Eh?
Just admit you read it wrong and move on. It's all in black and white above.
Bruce
- Thread starter We are Hull
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Just admit you read it wrong and move on. It's all in black and white above.
I'm always happy to admit whenI've got things wrong, but you must be reading a different thread to me if you think OLM resurrected this thread as anything other than a pissing contest.
TOM was critical of the OSC, he raised it with them, and subsequently, those comments appear to be being addressed.
OLM raised this thead to point at those comments. Now if I've made a mistake, it's in assuming he was being critical, rather than as praise for the OSC being enlightened.
Which do you think it was?
I am so glad that I had a lay in this morning!
What I did, is instead of combing through threads from 2012, I joined and I became involved.
How many on here post on here about the ills of something, then do anything active about it? In fact it is a regular point aimed at critics, "If you do not like it join up and make changes" seems to me that its all right to say these things but not do them.
As for you OLM, you made a commitment about the Assam Allam meeting and look how long you held out. Pot calling kettle black me thinks!
The issue with the publication of the submission is an active subject within the board of the OSC. As I was not on the board at the time I have not been privy to its contents and I have not read it. I have asked to see it before it is published, my last request was on Friday and the last time I spoke directly to another director about it was yesterday at the Brighton game.
The submission as far as I am aware simply refers to the previous submission as it says in the statement that I posted. It also states that one director dis-associated himself from it.
As for the minutes of the AGM, I have not requested them to be published, there is no big secret, it was an open meeting. We have a new board and that in itself whilst it is not an excuse, it is not always easy to get things done.
What I did, is instead of combing through threads from 2012, I joined and I became involved.
How many on here post on here about the ills of something, then do anything active about it? In fact it is a regular point aimed at critics, "If you do not like it join up and make changes" seems to me that its all right to say these things but not do them.
As for you OLM, you made a commitment about the Assam Allam meeting and look how long you held out. Pot calling kettle black me thinks!
The issue with the publication of the submission is an active subject within the board of the OSC. As I was not on the board at the time I have not been privy to its contents and I have not read it. I have asked to see it before it is published, my last request was on Friday and the last time I spoke directly to another director about it was yesterday at the Brighton game.
The submission as far as I am aware simply refers to the previous submission as it says in the statement that I posted. It also states that one director dis-associated himself from it.
As for the minutes of the AGM, I have not requested them to be published, there is no big secret, it was an open meeting. We have a new board and that in itself whilst it is not an excuse, it is not always easy to get things done.
Was it ****, I wasn't even aware that mine was the first recent post on it.
Aware or not, it was yours that resurrected it.
So, did you do it to praise the OSC for listening to issues and acting on them?
I did it because I thought it was mildly amusing, I had zero intention of getting into a debate about it.
Marvellous.
So you raised that post to praise the OSC for listening to, and acting on fans views. Excellent. Let's hope other groups take that sort of thing on board from this point forwards.
I'm not sure why you describe it as ironic, but there it is.
We did report what happened, the issue was never about us not telling people what happened, it was purely about not releasing the full minutes because they made Assem look a bit mental.
As it turned out, it was rather pointless, as he went on to say all those mental things publicly anyway.
But you posted something that was not true and "private" minutes, well think about it. No apology at any point, no "sorry I got it wrong". No retraction.
Now I don't know exactly what your little game is, because a game it certainly is. You can try to discredit me as much as you like, I personally do not give a flying **** about what you say as I just see it as petty, whilst at the same time a little amusing. Funny thing is that your name came up when I was at the Brighton match, when I said that rather than being supportive of the involvement with the tribute yesterday, I was surprised that one of the board of the HCST implied that it was only for Brighton fans. The other person said that he too was surprised as he thought well of you.
So where exactly do you stand on clubs supporters joining together in remembrance? Would the HCST not have your support if they in the future were to do what we did yesterday?
As a mod can you explain how your reply to my quote is the first on the list?
Let me make something perfectly clear OLM, have as many goes as you like, pull me up as many times as you wish. If it brings up your post tally that's fine by me. But make sure that you tell the truth. A "man" would have apologised.
There's a request and a response on this thread and others. Whether you accept the response or not is a separate issue, but they are there.
We should add Supporter Groups to Religion and Politcs as banned topics; although those current rules are often broken by the moderators - foolishly IMO.
I'm sure you're well aware that it's very unusual for a members organisation to not give it's members access to the minutes of it's AGM.
What the OSC do and don't release is entirely up to them, but when it looks dodgy you can't be surprised if it gets questioned.
You're mistaking me for someone who has a bone in the fight or is in any way involved. I'm staying well out of the overall discussion.
I was merely pointing out that your reply to OLM that I quoted earlier was a reply to something he hadn't said or even hinted at. He was talking about how it's viewed when the two groups are criticised, and you introduced the notion of the OSC doing the criticising.
It's as if he'd said "So I I walk my poodle it's cruel, but if someone else walks his poodle it's healthy?" and you replying with "Are you saying it's not healthy if your poodle walks you?"
He resurrected a post where TOM was critical of the OSC. Since that post, TOM is now a director of the OSC. That for me is a good example of how things can work if a group listens to its members and enables members to make an effort. Tied in with other comments, do you believe OLM was being complimentary in describing it as ironic?
I'm not attacking you, you dipshit, I just think the OSC should be more open, don't get so ****ing defensive.I have no idea if the version of events I was given was true or not, I really don't give a **** either way.
As for bringing up yesterday's remembrance service, all I can say is **** off you utterly shabby ****.
Response to what?
Is this **** 'ole now the official response site of the OSC?
I'm referring to a request made directly to the OSC by one of their members which has been completely ignored.
I'm nothing to do with the OSC. I'm not even a member.
I was simply responding to your claim that 'any' request is ignored, when it clearly isn't the case.
'A' request not being responded to, is clearly poor form on their part.
Again, I don't give a **** about their spat. I just saw a question misread and a mistaken reply as a result, and I gave you a chance to correct it. Nothing you say can convince me you didn't misunderstand his post - it's open-and-shut.