dougdeep
New member
Curious Orange said:... and I've been busy doing some research. What I said is certainly TRUE for the proposed boundary of the National Park, here is the proposal map,
Why do they have to use Adobe 6?
Curious Orange said:... and I've been busy doing some research. What I said is certainly TRUE for the proposed boundary of the National Park, here is the proposal map,
Don't tell me you're still on WordPerfect 4.2?dougdeep said:Why do they have to use Adobe 6?
Dear Mr Sullivan,
Thank you for your e-mail concerning photographs in the recent edition of District Link.
The two photographs in District Link were respectively a genuine photograph of the site of the proposed stadium and fair representation of the attractiveness of the South Downs. There was absolutely no intention to misrepresent the location of the proposed stadium as illustrated by the aerial photo that was inluded on page 8 of District Link.
Probably confused it with my letter. Dimwits!!!sully said:Well, I've just got a response to my email from Sarah Nield, the
Assistant Freedom of Information Officer.
It reads:
I have, obviously, sent an immediate response asking that she actually read my letter, which had nothing to do with the District Link photographs, and get back to me.
Dear Mr Sullivan,
I do apologise. In cutting and pasting I simply transferred the wrong information into my response to you. The response you received was meant to go elsewhere to someone who had asked about the District Link photographs.
In answer to your original e-mail about the photographs on LDC's website, I would offer you the following:
The photos on the website were taken with the purpose of illustrating the beauty of the South Downs countryside and to give a general indication of the buildings already sited within the area which includes the proposed football stadium site.
We described the photos in District Link as 'Downland around Falmer'. I have spoken to our Press Officer who takes your point about how the photos have been described on the website and she is willing to amend the description on the website to reflect what was said in District Link which was 'Downland around Falmer'. This may take one or two days to implement.
Thank you.
Rangdo said:I was just thinking. Why don't we have a decent pro-Falmer propoganda website to promote our cause?
There must be some people on here with a decent knowledge of building websites and access to some free webspace to do a good job in 10 minutes or so.
Between us with some proper maps, photos and articles we should be able to quite easily put up some competition for the enemy and tell the alternative story for those who don't know and come looking for information.
If you do a Google search for "Falmer" the top result is:
"Falmer against the Stadium" at http://www.falmer.org.uk/
With photos like this:
http://www.angelfire.com/space/falmer/pictures/Falmermp1.jpg
No wonder theres so many idiots around who don't have a clue.
Posted by sully
Well, I've just got a response to my email from Sarah Nield, the
Assistant Freedom of Information Officer.
It reads:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Mr Sullivan,
Thank you for your e-mail concerning photographs in the recent edition of District Link.
The two photographs in District Link were respectively a genuine photograph of the site of the proposed stadium and fair representation of the attractiveness of the South Downs. There was absolutely no intention to misrepresent the location of the proposed stadium as illustrated by the aerial photo that was inluded on page 8 of District Link.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have, obviously, sent an immediate response asking that she actually read my letter, which had nothing to do with the District Link photographs, and get back to me.
Springal said:agreed we need an official, proper looking pro-falmer site hi-lighting the facts and figures. proper domain, proper website, proper information!