Dave K. wrote:As Iv'e been named on here, ill defend myself, I maybe shouldn't react as much as I do, but I feel that I have to to defend the club and Radford, I don't mind balance but he offers very little. When I respond I don't insult him, I answer his points in in a respectful as possible manner, most of the time once he has no answer he doesn't respond and then repost the points a few weeks later.
Still a few of us on here that want to talk about rugby, hopefully that will continue, plenty of other platforms to discuss Hull if you don't like it, the Facebook group is certainly a place I stay well clear of, as it's awful, some real clueless people asking the same questions each week
I'm sure the club will survive without you defending it, have hull fc personally asked you to defend any form of criticism. The problem in my opinion is the likes of you , who thinks your own opinion is actually fact and if anyone doesn't agree or as a negative view, then that opinion is completely invalid. You and a few others try making your opinions more valid by pretending your "in the know" it's laughable and that's why I'll personally continue to read , because it's quite funny at times
Joined: Mar 14 2003 Posts: 25900 Location: Back in Hull.
Tinkerman23 wrote:I'm sure the club will survive without you defending it, have hull fc personally asked you to defend any form of criticism. The problem in my opinion is the likes of you , who thinks your own opinion is actually fact and if anyone doesn't agree or as a negative view, then that opinion is completely invalid. You and a few others try making your opinions more valid by pretending your "in the know" it's laughable and that's why I'll personally continue to read , because it's quite funny at times
Yes, Pearson contacted me personally and asked me to defend the club.
I've never claimed to be in the know bad have never claimed to know all the facts, just my opinion like yours, Jake and others.
Like you sometimes I'm right (Houghton and Jordan Thompson) sometimes I'm wrong (Radford), but am willing to admit unlike some on here.
Dave K. wrote:As Iv'e been named on here, ill defend myself, I maybe shouldn't react as much as I do, but I feel that I have to to defend the club and Radford, I don't mind balance but he offers very little. When I respond I don't insult him, I answer his points in in a respectful as possible manner, most of the time once he has no answer he doesn't respond and then repost the points a few weeks later.
Which tells you all you need to know. There's no point in responding, and the problem is too many people (the same people) do. It's like an addiction. Why respond when he'll not pay any attention and eventually just do the same again? All it does is flood the board, which is what he wants.
If the usual suspects just didn't bite, he'd stop bothering.
the artist wrote:its the same right across rlfans i'm afraid. other more prominent forms of social media have much weakened what used to be a brilliant platform for discussion.
and by the way the trolls and warriors have always been there but in the past they were more entertaining
This.
Social media has reduced the amount of posters and its become dull. I dont think the site is very user friendly though it is slow and hard to use on both my android phone and apple Ipad which id imagine is the main way people access the site these days.
As for the posters themselves its long been a cuddle crew on here. They wouldent have a bad word said about the Hetheringtons, Agar, Gentle...the club was blindly backed whatever it did. The only thing the cuddle crew got right was backing Radford, about 1 sucess in 15 years.
hull2524 wrote:so trying to support your club through thick and thin makes you part of the cuddle crew as you call them,
You can loyally support and still question how things are being run. The late 00s and early 10s saw the club being underfunded and ran into the ground, finishing 8th with an embarrassment in the playoffs if we were lucky...and some just had their blinkers on and wouldent criticise anything. And threads or posts question things were shot down by the regulars on here.
We may not have set the world alight in 2017 so far, but at least I have faith my cash is being used in the best interests of the club these days.
Social media has reduced the amount of posters and its become dull. I dont think the site is very user friendly though it is slow and hard to use on both my android phone and apple Ipad which id imagine is the main way people access the site these days.
As for the posters themselves its long been a cuddle crew on here. They wouldent have a bad word said about the Hetheringtons, Agar, Gentle...the club was blindly backed whatever it did. The only thing the cuddle crew got right was backing Radford, about 1 sucess in 15 years.
In a nutshell, yes.
