segatrix

how come it was ok for you to state that sometimes you need to take a step back now and again, but if i say a similar point i'm trying to derail the campaign? or was this simply said so that you could attend the blues festival with a clear conscience?

further more, i know how to undertake these sort of campaigns, having been involved in a number of these sort of things over the past 15 or so years...yet apparantly somebody who has been at it for his mate for a couple of weeks knows more. and i also know of a few journalist mates that have been intruiged by the bullying tactics used by a number of people both on this forum and while out petitioning. and before i get accused, they mentioned it to me first. i, stupidlty, tried playing it down to them....just to come under attack again because i am thinking from all angles, not just the "let's hope so" angle

as i have mentioned before....i referred to the use of 'majority' etc as a possible tool that others may use against the campaign. if you were actually capable of reading what i put in my posts, rather than what you "fine intellectuals" think i have written, you would see that i have continually mentioned the good work done for the campaign. the points i have pointed out are things i feel should be looked at to ensure that they are not used against the campaign as they may well be. i have frequently expressed the need for supporting sakchai, that the fight needs to be fought and all that, yet i am frequently attacked under the idea that i am against the campaign i have not resorted to personal attacks, yet come under them myself....and you all have the nerve to say that i bring the thread into disrepute. likewise, why should i leave the forum? i have as much right to express my views as anyone else, or are some peoples rights more important than others? as for montfield man, would it make any difference what i put in answer to your questions? a) how would you know if i was telling the truth or not? if i said i was supporting the campaign would anyone believe me? (afterall, i have expressed my support of the campaign on numerous occasions, yet this always gets ignored as nobody is capable of understanding what i post as you are all far too quick to judge) and c) i have far more important things to do with my time than getting up at the crack of dawn to attend some rally in the hope that my face will appear on tv - such as see to my young children if i was somebody on the street that you were trying to persuade to support the campaign/sign the petition, would you attack me for a potential difference of opinion, or would you treat me with a bit more respect in the hopes that it wont put a negative slant on your campaign? the bullying tactics that a number of you are displaying is not a positive example of the campaign, and therefore a poor reflection on sakchai himself since that is who you are representing. finally, you are all guilty of exactly what it is you are accusing me of doing....but power of numbers is on your side on this forum, and might is right, so you will be seen to be the "moral" right. poor example of "friendly" shetland

did i say that the picture was a personal attack against me? did i even mention the picture? and why can't i say njugle is a troll? is he some sacred being that cannot be touched?

likewise, goodlad (reason for the alter ego), how would u know what i do or do not know? do you know me well enough to judge?

if any of you would actually read my posts rather than jumping to conclusions etc, you will actually see that the reason i made the oversaturation point, as with most of my posts, is actually to help avoid this happening. likewise i have not only been writing negative comments, but the fact that i come under attack regardless of what i write does point out the insecurity those campaigning feel if they are either unwilling or incapable of reading comments unless they are purely positive. yet again, i come under attack from derogatory remarks such as "master debater" but i will be the one reprimanded as being a troll and trying to rile the campaign despite wanting to help makes wonder think if you lot are capable of recognising help when you see it? somebody has to think of the possible negative aspects of the campaign, but apparantly nobody wants to

but then i could accuse you njugle of being a troll as you have private messaged me a couple of times with what can appear to be a personal attack on me, but hidden in secret so as to be able to maintain the moral highground. what was the purpose of that if not to rile me personally? it is easy to bandy about labels etc, but how many would like it said about them?

do you really think that posting about this on every forum etc you can come across is going to help. oversaturation can result in turning people against the cause. also, i may be wrong, but what relevance did it have on what appears to be a football forum?

