He is. Probably too nice for his own good at times, but it's although good to be the bigger man sometimes (no jokes please!), other times you just need to tell people to "fcuk off".
Still not sure if his earlier comment was suggesting that I think he's "a bit of a twat" or someone else. But I certainly don't.
He is. Probably too nice for his own good at times, but it's although good to be the bigger man sometimes (no jokes please!), other times you just need to tell people to "fcuk off".
Still not sure if his earlier comment was suggesting that I think he's "a bit of a twat" or someone else. But I certainly don't.
I read it like that Offy! Surprised you've been able to sign in this morning....Ban him AFKA
I think he may have misred it, I believe that Dans response was aimed at the question of him knowing the guy who wrote in votv however the posted response on here was aimed at those defending Dan himself because we know him,
but dan wrote his response about the writer in votv
and the opinion that the article writer had formed of smudge
So Airman, if someone submitted an article to you saying that everything the board has done or is doing is right, including removing yourself and other senior staff, you'd publish it would you? I don't think so because VOTV only exists now because you were sacked - it has an angle, as do all publications, such as the Guardian and the Daily Mail - they only publish articles which reinforce their view.
I can't speak about the Daily Mail, but any Guardian reader could tell you they regularly publish articles by Tory MPs and one of the paper's main columnists, Simon Jenkins, is a Tory. So that's factually wrong. Even the Mail published Ed Miliband's response to the very personal attack on his father, albeit that was a rebuttal.
I guess it would be difficult for someone to write an article arguing everything the board has done is right without knowing the background in more detail than those who regularly defend them on here. But I'd have no problem running such an article, assuming it didn't make libellous accusations against the ten people who have now left as a consequence of the current administration.
It's self evident that the Voice only exists because I was sacked because I wouldn't be publishing it as an employee. For the record it's a huge amount of work to produce and would be difficult to do alongside working full time. Yes, it helps put food on the table for my family because I don't have a job and am unlikely to get one away from Charlton at present for a variety of reasons. I won't get everything right in it, but to suggest it's principally a revenge mission or just about money is not only to disregard my own 25-year history of involvement with the club, but also the actual content.
I didn't see John Lawson's article as a particularly big deal, but I did see it as a problem that it only focused on negatives about CL. So I set out what I thought was a pretty impressive list of positives to balance that and also because I wanted to make clear my own view about this site is overwhelmingly positive. I'm sorry if I didn't achieve that.
So Airman, if someone submitted an article to you saying that everything the board has done or is doing is right, including removing yourself and other senior staff, you'd publish it would you? I don't think so because VOTV only exists now because you were sacked - it has an angle, as do all publications, such as the Guardian and the Daily Mail - they only publish articles which reinforce their view.
I can't speak about the Daily Mail, but any Guardian reader could tell you they regularly publish articles by Tory MPs and one of the paper's main columnists, Simon Jenkins, is a Tory. So that's factually wrong. Even the Mail published Ed Miliband's response to the very personal attack on his father, albeit that was a rebuttal.
I guess it would be difficult for someone to write an article arguing everything the board has done is right without knowing the background in more detail than those who regularly defend them on here. But I'd have no problem running such an article, assuming it didn't make libellous accusations against the ten people who have now left as a consequence of the current administration.
It's self evident that the Voice only exists because I was sacked because I wouldn't be publishing it as an employee. For the record it's a huge amount of work to produce and would be difficult to do alongside working full time. Yes, it helps put food on the table for my family because I don't have a job and am unlikely to get one away from Charlton at present for a variety of reasons. I won't get everything right in it, but to suggest it's principally a revenge mission or just about money is not only to disregard my own 25-year history of involvement with the club, but also the actual content.
I didn't see John Lawson's article as a particularly big deal, but I did see it as a problem that it only focused on negatives about CL. So I set out what I thought was a pretty impressive list of positives to balance that and also because I wanted to make clear my own view about this site is overwhelmingly positive. I'm sorry if I didn't achieve that.
But WHY publish it? Such a strange article to want to put in VOTV. There's been no debate about whether Life is a good site or whether or not it is worth having. So why on earth put in a story slagging off it's contributors?
