They cited Valley Review’s history pages as the standout feature of the magazine, and summarised that it is: “A very good issue, with a real effort being made to ensure strong presentation.”
Must have been the history of Charlton in 23 objects series that swung it. That's a great idea : - )
Well done to Olly and the rest of the team especially as you've been short-handed for a long while.
Keep up the good work.
Could be your reason for your criticism of what I write on Charlton Life is cunningly concealed in this particular post.
Since you decided that it was OK to slag off what other people have written when you yourself have admitted that you don't even read it properly criticising your badly written, misleading and uninformative drivel becomes fair comment.
Even The Times gets things wrong. I can guarantee Jeff Stelling will get the odd statistic wrong each week when he does Soccer Saturday. It's a pretty good effort to be recognized as being the second best programme ( edited: bloody auto complete..... ) in the Championship. Not bad for a 'two bob club' eh? Each to their own I suppose. I can accept if people think that it is badly written or un-informative but deliberately misleading? Sorry that's not on.
They cited Valley Review’s history pages as the standout feature of the magazine, and summarised that it is: “A very good issue, with a real effort being made to ensure strong presentation.”
Must have been the history of Charlton in 23 objects series that swung it. That's a great idea : - )
Well done to Olly and the rest of the team especially as you've been short-handed for a long while.
Keep up the good work.
Could be your reason for your criticism of what I write on Charlton Life is cunningly concealed in this particular post.
Since you decided that it was OK to slag off what other people have written when you yourself have admitted that you don't even read it properly criticising your badly written, misleading and uninformative drivel becomes fair comment.
I think you're mistaken, it is not fair comment but simply your opinion. That you wish to elevate your opinion into something that would justify being the editorial of a leading publication, says more about what you think of your own posts than what you think of mine.
Your opinion may well be shared by others in as much as most people think of my contributions as being 'badly written, misleading and uninformative drivel', but you have no objective basis for that at this time, or if you have you have not evidenced it. It is not fair comment in any objective sense but merely your opinion of what I write.
It is clear from what I wrote regarding the programme that it is one persons perspective, the clue is in the opening two words and the acronym at the end.
Dearie me, it is almost as if the class bully is annoyed that the pleb does not show due deference.
They cited Valley Review’s history pages as the standout feature of the magazine, and summarised that it is: “A very good issue, with a real effort being made to ensure strong presentation.”
Must have been the history of Charlton in 23 objects series that swung it. That's a great idea : - )
Well done to Olly and the rest of the team especially as you've been short-handed for a long while.
Keep up the good work.
Could be your reason for your criticism of what I write on Charlton Life is cunningly concealed in this particular post.
Since you decided that it was OK to slag off what other people have written when you yourself have admitted that you don't even read it properly criticising your badly written, misleading and uninformative drivel becomes fair comment.
I think you're mistaken, it is not fair comment but simply your opinion. That you wish to elevate your opinion into something that would justify being the editorial of a leading publication, says more about what you think of your own posts than what you think of mine.
Your opinion may well be shared by others in as much as most people think of my contributions as being 'badly written, misleading and uninformative drivel', but you have no objective basis for that at this time, or if you have you have not evidenced it. It is not fair comment in any objective sense but merely your opinion of what I write.
It is clear from what I wrote regarding the programme that it is one persons perspective, the clue is in the opening two words and the acronym at the end.
Dearie me, it is almost as if the class bully is annoyed that the pleb does not show due deference.
after nearly 40 years of getting a matchday programme from all of the Charlton games I have attended I've started boycotting purchasing the home programme as part of my small protest against our clueless owners i'm badly missing the away numbers close at hand though ;-)
after nearly 40 years of getting a matchday programme from all of the Charlton games I have attended I've started boycotting purchasing the home programme as part of my small protest against our clueless owners i'm badly missing the away numbers close at hand though ;-)
Wow things must be bad Ooey, nothing like a bit of cold turkey at Christmas.
Seth is entitled to his opinion, and as it was based on the programme a few years ago it is not even a criticism of the current set up. Even if it was, it is still his view and doesn't make it wrong, nor should it be correlated to his posts on here, which I'm sure many people like myself enjoy.
