Sadly John, you may have caused more damage to VOTV with your article (Though why it's was published is bizarre imo) than to this site. Time will tell when the next issue of VOTV is on sale, if people will keep purchasing it.
Keep on posting on here though. You might get to like it!
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 you 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.
To be fair, he didn't have to put his head above the parapet on here.
I can understand why AFKA took the article personally, because it's a bit like criticising someone else's child. Quite why the rest of us are getting so upset about it I don't know. This forum, including you Mr Irving, has been more than a little critical of Into The Valley, NetAddicks and the "pink oboe" list over the years, as soon as someone gives it back we're all up in arms.
VOTV has been criticised for being the mouthpiece of Rick Everitt and his sympathisers, yet here we have a contributor who Rick has published despite disagreeing with its content. Further, the author has been prepared to face his fiercest critics - and he may be right that many haven't even read the article.
AFKA has a right to be offended, the rest of us should just put it down as some guy's opinion and agree to disagree. As for VOTV, it's had poor and provocative articles in the past and they tend to get filed where they should be compared to the excellent writing elsewhere. Rick, in the meantime, can't really win. If he censors, he's criticised, if he doesn't he's criticised. Let's all grow up a bit and see it for what it is.
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 you 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.
Further, the author has been prepared to face his fiercest critics
No he hasn't.
He's tried to post a justification of his article and made it look like he's the victim on here.
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 you 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.
To be fair, he didn't have to put his head above the parapet on here.
I can understand why AFKA took the article personally, because it's a bit like criticising someone else's child. Quite why the rest of us are getting so upset about it I don't know. This forum, including you Mr Irving, has been more than a little critical of Into The Valley, NetAddicks and the "pink oboe" list over the years, as soon as someone gives it back we're all up in arms.
VOTV has been criticised for being the mouthpiece of Rick Everitt and his sympathisers, yet here we have a contributor who Rick has published despite disagreeing with its content. Further, the author has been prepared to face his fiercest critics - and he may be right that many haven't even read the article.
AFKA has a right to be offended, the rest of us should just put it down as some guy's opinion and agree to disagree. As for VOTV, it's had poor and provocative articles in the past and they tend to get filed where they should be compared to the excellent writing elsewhere. Rick, in the meantime, can't really win. If he censors, he's criticised, if he doesn't he's criticised. Let's all grow up a bit and see it for what it is.
Please don't tell me to grow up. If I don't like it then I'm entitled to say so.
As I both write for VOTV and CL as well as fund raise on CL for Charlton causes I am entitled to have a view I think and to be annoyed that CL is being unfairly attacked and VOTV damaged.
And it wasn't a general attack on another site or magazine, as I don't recall having done that. It was a rebuttal of a particular article and a poor excuse of a justification.
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 you 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.
Further, the author has been prepared to face his fiercest critics
No he hasn't.
He's tried to post a justification of his article and made it look like he's the victim on here.
Then he's buggered off back into the ether.
He didn't have to do anything. God we're so precious sometimes.
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 you 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.
To be fair, he didn't have to put his head above the parapet on here.
I can understand why AFKA took the article personally, because it's a bit like criticising someone else's child. Quite why the rest of us are getting so upset about it I don't know. This forum, including you Mr Irving, has been more than a little critical of Into The Valley, NetAddicks and the "pink oboe" list over the years, as soon as someone gives it back we're all up in arms.
VOTV has been criticised for being the mouthpiece of Rick Everitt and his sympathisers, yet here we have a contributor who Rick has published despite disagreeing with its content. Further, the author has been prepared to face his fiercest critics - and he may be right that many haven't even read the article.
AFKA has a right to be offended, the rest of us should just put it down as some guy's opinion and agree to disagree. As for VOTV, it's had poor and provocative articles in the past and they tend to get filed where they should be compared to the excellent writing elsewhere. Rick, in the meantime, can't really win. If he censors, he's criticised, if he doesn't he's criticised. Let's all grow up a bit and see it for what it is.
Please don't tell me to grow up. If I don't like it then I'm entitled to say so.
As I both write for VOTV and CL as well as fund raise on CL for Charlton causes I am entitled to have a view I think and to be annoyed that CL is being unfairly attacked and VOTV damaged.
And it wasn't a general attack on another site or magazine, as I don't recall having done that. It was a rebuttal of a particular article and a poor excuse of a justification.
No-one's saying you're not entitled to a view, but my God he's not shot anyone. He's stated his opinion. You, in stating yours, have gone after the author rather than the piece. But having the right to your opinion means respecting his too, even if you violently disagree.
Anyway, my post crossed with Afka's wish to stop, so I'll say no more.
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 you 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.
Further, the author has been prepared to face his fiercest critics
No he hasn't.
He's tried to post a justification of his article and made it look like he's the victim on here.
Then he's buggered off back into the ether.
He didn't have to do anything. God we're so precious sometimes.
He didn't need to write a crap and damaging article for VOTV either but he did.
Seems you want it both ways. We must give credit to Lawson for "facing his fiercest critics" but we mustn't respond to our critics or we are told we need to "grow up" or are being "precious".
It was over as far as I was concerned but then John decided to play the victim and insult us further
I tend to agree with HI on this. I do thank you for posting John, and as I have already said there are points on which I agree with you. Perhaps it's just that at this moment CAFC needs all the help it can get to hold things together. We have the remnants of a board that now needs to sell, one that knows nothing about football and has done a lot of damage. We, the long suffering supporters ( and I include you in this description ) deserve so much more. But right now, whatever our differences, we do need to stick together. I agree with HI that it is you that appears not to like criticism and your attempt to justify what was basically a very poor bit of writing is simply too little, too late.
