Mate, I was on those terraces, singing that song. I remember the Thatcher years well, and thinking at the time everything was all rosy - she looked after us in the south east of England. But once I moved away from London and saw the devastation her policies bought to the north of England and to Scotland I had to re-evaluate my ideas of her time in charge. Seeing communities ripped to shreds and discarded like old chip papers all over the UK, be it mining, ship building or other types of manufacturing, introducing the Poll Tax just in Scotland "as a trial" at the start, focussing solely on empowering the grip that London had on the country. She was a tyrant
What so you reading a book about something gives you a better idea than of someone who was actually there experiencing it? You really are stupid at times Watford. You should stick to your anti-country rhetoric?
I will never forget going to Liverpool in the 80's (Boys from the Blackstuff) and thinking what the 2222 has happened here!
You weren’t experiencing all of it though. You saw it through the eyes of teenage Ellers. That’s the point.
Hitler was a bad guy now tell me what is like in one of his concentration camps? Tell us about the smells, the depravity? Tell me what the air tasted like? Or the smell of food. Come Mr flash tells us? Actually it's no good telling me as I can only imagine from my own life experiences... However my old teacher was a surviver (she must be long dead now) she explained it to us one day in class.
Well was it that bad? you weren't there you can't know...an extreme version of the point but the point non the less
I added on the bit before you posted this. No I wasn't there and like you I can only judge by what I have seen and read. Living through it is a different experience.
AS I said Watford. You can't answer the question so you need to act like a t222. That's just your age and lack of life experience.
Ok I'd value a historians knowledge of an era higher, someone who has studied and read a multitude of books about a situation higher than someone who may well of lived through it, but will only have seen small section of what went on and was not privy to much wider information.
All you did was give a stupid scarcest response. Why do you go to watch a live QPR? Why not just read about it in the paper? Because according to your theory that is just as good as being there? Truth is you go to a live game so you can experience everything, everything you can't get from not being there. Agree, like your stupid 'Pot' post, you can tell we QPR beat Swansea 4-0 and that Adel scored. But you will never get the real experience of how good that moment was unless you were there. How many times have you read a match report and thought that guy wasn't at the same game? This is because he puts his own slant on it... there are many reasons for this, however getting back to my point. Reading will give you a good idea but it's not the same as being there.
You mean someone who has had access to hundreds of accounts, first, second and third hand? With regards to your football analogy, would you say that someone behind the goal has a better view of the game than someone who has watched the footage and gets clear views, including close ups of all incidents? Would someone from behind the goal be able to give a more valued opinion from what they saw of a challenge in the box at the other end from someone who has had access to all the different camera views?
I was read Antony Beevor's Stalingrad. There was a section called (How much land does someone need?) in it he he describes a story of a man walking across this vast land. Now I can only imagine what he means by 'vast'. When he describes people walking in mud and dying and the smell or corpses.. I don't know as I didn't experience it. I can imagine it through my life experience but you never get the whole picture... no matter how good the writer is.
I don’t go to QPR in order to get the most accurate view of the match possible though and often after seeing highlights back I’ll have a totally different opinion on an incident compared to seeing it from one imperfect angle at the time along with the emotion of being at the match. So great analogy.
So now you are talking about certain aspects and camera manipulation of events. Interestingly I read a fab book on that very subject. Agree, you could be behind a support beam and miss that tackle. The later viewing of the incident only reinforces the whole experience. However, the camera only lets you see what it wants you to see. By that I mean you will never get the full picture. It will never show the fella next to you swearing at the linesmen and it can never replicate the atmosphere. It's simply a reproduction of events. I have been to many live events and watched them again on TV and it's never the same. Listening to an opera or watching a play in a theatre or seeing a live match is never replicated the same.
Depends what you are looking for, if personal emotion yes you are absolutely correct. Watching a game at Loftus Road is a totally different experience than watching it on the TV. However if you are looking for a more accurate representation of what happened, factually based having a wider access to more information, different view points, etc.. watching it on the box is a much better representation. When reporting on history emotions will only lead to distort facts, like with the football analogy people get caught up in emotion and feelings and can see something with extreme bias, not representing what actually happened, we've all called for penalties that weren't for example
