Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

"Ang" and the AFL

I am sure some of you remember Ang. He was the outspoken AFL fan of a few years back. He went toe-to-toe and often could not be proven wrong so they frequently just deleted his posts and threads.
Since we are on the verge of getting rid of some of the do-nothing leadership, perhaps those who remember what a vibrant contributor Ang was will contact him and try to get him back among the fold.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angelo_F._Coniglio

oldecapecod 11 wrote:"Ang" and the AFL

I am sure some of you remember Ang. He was the outspoken AFL fan of a few years back. He went toe-to-toe and often could not be proven wrong so they frequently just deleted his posts and threads.
Since we are on the verge of getting rid of some of the do-nothing leadership, perhaps those who remember what a vibrant contributor Ang was will contact him and try to get him back among the fold.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angelo_F._Coniglio

And that, folks, is what's referred to as an ironic statement.

by Mark L. Ford » Fri Mar 20, 2015 12:51 pm
"And that, folks, is what's referred to as an ironic statement."

What an odd statement?
At a site many here try to emulate and many others think we should emulate, that would considered an Error or a Foul Tip.
Here, it is simply Intentional Grounding or just another Bad Call.
The irony of the day is the appearance of the answer to a 124-year-old question on the same morning as the misapplied post.
The last sentence of the article is particularly hilarious and might well be heeded by both our soon-not-to-be "president"
and his appointed batman.

http://www.aol.com/article/2015/03/19/1 ... d%3D630338

Mr. Coniglio is certainly an AFL expert. But did he really have to write his own Wikipedia page to prove that? Is this a common practice for most researchers?

oldecapecod 11 wrote:by Mark L. Ford » Fri Mar 20, 2015 12:51 pm
"And that, folks, is what's referred to as an ironic statement."

What an odd statement?
At a site many here try to emulate and many others think we should emulate, that would considered an Error or a Foul Tip.
Here, it is simply Intentional Grounding or just another Bad Call.
The irony of the day is the appearance of the answer to a 124-year-old question on the same morning as the misapplied post.
The last sentence of the article is particularly hilarious and might well be heeded by both our soon-not-to-be "president"
and his appointed batman.

http://www.aol.com/article/2015/03/19/1 ... d%3D630338

I rarely respond because most of your comments don't contemplate responses. But do you think these guys sit around like the old Soviet politbureau trying to decide who they'll ban to Siberia next? It's a real shame you haven't met most of the men you deride in person, it's much harder to be an overt as to someone you've actually met. There are, apparently, some number of frustrated folks out there - don't count me as one, I'm very aware that I do not have the time to perform the tasks that these folks do - but you, uniquely use this public forum to attack the personal integrity of people who without compensation are doing their best to help support this platform. I hope you're happy when you look in the mirror for being such a tough guy, hiding behind a handle and dishing out your very unique for of justice. right or wrong, you're an ass, yes - that's me doing it, haven't met you myself. Send me a new see and I'd be happy to introduce myself, but otherwise I'm basically sick of you mucking up this forum.

NWebster wrote:

oldecapecod 11 wrote:by Mark L. Ford » Fri Mar 20, 2015 12:51 pm
"And that, folks, is what's referred to as an ironic statement."

What an odd statement?
At a site many here try to emulate and many others think we should emulate, that would considered an Error or a Foul Tip.
Here, it is simply Intentional Grounding or just another Bad Call.
The irony of the day is the appearance of the answer to a 124-year-old question on the same morning as the misapplied post.
The last sentence of the article is particularly hilarious and might well be heeded by both our soon-not-to-be "president"
and his appointed batman.

http://www.aol.com/article/2015/03/19/1 ... d%3D630338

I rarely respond because most of your comments don't contemplate responses. But do you think these guys sit around like the old Soviet politbureau trying to decide who they'll ban to Siberia next? It's a real shame you haven't met most of the men you deride in person, it's much harder to be an overt as to someone you've actually met. There are, apparently, some number of frustrated folks out there - don't count me as one, I'm very aware that I do not have the time to perform the tasks that these folks do - but you, uniquely use this public forum to attack the personal integrity of people who without compensation are doing their best to help support this platform. I hope you're happy when you look in the mirror for being such a tough guy, hiding behind a handle and dishing out your very unique for of justice. right or wrong, you're an ass, yes - that's me doing it, haven't met you myself. Send me a new see and I'd be happy to introduce myself, but otherwise I'm basically sick of you mucking up this forum.

