Do I take it you won't go anymore DMD if the name change gets the yes from the FA with you thinking Hull Tigers will be a new team ?
Really? You sat you've never posted on here before? You're just repeating the same non-argument you offered before.
What has CTWD got to do with this? Do you mention it to try to hide the fact your post offers nothing?
Hull is in the county of Yorkshire. But it is also in the regions referred to as Humberside, East Yorkshire and the East Riding.
Not really as far as the physics goes, no. Although that thinking is a part of what I mean by the general comment that history is not cast in stone.
It's irrelevant to the argument here. I'll make my mid up at the due time. Should the foolishness go ahead, it could be that the best place to continue the fight for my club is from within.
Name change? How come this isn't in the main thread Dutch? Come on, humour us, share your logic and reasoning.
Because the discussion is about history, as per the subject line. That's a piss poor whine even by your standards.
Lets say from next season the club are called Hull Tigers. When Hull Tigers play at home to Liverpool next season statistics in the media will show that Hull tigers won the corresponding fixture last season. In a few years or so, the Hull Tigers win at The Emirates. Most outlets will comment on this being the Hull Tigers second win at The Emirates. In 10 years from now the greatest moment in Hull City's history will be referred to as 'Dean Windass scored at wembley to put the Hull Tigers into the Premier League for the first time'. I think this is the point DMD was trying to make. History can indeed be re-written! I understand for some that this does not matter. However, I have been through too much following Hull City (both highs and lows) for this to be wiped away. Those that are not bothered should also respect the views of those that are strongly against the name change. For some of us it is a distressing prospect!
Don't understand the first line here. You asked me what my previous user name was. I answered that I don't have a previous user name. As to the second point. I repeated my non-argument (as you call it) because you gave no adequate response to it the first time. This was my assertion that the possibility of Hull City AFC being expunged from history is an extremely unlikely scenario.
Yet you STILL offer nothing to support your gut feeling, yet I and others have posted the logic behind our reasoning.
So, do you agree that the possibility of Hull City AFC being expunged from history is an extremely unlikely scenario or not?
Must have missed it, my apologies. Perhaps you could direct me to one of the many posts in which you've answered my question. Though it is a question which could be answered with a simple yes or no. In reaching my conclusion I pointed out as an example that Hull Comets are still known about after 110 years. You can add to this the wealth of documentary evidence and oral testimony pertaining to the existence of HCAFC. Surely you don't suppose this would simply vanish or be ruthlessly destroyed should the name become Hull Tigers.
Thank you for this post; you state your case fairly and decently. Is History Cast In Stone? I have read the many posts and there are simply too many to respond to, but I would offer my six-penneth-worth (it might become a half -crown - sorry Chazz!): When I look at the arguments on here, I believe that some (Sydney, for example) are focussing on events in history; rather than history itself. I agree that once an event has taken place - a penalty, a betrayal, a death, etc. - it is unchangeable, but the interpretation of it is not, and it is that interpretation of the event that is recorded or memorised as history. A passage of time: minutes; months; millennia; might well throw up something that alters the view of why or how an event transpired - a death could have been recorded in history as a murder until a discovery shows it to have been natural causes - so the recorded recollection of the event changes well after the actual event. The history of that event has changed; after all, history, in the context of this argument, is the recording of an event or series of events with the information known to be accurate - but that can and does change. The death of JFK is now well documented historically, there are conspiracy theories included, as well as all of the investigation results and conclusions. It is still possible for information to come to light that will make all of that a corrupted history, so the history will be rewritten to reflect the 'latest truth'. The corrupted history will itself be a part of the new rewritten history; events might be viewed and recorded differently, but the events themselves cannot be changed, only the understanding of them I have also read on here points made by both pro and anti-name changers about how history would bear on supporters, moving forward. I have been a supporter of Hull City AFC for in excess of 50yrs. I have shared the ups and downs of its history without ever considering that my support was performance based; only my level of enjoyment and sobriety were generally influenced in that way! It has been a hard slog, to be honest, and mine was only the second half of the clubs history. Now, for no better reason that the whim of a bitter and vengeful man, I am looking at that name being changed and the name I and my family and friends, alive and departed, being treated with total distain by this so-called guardian of our football club; I can see the history of my association with Hull City AFC being changed, as I will never see us reach our fulfilment and have our historic name engraved on a top ranking shield, vase or trophy. That is not just disappointing, but, in my opinion wrong, when it has taken us all so long to keep the dream alive to this point. But the events have to unfold and the history written. History will record the words of some on here who, like the owner, counsel me to call it what I want - do they realise just how trite and pathetic that is? It is either Hull City AFC or Hull Tigers - the distinction matters to me if it doesn't to the name-changers. They say I don't have to buy merchandise - but surely that is a part-and-parcel of being involved with the soul of the club and being a part of the history that is noble and admirable. Some of these same people say that it will be changed back - why, when, for whom? Someone will write this sorry period of our history according to the events and facts they are aware of; sometime in the future memoirs, documents, minutes, might fall into the public domain that will entail the history being rewritten to better reflect the truthful events that might eventually come to light. You don't really cast anything in stone (although the old adage would have you believe that), you might use a tool to write (etch) in stone and that is easily changed when necessary. Perhaps we could look at the name-change and the campaign against it and think that the old adage of 'He who casts the first stone' might be more appropriate.
You suggested (erroneously) in post #89 that I was basing my opinions solely on the Hull Comets experience, despite the fact that I clearly only supplied it as an example, and suggested I have a play on google. Presumably you regard this as an answer. OK, so what about the documentary and oral testimony bit. Are there plans afoot to destroy it do you think?
