Jump to content

RST - Let it sink without trace


ScotBear

Recommended Posts

:bullshit: You produce an example of a comment that is not demonisation, and assert that this means he's not demonised.It's known as a logical fallacy.

You think he's demonised. I don't. No fanciful inventions of logical fallacy required. And I didn't produce an example of a comment - I made the comment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 188
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

:bullshit: You produce an example of a comment that is not demonisation, and assert that this means he's not demonised.It's known as a logical fallacy.

You think he's demonised. I don't. No fanciful inventions of logical fallacy required. And I didn't produce an example of a comment - I made the comment.

'produce' verb: 'to make'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having never been a member you seem to hold much sway of opinion on 'bad apples' this the same bad apple that was influential in the idea of the Trust and its founding ideas (one you claim was a great idea)?

I deem Mark Dingwall to be a 'bad apple', yes. That's my view based on my experience of his site, listening to the experiences of others who have had personal dealings with him and accounts from the likes of Frankie on here.

I may not be a member, but it doesn't stop me having an opinion on the RST. Fans have opinions on the likes of Martin Bain, for example, without ever having had personal contact with him or a full understanding of what his role involves.

Again, I may not be a member, but I always had the suspicion that FollowFollow was too closely linked to the RST. And I was concerned by the possible influence Mark Dingwall may have. In the past I've been asked why the heck I would bring up FF and MD in a debate on the trust. Now it seems oh so very relevant, with former board members of the RST even bringing up issues with FF and MD.

You may be embarrassed by an organization that is willing to defend the name of Rangers Football Club. But as someone who offers no alternative then your post is full of self pompous nonsense purely driven by hatred for one or two members who are prepared to go public with their ideas.

I don't have a hatred for anyone. I just strongly believe that Dingwall and his supporters should not have a strong influence in any supporters body if it is to be successful long term, and appeal to the majority of our support.

Backwards? You are a rabid fan of chairman Maorray. Your definition of backwards may just be music to our ears.

A 'rabid fan' ? Hardly. I think the way he is demonised by some is ridiculous, but I don't see him as a saint. He has faults which I acknowledge, as well as strengths. At this time, I am happy to see him continue as Chairman as I see no reasonable alternative on the horizon. On balance I believe he has been a good chairman, and I think we'll struggle to find someone better equipped in future.

I can't believe how much 'authority' someone who has offered an organization nothing in the way of support in the past, is trying to dictate to others on how to go about their business.

I'm not dictating to anyone. We're all big boys and girls who are capable of making our own decisions. I'm just stating my viewpoint on the matter, and hoping that others feel the same. I'm urging them to cancel/refrain from membership as I honestly believe that it's beneficial to the fans and the club to do so. If others disagree, fine.

In my view, the Trust can indirectly harm the image, not only of its members but of the Rangers support as a whole. They are only accountable to their members, but they still project an image, and I'm not saying purposely, of being a mouthpiece for the Rangers support as a whole. And in terms of direct harm. Well if the Trust was to gain real power, starting with a place on the board, and it was given to someone who shares the same ideals as Mark Dingwall...........then we'd be in trouble in my opinion. Again, all just my opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

:bullshit: You produce an example of a comment that is not demonisation, and assert that this means he's not demonised.It's known as a logical fallacy.

You think he's demonised. I don't. No fanciful inventions of logical fallacy required. And I didn't produce an example of a comment - I made the comment.

He's been labeled a bigot and a muppet on here. If that isn't demonization I really don't know what is.

You have touched on his politics previously as a way to attack the Trust.

When asked for evidence on this bigotry I have received hee haw in the way of a reply. Funny that!

There are a select few on here happy to partake in an assassination campaign of someone who is only doing what he feels is best for the club.

It's pathetic

Link to post
Share on other sites

:bullshit: You produce an example of a comment that is not demonisation, and assert that this means he's not demonised.It's known as a logical fallacy.

You think he's demonised. I don't. No fanciful inventions of logical fallacy required. And I didn't produce an example of a comment - I made the comment.

He's been labeled a bigot and a muppet on here. If that isn't demonization I really don't know what is.

You have touched on his politics previously as a way to attack the Trust.

When asked for evidence on this bigotry I have received hee haw in the way of a reply. Funny that!

There are a select few on here happy to partake in an assassination campaign of someone who is only doing what he feels is best for the club.

