opportunityknox

I don't wish to get involved in a childish slanging match (I've seen some of the nonsense on here in the last couple of days), but the statement "VB obviously have a thing about FF" is inaccurate and misleading. VB does not censor any mention of FF, or filter out the name of the website on it's site or forums. In actual fact, VB invited FF, RM and Gersnet to get involved in the BBC Protest and Petition and were rebuffed twice by one site. We also give credit to FF when it's appropriate. On our BBC Dossier we actually fought the BBC reporting of the Lennon cartoon on FF as part of an agenda against the club and it's supporters. We also have no problems with our posters posting on various sites, including FF and this very site. There are ongoing debates in here that I won't get involved in as I don't see myself as some kind of cavalry, so I'll let you all get on with it, but I felt that quote had to be addressed. You know the saddest thing here, that when I read a recent article of yours on here I thought you were the kind of supporter that suited VB Perfectly. I'll bow out here. Opportunity Knox

Do you need a Terry Hurlock type, without the dodgy barnet? :-)

Perhaps it's to drown out the Republican and Sectarian bile? Not before time if you ask me.

http://forum.rangers...st&p=1058047462 Which part of my statement is innacurate or differs to Murrays? [/quo That's self evident. One paints a romantic picture without full context, and the other removes the romanticism and gives a more catholic (pardon the pun) view But they were a club founded for Irish Catholics - which part of that is wrong?? I admit it's boiled down, that is why I said I simplified it If you think I am going to waste any more time on the semantics of this you're barking up the wrong tree. People can see your posts, but if anyone has jumped by the first few pages I'll refresh your memory. This is what you said "Like it or not they were founded to help poor Irish Catholic immigrants and I am sure most Celtic fans are proud of this" That statement is romantic codswallop, and Murray's account paints a completely different picture. You know it and I know it. So does everyone else. If you wish to go round in circles on this point, feel free. I'll let everyone else draw their own conclusions. Now, TBB. Did you sing the song before it was "banned"?

http://forum.rangers...st&p=1058047462 Which part of my statement is innacurate or differs to Murrays? That's self evident. One paints a romantic picture without full context, and the other removes the romanticism and gives a more catholic (pardon the pun) view

Where have I disagreed with Murray's account of Celtics origins? He is pretty much spot-on in his account I'm not referring to you in my last statement but others on this thread http://forum.rangersmedia.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=154282&view=findpost&p=1058047462

"I have read Murrays book (possibly one of the most biased works on Sectarianism I have ever read" And how did you reach that conclusion? What "work" would you suggest as the most objective? You're not simplifying anything for anyone, you are repeating Celtic propaganda ad nauseam. I reached that conclusion by reading it and forming my own opinion Murray's book (especially on chapters dealing with Sectarianism in the 90's) is so biased towards Celtic fans some of it was basically unreadable. According to Murray Celtic fans can do no wrong while Rangers fans are almost solely responsible for any remaining Sectarianism left in Scotland in the modern age I am not repeating Celtic propaganda - I just dont couch every one of my statements with a hate filled remark about Celtic Right, now we're getting somewhere. It's your opinion, and your opinion is no more valid than anyone elses. In fact, given that you state he is biased towards Celtic supporters, ie they can do no wrong, while we Rangers fans are "solely responsible for any remaining sectarianism", this gives more gravitas to his account of Celtic's origins. If he's anti Rangers, as you imply, he would be unlikely to stray from the commonly portrayed account of Celtic's beginnings out of malice "I just dont couch every one of my statements with a hate filled remark about Celtic" Who are you referring to here?

"I have read Murrays book (possibly one of the most biased works on Sectarianism I have ever read" And how did you reach that conclusion? What "work" would you suggest as the most objective? You're not simplifying anything for anyone, you are repeating Celtic propaganda ad nauseam.

Of course they do Plus, you completely missed the point - oh, the irony Tell me what traditions they have then because i don't really give a fuck if they worshiped a horse named ED. Like it or not they were founded to help poor Irish Catholic immigrants and I am sure most Celtic fans are proud of this Perhaps you should take a wider view, and take cogniscance of Bill Murray's account of Celtic's "humble beginnings". Or how the Hibernian team was decimated by the young upstarts from Glasgow with cash to splash. Murray: But as well as concern for the suffering poor, brother Walfrid was also prompted by a fear that Protestant soup kitchens might tempt young Catholics into apostasy. Moreover he was equally worried about the dangers of young Catholics meeting Protestants in their place of employment or leisure, particularly during the years after leaving school which he considered the most dangerous as far as "religious duties" were concerned. A Catholic football club then, could serve the dual purpose of easing the pain in starving stomachs at the same as it kept young Catholics together in their leisure time, free from the temptations of Protestants and Protestantism. The aims of his helpers may have been more prosaic, but when the circular announcing the formation of a Catholic club in the East End of Glasgow was circulated in January 1888, its religious foundations were stressed". Hibs: http://www.hibernianfc.co.uk/page/TimelineDetail/0,,10290~1750603,00.html Look up "the origins of hibernian" part nine if this url doesn't work Now, do me a favour and spare me the Celtic Propaganda. Thanks

Of course they do Plus, you completely missed the point - oh, the irony Tell me what traditions they have then because i don't really give a fuck if they worshiped a horse named ED. They have traditions of segregation, hatred, bigotry, anti British racism and support for terrorism dressed up as "Irish Culture".

