Can't see how I'm changing the subject. The title of the thread is that the new VOTV is out and I'm saying that overseas postage charges are exagerated. I think that's quite pertinent actually.
VOTV slagging off another fan forum/website/fanzine shock!!!!! Not the first time, won't be the last. You must really have them worried Smudge/Lookie, well done.
And don't anyone dare have a go at Smudge for taking it personally. He's put bucket loads into this. Get a fecking grip.
I have met some fantastic people courtesy of this site. It has enabled me to get closer to the club I love. I feel proud that it raises money & offers help.
So. Smudge. Tw@t you ain't & the headlock is always a go go.
He says the Guardian readers get abused when we all know its the Daily Mail readers.
:-)
I can understand AFKA being frustrated but there is an argument that all publicity is good publicity and people will take a look and decide for themselves.
Afka and lookie pay money to run this site and do not make a penny. In fact they are in a deficit. Something that bugs me as I think they should set up a donation bucket somehow.
So the flipping joke of this is that a fanzine that you have to pay for and advertises it's product on here then turns on this very own website? What a piss take. You should delete the next thread when they're advertising their next issue.
Shocking article poorly written and lacking in substance
Poor editorial judgement to not ballance it out with a piece from someone here
This lawson bloke is obviously a prick its not freedom of speech its a rant and exposure to a prick from votv
Living in the past votv imo and is still not as good as people seem to think Personally it bores me I have given it ago and much like the selling pitch it reminds me of the socialist worker rag
Afka and lookie pay money to run this site and do not make a penny. In fact they are in a deficit. Something that bugs me as I think they should set up a donation bucket somehow.
So the flipping joke of this is that a fanzine that you have to pay for and advertises it's product on here then turns on this very own website? What a piss take. You should delete the next thread when they're advertising their next issue.
I feel disheartened for you Dan.
This. The cheek to come on here and advertise the bloody thing is bang out of order.
Afka and lookie pay money to run this site and do not make a penny. In fact they are in a deficit. Something that bugs me as I think they should set up a donation bucket somehow.
So the flipping joke of this is that a fanzine that you have to pay for and advertises it's product on here then turns on this very own website? What a piss take. You should delete the next thread when they're advertising their next issue.
I feel disheartened for you Dan.
Feel the same way and would happily make a donation.
Afka and lookie pay money to run this site and do not make a penny. In fact they are in a deficit. Something that bugs me as I think they should set up a donation bucket somehow.
So the flipping joke of this is that a fanzine that you have to pay for and advertises it's product on here then turns on this very own website? What a piss take. You should delete the next thread when they're advertising their next issue.
I feel disheartened for you Dan.
Feel the same way and would happily make a donation.
Agreed...and I dont even support Charlton.
As it stands, CL is by far one of the best forums out there which is why I tend to spend so much time lurking on here.
I suspect from the tone of Airman's rejoinder that he was pretty embarrassed by Lawson's article. It makes me wonder why he didn't go back to the author and say that he couldn't publish such a one sided article and that only a more balanced piece would be printed (or indeed, why this wasn't in any initial briefing for the piece). I think that he probably didn't want to alienate a contributor as he's got 36 pages to fill. It's a shame that the whole piece comes across as an attack even though AB does list several benefits of Charlton Life.
AFKA, I wouldn't take it personally. To me it seems that most of the criticisms are of the posters here (Charlton fans), rather than the actual format of the site. It does read though as if Lawson is rather confused about what a forum is though; sure there's news on Charlton Life, but like any forum it's mainly about views. For what it's worth, I think you provide Charlton fans with a magnificent service. As someone who enjoys reading both CL and VOTV, if for some reason I had to choose between the two, you'd find that I'd drop the Voice like a hot potato before giving up on my Life fix.
I think he was probably behind it and making a poor attempt to disguise the fact, most likely because of the stick he gets from some on here. Not that I think he doesn't deserve it, or otherwise, I am agnostic on CAFC fans politics.
The comments about Guardian readers getting abused has Airman written al over it.
Having lived abroad now for 8 years I feel as close to CAFC as the day I left & there is only one reason for this - Charlton Life.
Keep up the good work Smudge & ignore the haters, they are the underwhelming minority.
spot on, CL offers so much more than that too, last summer my mum was very ill, I only know a few members from this forum 'in really life' and only some of them have met my mum, however many people left messages of support, advise and help, people I have met through this site also helped me a lot as I had to rush back from China. This may sound like something very small but during a terrible time it really did help.