It's pathetic

MD isn't perfect, nowhere near, but at least he's got off his arse and done something which he believes will help his club, more than the internet warriors who smugly sit and pass judgement behind a cloak of anonymity. It's easy to moan and then do f*ck all.

And for the record, I think his admin are cocksockets. Been banned many a time for very little. But that has nothing to do with the RST.

Link to post
Share on other sites

can you explain to me how FF is 'right wing'?

I read it and so does my oriental friend.

So what major gripes do you have in the methods of the RST?

Jiminez: FF is published by a man who stood for election for the Scottish Unionist party. Not, to my knowledge, a hotbed of left wing radical political thought.

I'm not certain of the relevance of you or your friend (or indeed his oriental orientation) reading FF.

The stated goals of the RST are healthy - enough for me to have signed up. But, the last few months have really booted the arse of it's credibility, resulted some truly childish mud-slinging and I struggle to see how it's going to improve with a strong FF influence.

Maybe I'll be proven wrong - as you said above in this thread: we'll see.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having never been a member you seem to hold much sway of opinion on 'bad apples' this the same bad apple that was influential in the idea of the Trust and its founding ideas (one you claim was a great idea)?

I deem Mark Dingwall to be a 'bad apple', yes. That's my view based on my experience of his site, listening to the experiences of others who have had personal dealings with him and accounts from the likes of Frankie on here.

I may not be a member, but it doesn't stop me having an opinion on the RST. Fans have opinions on the likes of Martin Bain, for example, without ever having had personal contact with him or a full understanding of what his role involves.

Again, I may not be a member, but I always had the suspicion that FollowFollow was too closely linked to the RST. And I was concerned by the possible influence Mark Dingwall may have. In the past I've been asked why the heck I would bring up FF and MD in a debate on the trust. Now it seems oh so very relevant, with former board members of the RST even bringing up issues with FF and MD.

You may be embarrassed by an organization that is willing to defend the name of Rangers Football Club. But as someone who offers no alternative then your post is full of self pompous nonsense purely driven by hatred for one or two members who are prepared to go public with their ideas.

I don't have a hatred for anyone. I just strongly believe that Dingwall and his supporters should not have a strong influence in any supporters body if it is to be successful long term, and appeal to the majority of our support.

Backwards? You are a rabid fan of chairman Maorray. Your definition of backwards may just be music to our ears.

A 'rabid fan' ? Hardly. I think the way he is demonised by some is ridiculous, but I don't see him as a saint. He has faults which I acknowledge, as well as strengths. At this time, I am happy to see him continue as Chairman as I see no reasonable alternative on the horizon. On balance I believe he has been a good chairman, and I think we'll struggle to find someone better equipped in future.

I can't believe how much 'authority' someone who has offered an organization nothing in the way of support in the past, is trying to dictate to others on how to go about their business.

I'm not dictating to anyone. We're all big boys and girls who are capable of making our own decisions. I'm just stating my viewpoint on the matter, and hoping that others feel the same. I'm urging them to cancel/refrain from membership as I honestly believe that it's beneficial to the fans and the club to do so. If others disagree, fine.

In my view, the Trust can indirectly harm the image, not only of its members but of the Rangers support as a whole. They are only accountable to their members, but they still project an image, and I'm not saying purposely, of being a mouthpiece for the Rangers support as a whole. And in terms of direct harm. Well if the Trust was to gain real power, starting with a place on the board, and it was given to someone who shares the same ideals as Mark Dingwall...........then we'd be in trouble in my opinion. Again, all just my opinion.

The RST came in to existence due to a meeting between Follow Follow members. If the link is something you'd like lessened then the best way to do that would be to join and try and change from within. No?

You seem to be fascinated with Dingwall's influence on anything, if you refuse to take part in the debate then I can't see how you can change that.

well then I'd urge you not to urge people to do anything, just state you views and be on your merry way.

What ideals? Do you know him personally?

As for the image of the club being harmed. Don't make me laugh. Letting the mhedia run rings round us for years without reply has seen us tarnished beyond all recognition

Link to post
Share on other sites

can you explain to me how FF is 'right wing'?

I read it and so does my oriental friend.

So what major gripes do you have in the methods of the RST?

Jiminez: FF is published by a man who stood for election for the Scottish Unionist party. Not, to my knowledge, a hotbed of left wing radical political thought.

I'm not certain of the relevance of you or your friend (or indeed his oriental orientation) reading FF.