Well done @Ollywozere and your team, hopefully a nice bit of good news for you guys in what must be a really crap season to work under
Oh dear, even a small but well deserved success of some good people who are passionate about our club and its history, turns into an argument. Such is our current state of affairs.
I, for one, will continue buying the programme because I think it's an excellent publication and well deserving of an accolade - a welcome example of continued professionalism from @Ollywozere and team while crass amateurs wreak havoc with the rest of the organisation.
Seth is entitled to his opinion, and as it was based on the programme a few years ago it is not even a criticism of the current set up. Even if it was, it is still his view and doesn't make it wrong, nor should it be correlated to his posts on here, which I'm sure many people like myself enjoy.
Well done @Ollywozere and your team, hopefully a nice bit of good news for you guys in what must be a really crap season to work under
I always think it is one of the great cultural myths of the modern age that everyone is entitled to their opinion.
Seth's entitled to his opinion on any subject about which he is sufficiently knowledgeable to have an informed opinion. If he hasn't bought or read the programme for a few years, does that really count as a subject about which he is suitably informed?.
I am not a mechanic, either professional or amateur (enthusiastic or otherwise) - would you feel comfortable getting my opinion on whether or not the brakes on your car need replacing?
Seth is entitled to his opinion, and as it was based on the programme a few years ago it is not even a criticism of the current set up. Even if it was, it is still his view and doesn't make it wrong, nor should it be correlated to his posts on here, which I'm sure many people like myself enjoy.
Well done @Ollywozere and your team, hopefully a nice bit of good news for you guys in what must be a really crap season to work under
I always think it is one of the great cultural myths of the modern age that everyone is entitled to their opinion.
Seth's entitled to his opinion on any subject about which he is sufficiently knowledgeable to have an informed opinion. If he hasn't bought or read the programme for a few years, does that really count as a subject about which he is suitably informed?.
I am not a mechanic, either professional or amateur (enthusiastic or otherwise) - would you feel comfortable getting my opinion on whether or not the brakes on your car need replacing?
Exactly. Seth feels able to belittle the achievement of an overworked group of junior staff when he himself admits that he hasn't even read the programme properly for two years.
He is entitled to an INFORMED opinion. His is clearly not that.
I make no apology for responding to Seth's badly written, badly thought out and completely mistargetted attack on a bunch of guys, some of whom are fans, trying to do a good job in difficult circumstances.
An outside and independent body praises them yet even that reward has to be sullied and diminished by Seth.
And I don't include myself in that group or make any serious claim on the comms team success.
PS I haven't read Charlton Life for two years but it is shit which I'm entitled to say under The 2001 Entitlement to an Opinion Act and the 2003 Banter Defence amendment.
PS I haven't read Charlton Life for two years but it is shit which I'm entitled to say under The 2001 Entitlement to an Opinion Act and the 2003 Banter Defence amendment.
: - )
Or as its better known this time of year 'Banter Clause'
PS I haven't read Charlton Life for two years but it is shit which I'm entitled to say under The 2001 Entitlement to an Opinion Act and the 2003 Banter Defence amendment.
: - )
Or as its better known this time of year 'Banter Clause'
Seth is entitled to his opinion, and as it was based on the programme a few years ago it is not even a criticism of the current set up. Even if it was, it is still his view and doesn't make it wrong, nor should it be correlated to his posts on here, which I'm sure many people like myself enjoy.
Well done @Ollywozere and your team, hopefully a nice bit of good news for you guys in what must be a really crap season to work under
I always think it is one of the great cultural myths of the modern age that everyone is entitled to their opinion.
Seth's entitled to his opinion on any subject about which he is sufficiently knowledgeable to have an informed opinion. If he hasn't bought or read the programme for a few years, does that really count as a subject about which he is suitably informed?.
I am not a mechanic, either professional or amateur (enthusiastic or otherwise) - would you feel comfortable getting my opinion on whether or not the brakes on your car need replacing?
Exactly. Seth feels able to belittle the achievement of an overworked group of junior staff when he himself admits that he hasn't even read the programme properly for two years.
He is entitled to an INFORMED opinion. His is clearly not that.
I make no apology for responding to Seth's badly written, badly thought out and completely mistargetted attack on a bunch of guys, some of whom are fans, trying to do a good job in difficult circumstances.
An outside and independent body praises them yet even that reward has to be sullied and diminished by Seth.
And I don't include myself in that group or make any serious claim on the comms team success.
Except what I originally wrote here did not belittle any achievement , or attack any bunch of guys, or sully any award. I wrote what I thought of the programme, and clearly stated the context of my opinion. That the standard of my contributions are thought by you and others as very poor is also an opinion despite you wanting to dress up your opinion as fact with your QED nonsense. If people are not entitled to an opinion because it is not informed enough then the argument will swing to the degree of how informed people are. Few of us are professional footballers, does that disqualify us from having an opinion about the matches? Or if you can't play the violin you can't opine that it is being played out of tune?
Seth is entitled to his opinion, and as it was based on the programme a few years ago it is not even a criticism of the current set up. Even if it was, it is still his view and doesn't make it wrong, nor should it be correlated to his posts on here, which I'm sure many people like myself enjoy.
Well done @Ollywozere and your team, hopefully a nice bit of good news for you guys in what must be a really crap season to work under
I always think it is one of the great cultural myths of the modern age that everyone is entitled to their opinion.
Seth's entitled to his opinion on any subject about which he is sufficiently knowledgeable to have an informed opinion. If he hasn't bought or read the programme for a few years, does that really count as a subject about which he is suitably informed?.
I am not a mechanic, either professional or amateur (enthusiastic or otherwise) - would you feel comfortable getting my opinion on whether or not the brakes on your car need replacing?
Exactly. Seth feels able to belittle the achievement of an overworked group of junior staff when he himself admits that he hasn't even read the programme properly for two years.
He is entitled to an INFORMED opinion. His is clearly not that.
I make no apology for responding to Seth's badly written, badly thought out and completely mistargetted attack on a bunch of guys, some of whom are fans, trying to do a good job in difficult circumstances.
An outside and independent body praises them yet even that reward has to be sullied and diminished by Seth.
And I don't include myself in that group or make any serious claim on the comms team success.
Except what I originally wrote here did not belittle any achievement , or attack any bunch of guys, or sully any award. I
This is what you wrote
" Sorry folks. After more than 40 years of religiously buying the programme I stopped a couple of seasons ago. When I glance at somebody else's programme occasionally it still looks like overpriced, oversized, badly written, un-informative and deliberately misleading drosstarted up by some pretty pictures on glossy paper. I would learn more about Charlton Athletic by buying the fecking Metro which is free anyway. IMHO"
But you believe that none of that belittles, attacks or sullies?
And that you have an informed opinion?
As for your other point
"If people are not entitled to an opinion because it is not informed enough then the argument will swing to the degree of how informed people are. Few of us are professional footballers, does that disqualify us from having an opinion about the matches? Or if you can't play the violin you can't opine that it is being played out of tune?"
If you have seen only a few seconds of the a match for two years or only listened to a snatch of violin playing in two years then no you can't give a credible comment on either much as you try to twist this into you being the victim. Again.
Seth is entitled to his opinion, and as it was based on the programme a few years ago it is not even a criticism of the current set up. Even if it was, it is still his view and doesn't make it wrong, nor should it be correlated to his posts on here, which I'm sure many people like myself enjoy.
Well done @Ollywozere and your team, hopefully a nice bit of good news for you guys in what must be a really crap season to work under
I always think it is one of the great cultural myths of the modern age that everyone is entitled to their opinion.
Seth's entitled to his opinion on any subject about which he is sufficiently knowledgeable to have an informed opinion. If he hasn't bought or read the programme for a few years, does that really count as a subject about which he is suitably informed?.
I am not a mechanic, either professional or amateur (enthusiastic or otherwise) - would you feel comfortable getting my opinion on whether or not the brakes on your car need replacing?
Exactly. Seth feels able to belittle the achievement of an overworked group of junior staff when he himself admits that he hasn't even read the programme properly for two years.
He is entitled to an INFORMED opinion. His is clearly not that.
I make no apology for responding to Seth's badly written, badly thought out and completely mistargetted attack on a bunch of guys, some of whom are fans, trying to do a good job in difficult circumstances.
An outside and independent body praises them yet even that reward has to be sullied and diminished by Seth.
And I don't include myself in that group or make any serious claim on the comms team success.
Except what I originally wrote here did not belittle any achievement , or attack any bunch of guys, or sully any award. I
This is what you wrote
" Sorry folks. After more than 40 years of religiously buying the programme I stopped a couple of seasons ago. When I glance at somebody else's programme occasionally it still looks like overpriced, oversized, badly written, un-informative and deliberately misleading drosstarted up by some pretty pictures on glossy paper. I would learn more about Charlton Athletic by buying the fecking Metro which is free anyway. IMHO"
But you believe that none of that belittles, attacks or sullies?
And that you have an informed opinion?
As for your other point
"If people are not entitled to an opinion because it is not informed enough then the argument will swing to the degree of how informed people are. Few of us are professional footballers, does that disqualify us from having an opinion about the matches? Or if you can't play the violin you can't opine that it is being played out of tune?"
If you have seen only a few seconds of the a match for two years or only listened to a snatch of violin playing in two years then no you can't give a credible comment on either much as you try to twist this into you being the victim. Again.
As you're so intent on quoting will you quote all the times I have painted myself as a victim on here? Or twisted anything?
You won't because you can't.
In addition you are not the sole judge and jury of credibility.
Let us get this clear. In your opinion, which carries no more or less weight than any other poster, you say that I have belittled the award, which I didn't do, attack guys, which I haven't, or sullied an award which I also haven't. If you wish to interpret what I have written as such then go ahead, but you are once again simply wrong.
From what I can work out you contribute to the programme, and you wish to criticise me for my negativity because you want to bask in some kind of reflected glory. That is an opinion by the way.
The irony seems to me that it is in the opinion of some award givers the Charlton programme is second best, and the area that you contribute to is highlighted, which makes you feel good. So somehow you are trying to establish a hierarchy of opinion, which surprise surprise places you at the top. That is an opinion by the way.
Perhaps it is you that feels victimised, or perhaps you see yourself as a knight in shining armour riding to the rescue of somebody. That is speculation by the way.
I have read on the Charlton Athletic website that Karel Fraeye was the 'mastermind' of our escape from relegation under Jose Riga, and that he is 'interim'. I admit to not knowing for certain, but I suspect that was also written in the programme. I see that as club propaganda, and yes badly written, un-informative and deliberately misleading.
Seth is entitled to his opinion, and as it was based on the programme a few years ago it is not even a criticism of the current set up. Even if it was, it is still his view and doesn't make it wrong, nor should it be correlated to his posts on here, which I'm sure many people like myself enjoy.
Well done @Ollywozere and your team, hopefully a nice bit of good news for you guys in what must be a really crap season to work under
I always think it is one of the great cultural myths of the modern age that everyone is entitled to their opinion.
Seth's entitled to his opinion on any subject about which he is sufficiently knowledgeable to have an informed opinion. If he hasn't bought or read the programme for a few years, does that really count as a subject about which he is suitably informed?.
I am not a mechanic, either professional or amateur (enthusiastic or otherwise) - would you feel comfortable getting my opinion on whether or not the brakes on your car need replacing?
Exactly. Seth feels able to belittle the achievement of an overworked group of junior staff when he himself admits that he hasn't even read the programme properly for two years.
He is entitled to an INFORMED opinion. His is clearly not that.
I make no apology for responding to Seth's badly written, badly thought out and completely mistargetted attack on a bunch of guys, some of whom are fans, trying to do a good job in difficult circumstances.
An outside and independent body praises them yet even that reward has to be sullied and diminished by Seth.
And I don't include myself in that group or make any serious claim on the comms team success.