In a battle with one hundred people ,you will get one hundred views as to what happened.These views change the further you get away from the trenches,so instead of long range sniping step forward join us in the trenches get your hands dirty and express your views you can only change things from the inside.
So Airman, if someone submitted an article to you saying that everything the board has done or is doing is right, including removing yourself and other senior staff, you'd publish it would you? I don't think so because VOTV only exists now because you were sacked - it has an angle, as do all publications, such as the Guardian and the Daily Mail - they only publish articles which reinforce their view.
I can't speak about the Daily Mail, but any Guardian reader could tell you they regularly publish articles by Tory MPs and one of the paper's main columnists, Simon Jenkins, is a Tory. So that's factually wrong. Even the Mail published Ed Miliband's response to the very personal attack on his father, albeit that was a rebuttal.
I guess it would be difficult for someone to write an article arguing everything the board has done is right without knowing the background in more detail than those who regularly defend them on here. But I'd have no problem running such an article, assuming it didn't make libellous accusations against the ten people who have now left as a consequence of the current administration.
It's self evident that the Voice only exists because I was sacked because I wouldn't be publishing it as an employee. For the record it's a huge amount of work to produce and would be difficult to do alongside working full time. Yes, it helps put food on the table for my family because I don't have a job and am unlikely to get one away from Charlton at present for a variety of reasons. I won't get everything right in it, but to suggest it's principally a revenge mission or just about money is not only to disregard my own 25-year history of involvement with the club, but also the actual content.
I didn't see John Lawson's article as a particularly big deal, but I did see it as a problem that it only focused on negatives about CL. So I set out what I thought was a pretty impressive list of positives to balance that and also because I wanted to make clear my own view about this site is overwhelmingly positive. I'm sorry if I didn't achieve that.
But WHY publish it? Such a strange article to want to put in VOTV. There's been no debate about whether Life is a good site or whether or not it is worth having. So why on earth put in a story slagging off it's contributors?
I've always taken the view that if someone makes the effort to put an article together for the Voice then the assumption is that it goes in, unless there is an overriding reason why not, for example that it's libellous.
I don't usually commission pieces, they are generally offered, sometimes before they are written, sometimes afterwards. In this case it just arrived in my inbox and the decision would have been not to run it and if so on what basis. I never agree with that Henry Irving bloke, but that's never been a reason not to use his contributions.
You say there is no debate about CL, but of course that won't happen on here since the posters are by definition participants and it would be a pretty self-defeating place to air a negative view. Nevertheless there obviously are people who have decided it's not for them, or it would be even busier than it is, but there was no agenda behind the article to my knowledge, and if there was it isn't mine.
Airman; do you actually know who "John Lawson" is?
I'm not suggesting that you in any way should divlge it, but just wanted to know if YOU knew?
I can vouch that it's his real name and that he's a long-term supporter who doesn't live locally but has contributed to VOTV before, both recently and in the distant past. I believe he used to be a subscriber in the old days. I do have his address.
So Airman, if someone submitted an article to you saying that everything the board has done or is doing is right, including removing yourself and other senior staff, you'd publish it would you? I don't think so because VOTV only exists now because you were sacked - it has an angle, as do all publications, such as the Guardian and the Daily Mail - they only publish articles which reinforce their view.
I can't speak about the Daily Mail, but any Guardian reader could tell you they regularly publish articles by Tory MPs and one of the paper's main columnists, Simon Jenkins, is a Tory. So that's factually wrong. Even the Mail published Ed Miliband's response to the very personal attack on his father, albeit that was a rebuttal.
I guess it would be difficult for someone to write an article arguing everything the board has done is right without knowing the background in more detail than those who regularly defend them on here. But I'd have no problem running such an article, assuming it didn't make libellous accusations against the ten people who have now left as a consequence of the current administration.
It's self evident that the Voice only exists because I was sacked because I wouldn't be publishing it as an employee. For the record it's a huge amount of work to produce and would be difficult to do alongside working full time. Yes, it helps put food on the table for my family because I don't have a job and am unlikely to get one away from Charlton at present for a variety of reasons. I won't get everything right in it, but to suggest it's principally a revenge mission or just about money is not only to disregard my own 25-year history of involvement with the club, but also the actual content.