The stated goals of the RST are healthy - enough for me to have signed up. But, the last few months have really booted the arse of it's credibility, resulted some truly childish mud-slinging and I struggle to see how it's going to improve with a strong FF influence.

Maybe I'll be proven wrong - as you said above in this thread: we'll see.

One of his best friends is Stepehn Smith, a Trade Union Official who has a Ché Guevara tatoo for goodness sake! Admin SM is more left-wing than Lenin.

MD has his politics, but he doesn't judge people by theirs. You might care to do the same.

Link to post
Share on other sites

can you explain to me how FF is 'right wing'?

I read it and so does my oriental friend.

So what major gripes do you have in the methods of the RST?

Jiminez: FF is published by a man who stood for election for the Scottish Unionist party. Not, to my knowledge, a hotbed of left wing radical political thought.

I'm not certain of the relevance of you or your friend (or indeed his oriental orientation) reading FF.

The stated goals of the RST are healthy - enough for me to have signed up. But, the last few months have really booted the arse of it's credibility, resulted some truly childish mud-slinging and I struggle to see how it's going to improve with a strong FF influence.

Maybe I'll be proven wrong - as you said above in this thread: we'll see.

Believing in the Union is 'right wing' now?

No wonder the Union Jack is frowned upon in modern society

The relevance is that you are hinting towards a 'right wing' magazine that caters for one set of beliefs or culture which is absolute nonsense.

The stated goals haven't changed. No one has moved the goal posts.

I hope you will be

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if the Trust was to gain real power, starting with a place on the board, and it was given to someone who shares the same ideals as Mark Dingwall...........then we'd be in trouble in my opinion

I don't know enough about the Trust and all this nonsense, but can you be specific as to what ideals you are referring to? I don't know the guy, but he seems to be getting a hurl of abuse on here just because of the way he runs a website.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To try and explain partly why I have such a problem with Mark Dingwall, and his presence and seemingly growing influence within the Trust......

This is a guy that is known to ban members, fellow fans, for nothing more than disagreeing with himself or other influential posters on FollowFollow. These are acts that are so glaringly obvious, and are reported by fans on a regular basis.

Now, supporters of Dingwall can't even bring themselves to acknowledge this. On this issue, he's defended to the hilt by some, which I find remarkable. How are we supposed to have any trust for someone involved in a supporters trust that treats supporters in such a fashion ?

It seems to many, myself included, that Mark Dingwall is not interested in representing the Rangers support as a whole, but instead looking to enforce his own personal beliefs, brushing aside on the way those who look to question those beliefs.

This is why many supporters were always uneasy by the presence of such an individual on the board. And with it now looking as though his influence is only growing within the Trust, further respect and trust has been lost from many current/potential RST members.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You have touched on his politics previously as a way to attack the Trust. When asked for evidence on this bigotry I have received hee haw in the way of a reply. Funny that!

There are a select few on here happy to partake in an assassination campaign of someone who is only doing what he feels is best for the club.

It's pathetic

Jiminez: I haven't attacked the trust. Indeed, I've been very open in my support of the RSTs stated goals. Being a member of the trust also makes me interested in it's activities on behalf of it's members. Highlighting my concerns about how the Trust might change as a result of right-wing board members is an expression of a valid concern. You don't have to share it.

And so I am clear - where did you ask me for 'evidence on this bigotry' as you put it? What bigotry?

And MD supporters can't have it both ways - there's been plenty of mud-slinging going on from both sides on here over the last few days. Presumably all of those concerned would feel they are doing what is best for the club.

Link to post
Share on other sites

can you explain to me how FF is 'right wing'?

I read it and so does my oriental friend.

So what major gripes do you have in the methods of the RST?

Jiminez: FF is published by a man who stood for election for the Scottish Unionist party. Not, to my knowledge, a hotbed of left wing radical political thought.

I'm not certain of the relevance of you or your friend (or indeed his oriental orientation) reading FF.

The stated goals of the RST are healthy - enough for me to have signed up. But, the last few months have really booted the arse of it's credibility, resulted some truly childish mud-slinging and I struggle to see how it's going to improve with a strong FF influence.

Maybe I'll be proven wrong - as you said above in this thread: we'll see.

Believing in the Union is 'right wing' now?

No wonder the Union Jack is frowned upon in modern society

The relevance is that you are hinting towards a 'right wing' magazine that caters for one set of beliefs or culture which is absolute nonsense.

