Athletics Weekly

Jack is a dull lad

Any non-athletics related discussion

Jack is a dull lad

Postby Wingit » Tue Nov 08, 2005 12:11 pm

Copy of an e mail received during recent discussion:-

"What AW fail to understand is that it needs dissenters to help sell their mag and make the forum tick. I have looked on the forum for the last four days and it has been dead with the magazine of last week also being very dull and boring, is this beccause they are all singing from the same hymn sheet and going along in harmony with the tedium of it all and slapping one another on the back, well lets see what happens in the long term because harmony never lasts for long within any institution and it eventually starts to fall apart, wouldnt the houses of parliament be a monastery full of silence and unopinionation without fiece debate and opposition? A lesson that AW should learn quickly if it wants to survive as folk are cancelling subscriptions quicker than clubs are rushing to the vote!! they need opposers to keep interest focussed."

Well what do you think?
Wingit
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 2:18 pm

Postby frank plunkett » Tue Nov 08, 2005 12:44 pm

To true Wingit!

I have tried to send A.W a letter which clearly shows an alternative analysis of the Foster poll...but for some unexplicable reason, They are being returned, this has never occured before, I hope my hard copy doesn't mysteriously vapourize. Here it is for any body who is interested.

Dear Editor,
would you be as kind as to print this short, simple but accurate analysis of the foster poll?


Why not look at these poll figures in a more fair and reasonable manner, i.e.

1250 clubs (a minimum of 75,000 members) did not vote in support of the Foster report, this represents 85% of eligible voters!

As a whole (not in 4 parts) vote, it would have been a draw!
But still only with 30% of all possible votes

The Scottish and Welsh votes “were not required” or identified in the results! Why were they used?

No figure was democratically agreed on for victory, prior to the vote! Therefore 15% can never equate to a democratic victory!

To attempt pushing forwards irregardless of opinion and without redressing these serious errors is the behavior of those, who in my opinion are unworthy of our costly but freely given voluntary time and expertise!

there is more than enough time to start the whole process again, but this time with a properly agreed agenda, fully independent consultation, proper selection of leadership which mainly represents the clubs, transparency, accountability, string free funding and no political interference....full club involvement and acknowledgement of our ownership of our sport.


I have to wonder why this was not done in the first instance :?:


If such letters do not get printed then my subscription will be cancelled after 15 years of loyal readership, it seems that A.W is not people orientated any more so my £2.50 will go towards anybody wishing to start up an independent British athletic association which is free from politics,
and who operates an effective athletics news letter and forum! :idea:
frank plunkett
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 1:26 pm

Postby Jon Mulkeen » Tue Nov 08, 2005 1:21 pm

frank plunkett wrote:for some unexplicable reason, They are being returned


The email server has been down since last Thursday. Up working again as of last night.
Jon Mulkeen
Site Admin
 
Posts: 536
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 9:50 am

Postby penguin » Tue Nov 08, 2005 3:26 pm

well that wxplains the returns but would the letter or letters be printed?
penguin
 
Posts: 98
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 10:37 pm

Postby Minerva » Wed Nov 09, 2005 12:34 am

penguin wrote:well that wxplains the returns but would the letter or letters be printed?


I don't see why not. I don't work for AW but am a regular reader and they did have 4 weeks with for and against the aspects of the Project Board proposals and I think it has done a good job in remaining impartial during this period.

My guess is that on the week that the news that the majority of proposals had received favourable responses (from those that replied) that they printed the more positive letters and that maybe this week will be the backlash from the naysayers.

Alternatively maybe AW don't want to see athletics self-destruct and will not stir things up even more by printing destructive comments when there is an urgent need to unit and work together rather than continue to fight.

I guess we will find out on Wednesday.
Minerva
 
Posts: 198
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 11:05 pm
Location: London

Postby zen » Wed Nov 09, 2005 1:41 am

Or maybe they are simply pro establishment.

You missed that one? :D
zen
 
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:54 pm

Postby pegleg » Wed Nov 09, 2005 5:28 pm

Minerva wrote:maybe this week will be the backlash from the naysayers.
So what do you make of the letters in this week's issue?

