has never looked at our forum yet I link a thread to him saying he was just looking on the forum. That tells me that there is some tall tales going on here

I'm sure Steve will speak for himself but what I will add is that he didn't say he had actually looked at Planet Swans. What he said was 'I see that Planet Swans is going into meltdown'

There had been postings on Facebook and other media stating that all out war had broken out on Planet Swans so even those who don't read PS would have been aware of the unrest.

So again you're using narrow parameters based on your exact science logic. If only you were not so obsessed with this message board you would realise that there are other things going on.

Nice try but as usual not good enough.

No narrow perameters at all.

That then becomes hear say, however Steve said he saw that PlanetSwans was going into meltdown, not that he read that it was.

Again this is basic.

Your posting was Swansea 181 Bristol 141 (see above dummy) that is 12% not 2000%. You can't point fingers at Steve then expect not to be judged the same way.

Surely you are on a wind up? you are counting the selection ''Swansea'' as zero, yet knowing that the number is so high that the in built system cannot possibly count

what you are basically saying there is similar to a farmer tasked with counting sheep and cows in a field. There are 6 sheep and a million cows. Unfortunately the cow counter computer stops at 600,000 and then breaks.

The farmer then reports back, ''There are 6 sheep and no cows, so there are far more sheep''

Unfortunately for you and your point, we can only go with what we know and can only compare like for like. And from the like for like numbers that we can count - you mention Swansea 2000%+ more than Bristol.

facts.

You posted Swansea 181 Bristol 141 I'm judging you on that.

No I didnt, I posted

''Swansea'' - too many for the algorythm to count
''Jacks'' - 181

Bristol - 133
Wurzels - 141

Only a complete moron would take that as 181 v 141, just like the farmer example... or someone who is actively trying to distort the truth for whatever reason. Wonder which one you fall under

Your posting was Swansea 181 Bristol 141 (see above dummy) that is 12% not 2000%. You can't point fingers at Steve then expect not to be judged the same way.

Surely you are on a wind up? you are counting the selection ''Swansea'' as zero, yet knowing that the number is so high that the in built system cannot possibly count

what you are basically saying there is similar to a farmer tasked with counting sheep and cows in a field. There are 6 sheep and a million cows. Unfortunately the cow counter computer stops at 600,000 and then breaks.

The farmer then reports back, ''There are 6 sheep and no cows, so there are far more sheep''

Unfortunately for you and your point, we can only go with what we know and can only compare like for like. And from the like for like numbers that we can count - you mention Swansea 2000%+ more than Bristol.

facts.

You posted Swansea 181 Bristol 141 I'm judging you on that.

No I didnt, I posted

''Swansea'' - too many for the algorythm to count
''Jacks'' - 181

Bristol - 133
Wurzels - 141

Only a complete moron would take that as 181 v 141, just like the farmer example... or someone who is actively trying to distort the truth for whatever reason. Wonder which one you fall under

Basically you don't know what you have posted this is now the third (or maybe fourth ) set of figures You have completely lost your credibility on this issue and you can't even spell algorithm (note for future use )

steve says he has never looked at our forum yet I link a thread to him saying he was just looking on the forum. That tells me that there is some tall tales going on here

I'm sure Steve will speak for himself but what I will add is that he didn't say he had actually looked at Planet Swans. What he said was 'I see that Planet Swans is going into meltdown'

There had been postings on Facebook and other media stating that all out war had broken out on Planet Swans so even those who don't read PS would have been aware of the unrest.

So again you're using narrow parameters based on your exact science logic. If only you were not so obsessed with this message board you would realise that there are other things going on.

Nice try but as usual not good enough.

No narrow perameters at all.

That then becomes hear say, however Steve said he saw that PlanetSwans was going into meltdown, not that he read that it was.

Again this is basic.

Steve said 'I see that Planet Swans is going into meltdown' He didn't say he had read that on PS. It is perfectly reasonable that he did come across that information from another source. Again you are taking things far to literally and hypocritically you claim it is different when you are caught out with your figures, which ever set you are now relying on

Basically you don't know what you have posted this is now the third (or maybe fourth ) set of figures You have completely lost your credibility on this issue and you can't even spell algorithm (note for future use )

I am not going back and forth for the exact numbers. It makes little difference if it is 133, 144, 155, or 166 in reality

I know exactly the content of my post. My posts stated that you mention Swansea topics 2000+% more than you do Bristol ones.

