The main problem I see is that you think it's all about you & what you want whereas everybody else knows it isn't. Simple instructions. Use the email. Suggest an open forum. Wait for a response.
I'm not stopping anyone emailing, you're trying to stop people discussing it in public. Remind me, which one wants their own way again.
Aye, you seem to have got a fair bit wrong. Fear not, you're not alone, and it being a series of personal exchanges suits some, as it avoids any discussion on the actual issues and problems.
Yeah this is true. I see Dutch often blowing a gasket along these lines, but it's hard to actually tell what he's banging on about because his posts are so poorly written. It seems we're never going to be relieved of them, so more clarity in your posts would be appreciated DMD, that way they might be punchier, and seem less of an exasperated, flailing wall of words.
Seems a bit pointless dumbing things down to accommodate someone he reckons they were hibernating until the discussion was finished anyway, but okay, "**** off thick ****". Hope that helps.
Marvellous, you've managed to actually write something rather than just sneakily 'liking' anyone that disagrees with me. There's progress. All we need now is for you and your ilk to actually argue a point rather than just trying for personal attacks that don't work.
Discuss what it public? Whether we should diiscuss whether or not to discuss peoples ideas for the trust in public? It's what we're doing now. Email, ask for an open forum where it can be organised & done properly. This is not the best place for it. What you appear to want is an open floor to air your grievance against ex committee members of the now defunct single issue group CTWD because you believe they did nothing about your seat eviction. Fire away with your idea or suggestion number 1.
You've got so much wrong, it hardly seems worth replying. You make the mistake others do, by trying to apply a personal issue to what is a practical problem. I couldn't give a flying **** who is on the committee and who isn't. My issue is that to be able to claim they represent fans, a trust needs to demonstrate how it does this. As it stands, the trust quite simply can't. That'd be fine if there was a stream of amazing ideas and achievements coming out of the trust, but as yet, there's very little. Now you may feel mumbling away to a faceless group is better than having what amounts to brain storming sessions on here, I'd be interested to know what you base that opinion on. I'd say that more open discussions serve a number of functions, including helping show that they are representative and democratic, which is their claim. Oh, and discussion isn't about making a list to chopped or rejected, it's about creating an environment where people feel able to voice their opinion and others can then add or take from it so that an over all consensus can be reached. people flinging personal abuse around hardly add to that.
No, I'm serious. It seems you have a lot to say, so please be clearer. And less of the abuse would be nice too. You can't kick others for it when in this last few moments I've been told I am of a sneaky ilk and talk bollocks!
I guess I could use the 'it was a joke' card, but in my opinion you are sneaky, and you have spoken bollocks, so it's not abuse, it's just my considered opinion. As for being clearer, here goes the usual replies to follow. I could refer you to the posts above, then the replies would be 'you don't answer' I could post it again and the replies would be 'you're repetitive'. Interesting though, even though they reckon they don't know what it's about, people decide they disagree. I guess the replies will be 'circular'.
