Jump to content

Excellent work from VB


Recommended Posts

Sectarianism against a fucking dog? Are dogs part of a sect? That's you wished the papes well in Europe, got yer fanny dripping about petrov and those who didn't give a fuck about the game.

You sure yer on the right site?

Well said. Cunts like him and BP9 are a constant riddy

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 342
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

(tu)

It could easily have happened like this....

Proven bigot and Rangers hater has a wee swally and fires on his hoops and puts the top on his dog " the zombie killer".

They go out on the town looking for a "zombie" to attack and maybe get a new bone for the dog ( the one in the vb articles pic has maybe got a bit small)

The proven bigot and Rangers hater finds a target and tries to get stuck in, takes second prize in the fight...and when the dog tried to attack the Rangers fan it took a kick in the ribs while the Rangers fan defended himself from a proven bigot and Rangers hater, and a dog nicknamed the zombie killer.

IF it even happened at all.

Nail on head Gogzy, exactly what I was thinking, I think this is the more likely scenario.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sectarianism against a fucking dog? Are dogs part of a sect? That's you wished the papes well in Europe, got yer fanny dripping about petrov and those who didn't give a fuck about the game.

You sure yer on the right site?

A glance through his previous posting history makes it hard to believe that this guy has ever been on the right side.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now I dont want to get into a wee public slanging match with you - but your the one that has went off on one here.

Trolling: Yep been accused of that before - its strange how holding an alternate opinion, and yet stating is as forcefully as others, is seen as trolling. I know you have read my stuff before - and, if your fair you'll know I am nothing if not consistent in my views - and one of the things I love about RM is that I state them! Having a consistent, but alternate opinion, and having the communication skills to state it forcefully, and stick by my guns is NOT trolling - if it is then I would feel sorry for the direction this forum is going to go.

I was very specific in my post that I will defend your right to a contrary opinion, and have done so repeatedly. Your post was, in my opinion, without merit, and I clearly explained my reasons for thinking that - hence my opinion that your post was designed to elicit a reaction, i.e. trolling. If you disagree with that, then you can only think your post had merit, and I honestly credited you with more intelligence than that.

VB's stated aims (and again I'll paraphrase and if I am WILDLY wrong I am sure I'll get picked up on this) are "defending Rangers with all the protestant, loyalist and unionist and British 'elements' " of our support. Again I think you know my position on attaching political (and / or religious) agenda's to the club. However nothing in my reply (this time!) took a pop at those aims - my 'contra' opinion was if they want to defend the club, giving 'oxygen' to the SUN (The SUN FFS) but spending so much time on a ned, his dog and THE SUN!!! seems at odds given what battles we do have to fight! I think (note thats an OPINION ) that they have strategically and tactically picked the wrong subject to spend so much effort on! (Again if you see this as trolling - fine - I see this as having an opinion (even if its is a small minority opinion - of the peoplewho post on here!)

This completely misses the point of the article and reasons for it. Regardless of what paper it was in, this was a front page story about bigoted Rangers fans attacking a dog, The only evidence for this attack was the word of a self-confessed bigot which even the easiest of checks would have revealed. This same bigot boasts about the dog being a 'zombie slayer,' and using him to attack Rangers fans. This is a problem for Rangers fans, it is all too easy for the papers to make these baseless accusations and put them on the front page. It is only by challenging these stories that this will change in future. I cannot understand why you would want the papers to have free reign to print unsubstantiated bollocks which paint Rangers fans in a bad light without challenge. Do you feel the same about Jim Spence at the BBC? Should he have been ignored as he spoke about the 'club that died?' If not, why not?

I find it sad that in this context of fighting batles that you, VB, and others on here - think a Ned, his dog and THE SUN!!!! are more important than what is happening in Scottish Football (without that we WONT exist) - more important than the SPFL not having sponsorship, and more important than the struggle for control of our club. To me these are the important battles for our club. Our fan base gets distracted by all the small pish, the small pish (in particular in the press) detratcts from the topics we do investigate, but every time we pick up on the small pish, every time we go to 'war' on a word out of place - We want to see the press investigating the intentions of the SFA, the SPFL, and yes even those involved in the struggle for control of our club. What we are doing is allowing them column inches by reacting to all this small pish.

Utter nonsense, which (again) I dealt with in my previous post. Where in the article does it say that this is more important than anything else?

Lastly where have I didctated to VB what to do - I have offered them some advice - I doubt they will take it, but its out there, I have some decent debates with some of the VB guys (and ome shit debates as well) but in your rant at me its strange that you think I could, or would dictate to VB.

