An insult to the Rangers support ?

[bawsburst 1,381]

But most importantly, I am NOT defending Keevins.

Just defending his right to write and print any old shit he likes true or not, same thing.

[Inigo 32,675]

Just defending his right to write and print any old shit he likes true or not, same thing.

No. The right to have the ability to do so... and then get punished if he so chooses. I do not defend the right to be be lying or offensive in itself. There is a big distinction there, if you're willing to see it.

[D'Artagnan 13,319]

No. The right to have the ability to do so... and then get punished if he so chooses. I do not defend the right to be be lying or offensive in itself. There is a big distinction there, if you're willing to see it.

But you agree that such behaviour should merit harsh punishment. Seems the disagreement seems to be who has the right to exercise it.

[bawsburst 1,381]

No. The right to have the ability to do so... and then get punished if he so chooses. I do not defend the right to be be lying or offensive in itself. There is a big distinction there, if you're willing to see it.

There are laws to temper that ability and sanctions, as previously stated Nuremberg shuggy is free to do and write much as he and others please, that is down to those at the club being too close to Nuremberg and others, if our exec/management fraternise with the enemy to an extent where it is left to fans to demand they act so be it.

[The Dude 20,026]

But you agree that such behaviour should merit harsh punishment. Seems the disagreement seems to be who has the right to exercise it.

That's pretty much the long and short of it.

[Inigo 32,675]

But you agree that such behaviour should merit harsh punishment. Seems the disagreement seems to be who has the right to exercise it.

[bawsburst 1,381]

But you agree that such behaviour should merit harsh punishment. Seems the disagreement seems to be who has the right to exercise it.

The club is and should be master in its own house the club should say who comes through the portals, wonder if the objectors would still invite or allow someone in their house who took a dump on the carpet, same principle.

[Inigo 32,675]

The club is and should be master in its own house the club should say who comes through the portals, wonder if the objectors would still invite or allow someone in their house who took a dump on the carpet, same principle.

It isn't the same at all.

[gogzy 31,195]

I just have now begone whence thy came.

the dude is a bear.

[The Dude 20,026]

the dude is a bear.

You're lucky there's no neg rep button anymore

[bawsburst 1,381]

It isn't the same at all.

Not in your eyes it isn't, because you are unwilling to mark Nuremberg and others for what they are many of us call a spade a spade you should try it.

[Inigo 32,675]

Not in your eyes it isn't, because you are unwilling to mark Nuremberg and others for what they are many of us call a spade a spade you should try it.

Nuremberg is a cunto. Happy now?

[Dean'sDa 1]

If any Bear in possession of a strong stomach wants to troll through back editions of ra Sellik view from 30-35 years past, then you will be genuinely surprised(maybe not) to see the frequency of photographs of Nuremberg Hugh contained within the pages. You see, back in the day when Easterhouse Rocket-Launchers CSC, ra Balaclava Bhoys CSC, Armalite Amigos CSC, ................ etc had their POTY Dinner/Dance, their preferred choice of main speaker/host was the then Scotsman football scribe, Hugh Keevins. Ra View would have a picture of a smiling Shug at the top table and a few paragraphs of Hugh's speech. Ra unrepentant bold Shug would always conclude his delivery with the rabble rousing, "our day will come".

Nuremberg Hugh has been banned from ra Stydome for a year, he is desperate to even up this situation by a banning from Ibrox. I say his Editors at the Daily Record(Alan Rennie) and Radio Snyde(Jim Delahunt) should be doing more to ensure he is allowed to ply his trade. However, both these Sellik supporting clowns do not want to upset Peter.

If the Rocket-Launchers csc(it's a real club) ever invite ra Shugster back, it will be for the purpose of target practise.

I didn't believr that util I looked it up. Unbelievable!

[TravelingWilBEARy 4,319]

The club is and should be master in its own house the club should say who comes through the portals, wonder if the objectors would still invite or allow someone in their house who took a dump on the carpet, same principle.

No. No it isn't.

[D'Artagnan 13,319]

No. No it isn't.

So the victims of the lies, of the attacks and the attempts to unfairly set an agenda of guilt against them have no say in who passes through their doors ?

[bawsburst 1,381]

So the victims of the lies, of the attacks and the attempts to unfairly set an agenda of guilt against them have no say in who passes through their doors ?

Sort of fucks the squirmers argument straight into touch.

[gogzy 31,195]

You're lucky there's no neg rep button anymore

lol. We disagree regularly, but i have interacted with you enough to be almost 100% sure u are a bear

[The Dude 20,026]

lol. We disagree regularly, but i have interacted with you enough to be almost 100% sure u are a bear

Been here a year and a half and made 4000 posts, If I was a taig then Id deserve a medal for sheer determination.

[Inigo 32,675]

So the victims of the lies, of the attacks and the attempts to unfairly set an agenda of guilt against them have no say in who passes through their doors ?

Telling someone to leave or stay away from your house is entirely different from banning someone, a journalist, from a recognised public arena as a punative measure. Due to the principles argued before.

We're really just going round in circles here and are about to have the same argument over again.

[cerberusandorthus 184]

Kheevins IMHO is nothing but a shiver looking for a spine to run up.

I am on the horns of a dilema here;

• We ignore him because he basks in the publicity we give him
  
• We fight back with all guns blazing, because we are not prepared to accept anymore lies
  

I choose option 2

No surrender

[bawsburst 1,381]

Telling someone to leave or stay away from your house is entirely different from banning someone, a journalist, from a recognised public arena as a punative measure. Due to the principles argued before.

We're really just going round in circles here and are about to have the same argument over again.

You are going round in circles most others are pretty clear on the cure.

[Inigo 32,675]

You are going round in circles most others are pretty clear on the cure.

There's really no way to answer some of the pointless statements you make.

The ones that are in agreement with you are clear. The other one's you'll resort to mild ridicule?

Come on my man, rise to the level of the rest of the debate.

[bawsburst 1,381]

There's really no way to answer some of the pointless statements you make.

The ones that are in agreement with you are clear. The other one's you'll resort to mild ridicule?

Come on my man, rise to the level of the rest of the debate.

It is impossible to debate with someone who has surrendered before the debate has begun, as you have to your catch all freedom of the press.

[Inigo 32,675]

It is impossible to debate with someone who has surrendered before the debate has begun, as you have to your catch all freedom of the press.

Surrendered? You're just making up bizarre melodramatic statements now. I have a firmly held belief in regards to press freedom. Some of the others appear not to share that belief, and have an alternative firmly held belief. Had they already surrendered to their beliefs before the debate too? Of course not, because it's a meaningless soundbite.

You're essentially saying 'it is impossible to debate with someone who doesn't agree with me'.

[bawsburst 1,381]

Surrendered? You're just making up bizarre melodramatic statements now. I have a firmly held belief in regards to press freedom. Some of the others appear not to share that belief, and have an alternative firmly held belief. Had they already surrendered to their beliefs before the debate too? Of course not, because it's a meaningless soundbite.

You're essentially saying 'it is impossible to debate with someone who doesn't agree with me'.

I am saying it is impossible to debate with someone who will not or cannot seperate right from wrong.