Remove this ad
avatar

NottyImp

Time I got out more!

Posts: 5,635 Member Since:02/08/2006

#81 [url]

Oct 23 07 2:16 PM

I think thats the same with a lot of people BJM - on both sides of the debate.


I think it's fair to say that anyone who follows the "political" side of the club (as opposed to just turning up to watch the games) has an "agenda" of some kind. I certainly do, and it can be found from reading my posts.

The key for me is how you pursue it, and in particular, how you present it on m/bs. My own view is that open debate furthers the aspirations we have for our club, and that requires that I engage with people that agree and disagree with me.

"Help, help I'm being repressed!"

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
avatar

ForumerDeletedUser

Newbie

Posts: 0 Member Since:20/04/2016

#82 [url]

Oct 23 07 2:51 PM

Impsforever wrote:
I think thats the same with a lot of people BJM - on both sides of the debate.


I think it's fair to say that anyone who follows the "political" side of the club (as opposed to just turning up to watch the games) has an "agenda" of some kind. I certainly do, and it can be found from reading my posts.

The key for me is how you pursue it, and in particular, how you present it on m/bs. My own view is that open debate furthers the aspirations we have for our club, and that requires that I engage with people that agree and disagree with me.


But I don't understand what people mean by "agenda". I have no agenda, other than I am unhappy and have been for some time with various aspects of the club. Does that mean I am gloating about the problems or uncaring about them, wanting the club to fail? No it bloody doesn't.

The word "agenda" seems to suggest insidiousness and wanting the downfall of something or someone, and people tend to use the phrase to stop an argument. Accusing someone of having an agenda is akin to calling them a Nazi and I've noticed that a lot on LCFC messageboards.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

EddieDillsworth

Posts: 932 Member Since:03/08/2006

#83 [url]

Oct 23 07 4:01 PM

arnoldrimmer wrote:
But I don't understand what people mean by "agenda". I have no agenda, other than I am unhappy and have been for some time with various aspects of the club. Does that mean I am gloating about the problems or uncaring about them, wanting the club to fail? No it bloody doesn't.


Surely agenda just means that you have a personal motivation which could lead to a bias? As you say you do have an agenda in that you are unhappy with aspects of the club and therefore you are likely to be critical of these aspects. It doesn't follow that you want the club to fail.

The word "agenda" seems to suggest insidiousness and wanting the downfall of something or someone, and people tend to use the phrase to stop an argument. Accusing someone of having an agenda is akin to calling them a Nazi and I've noticed that a lot on LCFC messageboards.


I think that is being a little emotive. Just because someone has an agenda it doesn't mean that it is bad. The Daily Mail clearly has a political agenda as does the Guardian. These are from opposite extremes. In the context of LCFC those who favour, for whatever reasons, a community based club based on the principles set out by Supporters Direct have an agenda that is likely to see them anti PLC. All it means, to me, is that I just think a little more deeply about what they are saying and what motivates it.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

impede

More than a Demi-God

Posts: 1,681 Member Since:26/07/2006

#84 [url]

Oct 23 07 4:33 PM

Uh-oh - we debated the semantics of agenda last year and some people got banned as a result. I suggest that we all just agree on the dictionary definition:
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/agenda?view=uk

agenda
noun
• 1 a list of items of business to be discussed at a meeting.
• 2 a list of matters to be addressed.

— ORIGIN Latin, ‘things to be done’.


http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861584135
agenda


a·gen·da


noun (plural a·gen·das)
Definition:

1. list of things to do: a formal list of things to be done in a specific order, especially a list of things to be discussed at a meeting

2. matters needing attention: the various matters that somebody needs to deal with at a specific time
What's your agenda for today?

3. personal motivation: an underlying personal viewpoint or bias
Of course she's in favor, but then she has her own agenda.

Definition:


Plural of agendum

[Early 17th century. < Latin, plural of agendum "thing to be done" < agere "to do"]

set the agenda to be the major influence or force affecting something
It is the environmental lobby that is setting the agenda in this round of negotiations.


http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=agenda
agenda Look up agenda at Dictionary.com
1657, from L., lit. "things to be done," from neut. pl. of agendum, gerundive of agere (see act). Originally theological (opposed to matters of belief), sense of "items of business to be done at a meeting" first attested 1882.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Stalin

Posts: 3,141 Member Since:28/07/2006

#85 [url]

Oct 23 07 5:30 PM

EddieDillsworth wrote:
arnoldrimmer wrote:
But I don't understand what people mean by "agenda". I have no agenda, other than I am unhappy and have been for some time with various aspects of the club. Does that mean I am gloating about the problems or uncaring about them, wanting the club to fail? No it bloody doesn't.


Surely agenda just means that you have a personal motivation which could lead to a bias? As you say you do have an agenda in that you are unhappy with aspects of the club and therefore you are likely to be critical of these aspects. It doesn't follow that you want the club to fail.

