What I said at 2.04 (I presume that is the one you meant baldric) was
"Maybe Mr Clift wasn't involved in the Pierre incident at all, Mr Plant. In my recollection he was."
a recollection that others seem to have too.
I then said "but I might well be wrong. It doesn't really matter - the fact that I (and I am sure others) have a vague association between Mr Clift and that incident is why if I was Vital I would keep well away from him"
If Mr Clift is seen (justifiably or not) by many as having been involved in a number of unsavoury incidents including the one involving Pierre, I think he would taints Vitals brand by them endorsing him.
I then said "As I say their" (Vital's) "call though"
which it is.
Anyway its a minor issue as as I have said before Vital can use who they wish to write reports and I can choose whether to read them.
I'm also bored. I'm not here to defend Mr Clift but accusing people of things they didn't actually do and then saying it matters not whether they did it or not is a bit more than your usual hypothetical conjecture isn't it. Did the girl on the train enjoy it?
Ok, by the same stick, I can't really remember properly, but I think I might have seen someone called DevC mentioned as a close associate and accomplice of Jimmy Savile, I'm not sure if I've completely made that up or not, but I'm now treating you as a nonce. Hope you're ok with that.
For once, I have to come out clearly against you, @DevC .
The notion that @vital should steer away from association with @clifty04 because of an uncertain perception other people have about him - referring to Ketchupgate - is one of the foundation stones of much that is wrong with modern reasoning. While it has its origins in the way more primitive communities would protect themselves by shunning outsiders and those who deviated from the common purpose, it has become a way of shutting out alternative voices and ideas from the mainstream media in order to prevent challenges to orthodox thought. This idea that you should not associate with a person because other people say he's the wrong sort of person without being able to articulate a clear reason why is wrong-headed and dangerous to the development of a coherent society.
There are criticisms to be made of Gypsygate - absolutely. But they are narrow and have been discussed above. The idea that a general, unspecified feeling among some proportion of a constituency provides cause, or even an implied obligation, for others not possessed of that feeling to shun the target is dangerous and divisive. I am strongly opposed to the notion in principle.
As it happens, @drcongo has provided information that agrees with my recollection. AC was present though not part of the Stokes affair. I strongly disagree with AC's opinion about the rights and wrongs of it as expressed in the posts DRC links to. That is something I could discuss with him if I was ever minded to bring it up, here or on the terrace. As it is, I am not minded to. Instead, I can reconcile it with my impression of a young man who enjoys and shows some significant commitment to following the club, who might from time to time have a tendency to impetuous and very unwise invective on social media when he really is old enough to know better and who is able to present facts and string a sentence together to an at least workable standard in a match report.
As an aside... Do people actually read who the authors of the match reports are? I would never know if it was clifty or not if it wasn't talked about on the gasroom, I read the reports to either get an idea of what happened at the game if I wasn't there, or go back over the game if I was, not to critique the author.
Always happy for people to disagree HC. Maybe on this instance I'm wrong.
I had a clear recollection that Mr Clift was involved in the Pierre incident amongst others. But I couldn't swear to it. But in a commercial world if Mr Clift associated with the group that were and was associated in a significant number of customers minds with that incident and others, I wouldn't use him as a result. harsh perhaps, but reality nonetheless.
This of course is not a commercial world and essentially Vital is not important. they form a different judgement, that's fine with me, if a little surprising (especially as it is now confirmed he was involved with the pierre incident)
As it happens I do choose to read his reports. I find them a little immature and black and white for my taste but again if I don't like it don't read it.
Mr Clift may be a fine if immature young man for all I know. If I met him I would wish him well. He may g on to have a fine career perhaps in sports journalism for all I know. He would do well to recognise that his behaviour (including tweets) now may have an influence on that ambition.
The one point where this thread threatened to get interesting was when someone asked if there was a situation in which @vital wouldn't use the services of a volunteer match reporter? I accept this may be none of my business, but i'd be interested to know.
