2003 Team Poster

[K9-54]

Wow...

I ignored this thread after the first 3 or 4 posts as it didn't really interest me but I checked in again because I was curious why there could be so many posts.

Guess I missed all the action.

Chicago - As a consumer I will sometimes make protests through product boycotts etc to vent my displeasure at conduct I find objectionable. But given I do this in order to (in a small way) hurt the object of my boycott, it is always aimed at an organisation I dislike or am at least indifferent towards. I couldn't do it to a club I love any more than I could dis-own a family member who I believed had made a mistake - even if they flatly refused to acknowledge they had made a mistake. I urge you to reconsider Chicago.

For what it's worth though, I do agree with sigscotty - regardless of the message, it is inappropriate for an individual to express political views when representing the club as there is always the risk of backlash against the club (rightly or wrongly and as has been clearly demonstrated in this thread). This is a risk that a professional organisation minimises and it's employees should respect it's right to impose some restrictions on their conduct when they are representing the organisation.

 

[Isdogisgood]

I think, what i like to call 'conditional supporters', are huge reason behind why our club struggles to retain members (According to Smorgo - 8000 over the last 3 years). Its like they only pay up when they are satisfied that the club is doing the right thing by them. ie 'i won't buy a membership if the club isn't called Footscray'. Would you really have chosen to not buy a membership if the topic of Murphy's protest was something a little less close to heart? I disagree that by airbrushing it off it would not have sent a message. To me i would have seen that as the club believing that they are responsible for censoring players.

 

[sigscotty]

Originally posted by Curly5
Can someone tell me if the objection is for the view as expressed by Murphy, or is it for ANY view at all being written on someone's arm?

The objection is against any political view Curly. As i have stated, i actually agree with Murph's politics in this case.

For what it's worth though, I do agree with sigscotty

Hehe, i'm blushing now.

KKK and no war
One promotes violence and the other is against it

That is definately an important distinction however i am sure there are people who would argue 'no war' in this case can be seen as a slogon that is 'for' the iraqi leadership, a very VIOLENT regime! I think it would be ridiculous to suggest that is what Murph actually had in mind but what he had in mind becomes unimportant once its out there on the poster.

There are also those that would suggest KKK is not about promoting violence but just the 'natural order' of humanity. Something that may (SHOULD!!!) seem completely stupid to us, however it is not illegal to hold the view that one race is superior to another.

There is no way you can be consistent and allow 'no war' and not KKK. I for one am therefore disapointed the latter was let through.

 

[bulldogs1]

For what it's worth everyone, I reckon this is all getting out of hand, and I'm not going to weigh in with my thoughts here and help destroy our nice little community. Healthy debate is one thing, but .....

I've commented on the action here at the Bulldogs board on the Society and Culture Board, where our friend Local is a moderator. My thoughts on protests and the war there are well known, and I think its time to have an argument like this on that board.

For anyone who may be remotely interested, I can understand Chicago's rage, and agree with his right to act. I don't agree with his actions, and I'm not going to justify my reasons here.

 

[Chops]

Originally posted by sigscotty

That is definately an important distinction however i am sure there are people who would argue 'no war' in this case can be seen as a slogon that is 'for' the iraqi leadership, a very VIOLENT regime!

I think everyone knows when Murphy wrote "No War" he meant 2 wrongs don't make a right and/or he has a concern for the well being of inoccent people on either side. If thats being political then more people should think like him or we can all stick our heads in the sand.

 

[Chops]

Originally posted by bulldogs1
For what it's worth everyone, I reckon this is all getting out of hand, and I'm not going to weigh in with my thoughts here and help destroy our nice little community. Healthy debate is one thing, but .....

I've commented on the action here at the Bulldogs board on the Society and Culture Board, where our friend Local is a moderator. My thoughts on protests and the war there are well known, and I think its time to have an argument like this on that board.

For anyone who may be remotely interested, I can understand Chicago's rage, and agree with his right to act. I don't agree with his actions, and I'm not going to justify my reasons here.

I don't think this is getting out of hand.
Apart from a couple of over the top comments, that people have accepted as spur of the moment. I think most people respect each others opinion.
It is relevent to this board as we are talking about our poster and one of our players.
Think we got rowdier in the girls v boys debate or in threads about Kingsleys great 2002 season.

 

[sigscotty]

Originally posted by Chops
I don't think this is getting out of hand.
Apart from a couple of over the top comments, that people have accepted as spur of the moment. I think most people respect each others opinion.
It is relevent to this board as we are talking about our poster and one of out players.
Think we got rowdier in the girls v boys debate or in threads about Kingsleys great 2002 season.

Exactly right chops.