Vanguard Bears - just who are they?

[outlaw69uk 123]

FF has more because it's the biggest site. There are cliques, self interest and division on this site too, probably other Rangers sites as well.

Anyway, I have no interest in defending Dingwall, I just don't think it was necessary to include either him or Follow Follow in the original post.

Follow follow is run as a business, by a man who's ultimate goal has always been a tie and blazer. In doing so, he sells "fanzines" although possibly not as much now due to not paying his printers, he fleeces fans, he sells products with rangers brands, which he has not been authorised to do, nor paid for the right to do so. This takes money from the fans, and also keeps it out of the clubs pockets, which is even worse in recent times.

He, and associates have also been responsible for the threatening emails etc sent to prospective buyers of the club, and others, which put the clubs very existence in peril.

If you view it as a website only, which I am presuming you are, then there is still the issue of costing the club money. Makes perfect sense that he is looked at.

I think it's nice a member chose to write that article. It contains a lot of things that would rightly be praised, and shows there is a wide range of members with influence in other groups, such as rtidni, and the other things that are done. Most of these things go unmentioned as, the viewpoint is actually getting them done, is far more important than telling the world about it. We don't do things for a look at me reaction, we so them because they should be done, and that's the part I am most proud of.

[Gaz92 966]

What is this post supposed to be if it's not snide and unnecessary baiting of Rangers fans or, indeed, a cheap dig?

On the original post, the good things the VB have done are very impressive. The quasi-political and religious undertones detract from that good work, as does the unnecessary snide dig at Dingwall and Follow Follow.

I don't think I could have summed it up any better myself, to be honest.

The Founding Father headstone, the money raised are great, and I'm sure there's a load more that I don't know about.

But this political side that they are passionate about is something I try to remove from my support of Rangers as far as possible. It's of no interest to me, and I can't stand those who define it as part of your support for the club. I fully understand some want to defend their traditions, but I'm more interested in the way the club moves forward. I also believe there are some parts of the past that should stay there.

I also can't help but feel just a sense of aggression from some, and in all honesty, I see exactly why TWB makes stupid comments in order to reel someone in.

But there, I'm off to do some proper wringing of hands now whilst bouncing about on Followfollow.

[outlaw69uk 123]

...but do we have to take up an opposite religious view, or political view (or percieved views) based on what the detractors of the club may be (or percieved to be)?

.. Is that not allowing 'Them' to define who we are ??

.... do we really lack the wit and intelligence to defend our football club without having to also become followers of a big man in the sky (or even those wee gay lads in Downing Street)?

That's a mile in the wrong direction.

Rangers were here first, before them, that's a fact

The majority of Scotland, and Britain, whether unionist, nationalist etc, and whether active or not, are Some form of Protestant, it's cos and Coe. Again, it's a fact. We're you. Christened?

Another simple fact is, many people actually are firm believers, in the political and religious side of things, that's as well as being a rangers fan. You have and want your non religious beliefs, and are welcome to them, just as much as those who do are. The phrase a broad church is often used to describe our support, and, church is a fairly religious word. Most supporters of any team, will follow their team "religiously". It's inescapable.

Unfortunately, in Scotland these days, everything is tied to politics and religion, as someone else mentioned, our club would not be under the kind of attacks it is without that aspect, and, those attacking it want our club gone! They don't care that you, or others don't really care about religion, or that you are a fan of the snp (they aren't that smart). The "troubles" are being played out these days politically in Scotland, with football being used as the vehicle.

New laws? Created by people of a certain religious persuasion, to make it a crime to pick on them in any way they decided. They admitted this.

Rangers, even down to playing in red white and blue, are a target for the snp, either directly or by avoidance. Any other club in any other league would have been helped in our situation.

The thing with all this is, it may well not be your bag, but it is hurting the club, which means its hurting YOUR club. We try to stop it. Simple as that. Whether you believe politically or religiously is irrelevant, if you care for the club, you stand against it. Doesn't mean you have to become an uber prod/unionist does it?

[TravelingWilBEARy 4,319]

Follow follow is run as a business, by a man who's ultimate goal has always been a tie and blazer. In doing so, he sells "fanzines" although possibly not as much now due to not paying his printers, he fleeces fans, he sells products with rangers brands, which he has not been authorised to do, nor paid for the right to do so. This takes money from the fans, and also keeps it out of the clubs pockets, which is even worse in recent times.

He, and associates have also been responsible for the threatening emails etc sent to prospective buyers of the club, and others, which put the clubs very existence in peril.

If you view it as a website only, which I am presuming you are, then there is still the issue of costing the club money. Makes perfect sense that he is looked at.

