CanadaToffee
Player Valuation: £10m
Stella is chico's dog, and she is available for 'rent'
Aaahhh, yes, I see - "stella" is a Cuban colloquialism for "touched by chico"
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
- Status
Aaahhh, yes, I see - "stella" is a Cuban colloquialism for "touched by chico"
Welton Toffee
Player Valuation: £40m
It's also the name of a beer that apparently tastes like camel urine.
I've always wondered why nomadic wives are always sporting black eyes.
a2b chris
Player Valuation: £15m
always available for match & beer
Gayest thread ever.
Lets talk about something worthwhile and stop displaying teddish qualities such as masterpiece posts.
Lets start with whats your favourite breed of dog and explain briefly how you would like to spend the perfect day with your canine friend.
Lets talk about something worthwhile and stop displaying teddish qualities such as masterpiece posts.
Lets start with whats your favourite breed of dog and explain briefly how you would like to spend the perfect day with your canine friend.
"Those exchanges were conducted by PM in the main in a forum using the title TW."
I wasn't aware of that, either then nor now. I assumed they sent from his private email.
"why apologise to those who wrote to you and not the offended party as any decently run site should have done and would have done. That comment alone is baffling in the extreme and insulting at best as far as I am concerned."
I didn't say I apologised to those who wrote to me, I said I condemned Garry's actions towards you.
"You then go on to say that you were unaware of the bullying actions of Garry, sorry mate but you were, you saw mention of them here."
What I meant was I was unaware of friction from Garry's moderating tactics before the split and therefore didn't know how deep the problem was until the breakaway happened. I wasn't referring to your personal experience with him.
"Visit Kipper Lyndon where TW is a running joke mate."
TW as a "running joke" at Kipper started years ago in the days when the People's Forum was our official forum. And even after we cut ties with the PF and the word "toffeeweb" was still in the URL, people at Kipper still couldn't separate the two entities. To this day, it's still hard to know whether people are talking about tw.com or the PF when they're slagging off "Toffeeweb".
It's funny because if you visit the 'Kipper forums today, folks are bashing Kenwright, criticising Moyes, slagging players and ripping into Keith Wyness left, right and centre. Basically doing everything on which they base their view that ToffeeWeb is a running joke. And, anyway, I think NSNO are now the "running joke" du jour because Si's not afraid to speaking his mind either.
It was also interesting to note that, on balance, of the four major EFC websites, three (TW, NSNO and WSAG) came out against the Kirkby move while the 'Kipper main site (who rely on good relations with the club to get players and staff to attend their annual piss-up) stayed neutral. But, of course, we were just being anti-club as always...
I'm clearly not going to be able to make any amends for what went on, Monty, as we're poles apart on perception so I'm not going to tie up this thread any further. I am happy to accept, though, that you felt that Garry was acting on ToffeeWeb's behalf and for that I do offer a belated and sincere apology to you and your daughter a) that someone who appeared to be acting in our name caused your family so much hurt and b ) that I did not take a public stance to distance ourselves from it. I will understand, however, if you choose not to accept that apology.
LL
I wasn't aware of that, either then nor now. I assumed they sent from his private email.
"why apologise to those who wrote to you and not the offended party as any decently run site should have done and would have done. That comment alone is baffling in the extreme and insulting at best as far as I am concerned."
I didn't say I apologised to those who wrote to me, I said I condemned Garry's actions towards you.
"You then go on to say that you were unaware of the bullying actions of Garry, sorry mate but you were, you saw mention of them here."
What I meant was I was unaware of friction from Garry's moderating tactics before the split and therefore didn't know how deep the problem was until the breakaway happened. I wasn't referring to your personal experience with him.
"Visit Kipper Lyndon where TW is a running joke mate."
TW as a "running joke" at Kipper started years ago in the days when the People's Forum was our official forum. And even after we cut ties with the PF and the word "toffeeweb" was still in the URL, people at Kipper still couldn't separate the two entities. To this day, it's still hard to know whether people are talking about tw.com or the PF when they're slagging off "Toffeeweb".