They certainly have far better talent at their disposal than Rangers, and our CL performances were shocking last year, but the body language of the England players against Algeria sent out all the wrong messages. There was no belief, no fight and heads were down both metaphorically and literally. Capello might not have the charisma to bring it back together. You just need to see the faces of Rooney, Johnson and various others to see that their attitude was all wrong. I'd like to think we'd certainly have a better attitide to a match such as this, but if you take away the pressure from the England team, they could whip any team.

The Mint already gave an answer why no deal was done with Ellis...."It wasn't in the best interests of Rangers Football Club." Now whether you actually believe that statement to be true or false is entirely up to you. I'd actually read it differently - that the fact that the bid was looming over the club and dragging on was not in the best interests of Rangers Football Club, not the bid from Ellis itself... That was my interpretation too. I believe your assessment is bang on the money, and that Murray just became irritated at Ellis' prevarication. I also have a suspicion that, while Johnston's body language, and terse language about Murray gives the impression of the two being at loggerheads, it actually betrays a level of trust between them, where Murray expects that the current team of Johnston, Muir and Bain will stablise the club, and may well improve his bargaining position for any future bids. Like yourself though this is purely personal opinion, and not based on any inside information.

Phone Ibrox and ask for Jardine? Best Wishes for your little ones opportunityknox

Good. Will look fwd to it.

I've never been a great fan of Healy, but I'm keeping an open mind on this. After all, Kenny Miller was much maligned by many, including myself, but managed to score 20 last season. We're very harsh in judging players in the Rangers community, but perhaps the turnaround in Miller's Rangers career should serve as a reality check that we need to apply a bit more patience and trust in the management team.

I've never thought that the Billy Boys had anything to do with Catholics, and therefore don't see why it's "bigotry of the highest order". Don't be silly, it is clearly sung with the thought of catholics in peoples heads. "We're up to our knees in f*nian blood..." When that word is said by people who do you think they have in mind? Are you a mindreader, or Graham Spiers? Interestingly, did you know that the dictionary definition of "F*nian" was only recently amended to reflect a deluge of communication "informing" Oxford that the term was a derogatory term used by Protestants to describe Catholics. This additional definition only started appearing in Oxford and Chambers dictionaries in the last decade. Neither the Collins or Merriam Webster dictionaries carry this new additional definition. That's not to say they are correct and the Oxford isn't. This is simply offered as evidence that there is no universal definition of the word, other than references to the Irish Republican Brotherhood. Personally, I prefer to call a spade a spade, and dislike the use of slang, so I would be more inclined not to use the term, and simply refer to an Irish Republican as precisely that. Most of my Rangers supporting friends and aquaintances understand the term in relation to Republicanism and support for Irish Republican terror groups.

McMillan is lowlife, of that there is little doubt, but I was led to believe he attended a non denominational school?

That's a very astute observation.

I'd like to read parts 2 & 3 before commenting, as it would be unfair to do otherwise.

EDIT: Covered Above On Mr Anderson's thesis I'll refrain from comment until parts 2 and 3 are published, but the methodology is strikingly similar to various other studies, including the STUC one, so I'm hoping that parts 2 and 3 will break new ground.

Muirhead is neutral* * Where neutral means being an obsessed Shellik fan who spends every waking hour thinking up ways to rubbish the name of Rangers Football Club

Constructive critisicm is always healthy, but the personal attacks on Contacts that I read were disgusting and not the conduct I'd expect from influential Rangers supporters.

Bit of racism in your post as well, a not so nice irony methinks. Nope. Facts. No racism on my part. Calling KHAN a Nazi Cunt is well, stating the obvious. And Loew coming out the other day, to tell his team to 'humiliate' the opposition reeks of the old "Aryan supremacy". Maybe, Europe -- on the surface -- has "forgiven" these cunts... But that's political. Not me. Fuck them. That sounds like the kind of lunatic conspiracy that a bheast would concoct

I think he used to work for the NOTW, which should tell you all you need to know.

I have a similar one, which also has Gordon Ramsey's autograph on it!