Protest ?

[dave.woodhall]

How about supporting the team rather than behaving like a stroppy toddler who can't get their own way?

How about allowing free speech rather than insulting those who have a different opinion to you?

Your free speech isnt being curtailed is it? We are all able to read your opinions here are we not ?
Also I would hardly call that an insult, I get called much much worse.

My opinion for whats it is worth is that organised protests are only for special circumstances. Such as having a board of directors full of befuddled old men slowly strangling your club to death ( refer to Villa history 1960s) or having somebody with controlling ownership who hangs onto power misguidedly for a short few years too long (refer to Villa history immediately pre Lerner).

Nobody's free speech is being curtailed - but I'd have thought one of the senior members of this forum would show better leadership than stooping to insult when he doesn't agree with a posters point of view.

FWIW, I agree with you, I can't see that now is the time to protest. I'm sure, despite bowing out from interacting on this message baord (somewhat cowardly in my opinion) when the going gets tough, fan opinion is being monitored on these forums. A protest is likely to give the players an excuse not to perform and also to distract them away from the effort they need to put in to get us out of this mess.

People who talk about the right to free speech usually have two things in common - their inherent ability to abuse it, and their inability to accept that it works both ways. I think there's been a lot of stroppy/spoilt teenager behaviour on here and I'm saying so. 

[MoetVillan]

So the reason we dont have the players we want is because we (Randy) doesnt spend enough money, or sells players he can make a lot of money on.  Yet by staying away, and encouraging others to stay away, we reduce the match day spend, no doubt encouraging Randy to invest as we stick by him.  We also dont support our team when they need all the help they can from us at the moment, a roaring stadium does intimidate the opposition.  So far in the Premier league "strike action" has had the square root of fuck all to do with any decisions made by boards.  See Manxcockneys, Toonarmy and Liverpool 

[dave.woodhall]

So the reason we dont have the players we want is because we (Randy) doesnt spend enough money, or sells players he can make a lot of money on.   

Does anyone with any sense really believe that?

[MoetVillan]

fair point.  Some bad buys negate some of that

[philthebar]

I'm not happy, I don't like seeing us in the position that we are in, but a protest....

No way.

Get behind the team!

[adam#1]

How about supporting the team rather than behaving like a stroppy toddler who can't get their own way?

How about allowing free speech rather than insulting those who have a different opinion to you?

Your free speech isnt being curtailed is it? We are all able to read your opinions here are we not ?
Also I would hardly call that an insult, I get called much much worse.

My opinion for whats it is worth is that organised protests are only for special circumstances. Such as having a board of directors full of befuddled old men slowly strangling your club to death ( refer to Villa history 1960s) or having somebody with controlling ownership who hangs onto power misguidedly for a short few years too long (refer to Villa history immediately pre Lerner).

Nobody's free speech is being curtailed - but I'd have thought one of the senior members of this forum would show better leadership than stooping to insult when he doesn't agree with a posters point of view.

FWIW, I agree with you, I can't see that now is the time to protest. I'm sure, despite bowing out from interacting on this message baord (somewhat cowardly in my opinion) when the going gets tough, fan opinion is being monitored on these forums. A protest is likely to give the players an excuse not to perform and also to distract them away from the effort they need to put in to get us out of this mess.

People who talk about the right to free speech usually have two things in common - their inherent ability to abuse it, and their inability to accept that it works both ways. I think there's been a lot of stroppy/spoilt teenager behaviour on here and I'm saying so. 

That's fine. You have a right to be abusive, its your baby after all.

Free speech should allow those in a position of authority to be abusive. Hell, look at Gordon Brown.

[Mac]

Actually, it's my baby and you're confusing this site with a democracy.  As I've said several times before, my house, my rules.

And I think Dave got his response spot on.

Every moan, every groan at VP must affect the players, we can moan before, at half time & after the game, but for every 90 minutes OUR team is on the pitch we should be 110 % behind them & the manager. We must all get behind the lads starting in Sheffield, and if we concede don't get on their backs straight away or else... all we are doing is proving DOL right (fickle).The lion will soon roar again. Keep the faith. VTWD.

[imull43]

Why do we want to get rid of the best manager (look at his CV) we have probably had in 20 years???

We've got to start supporting the team, singing for super Mark is really going to build Gabbys confidence. Not got a problem with MA, think he's a great player but Gabbys Villa through and through, he's having a tough time so we support him by singing for him to be replaced?

One sure thing that is going to push us closer to religation is the fans turning on the team and the management. Save the abuse for sites like this and local radio, get behind the 11 on the fiels and the management, we will stay up and GH will get the chance to add AV to his acheivements on his CV.

[Holtenderinthesky]

No way should we be protesting if we want the team to start performing.  It's bad enough as it is without the fans piling on more pressure.  I am not A GH fan, I wasn't from day one, but I am not about to start protesting against a board that has done nothing but wonderful things since they arrived at Villa Park.  Let's get behind the team when they need it most, no matter how hard that may be.

[dave.woodhall]

That's fine. You have a right to be abusive, its your baby after all.

Free speech should allow those in a position of authority to be abusive. Hell, look at Gordon Brown.

It also allows you to call a man who's shown more bravery in the course of his duty than all of us put together a coward. Is that not an insult?

[hawkeye]

That's fine. You have a right to be abusive, its your baby after all.

Free speech should allow those in a position of authority to be abusive. Hell, look at Gordon Brown.

It also allows you to call a man who's shown more bravery in the course of his duty than all of us put together a coward. Is that not an insult?

useing Gordon Brown for either arguement is somewhat analogous

[Ger Regan]

That's fine. You have a right to be abusive, its your baby after all.

Free speech should allow those in a position of authority to be abusive. Hell, look at Gordon Brown.

It also allows you to call a man who's shown more bravery in the course of his duty than all of us put together a coward. Is that not an insult?

I've a feeling you'll be waiting a while for a response to that one.

[adam#1]

That's fine. You have a right to be abusive, its your baby after all.

Free speech should allow those in a position of authority to be abusive. Hell, look at Gordon Brown.

It also allows you to call a man who's shown more bravery in the course of his duty than all of us put together a coward. Is that not an insult?

I've not called anyone a coward, I have suggested that the behaviour in walking away from this site when the going is tough seems cowardly. It does not imply that he as a man is cowardly; merely the cessation of posting on here. It appears that when things were going well he continued to post, but when the team's performance is going down the pan the forum is closed off - he could simply have carried on and ignored any posts he didn't feel able to comment on (perhaps after re'highlighting the rules) because of fear of the media picking up on his take on the current difficulties the club is facing. I don't  know if this was a decision taken by the General individually or a corporate AVFC decision (or even an H+V decision) - so my opinion is offered upon the action of stopping communication, not towards an individual.

Given that you know nothing about me, how do you know I've not showed more bravery than a US General or been of more value to society?

Anyway. thank you for taking the time to go through my posts to seek out something you wish to try and highlight a hypocrisy you think I may have shown.

Apologies for calling this site your baby, but I think there's a degree of semantics involved in picking apart that particular statement.

[dave.woodhall]

I've not called anyone a coward, I have suggested that the behaviour in walking away from this site when the going is tough seems cowardly. It does not imply that he as a man is cowardly; merely the cessation of posting on here. It appears that when things were going well he continued to post, but when the team's performance is going down the pan the forum is closed off - he could simply have carried on and ignored any posts he didn't feel able to comment on (perhaps after re'highlighting the rules) because of fear of the media picking up on his take on the current difficulties the club is facing. I don't  know if this was a decision taken by the General individually or a corporate AVFC decision (or even an H+V decision) - so my opinion is offered upon the action of stopping communication, not towards an individual.

Given that you know nothing about me, how do you know I've not showed more bravery than a US General or been of more value to society?

Anyway. thank you for taking the time to go through my posts to seek out something you wish to try and highlight a hypocrisy you think I may have shown.

Apologies for calling this site your baby, but I think there's a degree of semantics involved in picking apart that particular statement.

When it comes to semantics, there's no finer example than that first sentence.

As I said, those who shout loudest for freedom of speech are invariably the first ones to complain when someone replies to them.

[adam#1]

Why is calling someone's behaviour who runs away from something they've been doing cowardly an insult compared to labelling someone a stroppy toddler for wishing to protest against something they don't like?

And please explain how you interpret your second sentence as relevant to me and this dialogue we've been having?