I'm sure they'll breathe a sigh of relief...

You seem to be the only person who thinks this, I realise that is a source of pride for you. This article has been well received across a wide section of the Rangers support, that you have a problem with it for the ridiculous reasons you've cited is for you and you alone to rationalise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What a piece of sectarian, bigoted, racist scum this man is.

So easy for the journalists to simply look at his Facebook account, but any story, no matter how insignificant, that paints our club or supporters in a dark light, its gets published.

Not for one second would I condone the attack on an animal, but looking for sympathy with such a disgusting bigot MUST be seen as agenda driven.

Yet there are some who still refuse to believe of an agenda against us. Fucking fools.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was very specific in my post that I will defend your right to a contrary opinion, and have done so repeatedly. Your post was, in my opinion, without merit, and I clearly explained my reasons for thinking that - hence my opinion that your post was designed to elicit a reaction, i.e. trolling. If you disagree with that, then you can only think your post had merit, and I honestly credited you with more intelligence than that.

This completely misses the point of the article and reasons for it. Regardless of what paper it was in, this was a front page story about bigoted Rangers fans attacking a dog, The only evidence for this attack was the word of a self-confessed bigot which even the easiest of checks would have revealed. This same bigot boasts about the dog being a 'zombie slayer,' and using him to attack Rangers fans. This is a problem for Rangers fans, it is all too easy for the papers to make these baseless accusations and put them on the front page. It is only by challenging these stories that this will change in future. I cannot understand why you would want the papers to have free reign to print unsubstantiated bollocks which paint Rangers fans in a bad light without challenge. Do you feel the same about Jim Spence at the BBC? Should he have been ignored as he spoke about the 'club that died?' If not, why not?

Utter nonsense, which (again) I dealt with in my previous post. Where in the article does it say that this is more important than anything else?

I'm sure they'll breathe a sigh of relief...

You seem to be the only person who thinks this, I realise that is a source of pride for you. This article has been well received across a wide section of the Rangers support, that you have a problem with it for the ridiculous reasons you've cited is for you and you alone to rationalise.

For some reason your post involved the book ' lord of the flies' in my mind - young boys dancing round a fire all convincing each other they were tougher and harder than they really are - try looking outwards setime - I feel if folk think that the VB article is worthy then they do need to get a wider perspective on life ! I am glad I maintain that broader perspective !

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now I dont want to get into a wee public slanging match with you - but your the one that has went off on one here.

Trolling: Yep been accused of that before - its strange how holding an alternate opinion, and yet stating is as forcefully as others, is seen as trolling. I know you have read my stuff before - and, if your fair you'll know I am nothing if not consistent in my views - and one of the things I love about RM is that I state them! Having a consistent, but alternate opinion, and having the communication skills to state it forcefully, and stick by my guns is NOT trolling - if it is then I would feel sorry for the direction this forum is going to go.

VB's stated aims (and again I'll paraphrase and if I am WILDLY wrong I am sure I'll get picked up on this) are "defending Rangers with all the protestant, loyalist and unionist and British 'elements' " of our support. Again I think you know my position on attaching political (and / or religious) agenda's to the club. However nothing in my reply (this time!) took a pop at those aims - my 'contra' opinion was if they want to defend the club, giving 'oxygen' to the SUN (The SUN FFS) but spending so much time on a ned, his dog and THE SUN!!! seems at odds given what battles we do have to fight! I think (note thats an OPINION ) that they have strategically and tactically picked the wrong subject to spend so much effort on! (Again if you see this as trolling - fine - I see this as having an opinion (even if its is a small minority opinion - of the peoplewho post on here!)

I find it sad that in this context of fighting batles that you, VB, and others on here - think a Ned, his dog and THE SUN!!!! are more important than what is happening in Scottish Football (without that we WONT exist) - more important than the SPFL not having sponsorship, and more important than the struggle for control of our club. To me these are the important battles for our club. Our fan base gets distracted by all the small pish, the small pish (in particular in the press) detratcts from the topics we do investigate, but every time we pick up on the small pish, every time we go to 'war' on a word out of place - We want to see the press investigating the intentions of the SFA, the SPFL, and yes even those involved in the struggle for control of our club. What we are doing is allowing them column inches by reacting to all this small pish.

Lastly where have I didctated to VB what to do - I have offered them some advice - I doubt they will take it, but its out there, I have some decent debates with some of the VB guys (and ome shit debates as well) but in your rant at me its strange that you think I could, or would dictate to VB.

I have one more point to make and I will PM that to you!

Thanks for listening!

