Midnight_Lady Posted December 4, 2003 Report Share Posted December 4, 2003 Well he is being more forthcoming than the Edinburgh Promoter who is hiding behind the "such things are confidential" excuse when asked about how he voted on this issue The way he goes on, you think we were dealing with a Freemasons meeting, but then again the silly handshakes would complement the silly rule changes A bit harsh Cyclone. Are you saying we the ordinary speedway fan and joe public should be privy to what actually happens at a closed meeting. As I said on the Monarchs ChatZone it doesn't happen in other businesses so why do you think we would hear about it in speedway. I use the word business because first and foremost whether we like it or not a great deal of people's money is invested in clubs therefore it is run primarily as a business first, sport second. BTW I don't see other promoters coming on to a fans board to answer question like JDC does. Whether we happen to like the answers or not is irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Star Lady Posted December 4, 2003 Report Share Posted December 4, 2003 BTW I don't see other promoters coming on to a fans board to answer question like JDC does. Whether we happen to like the answers or not is irrelevant. In the interests of fair play, can't let the Monarchs take all the credit. Laurence Rogers (Main Man) does post on here and the Lynn forum. He is selective in what he answers tho Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sussex bulldog Posted December 4, 2003 Report Share Posted December 4, 2003 BTW I don't see other promoters coming on to a fans board to answer question like JDC does. Whether we happen to like the answers or not is irrelevant. Jon Cook at Eastbourne hosted his second live chat last week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyclone Posted December 4, 2003 Report Share Posted December 4, 2003 (edited) Well he is being more forthcoming than the Edinburgh Promoter who is hiding behind the "such things are confidential" excuse when asked about how he voted on this issue The way he goes on, you think we were dealing with a Freemasons meeting, but then again the silly handshakes would complement the silly rule changes A bit harsh Cyclone. Are you saying we the ordinary speedway fan and joe public should be privy to what actually happens at a closed meeting. As I said on the Monarchs ChatZone it doesn't happen in other businesses so why do you think we would hear about it in speedway. I use the word business because first and foremost whether we like it or not a great deal of people's money is invested in clubs therefore it is run primarily as a business first, sport second. BTW I don't see other promoters coming on to a fans board to answer question like JDC does. Whether we happen to like the answers or not is irrelevant. First of all you seem to have ignored that John Campbell has not answered the question, so we cannot say whether or not we like his reply ! See no reason why John Campbell cannot declare how Edinburgh voted on this issue. After all you could find out through public sources how your MP voted on an important national issue. On the Monarchs Chatzone, John Campbell answers what suits him, and even tried to stifle the guy who wishes to raise a national petition on this subject, as you well know. He even made a snide comment about John Lowe's site being "Official" on the Chatzone, purely because of John's protests on this topic, as you also know. If John Perrin can go public on how he voted on this issue, ask the Edinburgh Co-Promoter what is preventing him from doing likewise ?. As you will now be aware other Promoters keep their fans informed by other means also. At least on this site, informed debate of contrasting opinions is tolerated, instead of being expected to toe the Promotion's party line with sycophantic comments Edited December 4, 2003 by cyclone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgl07 Posted December 5, 2003 Report Share Posted December 5, 2003 He even made a snide comment about John Lowe's site being "Official" on the Chatzone, purely because of John's protests on this topic, as you also know. Shades of 1984 and Animal Farm. John Campbell is trying to rewrite history. I can't say it surprises me much. The background on the Official Edinburgh Website is as follows: I was recruited by David Murray in 1997, who ran the first Monarchs' Official website, to write match reports. Along with Mike Hunter, Geoff Chandler and Davis Murray |i helped with the site until David Murray took ill and updates stopped in mid season. We decided to produce an unofficial Website for the 1998 season but were approached by Alex Harkess and Mike Hunter to run an official site. We inherited most of the content from the David Murray site including Geoff Chandler's Round the Bend archives and Mike Hunter's collection of images of programme front pages. Geoff continued to contribute to the site for another two or three years before his interest in speedway waned. Over the six seasons from 1998 to 2003 the term Official Edinburgh Website was used and was never challenged by anyone. From time to time I was asked to 'pull' or rewite articles that other promotions did not like. Mr Campbell has a very selective memory. Pehaps he can't remember how he voted at the conference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight_Lady Posted December 5, 2003 Report Share Posted December 5, 2003 (edited) First of all you seem to have ignored that John Campbell has not answered the question, so we cannot say whether or not we like his reply ! See no reason why John Campbell cannot declare how Edinburgh voted on this issue. After all you could find out through public sources how your MP voted on an important national issue. On the Monarchs Chatzone, John Campbell answers what suits him, and even tried to stifle the guy who wishes to raise a national petition on this subject, as you well know. He even made a snide comment about John Lowe's site being "Official" on the Chatzone, purely because of John's protests on this topic, as you also know. If John Perrin can go public on how he voted on this issue, ask the Edinburgh Co-Promoter what is preventing him from doing likewise ?. As you will now be aware other Promoters keep their fans informed by other means also. At least on this site, informed debate of contrasting opinions is tolerated, instead of being expected to toe the Promotion's party line with sycophantic comments I have not ignored it Cyclone. It is one of many questions he was asked. How he chooses to answer them is his business. John Campbell is no different to any other person who votes. If he doesn't want to declare how Edinburgh voted again that is up to him. I don't happen to like that but how do you make people tell you what they did? Plenty of snide remarks have gone on on the board Cyclone as well you know seeing as you were part of some of it. Please don't assume you know what goes on concerning the running of the