It's funny because if you visit the 'Kipper forums today, folks are bashing Kenwright, criticising Moyes, slagging players and ripping into Keith Wyness left, right and centre. Basically doing everything on which they base their view that ToffeeWeb is a running joke. And, anyway, I think NSNO are now the "running joke" du jour because Si's not afraid to speaking his mind either.
It was also interesting to note that, on balance, of the four major EFC websites, three (TW, NSNO and WSAG) came out against the Kirkby move while the 'Kipper main site (who rely on good relations with the club to get players and staff to attend their annual piss-up) stayed neutral. But, of course, we were just being anti-club as always...
I'm clearly not going to be able to make any amends for what went on, Monty, as we're poles apart on perception so I'm not going to tie up this thread any further. I am happy to accept, though, that you felt that Garry was acting on ToffeeWeb's behalf and for that I do offer a belated and sincere apology to you and your daughter a) that someone who appeared to be acting in our name caused your family so much hurt and b ) that I did not take a public stance to distance ourselves from it. I will understand, however, if you choose not to accept that apology.
LL
No tongues lads.
offers great big gay hug*
offers great big gay hug*
TX Bill
Player Valuation: £80m
Stella is chico's dog, and she is available for 'rent'
Let me be the first to say that Chico's dog(s) is/are never available. Not that I would have first hand knowledge. That's just what I've heard.
"However, why I search Google News with TW excluded is down to
a) the way that almost every teaser on the front page is manipulated to produce a negative impression of the club and administration or a positive impression of certain favourite topics (KEIOC & David France collection are examples)"</QUOTE>
I wouldn't go so far as to say "almost every teaser" but I hear what you're saying. I'm in a bit of an uneasy arguing position here because I actually agree that the homepage news should be more impartial... but showing bias towards the two issues you cite was deliberate because all three of us (Michael, Colm and myself) feel very strongly on both issues.
Particularly in the case of the Kirkby debate, we were not averse to favouring the KEIOC position because of the galling propaganda coming from the other side, namely the Official Site and their lapdogs in the local media. (Personally, I think the lack of fair representation from the Echo and Post was disgusting but I also understand that there is a conflict of interest there with their publishing deal with EFC so I'm not surprised.) We gave weight to KEIOC because they were the only local opposition group going and despite some regrettable tactics, they put up a passionate fight against something they passionately oppose.
People bleated about us being hypocrites for propagandising for the "no" side but as the "no" argument was not on the actual ballot, anyone countering the club's position was at full liberty to do so. Had it it been a two-sided ballot with arguments for and against, we might have been hidebound by a duty to be more fair but you have to admit that for a site that is so passionately against the Kirkby proposal, we were ridiculously open in publishing viewpoints across the Board. (Some might be surprised to learn that of the three of us on the editorial team, Michael was by far the least rabid in his opposition to Kirkby, playing much more of a devil's advocate role.) We could quite easily have refused to publish any pro-Kirkby article but there were times during the debate when all four "Feature Item" slots on the homepage were taken up by articles favouring the move.
So, yes, we were biased towards the "no" side because we were steadfast in our belief that it's the wrong move for the club. I don't regret that bias and would do it again without hesitation because I believe the issue to be that important and I wouldn't want to look back years from now and wish I'd done more with the power that TW affords us.
But, we never closed off the dialogue or blocked opposing viewpoints. Through articles, the MailBag and the Comments facility, the TW community always had a chance to argue back. I think credit is due in that regard even if you disagree with our overall position on that and other issues.
b ) "Michael Kenrick's abuse of his position as admin/mod to insert his own points of view as visible "answers" on the Mailbag. I've only ever known one man who is capable of turning me off a complete community and he is it."
That is Michael. He's had that acid tongue and devilish streak since the first day I encountered him online 12 years ago. I think it's obvious by now that he likes to stir the pot a little to get a reaction and the MailBag being a "Letters to the Editor" forum, you pretty much take your chances by posting.
In that respect, though, I think the introduction of Comments allows the Community to take him to task a lot more than before if they see fit.
c) "The general tone of Mailbags and Articles chosen for publication, which is almost unremittingly not just negative, but extremely negative. Maybe you get relatively few positive articles or posts, but that is because of the atmosphere fostered there."
That is reflection either of our readership, pure and simple. Now, whether it's because TW attracts a more negative or critical fan, whether the more critical elements are more vocal, or whether the majority of Evertonians are just now more critical in general is open to debate. I suspect it's a mix of of all the above.
As I mentioned in an earlier reply, the negativity on the BlueKipper forum (not the main site) has ratcheted up significantly over the past year or so (and the criticism of ToffeeWeb is much less than it used to be because there seems to be more common ground now) and because it's a looser environment, the vitriol towards the club has been pretty raw.
The hatred of TW on that site started with the People's Forum when it was still associated with TW and that Forum was basically ridiculing the club over the Fortress Sports Fund farce. Turns out they were right on that and a few other key issues. So, is criticism based on certain knowledge negativity and hatred of everything EFC?
"In the recent ground poll, if you had read TW you would have thought that it would come out at 90% against.
The same goes for the "Everton to Relocate" forum on 'Kipper, NSNO and, perhaps to a lesser extent, the WSAG forum (indeed, perhaps one of the best articles penned in opposition to Kirkby came from WSAG). Turns out that either those opposing the club's position were the most vocal (understandable given the stakes in the event of a "yes" vote) or the vast majority who aren't online and browsing the unofficial sites voted for the move.
In any case, TW was not the only site or forum that openly opposed Kirkby but because we did go against the club's position, it was seen as just TW being anti-EFC again. Truth is, if the Board delivered the right stadium in the right location, we would forgive them a multitude of sins and praise them to the rafters. Unfortunately, the club's conduct during the voting period only served to reinforce why we've been critical of them in the past. And if there is an issue where ToffeeWeb has been proved to be flat out wrong, I'd like to hear it (apart from my assertion that Andy van der Meyde was our saviour-in-waiting, that is!). I'm not trying to be cocky by saying that, merely trying to express that we aren't critical for the sake of it or to be bloody minded. You think I like having to defend our site at every turn!?
Anyway, I've blathered on enough. If there's something specific in Suits' reply I'll address that separately (and briefly); otherwise, I'll try and shut up
LL
monty
Sack Sky and donate to GOT...donations are needed
Lyndon, that is all I have ever wanted in the first place, an apology which is of course accepted on behalf of my family.
Mods, will you please close this thread, preserve my article and ensure that this shambles is never mentioned again, unless it is in my article.
Let peace reign
Lyndon, I doff my cap for you taking the time to come and explain everything.
Yesterday I made some comments (about three posts) on one of the mailbag articles. In these I had a different opinion to Senor Kenrick, here is the link:
http://www.toffeeweb.com/season/07-08/comment/mailbag/mailbagitem.asp?submissionID=3008
I go on today and find that my comments have been removed, they were not offensive.
Thats the reason why I dont want to be affiliated with your site, Kenrick is a complete helmet and on that thread blatantly took down the guy who posted it even though he offered an article. Yet my posts disappear when I take him to task on it. Consistent with the old attitudes on the TW forum (which you had no part of) posts disappear when they differ to the opinions of the one running the show.
So can you get that muppet Kenrick to explain to me why my views and comments are appreciated on here (over 1,000 posts when you take away the dog references) yet not good enough for TW.
Yesterday I made some comments (about three posts) on one of the mailbag articles. In these I had a different opinion to Senor Kenrick, here is the link:
http://www.toffeeweb.com/season/07-08/comment/mailbag/mailbagitem.asp?submissionID=3008
I go on today and find that my comments have been removed, they were not offensive.
Thats the reason why I dont want to be affiliated with your site, Kenrick is a complete helmet and on that thread blatantly took down the guy who posted it even though he offered an article. Yet my posts disappear when I take him to task on it. Consistent with the old attitudes on the TW forum (which you had no part of) posts disappear when they differ to the opinions of the one running the show.
So can you get that muppet Kenrick to explain to me why my views and comments are appreciated on here (over 1,000 posts when you take away the dog references) yet not good enough for TW.
BlueWool
Player Valuation: £225k
In my humble opinion TW is pretty much like any other Everton site, with a fairly broad spectrum of opinions represented. The problem I have is the 'editorial tone' that leaks into the 'news'. Unattributed news should always be written in a neutral voice, in my opinion.
