Houston hits back

[kplfishtank 4,656]

19 minutes ago, jintybear said:

Was he not a member on here? I'm sure he came on after that BBC appearance and was very arrogant about why he didn't tell the Hag to GTF. 

No he's never been on here , we blocked his ip , someone covered his laptop in silver foil so he couldn't post , but he could tell you everything that was said on here.

strange that 

[linfield1690 4,249]

3 minutes ago, K.A.I said:

I lost any respect I had for him after his Tweet about the fans at Berwick. Cretin of a boy. 

Whit was that mate?

[ianferguson 2,619]

42 minutes ago, gogzy said:

Do you think it's this site that has the obviously predictable "party lines"?

There's ABSOLUTELY a party line on this forum when it comes to Houston, it's not reflective of the wider Rangers community imo. If you read through this thread it's glaringly obvious he's practically despised. Naive to think a forum doesn't become a community where everyone knows which subjects will bring heat and when to put your tin hat on .King and Houston sympathisers will think three times before commenting on here as it's not worth with the hassle of fending off the usual trolls imo ?.

[Smile 26,600]

Just now, kplfishtank said:

No he's never been on here , we blocked his ip , someone covered his laptop in silver foil so he couldn't post , but he could tell you everything that was said on here.

strange that 

 

I prefer to believe his Bentley had his only Wifi Connection once he gave that up in the fight to save Rangers he could post no more.

[K.A.I 36,183]

2 minutes ago, ianferguson said:

There's ABSOLUTELY a party line on this forum when it comes to Houston, it's not reflective of the wider Rangers community imo. If you read through this thread it's glaringly obvious he's practically despised. Naive to think a forum doesn't become a community where everyone knows which subjects will bring heat and when to put your tin hat on .King and Houston sympathisers will think three times before commenting on here as it's not worth with the hassle of fending off the usual trolls imo ?.

I think it's getting more reflective of the wider-support tbh.

I was working on a new site today with a boy who's a Rangers fan and doesn't really do the online thing and the likes of King and fan guys like Houston got brought up and I was surprised at his outlook. He's just an example, I've noticed it elsewhere too. It's took a while to get to this stage but the tides turning, slowly. 

[ianferguson 2,619]

2 minutes ago, K.A.I said:

I think it's getting more reflective of the wider-support tbh.

I was working on a new site today with a boy who's a Rangers fan and doesn't really do the online thing and the likes of King and fan guys like Houston got brought up and I was surprised at his outlook. He's just an example, I've noticed it elsewhere too. It's took a while to get to this stage but the tides turning, slowly. 

Very slowly, I've never had any dealings with Houston and virtually never hear or read criticism of him outside RM in all honesty. 

[K.A.I 36,183]

Just now, ianferguson said:

Very slowly, I've never had any dealings with Houston and virtually never hear or read criticism of him outside RM in all honesty. 

Fair enough. You can only go on what you personally see and hear (online and off it) 

[Ger_onimo 20,488]

42 minutes ago, kplfishtank said:

He's fucking lying. He was offered to have a log in here and came up with all sorts of shite, probably instigated by MD , his IP was not blocked @bluepeter will back this up. 

If that drunken mess Lucy can open a new account on here every other day I'm sure he could manage one.

[Deanzmeanzheinz 4,312]

You cant beat a 100 pager thread 

[reallyruff 622]

Contrary opinions are often seen on here, in fact , evidenced in this very thread. Dissenting opinions you won't find on FF. Dissenting? Yes because it's there that you will only find one opinion mattering or allowed. This forum is chock full of former posters from FF, former because they had an opinion that was in dissent with that of the accepted position or they wished to provide information that was not to be shared, and were subsequently banned. Contrary opinions are allowed on RM and will be discussed, argued against or supported according to each individual's preference, again as evidenced in this thread. Yours is not a dissenting opinion as there is no party line to toe here, it would merely appear to be a minority one and for that reason alone perhaps you should re-evaluate it.

