Just from the e-mails read on air, it's one thing to do the show on your own for whatever principle, but it changes the priority's when you drag your family into it. That is pretty unpleasant and can make the whole challenge that you were up for far less attractive if you have alternatives.
It was done many times. I still don't believe the threats were a lie. Cohen admitted he was feeling heat from the boycott but there we enough of us to keep the show going. They were getting new sponsors all the time. I was taking time to send emails to companies like we know wine and objectivo in support of their advertising on WSD as well as buying their products. I also sent an email to whoareya designs tell them that I would not be supporting their company because they gave in to your boycott. The end came to quickly like the decision was based on an emotional response, like having your step kids threatened.
Well since you guys threaten them all why bother just do it by subscription. What will you guys do steal the subscriber list and threaten each subscriber individually? I will sign up the day they are ready.
It is far less unpleasant not to have to deal with sponsors who are being bombarded with hate-mail. As a subscription, people should have the freedom to subscribe to anyone they want; it would almost appear to be a private communication.
Nope, wrong coast...though I will be in the bay area for a week next month...but I don't think that qualifies me as a tenured professor at UCLA with a Doctorate. Drat!
Cohen just ended WSD, and thereby whatever deals he had with his sponsors. I can imagine that strained his relationships with whatever sponsors he had and any new re-launch will take time to get old ones back and new ones to come on board. Having said that, my opinion doesn't really change either way. I'm sure the loss of sponsors hurt him. I'm sure he also received threats. The boyocott was successful my friend. Pop the cork. Ultimately, it's the killing of WSD as the result of a boycott that people are upset with. So whether it's loss of sponsor or threats, either way, you're still a dick who hates US soccer.
I was initially undecided on whether to even bother with this but I had to respond to some of these sections. Surely the same applies to Liverpool fans in regard to Hillsborough and the organisers of the boycott in regard to forcing WSD off the air and creating a situation that fostered threats? Pretty much. Unfortunately Liverpool fans, to this day, refuse to accept any blame for any part of the disaster when in reality they contributed to it in a numbers of ways. Even Liverpool fans dispute parts of the report and are unhappy with several aspects of it. Of course this is only when it suits them. The rest of the time they cling to the report as a shield to deflect any and all blame from their supporters when, in reality, the interim report has numerous failings. The only thing Cohen is guilty of is exaggeration. The foundation of what he said has merit whether you chose to like it or not. If you had educated yourself you would know full well that it was more likely to happen to Liverpool fans when you consider their prior history in relation to turning up late to games, without tickets and trying to force their way in. The first two being things that the supporters were expressly warned against doing during the build up to the match. As it was there were three compounding fan issues at play. The first was the group of fans who were legitimately delayed because of traffic, the second was the group of fans who were still drinking in pubs just prior to kick off and the third was the group of fans who did not have tickets but showed up regardless with the intention of getting in. That is before we even get into the following orders/other fans defense that is often used. There is this thing called common sense after all. Ultimately fans did play a role in the disaster along with a numbers of other issues such as the design of the stadium and the actions of the authorities. Everyone involved must accept the role they played and blame apportioned as appropriate. The insistence of Liverpool fans that they were blameless and the authorities are solely to blame is what irks a lot of people. Until everyone can step back and accept their role in what happened then the truth (and justice) Liverpool fans strive for will never come to fruition. Instead we will be left with the interim report and all of its failings. Statements like that contribute to the failings of the Taylor Report and the misinformation surrounding the disaster. No-one, not even Cohen, blamed the dead for anything (to the best of my knowledge). The vast majority being sober is of little relevance. The issue involving alcohol is not with the dead but with those who arrived, minutes before kick off or even later, from the pubs.
Yeah, saying that drunken Liverpool fans contributed to the deaths is obviously not the same as blaming the people who died. The people who died didn't have to be drunk. They were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Kind of like in US politics btw where saying anything negative about the Iraq policy was considered 'blaming the troups'. That's why the tactic is so obviously recognizable.
Thanks for further proving my point. I mentioned it three posts above your one. You need to take a few minutes to actually read and ensure you understand what people are posting. All you have done is skimmed a few posts and then fired up some dismissive questions. Read, understand then contribute. It is not a difficult concept to grasp.
Then please explain what Liverpool fans have to 'own up' to about Hillsborough. I trust these points will come with some sort of evidence, too.
If you know anything about football in England at the time of Hillsborough then you cannot dismiss Steven Cohen's argument that Liverpool fans did not contribute to the Hillsborough disaster in some way. I am not saying that the 96 were responsible for there own deaths but the behaviour of not just Liverpool fans but all fans who attended football games in England during the 70's and 80's contributed in some small way to the deaths at Hillsborough. If it had not been for all of those so called fans throughout the 70's and 80's there would not have been the need for fencing around all grounds, police would not have treated them the same way. It was common practice in those days to stay in the pub until 2.45pm then race to the ground to catch the kick off. I am not saying that anyone did this on purpose and I am not saying that I agree with the way Steven Cohen has conducted himself over this issue for the last couple of years but I dont disagree with his point of view or his right to state it. I do however disagree with the way certain supporters of Liverpool FC have conducted themselves and used threatening tactics to drive WSD from the airwaves. I do also think that LFC and there supporters and the sponsers who pulled out have done themselves a lot of damage of which they will feel the repercussion of for some time.
not gonna browse thru past pages of lfc trash to see if this has been posted before http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/support-world-soccer-daily-and-siriusxm
A friend of mine from Wigan posted this. He went to see Wigan play at Anfield and some fans chased him away threatening violence. Liverpool fans seem to be the most violent and aggressive fans of any kind in any sport.
You've obviously never heard of Millwall. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/8221451.stm
Im well aware of Millwall. Millwall and West Ham fans fight just about every weekend. They have the reputation but have they had even a single Heysal? And Millwall fans dont eat their own.
from the Interim Taylor Report (paragraph 64): A drunken fan tried to push him off: a beer can was thrown at a mounted officer. But these were isolated acts by individuals;the menace came from the massive numbers single-mindedly determined to be in for the kick-off with time running out. At the back of the crowd fans were frustrated by the lack of progress as 3 o’clock approached. Some, mostly young men who had been drinking, tried to push and force their way forward. At the front, people were jammed together and against the turnstile walls. Some panicked as the pressure intensified. Some youngsters and women were fainting and in distress. They were helped out through the tubular barrier by turnstile G or were passed over the turnstiles elsewhere. Fans climbed up and over the turnstile building or on to the dividing fence. This was to escape the crush rather than to gain free entry since most of them had tickets.
Hi Newbie. Those were not the words of Lord Taylor though were they,they were the words of the now disgraced Superintendent Marshall,the very same man who claimed Liverpool fans were all drunk and ticketless all claims that after thorough investigation were rightly debunked. You really must try harder. Para 63 Lots of you uneducated or pick and match folks when it comes to Hillsborough like to claim that if the fans had not pushed and shoved when the gates were opend (they didn't but that doesn't matter does it) then a crush could not have happend when infact a crush had allready happend as the Pens were allready full,Duckenfield knew this as he had the CCTV pictures (pictures that went missing) but he did NOT act to prevent more fans entering the Tunnel.
No I don't. I've learned over the past few months what I'm sure others learned a long time ago: it's impossible to discuss what happened in Hillsborough with a Liverpool supporter. It doesn't matter what facts are presented, they are going to vehemently believe whatever it is that they want to believe. Someone asked what Liverpool fans have to 'own up' to about Hillsborough. I showed them using the interim Taylor report.