Except what I originally wrote here did not belittle any achievement , or attack any bunch of guys, or sully any award. I
This is what you wrote
" Sorry folks. After more than 40 years of religiously buying the programme I stopped a couple of seasons ago. When I glance at somebody else's programme occasionally it still looks like overpriced, oversized, badly written, un-informative and deliberately misleading drosstarted up by some pretty pictures on glossy paper. I would learn more about Charlton Athletic by buying the fecking Metro which is free anyway. IMHO"
But you believe that none of that belittles, attacks or sullies?
And that you have an informed opinion?
As for your other point
"If people are not entitled to an opinion because it is not informed enough then the argument will swing to the degree of how informed people are. Few of us are professional footballers, does that disqualify us from having an opinion about the matches? Or if you can't play the violin you can't opine that it is being played out of tune?"
If you have seen only a few seconds of the a match for two years or only listened to a snatch of violin playing in two years then no you can't give a credible comment on either much as you try to twist this into you being the victim. Again.
As you're so intent on quoting will you quote all the times I have painted myself as a victim on here? Or twisted anything?
You won't because you can't.
In addition you are not the sole judge and jury of credibility.
Let us get this clear. In your opinion, which carries no more or less weight than any other poster, you say that I have belittled the award, which I didn't do, attack guys, which I haven't, or sullied an award which I also haven't. If you wish to interpret what I have written as such then go ahead, but you are once again simply wrong.
From what I can work out you contribute to the programme, and you wish to criticise me for my negativity because you want to bask in some kind of reflected glory. That is an opinion by the way.
The irony seems to me that it is in the opinion of some award givers the Charlton programme is second best, and the area that you contribute to is highlighted, which makes you feel good. So somehow you are trying to establish a hierarchy of opinion, which surprise surprise places you at the top. That is an opinion by the way.
Perhaps it is you that feels victimised, or perhaps you see yourself as a knight in shining armour riding to the rescue of somebody. That is speculation by the way.
I have read on the Charlton Athletic website that Karel Fraeye was the 'mastermind' of our escape from relegation under Jose Riga, and that he is 'interim'. I admit to not knowing for certain, but I suspect that was also written in the programme. I see that as club propaganda, and yes badly written, un-informative and deliberately misleading.
Carry on.
Poor deflection attempt from you to try and make it all about me but we were talking about how YOU are unable to make an informed decision as YOU DON'T READ THE PUBLICATION YOU ARE CRITICISING.
YOU criticised something you haven't read.
I'll say it again. YOU criticised something you haven't read.
One more time in case you missed it. YOU criticised something you haven't read.
You don't read it but it is according to you "dross" and "tacky" and "badly written". Even though you HAVEN'T READ IT FOR TWO YEARS.
Let me repeat in case I haven't made the point clearly enough. You don't read it but it is according to you "dross" and "tacky" and "badly written". Even though you HAVEN'T READ IT FOR TWO YEARS.
And calling something "dross" or "tacky" or "badly written" isn't any way insulting in your world.
Every time I come on this site these days I get halfway through reading the second or third thread and then comments like those on here come up. Seriously fellas, have a word with yourselves ffs.
Charlton fans - arguing amongst themselves about trivial shit since 1905
Comments
Your opinion may well be shared by others in as much as most people think of my contributions as being 'badly written, misleading and uninformative drivel', but you have no objective basis for that at this time, or if you have you have not evidenced it. It is not fair comment in any objective sense but merely your opinion of what I write.
It is clear from what I wrote regarding the programme that it is one persons perspective, the clue is in the opening two words and the acronym at the end.
Dearie me, it is almost as if the class bully is annoyed that the pleb does not show due deference.
More of Seth's badly written, uninformative and misleading drivel. I rest my case.
QED.
Oh and before you say it my dad is indeed bigger than your dad despite him being dead for the last 40 years.
i'm badly missing the away numbers close at hand though ;-)
Well done @Ollywozere and your team, hopefully a nice bit of good news for you guys in what must be a really crap season to work under
I, for one, will continue buying the programme because I think it's an excellent publication and well deserving of an accolade - a welcome example of continued professionalism from @Ollywozere and team while crass amateurs wreak havoc with the rest of the organisation.
