This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
lefty27 ipswich 28 Jun 22 9.24am | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Mapletree
For the avoidance of doubt the 1861 lie article was written by Gordon Law. Gordon is editor of The HOL (Penge Eagle). Gordon released a book in November called Palace Pioneers. I don’t think the club’s line on its history matches what is in the book, although I haven’t read it. So are you suggesting that the author selected sources to support his narrative? There are two from the 1940s which are pretty irrelevant the handbook can be interpreted in both ways , for and against.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
ASCPFC Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 28 Jun 22 11.40am | |
---|---|
I remember all those times we went to away matches and the opposition fans would sing "Your only babies from 1905". Probably the biggest form of football banter. Edited by ASCPFC (28 Jun 2022 11.42am)
Red and Blue Army! |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Penge Eagle Beckenham 28 Jun 22 1.09pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by lefty27
So are you suggesting that the author selected sources to support his narrative? There are two from the 1940s which are pretty irrelevant the handbook can be interpreted in both ways , for and against. When you say "legend is cool" I assume you put feelings ahead of facts. I think it's pretty clear in the article with lots of evidence that both CP cricket and football clubs folded. Do you have any counter evidence that states this is false?
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post | Board Moderator |
lefty27 ipswich 28 Jun 22 3.02pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Penge Eagle
When you say "legend is cool" I assume you put feelings ahead of facts. I think it's pretty clear in the article with lots of evidence that both CP cricket and football clubs folded. Do you have any counter evidence that states this is false? No because I’ve just read a couple of short articles sourcing documents that back their narrative. I’m not a historian with a lot of time on my hands so to most people it’s down to which story you prefer or which suites your agenda.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
YT Oxford 28 Jun 22 3.16pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Nicholas91
I'm afraid it might be Dave. I think it was just a joke but there is solid ground for a philosophical discussion IMHO. It's interesting that the 'Trigger's broom' gag has been brought into the discussion. For 'Trigger's broom' is itself a resurrection of a joke that has prevailed for centuries ie it wasn't invented by John Sullivan. Previous manifestations were: 'King Henry's sword'...'Cromwell's pike'...'Grandad's hammer/axe/rake/shovel etc etc'. I can even vaguely recall the joke being used on TV about 'Grandma's rocking chair', although I can't remember where and when (possibly it was 'The Waltons' or - for those of us of a certain age - 'The Beverly Hillbillies').
Palace since 19 August 1972. Palace 1 (Tony Taylor) Liverpool 1 (Emlyn Hughes) |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
SnapperKain SE25 6PU 29 Jun 22 4.59pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by YT
It's interesting that the 'Trigger's broom' gag has been brought into the discussion. For 'Trigger's broom' is itself a resurrection of a joke that has prevailed for centuries ie it wasn't invented by John Sullivan. Previous manifestations were: 'King Henry's sword'...'Cromwell's pike'...'Grandad's hammer/axe/rake/shovel etc etc'. I can even vaguely recall the joke being used on TV about 'Grandma's rocking chair', although I can't remember where and when (possibly it was 'The Waltons' or - for those of us of a certain age - 'The Beverly Hillbillies'). Goes back even further than that! The Ship of Theseus thought puzzle was proposed by Greek philosophers such as Heraclitus and Plato with the premise of if the ship of Theseus were kept in a harbour and every part on the ship were replaced one at a time, would it then be a new ship? I prefer the Trigger's broom version personally
The trouble with computers, of course, is that they're very sophisticated idiots |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
YT Oxford 09 Jul 22 11.37am | |
---|---|
Originally posted by SnapperKain
Goes back even further than that! The Ship of Theseus thought puzzle was proposed by Greek philosophers such as Heraclitus and Plato with the premise of if the ship of Theseus were kept in a harbour and every part on the ship were replaced one at a time, would it then be a new ship? I prefer the Trigger's broom version personally Yes, someone else referred to the philosophical point earlier in the thread. I was, of course, talking about it being used as a source of humour, and then the irony of it being used in an argument about the age of the club. Incidentally - is there any chance of the 'Fake News' story on the front page of HOL being replaced any time soon, I wonder? I'm a bit bored "of" seeing it each time I log in, and I suspect most people don't particularly care.
Palace since 19 August 1972. Palace 1 (Tony Taylor) Liverpool 1 (Emlyn Hughes) |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Palace_Guard Kyiv 11 Jul 22 4.42am | |
---|---|
Originally posted by CrazyBadger
If The '1861 Lie' article is Accurate, and it certainly reads that way to me, the Club was not Re-Formed in 1905, completely disassociating itself with any previous incarnations. It was a new entity. Quotes like It's a great fairy tale, and one That I really Want to be true, but you can't change history to make it so. Even though its a quote from a long time ago, im not sure if its exactly 100% true. There definitely was a connection.
Live in Melbourne or Victoria, Australia? Well join the Crystal Palace Melbourne Supporters Club: Adelaide, South Australia? Join here: |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Palace_Guard Kyiv 11 Jul 22 4.43am | |
---|---|
Originally posted by crvenaeagle
Stevie P is is always desperately looking for new ways to make our club more marketable, which is appreciated as it's building blocks for our future, but this one however is just cringey for me. We can't fabricate a false history simply for the sake of claiming a title as "the oldest". It looks tacky to me, and it will look tacky to others. He's never said that though, he's always said its up to each palace fan to interpret how they wish to. I dont think he's been pushing an agenda at all.
Live in Melbourne or Victoria, Australia? Well join the Crystal Palace Melbourne Supporters Club: Adelaide, South Australia? Join here: |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Palace_Guard Kyiv 11 Jul 22 5.04am | |
---|---|
Originally posted by lefty27
So are you suggesting that the author selected sources to support his narrative? There are two from the 1940s which are pretty irrelevant the handbook can be interpreted in both ways , for and against. i agree lefty! Its very intriguing and fascinating, but i dont see any negatives from it.
Live in Melbourne or Victoria, Australia? Well join the Crystal Palace Melbourne Supporters Club: Adelaide, South Australia? Join here: |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
deleted 25 11 Jul 22 12.48pm | |
---|---|
Recommend a book titled ‘the ball is round’ Which has interesting info about the origins of footie (and rugger) Does mention a CP Depends whether you think that a club named originally after a building on the other side of the river can be linked. Certainly worked for Arsenal
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
sydtheeagle England 11 Jul 22 8.06pm | |
---|---|
I can't really see why there's so much argument about whether 1861 is right or wrong as pretty much everyone (pro-1861 and against-1861) agrees that there is no definitive claim to the earlier date; it's simply a question of how you interpret various facts. You either think the thread that runs from the earlier club to the 1905 club is strong enough to make the 1861 claim or you don't. But you can't absolutely prove the former beyond any reasonable doubt. Personally, my view is that we shouldn't adopt 1861 as our date of birth (note; I said "shouldn't", not "can't" but that's simply because I err on the side of respecting a proven tradition rather than engaging in what can surely only be seen as revisionist history. I think you should only make the 1861 claim if the historical evidence for doing so is absolutely incontrovertible in support of the earlier date; nothing I've read persuades me that's the case. However, as I've noted before the change to 1861 gives the club a nice little marketing/media opportunity and we all know that anything that looks like a new revenue stream is welcome. I suspect that's what's behind the club's enthusiasm for the earlier date as much as any interest in historical accuracy.
Sydenham by birth. Selhurst by the Grace of God. |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Registration is now on our new message board
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.