Half a dozen letters in this week, 5 critical of the board, one critical of protesters / supporting the board.

Why is it that every letter criticising the board had the writers name and address, whereas the one criticising the protetsers had name and address withheld.

If the writer of that letter posts on here, I invite him / her to comment on why they are too ashamed to put their name to their letter.

Of course it could have been written by a board member, we will never know as they were too cowardly to admit who they are

Stewart,my thoughts exactly.The post criticising the protesters was from someone in the dwindling minority,someone who is so far out of touch with reality,someone who probably has some sort of connection to the "board".
Thats maybe why name and address was withheld.

Any chance of someone typing up the negative one for us exiles?

Hardly worth the bother anon, it was a pretty dull letter, poorly written (a bit like the recent statements on eastfife.org - draw your own conclusions)

From what I can remember, apparently we are "embarrassing" the club, the national press are "not interested in East Fife" but those damn protesters who are on an ego-trip are helping them to humiliate the club nationally.

The author was a minor shareholder (a bit like S.Twigg haw haw haw) and fully supports Derrick Brown

i'd like to see it if anyone can be bothered typing it up

the national press are not interested in east fife? so what was all that stuff in the scotsman? davie provan in the news of the world? the bbc online piece? 90 minutes on the radio? gordon waddell in the sunday mail? bill leckie in the sun?

the media is interested all right. think back to the media coverage of clydebank and airdrieonians. clubs going out of business is news

and someone please clarify - exactly who is on an ego trip?

what a pity the east fife mail allows someone to hide when all other writers are identified

At the end of the day I didnae write ony letter, I dont even read the East Fife mail, or the AFTN forum! This is all ABSOLUTE LIES

Cant be bothered typing the whole thing, maybe someone can scan it and upload to putfile (my scanner aint working)

Anyway, some snippets

"Do these supporters really think the national press care"

"protesters engaged on their ego trip"

"protesters... turning all of us into a laughing stock"

"healthier financial position than most clubs"

"seems to me all the board have done is taken decisions in the best interest of the club"

"I can assure the protesters that the chairman and his fellow directors will continue to enjoy my backing"

"Name and address supplied" - IE COWARD

For a list of reasons anyone can ask for their name and address to be withheld in newspapers. However, what usually happens with the reasoned reader is they make their own minds up about the information. I personally would not place much worth on an anonymous letter.

newspapers should not publish anonymous letters. if a writer won't put his or her name to an opinion or an attack then the writer has not earned the right to a bigger audience. i bet if you look at all of today's national newspapers you will be lucky to find one paper that carries letters saying 'name and address supplied'

I agree entirely about anonymous letters in newspapers.

Any of the above posters care to comment on anonymous posters on forums?

Yes .

Free Speech

But do not condone the more obscene and derogatory posts.

I happen to know that a number of people wrote to the East Fife Mail this week in support of the removal of Derrick Brown, asking to remain anonymous, for instance supplying their contact details but asking to go under "Worried Supporter" or similar.

The East Fife Mail actually wrote back to them asking them if they can put their actual name to their letter in order that it be published.

Why did this not happen in the case of "Name and Address Supplied"?

If this is correct, then James from the EFM can maybe inform us what is going on, he does read this site, so come on James, is this true?

I smell Sh!te.....

To clarify the situation.

We neeed names and addresses to verify the legitimacy of any letter and an e-mail address alone isn't good enough.

But anyone can withhold their name and address from publication.

Personally, any letter with a name and address always carries more weight as far as I'm concerned.

Perhaps the decision to withhold his name and address is a covert admission that he's in the minority?

To clarify the situation.

We neeed names and addresses to verify the legitimacy of any letter and an e-mail address alone isn't good enough.

But anyone can withhold their name and address from publication.

Personally, any letter with a name and address always carries more weight as far as I'm concerned.

Thanks for taking the time to come on here and let us know James.

To clarify, the same rules are applied to all letters - all contributors need to give a name and address / daytime telephone number?

Name and address is compulsory and a contact number is preferable.

All letters are subject to the same rules.

"But anyone can withhold their name and address from publication."

Only if you go ahead with publishing the letter. The only person who benefits from hiding the name is the writer - not the subject of the letter's contents, not the readers, not the newspaper.