Seth's entitled to his opinion on any subject about which he is sufficiently knowledgeable to have an informed opinion. If he hasn't bought or read the programme for a few years, does that really count as a subject about which he is suitably informed?.
I am not a mechanic, either professional or amateur (enthusiastic or otherwise) - would you feel comfortable getting my opinion on whether or not the brakes on your car need replacing?
He is entitled to an INFORMED opinion. His is clearly not that.
I make no apology for responding to Seth's badly written, badly thought out and completely mistargetted attack on a bunch of guys, some of whom are fans, trying to do a good job in difficult circumstances.
An outside and independent body praises them yet even that reward has to be sullied and diminished by Seth.
And I don't include myself in that group or make any serious claim on the comms team success.
PS I haven't read Charlton Life for two years but it is shit which I'm entitled to say under The 2001 Entitlement to an Opinion Act and the 2003 Banter Defence amendment.
: - )
It reminds me of classic Basil Fawlty.
That the standard of my contributions are thought by you and others as very poor is also an opinion despite you wanting to dress up your opinion as fact with your QED nonsense.
If people are not entitled to an opinion because it is not informed enough then the argument will swing to the degree of how informed people are. Few of us are professional footballers, does that disqualify us from having an opinion about the matches? Or if you can't play the violin you can't opine that it is being played out of tune?
"
Sorry folks.
After more than 40 years of religiously buying the programme I stopped a couple of seasons ago.
When I glance at somebody else's programme occasionally it still looks like overpriced, oversized, badly written, un-informative and deliberately misleading dross tarted up by some pretty pictures on glossy paper.
I would learn more about Charlton Athletic by buying the fecking Metro which is free anyway.
IMHO"
But you believe that none of that belittles, attacks or sullies?
And that you have an informed opinion?
As for your other point
"If people are not entitled to an opinion because it is not informed enough then the argument will swing to the degree of how informed people are. Few of us are professional footballers, does that disqualify us from having an opinion about the matches? Or if you can't play the violin you can't opine that it is being played out of tune?"
If you have seen only a few seconds of the a match for two years or only listened to a snatch of violin playing in two years then no you can't give a credible comment on either much as you try to twist this into you being the victim. Again.
You won't because you can't.
In addition you are not the sole judge and jury of credibility.
Let us get this clear. In your opinion, which carries no more or less weight than any other poster, you say that I have belittled the award, which I didn't do, attack guys, which I haven't, or sullied an award which I also haven't. If you wish to interpret what I have written as such then go ahead, but you are once again simply wrong.
From what I can work out you contribute to the programme, and you wish to criticise me for my negativity because you want to bask in some kind of reflected glory. That is an opinion by the way.
The irony seems to me that it is in the opinion of some award givers the Charlton programme is second best, and the area that you contribute to is highlighted, which makes you feel good. So somehow you are trying to establish a hierarchy of opinion, which surprise surprise places you at the top. That is an opinion by the way.
Perhaps it is you that feels victimised, or perhaps you see yourself as a knight in shining armour riding to the rescue of somebody. That is speculation by the way.
I have read on the Charlton Athletic website that Karel Fraeye was the 'mastermind' of our escape from relegation under Jose Riga, and that he is 'interim'. I admit to not knowing for certain, but I suspect that was also written in the programme. I see that as club propaganda, and yes badly written, un-informative and deliberately misleading.
Carry on.
YOU criticised something you haven't read.
I'll say it again. YOU criticised something you haven't read.
One more time in case you missed it. YOU criticised something you haven't read.
You don't read it but it is according to you "dross" and "tacky" and "badly written". Even though you HAVEN'T READ IT FOR TWO YEARS.
Let me repeat in case I haven't made the point clearly enough. You don't read it but it is according to you "dross" and "tacky" and "badly written". Even though you HAVEN'T READ IT FOR TWO YEARS.
And calling something "dross" or "tacky" or "badly written" isn't any way insulting in your world.
CL has its moments
My pants are fine, I unloaded this morning
Charlton fans - arguing amongst themselves about trivial shit since 1905