Minerva wrote:maybe AW don't want to see athletics self-destruct
Judging by the comment pieces on the contents pages of the last issues, I'd say that's a fair assessment.
pegleg
 
Posts: 133
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2005 9:27 am

Postby zen » Thu Nov 10, 2005 12:18 pm

Athletics will not self destruct, irregardless of whether we have a governing body or not! For some reason A.W are unable to side with the majority....as well demonstrated through the polls on this site! :roll:
zen
 
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:54 pm

Postby Minerva » Thu Nov 10, 2005 7:11 pm

zen wrote:Athletics will not self destruct, irregardless of whether we have a governing body or not! For some reason A.W are unable to side with the majority....as well demonstrated through the polls on this site! :roll:


There are less than 150 members on this site. Of them only a small percentage are regularly contributing. The polls being put up on this site are by a small minority and replied to by the same small group of people - how does that make them representative of the majority???

(I am sure you will be able to correct me in factual terms)


Maybe the people who feel more positively about things have just decided to do what David Moorcroft said in AW this week and will give up listening the same arguments all the time and are trying to move forward. Maybe they just dont frequent this board - it doesnt mean that they dont exist.
Minerva
 
Posts: 198
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 11:05 pm
Location: London

Postby Wingit » Thu Nov 10, 2005 7:16 pm

Just like the Uka poll eh? taking the minority and ignoring the rest, you got it in one
Wingit
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 2:18 pm

Postby frank plunkett » Thu Nov 10, 2005 9:04 pm

Perhaps Zen is doing what UKA has done and that is to construct a way of achieving a desired outcome...simple if you really think about it, Der!!!


Regarding the poll figures many vote without submitting a response, so who knows which of the 150 have voted :?: :?: :?: ...the rest have the opportunity, so perhaps Zen is taking it for granted that the rest agree with him. (isn't that how its done?)

You cannot move forward until fair and reasonable arguments have been properly addressed, to his discredit Moorcroft is deliberately failing to do this, and is accusing the victims of the Foster poll of being Bitter when they keep reminding him of their valid points.


Maybe the 85% of clubs who did not vote for Foster, feel very positive about their stance against being dragged into the unknown, by Sport England driven inexperienced payed individuals.

Minerva, quoted

There are less than 150 members on this site. Of them only a small percentage are regularly contributing. The polls being put up on this site are by a small minority and replied to by the same small group of people


do you have personal knowledge of who has actually voted :?: :shock:


So a small body of people UKA set up a Foster POll and only a few vote on it, is this what you are saying????? :idea:
frank plunkett
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 1:26 pm

Postby zen » Fri Nov 11, 2005 12:50 am

Are you up to answering this one Minerva????
zen
 
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:54 pm

contravention of data protection act

Postby magician » Fri Nov 11, 2005 4:12 pm

SOOTY says, there is another magician on this forum, who makes wooden legged statements breaking the data protection act, then makes them dissapear faster then they appeared in the first place!

SWEEP says SUZIE is unhappy about the fact that the A.W censures are overstepping their legal entitlement :x

Whats thats SOOTY? go and find a good solicitor :idea: :evil:
magician
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 1:23 am

Postby frank plunkett » Sat Nov 12, 2005 11:40 am

I think we need a clean Sweep :lol:
frank plunkett
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 1:26 pm

Postby zen » Sun Nov 13, 2005 2:17 am

Oh very funny :D
zen
 
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:54 pm

Postby longthrow » Sun Nov 20, 2005 11:39 am

whats all this sooty and sweep nonsense, Basil Brush boom boom now their is a useful critic.
longthrow
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2005 4:47 pm

Postby Word Warrior » Sun Apr 09, 2006 7:15 pm

I remember Wingit, I wonder where he is posting now, anyone know?
Word Warrior
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2006 3:21 pm

Postby Stattler » Sun Apr 09, 2006 8:19 pm

Ask Waldorf :lol:
Stattler
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2006 8:03 pm


Return to Off track

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

 

Athletics Weekly Limited © 2010. Terms of use

Design by The Church of London