I feel you are guilty of a couple of incorrect assumptions. VB are not the ones in the media publishing the non-story, nor are they trying to further it. Indeed, as you are aware, they are countering it. Therefore, in exposing the flawed strategy of such stories, they are likely to reduce rather than increase them. In other words, VB are against the original article, just like you, in your own way. Now that doesn't mean, of course, that the Sun would start searching exposés on Regan's tenure from now on.

Also, what can the fans do about the absence of sponsorship? I can't see how they could even start to spend their time productively tackling that issue. However, perhaps if the press were less keen, from the tabloids to the broadsheets, on negative Rangers stories, they might raise the question.

Indeed, what can they do about the boardroom struggles? The debate around that matter isn't exactly stalled, which you almost seem to imply by your assertion that VB are wasting their time, letting other more significant matters slip.

Your arguments don't stand up to scrutiny and I too sense an element of a pre-judged argument that doesn't quite fit the facts

Link to post
Share on other sites

For some reason your post involved the book ' lord of the flies' in my mind - young boys dancing round a fire all convincing each other they were tougher and harder than they really are - try looking outwards setime - I feel if folk think that the VB article is worthy then they do need to get a wider perspective on life ! I am glad I maintain that broader perspective !

You like being controversial for the sake of it, its pretty obvious as you take the opposite view to the majority on pretty much any given subject, either that or you are the most contradictory Rangers man ever.

Link to post
Share on other sites

BP9 shouldn't be banned. I prefer to use his advice on this occasion and simply laugh at him.

Laugh at his ridiculous attempts at pseudo intellectual superiority when in fact his posts get ripped apart time after time.

Mock his inability to even see that his fellow fans are embarrassed at his antics.

It's all very well having different opinions but its strange how his are consistently different from the mainstream.

I think Bluepeter summed him and his ridiculous posts up perfectly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

BP9 shouldn't be banned. I prefer to use his advice on this occasion and simply laugh at him.

Laugh at his ridiculous attempts at pseudo intellectual superiority when in fact his posts get ripped apart time after time.

Mock his inability to even see that his fellow fans are embarrassed at his antics.

It's all very well having different opinions but its strange how his are consistently different from the mainstream.

I think Bluepeter summed him and his ridiculous posts up perfectly.

Would still rather he was banned instead of constantly agitating others members and upsetting forum harmony. People like him online can be dangerous.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What a piece of sectarian, bigoted, racist scum this man is.

So easy for the journalists to simply look at his Facebook account, but any story, no matter how insignificant, that paints our club or supporters in a dark light, its gets published.

Not for one second would I condone the attack on an animal, but looking for sympathy with such a disgusting bigot MUST be seen as agenda driven.

Yet there are some who still refuse to believe of an agenda against us. Fucking fools.

:thumbup:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oleg - Its the SUN and my point is they don't care about right or wrong - only about sales - we are promoting their sales by giving it any credence - I know we all still have this pent up anger and need to direct it someplace but I would rather we just LAUGHED at them, that reacted TO them - and that is what we are doing. (But they are GOOD at getting a reaction and reactions make ££££ in their world!)

Their sales have been made and the story has already been printed. If they get (further) discredited over this, then they might do a double take when the get a ned with an agenda trying to sell them a story

I really don't see the Sun making much money out of this one. If it made any appreciable difference to their sales, then both they and Scotland are fucked, in the most total and utter sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having a different view to people doesn't make you any better or worse of a fan.

However, it does seem like BluePeter9 has a personal issue with the VB. Which isn't a bad thing, if you don't like someone, something or a group that is your choice. What I would say is, the way it manifests itself in his posts by being repetitive and the majority of the time quite predictable, isn't healthy.

I don't think any group or person should ever be blindly championed, I don't think it makes sense. Constant back patting regardless of content isn't smart. This applies for the constant opposite stance employed by BP9. You say you have a broad perspective, it's seems to me like it's quite the opposite. Anything VB say you challenge/troll immediately.

I will argue my point of I don't think something is right or it doesn't make sense. I will always give it the chance though. You seem to have your mind made up before you enter the thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Vanguard Bears are a PUL website, we don't hide from this title, it's who we are. We were set up to defend the traditions of Rangers, a club steeped in a Protestant, Unionist and Loyalist tradition, whether people like it or not; it's not for us to try a force our views down your throat.

The fact we work closely with Rangers tells us we must be doing something right.

I think all above the above irk Peter somewhat.

At the end of the day, if you don't like us, fair enough, we have no complaints. What I'm tired of is the same recycled and predictable responses from certain members which causes good threads to be derailed in to slanging matches. No one wins.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...