WORL-NO BACKBONE!!!!!!!

This message has been deleted by the manager or assistant manager.

 

[Bomber]

What was your original e-mail?

 

This message has been deleted by the manager or assistant manager.

 

This message has been deleted by the author.

 

[imported_Go The Dragons]

#1cowboysfan,

The whole point of the discussion board is to express opinions & discuss issues.
I am entiltled to whatever opinion I like & I will express it oplenly as I sugguest you do in your jobas a web journalist for www.leagueaustralia.com as well as on your own site.

The only reason I presented this was to let people know that they did reject it.

It is interesting who will support the issue & who won't.

IMO any rugby league site/publicationthat doesn't at least run an article on the issue is either spineless or biased.

I will keep every-one updated of who is offering support & who isn't.

Thank you to Willow, forplacing a link to the petition from a related article on his website www.showroom.com.au/dragons

 

[Willow]

I think it's important to remember it is an individual's choice as to what they put on their website.
I put the link on my website because I felt that it was relevant to other Saints supporters who might want to know about the petition...afterwhich, they can make their own judgment.
Naturally, I want to see the MRC and the Judiciary reformed as well.

However, if WORL doesn't want to put a link up then it is their choice. I don't think we have the right to have a go at them for making that choice.

 

[Dog]

I agree with dragons here.

The WORL has lost it's backbone in regards to the whole forum thing and now with Matt's attitude. He needs to get down from his high horse and accept some other people's ideas for once. No wonder the NineMSN thing went down the drain. Power always gets to your head.

Dog

 

[imported_Go The Dragons]

I think the part that dissapointed me most was they offered no advice.
With many contacts, experience etc, etc. I was dissapointed they not only rejected my offer, but that they didn't see fit to reply to my final email.

If they choose not to run the petition, they obviously feel it would rock there very comfortable boat.

Maybe it's just time to have an issues based RL Website, run by fans, to accurately & truthfullyreport on important issues in the game. I feel there is no where to find accurate information on important issues facing league today.

Willow
I aggree that they have every right to choose what goes on there site, however I still believe it makes them spineless not even running a small story or at least a link from another relevant article.

Oh Well not to worry, It's best not to make to many waves at this time of the season. I will actively market the petition after the Grand Final.

The most important thing to remember is The Game is the most important thing!!!!!!

 

[Bomber]

Mate, have you considered issues such as the legal aspects of putting something up like a petition?

I essentially agree and support your idea of a petition, but the best place for it would be on a fan-focused messageboard such as this one or the WORL forums.

Despite never meeting him face to face, I've found MattO to be a reasonable sort of bloke, and one with principles. I remember sending in an article to him once, but he would never put it up on the website. After three more attempts, I eventually chucked it up on the WORL forums and had a mini-blast at MattO for being selective when it came to what goes up on the site. As it turned out, the only reason why it didn't go up was because it was taken word-for-word from another newspaper and wasn't an original article. I learnt a valuable lesson from that episode.

That comment about ''power getting to his head'' seems a tad unfair, if Jim Hall or anyone else finds something libelous in that website, it's MattO's arse that will be sued. I believe it has happened before, when a player/official/club objected to an article which was subsequently pulled.

For WORL to stay as the best site in league today, it has to be impartial and not surrender itself to the kingdom of the slogan. I've known of many sites who would latch onto one club/player/issue and never let go, we've seen it recently with the Kearns article, which in hindsight is just sensationalist journalism.

That's about it mate. Good luck with the petition, we really need to sort those bastards out!

Cheers
Bomber

 

[imported_Aaron C]

Go the Dragons,
Good on you bud. I commend you on your efforts and what it isyou believe in. The fact that Matt O and rleague.com has yet to reply to you, or support you on your efforts, shouldn't let it get to you. It also doesn't neccessarily mean that they won't reply to your emails, as Bomber just pointed out.
Persue with your efforts, and try to get as many Rugby LeagueWebmaster's as you possibly can to advertise your cause. Don't give up, because a big break may just be around the corner.

.

Cheers - Aaron C.

 

[imported_bronco]

Matt is well within his rights not to reply to this guy now that he has made private emails public. Why should matt send you a private email when he knows your just going to post it on a web forum.
Its Matts choice as to what goes on his site, just remember its a free service and none of you will be putting your hand in your pocket when matt is taken to court. Yes this petition probably isn't doing any harm but Matt has to be cautious with what is said on his site.

Cheers
bronco

 

[G@v]

"1. We would like to see the dismissal of Jim Hall & the entire NRL judiciary. "

That statement is bound to make people think twice about having any involvement in your petition. I'm not having a go at you, but I would consider rephrasing that request.

"1. We would like to see a reappraisal of the entire NRL judiciary and it's members."

