|
Post by stevvy on Apr 28, 2009 15:36:18 GMT 1
haha oh ok LT, sorry, i thought the actual letter itself said 2004 (havent got the paper so havent read it) but if it was a typo don't worry
|
|
|
Post by Mastercracker on Apr 28, 2009 15:41:15 GMT 1
Jesus christ. Talk about banging your head against a brick wall. Who wrote that, Ken himself? I suppose, for now, there's going to be people who believe the Pro Davy propaganda.....just like there's people who say man has never stepped on the moon or that the earth is flat. What's more annoying is that letters like that are happily published, whereas those letters with an alternative opinion, and written without prophanity, are ignored. It's a great shame that our local newspaper cannot report both sides of the arguement. I always thought Newspapers were supposed to present a balanced arguement for you to draw your own conclusions, but then that doesn't sell papers does it. Lets be thankfull that it's 2009 and the examiner is no longer the number 1 and only source of Town related 'info'.
|
|
AndyM
Iain Dunn Terrier
[M0:14]
Posts: 596
|
Post by AndyM on Apr 28, 2009 15:45:17 GMT 1
It appears to me that most Town fans aren't really interested about behind the scenes stuff. All the various worthwhile attempts by FFA or HTSA to highlight their concerns to a wider audience have in my opinion been far too wordy. Anything more than a paragraph long loses its impact when dealing with the apathetic majority. Politicians don't expect anyone to read their detailed manifestos so they invent catchy soundbites instead.
Someone needs to think up some punchy lyrics to a popular well known tune so the crowd can sing along even if they haven't got a clue what it all means.
|
|
ben555
Iain Dunn Terrier
[M0:7]
Posts: 474
|
Post by ben555 on Apr 28, 2009 16:03:54 GMT 1
that doesn't surprise me in the slightest LT, i doubt they'd ever publish a letter (or anything) going against Davy. Clearly the person who wrote the letter doesn't know about the share issue (or they do and they're ignorant of it because it means admitting Davy isn't as perfect as they believe him to be) and for that matter they must be the 1s with a short memory anyway because they talk about administration in 2004..............it was 2003 Exactly, the person who wrote that letter is either completely unawares of the shares issue or is a Giants fan through and through.
|
|
marshian
Jimmy Glazzard Terrier
Posts: 4,567
|
Post by marshian on Apr 29, 2009 16:56:18 GMT 1
There's another 'oh he saved us' naive letter in the Examiner today.
I wish they'd print both sides of the story. Do they think Davy gets booed for no reason. FFS
|
|
|
Post by downatthepharm on Apr 29, 2009 16:57:33 GMT 1
There's another 'oh he saved us' naive letter in the Examiner today. I wish they'd print both sides of the story. Do they think Davy gets booed for no reason. FFS Most people think we boo him because of his lack of investment in the team when he was in charge
|
|
|
Post by stevvy on Apr 29, 2009 17:59:19 GMT 1
There's another 'oh he saved us' naive letter in the Examiner today. I wish they'd print both sides of the story. Do they think Davy gets booed for no reason. FFS there's a surprise if the examiner got 100 letters slagging off davy, and just 1 praising him as our saviour, we all know what'd happen.........the 1 letter praising him as our saviour would be printed, and the rest would be deleted/binned instantly
|
|
|
Post by sowerbyterrier2 on Apr 29, 2009 18:49:37 GMT 1
There's another 'oh he saved us' naive letter in the Examiner today. I wish they'd print both sides of the story. Do they think Davy gets booed for no reason. FFS there's a surprise if the examiner got 100 letters slagging off davy, and just 1 praising him as our saviour, we all know what'd happen.........the 1 letter praising him as our saviour would be printed, and the rest would be deleted/binned instantly How about the same letter sent 100 times, from 100 people on here. Could they ignore that?
|
|
|
Post by stevvy on Apr 29, 2009 19:06:14 GMT 1
they'd still ignore that and not publish it, after all, they don't want to lose access to town do they (once davy leaves that shouldn't be an issue but he could still stop them getting access to the giants)
|
|
|
Post by sowerbyterrier2 on Apr 29, 2009 19:20:19 GMT 1
they'd still ignore that and not publish it, after all, they don't want to lose access to town do they (once davy leaves that shouldn't be an issue but he could still stop them getting access to the giants) cynicism is alive and well
|
|
|
Post by Porrohman on Apr 29, 2009 21:34:49 GMT 1
Poor Ken, he's clearly an old man who is loosing his marbles, but still has some affection for this club. I clapped him because i believe you should respect your elders, i also felt sorry for him, he was clearly misguided in thinking he would get a good reception. Poor old sod. Will you get your bog roll money back after this post
|
|
|
Post by mids on Apr 30, 2009 13:02:11 GMT 1
There's another 'oh he saved us' naive letter in the Examiner today. I wish they'd print both sides of the story. Do they think Davy gets booed for no reason. FFS I've sent them a 'letter' now by email. I don't hold out much hope for it being printed
|
|
|
Post by iceman909 on Apr 30, 2009 13:22:56 GMT 1
Mids, didn't you have the whole of page 2 in the examiner once to express your views? IIRC there was a picture of a group of fans with the article underneath. Probably pre-Pearson, that sort of time.
And wasn't there a spate of letters to the examiner a while back covering both sides of the debate? Ask Polish Hippy, I'm sure i read one that he had sent in.
|
|
|
Post by mids on Apr 30, 2009 14:01:50 GMT 1
Mids, didn't you have the whole of page 2 in the examiner once to express your views? IIRC there was a picture of a group of fans with the article underneath. Probably pre-Pearson, that sort of time. And wasn't there a spate of letters to the examiner a while back covering both sides of the debate? Ask Polish Hippy, I'm sure i read one that he had sent in. There may have been a piece in the Examiner a couple of weeks ago that reported on a meeting that was held. I didn't see the piece (if it was printed) so i don't know who it showed or what it said (if anything). There was a piece a while ago in relation to who the possible new manager would be, prior to Lee Clark's appointment. There was also a piece in the Examiner towards the end of last season when Adam Pearson was still (just about) looking into buying into Huddersfield Town. All being well there have been letters expressing both standpoints, as there should be in order to give a balanced view. Hopefully the Examiner will continue to do so, which is all one can ask.
|
|