I gave the number of the times you mentioned Swansea, gave the amount you mentioned jacks, gabe the amount you mentioned Bristol and the amount you mentioned wurzels.

The amount was so large in the comparisons of the actual club names that it could not possibly be counted on the Swansea side.

That left us with Jacks v Wurzels. whatever the figure I gave was (not going back to check) was 2000+% more Jacks than Wurzels. It is basic

(you should check that before posting next time )

Steve said 'I see that Planet Swans is going into meltdown' He didn't say he had read that on PS. It is perfectly reasonable that he did come across that information from another source. Again you are taking things far to literally and hypocritically you claim it is different when you are caught out with your figures, which ever set you are now relying on

Steve didnt say ''I read that someone claimed Planetswans wa going into meltdown''. He said he saw that it was.

This is easy

steve says he has never looked at our forum yet I link a thread to him saying he was just looking on the forum. That tells me that there is some tall tales going on here

I'm sure Steve will speak for himself but what I will add is that he didn't say he had actually looked at Planet Swans. What he said was 'I see that Planet Swans is going into meltdown'

There had been postings on Facebook and other media stating that all out war had broken out on Planet Swans so even those who don't read PS would have been aware of the unrest.

So again you're using narrow parameters based on your exact science logic. If only you were not so obsessed with this message board you would realise that there are other things going on.

Nice try but as usual not good enough.

No narrow perameters at all.

That then becomes hear say, however Steve said he saw that PlanetSwans was going into meltdown, not that he read that it was.

Again this is basic.

I have known several times when the Swans fans have gone into meltdown, or indeed when some Swans fans believed that they would be relegated, even though I did not share that view. I did not need to go on a Swansea forum to know that, the information is readily available on this forum because certain Swansea fans appear to be obsessed with Cardiff, plus I have a brother-in-law and a few friends who are fanatical Swansea supporters. I stated that I had never been on another teams forum, and I will hold my hands up and say that was incorrect. I vaguely re-call viewing a forum once as a result of a discussion on here, I am guessing it was either Leeds, West Ham or Swansea as they are the only teams I believe who have fans who are regular visits to this forum. It is all somewhat irrelevant as all I have said is that I consider Bristol to have been our main rivals over the years. I still consider them to be so, particularly as Cardiff rarely play Swansea, Newport or Wrexham. Is anyone aware of any Cardiff fan using hundreds of user names to get onto a Swansea forum, because if so I would agree that person is obviously obsessed with the Swans. I know it has happened the other way around.

No idea. I would say that the Swansea moderators do allow free flowing debate and do not ban people who they lose debates to, so its a moot point really

Although I will say that if you look through the pages of both forums, there only seems to be threads regarding the other club on here. Very few Cardiff threads on PS, just Cardiff fans who contribute to the threads regarding Swansea affairs on there.

Basically you don't know what you have posted this is now the third (or maybe fourth ) set of figures You have completely lost your credibility on this issue and you can't even spell algorithm (note for future use )

I am not going back and forth for the exact numbers. It makes little difference if it is 133, 144, 155, or 166 in reality

I know exactly the content of my post. My posts stated that you mention Swansea topics 2000+% more than you do Bristol ones.

I gave the number of the times you mentioned Swansea, gave the amount you mentioned jacks, gabe the amount you mentioned Bristol and the amount you mentioned wurzels.

The amount was so large in the comparisons of the actual club names that it could not possibly be counted on the Swansea side.

That left us with Jacks v Wurzels. whatever the figure I gave was (not going back to check) was 2000+% more Jacks than Wurzels. It is basic

(you should check that before posting next time )

Thank-you for that long winded acceptance that you don't know your figures and that is the context of your posts It's ironic that you believe you can explain an algorithm when you can't even spell the word

An algorithm FYI 'a process or set of rules to be followed in calculations or other problem-solving operations, especially by a computer.'

So the results you get depend on the parameters which are set. In this case it was to search for a set of key words it wasn't set to determine whether Bristol City or Swansea City are Cardiff's main rivals.

For that you would need further parameters including data on individual choice of Cardiff City fans and that is clearly missing. The bottom line is the algorithm you used is designed for searching a database and nothing else.