Quoting seems to be a bit awry however henry wrote:
'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.'
End of quote.
Henry I believe you are wrong.
Dear god do I really have to quote, in full, what my first post on this matter was?
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
Now I start off with 'Sorry folks', which anticipates some ire, and signals that it is simply my opinion.
Then I say 'when I glance' which is indeed not reading the programme, nothing hidden there, but putting my following comments in context for anybody who wishes to know. This is reinforced with 'still looks like'. So my subsequent criticism is contextualised within my limited knowledge regarding the programmes content, nothing hidden there either. And I end it all with IMHO which stands for in my honest opinion. Context again.
Which leads to my criticism that it is overpriced, my opinion which I have expressed, which you seem to want to supress in some weird way.
Which leads to my criticism that it is oversized, my opinion which I have expressed, which you seem to want to supress in some weird way.
Which leads to my criticism that it is badly written, my opinion which I have expressed, which you seem to want to supress in some weird way. On this occasion because you seem to have a numbers-based concept of how much a person ought to read to make that judgement.
Which leads to my criticism that it is un-informative, my opinion which I have expressed, which you seem to want to supress in some weird way. The information contained within the programme, or not in there at all, has been criticised by others as well as me, but I could not give an example off the top of my head right now.
Which leads to my criticism that it is deliberately misleading dross, my opinion which I have expressed, which you seem to want to supress in some weird way. I have dealt with this by citing season ticket information which was misleading and the club went back on, the description of Fraeye as a 'mastermind, and interim' which seems deliberate propaganda, and dross when there are empty insincere slogans like 'building a better tomorrow together'.
Which leads to my sign off about the free Metro being more informative, my opinion which I have expressed, which you seem to want to supress in some weird way. I wrote it in a (probably poor) attempt at a wry comment intended to say that the free Metro was not a propaganda organ and therefore likely to be more objective that the £3 programme which is very likely to be a club propaganda organ.
So there you have it Henry an explanation of what I originally wrote. A special Christmas gift for you, because I don't intend to accompany my posts with an instruction booklet just for you every time I write. (by the way I didn't use the word tacky)
At no point in my post did I personalise anything, however you immediately jumped in with the personal stuff regarding 95% of what I write, and even then I straight away accept you are entitled to your opinion, which laughingly seems to be something you would look to deny to me.
I wonder if you try to undermine what others write by dismissive personal attacks, labelling others as 'trolls', and use phrases like 'classic trolling'.
Quoting seems to be a bit awry however henry wrote:
'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.'
End of quote.
Henry I believe you are wrong.
Dear god do I really have to quote, in full, what my first post on this matter was?
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
Now I start off with 'Sorry folks', which anticipates some ire, and signals that it is simply my opinion.
Then I say 'when I glance' which is indeed not reading the programme, nothing hidden there, but putting my following comments in context for anybody who wishes to know. This is reinforced with 'still looks like'. So my subsequent criticism is contextualised within my limited knowledge regarding the programmes content, nothing hidden there either. And I end it all with IMHO which stands for in my honest opinion. Context again.
Which leads to my criticism that it is overpriced, my opinion which I have expressed, which you seem to want to supress in some weird way.
Which leads to my criticism that it is oversized, my opinion which I have expressed, which you seem to want to supress in some weird way.
Which leads to my criticism that it is badly written, my opinion which I have expressed, which you seem to want to supress in some weird way. On this occasion because you seem to have a numbers-based concept of how much a person ought to read to make that judgement.
Which leads to my criticism that it is un-informative, my opinion which I have expressed, which you seem to want to supress in some weird way. The information contained within the programme, or not in there at all, has been criticised by others as well as me, but I could not give an example off the top of my head right now.
Which leads to my criticism that it is deliberately misleading dross, my opinion which I have expressed, which you seem to want to supress in some weird way. I have dealt with this by citing season ticket information which was misleading and the club went back on, the description of Fraeye as a 'mastermind, and interim' which seems deliberate propaganda, and dross when there are empty insincere slogans like 'building a better tomorrow together'.
Which leads to my sign off about the free Metro being more informative, my opinion which I have expressed, which you seem to want to supress in some weird way. I wrote it in a (probably poor) attempt at a wry comment intended to say that the free Metro was not a propaganda organ and therefore likely to be more objective that the £3 programme which is very likely to be a club propaganda organ.