Rick has taken a lot of the flak that should have been aimed at your lack of writing skills. It was you that created the distractions, it was you that sent in a totally unbalanced and thus unjust critique. It is your actions that have caused damage so I take a rather dim view of your attempts to justify your actions by trying to blame us for our reactions. Most of all, two people, who have made outstanding contributions to CAFC over many years, have been needlessly damaged by your actions, namely AFKA and Airman. I am so weary of people trying to defend their errors. This seeming inability to apologise truly baffles me. As I have already said, sometimes you just need to hold your hands up and say sorry.
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.
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 you 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.
Further, the author has been prepared to face his fiercest critics
No he hasn't.
He's tried to post a justification of his article and made it look like he's the victim on here.
Then he's buggered off back into the ether.
He didn't have to do anything. God we're so precious sometimes.
He didn't need to write a crap and damaging article for VOTV either but he did.
Seems you want it both ways. We must give credit to Lawson for "facing his fiercest critics" but we mustn't respond to our critics or we are told we need to "grow up" or are being "precious".
It was over as far as I was concerned but then John decided to play the victim and insult us further
So someone else has an opinion but he's neither allowed to write it or publish it in VOTV? Really?
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 you 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.
Further, the author has been prepared to face his fiercest critics
No he hasn't.
He's tried to post a justification of his article and made it look like he's the victim on here.
Then he's buggered off back into the ether.
He didn't have to do anything. God we're so precious sometimes.
He didn't need to write a crap and damaging article for VOTV either but he did.
Seems you want it both ways. We must give credit to Lawson for "facing his fiercest critics" but we mustn't respond to our critics or we are told we need to "grow up" or are being "precious".
It was over as far as I was concerned but then John decided to play the victim and insult us further
So someone else has an opinion but he's neither allowed to write it or publish it in VOTV? Really?
Who said that? Certainly not me. Please don't put words in my mouth especially when they have no relation to the truth.
He can write it and VOTV can publish it.
But if if think it is tosh then I can so why I think that just as people can critic my articles on here and in the voice.
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.
Fair play to John for coming on. Looks to me that he openly suggested that the viewpoint he was trying to get across maybe wasn't as successful as intended and he realizes that.
As previously suggested, I can understand why AFKA or other admins would be upset. Don't really see why anyone else should be majorly offended by something written in a fanzine. If you personally think it is a poor article from start to finish then why take its content to heart?
Comments
Keep on posting on here though. You might get to like it!
There's a friggin bag of Doritos on the loose in high winds, this is not the time to get diverted.
: - )
I can understand why AFKA took the article personally, because it's a bit like criticising someone else's child. Quite why the rest of us are getting so upset about it I don't know. This forum, including you Mr Irving, has been more than a little critical of Into The Valley, NetAddicks and the "pink oboe" list over the years, as soon as someone gives it back we're all up in arms.
VOTV has been criticised for being the mouthpiece of Rick Everitt and his sympathisers, yet here we have a contributor who Rick has published despite disagreeing with its content. Further, the author has been prepared to face his fiercest critics - and he may be right that many haven't even read the article.
AFKA has a right to be offended, the rest of us should just put it down as some guy's opinion and agree to disagree. As for VOTV, it's had poor and provocative articles in the past and they tend to get filed where they should be compared to the excellent writing elsewhere. Rick, in the meantime, can't really win. If he censors, he's criticised, if he doesn't he's criticised. Let's all grow up a bit and see it for what it is.
He's tried to post a justification of his article and made it look like he's the victim on here.
Then he's buggered off back into the ether.
As I both write for VOTV and CL as well as fund raise on CL for Charlton causes I am entitled to have a view I think and to be annoyed that CL is being unfairly attacked and VOTV damaged.
And it wasn't a general attack on another site or magazine, as I don't recall having done that. It was a rebuttal of a particular article and a poor excuse of a justification.
Anyway, my post crossed with Afka's wish to stop, so I'll say no more.
He didn't need to write a crap and damaging article for VOTV either but he did.
Seems you want it both ways. We must give credit to Lawson for "facing his fiercest critics" but we mustn't respond to our critics or we are told we need to "grow up" or are being "precious".
It was over as far as I was concerned but then John decided to play the victim and insult us further
Rick has taken a lot of the flak that should have been aimed at your lack of writing skills. It was you that created the distractions, it was you that sent in a totally unbalanced and thus unjust critique. It is your actions that have caused damage so I take a rather dim view of your attempts to justify your actions by trying to blame us for our reactions. Most of all, two people, who have made outstanding contributions to CAFC over many years, have been needlessly damaged by your actions, namely AFKA and Airman. I am so weary of people trying to defend their errors. This seeming inability to apologise truly baffles me. As I have already said, sometimes you just need to hold your hands up and say sorry.
He can write it and VOTV can publish it.
But if if think it is tosh then I can so why I think that just as people can critic my articles on here and in the voice.
And that's me out of this debate.
NO HE FOOKING AINT
i tried it with the VOTV and that just smouldered which is not surprising tbh as that don't burn
Has anyone concerned with the article actually said they're sorry ?
I'll say no more Smudge xx
Lets hope it includes a free subscription for you and Lookie! :-0
As Brucie says " Keeeeep talking ! "
The most disappointing thing about it is the editorial comment which speaks of 'the rules of the game'
Shame on you Airman :-)
Fair play to John for coming on. Looks to me that he openly suggested that the viewpoint he was trying to get across maybe wasn't as successful as intended and he realizes that.
As previously suggested, I can understand why AFKA or other admins would be upset. Don't really see why anyone else should be majorly offended by something written in a fanzine. If you personally think it is a poor article from start to finish then why take its content to heart?