TartanTeddy
-
Posts
1,039 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Downloads
Posts posted by TartanTeddy
-
-
Point of order GLC...
This discussion was prompted by Hamish Husband's statement....and even Tartan Teddy has acknowledged that a Rangers player will be likely to receive abuse should he follow his desire to play for GB at the Olympics.
If a group of people intend to abuse a Rangers player to the extent that it would not be possible for him to represent his country again - and thats what Husband's statement appears to infer - then you cannot expect a Rangers messageboard to look favourably on that group of people.
And if people debated that then you could have an interesting discussion. But (and I'm crediting you with being smart) if you read through this thread a hell of a lot of the responses are inane, full of abuse and fail to even follow the thread of any actual discussion on the subject.
I don't post much on here because it just ends up with drivel and name calling and this thread went that way tonight.It's a real shame because I think a Rangers messageboard where you could actually discuss stuff without all that crap could be really interesting - sadly that's not possible on here.
Would be interesting to continue this with the likes of yourself, but I'm offski for now, I'll leave you to the name calling and (quite bizzare) grammar police
-
Do you still get to bring in games tomorrow?
Anyway, back to the subject of the OP or have you added all you can manage on that subject???
-
I take it you mean misconstrued.
Otherwise it is one of the most bizarre statements I have ever heard.
How can people be so bad at thinking?
What has happened to our education system?
That's one of the most bizarre statements you've ever read - at last an admission that you don't read your own posts
Construed, as in 'interpreted as'. It's a fairly standard OED definition. But to be honest who gives a fuk. Wnen the dictonary has to come out to try to challenge an opinion you know the person hasn't got much if anything to add. Because it's a messageboard, not a classroom. Look, I'll make some more spelling mistooks just for you (did you see them????). Maybe you could cortrect iyt and sen it tu me sir. Hopefully that wasn't too fast fro an intellect like yours (there was an other few there - did you see them).
I can guarantee you a spelling, gramur mistake in each and every post I make on a fitba message bored (that was another couple at least - maybe tyu could do more definitions coz ur pyuur clever like and amm no
-
The "personal" abuse he is getting is pathetic? I'm sure I've saw more negative posts in this topic about the TA in general more than him.
And also, would it be ok for the TA to give Naisy abuse, should he choose to play? Cause lets be honest, it will happen. (Again, should he be chosen)
Is it OK, I'd say no. Will it happen, I think we all know it will.
Do you rekon Boyd would get an OK reception given his goal scoring record if he ended up signing for Shellick and playing at Ibrox? Lets face it, most ex playerts get a great response when they return to play at Ibrox e.g. Gio, Adam, McCoist. But maybe not so much if they went and played for a team that was a rival (as a Team GB could easily be construed).
-
Hmmmmm...
TT I would respectfully suggest to you that Hamish Husband is as guilty of the above as anyone on here.
He refuses to accept Naismith's opinion that it is ok to play for team GB, and has restorted to intimidation in the form of a warning of a Tartan Army backlash and suggesting that he may not be able to play for Scotland again should he choose to do so. Furthermore to suggest that Naismith is doing it purely for reasons of "personal vanity" and that the lack Mackie is an "irrelevance" is as puerile as anything writen on here.
Folk who live in glass houses.....
Mmmmmm...
I would agree that the ATAC statement is poorly written, presented and is to some extent antagonistic. I think I've made that point a few times already.
ATAC don't, and won't, support Scots playing for Team GB because they believe it endangers the staus of Scotland at international level. I think the SFA (who do select the national team, agree with that stance - though they haven't said they won't select those that agree to play for Team GB in the future. So the statement Hamish made is an accurate representation of ATAC's stance. He also says that Naisy will likely get a poor reception on return, that to me is beyond any shadow of a doubt, he clearly will - I don't even think that merits debate.
The personal vanity and Mackie irrelevance bits are just plain stupid and undermine ATAC's position - something I mentioned to one of the national reps the other day. Those add on's are purile and pathetic.
TT
PS I'll leave people on here to choose if they want to support team GB or not - and given today's announcement at Shellik, they're more than welcome to go cheer on Broony and Forrest at Wembley in their wee skin tight Union flag tops - the thought of it gives me the boke!
-
I seldom missed a Scotland game at Hampden in the 70s and 80s, it was pretty much like going to a Rangers game but wearing a tartan scarf. I started to lose interest during the Andy Roxburgh era and I feel this was when the "we're the Tartan Army, love us, love us" media image first surfaced - I remember seeing a clip on TV from Euro 92 of some teuchter done up like an extra from Braveheart getting some female Swedish cop to kiss him through the perimeter fence.