I think it's nice a member chose to write that article. It contains a lot of things that would rightly be praised, and shows there is a wide range of members with influence in other groups, such as rtidni, and the other things that are done. Most of these things go unmentioned as, the viewpoint is actually getting them done, is far more important than telling the world about it. We don't do things for a look at me reaction, we so them because they should be done, and that's the part I am most proud of.

I told you, I have no interest in defending Dingwall. I would say that it's more than a little contradictory for VB to proclaim themselves to be defenders of traditions and the support and then, in the same post, attempt a character assassination of one of our own.

There are things included in the original post that VB can rightly be proud of and things than no-one, least of all me, can do anything but praise and congratulate VB for. The quasi-political and religious undertones do nothing but alienate the very large (and it's larger than some people might care to admit) section of the support who have no interest in such things and see Rangers as a football club. If VB really are the defenders of all Rangers fans then surely alienating such a large section of the support makes no sense?

[Bad Robot 21,125]

All I have is total praise for the vanguard bears and the hard work they do both as individuals and as a group. No matter how many times the minority in our support try to change us they will keep the home fire burnings and keep our club true to our traditions. Hats off to them.

[Hossy 42]

The Vanguard Bears

[Loyalist_RFC 222]

Great Article

[Gaz92 966]

Out of curiosity, is there a place in the VB for someone who isn't a Unionist, a Monarchist, and not interested in defending traditions such as the Orange Order?

Are there many on your forum that don't stand for these things?

[number7 0]

I told you, I have no interest in defending Dingwall. I would say that it's more than a little contradictory for VB to proclaim themselves to be defenders of traditions and the support and then, in the same post, attempt a character assassination of one of our own.

There are things included in the original post that VB can rightly be proud of and things than no-one, least of all me, can do anything but praise and congratulate VB for. The quasi-political and religious undertones do nothing but alienate the very large (and it's larger than some people might care to admit) section of the support who have no interest in such things and see Rangers as a football club. If VB really are the defenders of all Rangers fans then surely alienating such a large section of the support makes no sense?

you do know that being atheist doesn't make you right on with the Catholics don't you? they hate you just as much as they hate us ( if the fact is you are actually an atheist)

so the OP isn't actually contradictory

and it really isn't such a large section of the support offline

[number7 0]

Out of curiosity, is there a place in the VB for someone who isn't a Unionist, a Monarchist, and not interested in defending traditions such as the Orange Order?

Are there many on your forum that don't stand for these things?

Yes , debate is healthy

but given that almost 100% of the board believe in the Union , The Crown and the Protestant Faith, most agitators don't last long

[Gaz92 966]

you do know that being atheist doesn't make you right on with the Catholics don't you? they hate you just as much as they hate us ( if the fact is you are actually an atheist)

? Care to expand on your use of "Catholics"?

[Gaz92 966]

Yes , debate is healthy

but given that almost 100% of the board believe in the Union , The Crown and the Protestant Faith, most agitators don't last long

Someone is an "agitator" because they don't believe in your political or religious views?

[WVB 2,560]

I told you, I have no interest in defending Dingwall. I would say that it's more than a little contradictory for VB to proclaim themselves to be defenders of traditions and the support and then, in the same post, attempt a character assassination of one of our own.

You count a profiteering, manipulative bully as "one of our own", yet you have a pop at the VB for pointing out the fact that this obese money launderer is in our midst.

I believe you said I was a hypocrite a while ago.

Give yourself a shake. Or get assessed for Aspergers Syndrome.

[Loyalist_RFC 222]

Out of curiosity, is there a place in the VB for someone who isn't a Unionist, a Monarchist, and not interested in defending traditions such as the Orange Order?

Are there many on your forum that don't stand for these things?

And what traditions have you got?

The last time i looked all of the above was part of being Rangers supporter the same Traditions and values that my Grandfather and Father held so dear.

[Gaz92 966]

And what traditions have you got?

The last time i looked all of the above was part of being Rangers supporter the same Traditions and values that my Grandfather and Father held so dear.

I have a dad from Wales (Liverpool fan) who wasn't a Rangers fan. I was allowed to pick my own team with zip influence involved.

[number7 0]

? Care to expand on your use of "Catholics"?

quite correct to pull me up on that one, of course i meant Roman Catholics

Someone is an "agitator" because they don't believe in your political or religious views?

Yes, if they go on a forum whose main body consists of the above

[TravelingWilBEARy 4,319]

You count a profiteering, manipulative bully as "one of our own", yet you have a pop at the VB for pointing out the fact that this obese money launderer is in our midst.

I believe you said I was a hypocrite a while ago.

