Xpanded tv - General Chat & Discussion

I see the houlier than thou brigade are out at their divisive best on this one. Only they could stir over such a subject.

(19-05-2019 19:09 )tony confederate Wrote:  Because if he doesn't know their names, why should anyone believe that he's speaking on their behalf.

To speak on someone's behalf you should have their permission to do so and their agreement to have their name used.

I could claim that I'm writing this post on behalf of others. If I can't say who they are, why should you believe me?

When speaking on behalf of others, the proper thing to do is to add their names at the bottom of the message.

^ That's just a little precious don't you think? Carl had the clear support of certain members here who had expressed accord with what he was doing, as he was doing it via this thread, so "others" is perfectly valid, in the circumstances, without further explanation. So what if it took him a revision to get that element right. I dare say you lot are perfect?!

More interesting I feel is the underlying notion of why you are trying to deny the voice that Carl has expressed...

I have a question for rygel, tony, barracuda and/or marlowe: If you claim Carl is not speaking for you then what do you actually think about this Ken situation? If your opinion is contary to Carl's why hide its nature? If it's not contary, how was he not representing your feelings exactly?