 

[legend]

My only suggestion would be to post something on WORL if you feel you have a grievance that needs addressing and you will more than likey get quite a large response from some of the managers and assistant managers. For the record, I support your cause and feel that Smith was hard done by and once I have my own website up and running, feel free to pass on any issue you would like to have discussed.

 

[Dog-T]

bomber, i is a homey not a bomber so we are diferent types of dougs but you is wrong to is say that worl is impartial doug

there is articles are opinionated doug. they is shuld just is report the is facts and is leave there is opinions out of the reports

ps i is the baddest doug on the net and i is afraid of know bombers

 

[imported_Go The Dragons]

Gav

You have hit the nail on the head. That is the line that is causing me grief. Your alternate line is far superior.
The problem is I cannot change the wording after the petition is set.

I would have been better off calming down before I worded the petition.
I tried to be totally impartial, however that line is personal, I can see that.

However, this is what I'm talking about with Matty O, he didn't take the time to point out what it was in my petition that had the legal implications. This of course could have helped me in my future endevours. I knowhewasn't obliged togive me advice, I'm Just dissapointed he didn't.

 

[Bomber]

Dog-T, I can understand where you are coming from. However, it is nigh on impossible not to have opinions incorporated into some articles. I know this because I write the occasional article for MattO. I started out by writing some really neutral article about the Cowboys (something about a team change, I think). A week later I looked at it and thought "any old bastard could have written that". Eventually, as I got more confident in having material published on Matt's site, I was more easy about letting a bit of opinion go through to the keeper. For example, I wrotea bloody big opinion article just prior to Tim Sheens getting sacked.

I don't want to sound like I'm preaching down from a position of privilege, but rugby leauge is about opinions, if we didn't have opinions about certain teams and certain players we'll all be volleyball fanatics!

Just think of the implications of putting something up like the petition on the site. Whilst it's a jolly good idea, a precedent would have been set. The next week, you might see a petition for Ryan Girdler to strip on the Footy Show (and every single bloody 16yr old girl in NSW would sign it!), or something like that.

Just some food for thought. Gothedragons, yoú'll learn from this and come out better for it, trust me.

Cheers
Bomber

 

This message has been deleted by the manager or assistant manager.

 

[legend]

Matt, they have been deleted at the request of Bronco. A pointless exercise really as they now reappear in your post. I can totally understand where you are coming from with the e-mail being made public but I have to take you to task as to why I was allowed to post an e-mail I received from Peter Chapman on the doggies debate page a while back and it went unchecked. I fail to see the difference here. Can someone explain the difference between these two issues and I can't accept an excuse of it was because that person who sent the e-mail requested it be deleted. If it is good for one, it should be good for all, regardless of whether the person sending the e-mail knew it was published on a site or not.

 

[legend]

The post by Canterbury(MattO) was deleted because it also showed the e-mail which I was expressly asked to delete. Some may think it petty but it is consistent with the request to not have it made public. The only conflicting thing I find is e-mails from Peter Doust and Peter Chapman have appeared on WORL but have been let through to the keeper and allowed to stand. When MattO sees one of his up in lights he cries foul and says it is illegal. You better go check you site Matt as you are potentially facing several lawsuits.

 

[imported_Canterbury]

Some posts are gone, some are staying.

Someone has made an email of mine public, fair enough, contains nothing personal in there. Jeremy did what he thought was the right thing and I must I wasn't amused to see an email of mine published in here but it was a standard practice email, so I don't really care at all now.

I replied to Darren's email and I have another one waiting to reply.

Unfortunately for Darren, we couldn't endorse his petition for a various number of reasons. The comments directed at Jim Hall, which Gav pointed out very clearly would have been inappropriate and damaged any future relations with the National Rugby League.

I agree the judiciary is a joke and Craig Smith was hard done by.

We did however say in the email that you can promote it as much as you want on the forums but as a website and individualswe can't be associated with or endorse such a petition.

I'll reply to Darren internally. But the damage has been done and for the good of this site and the long-term growth, this thread really should be put to bed, wash your hands and brush your teeth -so everyone can move forward and not get stuck on the one dimentional stuff, which one has with all the talk being about how hard done by Hadley is or the big, bad mean rleague.com.

Legend did what he thought was the right thing and the only two people that matter in all of this are Darren andrleague.comand I'm not going to say a thing on the matter in here anymore. However, if you want to know our reasons why, I'm happy to explain them on email and ICQ.

As Bomber said, Darren will learn from this and be more wiser in the future in how to word things. I'm no legal eagle but I punched a few holes easily that would land us in trouble.

I know Legend wants to see this forum be one of independance and not resort to bashing other sites or forums, which one in particular has done and no longer gets posts. Legend most of all doesn't need this kind of stuff and best let me handle it with Darren internally.

Sorry to everyone about the hassles.