I didn't see John Lawson's article as a particularly big deal, but I did see it as a problem that it only focused on negatives about CL. So I set out what I thought was a pretty impressive list of positives to balance that and also because I wanted to make clear my own view about this site is overwhelmingly positive. I'm sorry if I didn't achieve that.
But WHY publish it? Such a strange article to want to put in VOTV. There's been no debate about whether Life is a good site or whether or not it is worth having. So why on earth put in a story slagging off it's contributors?
I've always taken the view that if someone makes the effort to put an article together for the Voice then the assumption is that it goes in, unless there is an overriding reason why not, for example that it's libellous.
I don't usually commission pieces, they are generally offered, sometimes before they are written, sometimes afterwards. In this case it just arrived in my inbox and the decision would have been not to run it and if so on what basis. I never agree with that Henry Irving bloke, but that's never been a reason not to use his contributions.
You say there is no debate about CL, but of course that won't happen on here since the posters are by definition participants and it would be a pretty self-defeating place to air a negative view. Nevertheless there obviously are people who have decided it's not for them, or it would be even busier than it is, but there was no agenda behind the article to my knowledge, and if there was it isn't mine.
Thanks for reply - good to hear your thoughts on this
Besides disparaging this site I'm not sure what the aim of the article was, but it could turn into an own goal on Lawson's behalf. It won't deter anyone who already visits, and anyone who doesn't may be inclined to have a look. They may then see something they like and sign up.
It's confusing all around really, VOTV can't be that desperate to fill their pages. I have thought in the past about sending in a contribution but I find it difficult to write about Charlton, blogs/articles I've written in the past have usually involved rambling on about animals or silly (sometimes football related) experiences abroad.
Its a shame no one can post the link as that will mean I will have to buy one to read it, which I would rather not.
Clever sales ploy..
Ooooh, I do so love a conspiracy theorist ;-) Buy it, as HI nearly said, it's a shame that this furore has rather overshadowed the fact that VOTV is a damm good read.
I am John Lawson, also known as Tosser, Arsehole, Wanker, Prick and possibly a former Charlton youth team goalie (sadly not) on this site.
I seem to have upset a fair number of you with my article in VOTV and can assure you that was not the intention nor expectation when I wrote it. I hadn't appreciated the depth of your sensitivity to criticism and recognise that some of you take it very seriously; others seem keen to jump on the bandwagon not having read the offending article. The article tried to express the frustration of a distant Addick to the lack of information, gossip and insight in what's going on at the Club; this led on to my various thoughts on the CL Forum. Yes, they were negative but that was the stance of the article - it was an opinion piece not an attempt to give a balanced or comprehensive view of what this site is about. Some of you have highlighted the admirable qualities of the site - supporting charities, mutual support of each other and the establishing of a community of Charlton fans; I wouldn't argue with the value of any of this.
My comments on the forum were mild jabs at certain aspects that I'm not keen on; clearly they were expressed in a generalised and summary way but again that was the nature of the article. As Airman has suggested in this thread this was meant in a light-hearted and in some respects an affectionate way but obviously didn't come across like that which can only be my fault as the writer.
My main concern on this is that after the noise subsides that this does not damage the VOTV (nor CL for that matter) as what appears to be a critical time for the Club and its future. Airman and others were key players in getting us back to the Valley and we now appear to be facing a similar challenge in retaining all that is important to us at CAFC - we shouldn't do anything to distract us from this.
Finally, for what is likely to be my one and only post on this site, a number of you have questioned my identity. I wrote several articles for VOTV back in the mid 90s, from those I described my experiences of being a Charlton fan since the early 60s (yes, I'm no kid). I now live in the West Midlands and tend to see a handful of games each season but this doesn't mean I've lost my passion for the club. COYA
I just thought it was badly written and came across as a childish dig at a Forum that a number of people put time and money into. Next time why don't you pick a subject you can be positive about. I am sick and tired of reading negative comments on all things Charlton on various Charlton forums. I suppose it is a lot easier to destroy rather than create.
Fair play for coming on to put across your point of view and explain yourself John.
I think I can understand why you are frustrated at "the lack of information, gossip and insight in what's going on at the Club" generally, if you live far away. But this place is surely the best going for all of that for exiled fans - even the harshest critics will freely admit it - so that just doesn't make any sense.