So there you have it Henry an explanation of what I originally wrote. A special Christmas gift for you, because I don't intend to accompany my posts with an instruction booklet just for you every time I write. (by the way I didn't use the word tacky)
At no point in my post did I personalise anything, however you immediately jumped in with the personal stuff regarding 95% of what I write, and even then I straight away accept you are entitled to your opinion, which laughingly seems to be something you would look to deny to me.
I wonder if you try to undermine what others write by dismissive personal attacks, labelling others as 'trolls', and use phrases like 'classic trolling'.
Have you ever done that?
All you've done is repeat the rubbish you spouted and added that it is your opinion. You haven't say why or what your opinion is based on. Of course you can't as YOU HAVEN'T READ IT.
You have admitted that you haven't read the programme for two years. Yet you still feel able to say that it is "badly written". How can you possibly say something is badly written or overpriced WHEN YOU HAVEN'T READ IT.
You keep saying I have tried to suppress your opinion.. Another untruth and another attempt to play the victim.
I haven't said you can't spout your ill informed nonsense. You can spout your ill informed nonsense again and again. In fact you have just done so..
I've just pointed out that you are criticising something you haven't read and so what you have said is ill informed nonsense. In my opinion of course which in your world makes all comments OK.
You sell Voice of the Valley. I haven't seen the new edition that is coming out next week but I have decided, without reading it but by glancing at the cover on the internet, that is is overpriced, oversized, badly written, uninformative, misleading dross. You can't say anything or disagree as you are part of the VOTV clique and like to bask in the glory of that dross of a fanzine.
That's how silly and baseless your arguments are but I think I'll quit now.
Happy Christmas.
PS I'll be buying the new VOTV and then I'll read it. Then I'll make a judgement about it. I know, I know, why overspend on an oversized rag and then actually READ it first when you can leap to a stupid judgement based on nothing but your prejudices but that's just the sort of guy I am : - )
To simplify like a complex mathematical equation, I based what I wrote on the degree of knowledge I have of the programme, and have detailed that above.
That you think I am not knowledgeable enough to qualify for an opinion is your problem not mine.
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
It wont change. Some of the people on here think what they have to say is far more important than anyone else. Just look at the 'posting without reading' crap. What they might as well type is 'I can't be arsed to read all your bollocks, but here is a 500 line essay that I expect you to take note of'. I frequent dozens of forums about numerous topics (mostly guitars and music related) and I've never seen someone type 'PWR'. But I see it here every week from a number of different people (usually the same old faces too), it's rude to be honest. On top of that, there are too many here that like to have a dig at each other. It's so juvenile. Grown men reduced to schoolboys.
Comments
Quoting seems to be a bit awry however henry wrote:
'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.'
End of quote.
Henry I believe you are wrong.
Dear god do I really have to quote, in full, what my first post on this matter was?
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
Now I start off with 'Sorry folks', which anticipates some ire, and signals that it is simply my opinion.
Then I say 'when I glance' which is indeed not reading the programme, nothing hidden there, but putting my following comments in context for anybody who wishes to know. This is reinforced with 'still looks like'. So my subsequent criticism is contextualised within my limited knowledge regarding the programmes content, nothing hidden there either. And I end it all with IMHO which stands for in my honest opinion. Context again.
Which leads to my criticism that it is overpriced, my opinion which I have expressed, which you seem to want to supress in some weird way.
Which leads to my criticism that it is oversized, my opinion which I have expressed, which you seem to want to supress in some weird way.
Which leads to my criticism that it is badly written, my opinion which I have expressed, which you seem to want to supress in some weird way. On this occasion because you seem to have a numbers-based concept of how much a person ought to read to make that judgement.
Which leads to my criticism that it is un-informative, my opinion which I have expressed, which you seem to want to supress in some weird way. The information contained within the programme, or not in there at all, has been criticised by others as well as me, but I could not give an example off the top of my head right now.
Which leads to my criticism that it is deliberately misleading dross, my opinion which I have expressed, which you seem to want to supress in some weird way. I have dealt with this by citing season ticket information which was misleading and the club went back on, the description of Fraeye as a 'mastermind, and interim' which seems deliberate propaganda, and dross when there are empty insincere slogans like 'building a better tomorrow together'.
Which leads to my sign off about the free Metro being more informative, my opinion which I have expressed, which you seem to want to supress in some weird way. I wrote it in a (probably poor) attempt at a wry comment intended to say that the free Metro was not a propaganda organ and therefore likely to be more objective that the £3 programme which is very likely to be a club propaganda organ.
So there you have it Henry an explanation of what I originally wrote. A special Christmas gift for you, because I don't intend to accompany my posts with an instruction booklet just for you every time I write. (by the way I didn't use the word tacky)
At no point in my post did I personalise anything, however you immediately jumped in with the personal stuff regarding 95% of what I write, and even then I straight away accept you are entitled to your opinion, which laughingly seems to be something you would look to deny to me.
I wonder if you try to undermine what others write by dismissive personal attacks, labelling others as 'trolls', and use phrases like 'classic trolling'.
Have you ever done that?
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.'
End of quote.
Henry I believe you are wrong.
Dear god do I really have to quote, in full, what my first post on this matter was?
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
Now I start off with 'Sorry folks', which anticipates some ire, and signals that it is simply my opinion.
Then I say 'when I glance' which is indeed not reading the programme, nothing hidden there, but putting my following comments in context for anybody who wishes to know. This is reinforced with 'still looks like'. So my subsequent criticism is contextualised within my limited knowledge regarding the programmes content, nothing hidden there either. And I end it all with IMHO which stands for in my honest opinion. Context again.
Which leads to my criticism that it is overpriced, my opinion which I have expressed, which you seem to want to supress in some weird way.
Which leads to my criticism that it is oversized, my opinion which I have expressed, which you seem to want to supress in some weird way.
Which leads to my criticism that it is badly written, my opinion which I have expressed, which you seem to want to supress in some weird way. On this occasion because you seem to have a numbers-based concept of how much a person ought to read to make that judgement.
Which leads to my criticism that it is un-informative, my opinion which I have expressed, which you seem to want to supress in some weird way. The information contained within the programme, or not in there at all, has been criticised by others as well as me, but I could not give an example off the top of my head right now.
Which leads to my criticism that it is deliberately misleading dross, my opinion which I have expressed, which you seem to want to supress in some weird way. I have dealt with this by citing season ticket information which was misleading and the club went back on, the description of Fraeye as a 'mastermind, and interim' which seems deliberate propaganda, and dross when there are empty insincere slogans like 'building a better tomorrow together'.
Which leads to my sign off about the free Metro being more informative, my opinion which I have expressed, which you seem to want to supress in some weird way. I wrote it in a (probably poor) attempt at a wry comment intended to say that the free Metro was not a propaganda organ and therefore likely to be more objective that the £3 programme which is very likely to be a club propaganda organ.
So there you have it Henry an explanation of what I originally wrote. A special Christmas gift for you, because I don't intend to accompany my posts with an instruction booklet just for you every time I write. (by the way I didn't use the word tacky)
At no point in my post did I personalise anything, however you immediately jumped in with the personal stuff regarding 95% of what I write, and even then I straight away accept you are entitled to your opinion, which laughingly seems to be something you would look to deny to me.
I wonder if you try to undermine what others write by dismissive personal attacks, labelling others as 'trolls', and use phrases like 'classic trolling'.
Have you ever done that?
All you've done is repeat the rubbish you spouted and added that it is your opinion. You haven't say why or what your opinion is based on. Of course you can't as YOU HAVEN'T READ IT.
You have admitted that you haven't read the programme for two years. Yet you still feel able to say that it is "badly written". How can you possibly say something is badly written or overpriced WHEN YOU HAVEN'T READ IT.
You keep saying I have tried to suppress your opinion.. Another untruth and another attempt to play the victim.
I haven't said you can't spout your ill informed nonsense. You can spout your ill informed nonsense again and again. In fact you have just done so..
I've just pointed out that you are criticising something you haven't read and so what you have said is ill informed nonsense. In my opinion of course which in your world makes all comments OK.
You sell Voice of the Valley. I haven't seen the new edition that is coming out next week but I have decided, without reading it but by glancing at the cover on the internet, that is is overpriced, oversized, badly written, uninformative, misleading dross. You can't say anything or disagree as you are part of the VOTV clique and like to bask in the glory of that dross of a fanzine.
That's how silly and baseless your arguments are but I think I'll quit now.
Happy Christmas.
PS I'll be buying the new VOTV and then I'll read it. Then I'll make a judgement about it. I know, I know, why overspend on an oversized rag and then actually READ it first when you can leap to a stupid judgement based on nothing but your prejudices but that's just the sort of guy I am : - )
Do I really have to explain it all over again?
To simplify like a complex mathematical equation, I based what I wrote on the degree of knowledge I have of the programme, and have detailed that above.
That you think I am not knowledgeable enough to qualify for an opinion is your problem not mine.
My Grandad slept naked on my pool table with a hooker last Christmas after getting on the drink.
That could be a lie.
Congratulations again @Ollywozere on your sh!t programme :-)