The word "agenda" seems to suggest insidiousness and wanting the downfall of something or someone, and people tend to use the phrase to stop an argument. Accusing someone of having an agenda is akin to calling them a Nazi and I've noticed that a lot on LCFC messageboards.


I think that is being a little emotive. Just because someone has an agenda it doesn't mean that it is bad. The Daily Mail clearly has a political agenda as does the Guardian. These are from opposite extremes. In the context of LCFC those who favour, for whatever reasons, a community based club based on the principles set out by Supporters Direct have an agenda that is likely to see them anti PLC. All it means, to me, is that I just think a little more deeply about what they are saying and what motivates it.


I dont think believing in a community club means you are anti-plc - thats exactly takes this issue from a reasoned debate to a polarised opinion based dictate debate

Quote    Reply   
avatar

ForumerDeletedUser

Newbie

Posts: 0 Member Since:20/04/2016

#86 [url]

Oct 23 07 5:52 PM

Stalin wrote:
EddieDillsworth wrote:
arnoldrimmer wrote:
But I don't understand what people mean by "agenda". I have no agenda, other than I am unhappy and have been for some time with various aspects of the club. Does that mean I am gloating about the problems or uncaring about them, wanting the club to fail? No it bloody doesn't.


Surely agenda just means that you have a personal motivation which could lead to a bias? As you say you do have an agenda in that you are unhappy with aspects of the club and therefore you are likely to be critical of these aspects. It doesn't follow that you want the club to fail.

The word "agenda" seems to suggest insidiousness and wanting the downfall of something or someone, and people tend to use the phrase to stop an argument. Accusing someone of having an agenda is akin to calling them a Nazi and I've noticed that a lot on LCFC messageboards.


I think that is being a little emotive. Just because someone has an agenda it doesn't mean that it is bad. The Daily Mail clearly has a political agenda as does the Guardian. These are from opposite extremes. In the context of LCFC those who favour, for whatever reasons, a community based club based on the principles set out by Supporters Direct have an agenda that is likely to see them anti PLC. All it means, to me, is that I just think a little more deeply about what they are saying and what motivates it.


I dont think believing in a community club means you are anti-plc - thats exactly takes this issue from a reasoned debate to a polarised opinion based dictate debate


Totally agree. To say "you are against the Trust therefore you must be Pro the PLC" is as stupid as saying that my enemies enemy is my friend. I've said that I think the PLC is not a good idea at this moment in time, but I wish that certain individuals who were on the board were still on it. It is not all black and white, there are many shades of grey.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

ForumerDeletedUser

Newbie

Posts: 0 Member Since:20/04/2016

#87 [url]

Oct 23 07 5:53 PM

redclanger wrote:
Uh-oh - we debated the semantics of agenda last year and some people got banned as a result.


Blimey.

Yes I can see the definitions but the fact is people aren't using them like it. To suggest "an agenda" it seems is to suggest an underlying work in progress to move against the status quo and effectively wish to harm the club or Trust. It always seems though that the only people who get the "agenda" tag are those who are not happy with the current set-up. Funny that!

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Dean

Gott in Himmel!

Posts: 3,037 Member Since:09/09/2007

#88 [url]

Oct 23 07 6:01 PM

arnoldrimmer wrote:
redclanger wrote:
Uh-oh - we debated the semantics of agenda last year and some people got banned as a result.


Blimey.

Yes I can see the definitions but the fact is people aren't using them like it. To suggest "an agenda" it seems is to suggest an underlying work in progress to move against the status quo and effectively wish to harm the club or Trust. It always seems though that the only people who get the "agenda" tag are those who are not happy with the current set-up. Funny that!



I think No3 of the 2nd description is very accurate of what is actually happening though. Just my opinion.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

ForumerDeletedUser

Newbie

Posts: 0 Member Since:20/04/2016

#89 [url]

Oct 23 07 6:04 PM

impfan wrote:
arnoldrimmer wrote:
redclanger wrote:
Uh-oh - we debated the semantics of agenda last year and some people got banned as a result.


Blimey.

Yes I can see the definitions but the fact is people aren't using them like it. To suggest "an agenda" it seems is to suggest an underlying work in progress to move against the status quo and effectively wish to harm the club or Trust. It always seems though that the only people who get the "agenda" tag are those who are not happy with the current set-up. Funny that!



I think No3 of the 2nd description is very accurate of what is actually happening though. Just my opinion.


The phrase is being used as a weapon though. Again, just my opinion, like yours mate.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Dean

Gott in Himmel!

Posts: 3,037 Member Since:09/09/2007

#90 [url]

Oct 23 07 6:07 PM

arnoldrimmer wrote:
impfan wrote:
arnoldrimmer wrote:
redclanger wrote:
Uh-oh - we debated the semantics of agenda last year and some people got banned as a result.


Blimey.

Yes I can see the definitions but the fact is people aren't using them like it. To suggest "an agenda" it seems is to suggest an underlying work in progress to move against the status quo and effectively wish to harm the club or Trust. It always seems though that the only people who get the "agenda" tag are those who are not happy with the current set-up. Funny that!