Give yourself a shake. Or get assessed for Aspergers Syndrome.

I fail to see anything hypocritical in my post, not everyone sees it as objectively as you obviously do.

[minstral 5,375]

I don't think I could have summed it up any better myself, to be honest.

The Founding Father headstone, the money raised are great, and I'm sure there's a load more that I don't know about.

But this political side that they are passionate about is something I try to remove from my support of Rangers as far as possible. It's of no interest to me, and I can't stand those who define it as part of your support for the club. I fully understand some want to defend their traditions, but I'm more interested in the way the club moves forward. I also believe there are some parts of the past that should stay there.

I also can't help but feel just a sense of aggression from some, and in all honesty, I see exactly why TWB makes stupid comments in order to reel someone in.

But there, I'm off to do some proper wringing of hands now whilst bouncing about on Followfollow.

Our traditions and culture are what made our club known all over the world.

[Gaz92 966]

Yes, if they go on a forum whose main body consists of the above

So it's a divisive group?

[WVB 2,560]

Out of curiosity, is there a place in the VB for someone who isn't a Unionist, a Monarchist, and not interested in defending traditions such as the Orange Order?

Are there many on your forum that don't stand for these things?

Funny you should say that.........

I have no real interest in religion, no great interest in the Monarchy, a total contempt for party politics, although I admittedly shall be voting against the destruction of my country.

My interest is in Rangers, and exposing the enemies of Rangers........most of whom appear to be more interested in the Loyal Fraternities than I ever was, perma-offended fenian fuckers.

I take no part in the threads that I feel are not relevant to myself personally, but I will fight for my fellow VBs right to hold, express & debate their views without stupid wee boys butting in and trolling with their uninformed pish.

That said, there is no place for snide comments on VB. I doubt you could hold your counsel. Best stay where you are.

[Gaz92 966]

Our traditions and culture are what made our club known all over the world.

And? Would some change/evolution affect The Rangers brand? Could it bring in new avenues of support?

We're at a pivotal point in our history now, and we can help choose how we can rebuild the club.

[outlaw69uk 123]

I told you, I have no interest in defending Dingwall. I would say that it's more than a little contradictory for VB to proclaim themselves to be defenders of traditions and the support and then, in the same post, attempt a character assassination of one of our own.

There are things included in the original post that VB can rightly be proud of and things than no-one, least of all me, can do anything but praise and congratulate VB for. The quasi-political and religious undertones do nothing but alienate the very large (and it's larger than some people might care to admit) section of the support who have no interest in such things and see Rangers as a football club. If VB really are the defenders of all Rangers fans then surely alienating such a large section of the support makes no sense?

Good, I have no interest in defending him either, just thought I would clarify some points as to why he is relevant.

Craig whyte is "one of us", and like Dingwall (albeit on a grander scale) robbed us and the club. Being a rangers fan doesn't mean you deserve to be defended, and in many ways, makes it worse to act that way.

I don't think the forum itself is alienated, just chubs and his nearest and dearest. Plenty on there, like here, seem to like a lot of what we do

[Gaz92 966]

Funny you should say that.........

I have no real interest in religion, no great interest in the Monarchy, a total contempt for party politics, although I admittedly shall be voting against the destruction of my country.

My interest is in Rangers, and exposing the enemies of Rangers........most of whom appear to be more interested in the Loyal Fraternities than I ever was, perma-offended fenian fuckers.

I take no part in the threads that I feel are not relevant to myself personally, but I will fight for my fellow VBs right to hold, express & debate their views without stupid wee boys butting in and trolling with their uninformed pish.

That said, there is no place for snide comments on VB. I doubt you could hold your counsel. Best stay where you are.

From threads past I feel you certainly represent a lot of views that would be supported on the site, and therefore fit in easier.

I can easily fit in with serious discussion. I've done it on here many a time and could hold most in a debate. I enjoy RM for the mixture of that and light hearted banter. Trust me, I've got no interest in a site where I can't get access to without the recommendation of another. I know the excuse used is to keep out fans of other clubs, but more efficient moderating of new members can work. It smacks of complete elitism to me.

[Leeds_Bear 8,094]

Which part of that was controversial?

So you don't deny it, you are infact a bellend?

[minstral 5,375]

And? Would some change/evolution affect The Rangers brand? Could it bring in new avenues of support?

We're at a pivotal point in our history now, and we can help choose how we can rebuild the club.

Most Rangers fans will choose our Traditions and Culture as we rebuild our club. They thing is that we were getting on fine as a club with no money problems, then a cretin bought us and tried to get rid of our Traditions and culture, plus he would never defend our club, and now look where we are.