reallyruff

The kitchen perchance?

Most lies are damaging because of the intention behind them. In CH's case he lied in an attempt to evade a reasonable question about why he hadn't taken an alternative course of action to the one which saw him "grassing" on fellow Rangers fans i.e. why hadn't he simply reported what he considered to be the offensive posts to RM admin/mods even by proxy. His posturing on the issue together with those lies are what caused the offence on here regarding that particular issue. Many other posters throughout this thread have offered other reasons for their dislike/disapproval/disappointment of him e.g. the boycott, harassment of fellow fans, his history, self-serving statements, etc. Some posters have been supportive of CH, and have been willing to debate the issues surrounding him. Yet others have openly stated their hostility stems from personal issues they've had with him. The cumulative effect on this forum has been, as anyone can see, that the majority of opinion is disapproval. However, that opinion has been reached individually as well as collectively, not because we are sheep, but because here on RM debate and discussion is welcomed whereas censorship is not tolerated or administered. I feel we can be congratulated for that, and if it sets us apart from other forums then good because I'm confident we've reached our position the correct way.

I probably did not word it well, but I was meaning it the other way, if you get what I mean.  

Time to lay off the bamboo shoots if you constitute 2.5% of RM big lad.

" Collective majority opinions " on here don't appear out of the ether, they are derived from both reasoned and aggressive debate. Diverse opinions are heard, argued with, considered, ignored and accepted in equal measure. There are no preconceived positions. No opinion will be deleted. This is how a balanced view is achieved, by giving equal consideration to opposing points of view. This forum allows that to occur. There is a surfeit of anecdotal evidence on here to display that this is not the case on FF. There can be no agenda attached to RM because of the simple fact that it allows debate and posters receive no direction, either implicit or openly, from admin or each other.

Aye, i agree with that.
It's scumbag behaviour and they wonder why folk don't like them
He would be the first one online greeting if he received a bit of verbal in front of his family, condemning the perpetrators and claiming they aren't real Rangers fans.
Just like his wee mob did at the superstore when folk used the shop.
What i don't get is, who made him and his mates the judge and jury of the Rangers support?

Hey, Oddball!

Hey, Oddball!

I don't know, i'm not calling anyone a liar, but I just don't buy those on FF who say they got banned for nothing but challenging that cunt McMurdo, or Toxic Jack. I'm assuming they mean Bawsburst when they say TJ, though I doubt it was him, the amount of time Bawsburst spent on here. Maybe an 'employee' of Toxic Jack, but I doubt it was actually him.
Anyway, I was posting on here back when the 'propaganda war' was in full swing, when the above two and Guardian were posting. I don't know anyone on here that gave any of those 3 as much abuse or challenged them as much as I did. McMurdo was trying to find out my personal details to take me to Court ffs  Fucking treacherous, rat bastard that he is, paid propagandist masquerading as a Rangers fan! To say I was pretty 'coarse' with them would be quite an understatement, though I stand by it, and I feel time has proven me right.
Of course others challenged them as well, Carson's Cat for example, more articulate than me, but what i'm trying to say is I find it hard to believe anyone got banned specifically for challenging anyone on here, whether those mentioned or not. Maybe the personal insults involved were bad enough to warrant it, i got warned myself at times, but just for challenging anyone, or backing King, no chance. FFS, and i'm a founder  member of the RM Kingaling Loyal
That's a great piece posted from Gersnet. A forum I used to post on a bit under my same user name, but a combination of asking for password change every so often, I forgot it, and my daughter arriving, has me spending less time online in general anyway. A much smaller forum, though with many good posters, where I used to read and absorb more than post on it anyway.
SonofWilliam got a good welcome, of course as he had previously read here, he knew his views would get challenged, I thought he had came on to challenge some on here. But didn't really work out that way so far. To anyone else reading from FF, as I know there are plenty, I ask again, come, express your views, challenge those you don't agree with. It's a football forum, about something we all love, our club, so people are going to get passionate, heated, whatever.
One other thing, I seen someone ask on FF yesterday why Houston was called a Grass, someone answered about the 'Wee Jay' thing, calling Houston a snake, insinuating he only did it as it was RM, as there was loads worse on twitter that he ignored. I think the guy who responded had a point, and this is from someone who was very vocal on here at the time saying the posts mocking that wee lad Jay were wrong. The post is still there on FF I think, not deleted. Is it because of this thread, the accusations of banning for such, I don't know, but it's still there.