I gave it another go a few years back to let my son experience international football, but felt the whole dynamic of the Scotland support had changed dramatically - thousands of pantomime Harry Lauders in kilts and Cat boots singing one song interminably - about themselves. I didn't feel part of it and didn't go back, although I watch the games on TV - ultimately the players are representing the country I was born in and live in so why would I want to see them lose?
I'd agree that the Scotland support has changed radically in the past twenty years or so, and many who go certainly view it as an opportunity to dress up and go make merry without much regard for the game. Something that at times I find quite annoying but in honestly the fact that most of it is done in reasonably good humour makes it fairly bearable, and it's a rare place where you can't escape the 'look at me'characters.
Not to be pedantic but the lad kissing the Swedish cop is wearing a Scotland top and a glengarry, so wouldn't make a very convincing extra from Braveheart
I used to go to quite a few European away games but stopped that after I got sick of a lot of people within our support who thought it was OK to act the dick in a foreign city. Lots of 90 minute bigots singing songs in predominantly catholic countries. Pishing in fountains and carrying on after we had just been humped by some no name Swiss mob. So much the smae thing.
I guess this thread evidences much of what is good and bad about football fans in general. Some folk can engage in a mature debate and accept peoples opinions while not necessarily agreeing with them. Others lack that ability and engage in name calling as they wallow about in their own pish.
Hope you try to make another effort to go back to Scotland games, and if you do, I hope it's a better experience than the last time!
-
Certainly ill judged TT ...not sure about the presentation - depends on what the intent was. There is certainly an element of intimidation associated with it, though I honestly believe the statement oversteps the mark considerably. I think the Tartan Army are overinflating their own importance by suggesting they can influence in the future who the Scotland manager will pick - even if they resort to abuse for a player who chose to represent GB.
Furthermore such a statement could actually cause friction amongst Scotland supporters - can you honestly see Scotland & Rangers supporters supporters booing Naismith - or allowing him to be abused by those who agree with this statement ?
What is particularly poor about it are the almost petulant personal comments regarding "personal vanity" and the fact that Mackie is "irrelevant"
Given your previous posts regarding the character and conduct of Husband should I presume that the views expressed are those of the Tartan Army and not some maverick spokesperson ?
I'd pretty much agree with all of that. The statement from ATAC did (in my opinion) overstate the mark. I think it carried too much emotion and while I don't think it was intimidating per se, I do think it verged on hollow threat.
That statement has already in certain circles caused a wee bit of friction amongst the Scotland support - and certainly has the potential to cause more. As I've maintained throughout, it was poorly judged and not helpful in terms of the overall debate - I'm certainly not defending it!
On your final point. ATAC aren't some big corporation. It's an association of fan groups. Hamish takes on the voluntary unpaid role of spokesperson because he's prepared to put up with regular media contact and the subsequent abuse that comes from fans who don't agree with ATAC's stance (more often than not from within the Scotland support where he is often portrayed in much the same way as he has on here).
But, and this is why I posted on this subject, he represents ATAC's views and his statement has to be viewed in that context even if a little of his own passion and emotion on this subject may have seeped into the response - though I don't actually know if the statement was reported verbatim or if some journalistic licence has been applied to make it more controversial (I was out the country when it was released and haven't really followed the story all that closely).
As I think I've said above - this is just my opinion, happy for folk to take it or leave it. But the personal abuse towards the guy makes us look small minded and ignorant, and that's something which as a Bear I think is embarrassing.
-
The one thing I will say about this post, is that don't try and warp our minds..We know there is a 'section' of the TA that hate Rangers. It's fact, don't try and put frills on it, we aren't stupid. That section will be bursting to have an excuse to dislike Naismith.
In saying that I can understand why they don't want a Team GB.
Also, on Hamish Husband..Why did he say Mackie was 'irrelevant'? Is this down to him being English?
I'm sure my opinion won't warp your mind
As for the Mackie thing - I don't really know, as I said in the intial post, I thought ATAC's statement was poorly written and presented. But I do think that Naisy (despite what some folk have said above) is well loved within the support and his declaration caused the most hurt and anguish.
But that's just my opinion.
-
What is the tartan army anyway? Am I a member?- as someone who likes Scotland; or do you have to dance around in fountains celebrating a defeat in Amsterdam before you can join?
The 'Tartan Army' is a name used by many to describe the general travelling support of the Scottish national team. Bit like Man Uts fans being called the Red Army. It's a concept common to many large sets of football fans. Hence many Scotland supporters clubs adopting the name 'Tartan Army'; for their club e.g. West of Scotland Tartan Army.
The press also commonly use the term, and many of the songs sung by the Scotland support also use the name. If you don't get the concept then try to use 'Ally McCoist's Blue and White Army chant as an example. From there, it should be easy to work out it's useage as a term often used to describe the Scotland support.