The stated goals haven't changed. No one has moved the goal posts.

I hope you will be

I believe in the Union. I have served with the MOD - so you wont catch me frowning on our Union Flag thank you very much. Although I don't remember mentioning it to be honest.

And I'm not hinting - I think the FF represents a mindset that could accurately be described as right wing in it's outlook. Hardly nonsense - even if you disagree.

I hope I'm wrong about how the RST will progress, too. But, I'm sceptical for all the reasons I have offered.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You have touched on his politics previously as a way to attack the Trust. When asked for evidence on this bigotry I have received hee haw in the way of a reply. Funny that!

There are a select few on here happy to partake in an assassination campaign of someone who is only doing what he feels is best for the club.

It's pathetic

Jiminez: I haven't attacked the trust. Indeed, I've been very open in my support of the RSTs stated goals. Being a member of the trust also makes me interested in it's activities on behalf of it's members. Highlighting my concerns about how the Trust might change as a result of right-wing board members is an expression of a valid concern. You don't have to share it.

And so I am clear - where did you ask me for 'evidence on this bigotry' as you put it? What bigotry?

And MD supporters can't have it both ways - there's been plenty of mud-slinging going on from both sides on here over the last few days. Presumably all of those concerned would feel they are doing what is best for the club.

Sorry. Was thinking back to a previous thread regarding the Trust. You brought MD's politics in to it hence why I thought that.

You haven't called him a bigot but others have, that's where I feel he is being demonised.

Of course, but no one has brought Frankie or anyone elses politics in to question etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To try and explain partly why I have such a problem with Mark Dingwall, and his presence and seemingly growing influence within the Trust......

This is a guy that is known to ban members, fellow fans, for nothing more than disagreeing with himself or other influential posters on FollowFollow. These are acts that are so glaringly obvious, and are reported by fans on a regular basis.

Now, supporters of Dingwall can't even bring themselves to acknowledge this. On this issue, he's defended to the hilt by some, which I find remarkable. How are we supposed to have any trust for someone involved in a supporters trust that treats supporters in such a fashion ?

It seems to many, myself included, that Mark Dingwall is not interested in representing the Rangers support as a whole, but instead looking to enforce his own personal beliefs, brushing aside on the way those who look to question those beliefs.

This is why many supporters were always uneasy by the presence of such an individual on the board. And with it now looking as though his influence is only growing within the Trust, further respect and trust has been lost from many current/potential RST members.

Any proof of that?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe in the Union. I have served with the MOD - so you wont catch me frowning on our Union Flag thank you very much. Although I don't remember mentioning it to be honest.

And I'm not hinting - I think the FF represents a mindset that could accurately be described as right wing in it's outlook. Hardly nonsense - even if you disagree.

I hope I'm wrong about how the RST will progress, too. But, I'm sceptical for all the reasons I have offered.

You'll need to fill me in then on how FF is right wing then. I see a whole scope of political and religious opinions on there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To try and explain partly why I have such a problem with Mark Dingwall, and his presence and seemingly growing influence within the Trust......

This is a guy that is known to ban members, fellow fans, for nothing more than disagreeing with himself or other influential posters on FollowFollow. These are acts that are so glaringly obvious, and are reported by fans on a regular basis.

Now, supporters of Dingwall can't even bring themselves to acknowledge this. On this issue, he's defended to the hilt by some, which I find remarkable. How are we supposed to have any trust for someone involved in a supporters trust that treats supporters in such a fashion ?

It seems to many, myself included, that Mark Dingwall is not interested in representing the Rangers support as a whole, but instead looking to enforce his own personal beliefs, brushing aside on the way those who look to question those beliefs.

This is why many supporters were always uneasy by the presence of such an individual on the board. And with it now looking as though his influence is only growing within the Trust, further respect and trust has been lost from many current/potential RST members.

Any proof of that?

Well, I think countless stories of his over the top use of the 'ban' button for the crime of disagreeing with his viewpoints are proof enough that he's a ruthless character in this respect. This is what I was referring to.

