A Statement

[TonyD]

I sincerely hope you are not accusing me of bullying. Such a comment really demeans anything else you have to say. I try to be fair and reasoned when I post but clearly you do not agree. The last thing I seek is personal adulation just a debate on the facts. If that is a small and limited audience then so be it but it would not be reflective of comments from people I have received. The point I am making is that websites such as this are now only part of the arena where the debate is to be had.

You will be aware of the number of posters who no longer post here as well as the new ones that do. If I reflect that then that is what I believe to be the case as you seem to have accepted. It is for others to judge whether this site is as influential and the bellwether of opinion as it was five years ago. I happen to believe it is not but I would not expect such vindictiveness in merely the suggestion of that.


For somebody to dismiss somebody else's opinion in favour of their own based on nothing but own theory is bullying,

you dismiss others opinion on here out of hand if they do not agree with your own, and instead of listening to others debate and returning with an educated answer, you belittle and cry foul

I have also in the past read with interest many posts and agreed with your opinion.... but on this subject I do not -

you need to accept others opinion and sometimes agree to disagree

I did read the recent AFT fans survey suggested 50.8% were in favour of the ground purchase by the club so could you explain why now there is this statement which gives a complete mirror image to the results of the survey ?

 

[IJN]

Patrick is is 100% right to raise the question what I suggest is wrong is the scaremongering tactics when referring to one particular part of our history.

Plus the specific hand picking of the 'undersigned'.

It's far too 'pre-fabricated' for my taste.

When releasing a joint statement, or seeking people to lend their name in affirmation of a statement, how is it possible for the signatories not to have been selected?

:greensmile:

I see your point. However I am obvious alluding to the fact there are name from there missing that says a lot.

Two missing AFT Chairmen for example. I wonder why.

 

[L G]

Patrick is is 100% right to raise the question what I suggest is wrong is the scaremongering tactics when referring to one particular part of our history.

Plus the specific hand picking of the 'undersigned'.

It's far too 'pre-fabricated' for my taste.

When releasing a joint statement, or seeking people to lend their name in affirmation of a statement, how is it possible for the signatories not to have been selected?

:greensmile:

I see your point. However I am obvious alluding to the fact there are name from there missing that says a lot.

Two missing AFT Chairmen for example. I wonder why.

I believe Graham said that some people were contacted but were either on holiday or unavailable for comment.

 

[IJN]

I sincerely hope you are not accusing me of bullying. Such a comment really demeans anything else you have to say. I try to be fair and reasoned when I post but clearly you do not agree. The last thing I seek is personal adulation just a debate on the facts. If that is a small and limited audience then so be it but it would not be reflective of comments from people I have received. The point I am making is that websites such as this are now only part of the arena where the debate is to be had.

You will be aware of the number of posters who no longer post here as well as the new ones that do. If I reflect that then that is what I believe to be the case as you seem to have accepted. It is for others to judge whether this site is as influential and the bellwether of opinion as it was five years ago. I happen to believe it is not but I would not expect such vindictiveness in merely the suggestion of that.

As for Twitter you are clearly not on top of what is being said and by whom. I am not responsible for that nor the back page of the Herald.

Stop being a drama queen Graham, of course I'm not, I know you better than that and you know I wouldn't infer such a thing.

As for Twitter it has a wonderful block function (as has FB) which means I can block the people that have threatened me and my family over a period of years. Obviously you can read all their bile ad nauseam as much as you want, I prefer not to.

I would add this was a light hearted thread created by Daz who was out on the lash last night apparently. My only post on your thread was to agree with Mark Pedlar defending something said by someone who agrees with you.

I do suggest though, as I have on at least three previous occasions, when you don't get the reaction you wanted when you post on this site, try not to attack the site but look inwardly and to those close to you and perhaps have a think about why that is.

Maybe it's the message not where you posted it.

 

[L G]

Posting whilst drunk. Heaven forbid.
Been there, done it. Not clever.
But I also think that Daz is only saying how he feels and is 100% consistant over all the years I've known him from on here.

 

[IJN]

Totally agree Paul, one of Daz's posts is my favourite of all time on here, I'll never forget that one.

However, it's interesting to note the reaction of CoP and Chancellor. Once again, an amazing arrogance shown to people who don't happen to agree with the "Undersigned'. Yes this is site that is intolerant? Amazing, totally amazing.

Some of us will not be bullied from what WE believe.

Whether it be the usual vile stuff or even the hints that this site must be less than it was because us fans don't fawn over Graham's post.

 

[Daz]

Posting whilst drunk. Heaven forbid.
Been there, done it. Not clever.
But I also think that Daz is only saying how he feels and is 100% consistant over all the years I've known him from on here.

I wasn't drunk, you can tell as I didn't make any spelling mistakes.

:stout: :stout:

 

[justanotherfan]

I think everyone should take a step back, a difference of opinion is not a personal attack, the problem with what is written on internet forums is that they have different inferences from face to face conversations. The opinion of the articulate should have no more weight than that of the less eloquent who perhaps doesn`t have the same grasp of grammar, syntax, sentence building etc. That we are all supporters of PAFC is a given, otherwise why visit this forum, some can only express the negative while others are overly optimistic with the majority somewhere in the middle. In the real world we would discuss, disagree, try to convince and if all fails, go for a pint. The simple fact is that whatever is posted on PASOTI will have no tangible effect on JB or his running of PAFC, so let`s all agree to disagree and get behind the team.

 

[Bonehead]

I think everyone should have a Chinese burns competition, whoever has the least red arms wins the argument

 

[justanotherfan]

I think everyone should have a Chinese burns competition, whoever has the least red arms wins the argument

Be afraid, be very afraid, the PC Brigade will get you.

 

[Bonehead]

NAGGERS .....oh

 

[L G]

Posting whilst drunk. Heaven forbid.
Been there, done it. Not clever.
But I also think that Daz is only saying how he feels and is 100% consistant over all the years I've known him from on here.

I wasn't drunk, you can tell as I didn't make any spelling mistakes.

:stout: :stout:

Good for you. I'm 6 months 'dry' now! What are the chances. Mind you Argyle winning and celebrating with lime and soda is different to say the least.

 

[crownhill pilgrim]

I'm not too sure what to make of this... given the owner's history of failed developments in the South West I'm not convinced that him buying the freehold is too much of a positive move, yet, there does seem a bit of a scare-mongering aspect to the original post... Oh well, we won again today, that's the main thing for me at the moment.

 

[Pogleswoody]

I think everyone should have a Chinese burns competition, whoever has the least red arms wins the argument

Be afraid, be very afraid, the PC Brigade will get you.

Should auld acquaintance be forgot,
And never brought to mind?
Should auld acquaintance be forgot,
I forgot to order the spare ribs
And auld lang syne!

 

[Green Mr. Bean]

Let me clarify my previous comment about censorship. Censorship is not merely about piling up the literature and having a good old bonfire. Admittedly, there is a need to avoid libellous statements on PASOTI and some comments need to be removed. The type of censorship to which I was previously referring was "Censorship through Intimidation." Certain persons on PASOTI issue personal attacks and adopt a big brother attitude. This is how censorship through intimidation works. Those intimidated use a different vehicle to debate. PASOTI is not what it was. People will go elsewhere.