[Tee's Lederhosen]

The point I believe is this - Moyles does tend to have vendettas against certain acts. Ignoring The Streets, let's take, off the top of my head.....Daniel Bedingfield. Basically he never wastes an opportunity for a cheap shot - blatantly a fair proportion of listeners are going to like any tune played one Radio 1 (even Gareth Gates!!)..... so he risks alienating large numbers of his audience, as in general the abuse is tiresome after a while. For example, mockery of Bedingfield's high voice or saying The Streets need a rhyming dictionary is not really that original or humourous. I think he is capable of better material than that.

[jc]

Hm. As far as Daniel Bedingfield goes, I don't think Chris Moyles has any agenda. Hell, the guy even did a liner ("Wassup Chris? It's Daniel Bedding In The Field, haha.") for him when his first single came out. Personally I think Dave hit the mark when he described the guy's new single as a bad Michael Jackson B-side; all Chris did was keep it going.

Most importantly, Moyles is entitled to his opinion and a lot of the fun in his show comes from him expressing his opinion, good or bad. Using this as an excuse to flame a fansite's messageboard is, again, pointless. If you don't like him, he probably couldn't care less, so your best bet would be to switch off. - jc

[Tee's Lederhosen]

You miss the point JC. I was not slagging the show in general just one aspect of it - i.e. his continuous abuse of certain artists every time their record is played. Surely it is just blind sycophancy to accept that every aspect of the show is funny?

[Gordon_the_Cromag]

JC is spot on.If moyles slags of the streets what the hell has that got to do with his fans or this site?
there are a couple of streets fans that post on this site.

[arthur snares]

To me it looks like this whole escapade was started off by one person utilising his democratic right to an opinion (albeit in a facetious manner), which started another bunch of people off to exercise their rights; which went off in a confrontational way. The site 'police' have used heavy handed tactics. Playing the 'moral obligation to ensure objectionable language is not used' card, while happily pointing people to the streets site to have a go. Hypocrisy indeed.

[TJD]

no. basically, the streets board came here to annoy, and provoced a response. The admin decided enough was enough and took measures to prevent such an event re-occuring. Giving the url for the street's board is kind of hipocritical, but it is another measure to stop them doing it again.

[Tee's Lederhosen]

Yeah but don't you just relish a good argument? I think a bit of aggro spices up a messageboard.

[jc]

Maybe, but now I'm just bored with the whole aggro thing. - jc