and why would that be? rather than just making accusations against me of being a troll, why not enlighten me as to why you think this? or is it far easier to make disparaging remarks about someone from afar without having to back up your claims? to me, the trolls are those that have been having a go at me simply for having a different opinion, and hiding behind popularity amongst others on here - and attacking me through private messaging instead

that's why i've never been a big fan of petitions and demonstrations etc, as, in all honesty, how much difference do they actually make? they are very easy to ignore if you're not interested. someone with a well thought out, sensible, honest and correct argument is far more difficult to push aside. indeed, i can understand the thinking behind this campaign encouraging sympathisers to bombard the relevant people with emails etc. However, how many of these emails do you actually think are being read by those that matter? if, in fact, any at all. these emails will, in actual fact, be read by the office staff of these people, not them themselves, if they don't just look at their email inboxs, see the vast amount of emails - all on the same subject - and just press the delete button. it is the office staff that decide whether or not it is worthwhile to show these emails to the officials that they are aimed at, and, to be honest, I cannot see them bothering with these. I know this from past experience of dealing with these people. if i was to be brutally honest, there is potentially the chance that you could in fact prejudice these people against your cause through them feeling harassed by it all. just a thought that you may want to consider

perhaps when they are somebody using the family computer - therefore not the only person with access to the computer - and fail to realise somebody else is already logged in explains this simple point. though no doubt the people on here who are so insecure will feel that this is an attempt to excuse some far more sinister conspiracy. not every computer is used by 1 person and 1 person only. though i would have been more than happy for the post to have stayed up as from me of so needed.

as i mentioned previously, plenty of people have set up email accounts in order for their children to sign the online petition, there is every chance people will have done this for their elder relations too, so you cannot say that they definately have not signed the petition if they wanted to, or had the opportunity to. as for njugle's post, it is a valid point and intersting statistics, but it still takes the approach of may be the case rather than is the case. this would imply that those that fall out of the 15-40 age group don't ahve an opinion that counts. i am not saying this is what you are saying, but simply how it could be taking if somebody wanted to do so in regards to this point, i would just like clarification as to what you think i am trying to do, and in what way i set myself up as a stirrer?

semantics are never irrelevant in cases such as these, as those are exactly the sort of things that may end up being used against the campaign. why take the risk just to try and make the campaign sound bigger than it actually is? if you don't mind if untrue statements such as "majority", "the whole of the island" etc being used, then you cannot complain if the authorities use terms such as "potential danger" as there is more potential truth in that than there is in the claim "majority" due to his prior criminal antics. if you are not willing to do things on the grounds of semantics, then there is no point campaigning and fighting the actions taken by immigration officials since the semantics of the case are paramount. they claim he is a "potential danger", campaigners claim otherwise...what is this if not a fight on semantic grounds? on a different subject though, don't get me started on the term "humanitarian" in this regard [/b]

first of all, as i have mentioned before, why have a go at me? i acknowledge the vast amount of support that has been amassed for sakchai's cayuse, and well done to it. however, at no point did i state that those that haven't signed would be against the campaign. but just as i don't know whether they would be for or against it, neither does anybody else. Nobody can presume to know what somebody else thinks. so while they may be in support of it and have a valid reason for not signing, they equally may not be in support. who knows? my point was, simply, do not use a term like 'majority' until you actually have one. if for no other reason but to ensure nobody can try and use this as grounds to argue against the campaign accussing campaigners of trying to influence support from press or the public or whomever. the facts and figures will do just fine themselves

but the point of the matter is it is still not true. living in shetland and knowing how a number of people in shetland can be very difficult if they have got their backs up, is it really worthwhile potentially riling them by lumping them in with something that they may not agree with? what would happen if those people decided to do a campaign in competition to the present one. how the media puts something across is inevitably spin, so your example doesn't hit me as convincing. the campaign coordinators etc should be proud enough of the fact that there are a third of the islands behind the cause, without putting generalised terms on that are, at present, untrue. whether classed as "the whole community" or "majority" or whatever, if it is in fact less than that, it is an untrue statement. irrespective of its use, whether to influence press or public opinion or in an unnegative way whatever, a majority can only be classed a majority when it is actually that, ie, the largest number of people