----- Original Message ----- > I know I can ignore the posts, I could 'deal with it' or whatever, but for > some strange reason I see the list as representing all Leeds Supporters > and > not simply a mouthpiece for LUST, or to allow any one opinion to > necessarily > stand unchallenged.
Well at last we agree on something. This list is DEFINITELY not a mouthpiece for the Supporters Trust. That much we can agree on . Apart from that though, you appear to imply that the Trust somehow has a position that is different to what you term "all Leeds Supporters". How does that work exactly ? Are YOU the mouthpiece for "all Leeds Supporters" ? The Supporters Trust represents the views, as far as it can, of the members of the Trust, all of whom are Leeds Supporters. When did you get the job of speaking for "all Leeds Supporters" against the Trust ? You are trying to create an "us and them" which is not genuine. What exactly has the Trust done that you do not personally agree with ? How did the Trust become part of your argument here ? > Betty posts up the thing about West Yorks police wanting payment up front. > And I can see him grinning as he was typing it :-). He did not post up > the > link to the article where someone was attacking Willis. Nor did any of > the > other anti-Bates lot. Can you please post up this link so that we can all read it. If the someone attacking Willis was Bates or Taylor (which are the only ones I have seen personally) then people can reach their own conclusions. If you don't have the link then please post the gist of its contents and tell us who was writing and saying whatever it is. >That's my problem, that's why I said the list was being used as a >propaganda tool. Who was doing this in your opinion ? Is propaganda your word for anything posted which you don't agree with ? Why do you resort to these emotive terms. What's wrong with their being argument and counter-argument ? What is it that prevents your postings from being described as propaganda in the same way that you are labelling the posts from others ? Should we consider the title of this thread as being propaganda ? Is it factual or a bit of nonsense designed to influence the argument ? >If you want to provide a news service on Bates then do so, but if you only >post the negatives then that, in my book, is blatant propaganda. If you mean what you say and if you are not equally guilty then please show us where you have posted BOTH sides of this argument. Have you yet again invented something (this time a news service on Bates) just because you find it easier to argue against the things that you make up yourself ? Of course anything that was pretending to be a news service on Bates but which only posted anti-Bates rhetoric would indeed be propaganda. The problem is that you just made it all up. > I was about to post up the link to the other article, but Chris had > already > done so. I hadn't seen it but I will definitely have a look. There may be highly relevant points in it. > I am not saying Mark Taylor is telling any or all of the whole truth, but > it > sure is nice to see there is another option to the Bates Conspiracy > Theory. What Bates conspiracy theory ? _______________________________________________ the Leeds List is an unmoderated mailing list and the list administrators accept no liability for the personal views and opinions of contributors. Leedslist mailing list [email protected] http://list.zetnet.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist Join The Leeds United Supporters Trust at www.lufctrust.org