It is indeed a harsh reality you describe, Dev but I accept it is a reality. Remembering that this is on the narrow question of whether it is proper to expect a third party to distance themselves from a person against whom we have a grievance of some sort, even if it is unclearly formed or evidenced, do we not ultimately forge the form of reality we want to exist in, within the limits of unconscious biological impulses? I suggest that it is perfectly possible, and desirable, for beings wishing to exist in a rational society to reserve judgement to a much greater degree and to make those judgements much more precise and narrow insofar as they affect a view of a person than the one implied in your posts on the point.
From my pure high horse and pedestal i would say @Vital can publish who he wants also i think ketchupgate and gypsygate aside once the suggestion he would not mind Hitler or isis writing for him has been mentioned l feel it's probably time to draw a veil down.
I feel the need to comment on some of the stuff I've just read on here.
Over the course of a decade running Vital, I've been grateful to a diverse range of supporters who have kindly contributed to the site. We've had old gits (like me), middle aged curmudgeons and a variety of passionate youngsters who all love the club.
I was delighted when Adam volunteered a few years ago as he came from a particular group of fans whose opinions were not already represented and I hoped it might help bridge a gap.
Vital is not a news site, it's a fan site, and the intention is to inform with previews & stats, report (with opinions), and entertain with opposition views.
The opinions are there to be shot down, challenged, agreed with, disagreed with, whatever you like. It's just opinion though, not abuse.
Adam's social media activity is a different matter altogether. It's his responsibility and gypsygate was a serious error of judgement on his part, for which he was taken to task.
In the aftermath, you either accept that someone is genuinely remorseful, show a bit of loyalty and stick with them, or write them off.
Comments
A sure sign that you accept having lost the argument!
Or got bored with it, Mooney.
What I said at 2.04 (I presume that is the one you meant baldric) was
"Maybe Mr Clift wasn't involved in the Pierre incident at all, Mr Plant. In my recollection he was."
a recollection that others seem to have too.
I then said "but I might well be wrong. It doesn't really matter - the fact that I (and I am sure others) have a vague association between Mr Clift and that incident is why if I was Vital I would keep well away from him"
If Mr Clift is seen (justifiably or not) by many as having been involved in a number of unsavoury incidents including the one involving Pierre, I think he would taints Vitals brand by them endorsing him.
I then said "As I say their" (Vital's) "call though"
which it is.
Anyway its a minor issue as as I have said before Vital can use who they wish to write reports and I can choose whether to read them.
I'm also bored. I'm not here to defend Mr Clift but accusing people of things they didn't actually do and then saying it matters not whether they did it or not is a bit more than your usual hypothetical conjecture isn't it. Did the girl on the train enjoy it?
Ok, by the same stick, I can't really remember properly, but I think I might have seen someone called DevC mentioned as a close associate and accomplice of Jimmy Savile, I'm not sure if I've completely made that up or not, but I'm now treating you as a nonce. Hope you're ok with that.
https://gasroom.org/discussion/comment/49073/#Comment_49073
Also relevant, given that we "dragged" him into it. https://gasroom.org/discussion/comment/49079/#Comment_49079
That's the first-hand account then. That's all some of us were after - not DevC jumping up and down regardless of the evidence.
Maybe the friends of Mr Stokes could make themselves more easily identifiable by running off a few 'I was there' t-shirts?
Love on a pedestal,
Livin it up when I'm going down!
For once, I have to come out clearly against you, @DevC .
The notion that @vital should steer away from association with @clifty04 because of an uncertain perception other people have about him - referring to Ketchupgate - is one of the foundation stones of much that is wrong with modern reasoning. While it has its origins in the way more primitive communities would protect themselves by shunning outsiders and those who deviated from the common purpose, it has become a way of shutting out alternative voices and ideas from the mainstream media in order to prevent challenges to orthodox thought. This idea that you should not associate with a person because other people say he's the wrong sort of person without being able to articulate a clear reason why is wrong-headed and dangerous to the development of a coherent society.
There are criticisms to be made of Gypsygate - absolutely. But they are narrow and have been discussed above. The idea that a general, unspecified feeling among some proportion of a constituency provides cause, or even an implied obligation, for others not possessed of that feeling to shun the target is dangerous and divisive. I am strongly opposed to the notion in principle.