The reduction of activity on here has little to do with the tit for tat stuff.... frankly that has always been on here... at it's peak the Hull and Rovers banter was wildly out of control at times - the reason is technology. I've run several forums, the topics are things like recruitment, overseas travel... that doesn't attract that sort of banter, and the activity has completely tailed off there as well.
Forums still have their place, sites like Redit are very popular. But here you can see new media against old. Websites like this are covered in terrible advert boxes, heavy web scripts and forms, embedded elements etc., while not offering a dynamic experience like modern social media sites. Same reason newspaper websites are failing, I can't even get on the awful experience that is the Hull Daily Mail website. It's failed to modernise, which is understandable, it's a free website at the end of the day but that's the reason imo. I still come on here (obviously) as I prefer the more structured nature of the discussion and I think it still has it's place.
On a side note, I can't believe I joined this site in 2002! More than 15 years ago! I think that was about the time they took the forum off the HullFC.com website.
Social media has reduced the amount of posters and its become dull. I dont think the site is very user friendly though it is slow and hard to use on both my android phone and apple Ipad which id imagine is the main way people access the site these days.
As for the posters themselves its long been a cuddle crew on here. They wouldent have a bad word said about the Hetheringtons, Agar, Gentle...the club was blindly backed whatever it did. The only thing the cuddle crew got right was backing Radford, about 1 sucess in 15 years.
In a nutshell, yes.
The reduction of activity on here has little to do with the tit for tat stuff.... frankly that has always been on here... at it's peak the Hull and Rovers banter was wildly out of control at times - the reason is technology. I've run several forums, the topics are things like recruitment, overseas travel... that doesn't attract that sort of banter, and the activity has completely tailed off there as well.
Forums still have their place, sites like Redit are very popular. But here you can see new media against old. Websites like this are covered in terrible advert boxes, heavy web scripts and forms, embedded elements etc., while not offering a dynamic experience like modern social media sites. Same reason newspaper websites are failing, I can't even get on the awful experience that is the Hull Daily Mail website. It's failed to modernise, which is understandable, it's a free website at the end of the day but that's the reason imo. I still come on here (obviously) as I prefer the more structured nature of the discussion and I think it still has it's place.
On a side note, I can't believe I joined this site in 2002! More than 15 years ago! I think that was about the time they took the forum off the HullFC.com website.
Joined: Jul 15 2005 Posts: 29803 Location: West Yorkshire
UllFC wrote:You can loyally support and still question how things are being run. The late 00s and early 10s saw the club being underfunded and ran into the ground, finishing 8th with an embarrassment in the playoffs if we were lucky...and some just had their blinkers on and wouldent criticise anything. And threads or posts question things were shot down by the regulars on here.
We may not have set the world alight in 2017 so far, but at least I have faith my cash is being used in the best interests of the club these days.
The counterpoint of course is that the weight of negativity against a club maintaining SL status for 20 odd years despite lack of a generous benefactor to sling in £500k a year and with no alternative ownership being put forward was excessive and warranted balance. 6 major finals probably puts us in the top 5 successwise, which is probably commensurate with our income seeing that we don't have a Lenegan or Davy. I criticised Rule's persistence with Agar (to him directly) and Pearson's early decision-making. We've had our best couple of years in a generation and when this sort of context is presented it's dismissed as cuddle crew apologism.
Social media has reduced the amount of posters and its become dull. I dont think the site is very user friendly though it is slow and hard to use on both my android phone and apple Ipad which id imagine is the main way people access the site these days.
As for the posters themselves its long been a cuddle crew on here. They wouldent have a bad word said about the Hetheringtons, Agar, Gentle...the club was blindly backed whatever it did. The only thing the cuddle crew got right was backing Radford, about 1 sucess in 15 years.
The people who (correctly) called you out after your embarrassingly premature topic in 2016 saying the end was nigh?
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
_zps67e534e4.jpg)
I think that was about the time they took the forum off the HullFC.com website.
