*Manticore* 1,893 Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 The point is there is no point in banning him because he isn't a tim and he isn't singled out with just that one opinion as being the only person who thinks like that. You didn't manage to work it out then You struggling to read english? No. Why do you ask? Is there something you don't understand? I'v already explained. There is nothing wrong with the view he has. Maybe I'm not making myself clear. You obviously did not manage to work out why he should be banned. That's all I have to say on the matter, I have wasted enough time already. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluepeter9 5,167 Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 More Emoticons like this Best suggestion so far Bring back CrabJew and friends I'd really like to see a fishing ecomotion ! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
*Manticore* 1,893 Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 I have no problem with protestantism or unionism, and if people want to discuss loayalism for instance they can, but in my opinion it actually has zero to do with Rangers. Tidied that up for you. Interesting that you missed out the typo though It actually does have zero to with Rangers' foundations, our roots, the only thing you can tie to us Unionism because Scotland is still in Britain, and the majority of the population 'identify' themselves as Protestant. All the identities you listed became associated with the club, after its birth. Fact. I don't really see the need for you to be so forceful in your opinions. All I'm doing is making a suggestion. You don't need to agree with it, just read it. I don't expect you personally to take it into account. In a separate point, banning u18s wont work as people will just lie. In what opinion am I being 'forceful'? It seems to me that you are the one who is asserting his opinion as if it were fact And what identities did I list? Are you getting mixed up? And I didn't miss the typo, I ignored it.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cstamomusa 3,812 Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 I think there should be a minimum posts thing before being allowed in The Bears Den, perhaps 250? Any Tim joining the forum, pretending to be a Bear just to wind us up, would most likely not have the patience, time or willpower to be without heroin for that long and so would not bother joining at all. I also think Admin should be a bit more strict when it comes to banning some undercover Tims. I think often you guys are far too tolerant of Declan-in-disguise and actually wait until they admit they are a beggar before hitting the ban button. There are some guys on here - many of whom have thousands of posts - that are clearly not Rangers fans. But because they haven't admitted it yet, they are kept around. I appreciate that they cause controversy and therefore activity on the board, but I think the place would be much better without them. If they come on the board and slag our players, club and traditions constantly then get rid in my opinion. Other than those minor issues, you guys do a great job and the site is excellent! The difficulty with that though comes how do you interpret their view point, some members are far more liberal minded than others, some people weren't born and raised in Glasgow or Northern Ireland for example and were protected, for want of a better word, to certain aspects of the culture that other people experienced. I know of a couple of members, at least, who have been accused of being tims but I know they're definitely not, proof is required to ban those that are tims we can't ban them because they might disagree with another members views. There's also tims on here that have been members for a couple of years so it not always fair to accuse new members. I rarely post in here as I can't be bothered with the attitude of some folks have that they are better rangers fans than me so automatically know better. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
keithgersbear 3,225 Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 The point is there is no point in banning him because he isn't a tim and he isn't singled out with just that one opinion as being the only person who thinks like that. You didn't manage to work it out then You struggling to read english? No. Why do you ask? Is there something you don't understand? I'v already explained. There is nothing wrong with the view he has. Maybe I'm not making myself clear. You obviously did not manage to work out why he should be banned. That's all I have to say on the matter, I have wasted enough time already. You seem to think he should be banned because he think's topics on the Orange Order and anything relating to protestantism should not be in the Bear's den? I know some Mod's think there is nothing wrong with those discussions taking place in the Bears den but not everyone follows that view. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
*Manticore* 1,893 Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 keithgersbear, stick to what I say, not what you imagine I seem to say.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralCartmanLee 313 Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 He's callign him a tim but is to cowardly to say so....i very much doubt BP9 is but he should drop this , it's getting beyond dull...... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cstamomusa 3,812 Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 The point is there is no point in banning him because he isn't a tim and he isn't singled out with just that one opinion as being the only person who thinks like that. You didn't manage to work it out then Hey weren't you banned! Shut it you! I was martyred. Ungentlemanly conduct! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cloudstrife3139 0 Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 I have no problem with protestantism or unionism, and if people want to discuss loayalism for instance they can, but in my opinion it actually has zero to do with Rangers. Tidied that up for you. Interesting that you missed out the typo though It actually does have zero to with Rangers' foundations, our roots, the only thing you can tie to us Unionism because Scotland is still in Britain, and the majority of the population 'identify' themselves as Protestant. All the identities you listed became associated with the club, after its birth. Fact. I don't really see the need for you to be so forceful in your opinions. All I'm doing is making a suggestion. You don't need to agree with it, just read it. I don't expect you personally to take it into account. In a separate point, banning u18s wont work as people will just lie. In what opinion am I being 'forceful'? It seems to me that you are the one who is asserting his opinion as if it were fact And what identities did I list? Are you getting mixed up? And I didn't miss the typo, I ignored it.... Of course its my own, no