[RFC55 108,733]

2 hours ago, K.A.I said:

Oh absolutely but I've no time for someone like Buster who wanted to form a new Rangers and pass us on the leagues going back up all because he didn't like the last custodians 

there's free speech alright which is great so I'll invoke mines here - he's a cunt of a man 

Me and you would.maybe have been Co chairman. That woulda been good

"last weekend we invested 150quid but owed shug for an 80 bit so we are 70 down"

[King Jela 20,360]

Grassing, closet tim. 

[reallyruff 622]

18 minutes ago, ianferguson said:

There's ABSOLUTELY a party line on this forum when it comes to Houston, it's not reflective of the wider Rangers community imo. If you read through this thread it's glaringly obvious he's practically despised. Naive to think a forum doesn't become a community where everyone knows which subjects will bring heat and when to put your tin hat on .King and Houston sympathisers will think three times before commenting on here as it's not worth with the hassle of fending off the usual trolls imo ?.

But at least they'd be capable of posting on here, a significant difference, even though I disagree completely with your characterization of this forum.

[reallyruff 622]

11 minutes ago, K.A.I said:

Fair enough. You can only go on what you personally see and hear (online and off it) 

It's usually called selective hearing/editing.

[K.A.I 36,183]

2 minutes ago, reallyruff said:

Contrary opinions are often seen on here, in fact , evidenced in this very thread. Dissenting opinions you won't find on FF. Dissenting? Yes because it's there that you will only find one opinion mattering or allowed. This forum is chock full of former posters from FF, former because they had an opinion that was in dissent with that of the accepted position or they wished to provide information that was not to be shared, and were subsequently banned. Contrary opinions are allowed on RM and will be discussed, argued against or supported according to each individual's preference, again as evidenced in this thread. Yours is not a dissenting opinion as there is no party line to toe here, it would merely appear to be a minority one and for that reason alone perhaps you should re-evaluate it.

Totally agree. It makes me laugh when people say RM all toe a certain agenda. 

Nothing is further from the truth. There's endless arguments on here over the pettiest of things from the colour of our socks, Jo Dodoo, where Andy Halliday was born, the Union Bears, who plays football manager, who starts the "official" matchday threads - you name it.

Usually the people who spout that nonsense are the clowns who come on here with the agenda themselves and that's usually people who think King can do no wrong, Club1872 can do no wrong and they worship Houston and Chris Graham. That's not even stereotyping as it's pretty much factually correct (from what I've seen) 

[mchammer 245]

Was this Houston in the jail for something? Just thinking about his comments about how hard it is to find work due to being "a noted Rangers fan"

What? Don't Rangers fans run garages/mechanics?

Was he not an oven cleaner, not a mechanic, before becoming a "noted Rangers fan"?  Or am I mixing him up with someone else?

[TheLawMan 6,240]

11 hours ago, Young Bob said:

"Out of the 15 candidates who stood many have since cancelled their subscriptions and made themselves unavailable for election"

Interesting. Perhaps for the same reasons that the majority of the support wont join up.

Close to a Breach of data protection there. He has form for that though.

[gogzy 31,195]

30 minutes ago, ianferguson said:

There's ABSOLUTELY a party line on this forum when it comes to Houston, it's not reflective of the wider Rangers community imo. If you read through this thread it's glaringly obvious he's practically despised. Naive to think a forum doesn't become a community where everyone knows which subjects will bring heat and when to put your tin hat on .King and Houston sympathisers will think three times before commenting on here as it's not worth with the hassle of fending off the usual trolls imo ?.

Sorry but a party line and a consensus of opinions are not the same thing.  A party line is something that must be followed, We have never banned someone for being supportive of CH ( or not toeing this imagined party line).  Quite the opposite, they are allowed to post, but they will be debated with and called out on any lies they post,  from members on here who all have their OWN opinions.

 

[ianferguson 2,619]

9 minutes ago, K.A.I said:

Totally agree. It makes me laugh when people say RM all toe a certain agenda. 

Nothing is further from the truth. There's endless arguments on here over the pettiest of things from the colour of our socks, Jo Dodoo, where Andy Halliday was born, the Union Bears, who plays football manager, who starts the "official" matchday threads - you name it.

