Forum Replies Created
-
2 users thanked author for this post.
Southend United put plenty of statements out regarding the winding up orders they have received and as sanfran mentions there was no word from the club about transfer embargoes, complete radio silence from the club until it comes to attacking the fans.
They are pathetic. Full of excuses for why they can’t communicate a single thing and have no accountability. Yet they jump the gun every time to attack the fans. They cannot condone the protests, but some understanding would go some way when emotions have been boiling over, exacerbated by the lack of information. I get NDAs and such exclude us from knowing everything, but some messaging of support and information would go some way to us thinking they give a damn about the support base.
Every time they downplay it, saying a deal is close, there’s nothing to worry about. Even now Turnbull’s apparently making out the winding up order is nothing because Southend have had 17, according to MM. It may not be the end yet, but it’s not nothing; healthy clubs don’t go through this. That comment to MM is revealing as to how the fans’ concerns are being treated. The more Lee and others bury their heads in the sand and ignore fan concerns the more the relationship between club and fanbase will sever.
It’s not good enough to say how everything’s fine, and then shift the goalposts when winding up orders are issued and make out the fanbase are being OTT.
5 users thanked author for this post.
There are few actions without downsides, but some might say the publicity is a price worth paying to put pressure on Swann.
Looking through a few other forums and it has made it on to there. None were discussing our plight when we didn’t.
1 user thanked author for this post.
It’s promising when we have Notts County and Vale fans coming on here to warn us about prospective owners. Makes me confident about the future!
1 user thanked author for this post.
All JI was doing was laying out what he believes. Of course we can disagree and find it to be false or way off the mark. I don’t get the vitriol about it. I don’t think JI was being so originally.
What is this about a black lesbian? I missed that one.
2 users thanked author for this post.
Clear as mud.
Don’t get me wrong, I have my suspicions as to the reason being an unwillingness to sell to them for personal reasons.
1 user thanked author for this post.
Given Simon said that they have an offer which ticks all the boxes, and Swann is apparently willing to compromise, I wonder what the delay is. I know I am assuming some trust in Swann, but we have to take into account that it might be truthful.
I know some have pinned all their hopes on the Elliott-Sharp consortium, but I’d be happy with anyone reputable. The problem is that the other mooted figures, the London consortium, Smurthwaite, Hardy etc don’t seem to be those I’d want anywhere near the club.
4 users thanked author for this post.
I think it’s more likely he’s trying to go for a larger than valuation offer to pay off his gambling debts and some more than some sinister scheme for housing. Why bother trying to sell if that’s his goal?
The offer made by the consortium is indicated to suit Begbies, which means it should be good enough for a sale (if true), but not for someone who might want to gamble for a bit more to help himself out of a situation where he owes millions.
1 user thanked author for this post.
From a business perspective it makes sense to get as much as you can from a sale. However, if the bids don’t quite match that, catastrophe looms, and you supposedly care about the club there surely comes a point where you accept a lower bid for the good of the fans for the conscientious owner.
1 user thanked author for this post.
From left to right: Kliment Vorishilov, Vyachoslav Molotov, Joseph Stalin, Nikolai Yezhov (one photo only):
https://www.history.com/news/josef-stalin-great-purge-photo-retouching
Before Bucks or anyone starts, no I am not comparing Tories to the Bolsheviks. Of course I realis the latter was far worse. It’s just intended as a joke, since this Shapps/Sunak stunt reminds me of this.
1 user thanked author for this post.
Am I? I completely accept that not everything can be pigeon holed.
However, I would argue the opposite. I accept there are generalisations above. Some things are more irrational or rational than others, not everyone would put comfort as the reason for their faith. However, my comments are aimed at those who don’t seem to understand why someone like JI may choose a religious path, even if it seems irrational, and a lot of it does appear to be ridicule because of a failing to understand why someone might still believe.
I have let it known that I am an atheist. I have argued with bpg about his own rigid fundamentalism several times before and I have with JI on things like abortion. I stand by my opposition to what I see as controlling aspects of religion which affect others. However, I don’t think some of the comments above are about that. They seem to be dismissive and ignorant of why some people might believe. Despite disagreements on faith I feel like we can understand why someone believes, based on a human desire to feel connected with others, wanting something more and connection. Faith gives that. Just because it’s not for me, or others, it doesn’t mean some can’t get a lot out of it.