need to feel threatened. If you pick on suggestions in an open forum, to correct things that aren't actually to do with my overall point then you are nitpicking, and avoiding the actual topic of discussion ie improving the forum. You aren't discussing with a level head my opinion. Your just saying 'nup', and moving on. Your not really commenting or discussing possible reorganisation of the forum. Your just trying to dismiss me, because my opinion doesn't suit your agenda. As for me asserting my opinion as it is fact, well thats because it is fact. I even wrote so in my dissertation, where my information and discussion of the facts was considered highly extensive, and in-depth. Its stated in many books about Rangers and our history. Its pretty clear which Identities you are defending. I don't have a problem with free speech, I just think they have nothing to do with Rangers. I also think its ridiculous that people are discussing raising a 'warn' level because people keep bringing up a particular point, yet at the same time are telling people to ignore thread about loyalism and unionism in the BD. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poetry_In_Blue 1,043 Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 There's also tims on here that have been members for a couple of years so it not always fair to accuse new members. I rarely post in here as I can't be bothered with the attitude of some folks have that they are better rangers fans than me so automatically know better. Agree totally, it is very annoying when a new member is immediately accused after their first couple of posts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davy 68 Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 I think there should be a minimum posts thing before being allowed in The Bears Den, perhaps 250? Any Tim joining the forum, pretending to be a Bear just to wind us up, would most likely not have the patience, time or willpower to be without heroin for that long and so would not bother joining at all. I also think Admin should be a bit more strict when it comes to banning some undercover Tims. I think often you guys are far too tolerant of Declan-in-disguise and actually wait until they admit they are a beggar before hitting the ban button. There are some guys on here - many of whom have thousands of posts - that are clearly not Rangers fans. But because they haven't admitted it yet, they are kept around. I appreciate that they cause controversy and therefore activity on the board, but I think the place would be much better without them. If they come on the board and slag our players, club and traditions constantly then get rid in my opinion. Other than those minor issues, you guys do a great job and the site is excellent! The difficulty with that though comes how do you interpret their view point, some members are far more liberal minded than others, some people weren't born and raised in Glasgow or Northern Ireland for example and were protected, for want of a better word, to certain aspects of the culture that other people experienced. I know of a couple of members, at least, who have been accused of being tims but I know they're definitely not, proof is required to ban those that are tims we can't ban them because they might disagree with another members views. But what do you define as 'proof' though? That's my point, surely contributing nothing to the forum other than insults towards our history and club should be regarded as suspicious? Fair enough, a few mistakes would be made along the way and maybe a few genuine Rangers fans would be banned. Follow Follow actually had/has a sticky topic at the top of their page telling it's members how to keep Timmy out and how not to be considered a Tim; by not doing what I have just mentioned. Now while I am not saying this site should become like FF - this site is miles ahead in my opinion - I do think you should become a bit more ruthless when it comes to tolerating this kind of behaviour. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black 0 Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 Ban everybody under the age of 18. Are you serious ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poetry_In_Blue 1,043 Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 But what do you define as 'proof' though? That's my point, surely contributing nothing to the forum other than insults towards our history and club should be regarded as suspicious? Fair enough, a few mistakes would be made along the way and maybe a few genuine Rangers fans would be banned. Follow Follow actually had/has a sticky topic at the top of their page telling it's members how to keep Timmy out and how not to be considered a Tim; by not doing what I have just mentioned. Now while I am not saying this site should become like FF - this site is miles ahead in my opinion - I do think you should become a bit more ruthless when it comes to tolerating this kind of behaviour. Believe me alarm bells do start ringing with some of them, but it doesn't make them a tim. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluepeter9 5,167 Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 The trouble with being in a minority on the debate about what should be in the BD and what not is I actually care for the clubs future and actually believe I have a right to an opinion both about the club, and to a lesser degree this forum. I like this forum as it does allow dissention away from the protestant/unionist/loyalist line. I think my position is a valid one, but there are many on here would love to have that debate stifled. Now I do NOT want it stifled - I just want it separated from the football discussions but it seems that decision has already been taken - it stays! And if it stays then I will debate it until the opponents of free speech win and I get banned for being a dissenter. I tend not to call names, acuse people of being a time/spiers/hand wringer / PC/ apologist etc. etc. (unless using the pipe ecomotion to make it ok ) but I can hold a debate and opinion that many would like stifled. I do refuse to be shouted down or bullied away from my position. Despite what many may think I have no issues with the PUL causes - just their linkage, in the future, to Rangers. It is my opinion that their time has been and gone. Others disagree - so we 'debate it on here'. Does the fact that folk started fighting on Glasgow green during a parade interest me? It does. Should it be linked on the Rangers only part of the forum - not in my opinion, but scince its allowed I believe I am entitled to comment on it, even disparingly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davy 68 Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 Believe me alarm bells do start ringing with some of them, but it doesn't make them a tim. Okay. What about the minimum posts before getting into The Bears Den suggestion? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralCartmanLee 313 Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 but scince its allowed I believe I am entitled to comment on it, even disparingly. I also think you should be, i thought the mods only had a problem with you constantly moaning about getting it moved ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaz52 11,837 Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 Believe me alarm bells do start ringing with some of them, but it doesn't make them a tim. Okay. What about the minimum posts before getting into The Bears Den suggestion? Thats a bad idea for newcomers who really are genuine Rangers fans but can't talk about Rangers because of their post count Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TunnyLoyal 1,136 Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 Believe me alarm bells do start ringing with some of them, but it doesn't make them a tim. Okay. What about the minimum posts before getting into The Bears Den suggestion? Hmmm.... I know where you are coming from but would this mean that a real bear would have to post pish in the off-topic or general sports section before being allowed to post in the section he actually joined for? Doesn't seem right IMO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralCartmanLee 313 Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 Believe me alarm bells do start ringing with some of them, but it doesn't make them a tim. Okay. What about the minimum posts before getting into The Bears Den suggestion? So your first (say 250) posts on a rangers MB aren't about Rangers.....that doesn't make much sense...... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
outlaw69uk 123 Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 Believe me alarm bells do start ringing with some of them, but it doesn't make them a tim. Okay. What about the minimum posts before getting into The Bears Den suggestion? Hmmm.... I know where you are coming from but would this mean that a real bear would have to post pish in the off-topic or general sports section before being allowed to post in the section he actually joined for? Doesn't seem right IMO. Not really, as I mentioned when I brought it up to begin with, its about the structure of the site. The only way I could think of to explain it, was likening it to the early days of RM, where the Bears Den was like a "members club", and, there was an old firm section. Anyone could post in the OF, about Rangers etc, however, you had to be allowed into the Bears Den with a password. The post count removes the need for a password. Too many looking at it as it is now, when, the idea is improvement, which, if the structure was changed, would accommodate this. Hell, you could have the Bears Den, then, an "Executive Lounge" for longstanding members. Anything like that would work Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
outlaw69uk 123 Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 The trouble with being in a minority on the debate about what should be in the BD and what not is I actually care for the clubs future and actually believe I have a right to an opinion both about the club, and to a lesser degree this forum. I like this forum as it does allow dissention away from the protestant/unionist/loyalist line. I think my position is a valid one, but there are many on here would love to have that debate stifled. Now I do NOT want it stifled - I just want it separated from the football discussions but it seems that decision has already been taken - it stays! And if it stays then I will debate it until the opponents of free speech win and I get banned for being a dissenter. I tend not to call names, acuse people of being a time/spiers/hand wringer / PC/ apologist etc. etc. (unless using the pipe ecomotion to make it ok ) but I can hold a debate and opinion that many would like stifled. I do refuse to be shouted down or bullied away from my position. Despite what many may think I have no issues with the PUL causes - just their linkage, in the future, to Rangers. It is my opinion that their time has been and gone. Others disagree - so we 'debate it on here'. Does the fact that folk started fighting on Glasgow green during a parade interest me? It does. Should it be linked on the Rangers only part of the forum - not in my opinion, but scince its allowed I believe I am entitled to comment on it, even disparingly. See, I think, thats where the problem is. An essential part of it is faith, and, many people follow their team "religiously", so, its not even a minor link. You cant tell people to sever it, nor should you expect them to. You can disprove of it, and, disagree with it, but, they must be allowed. If you are against it, the question is why? Its not a "bad" thing, yet, its demonized in the Scottish media, so, is this were your belief/opinion comes from? If it is NOT a bad thing, then, there is no problem I think, in itself, that as the main bug bear and cause of issues, all those things, and, having them associated with the club isnt a bad thing, unless you think there is a major negative connotation to being 1, or any combination of those things, in which case, that my friend, is a sectarian viewpoint/stance, I am afraid, and, probably goes some way to explaining some of the more "angry" responses you get at times. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLUEDIGNITY 34,087 Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 How about addin a curry shoap, a chinky, a bookies and a boozer and we wouldn't have to leave the hoose ! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Creampuff 22,630 Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 I personally think that talks about Orange order, walks etc should be given their own section, seems the easiest way to keep everyone happy . Also, I think we should have these people who are notorius for ridiculous and repeat posts givin warnings and bans (if they're not already haha). Maybe a podcast? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jardy 0 Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 Believe me alarm bells do start ringing with some of them, but it doesn't make them a tim. Okay. What about the minimum posts before getting into The Bears Den suggestion? Hmmm.... I know where you are coming from but would this mean that a real bear would have to post pish in the off-topic or general sports section before being allowed to post in the section he actually joined for? Doesn't seem right IMO. i know members on 50ish posts who talk more sense and are obviously more knowledgeable about bears than some people on 20000+ posts Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoltonLoyal 2 Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 Believe me alarm bells do start ringing with some of them, but it doesn't make them a tim. Okay. What about the minimum posts before getting into The Bears Den suggestion? So your first (say 250) posts on a rangers MB aren't about Rangers.....that doesn't make much sense...... McBoyd would be f*cked Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts