Ricardo, you took a bit of a hissy-fit this morning, even though I have tried very hard to understand your logic. Because you seem to think you stand for so many of the silent- thinkers, I am trying to understand how your stance is justified, so I can better understand your criticisms of mine. So let me offer what I think you have been telling me:
You are anti-name-change.
You support the actions of CTWD, as you refer people you know to their campaign.
You are against the name-change from Hull City AFC to Hull Tigers.
You might well accept a change to some name in the future, just not at this time or as you have said, ‘you are against this name-change proposal, but not against all name-change proposals that could ever be made.’
You would be in favour of the name being changed for a fixed period and then changed back to its original (whatever that is at the time – who could tell?) - basically a Yo-Yo named football club – investment would secure this for you.
You wish to have the discretion to change your mind on name-change should circumstances change to suit your judgment call, but you will not allow Allam the discretion to change his mind about investment should the circumstances change to suit his judgment call.
You believe that the purpose of challenging the position of Assem Allam is not to get him to listen, but to get the undecided to listen (sorry, but I don’t know what they are listening to).
You think reminding the undecided that the club owner and chairman has lied, deceived and manipulated them is wrong; you believe he should be allowed to do it without challenge.
You think that challenge is abuse, even though it is nothing more than the truth and totally irrefutable.
They may be other salient points I could draw from your posts, but if I have any of these incorrect I will understand your point of view all the better for individual clarity, if any is required.