I would say my position is not religious at all. I am sceptical of all ideology. Religions like Christianity and Islam. Political ideologies like communism or fascism. More moderate positions too. It’s these things which cloud people’s minds and cause them to act in manners we’d see as inappropriate, through a belief it’s for the greater good. However, I realise that we need to have some guiding principles in how we want society to be, politically, so having a political ideology you generally subscribe to is hard to avoid. Similar applies for others when it comes to religion. It’s not a necessity for a moral life, you can find purpose without it, but it is one avenue for some to find purpose. So long as they don’t infringe upon others I am fine with it.
My objections to the above is that calling JI’s beliefs fairy stories and loony is antagonistic and ignorant of why people like JI believe. Yes, In theory I agree with such statements, because I don’t believe the Biblical story to be an accurate representation of the world, but it often hides a lack of empathy for or understanding as to why some believe. Maybe this is a little politically correct of me, but I think it would be better for a unity with as many people as possible, so long as they’re decent in spirit (not meant religiously here). If I was to set off against everyone who believed in things I find disagreeable I’d have few friends, colleagues or allies.
I agree that some people are beyond comradeship and hold too many objectionable views or personality traits to be close to in any way, and sometimes any unification of humanity is sometimes hindered by others’ actions (as I have discussed with JI earlier in this very thread). Life is full of paradoxes and we do have limits. However, I think such limits should be minimised.
I am sorry if this is preachy, but one paradox in this is that I accept no-one is perfect, let alone me. I fail to be an ideal match for my principles, as outlined above, just like anyone.
1 user thanked author for this post.
I don’t think the talk of loony views is understanding of the human condition really. Many people want to feel comfort and a purpose in life, and religion fills that for some. I don’t like it when bpg and others make out this is the only possible way for a fulfilling life, but it obviously does for some.
The need for comfort and desire to see loved ones again is very real and an understandable feeling. I don’t think it’s comparable to flat Earth for this reason, and while I may agree that I don’t find Christianity or other religion to be evidence based or necessarily rational, it is part of a common human desire for understanding and feeling of fulfilment. Even if we don’t agree with the beliefs we can understand the desire, surely, with empathy? Inability to comprehend the beliefs in the literal Biblical claims is understandable, as is seeing a move to describe Biblical teachings as metaphorical to be a bit wishy washy. However, surely the underlying motivations to do this aren’t.
It’s not just religion which is irrational. Humans as a whole are often irrational. I don’t think anyone here is without irrational beliefs, and I include myself in that. All ideology is an uneven fit for how humans behave. Communism and small state libertarianism are two examples I can think of which fit this perfectly. Their adherents seem adamant that they can solve the world’s problems, yet their cognitive dissonance prevents them from seeing how harmful this can be. Communism fails to understand that humans have individual needs and that not everything can be explained by the poor being done over by the bourgeoisie; greed can exist at all levels. Small state libertarianism assumes common sense and people’s own knowledge leads to a greater society. Yet it fails to understand that an individual’s decision impacts others (which is why a critique of libertarians often centres around selfishness; their fight for rights is often based on their own individual need, to the lack of care for others), that some people won’t take others into account for important decisions to the detriment of the whole and that some people won’t go with the evidence based position, which can have hugely negative impacts on society.
Given all this, I cannot be too harsh on theists for believing. Just so long as they don’t push their ideology on others and expect debate when they say stuff like God is the source of morality, I am fine.
An interesting video on this to finish off:
1 user thanked author for this post.
I mean irritation towards JI.
1 user thanked author for this post.
My interpretation is that JI accepts the scientific findings, like the age of the Earth, but sees it as guidance from God.
I don’t know why he has had some irritation over this. I disagree with it, but I have no problem with faith, so long as they don’t force it on others. I am fine with Christians stating they don’t agree with abortion or gay marriage or whatever, so long as it doesn’t influence the state and how others live their lives. That’s when I would push back.
3 users thanked author for this post.