Some can and in our divisive world will naturally focus on polarised positives/negatives for one forum or another but if you take a step back for a moment, we are all Rangers supporters.
Whilst there will always be disagreements in any walk of life, we seem to be on a never ending climb up the wall of divisory confrontation that has, as a collective, served us very badly.
I'm an FF man as far as forums are concerned (currently sin-binned for looking like Brad Pitt) but I'll offer my particular olive branch towards RM by saying there are at least 238 posters who aren't Jeremy Hunts,,,,seriously, the best thing about it for me is that I'm allowed a voice that goes against the general RM grain.
 
# Don't hit me with any negative vibes man !

Seems we have some delicate flowers that have trouble dealing with the looser moderating style, openness, lack of censorship, and aggressive  debating on RM. May be more helpful if we knew who the certain people are. Strong feelings on topics will tend to elicit evocative responses, especially on a forum that allows diverse opinions.

The proof that its contradictory is all here in black and white.
He got a debate and soon as he's stumped for an answer everyone is either a tarrier or a mentalist.
PS you'll notice that despite myself and KAI disagreeing with you neither of has alluded to your mental state, your validity as a Bear or demanded you be banned.
Con-tra-dic-tion.

Nice to hear from you again D'art. ??
Really sorry how things turned out after we all asked you to get involved. Hopefully it's not put you off for life and one day you can have another crack at it, this time with better people around you. 
Pass on my best to Laura & Joanna and hopefully they can also get back involved in the future. 

Most lies are damaging because of the intention behind them. In CH's case he lied in an attempt to evade a reasonable question about why he hadn't taken an alternative course of action to the one which saw him "grassing" on fellow Rangers fans i.e. why hadn't he simply reported what he considered to be the offensive posts to RM admin/mods even by proxy. His posturing on the issue together with those lies are what caused the offence on here regarding that particular issue. Many other posters throughout this thread have offered other reasons for their dislike/disapproval/disappointment of him e.g. the boycott, harassment of fellow fans, his history, self-serving statements, etc. Some posters have been supportive of CH, and have been willing to debate the issues surrounding him. Yet others have openly stated their hostility stems from personal issues they've had with him. The cumulative effect on this forum has been, as anyone can see, that the majority of opinion is disapproval. However, that opinion has been reached individually as well as collectively, not because we are sheep, but because here on RM debate and discussion is welcomed whereas censorship is not tolerated or administered. I feel we can be congratulated for that, and if it sets us apart from other forums then good because I'm confident we've reached our position the correct way.

Most lies are damaging because of the intention behind them. In CH's case he lied in an attempt to evade a reasonable question about why he hadn't taken an alternative course of action to the one which saw him "grassing" on fellow Rangers fans i.e. why hadn't he simply reported what he considered to be the offensive posts to RM admin/mods even by proxy. His posturing on the issue together with those lies are what caused the offence on here regarding that particular issue. Many other posters throughout this thread have offered other reasons for their dislike/disapproval/disappointment of him e.g. the boycott, harassment of fellow fans, his history, self-serving statements, etc. Some posters have been supportive of CH, and have been willing to debate the issues surrounding him. Yet others have openly stated their hostility stems from personal issues they've had with him. The cumulative effect on this forum has been, as anyone can see, that the majority of opinion is disapproval. However, that opinion has been reached individually as well as collectively, not because we are sheep, but because here on RM debate and discussion is welcomed whereas censorship is not tolerated or administered. I feel we can be congratulated for that, and if it sets us apart from other forums then good because I'm confident we've reached our position the correct way.

It is disappointing that an indivdual's character, personality or previous service have become the subject of discussions on both forums, either positively or negatively - as personalising any debate or discussion makes us lose sight of the real issues - something which RBR correctly points out on Gersnet.
I dont indulge in mud slinging & I have no intention of starting - I deal in facts and I have no intention of changing that.
Good corporate governance is fair, balanced and consistent and is appllied without exception. Furthermore whilst operating within a board, as an individual, you have to take collective responsibility for the actions of that board. In terms of the word "governance" it is how you police, function and govern within that corporate identity. If your attempts to "police" fellow directors with regard to protecting that corporate governance is unsuccessful then it leaves a person in an invidious position with regard to that aforementioned collective responsibiity.
As I said to Craig at the members meeting, other than the fact he has got slightly mixed up with the timeline of the phone calls he refers to - there is no dispute over the circumstances, only the interpretation of them.
I, along with 2 other directors felt we were faced with a situational conflict of interest in that an advantage could be gained by his attendance at the meeting. It is my opinion that those concerns have been validated in view of the fact that questions and hypothetical situations discussed as the security briefing were the subject of questions asked of the potential candidates at the recruitment and interview process.
Others may feel differently or hold a different opinion - but in the period which has elapsed I have neither seen, read nor heard anything which would alter my viewpoint on the matter.