And if you write an article having a pop at people then it's a bit naive not to expect those people - or at least some of them - to get the ump about it and have a pop back. Nothing to do with "the depth of your sensitivity to criticism" or failure to "recognise that some of you take it very seriously" - you poke someone with a stick and you've got to expect a reaction.
Anyway, as I said, fair play to you for coming on.
So Airman, if someone submitted an article to you saying that everything the board has done or is doing is right, including removing yourself and other senior staff, you'd publish it would you? I don't think so because VOTV only exists now because you were sacked - it has an angle, as do all publications, such as the Guardian and the Daily Mail - they only publish articles which reinforce their view.
I can't speak about the Daily Mail, but any Guardian reader could tell you they regularly publish articles by Tory MPs and one of the paper's main columnists, Simon Jenkins, is a Tory. So that's factually wrong. Even the Mail published Ed Miliband's response to the very personal attack on his father, albeit that was a rebuttal.
I guess it would be difficult for someone to write an article arguing everything the board has done is right without knowing the background in more detail than those who regularly defend them on here. But I'd have no problem running such an article, assuming it didn't make libellous accusations against the ten people who have now left as a consequence of the current administration.
It's self evident that the Voice only exists because I was sacked because I wouldn't be publishing it as an employee. For the record it's a huge amount of work to produce and would be difficult to do alongside working full time. Yes, it helps put food on the table for my family because I don't have a job and am unlikely to get one away from Charlton at present for a variety of reasons. I won't get everything right in it, but to suggest it's principally a revenge mission or just about money is not only to disregard my own 25-year history of involvement with the club, but also the actual content.
I didn't see John Lawson's article as a particularly big deal, but I did see it as a problem that it only focused on negatives about CL. So I set out what I thought was a pretty impressive list of positives to balance that and also because I wanted to make clear my own view about this site is overwhelmingly positive. I'm sorry if I didn't achieve that.
Thanks for your response - I never said "revenge mission" those were your words.
You are right, of course, to say that the Guardian and the Mail employ people outside of their normal sphere, but I think it disingenuous to suggest that their general direction is neutral.
I applaud your assertion that you would happily print a pro-board piece.
Shortly after the relaunch of VoTV I sent Airman an e-mail with an idea for a serious set of articles for VoTV and didn't even get an acknowledgement from him, Mr Lawson was "luckier"
Unfortunately John you half-hearted attempt to justify what you wrote sounds rather hollow.
You complain about the insults you received yet you were quite happy to lump every person who uses this site together and say that people on this site all have no knowledge of football, are all sexist, are all unable to follow a logical argument, all support UKIP, are all suicidal when we lose. It's a broad church, there is no one view on Charlton, Danny Green, politics, music, etc etc. You even complained about there being too diverse views before contradicting yourself and saying everyone thought the same.
And yet you say that we are sensitive to criticism and shouldn't take you seriously. Don't worry, I don't.
It seems that it is you who is over sensitive and rather shocked that your poorly written, poorly constructed and totally unbalanced article should draw such a reaction. Even your rather thick skinned editor felt the need to put another view so unbalanced and unfair was your piece.
So when you say your intention was not to offend anyone just what was your intention? It certainly wasn't to give any of the positives of CL that you listed above but totally ignored in your article. That you were aware of them but still choose not to even mention them makes it even worse. It can't have been to be witty or if it was then you failed very badly indeed.
And it wasn't even factually correct. There is a wealth of information and gossip on CL about what is going on at the Club, far more than on any other forum or the official site and even in VOTV. Sure you have some other non-Charlton stuff and stuff you don't like (I didn't like some of it either) but a bit like a newspaper you have different sections and read or skip depending on taste.
As for damaging VOTV, too late, that is just what you have done. For that Rick is, IMHO, as much if not more to blame than you but your silly little piece has been a huge distraction from the good and informative articles in the same issue. None of those have been discussed as would normally be the case due to your inability to understand how an internet forum works. The haters of VOTV have another reason to attack and ignore it and its supporters (of which I am one quite obviously) are left with a bad taste in their mouth and doubts in their minds.
Thanks for posting John. It would be a shame if it was your one and only post as you would be adding to the debates on here from what would be an alternative viewpoint - or so it would seem.