I think No3 of the 2nd description is very accurate of what is actually happening though. Just my opinion.


The phrase is being used as a weapon though. Again, just my opinion, like yours mate.


It is only a weapon if you feel under attack from it

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
avatar

impede

More than a Demi-God

Posts: 1,681 Member Since:26/07/2006

#91 [url]

Oct 23 07 6:07 PM

To be fair, Impsforever does describe himself as having an agenda.

PS if you want to see mine, impnut summed it up the other day.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

EddieDillsworth

Posts: 932 Member Since:03/08/2006

#93 [url]

Oct 23 07 6:13 PM

Stalin wrote:

I dont think believing in a community club means you are anti-plc - thats exactly takes this issue from a reasoned debate to a polarised opinion based dictate debate


No, but that is NOT what I said. I said: " community based club based on the principles set out by Supporters Direct" Now Supporters Direct requires that trusts be registered as an Industrial and Provident Society (IPS). An IPS belongs to its membership: every member owns one share, with a value of £1. Those shares cannot be traded or transferred.

Now it seems to me that if you strongly support the formation of an IPS for your supporters trust and you wish to have representation on your club's board that you are unlikely to support a PLC for the club.

Note I say "have an agenda that is likely to see them anti PLC" I tried to take some care with what I wrote and I don't like to simplify arguments.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

ForumerDeletedUser

Newbie

Posts: 0 Member Since:20/04/2016

#94 [url]

Oct 23 07 6:35 PM

EddieDillsworth wrote:
Stalin wrote:

I dont think believing in a community club means you are anti-plc - thats exactly takes this issue from a reasoned debate to a polarised opinion based dictate debate


No, but that is NOT what I said. I said: " community based club based on the principles set out by Supporters Direct" Now Supporters Direct requires that trusts be registered as an Industrial and Provident Society (IPS). An IPS belongs to its membership: every member owns one share, with a value of £1. Those shares cannot be traded or transferred.

Now it seems to me that if you strongly support the formation of an IPS for your supporters trust and you wish to have representation on your club's board that you are unlikely to support a PLC for the club.

Note I say "have an agenda that is likely to see them anti PLC" I tried to take some care with what I wrote and I don't like to simplify arguments.


But Eddie, you are arguing that to be against one thing is to be for another. That isn't true and IS simplifying things into a them and us basis. There are people here who have said they are unhappy or have difficulties regarding the Trust (Posh Imp for instance, sorry Posh you said it!), yet aren't singing the praises of the plc. People can be against X and also against Y you know.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

EddieDillsworth

Posts: 932 Member Since:03/08/2006

#95 [url]

Oct 23 07 7:00 PM

No I'm not. All I'm saying is that if you are strongly supportive of a movement founded upon the principles of an IPS it is likely (NOTE not certain) that you may not be supportive of a movement founded upon the principles of a PLC.

Arnold, I work in an industry founded upon logic so I'm pretty versed upon when x implies y and any other logical constructs you may want to mention.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Stalin

Posts: 3,141 Member Since:28/07/2006

#96 [url]

Oct 23 07 7:09 PM

Its semantics really based on principles to divide - now thats an agenda in action.

I dont know the ins and outs of all of Supporter Directs views - they seem to have some good and some very poor ideas based wholly on fantasy however I dont dismiss them.

You try to qualify what you say as "logic" whatever that is...Its a construction but not neccessarilly logic.

Step on the Jackson Express

Quote    Reply   
avatar

EddieDillsworth

Posts: 932 Member Since:03/08/2006

#97 [url]

Oct 23 07 7:19 PM

Stalin wrote:
Its semantics really based on principles to divide - now thats an agenda in action.


I don't want to have an argument nor do I any intention or desire to divide. I'm sorry if you think that. I really don't see how you can accuse me of being divisive when I'm merely pointing out that if you favour an IPS you may not favour a PLC. The two are based around totally different philosophies for a company, rather like socialism and capitalism in a sociological context. That's all, nothing more nothing less, no wrongs no rights.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Stalin

Posts: 3,141 Member Since:28/07/2006

#98 [url]

Oct 23 07 7:25 PM

Its not an arguement - its a disscussion and its your view - thats what we do on here.

I just find the undertones are used to put people in camps which is not how I see it. I think alot of us can unite round a few things and that should be our concentration, our focus.

im not sure capitalism and socialism are that far apart but then thats my political view...

Quote    Reply   
avatar

EddieDillsworth

Posts: 932 Member Since:03/08/2006

#99 [url]

Oct 23 07 7:29 PM

Stalin wrote:
I just find the undertones are used to put people in camps which is not how I see it. I think a lot of us can unite round a few things and that should be our concentration, our focus.


I find myself in complete agreement with this.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Stalin

Posts: 3,141 Member Since:28/07/2006

#100 [url]

Oct 23 07 7:51 PM

That being the case what principles do you think we could all unite around?

Step on the Jackson Express

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Add Reply

Quick Reply

bbcode help