Over the years I have come to form the opinion that FF operates to an agenda (I suppose by that I mean those that run FF) what the agenda/end goal is I do not know however they want there to be favourable opinion towards certain individuals.
My reasoning for thinking that is I have seen (and experienced to an extent) posters speak of their posts being removed (on FF) and bans applied when questioning certain people (censorship).  Albeit there may be a majority opinion on RM and at times you may get it tight when differing I can never once recall anyone stating their post or opinion was removed. 
What I am trying to say is, you are right, there is a majority opinion on here however there is no collective agenda influenced by those who can.  If I put up a thread just now listing all the reasons FF is great, Houston is great and RM is shit that thread will not be chopped, would the flip side of that apply on FF?  
There is little surprise that a collective majority opinion is formed, it happens, those with strong opinions and able to make a good case will be heard and they will influence.   Where it becomes an issue is when only they are allowed to be heard.
I do have to admit its been years since I was on FF, so my thoughts may be dated and fairly shot down however that was the opinion I formed and it has stuck.  Rambled on a bit there and not directly answered your question however it is my opinion on the difference between the sites and my case for why the majority opinion on RM is arrived at in a more credible manner.
 

Most lies are damaging because of the intention behind them. In CH's case he lied in an attempt to evade a reasonable question about why he hadn't taken an alternative course of action to the one which saw him "grassing" on fellow Rangers fans i.e. why hadn't he simply reported what he considered to be the offensive posts to RM admin/mods even by proxy. His posturing on the issue together with those lies are what caused the offence on here regarding that particular issue. Many other posters throughout this thread have offered other reasons for their dislike/disapproval/disappointment of him e.g. the boycott, harassment of fellow fans, his history, self-serving statements, etc. Some posters have been supportive of CH, and have been willing to debate the issues surrounding him. Yet others have openly stated their hostility stems from personal issues they've had with him. The cumulative effect on this forum has been, as anyone can see, that the majority of opinion is disapproval. However, that opinion has been reached individually as well as collectively, not because we are sheep, but because here on RM debate and discussion is welcomed whereas censorship is not tolerated or administered. I feel we can be congratulated for that, and if it sets us apart from other forums then good because I'm confident we've reached our position the correct way.

Most lies are damaging because of the intention behind them. In CH's case he lied in an attempt to evade a reasonable question about why he hadn't taken an alternative course of action to the one which saw him "grassing" on fellow Rangers fans i.e. why hadn't he simply reported what he considered to be the offensive posts to RM admin/mods even by proxy. His posturing on the issue together with those lies are what caused the offence on here regarding that particular issue. Many other posters throughout this thread have offered other reasons for their dislike/disapproval/disappointment of him e.g. the boycott, harassment of fellow fans, his history, self-serving statements, etc. Some posters have been supportive of CH, and have been willing to debate the issues surrounding him. Yet others have openly stated their hostility stems from personal issues they've had with him. The cumulative effect on this forum has been, as anyone can see, that the majority of opinion is disapproval. However, that opinion has been reached individually as well as collectively, not because we are sheep, but because here on RM debate and discussion is welcomed whereas censorship is not tolerated or administered. I feel we can be congratulated for that, and if it sets us apart from other forums then good because I'm confident we've reached our position the correct way.

Most lies are damaging because of the intention behind them. In CH's case he lied in an attempt to evade a reasonable question about why he hadn't taken an alternative course of action to the one which saw him "grassing" on fellow Rangers fans i.e. why hadn't he simply reported what he considered to be the offensive posts to RM admin/mods even by proxy. His posturing on the issue together with those lies are what caused the offence on here regarding that particular issue. Many other posters throughout this thread have offered other reasons for their dislike/disapproval/disappointment of him e.g. the boycott, harassment of fellow fans, his history, self-serving statements, etc. Some posters have been supportive of CH, and have been willing to debate the issues surrounding him. Yet others have openly stated their hostility stems from personal issues they've had with him. The cumulative effect on this forum has been, as anyone can see, that the majority of opinion is disapproval. However, that opinion has been reached individually as well as collectively, not because we are sheep, but because here on RM debate and discussion is welcomed whereas censorship is not tolerated or administered. I feel we can be congratulated for that, and if it sets us apart from other forums then good because I'm confident we've reached our position the correct way.