As it happens, @drcongo has provided information that agrees with my recollection. AC was present though not part of the Stokes affair. I strongly disagree with AC's opinion about the rights and wrongs of it as expressed in the posts DRC links to. That is something I could discuss with him if I was ever minded to bring it up, here or on the terrace. As it is, I am not minded to. Instead, I can reconcile it with my impression of a young man who enjoys and shows some significant commitment to following the club, who might from time to time have a tendency to impetuous and very unwise invective on social media when he really is old enough to know better and who is able to present facts and string a sentence together to an at least workable standard in a match report.
@HCblue what's 'ketchupgate'?
Same as the Stokes affair.
As an aside... Do people actually read who the authors of the match reports are? I would never know if it was clifty or not if it wasn't talked about on the gasroom, I read the reports to either get an idea of what happened at the game if I wasn't there, or go back over the game if I was, not to critique the author.
I thought that was about Beany. How was ketchup involved?
Always happy for people to disagree HC. Maybe on this instance I'm wrong.
I had a clear recollection that Mr Clift was involved in the Pierre incident amongst others. But I couldn't swear to it. But in a commercial world if Mr Clift associated with the group that were and was associated in a significant number of customers minds with that incident and others, I wouldn't use him as a result. harsh perhaps, but reality nonetheless.
This of course is not a commercial world and essentially Vital is not important. they form a different judgement, that's fine with me, if a little surprising (especially as it is now confirmed he was involved with the pierre incident)
As it happens I do choose to read his reports. I find them a little immature and black and white for my taste but again if I don't like it don't read it.
Mr Clift may be a fine if immature young man for all I know. If I met him I would wish him well. He may g on to have a fine career perhaps in sports journalism for all I know. He would do well to recognise that his behaviour (including tweets) now may have an influence on that ambition.
You really do have too much spare time @arnos_grove, still very good though! :-)
So let me get this straight..Ben Stokes didn't hit those lads in Bristol, they were using his own brand of ketchup against him to fake injury?
The one point where this thread threatened to get interesting was when someone asked if there was a situation in which @vital wouldn't use the services of a volunteer match reporter? I accept this may be none of my business, but i'd be interested to know.
Tory voter?
It is indeed a harsh reality you describe, Dev but I accept it is a reality. Remembering that this is on the narrow question of whether it is proper to expect a third party to distance themselves from a person against whom we have a grievance of some sort, even if it is unclearly formed or evidenced, do we not ultimately forge the form of reality we want to exist in, within the limits of unconscious biological impulses? I suggest that it is perfectly possible, and desirable, for beings wishing to exist in a rational society to reserve judgement to a much greater degree and to make those judgements much more precise and narrow insofar as they affect a view of a person than the one implied in your posts on the point.
From my pure high horse and pedestal i would say @Vital can publish who he wants also i think ketchupgate and gypsygate aside once the suggestion he would not mind Hitler or isis writing for him has been mentioned l feel it's probably time to draw a veil down.
@eric_plant the reports would be slightly confused but we would at least get out of L2!
What about John Worboys for future match reports?
Ah. But which way!
Please explain.
Who suggested he might like to have ISIS or Hitler write for him?
I feel the need to comment on some of the stuff I've just read on here.
Over the course of a decade running Vital, I've been grateful to a diverse range of supporters who have kindly contributed to the site. We've had old gits (like me), middle aged curmudgeons and a variety of passionate youngsters who all love the club.
I was delighted when Adam volunteered a few years ago as he came from a particular group of fans whose opinions were not already represented and I hoped it might help bridge a gap.
Vital is not a news site, it's a fan site, and the intention is to inform with previews & stats, report (with opinions), and entertain with opposition views.
The opinions are there to be shot down, challenged, agreed with, disagreed with, whatever you like. It's just opinion though, not abuse.
Adam's social media activity is a different matter altogether. It's his responsibility and gypsygate was a serious error of judgement on his part, for which he was taken to task.
In the aftermath, you either accept that someone is genuinely remorseful, show a bit of loyalty and stick with them, or write them off.
Then you hope you made the right decision.
Some posters on here get that, and I thank them.
Thanks @Vital, very helpful.
Well put, @vital. You should get into writing.