You mention that you were looking for somewhere to get an idea on gossip and happenings at the club having moved on from, as one example, Clubcall. From what I remember of Clubcall, the only thing it was really good for was racking up my phone bill!
It's one thing saying it's an opinion piece, but you've obviously been looking in for some time, so you should have seen enough of the really good things that this site facilitates. An acknowledgement of those, at least, would have made for a piece that showed you had actually seen all sides of what it provides but that you still held the view that you do. Makes for a far more powerful piece, if you can show you see both sides and add reasoning to your own opinion.
Yes, there's plenty of bickering, but at the end of the day (with a few notable exceptions like John, SLL & OP) we are all Charlton fans as eager for (preferably good) news about our club.
It would be good if you felt you could add to the many good debates on here once in a while. You might even get to enjoy it!
Comments
Number of reasons why I was unhappy yesterday with both the article and why the editor / vehicle would put out such a piece.
But today's another day, so let's just put it to one side and move on. Personally I hate sniping and all the politics that go with this sort of stuff.
Thanks to those who have offered kind words, and of course Rick is free to continue to advertise his work on here.
Still not sure if his earlier comment was suggesting that I think he's "a bit of a twat" or someone else. But I certainly don't.
but dan wrote his response about the writer in votv
and the opinion that the article writer had formed of smudge
I guess it would be difficult for someone to write an article arguing everything the board has done is right without knowing the background in more detail than those who regularly defend them on here. But I'd have no problem running such an article, assuming it didn't make libellous accusations against the ten people who have now left as a consequence of the current administration.
It's self evident that the Voice only exists because I was sacked because I wouldn't be publishing it as an employee. For the record it's a huge amount of work to produce and would be difficult to do alongside working full time. Yes, it helps put food on the table for my family because I don't have a job and am unlikely to get one away from Charlton at present for a variety of reasons. I won't get everything right in it, but to suggest it's principally a revenge mission or just about money is not only to disregard my own 25-year history of involvement with the club, but also the actual content.
I didn't see John Lawson's article as a particularly big deal, but I did see it as a problem that it only focused on negatives about CL. So I set out what I thought was a pretty impressive list of positives to balance that and also because I wanted to make clear my own view about this site is overwhelmingly positive. I'm sorry if I didn't achieve that.
I don't usually commission pieces, they are generally offered, sometimes before they are written, sometimes afterwards. In this case it just arrived in my inbox and the decision would have been not to run it and if so on what basis. I never agree with that Henry Irving bloke, but that's never been a reason not to use his contributions.
You say there is no debate about CL, but of course that won't happen on here since the posters are by definition participants and it would be a pretty self-defeating place to air a negative view. Nevertheless there obviously are people who have decided it's not for them, or it would be even busier than it is, but there was no agenda behind the article to my knowledge, and if there was it isn't mine.
I'm not suggesting that you in any way should divlge it, but just wanted to know if YOU knew?
Well don't let AFKA see it ;0)
Proper shit actually.
This site is popular and an article having a go at it will get à reaction.
That lawson bloke will be well pleased with this thread as this thread was the article's ultimate goal.
Clever sales ploy..
It's confusing all around really, VOTV can't be that desperate to fill their pages. I have thought in the past about sending in a contribution but I find it difficult to write about Charlton, blogs/articles I've written in the past have usually involved rambling on about animals or silly (sometimes football related) experiences abroad.
Buy it, as HI nearly said, it's a shame that this furore has rather overshadowed the fact that VOTV is a damm good read.
I seem to have upset a fair number of you with my article in VOTV and can assure you that was not the intention nor expectation when I wrote it. I hadn't appreciated the depth of your sensitivity to criticism and recognise that some of you take it very seriously; others seem keen to jump on the bandwagon not having read the offending article. The article tried to express the frustration of a distant Addick to the lack of information, gossip and insight in what's going on at the Club; this led on to my various thoughts on the CL Forum. Yes, they were negative but that was the stance of the article - it was an opinion piece not an attempt to give a balanced or comprehensive view of what this site is about. Some of you have highlighted the admirable qualities of the site - supporting charities, mutual support of each other and the establishing of a community of Charlton fans; I wouldn't argue with the value of any of this.