Chatzone. It has nothing to do with the Edinburgh promotion and don't ever accuse me of toe-ing the promotions' party line in an attempt to gain favour from them As far as the Chatzone goes we have no ties with the promotion, nor have we ever sought any. You mention the man who was "stifled" according to what you have said, as far as I am concerned we didnt restrict what he was saying in any form what so ever. He still was able to post what he wanted and is still a member. There is just as much free debate on the Chatzone as there is here, but unlike here we have members of the promotion who will put their views forward. I think your anger is simply due to the fact that JDC doesnt see the problem like you do, consequently you dont like him trying to defend it. That happens within any debate, and the Chatzone is exactly the same. We try to ensure that everyone has a chance to put their views across and that applies to fans and promotion, however there is a responsibilty on everyone to be fair to all posters. Calling people plonkers and bad mouthing others elsewhere gets everyone nowhere. I dont like the joker rule any more then you do but at the end of the day it's Johns decision what he says in relation to the BSPA. Edited December 5, 2003 by Midnight_Lady Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyclone Posted December 5, 2003 Report Share Posted December 5, 2003 (edited) Plenty of snide remarks have gone on on the board Cyclone as well you know seeing as you were part of some of it. Please don't assume you know what goes on concerning the running of the Chatzone. It has nothing to do with the Edinburgh promotion and don't ever accuse me of toe-ing the promotions' party line in an attempt to gain favour from them As far as the Chatzone goes we have no ties with the promotion, nor have we ever sought any. You mention the man who was "stifled" according to what you have said, as far as I am concerned we didnt restrict what he was saying in any form what so ever. He still was able to post what he wanted and is still a member. There is just as much free debate on the Chatzone as there is here, but unlike here we have members of the promotion who will put their views forward. I think your anger is simply due to the fact that JDC doesnt see the problem like you do, consequently you dont like him trying to defend it. That happens within any debate, and the Chatzone is exactly the same. We try to ensure that everyone has a chance to put their views across and that applies to fans and promotion, however there is a responsibilty on everyone to be fair to all posters. Calling people plonkers and bad mouthing others elsewhere gets everyone nowhere. I dont like the joker rule any more then you do but at the end of the day it's Johns decision what he says in relation to the BSPA. You really should read things more carefully ML before responding. If you like to reread my response re stifling, you will see it refers to John Campbell's actions, not of those running the Chatzone. I'm afraid to disappoint you ML, but I never called Mr C a plonker, though I must admit I am not as sensitive as yourself when this term was used in the context it was. Likewise as my identity on this board should not be known to you, unless you are surreptitiously ferreting Forum members id's (touch of 1984 perhaps ), which is highly improper, how can you accuse me of making snide remarks elsewhere ? Edited December 5, 2003 by cyclone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight_Lady Posted December 5, 2003 Report Share Posted December 5, 2003 You really should read things more carefully ML before responding. :unsu......... I'm afraid to disappoint you ML, but I never called Mr C a plonker, though I must admit I am not as sensitive as yourself when this term was used in the context it was....... Likewise as my identity on this board should not be known to you, unless you are surreptitiously ferreting Forum members id's (touch of 1984 perhaps ), which is highly improper, how can you accuse me of making snide remarks elsewhere ? So should you Cyclone. I never accused you of calling John Campbell a plonker. It was a general comment. Whether I take exception to it is neither here nor there. Firstly you call me a sycophant then accuse me of "surreptitiously ferreting Forum members id's" I think there is a touch of paranoia here. I merely can see the same style of posting on both boards. End of story as far as I am concerned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyclone Posted December 5, 2003 Report Share Posted December 5, 2003 Well ML interesting that you do not refer to the following utterance from yourself:- "Plenty of snide remarks have gone on on the board Cyclone as well you know seeing as you were part of some of it." Please enlighten everyone as to what hard facts you have to support your allegation, or else do the decent thing and apologise for your unfounded statement. Rest assured I do not suffer from paranoia, nor am I initimidated by wee bully girls Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stobart Posted February 12, 2004 Report Share Posted February 12, 2004 Whilst I agree that this stupid innovation makes a mockery of our sport (?) we are probably getting hypertensive without any real need. Come November and the Braindead Stupid Pratts Association (aka BSPA) will probably scrap it in favour of something even more slapstick! As the Good Book says 'Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof! Jaz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted March 12, 2004 Author Report Share Posted March 12, 2004 I was under the impression that 3 golden tactical's and a golden double could be used but reading the hull programme it appears it is only 2 golden tactical's and 1 golden double. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norbold Posted March 12, 2004 Report Share Posted March 12, 2004 Or is it two golden doubles and two golden tacticals. Or maybe it's one golden double, one golden tactical and two silver tacticals. There again it could be three golden double tacticals and one double golden tactical. Or is it a bronze helmet for coming third? I'm sorry, Phil. I know you are asking for proper information, but can anyone really take all this business seriously???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sussex bulldog Posted March 12, 2004 Report Share Posted March 12, 2004 I guess it will be a while before all becomes clear, if ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Working Star Posted March 12, 2004 Report Share Posted March 12, 2004 2 golden tactical's and 1 golden double. Translated as 2 thingys and a dingly dangly?????? Sorry if this is too risque for a family forum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjw ministerofport Posted March 14, 2004 Report Share Posted March 14, 2004 It seems an absolutly stupid rule to me, why not call it a Bruice bonus? such a stupid rule for such a great sport Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts