Andy tells it how it is

Winter Green wrote:

Actually Ricks, I too doubt there is a cozy relationship. Outside of the admitted main sponsor and Pasoti singing from the same hymn sheet, I doubt there are any cozy relationships to be had with any fan where Jimmy's interests are involved.

This country tends to have a culture of allowing group identities to stand separate from individuals that is even backed up on the statute book. One either respects that or one doesn't. So, what's the big deal here. .

How about a culture of allowing individuals to stand separate from group identities? That fit in with your socialist ideas?

You seem to have forgotten that a short time ago "Andy" was accused (not by me) of using the AFT username to launch a 'cheap attack' on somebody. Nobody admitted to authoring the post if I remember correctly.

Turn it around. What's the big deal in wanting the AFT to initial their posts?



And Hairy... You really are desperate troll out looking for any crumb whatsoever.

Rickler wrote:

....
I understand the AFT might like most if not all their missives under one name, no problem, but like I have said before (and you are now), those posts, made on this site under the umbrella of the AFT username should be signed off with the initials of whoever wrote it. ....

I may be missing something but isn't there a contradiction there? On the one hand you say you have "no problem" if they post "all their missives under one name" & you then go on to say that they "should be signed off with the initials of whoever wrote it".

I'm not bothered what they do. I'm intrigued who writes the AFT posts and would like to know. But that's my problem not theirs.

There may be very sound personal reasons why individual members of the AFT board choose not to put their names to posts - just as there are very sound reasons why people who work behind the scenes for the AFT also have ticked the 'no publicity' box. I have also looked on it as the AFT board showing that they are broadly united on the plans of action. Of course they can't be 100% agreed about everything and if there ever was a serious split I as a member (1401) would have a right to know.

knecht wrote:

Rickler wrote:

....
I understand the AFT might like most if not all their missives under one name, no problem, but like I have said before (and you are now), those posts, made on this site under the umbrella of the AFT username should be signed off with the initials of whoever wrote it. ....

I may be missing something but isn't there a contradiction there? On the one hand you say you have "no problem" if they post "all their missives under one name" & you then go on to say that they "should be signed off with the initials of whoever wrote it".

I'm not bothered what they do. I'm intrigued who writes the AFT posts and would like to know. But that's my problem not theirs.

There may be very sound personal reasons why individual members of the AFT board choose not to put their names to posts - just as there are very sound reasons why people who work behind the scenes for the AFT also have ticked the 'no publicity' box. I have also looked on it as the AFT board showing that they are broadly united on the plans of action. Of course they can't be 100% agreed about everything and if there ever was a serious split I as a member (1401) would have a right to know.

I don't think there is any contradiction at all about asking those using a generic account to identify themselves.

Name some very sound reasons why individual members might choose not to put their names to posts.

I have listed many reasons why it should be done.  I can't see any real reason expressed why they shouldn't.

That's how I read the situation knecht - it shows unity. There's no point having a fractuous supporters group, a group is unified by key interests.

By initialing each post though, certain people would know when or when not to engage full on loony tunes attack mode.

hairy j wrote:

That's how I read the situation knecht - it shows unity. There's no point having a fractuous supporters group, a group is unified by key interests.

By initialing each post though, certain people would know when or when not to engage full on loony tunes attack mode.

It would help you, because you play the man and not the ball most of the time.

Like I said... If the PASB were making announcements this way, there would be a non-stop diatribe of abuse aimed at them.

Rickler wrote:

How about a culture of allowing individuals to stand separate from group identities?  That fit in with your socialist ideas?

  Where does socialism come into this ?  I'm quite willing to widen the debate if you wish, but don't understand your point. I'm not aware of socialism being anti the individual, quite the opposite.

For an instance, some groups are families, and sometimes speak as one, sometimes not. It's the eternal human condition, self and community. The audit trail you seem to be advocating for every utterance seems rather totalitarian to me. If you don't like the way the AFT operates, change it, or if you can't, leave it. I actually have reservations about the Trust in their perceived wish to concrete over more of a well loved park and have zilch chance of  changing that. So, I don't join. Individual choice, not bad for a socialist.

I don't have a problem with AFT board members posting using the Trust account as long as it is used correctly.

Rickler wrote:

........
I don't think there is any contradiction at all about asking those using a generic account to identify themselves.
....

I still think there's a contradiction there - but I understand where you're coming from. If they identify themselves doesn't it stop being generic?