Most lies are damaging because of the intention behind them. In CH's case he lied in an attempt to evade a reasonable question about why he hadn't taken an alternative course of action to the one which saw him "grassing" on fellow Rangers fans i.e. why hadn't he simply reported what he considered to be the offensive posts to RM admin/mods even by proxy. His posturing on the issue together with those lies are what caused the offence on here regarding that particular issue. Many other posters throughout this thread have offered other reasons for their dislike/disapproval/disappointment of him e.g. the boycott, harassment of fellow fans, his history, self-serving statements, etc. Some posters have been supportive of CH, and have been willing to debate the issues surrounding him. Yet others have openly stated their hostility stems from personal issues they've had with him. The cumulative effect on this forum has been, as anyone can see, that the majority of opinion is disapproval. However, that opinion has been reached individually as well as collectively, not because we are sheep, but because here on RM debate and discussion is welcomed whereas censorship is not tolerated or administered. I feel we can be congratulated for that, and if it sets us apart from other forums then good because I'm confident we've reached our position the correct way.

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.

Most lies are damaging because of the intention behind them. In CH's case he lied in an attempt to evade a reasonable question about why he hadn't taken an alternative course of action to the one which saw him "grassing" on fellow Rangers fans i.e. why hadn't he simply reported what he considered to be the offensive posts to RM admin/mods even by proxy. His posturing on the issue together with those lies are what caused the offence on here regarding that particular issue. Many other posters throughout this thread have offered other reasons for their dislike/disapproval/disappointment of him e.g. the boycott, harassment of fellow fans, his history, self-serving statements, etc. Some posters have been supportive of CH, and have been willing to debate the issues surrounding him. Yet others have openly stated their hostility stems from personal issues they've had with him. The cumulative effect on this forum has been, as anyone can see, that the majority of opinion is disapproval. However, that opinion has been reached individually as well as collectively, not because we are sheep, but because here on RM debate and discussion is welcomed whereas censorship is not tolerated or administered. I feel we can be congratulated for that, and if it sets us apart from other forums then good because I'm confident we've reached our position the correct way.

What 'agenda' do you think people have on here? 
If one forum bans people who have a differing opinion from those of its controller (accompanied by a pathetic e-mail in many cases attested to on here) then its bound to be populated by 'like minded' people. 
Its different though when a forum doesn't ban people just for an opinion and is moderated by a range of people (some with wildly varying perspectives). It may be many reach the same conclusions but you have been given a wide range of reasons (with evidence) as to why posters have come to their view. 
The fact that you are commenting negatively about the forum and no one is calling for you to be banned would seem to suggest that your premise about 'sheep' is erroneous as you would have been shepherded off of here. If you want a forum full of sheep then this may be more your thing.
http://www.afc-chat.co.uk/forums/ 
Strange that you haven't made the same remarks on FF or is it that you know what the outcome would be? I stopped posting on there years ago when it became clear that dissent wasn't tolerated.
 
 

Most lies are damaging because of the intention behind them. In CH's case he lied in an attempt to evade a reasonable question about why he hadn't taken an alternative course of action to the one which saw him "grassing" on fellow Rangers fans i.e. why hadn't he simply reported what he considered to be the offensive posts to RM admin/mods even by proxy. His posturing on the issue together with those lies are what caused the offence on here regarding that particular issue. Many other posters throughout this thread have offered other reasons for their dislike/disapproval/disappointment of him e.g. the boycott, harassment of fellow fans, his history, self-serving statements, etc. Some posters have been supportive of CH, and have been willing to debate the issues surrounding him. Yet others have openly stated their hostility stems from personal issues they've had with him. The cumulative effect on this forum has been, as anyone can see, that the majority of opinion is disapproval. However, that opinion has been reached individually as well as collectively, not because we are sheep, but because here on RM debate and discussion is welcomed whereas censorship is not tolerated or administered. I feel we can be congratulated for that, and if it sets us apart from other forums then good because I'm confident we've reached our position the correct way.