Are you a mamber? Well I guess if you joined an ATAC club you could consider yourself 'a member' but to be honest most individual fans just think of themselves as Scotland fans, but are secure enough that when the term is used that they appreciate they are part of the group commonly referred to as the Tartan Army.
It's my understanding that dancing round a fountain would make you a member of something that there isn't really a membership for, unless you really wanted to stretch the point of being a memeber of an ATAC club and then choose to dance round a fountain - though to be honest that doesn't really work - so I would guess no.
I would say though that if you have a genuine interest in football that you'll grow to undertand that the media and fans quite often use this type of terminology but that it's useage is generally informal and doesn't require a membership or any sort of long term commitment to the use of th name.
-
What is "pathetic" TT is to make veiled threats to a player who only wants to represent his country.
With Husband clearly having zero input to the Scottish team selection it is quite clear from his wording that should Naismith chose to play for GB at the Olympic Games then he will suffer some kind of Tartan Army backlash - to the extent his future Scotland career will be put in danger.
I would imagine such a backlash would take the form of personal abuse should he turn out again in a Scotland shirt.
What he has said is totally indefensible - basically he is saying play for team GB and endure the wrath of the Tartan Army.
Quite frankly disgusting - holding him to ransom so to speak - and certainly far more offensive than anyone has posted on here.
I'm not particulalry defending ATAC's statement, I think it's ill judged and poorly presented. I also hold the personal view that Team GB won't result in loss of Scotland's independent status, though I have to concede to those that do that it's not really worth the risk for the sake of participating at football at the Olympics.
I think ATAC's point that a large section of the Scotland fanbase won't be too warm to him when he returns to play for the national team is a valid observation - they won't. That's a statement of FACT, same will probably be true of Forrest but he has nowhere near the profile of Naismith.
And your right, Hamish Husband doesn't select the Scotland team. He is a spokesperson for the Association of Tartan Army Clubs - nothing more.
-
I think for clarity it should be understood that Hamish Husband is a spokesperson for ATAC which is the Association of Tartan Army Clubs. I'll repeat, he's a spokesperson. The views put forward are therefore the view of ATAC. Not Hamish as an individual. I'll repeat, he's a spokesperson for ATAC. So the personal abuse towards the individual is misplaced and the name calling merely singles out those individuals as not very bright if they can't distinguish a spokesperson individually from the organisation or association that he represents.
The view as expressed by ATAC is that participation as Team GB at the Olympics in football (only) could lead to Scotlands' status as an individual nation within FIFA/UEFA being put at risk. Given that football isn't considered a core Olympic sport, ATAC feel that this isn't a risk (however minor) that should be taken. I'd say most folk who like football couldn't give a toss about football at the Olympics, so it seems a fair point if you value Scotland's individual status in the eyes of FIFA/UEFA.
I think ATAC's comments re Naismith are ill judged but I think the fact that he is high profile, much loved player, has actually caused the level of angst within the Scotland support. As, and it's no real surprise to anyone that goes to games, we outnumber other clubs support by many times - and we wear kilts and everything!! So if some anonymous player comes out and claims he wants to play for Team GB (eg Forrest) no one cares. Naisy comes out with the comment, and people feel quite hurt and angry (and I will repeat, because people like him and rate him, not because of some anti Rangers agenda).
I don't know Hamish very well but I have met him on a few occasions and he's a quiet quite unassuming guy who cares very passionately about the national team. He takes his role as spokesperson for ATAC seriously and always clearly states to journo's that he speaks for ATAC and not the Scotland support as a whole.
You don't agree. Then no problem - I actually think this statement from ATAC was poorly presented and overly emotional, but I know people are really gutted that Naisy is open to playing for Team GB (which is clearly his right) - but the personal abuse on here is as pathetic and to some extent more so than the crap posted on the Tartan Army website. And some of the analogies, Hoy, Murray are so weak and pathetic that it's actually embarrasing that it comes from fellow Bears.
I support a club founded by Scottish Internationals and it's something as a Bear I'm incredibly proud of, I also take great pride in the number of our team who have and continue to represent Scotland - it's at the core of what Rangers are and always have been. The greatest Scottish club! I would therefore hate to think that part of our heritage could be sold down the river because some folk wanted to play football at the Olympics, and as such, while I didn't like the Naisy press release, i'm fully behind the campaign to protect Scotland's status as an independent footballing nation - but that's just me!
But please lay of the personal abuse, we are so much bigger than that!
-
Ok i have a genuine source and also work behind the scenes at ibrox,
The only problem being Mr Whyte still hasnt payed anything
I guess your inside job isn't secretarial, but nice first post!