Completely agree with this statement. I guess some people are just naturals at being world-class jerks. It has gotten very old.

rockhawk wrote:Mr. Coniglio is certainly an AFL expert. But did he really have to write his own Wikipedia page to prove that? Is this a common practice for most researchers?

How do you know he wrote his own page, or did someone else write it?

Just asking, does a Wikipedia page clarify that?

Wikipedia doesn't exactly tell you who writes the articles, but some of the page's initial edits were written by User:SugnuSicilianu who identifies himself as Angelo.

He's done a lot of great work and he certainly has a lot to be proud of.

One may contemplate an answer, but to bring it to fruition is admirable...

by rockhawk » Sat Mar 21, 2015 9:22 am
"Mr. Coniglio is certainly an AFL expert. But did he really have to write his own Wikipedia page to prove that? Is this a common practice for most researchers?"

Your comment is an interesting one.
I would not know Mr. Coniglio if we were sitting in the same pew at Mass tomorrow.
But, based on the brief introduction he provides or is provided, he certainly seems like a person I would like to know.
Once I saw the website he single-handedly created and maintained, I am sure I would like to know him.

He did - or does - all by himself something similar to what Ken Crippen did here but now cannot be done by an entire board
plus a web master or mistress.
Amazing!

I do not think his introductory page is an attempt to prove his AFL expertise. It seems to simply be an introduction of who he is.
It is honest and not contrived - much more so than a few hundred pages like "I'm Edsel Chrysler" by Edsel with Mary Sportswriter.

So, is it a common practice? I don't know. I saw it quite by accident.

I found it interesting - far more interesting, I might add, that the following mutterings of a visitor (?) who appears to be
trying to curry favor with her or his heroes.
(Nancy? Nehemiah? Nikki? Noah? Nunzio? Or is one to think it is Noah Webster? Who knows?)

- - - - -

by NWebster » Sat Mar 21, 2015 11:22 am
"... most of your comments don't contemplate responses.
... old Soviet politbureau trying to decide who they'll ban to Siberia next?
... men you deride in person, it's much harder to be an overt as to someone you've actually met. There are, apparently, some number of frustrated folks out there
... but you, uniquely use this public forum to attack the personal integrity of people
... I hope you're happy when you look in the mirror
... right or wrong, you're an ass
... Send me a new see
... I'm basically sick..."

Good!
You do confuse me.
My comments are inanimate items and do not contemplate.

My familiarity with the former U.S.S.R. is limited so, if yours is extensive, I will gladly read your overview if you will be unafraid to send it.

It has been years since I read Solzhenitsyn but if you are questioning a Nobel-winning work, I will wonder more than a tad
about your depth of experience. Were you a prisoner there also? Fascinating!

You say I deride men in person. I do not. There are other parts of that same sentence that simply do not make sense.
Try again, please.
You say I attack the personal integrity of a person. That is another misstatement.
If you like to call it an attack, do what you wish.
I have simply criticized the inability of some to function in a capacity they joined a cabal to attain. No more - no less.

I think Nancy, or Nikki, or Noah or whatever your "handle" represents, that you just miss the basic point.
If you can't do the job, give it to someone who can and will.
I understand we are doing that now and that, in spite of the derogatroy remarks made against him in another thread,
Ken Crippen is once again the cavalry riding to the rescue.

I am not happy when I look in the mirror and the reason is something I hope even a little snot never has to endure.
Skin cancer, radiation, and surgery is not a fun thing.

If you think I am an ass, I do not mind disappointing you and telling you: It is not your lucky day; I am straight.

A new see? I am at a loss. I know of the Holy See; I know a famous trial lawyer's use of a "see" when examining a witness;
I even know of a number of seas - including your sea of confusion. But, I did not know we had sees here.
Enlighten me, if you will.

In closing, I will say it is pretty cheap to try to diminish praise for a man who would be a pretty productive member here
if we could get him back. Use another method.

And now, I wonder... why is a "visitor" so concerned about the playground Members provide for him and others?
#75 Nwebster
Forum Visitors
Posted 29 April 2014 - 12:16 PM
"Its up there, I wonder why? In the cas of Campbell we know, and there's the most famous example of Honys Wagner being an early anti-tabacco advocate and his famous 1910 baseball card, but some of these seem bizarre. Morris' last card by a regular issuer was 1959!! Deacon was in a 67 & 69 but not 68??"

Or, have you joined since then? If so, it is just another function Ken will have to fix.