Why use an anonymised account?
To show a united front.
To stop personalised attacks thus deflecting discussion from the issues (as is happening here).
To enable individual board members to post separately if they have other views to post or even if they have some disagreement with the totality of the AFT message.
Because they choose to.

I actually don't see any problem as long as there is no significant disagreement on the board.

mouldyoldgoat wrote:

I don't have a problem with AFT board members posting using the Trust account as long as it is used correctly.

Exactly.

Define used correctly?

There is a difference in the AFT using the account to announce a 'car boot sale' or something else 'factual' and using the account like it was used recently (by Andy), to 'attack' an idea or a person.

Or using it to big yourself up.

There is a big difference between --

"AFT Chairman Andy Symons has done a wonderful job as chair of the AFT and without Andy and everything Andy brought to the AFT, we would be nowhere and so we would all like to thank Andy..."

Signed Andy Symons.

Or being signed: Tim Chown.

I must confess that I'm having trouble in seeing any problem with

a) the article itself, or b) who wrote it

Whether it was Andy, the Trust, a Trust member whoever, the most important thing that the local press has highlighted that all is not well with the HHP development.

That surely has to be a good thing?

If Tim Chown is writing the scripts then I would have thought he would have been man enough to say so...or indeed the chairman if it was him.hiding behind a AFT banner is oh so Deep Throat,,,,

greensleeves wrote:

If Tim Chown is writing the scripts then I would have thought he would have been man enough to say so...or indeed the chairman if it was him.hiding behind a AFT banner is oh so Deep Throat,,,,

.....

Who'd have thought it, Rickler and greensleeves towing the same line.   

I think it's a case of the enemy of my enemy being my friend.

greensleeves wrote:

If Tim Chown is writing the scripts then I would have thought he would have been man enough to say so...or indeed the chairman if it was him.hiding behind a AFT banner is oh so Deep Throat,,,,

Its nothing like deep throat. It posts information about things to do with AFT, its community projects and Argyle matters.

mouldyoldgoat wrote:

I don't have a problem with AFT board members posting using the Trust account as long as it is used correctly.

Its like the greensleeves account by that i mean its used by more than one person, to keep the peace could the person using it simply not do what some twitter accounts do and intial it at the end? might stop conspiracies being made then.

GOB wrote:

Who'd have thought it,   Rickler and greensleeves towing the same line.   

Who'd have thought it...  Gob groveling for the same crumbs as hairy.


And PlymptonPilgrim...  It's not the article in the Herald. Indeed a good thing. It is to do with who is penning the ATD posts on this forum.

Hey GOB o/

That's a little internet me doing a high five!

What conspiracy would there be with a shared AFT account? We all know who they are. Deepthroat was being used by people we didn't know the identities of (although it was fairly obvious as the pasoti mods allowed it to happen). It's ridiculous. I see the AFT posts as 'spokesman' posts. Any one who doesn't is looking for agendas that don't exist. Whacko stuff.

The article's pretty moderate and spot on. Well done Andy.

High fives?

Jeez..  How childless and desperate are you to score an imaginary point?  

Imaginary, because nobody is talking 'conspiracy' except you.  In your own little clueless world again.

Well done Andy Symons. It is good that although I only been on this forum a short time its refreshing to read everyone's views (whatever their opinion) knowing they are not influenced by what they take out of PAFC.

Focus on shooting at the messenger and not the message is part of the reason why Pasoti is pointless these days and a big factor in why I no longer really give a toss about Argyle other than enjoying a game every now and then.

People would do well to remember why the AFT log-in was set up originally (albeit on Pasoti at first). It was a response to man-not-ball tactics from widely-known individuals with a clear interest in destablising or discrediting the work the Trust was doing by attacking people and not policy. Compromise and communication is a pre-requisite for the Trust but ivory tower-dwellers only have to conform to their own purity. It's a much easier life.

I would say that Andy's views as the Chair of the Trust carry weight, are relevant and are firmly in line with the documented and agreed objectives of the Trust. And if Trust members disagree then there are channels to take that up and get the policy changed.

I'm reminded of a well-crafted bit of Sorkin genius from the West Wing for non-Trust members with a view:

Toby: You're concerned about American labor and manufacturing.
Congressman: Yeah.
Toby: What kind of car do you drive?
Congressman: Toyota.
Toby: Then shut up.