Suits Blue: "before I take this any further I would like to know if garry (the all seeing eye) was taken to task over his (mis)behaviour by ...
*lyndon
*michael
*colm
"
I should point out that Michael has not been involved in the goings-on on the TW Forum since admin and moderation was handed over to Garry and Danny in the very early days of it's lifespan, and Colm has never had any involvement at all since we cut ties with the People's Forum. Michael has next to no knowledge of any of this except the snippets I've fed him over IM.
I've been managing the Forum issue single-handedly for the past few months (year?) and that's part of the problem. The Forum split blew up while I was on holiday and, not having actually participated in the Forum itself for ages, I had absolutely no context of what went on. I obviously had conflicting viewpoints of events (some even mailed privately to say it was all a storm in a tea cup) and, after voicing my concerns over his reported conduct to him I made a decision at the time to give Garry the benefit of the doubt because of the help he had been when we needed him.
"What did garry site as being the reasoning for the old forum closure? did the tw home site see a dip (slight or otherwise) in the amount of hits?"
To date no reason for the death of the old TW Forum has been given. It just disappeared one day a few weeks ago and an IM I sent went unanswered. So, with the incident with Monty's daughter already having broken the camel's back, it was easy to make the decision to cut ties with Garry with regard to Forum ownership.
And, no, the TW home site did not suffer any dip in traffic (on the contrary, traffic has increased and exploded in July and August during the Kirkby debate) because it has never needed a Forum to exist. The Forum is a "nice-to-have" for us. Our readers have asked for one and questioned why a site of our size doesn't have a thriving Forum. Hopefully now we will have one with this new arrangement with GoT.
Luckily, for those who are cagey about hooking up with the all-negative, ever-hating ToffeeWeb, I doubt you'll see much regular involvement from the Editorial team -- I haven't posted this much on an EFC forum in years!! -- because we simply don't have time given the amount of work required on the main site. I just felt I owed you guys some explanation to help ease the tension and distrust of TW that obviously exists.
Cheers,
LL
*lyndon
*michael
*colm
"
I should point out that Michael has not been involved in the goings-on on the TW Forum since admin and moderation was handed over to Garry and Danny in the very early days of it's lifespan, and Colm has never had any involvement at all since we cut ties with the People's Forum. Michael has next to no knowledge of any of this except the snippets I've fed him over IM.
I've been managing the Forum issue single-handedly for the past few months (year?) and that's part of the problem. The Forum split blew up while I was on holiday and, not having actually participated in the Forum itself for ages, I had absolutely no context of what went on. I obviously had conflicting viewpoints of events (some even mailed privately to say it was all a storm in a tea cup) and, after voicing my concerns over his reported conduct to him I made a decision at the time to give Garry the benefit of the doubt because of the help he had been when we needed him.
"What did garry site as being the reasoning for the old forum closure? did the tw home site see a dip (slight or otherwise) in the amount of hits?"
To date no reason for the death of the old TW Forum has been given. It just disappeared one day a few weeks ago and an IM I sent went unanswered. So, with the incident with Monty's daughter already having broken the camel's back, it was easy to make the decision to cut ties with Garry with regard to Forum ownership.
And, no, the TW home site did not suffer any dip in traffic (on the contrary, traffic has increased and exploded in July and August during the Kirkby debate) because it has never needed a Forum to exist. The Forum is a "nice-to-have" for us. Our readers have asked for one and questioned why a site of our size doesn't have a thriving Forum. Hopefully now we will have one with this new arrangement with GoT.
Luckily, for those who are cagey about hooking up with the all-negative, ever-hating ToffeeWeb, I doubt you'll see much regular involvement from the Editorial team -- I haven't posted this much on an EFC forum in years!! -- because we simply don't have time given the amount of work required on the main site. I just felt I owed you guys some explanation to help ease the tension and distrust of TW that obviously exists.
Cheers,
LL
Last edited:
Lyndon- fair play to you you have taken the time and effort to answer as many questions thrown at you. I say lets put it all behind us and onwards and upwards with a forum that is going places!
- Status