I can think of many other threads that follow the same theme. So much help and advise is offered here, which is why it's so much more than a football forum.
Its a shame AB hasnt found the time to come and discuss these points here, ohh well.
AFKA and Lookout, you should both be very proud of what you have created here. Don't let the morons get you down.
Wise words from WSS at the beginning of the thread When people are just plain wrong ( in the head and in their views) I tend to find ignoring them is the best way
Read all this with interest, much of which is fair comment, but it's a long stretch to say that articles shouldn't be published because they express unpopular views or even because I disagree with them. If that principle was applied on here most I'd guess most of the threads would get taken down.
I didn't commission it, I don't know John Lawson (although he has written previously) and I published a balancing article because I thought it was too one-sided to stand on its own. Aside from that I didn't take it that seriously, because I didn't - and don't - think it was meant that seriously.
Of course the usual suspects - who haven't read either the article or my response - then appear to say what a disgrace it is and I am, knowing sod all about either. But reasonable people are capable of seeing them for what they are, as they will see the article for what it is. Not worth worrying about.
Nevertheless, I'm sorry AFKA took offence, because as I make very clear in the Voice I value the site and I respect the people who provide it for the rest of us to use. I think it's one of the best things about Charlton at the moment. But there is some irony in a site which is all about opinions believing that one it doesn't like should be suppressed elsewhere.
I thought it was an unnecessary rant against a good football forum. I do not understand why some people take such a jaundiced view of this forum. Is it jealousy? There are a number of posters on other Charlton forums who say they don't care about CL yet are always commenting on what is on this site. If you don't like it don't look. There.are hundreds of posters that have different views yet we all get lumped together as those prats who post on CL. That is not very intelligent. What I don't like sometimes is some of the petty points scoring that goes on. But generally it is the best Charlton Forum by a country mile. I moderate another Charlton forum and I wish we got half the traffic that you get on here. Well done Lookout and AFKA for what you have done here.
So Airman, if someone submitted an article to you saying that everything the board has done or is doing is right, including removing yourself and other senior staff, you'd publish it would you? I don't think so because VOTV only exists now because you were sacked - it has an angle, as do all publications, such as the Guardian and the Daily Mail - they only publish articles which reinforce their view.
Afka and lookie pay money to run this site and do not make a penny. In fact they are in a deficit. Something that bugs me as I think they should set up a donation bucket somehow.
I agree with that, plenty of forums run with site paid by someone for x amount of days. Can be done anonymously
So Airman, if someone submitted an article to you saying that everything the board has done or is doing is right, including removing yourself and other senior staff, you'd publish it would you? I don't think so because VOTV only exists now because you were sacked - it has an angle, as do all publications, such as the Guardian and the Daily Mail - they only publish articles which reinforce their view.
I remember way way back, complaining to Airman that a certain Nick Gray was allowed to take some highly vicious and untrue swipes at RM on 'Your Views'. I wondered why on earth Matt Wright was allowed to publish them. Airman was very clear, whilst abhorring the views, he didn't like suppression of free speech and I am pretty sure that he would publish any pro board article. So he is being consistent. I am upset for AFKA and Lookie and feel bad that they have been offended, but they do now have the choice of whether or not to allow Airman free publicity in the future. They could also make a charge if they so wished. In fact, I think they should be charging all of us anyway, I can see no convincing reason why they should be so heavily out of pocket for our benefit. I and many others consider that we should be prepared to pay for being a member. So as Fanny has already said to AFKA, sort it out lads!
Personally I think it was an error of judgement to publish the article.
I accept that it was sent in and not commissioned.
And I know from experience that other than spelling, punctuation and fitting to the page Rick isn't heavy handed with the editing.
But it was such an unbalanced piece with no humour and no light or shade. It then ended with a couple of paras totally unconnected to CL or the theme of the article. It came over as someone afraid to take part in the cut and thrust of internet debate so who decided to shoot the messenger rather than step up and post. They also clearly don't "get" how this site works as others have pointed out around non-Charlton matters.
The shame is that the excellent articles by Matt Wright on Di Canio and Wagstaff, Steve Dixon's funny tales of postponed games and Wyn Grant's non-disapointing financial review will now be largely overlooked or not read at all.
Rick, you could easily have asked me to write a counter piece. We had been in communication about the two articles I wrote for this edition. Or even better you could have asked AFKA. I know you did put a counter view but it came over as damage limitation.
I agree that free speech means publishing articles that aren't always well accepted. There would be little point to the VOTV if it did tweak a few noses now and then but as other have pointed out you are happy to use CL to publicise VOTV.