-
It's not a song about Bannockburn per se. It's a song about national identity and belief. It certainly doesn't glory (or indeed mention) the killing of Englishmen, as some stated. And I know of no one who wouldn't be able to interpret, 'those days are past now and in the past they must remain'.
So for those reasons the legislation that was the point of the thread wouldn't be relevent.
-
In the song, it celebrates Edwards army being sent homeward to think again. Do you think we played them at chess, maybe a days caber-tossing to decide the outcome?
So your saying the song literally says we killed English people and then sent them home (apprently dead) to think again.
You see the Corries were keen that it was about a pride in our nation. You know, the country our founders played for, and didn't want it to be jingoistic or in any way anti English. It's why they wrote of proud Edwards Army, and being sent home, not killed. It's why 'these days are past now, and in the past they must remain'.
The song is about growing up. Being confident as a nation, confident perhaps enough to be independent.
Personally I find it too sentimentalist, a bit of a dirge and not really right for a modern country. But it sure as hell doesn't celebrate killing English people.
-
Proud Edwards army...
Think again...
Still nothing about killing Englishmen though.
These days are past now and in the past they must remain - valid point, kind of suggests the opposite of killing folk.
We can still rise now. Land that is lost now. Mmmm, maudlin sentimentalist crap, but still no English and killing them.
Really hope someone can point out the killing bit soon, I mean I feel I'm close, but just can't find it at all. C'mon, enough folk on here saying they saw it but now no one wants to point it out.
-
No, still not finding it
Must be there somewhere, now lets see .....
mmm, still no.
Better look again!
-
Still can't find the bit in Flower of Scotland about killing English people - will keep looking as folk seem so convinced that it's there!
I mean people wouldn't make that kind of thing up would they????
-
Can someone direct me to the line in Flower of Scotland that's about killing Englishmen???
-
I think the surprise is that your suprised, on two levels.
The first is that the club are always going to back the stewards and the police if there are any disturbances in the crowd, and folk can paint it as innocents being picked on, but most know that these incidents ussually begin with a challenge to the stewarding - although usually met with a moronic response from certain stewards who exacerbate the incident rather than do the proper job of diffusing them.
Secondly, a large percentage, and I'd probably now say the majority, broadly support the legislation. Because most folk want to see people back the team, want to see a positive support, want to be proud of the club and not have to listen to pish about Bobby Sands or the UVF. It's 21st Century Scotland and I think most feel it's time to move on.
I appreciate that a lot of individuals use Rangers as a vehicle for their political views, but I think they're actually now significantly in the minority. The majority, I feel, want to celebrate their pride, tradition and history of a Scottish club.
I think you'll also find the owner realises that you can't aspire to the EPL while carrying a lot of the baggage of religion and politics within the support.
-
Maybe a lot of folk don't actually support the 'protest' - hard as it is to believe, I think most fans want to sing Rangers songs and the Ulster stuff is being seen as increasing old, tired and anachronistic.The fact there is a crack down on some songs that have hee haw to do with anything in the 21st Century doesn't affect most of us that go to the game to support the team.
A lot of folk were also pointing out that the protests almost exactly mirror ǝpɐbıɹq uǝǝɹb ǝɥʇ 'protest' - and I reckon 'out Moping' the Mopes isn't going to win too many fans either.
-
It looked far more like a walk out than actual arrests.
It was interesting though that there seems to be great unity amongst that section but the rest of the stadium showed little or no support either when the banner was unfurled or when the arrests/walk outs happened. I don't know if that's because folk don't agree, don't care or aren't really sure what the protests are about.
Or maybe folk were just more into watching the game.
-
It'll be the live commentary thing mate, I think.
!, your probably spot on!Apologies for getting anyones hopes up.
-
Didn't see this posted elsewhere, but game appears to be getting streamed live, unless I'm reading it wrong?
Just in case folk were too busy coughing to realise!
-
Don't know If would come here, also very inconsistent.
Far to much hype about him because he had a few good games for Scotland a couple of years ago
No question. But he needs to prove himself again and I just have a feeling if he comes back to Scotland that he could make a real impact, and I'd much rather that happpend here than over at the dark side.
Leaving games early.
in Jimmy Bell's Kitroom
Posted
Of course you can leave when you want, but it has an impact on the team and our reputation, and if that's not an issue for some then of course leave ten minutes to go. Ironically it always seems to be the one's shouting 'no surrender' that bugger off the earliest!
I head off on the final whistle every game and take the underground to Partick. I'm there for 5.15 (after a 3 o'clock kick off). I guess if I headed off ten minutes early to beat the rush I could be there for maybe 5.05 - think I'd rather stay and back the team and actually be a supporter, rather someone who goes along and doesn't give a feck how the games going to finish.
Personal choice, but leaving early is akin to players chucking it when they go a goal down - unacceptable in a blue jersey!