Usually the people who spout that nonsense are the clowns who come on here with the agenda themselves and that's usually people who think King can do no wrong, Club1872 can do no wrong and they worship Houston and Chris Graham. That's not even stereotyping as it's pretty much factually correct (from what I've seen) 

So what your saying is we disagree on the small shit and agree when it comes to the big fish ?.

[reallyruff 622]

2 minutes ago, ianferguson said:

So what your saying is we disagree on the small shit and agree when it comes to the big fish ?.

Who do you perceive as a big fish? Not CH surely? I'd be more concerned about why he has such a poor reputation, by your own admission, outwith communities that do not have the editorial practices of FF and SOS page.

[lidorfc 6,665]

2 minutes ago, ianferguson said:

So what your saying is we disagree on the small shit and agree when it comes to the big fish ?.

What exactly is it that you're suggesting? Because it's not "you can't have opinions on here contrary to the majority otherwise you'll be banned" which is patently absurd, so are you saying people just don't say what they actually think in regards to Houston for fear of being a forum pariah or something? 

[ianferguson 2,619]

5 minutes ago, gogzy said:

Sorry but a party line and a consensus of opinions are not the same thing.  A party line is something that must be followed, We have never banned someone for being supportive of CH ( or not toeing this imagined party line).  Quite the opposite, they are allowed to post, but they will be debated with and called out on any lies they post,  from members on here who all have their OWN opinions.

 

A little pedantic for you Gogzy,you know what I mean. It's simply not a good idea to support Houston ,King or Graham on RM. My point is how strange another Rangers forum has polar opposite views. Someone's not being objective and no surprise both look in the opposite direction rather than look within.

[K.A.I 36,183]

2 minutes ago, ianferguson said:

So what your saying is we disagree on the small shit and agree when it comes to the big fish ?.

To be honest you probably could say that, yeah.

As Gogzy points out there's a general concensus on the bigger issues on here such as King, the fans groups, certain individuals but that's not toeing a line. It's a group of people who all agree on some big things and feel comfortable posting their views.

I think it's human too to surround yourself and talk to people who think like you do yourself, hence why I said I talk to people who seem to have woken up to the likes of King and Houston and you're saying you haven't. I think we do this without really thinking and gravitate to who we are alike.

I mean, I couldn't sit in a pub or a bus with someone who keeps droning on that they're wonderful ... likewise if there's someone who loves King and Club1872 to want to hang about with me all the time if I'm always putting them down too. 

The difference is RangersMedia allows the different opinions, but the minority who have these opinion's don't stick around because they feel like it's not their place to spend time and talk Rangers whereas FollowFollow actually does ban people who ask questions and doesn't toe the line. Christ about ten-years ago on there one of their top admin actually made a thread saying "Do you trust black players" ... seriously ... I replied saying one black player I don't trust is that wee Hibs goalie Makalamby as he was always throwing the ball into his net ... next minute banned reason given "racism" 

[Ger_onimo 20,488]

4 minutes ago, lidorfc said:

What exactly is it that you're suggesting? Because it's not "you can't have opinions on here contrary to the majority otherwise you'll be banned" which is patently absurd, so are you saying people just don't say what they actually think in regards to Houston for fear of being a forum pariah or something? 

I think he means that forums tend to become echo chambers, and without intent everyone does tend to subconsciously fall into line with each other, particularly on subjects which are constantly discussed. Human nature I suppose.

[Smile 26,600]

2 minutes ago, ianferguson said:

A little pedantic for you Gogzy,you know what I mean. It's simply not a good idea to support Houston ,King or Graham on RM. My point is how strange another Rangers forum has polar opposite views. Someone's not being objective and no surprise both look in the opposite direction rather than look within.

 

But that is because they have to post a certain way to remain on that forum, which kills free speech.

This is what one of the resignation letter said about CH.

"However, throughout our tenure we found the conduct of one director particularly challenging, causing all of us to make considerable personal compromises at times. However last week a situation arose, which we felt compromised the organisation rather than ourselves, and that was one compromise we were not prepared to make under any circumstances."