Comments
Not the first time, won't be the last.
You must really have them worried Smudge/Lookie, well done.
And don't anyone dare have a go at Smudge for taking it personally. He's put bucket loads into this. Get a fecking grip.
I have met some fantastic people courtesy of this site. It has enabled me to get closer to the club I love. I feel proud that it raises money & offers help.
So. Smudge. Tw@t you ain't & the headlock is always a go go.
LLLBH xxxxxxxxxx
He says the Guardian readers get abused when we all know its the Daily Mail readers.
:-)
I can understand AFKA being frustrated but there is an argument that all publicity is good publicity and people will take a look and decide for themselves.
So the flipping joke of this is that a fanzine that you have to pay for and advertises it's product on here then turns on this very own website? What a piss take. You should delete the next thread when they're advertising their next issue.
I feel disheartened for you Dan.
Poor editorial judgement to not ballance it out with a piece from someone here
This lawson bloke is obviously a prick its not freedom of speech its a rant and exposure to a prick from votv
Living in the past votv imo and is still not as good as people seem to think
Personally it bores me I have given it ago and much like the selling pitch it reminds me of the socialist worker rag
Votv is not the voice of the valley really is it
Piss poor idea to insult the forum the bulk of your potential customers frequent
If you think about it its like ratner calling his stock shit
As it stands, CL is by far one of the best forums out there which is why I tend to spend so much time lurking on here.
Keep up the good work Afka and Lookout.
AFKA, I wouldn't take it personally. To me it seems that most of the criticisms are of the posters here (Charlton fans), rather than the actual format of the site. It does read though as if Lawson is rather confused about what a forum is though; sure there's news on Charlton Life, but like any forum it's mainly about views. For what it's worth, I think you provide Charlton fans with a magnificent service. As someone who enjoys reading both CL and VOTV, if for some reason I had to choose between the two, you'd find that I'd drop the Voice like a hot potato before giving up on my Life fix.
I think he was probably behind it and making a poor attempt to disguise the fact, most likely because of the stick he gets from some on here. Not that I think he doesn't deserve it, or otherwise, I am agnostic on CAFC fans politics.
The comments about Guardian readers getting abused has Airman written al over it.
Keep up the good work Smudge & ignore the haters, they are the underwhelming minority.
I can think of many other threads that follow the same theme. So much help and advise is offered here, which is why it's so much more than a football forum.
Its a shame AB hasnt found the time to come and discuss these points here, ohh well.
AFKA and Lookout, you should both be very proud of what you have created here. Don't let the morons get you down.
And remember the adage that there is no such thing as bad publicity.
When people are just plain wrong ( in the head and in their views) I tend to find ignoring them is the best way
*feel free to ignore*
I didn't commission it, I don't know John Lawson (although he has written previously) and I published a balancing article because I thought it was too one-sided to stand on its own. Aside from that I didn't take it that seriously, because I didn't - and don't - think it was meant that seriously.
Of course the usual suspects - who haven't read either the article or my response - then appear to say what a disgrace it is and I am, knowing sod all about either. But reasonable people are capable of seeing them for what they are, as they will see the article for what it is. Not worth worrying about.
Nevertheless, I'm sorry AFKA took offence, because as I make very clear in the Voice I value the site and I respect the people who provide it for the rest of us to use. I think it's one of the best things about Charlton at the moment. But there is some irony in a site which is all about opinions believing that one it doesn't like should be suppressed elsewhere.
I accept that it was sent in and not commissioned.
And I know from experience that other than spelling, punctuation and fitting to the page Rick isn't heavy handed with the editing.
But it was such an unbalanced piece with no humour and no light or shade. It then ended with a couple of paras totally unconnected to CL or the theme of the article. It came over as someone afraid to take part in the cut and thrust of internet debate so who decided to shoot the messenger rather than step up and post. They also clearly don't "get" how this site works as others have pointed out around non-Charlton matters.
The shame is that the excellent articles by Matt Wright on Di Canio and Wagstaff, Steve Dixon's funny tales of postponed games and Wyn Grant's non-disapointing financial review will now be largely overlooked or not read at all.
Rick, you could easily have asked me to write a counter piece. We had been in communication about the two articles I wrote for this edition. Or even better you could have asked AFKA. I know you did put a counter view but it came over as damage limitation.
I agree that free speech means publishing articles that aren't always well accepted. There would be little point to the VOTV if it did tweak a few noses now and then but as other have pointed out you are happy to use CL to publicise VOTV.