My comments on the forum were mild jabs at certain aspects that I'm not keen on; clearly they were expressed in a generalised and summary way but again that was the nature of the article. As Airman has suggested in this thread this was meant in a light-hearted and in some respects an affectionate way but obviously didn't come across like that which can only be my fault as the writer.
My main concern on this is that after the noise subsides that this does not damage the VOTV (nor CL for that matter) as what appears to be a critical time for the Club and its future. Airman and others were key players in getting us back to the Valley and we now appear to be facing a similar challenge in retaining all that is important to us at CAFC - we shouldn't do anything to distract us from this.
Finally, for what is likely to be my one and only post on this site, a number of you have questioned my identity. I wrote several articles for VOTV back in the mid 90s, from those I described my experiences of being a Charlton fan since the early 60s (yes, I'm no kid). I now live in the West Midlands and tend to see a handful of games each season but this doesn't mean I've lost my passion for the club. COYA
Regards
John
I think I can understand why you are frustrated at "the lack of information, gossip and insight in what's going on at the Club" generally, if you live far away. But this place is surely the best going for all of that for exiled fans - even the harshest critics will freely admit it - so that just doesn't make any sense.
And if you write an article having a pop at people then it's a bit naive not to expect those people - or at least some of them - to get the ump about it and have a pop back. Nothing to do with "the depth of your sensitivity to criticism" or failure to "recognise that some of you take it very seriously" - you poke someone with a stick and you've got to expect a reaction.
Anyway, as I said, fair play to you for coming on.
You are right, of course, to say that the Guardian and the Mail employ people outside of their normal sphere, but I think it disingenuous to suggest that their general direction is neutral.
I applaud your assertion that you would happily print a pro-board piece.
You complain about the insults you received yet you were quite happy to lump every person who uses this site together and say that people on this site all have no knowledge of football, are all sexist, are all unable to follow a logical argument, all support UKIP, are all suicidal when we lose. It's a broad church, there is no one view on Charlton, Danny Green, politics, music, etc etc. You even complained about there being too diverse views before contradicting yourself and saying everyone thought the same.
And yet you say that we are sensitive to criticism and shouldn't take you seriously. Don't worry, I don't.
It seems that it is you who is over sensitive and rather shocked that your poorly written, poorly constructed and totally unbalanced article should draw such a reaction. Even your rather thick skinned editor felt the need to put another view so unbalanced and unfair was your piece.
So when you say your intention was not to offend anyone just what was your intention? It certainly wasn't to give any of the positives of CL that you listed above but totally ignored in your article. That you were aware of them but still choose not to even mention them makes it even worse. It can't have been to be witty or if it was then you failed very badly indeed.
And it wasn't even factually correct. There is a wealth of information and gossip on CL about what is going on at the Club, far more than on any other forum or the official site and even in VOTV. Sure you have some other non-Charlton stuff and stuff you don't like (I didn't like some of it either) but a bit like a newspaper you have different sections and read or skip depending on taste.
As for damaging VOTV, too late, that is just what you have done. For that Rick is, IMHO, as much if not more to blame than you but your silly little piece has been a huge distraction from the good and informative articles in the same issue. None of those have been discussed as would normally be the case due to your inability to understand how an internet forum works. The haters of VOTV have another reason to attack and ignore it and its supporters (of which I am one quite obviously) are left with a bad taste in their mouth and doubts in their minds.
Well done John, you must be so proud.
Proper weirdos.
You mention that you were looking for somewhere to get an idea on gossip and happenings at the club having moved on from, as one example, Clubcall. From what I remember of Clubcall, the only thing it was really good for was racking up my phone bill!
It's one thing saying it's an opinion piece, but you've obviously been looking in for some time, so you should have seen enough of the really good things that this site facilitates. An acknowledgement of those, at least, would have made for a piece that showed you had actually seen all sides of what it provides but that you still held the view that you do. Makes for a far more powerful piece, if you can show you see both sides and add reasoning to your own opinion.
Yes, there's plenty of bickering, but at the end of the day (with a few notable exceptions like John, SLL & OP) we are all Charlton fans as eager for (preferably good) news about our club.
It would be good if you felt you could add to the many good debates on here once in a while. You might even get to enjoy it!
Tel