With regards to recent events in the RST, in a sense it does seem to mirror this. Those board members left through their own choice. There is no 'ban' button within the RST. But it sounds as though the board members were put in such a position where they had little opportunity to carry on their duties in a satisfactory way, and so made the decision to leave. And Frankie has suggested that Mark Dingwall had an influence in that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I don't use the Site, can someone actually confirm or deny that posters get banned over there for disagreeing with the "accepted views" of the Admin?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I think countless stories of his over the top use of the 'ban' button for the crime of disagreeing with his viewpoints are proof enough that he's a ruthless character in this respect. This is what I was referring to.

With regards to recent events in the RST, in a sense it does seem to mirror this. Those board members left through their own choice. There is no 'ban' button within the RST. But it sounds as though the board members were put in such a position where they had little opportunity to carry on their duties in a satisfactory way, and so made the decision to leave. And Frankie has suggested that Mark Dingwall had an influence in that.

Yep, the board members left through their own choice. If they felt they were put under such pressure then that's regrettable. But from speaking to other board members I know that it wasn't Dingwall's doing.

Read cooperonthewing's posts.

You may even wake out of your Dingwall nightmare and realize that the Trust is its members body, not the views of one man.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I don't use the Site, can someone actually confirm or deny that posters get banned over there for disagreeing with the "accepted views" of the Admin?

Lets be honest, you won't get a satisfactory answer to that. Some will say yes, some will say no. And no facts can be presented.

But think about this......how many times over the months and years have posters on here that you deem to be decent, honest posters stated that they have personally, or had a friend for example, been banned from the site for no more than having an opposing viewpoint on an issue.

A large number of times I'd bet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You'll need to fill me in then on how FF is right wing then. I see a whole scope of political and religious opinions on there.

Jiminez: the mag is published by a man who stands for the Scottish Unionist Party. Presumably you don't agree that FF as a publication reflects this. I do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I don't use the Site, can someone actually confirm or deny that posters get banned over there for disagreeing with the "accepted views" of the Admin?

I got banned briefly for saying one on the Admin were on a power trip :lol:

Yes, they probably do get banned for disagreeing with Suck on certain subjects. Especially when they are obviously out to create mischief.

Too many good bears get banned there I'd have to agree, but at the same time they are more stringent when dealing with lurkers.

It's only the internet people :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

You'll need to fill me in then on how FF is right wing then. I see a whole scope of political and religious opinions on there.

Jiminez: the mag is published by a man who stands for the Scottish Unionist Party. Presumably you don't agree that FF as a publication reflects this. I do.

No I obviously don't. Do you buy it?

Anything I read involves Rangers F.C.

Celebration of our past and fears for our future. Must have missed the subliminal messages to eat an imigrant

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I don't use the Site, can someone actually confirm or deny that posters get banned over there for disagreeing with the "accepted views" of the Admin?

Lets be honest, you won't get a satisfactory answer to that. Some will say yes, some will say no. And no facts can be presented.

But think about this......how many times over the months and years have posters on here that you deem to be decent, honest posters stated that they have personally, or had a friend for example, been banned from the site for no more than having an opposing viewpoint on an issue.

A large number of times I'd bet.

Yeah I have.

It just seems that no-one seems to answer it even tho this is the third time I've asked and there has been a fair few FF'ers online.

You see, alot of the concern shown around here over the last few day regarding Mr Dingwall and his perceived influence on the RST, is based on what people have experienced on Follow Follow. So I find it a little strange that no-one has rebuffed the claims that posters are banned for not toeing the party line, as it were.

It's only an observation mind.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I don't use the Site, can someone actually confirm or deny that posters get banned over there for disagreeing with the "accepted views" of the Admin?

Lets be honest, you won't get a satisfactory answer to that. Some will say yes, some will say no. And no facts can be presented.

But think about this......how many times over the months and years have posters on here that you deem to be decent, honest posters stated that they have personally, or had a friend for example, been banned from the site for no more than having an opposing viewpoint on an issue.

A large number of times I'd bet.

Yeah I have.

It just seems that no-one seems to answer it even tho this is the third time I've asked and there has been a fair few FF'ers online.

You see, alot of the concern shown around here over the last few day regarding Mr Dingwall and his perceived influence on the RST, is based on what people have experienced on Follow Follow. So I find it a little strange that no-one has rebuffed the claims that posters are banned for not toeing the party line, as it were.

It's only an observation mind.

I'll talk about anything you want JR

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Upcoming Events

    • 30 March 2024 15:00 Until 17:00
      0  
      Rangers v Hibernian
      Ibrox Stadium
      Scottish Premiership

×
×
  • Create New...