Jimenez 1 Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 Not surprised in the slightest at the suggestion that Dingwall had a part to play in all of this. The guy is a muppet and the RST would be well rid of him. The thought of someone like him having any sort of influence with our club sends shivers through me. You're absolutely spot on mate - Dingwall's bawbaggery strikes again. ScotBear - I respect you so I'll try and spell this out for you. The report in todays Record has no substance to it whatsoever. It's a shot in the dark. saying that, I believe you aren't a member so I fail to see how you could be privy to what is best for the RST. If you feel it could be better run then join and put yourself up for election. NonBear - Whatever. You know the square root of hee haw when it comes to Rangers Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leftyger 0 Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 People forgot that Dingwall has only ever been in it for himself. ... Dingwall is selling fanzines and enything else that will mean a few bob to him and him alone. Said exactly the same thing a few weeks ago. I would love to see the Follow Follow accounts and who pockets the profit Again, what have the profits of a supporters fanzine got to do with you or me? As supporters I would have thought they had a lot to do with us. And is it not hypocritical for FF to demand Murray be open about our clubs finances when it won't do the same about its own Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mackerel 0 Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 Not surprised in the slightest at the suggestion that Dingwall had a part to play in all of this. The guy is a muppet and the RST would be well rid of him. The thought of someone like him having any sort of influence with our club sends shivers through me. You're absolutely spot on mate - Dingwall's bawbaggery strikes again. ScotBear - I respect you so I'll try and spell this out for you. The report in todays Record has no substance to it whatsoever. It's a shot in the dark. saying that, I believe you aren't a member so I fail to see how you could be privy to what is best for the RST. If you feel it could be better run then join and put yourself up for election. NonBear - Whatever. You know the square root of hee haw when it comes to Rangers Here we go again. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimenez 1 Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 People forgot that Dingwall has only ever been in it for himself. ... Dingwall is selling fanzines and enything else that will mean a few bob to him and him alone. Said exactly the same thing a few weeks ago. I would love to see the Follow Follow accounts and who pockets the profit Again, what have the profits of a supporters fanzine got to do with you or me? As supporters I would have thought they had a lot to do with us. And is it not hypocritical for FF to demand Murray be open about our clubs finances when it won't do the same about its own No, not at all. The magazine was started by Mark, therefore it's his to gain from. If you don't want to see profits go in to his pocket then I suggest you don't buy the magazine. If you put time and effort in to a magazine wouldn't you expect to reap the rewards? I have no idea how much it makes, for all we know it barely breaks even. The character assasination of Mark on here today is totally out of order. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
justiston 91 Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 will be a sad day if a bigot like mark dingwall gets on the board Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimenez 1 Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 will be a sad day if a bigot like mark dingwall gets on the board Aye very good. here's a fact for you to mull over. Mark has never put himself up as a candidate for the board. Nor is he likely to. If a bigot like you could keep personal hatred out of a fairly well debated thread then that would be much appreciated Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
justiston 91 Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 will be a sad day if a bigot like mark dingwall gets on the board Aye very good. here's a fact for you to mull over. Mark has never put himself up as a candidate for the board. Nor is he likely to. If a bigot like you could keep personal hatred out of a fairly well debated thread then that would be much appreciated Note the if... And i'm a bigot for callign someone a bigot? weird that Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimenez 1 Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 will be a sad day if a bigot like mark dingwall gets on the board Aye very good. here's a fact for you to mull over. Mark has never put himself up as a candidate for the board. Nor is he likely to. If a bigot like you could keep personal hatred out of a fairly well debated thread then that would be much appreciated Note the if... And i'm a bigot for callign someone a bigot? weird that Standard reply I've adopted to anyone who uses that as an insult. Bored to death of the 'bigot' slur. The 'if' is noted but he has no intentions of running for a place on the board it isn't even something that should be discussed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mackerel 0 Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 will be a sad day if a bigot like mark dingwall gets on the board Aye very good. here's a fact for you to mull over. Mark has never put himself up as a candidate for the board. Nor is he likely to. If a bigot like you could keep personal hatred out of a fairly well debated thread then that would be much appreciated The only person administering hatred on this thread is you - against anybody who dares to speak out against Dingwall. You've done it a few times now - you're like a wasp round an open can of coke on a hot day. What's wrong with justiston expressing his opinion if he wants to, it's not meant to be hate-filled or anything else (as he'll probably tell you himself if you ask him) - just his perception of the man and his views. Fair enough if you want to accuse him of not knowing enough about it, if so why don't you say that instead and in the process enlighten him as to how he's got it all so wrong? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimenez 1 Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 will be a sad day if a bigot like mark dingwall gets on the board Aye very good. here's a fact for you to mull over. Mark has never put himself up as a candidate for the board. Nor is he likely to. If a bigot like you could keep personal hatred out of a fairly well debated thread then that would be much appreciated The only person administering hatred on this thread is you - against anybody who dares to speak out against Dingwall. You've done it a few times now - you're like a wasp round an open can of coke on a hot day. What's wrong with justiston expressing his opinion if he wants to, it's not meant to be hate-filled or anything else (as he'll probably tell you himself if you ask him) - just his perception of the man and his views. Fair enough if you want to accuse him of not knowing enough about it, if so why don't you say that instead and in the process enlighten him as to how he's got it all so wrong? I'm fighting his corner where he isn't able to do so. Nothing the Record has reported is true. Certain members on here may wish to use that as an opportunity to attack him but I know he puts in a lot of time and effort doing what he feels is best for Rangers. Justiston called him a bigot right from the off. he obviously has a personal grudge against him, that's fair enough. I just hate the use of that word. It's gay. That's exactly what I did. I've pointed out the FACTS Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Briton 394 Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 What did he actually say when he praised this 'brutality'? The article on the site only referred to "pro-Murray" group as being Rangers fans impying that if you were anti-Murray you are not a Rangers fan. It also implied praise for that group for "overpowering" the protestors. Whether you are pro- or anti-Murray, that article on the Rangers site implied approval for physical force being used, and was disgraceful. Well you've used 'implied' three times there. Fair enough though, if SDM was in anyway approving of one group of Bears using force against another, then that would a disgrace. BTW...I'm neither a sycophant or a hater of Murray. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimenez 1 Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 What did he actually say when he praised this 'brutality'? The article on the site only referred to "pro-Murray" group as being Rangers fans impying that if you were anti-Murray you are not a Rangers fan. It also implied praise for that group for "overpowering" the protestors. Whether you are pro- or anti-Murray, that article on the Rangers site implied approval for physical force being used, and was disgraceful. Well you've used 'implied' three times there. Fair enough though, if SDM was in anyway approving of one group of Bears using force against another, then that would a disgrace. BTW...I'm neither a sycophant or a hater of Murray. It gave the green light to those who lashed out against the protestors and implied it was somehow acceptable. That's an abhorrent way for him to behave Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
justiston 91 Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 TruBear - Far to sensible words, you'll be labled a bigot next Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 14 Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 What did he actually say when he praised this 'brutality'? The article on the site only referred to "pro-Murray" group as being Rangers fans impying that if you were anti-Murray you are not a Rangers fan. It also implied praise for that group for "overpowering" the protestors. Whether you are pro- or anti-Murray, that article on the Rangers site implied approval for physical force being used, and was disgraceful. Well you've used 'implied' three times there. Fair enough though, if SDM was in anyway approving of one group of Bears using force against another, then that would a disgrace. BTW...I'm neither a sycophant or a hater of Murray. Me neither. I will criticise or praise Murray as he deserves. I will point out areas where I believe criticism is unjust, but also point people in areas where I think it is deserved. The second and third "implied" refer to the same thing (and apologies for my lack of a thesaurus. ) The use of the word "overpowered" in the article. I don't have the exact wording and don't have the time to search for it, but took wording from my email of complaint. The article did imply a lot of things, but they are not going to come out and say that physical force was correct or that anti-Murray people are not Rangers fans, but it was clear to me at the time what they were meaning. I also couldn't say whether SDM had any input into the article. It could have been an over-zealous member of staff, but either way, it was a disgrace. I did get a reply to my complaint, and needless to say they disagreed with my intrepretation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLUEDIGNITY 33,647 Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 will be a sad day if a bigot like mark dingwall gets on the board A bigotted what ? Just wonderin ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFlyingPig 0 Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 It gave the green light to those who lashed out against the protestors and implied it was somehow acceptable. That's an abhorrent way for him to behave You are of course assuming that Murray penned the article on the site himself. I very much doubt it but could see a lick-spittel trying to curry favour by doing it. Anyway it was very unprofessional of the Club allowing such statements to be on the website. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimenez 1 Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 TruBear - Far to sensible words, you'll be labled a bigot next For someone quick of the draw to bandy that allegation about on someone you probably don't know I'd have to say that is rich indeed Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Briton 394 Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 What did he actually say when he praised this 'brutality'? The article on the site only referred to "pro-Murray" group as being Rangers fans impying that if you were anti-Murray you are not a Rangers fan. It also implied praise for that group for "overpowering" the protestors. Whether you are pro- or anti-Murray, that article on the Rangers site implied approval for physical force being used, and was disgraceful. Well you've used 'implied' three times there. Fair enough though, if SDM was in anyway approving of one group of Bears using force against another, then that would a disgrace. BTW...I'm neither a sycophant or a hater of Murray. It gave the green light to those who lashed out against the protestors and implied it was somehow acceptable. That's an abhorrent way for him to behave If true it is. They are entitled to counter protest and Murray is entitled to back his own supporters, obviously, but not to the point of condoning the use of force against another Bear. Would like to see the article and judge for myself...no offence. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimenez 1 Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 You are of course assuming that Murray penned the article on the site himself. I very much doubt it but could see a lick-spittel trying to curry favour by doing it. Anyway it was very unprofessional of the Club allowing such statements to be on the website. Nothing, I repeat nothing controversial happens at Rangers without his complete authorization. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimenez 1 Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 If true it is. They are entitled to counter protest and Murray is entitled to back his own supporters, obviously, but not to the point of condoning the use of force against another Bear. Would like to see the article and judge for myself...no offence. None taken. I know what he was condoning in my opinion Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Briton 394 Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 Nothing the Record has reported is true. Are you privy as to what went on regarding the resignations from the RST board then? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimenez 1 Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 Nothing the Record has reported is true. Are you privy as to what went on regarding the resignations from the RST board then? No, but neither are they. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Briton 394 Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 Nothing the Record has reported is true. Are you privy as to what went on regarding the resignations from the RST board then? No, but neither are they. So you don't really know 'nothing the Record has reported is true' then? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimenez 1 Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 Nothing the Record has reported is true. Are you privy as to what went on regarding the resignations from the RST board then? No, but neither are they. So you don't really know 'nothing the Record has reported is true' then? I trust and believe wholeheatedly that those who resigned for whatever reason wouldn't go telling to the Record. They have seen the threads on here and elsewhere, Murray has seen an opportunity 'eh viola' Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 14 Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 I trust and believe wholeheatedly that those who resigned for whatever reason wouldn't go telling to the Record. They have seen the threads on here and elsewhere, Murray has seen an opportunity 'eh viola' Agreed. I don't believe either anyone who is on the RST board or anyone who has just resigned would have said what was attributed to a "Trust source." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts