Copland bear 7,966 Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 He does not speak for me, the current board are doing okay, bit they must do better in the future. If Dave King throws his weight behind the board then what the fuck are the rsa on about. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gogzy 31,195 Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 Active RMrs probably account for 0.1% of all fans...The offline majority, influenced by traditional media, probably make up Robertson's 'unity'.How many Active RSA'rs are there?How many fans do the RSA actually speak for? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sonofbear 398 Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 I refer you to my "made up on the spot" joke earlier :7325: Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cherster Perry 1977 18 Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 He does not speak for me, the current board are doing okay, bit they must do better in the future. If Dave King throws his weight behind the board then what the fuck are the rsa on about.Dave King has not intimated that he will throw his weight behind the board. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cherster Perry 1977 18 Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 How many Active RSA'rs are there?How many fans do the RSA actually speak for?Whether you like it or not, in print media, all of us. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gogzy 31,195 Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 Whether you like it or not, in print media, all of us.They most certainly do not represent all of us.How many members do they have? What gives them the right to say they speak for all fans? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cherster Perry 1977 18 Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 They most certainly do not represent all of us.How many members do they have? What gives them the right to say they speak for all fans?makes no difference to the casual reader. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gogzy 31,195 Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 makes no difference to the casual reader.True. Bloody papers Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NamibianBear 1,851 Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 How many Active RSA'rs are there?How many fans do the RSA actually speak for?3520,654 apparently Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
*Manticore* 1,893 Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 Nope its accurate - the margin of error on a single question with over 200 responses is around about 6% - i.e. the result could be out by + or- 6% BUT in all propability its accurate as the margins of errors are at the extremes - if you know statistics you know that's true! You want the full lecture go online!You haven't a fucking clue you idiot. And yes I do know statistics.But I'll play along. How did you arrive at a 6% margin?How were the sample selected?What is the population which has been sampled? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
*Manticore* 1,893 Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 Manticore- he says that the rangers support is as unified as it has ever been. That's a lot of crap. To me that seems like he is trying to speak on behalf of all bears?We all interpret things as we read them. To me he was clearly observing the state of play amongst Rangers fans.What words did he use which suggest he is speaking on behalf of all bears? None in my opinion, but I would be interested to hear your reply.By the way I don't see any evidence that what he says is correct, but that happens daily on RM, people post pish that they believe to be true.Finally, if you want to reply to me, please click on the 'quote' button, that way I get notification. I could easily have missed your post, and I am genuinely interested to hear what you think. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non_Sucumbi 876 Posted October 11, 2013 Share Posted October 11, 2013 Sounds like the RSA is the political wing of the RST. Every time a newspaper story is referenced these days there is another mouthpiece speaking for Rangers fans. I understood the RSA was the Rangers Supporters Assembly? It really is becoming like a skit from The Life of Brian All these fans groups and fan representatives should talk only through the club website. When approached by the media, print or otherwise, a simple 'no comment' would suffice. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Livi-Loyalist 46 Posted October 11, 2013 Share Posted October 11, 2013 Manticore- I'm on my phone bud its no letting me quote.no internet in new flat yet.his wee story there I think puts accross that all bears are united don't you think? I'm talking in general over the last 18 months or so we have evey man and there dug coming on media outlets and spewimg nonsense.I know a lot of bears but not one who are affiliated with any of the many supporters groups yet these so called fan leaders get a massive platform so basicalyy say what they like whether they have an agenda or not.I think if anything we should be under the one umbrella or nothing at all and every man should speak for themselves. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Atheist 178 Posted October 11, 2013 Share Posted October 11, 2013 We all interpret things as we read them. To me he was clearly observing the state of play amongst Rangers fans.I have to agree with that other dude in that Robertson's implications were the support were unified against the board. (which is obviously nonsense as I've been pro-board throughout like the majority of others)"I’ve never known as many fans to be united on one particular subject." - That was his quote, which I'm sure you'll agree is not true. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Young Bob 1,360 Posted October 11, 2013 Share Posted October 11, 2013 I have to agree with that other dude in that Robertson's implications were the support were unified against the board. (which is obviously nonsense as I've been pro-board throughout like the majority of others)"I've never known as many fans to be united on one particular subject." - That was his quote, which I'm sure you'll agree is not true.It implies most of the fans are united. However if you were at the last two matches you could interpret it as Robertson only ever having experienced a few hundred fans being united on a particular subject. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Atheist 178 Posted October 11, 2013 Share Posted October 11, 2013 It implies most of the fans are united. However if you were at the last two matches you could interpret it as Robertson only ever having experienced a few hundred fans being united on a particular subject.lol, True. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bump 168 Posted October 11, 2013 Share Posted October 11, 2013 sorry but i dont agree with this article,how can someone say that over 40,000 supporters have voiced there opinion and we agree the board should go. shite statement IMO Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluepeter9 5,167 Posted October 11, 2013 Share Posted October 11, 2013 You haven't a fucking clue you idiot. And yes I do know statistics.But I'll play along. How did you arrive at a 6% margin?How were the sample selected?What is the population which has been sampled?You really are a walloper - if you know the fking answers why ask - are you the stats verifier!!! Get of your fking high horse ! If you know stats you know the models and approxations I made you also know that my assumption is correct! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Velo 16 Posted October 11, 2013 Share Posted October 11, 2013 You really are a walloper - if you know the fking answers why ask - are you the stats verifier!!! Get of your fking high horse ! If you know stats you know the models and approxations I made you also know that my assumption is correct!BP. At best the poll tells you the opinions of a self-selecting group of people who have signed up for the site, were interested in the particular thread name chosen for the poll and then chose for themselves whether or not to vote. The number of people who chose to vote under those conditions is irrelevant when it comes to how representative the results are of the support in general so you can't apply any general statistical rule that says any number above x is statistically accurate to with y percent. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
*Manticore* 1,893 Posted October 11, 2013 Share Posted October 11, 2013 You really are a walloper - if you know the fking answers why ask - are you the stats verifier!!! Get of your fking high horse ! If you know stats you know the models and approxations I made you also know that my assumption is correct!Turn to abuse instead if answer the point, how typical of your sort.Bluster all you like, if you don't know that you are wrong you are even more stupid than I thought.How about answering my questions? We both know you can't though, you simply don't know what you are talking about.PS throwing in words like models and approximations is a nice attempt at bluff, but they do not apply in this situation, as you would know if you weren't such a bullshitter.So go on then, how we're the sample selected? What is the population in question? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
*Manticore* 1,893 Posted October 11, 2013 Share Posted October 11, 2013 I have to agree with that other dude in that Robertson's implications were the support were unified against the board. (which is obviously nonsense as I've been pro-board throughout like the majority of others)"I’ve never known as many fans to be united on one particular subject." - That was his quote, which I'm sure you'll agree is not true.That's not what we were discussing, it was whether or not he claimed to be speaking on behalf of all bears. And he clearly didn't.Do keep up Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluepeter9 5,167 Posted October 11, 2013 Share Posted October 11, 2013 Turn to abuse instead if answer the point, how typical of your sort.Bluster all you like, if you don't know that you are wrong you are even more stupid than I thought.How about answering my questions? We both know you can't though, you simply don't know what you are talking about.PS throwing in words like models and approximations is a nice attempt at bluff, but they do not apply in this situation, as you would know if you weren't such a bullshitter.So go on then, how we're the sample selected? What is the population in question?I feelNo need to justify my knowledge to anyone, let alone you. You know fine well both the point I was making, and also the maths behind my point - suck it up - the only that people want to interpret stats methodology is when the stats don't back up their position! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluepeter9 5,167 Posted October 11, 2013 Share Posted October 11, 2013 BP. At best the poll tells you the opinions of a self-selecting group of people who have signed up for the site, were interested in the particular thread name chosen for the poll and then chose for themselves whether or not to vote. The number of people who chose to vote under those conditions is irrelevant when it comes to how representative the results are of the support in general so you can't apply any general statistical rule that says any number above x is statistically accurate to with y percent.I know all that - but the main point still stands - the 'quotes' in the daily record about the large majority wanting the board sacked is inaccurate at best and downright wrong at worst - as 'our' poll - shows - a self selecting audience of broad spectrum rangers supporters disagreed with that assertion and at least our poll was done - I see no data to back up any assertions made by the board out lads! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
*Manticore* 1,893 Posted October 12, 2013 Share Posted October 12, 2013 I feelNo need to justify my knowledge to anyone, let alone you. You know fine well both the point I was making, and also the maths behind my point - suck it up - the only that people want to interpret stats methodology is when the stats don't back up their position!You'll do anything but back up your position. Because it is wrong and you are a fraud.I do not know the point you are making, because it makes no sense in statistical terms. Possibly you don't understand that. You are showing yourself up because you tried to sound knowledgable about things you do not understand.The really funny thing is that you are unable to back down. Man up for fuck's sake, you made a balls up, it's not a big deal. Nobody likes you anyway.And no, people who care about the truth want to know (not interpret, you idiot) about statistical methodology. Either to form a view on how robust the statistics are, or just out of interest, because we studied it.So go on, humour me, explain your conclusions. Possibly statistics has changed since my day. Not that Professional Statisticians are aware of any such development. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poetry_In_Blue 1,043 Posted October 12, 2013 Share Posted October 12, 2013 They sure as hell don't speak for me, and another total shitty article, Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.df745cc91b83abab0590131961ba2774.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.