Did Rangers lose their way when Donald Findlay left the club

[bauba30 1]

Still ... no-one has answered the question .... Can someone please explain what part FOS is offensive (or potentially so) to the English??

If this song is constantly refered to when defending the singing of certain other songs, i would love to know what is so offensive about it.

Folk are trying to figure out the rules behind offensiveness.

Are songs about old battles not hurtful to the losers?

Maybe I shouldn't sing 2 Little Boys then - in case the American South are listening.

LOL!

PC gone mad

FOS celebrates a battle that was the turning point in a war that freed our nation from an unconstitutional rule of tyranny. I for one think that is a very very special thing and well worth singing about.

And I guess the Sash is just about killing Catholics?

You know how bad this is...You can't even see the double standards in your posting.

What is really bad is that you equate the two when talking about what is acceptable conduct in the the current climate in the West of Scotland.

What is also unnaceptable is that you have failed to read the numerous posts from me saying that IMO - there is nothing wrong with the Sash

Must try harder!

You're right, I do that. Because the songs are similar. Both are about a great victory in a battle from hundreds of years ago.

Can't you see the double standards in criticising a song being sung in the west of Scotland, that may cause offense to a minority in that area and encouraging a song being sung in England, that may cause offense to a country?

I am not saying you think there is something wrong with the Sash...What you saying is there is something wrong with singing the Sash in the west of Scotland.

PC gone mad? Yeh, you're right!

Ive ssaid it about 10 times in this thread, to me, the Sash is fine. If you or I were to sing it right nwo I would have no probs with it.

For a Rangers official - and a celebrated one at that, to sing it at a function? Less than smart, wouldn't you agree? Then to include the add-ons as well?

Again, i said previously if all he did was sing the sash he probably would have been quietly told not to do it again, or at least to show a little better judgement.

For him to also include the add-ons and then sing TBB with add-ons, that sealed his fate IMO

As for FOS, that is a song that is about celebrating the "Flower" of our country, the rank and file, who gave up their own lives in order to win our freedom back. It never uses the word "English" once - never talks about killing anyone and even says that, "those days are past now, and in the past, they must remain" If there ever is a song that should not cause offense then this is it.

Unfortunately, it gets labelled as a Nationalist song and thus the unionists in our midst condemn it. But I see it as a beautiful, peaceful song - I actually beleive that there are more Scottish unionists who object to it because of its assumed (wrongly) politics than there are English.

[THEFISH 0]

Still ... no-one has answered the question .... Can someone please explain what part FOS is offensive (or potentially so) to the English??

If this song is constantly refered to when defending the singing of certain other songs, i would love to know what is so offensive about it.

Folk are trying to figure out the rules behind offensiveness.

Are songs about old battles not hurtful to the losers?

Maybe I shouldn't sing 2 Little Boys then - in case the American South are listening.

LOL!

PC gone mad

FOS celebrates a battle that was the turning point in a war that freed our nation from an unconstitutional rule of tyranny. I for one think that is a very very special thing and well worth singing about.

And I guess the Sash is just about killing Catholics?

You know how bad this is...You can't even see the double standards in your posting.

What is really bad is that you equate the two when talking about what is acceptable conduct in the the current climate in the West of Scotland.

What is also unnaceptable is that you have failed to read the numerous posts from me saying that IMO - there is nothing wrong with the Sash

Must try harder!

You're right, I do that. Because the songs are similar. Both are about a great victory in a battle from hundreds of years ago.

Can't you see the double standards in criticising a song being sung in the west of Scotland, that may cause offense to a minority in that area and encouraging a song being sung in England, that may cause offense to a country?

I am not saying you think there is something wrong with the Sash...What you saying is there is something wrong with singing the Sash in the west of Scotland.

PC gone mad? Yeh, you're right!

Ive ssaid it about 10 times in this thread, to me, the Sash is fine. If you or I were to sing it right nwo I would have no probs with it.

For a Rangers official - and a celebrated one at that, to sing it at a function? Less than smart, wouldn't you agree? Then to include the add-ons as well?

Again, i said previously if all he did was sing the sash he probably would have been quietly told not to do it again, or at least to show a little better judgement.

For him to also include the add-ons and then sing TBB with add-ons, that sealed his fate IMO

As for FOS, that is a song that is about celebrating the "Flower" of our country, the rank and file, who gave up their own lives in order to win our freedom back. It never uses the word "English" once - never talks about killing anyone and even says that, "those days are past now, and in the past, they must remain" If there ever is a song that should not cause offense then this is it.

Unfortunately, it gets labelled as a Nationalist song and thus the unionists in our midst condemn it. But I see it as a beautiful, peaceful song - I actually beleive that there are more Scottish unionists who object to it because of its assumed (wrongly) politics than there are English.

Youz are becoming very boring indeed ....huv yeez no thought a meetin up tae thrash things oot in wan night instead of debating it day after day on here

Nonsense so it is.....hope a never bump intae yeez in a boozer thats fur sure :pipegreen:

[tommy74 0]

BAUBA

Since the late 90's we have wo 11 trophy's including 4 TITLES and before you tell me about the way we won the last 2 titles .I would accept that any year

[Leiper 0]

Still ... no-one has answered the question .... Can someone please explain what part FOS is offensive (or potentially so) to the English??

If this song is constantly refered to when defending the singing of certain other songs, i would love to know what is so offensive about it.

Folk are trying to figure out the rules behind offensiveness.

Are songs about old battles not hurtful to the losers?

Maybe I shouldn't sing 2 Little Boys then - in case the American South are listening.

LOL!

PC gone mad

FOS celebrates a battle that was the turning point in a war that freed our nation from an unconstitutional rule of tyranny. I for one think that is a very very special thing and well worth singing about.

And I guess the Sash is just about killing Catholics?

You know how bad this is...You can't even see the double standards in your posting.

What is really bad is that you equate the two when talking about what is acceptable conduct in the the current climate in the West of Scotland.

What is also unnaceptable is that you have failed to read the numerous posts from me saying that IMO - there is nothing wrong with the Sash

Must try harder!

You're right, I do that. Because the songs are similar. Both are about a great victory in a battle from hundreds of years ago.

Can't you see the double standards in criticising a song being sung in the west of Scotland, that may cause offense to a minority in that area and encouraging a song being sung in England, that may cause offense to a country?

I am not saying you think there is something wrong with the Sash...What you saying is there is something wrong with singing the Sash in the west of Scotland.

PC gone mad? Yeh, you're right!

Ive ssaid it about 10 times in this thread, to me, the Sash is fine. If you or I were to sing it right nwo I would have no probs with it.

For a Rangers official - and a celebrated one at that, to sing it at a function? Less than smart, wouldn't you agree? Then to include the add-ons as well?

Again, i said previously if all he did was sing the sash he probably would have been quietly told not to do it again, or at least to show a little better judgement.

For him to also include the add-ons and then sing TBB with add-ons, that sealed his fate IMO

As for FOS, that is a song that is about celebrating the "Flower" of our country, the rank and file, who gave up their own lives in order to win our freedom back. It never uses the word "English" once - never talks about killing anyone and even says that, "those days are past now, and in the past, they must remain" If there ever is a song that should not cause offense then this is it.

Unfortunately, it gets labelled as a Nationalist song and thus the unionists in our midst condemn it. But I see it as a beautiful, peaceful song - I actually beleive that there are more Scottish unionists who object to it because of its assumed (wrongly) politics than there are English.

LOL...I just can't get through to you. Not once have I ever argued DF's innocence about singing the add-ons or TBB, but you constantly bring that up, as if I am.

As for the Sash, that is a song that is about celebrating the "Sash". The rank and file, who gave up their own lives in order to win freedom for our brothers in NI. It never uses the word "Catholic" or "Fenian" once. It welcomes British rule and celebrates Unity, Religion, Laws, and Freedom. If there ever is a song that should not cause offense then that is it.

Unfortunately, it gets labelled as a sectarian song and thus the ill-informed jump on the band wagon and condemn it. But I see it as a beautiful, peaceful song that celebrates the men and women, who did not die in vain, but for Unity, Religion, Laws, and Freedom. I actually believe that if those who condemn it, took a look into our history and traditions and implemented parity and balance to their views, they would realise that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the song.

[THEFISH 0]

BAUBA

Since the late 90's we have wo 11 trophy's including 4 TITLES and before you tell me about the way we won the last 2 titles .I would accept that any year

In wee Scotland it meanz hee haw...we need to progress in Europe with the big boyz

We are big RFC are we not....well we used to be

[bauba30 1]

BAUBA

Since the late 90's we have wo 11 trophy's including 4 TITLES and before you tell me about the way we won the last 2 titles .I would accept that any year

I accept that Tommy, but some of those titles were won with spending that drove us deep into debt and have led to our current troubles.

[Leiper 0]

Still ... no-one has answered the question .... Can someone please explain what part FOS is offensive (or potentially so) to the English??

If this song is constantly refered to when defending the singing of certain other songs, i would love to know what is so offensive about it.

Folk are trying to figure out the rules behind offensiveness.

Are songs about old battles not hurtful to the losers?

Maybe I shouldn't sing 2 Little Boys then - in case the American South are listening.

LOL!

PC gone mad

FOS celebrates a battle that was the turning point in a war that freed our nation from an unconstitutional rule of tyranny. I for one think that is a very very special thing and well worth singing about.

And I guess the Sash is just about killing Catholics?

You know how bad this is...You can't even see the double standards in your posting.

What is really bad is that you equate the two when talking about what is acceptable conduct in the the current climate in the West of Scotland.

What is also unnaceptable is that you have failed to read the numerous posts from me saying that IMO - there is nothing wrong with the Sash

Must try harder!

You're right, I do that. Because the songs are similar. Both are about a great victory in a battle from hundreds of years ago.

Can't you see the double standards in criticising a song being sung in the west of Scotland, that may cause offense to a minority in that area and encouraging a song being sung in England, that may cause offense to a country?

I am not saying you think there is something wrong with the Sash...What you saying is there is something wrong with singing the Sash in the west of Scotland.

PC gone mad? Yeh, you're right!

Ive ssaid it about 10 times in this thread, to me, the Sash is fine. If you or I were to sing it right nwo I would have no probs with it.

For a Rangers official - and a celebrated one at that, to sing it at a function? Less than smart, wouldn't you agree? Then to include the add-ons as well?

Again, i said previously if all he did was sing the sash he probably would have been quietly told not to do it again, or at least to show a little better judgement.

For him to also include the add-ons and then sing TBB with add-ons, that sealed his fate IMO

As for FOS, that is a song that is about celebrating the "Flower" of our country, the rank and file, who gave up their own lives in order to win our freedom back. It never uses the word "English" once - never talks about killing anyone and even says that, "those days are past now, and in the past, they must remain" If there ever is a song that should not cause offense then this is it.

Unfortunately, it gets labelled as a Nationalist song and thus the unionists in our midst condemn it. But I see it as a beautiful, peaceful song - I actually beleive that there are more Scottish unionists who object to it because of its assumed (wrongly) politics than there are English.

Youz are becoming very boring indeed ....huv yeez no thought a meetin up tae thrash things oot in wan night instead of debating it day after day on here

Nonsense so it is.....hope a never bump intae yeez in a boozer thats fur sure :pipegreen:

Sorry Fish, didn't realise message boards became a place for arranging fights over opinions instead of debating about your opinions etc.

And don't worry, I don't drink in dives ridden with neds and anti-social miscreants.

[bauba30 1]

Still ... no-one has answered the question .... Can someone please explain what part FOS is offensive (or potentially so) to the English??

If this song is constantly refered to when defending the singing of certain other songs, i would love to know what is so offensive about it.

Folk are trying to figure out the rules behind offensiveness.

Are songs about old battles not hurtful to the losers?

Maybe I shouldn't sing 2 Little Boys then - in case the American South are listening.

LOL!

PC gone mad

FOS celebrates a battle that was the turning point in a war that freed our nation from an unconstitutional rule of tyranny. I for one think that is a very very special thing and well worth singing about.

And I guess the Sash is just about killing Catholics?

You know how bad this is...You can't even see the double standards in your posting.

What is really bad is that you equate the two when talking about what is acceptable conduct in the the current climate in the West of Scotland.

What is also unnaceptable is that you have failed to read the numerous posts from me saying that IMO - there is nothing wrong with the Sash

Must try harder!

You're right, I do that. Because the songs are similar. Both are about a great victory in a battle from hundreds of years ago.

Can't you see the double standards in criticising a song being sung in the west of Scotland, that may cause offense to a minority in that area and encouraging a song being sung in England, that may cause offense to a country?

I am not saying you think there is something wrong with the Sash...What you saying is there is something wrong with singing the Sash in the west of Scotland.

PC gone mad? Yeh, you're right!

Ive ssaid it about 10 times in this thread, to me, the Sash is fine. If you or I were to sing it right nwo I would have no probs with it.

For a Rangers official - and a celebrated one at that, to sing it at a function? Less than smart, wouldn't you agree? Then to include the add-ons as well?

Again, i said previously if all he did was sing the sash he probably would have been quietly told not to do it again, or at least to show a little better judgement.

For him to also include the add-ons and then sing TBB with add-ons, that sealed his fate IMO

As for FOS, that is a song that is about celebrating the "Flower" of our country, the rank and file, who gave up their own lives in order to win our freedom back. It never uses the word "English" once - never talks about killing anyone and even says that, "those days are past now, and in the past, they must remain" If there ever is a song that should not cause offense then this is it.

Unfortunately, it gets labelled as a Nationalist song and thus the unionists in our midst condemn it. But I see it as a beautiful, peaceful song - I actually beleive that there are more Scottish unionists who object to it because of its assumed (wrongly) politics than there are English.

LOL...I just can't get through to you. Not once have I ever argued DF's innocence about singing the add-ons or TBB, but you constantly bring that up, as if I am.

As for the Sash, that is a song that is about celebrating the "Sash". The rank and file, who gave up their own lives in order to win freedom for our brothers in NI. It never uses the word "Catholic" or "Fenian" once. It welcomes British rule and celebrates Unity, Religion, Laws, and Freedom. If there ever is a song that should not cause offense then that is it.

Unfortunately, it gets labelled as a sectarian song and thus the ill-informed jump on the band wagon and condemn it. But I see it as a beautiful, peaceful song that celebrates the men and women, who did not die in vain, but for Unity, Religion, Laws, and Freedom. I actually believe that if those who condemn it, took a look into our history and traditions and implemented parity and balance to their views, they would realise that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the song.

I cannot get through to you either it seems. It might be double digits now, the amount of times on this thread I have said that the sash is ok - I explained it every time - do I need to explain it again?

You have family in NI then?

[Leiper 0]

Wow, well done on changing my words again.

I did not say you have a problem with the Sash. But you do have a problem with it being sung in the West of Scotland, admittedly...That's what you and I have been debating, or did you forget?

But whatever, lets talk about irrelevant stuff instead of commenting on your double standards, or not.

Good bye.

[Frankie 505]

There are significant differences between the two situations - and other possible differences (as I said, I can't remember all the details):

1. Racism is generally regarded as worse than sectarianism.

2. Amo exaggerated the situation by lying.

3. There was an international dimension to the Amo affair. Interest was wider than in a domestic match.

4. (Possible difference) The Lennon footage was unclear. I can't remember how clear or not the Amo footage was.

5. The source of the complaint about Lennon was opposing fans. You can't get much less objective than an opposing fan in the Old Firm situation. (I can't remember the source of the Amo allegations.)

I'll ask you the same question I asked D'Artagnan. If the media are so anti-Rangers, why don't they bring up Amo indulging in racist abuse and lying about it?

This really is quite incredible - just how far will you stoop to defend Neil Lennon - a man who called you and I DOBs clearly on television...!?

1. Racism is worse than sectarianism? Who defined that - you? Funny, how the Scottish Executive deemed sectarianism Scotland's Shame. Yes, that's right - not racism; not sexism - sectarianism. The problem is much worse in Scotland than racism even according to the authorities. It is also against the law. Moreover, Lennon claims to be a victim of said crime so him actually being guilty of it would be big news surely? No, not even a wee bit apparently?

2. The article says Amo couldn't remember doing it before he then apologised. That not good enough for you? It seemed good enough for the media when Celtic said Pearson/Hartson were not at Letterkenny and didn't chant IRA slogans - when they were and when they did. Did that not exaggerate that example? At least Amoruso belatedly admitted he did it and apologised. What has Lennon or Pearson done again in that regard?

3. There was an international dimension because the media coverage was so intense. Unlike the Lennon example where you refuse to explain the minimal coverage.

4. Erm, watch the YouTube clip. It couldn't be any clearer. Certainly no less clear than the Amo clip.

5. So, an opposing player is more objective than opposing fans? Ok then!

6. If you actually read my post above (and I'm not sure you did given you bizarre deflection from my points), you'll read that I suggest the media won't bring up Amo's past discretions because the issue was fully covered at the time and the player apologised. Further to that, we don't have Amo appearing every other week in front stories hypocritically suggesting he was the victim of racism during his time in the game. That sound reasonable to you?

Now, I think I've been more than respectful by answering your questions fully and accurately. Why don't you answer mine fully and without trying to deflect the issue?

The fact is Neil Lennon was guilty of a clear example of sectarian behaviour. Such behaviour is against the law in Scotland and the subject is extremely high profile. Yet, for some reason the media failed to cover it in the same way as the shameful Amoruso racism issue.

Why is that?

[D'Artagnan 13,319]

Don't think I ever mentioned this thread - I was meaning in general, you have been doing it since you joined.

But if you want examples from this thread - pages 26-29 are ample

Of course, you won't apologize for attacking a fellow bear but I have come to expect that by now anyway.

You have accused me of dodging questions - suggesting it is a tactic I employ so much that it characterises me -

In truth, if you look up Dodge in the Dictionary there is a picture of DA

I have asked you to produce one question from you in this thread....or any thread for that matter ...which I have dodged.

It seems you are unable to.

[D'Artagnan 13,319]

I have answered the questions put to me.

Let's deal with your latest meanderings.

"You are suggesting that if the press had an anti-Rangers agenda they would continually bring up the Amoruso incident and label him a lying racist."

Continually? No. You are trying to distort what I have said.

"So...according to you...the fact the press dont bring up a falsehood.....means they dont have an anti-Rangers agenda."

I never said that either - another distortion.

"Why dont the press bring up the Amo situation...or for that matter the Atkinson one ?"

I didn't ask you about Atkinson (and his racist remark is brought up). So you've distorted my question by bringing him into it.

You're suggesting if someone admits something and apologises for it, the media never mention it again. I don't think so. It hasn't worked for Atkinson. And why would it stop an anti-Rangers media? "Yeah we really, really hate Rangers but big Amo said sorry so we won't mention that one". Yeah right.

Contrary to your assertions - you have not answered the question posed to you continually by Frankie and myself.

Let me re-iterate it for you.

Why there was not the same media intensity surrounding the Lennon outburst for sectarian behaviour - than there was for DF or Amo. ?

[Frankie 505]

Contrary to your assertions - you have not answered the question posed to you continually by Frankie and myself.

Let me re-iterate it for you.

Why there was not the same media intensity surrounding the Lennon outburst for sectarian behaviour - than there was for DF or Amo. ?

To be fair to ibroxblue, he has answered the question with so many excuses I've started to lose count. Here are just 5 of his quite laughable answers:

1. Racism is worse than sectarianism (murder is worse than rape you know);

2. The video wasn't as clear as others (yes, it was);

3. It wasn't a European game (No, it was just an Old Firm game watches by millions across the world);

4. The victims are biased (I doubt many victims of crime will be objective but I digress);

5. Other Rangers players get away with it (we've shown they don't).

I wonder when we'll get a proper answer using the many facts and evidence we've provided as opposed to the utter nonsense above. I won't hold my breath.

[*Manticore* 1,893]

Well as Flower of Scotland celebrates a battle that was the turning point in a war that freed our nation from an unconstitutional rule of tyranny and is therefore a very very special thing and well worth singing about, Derry's Walls must also be well worth singing about.

Being about the very same thing.

[bauba30 1]

Wow, well done on changing my words again.

I did not say you have a problem with the Sash. But you do have a problem with it being sung in the West of Scotland, admittedly...That's what you and I have been debating, or did you forget?

But whatever, lets talk about irrelevant stuff instead of commenting on your double standards, or not.

Good bye.

You changed my words again - dont have a problem with the song, or with it being sung in the WOS. (though good luck to you if you do it in the wrong place) Think I have made that pretty clear. But, a celebrated official of the club should not be singing it at a function in the west of Scotland IMO - asking for bother.

[bauba30 1]

Don't think I ever mentioned this thread - I was meaning in general, you have been doing it since you joined.

But if you want examples from this thread - pages 26-29 are ample

Of course, you won't apologize for attacking a fellow bear but I have come to expect that by now anyway.

You have accused me of dodging questions - suggesting it is a tactic I employ so much that it characterises me -

In truth, if you look up Dodge in the Dictionary there is a picture of DA

I have asked you to produce one question from you in this thread....or any thread for that matter ...which I have dodged.

It seems you are unable to.

From the first run in I had with you on here, I had you pegged as a dodger and a deflector - from the first time you avoided the debate and made it personal - you are at it even today - I gave you pages 23-26 for you as exmples - your pal David took up your mantle today (as he often does) and deflected some more.

If you do not want to be accused of it, then start debating the threads. Instead of posting your ideas, then lambasting anyone else whos ideas are contrary to your own.

[bauba30 1]

Well as Flower of Scotland celebrates a battle that was the turning point in a war that freed our nation from an unconstitutional rule of tyranny and is therefore a very very special thing and well worth singing about, Derry's Walls must also be well worth singing about.

Being about the very same thing.

Sure - and when have I said otherwise about Derry's Walls?

Sure, I would like all religious songs to be banned from both sides of the old Firm but I don't have a problem with the song. Just as I don't have a problem with the Sash - hear that Leiper? lol

[D'Artagnan 13,319]

From the first run in I had with you on here, I had you pegged as a dodger and a deflector - from the first time you avoided the debate and made it personal - you are at it even today - I gave you pages 23-26 for you as exmples - your pal David took up your mantle today (as he often does) and deflected some more.

If you do not want to be accused of it, then start debating the threads. Instead of posting your ideas, then lambasting anyone else whos ideas are contrary to your own.

Nope.

Dont give me pages nos.....give me one question you have posed which I apparently "dodged" as per your accusations.

If... as you suggest I am characterised by it - then it shouldn't be too difficult for you.

Your continued failure to produce such a question...only serves to underline the false and malicious nature of your original allegation.

[*Manticore* 1,893]

From the first run in I had with you on here, I had you pegged as a dodger and a deflector - from the first time you avoided the debate and made it personal - you are at it even today - I gave you pages 23-26 for you as exmples - your pal David took up your mantle today (as he often does) and deflected some more.

If you do not want to be accused of it, then start debating the threads. Instead of posting your ideas, then lambasting anyone else whos ideas are contrary to your own.

Nope.

Dont give me pages nos.....give me one question you have posed which I apparently "dodged" as per your accusations.

If... as you suggest I am characterised by it - then it shouldn't be too difficult for you.

Your continued failure to produce such a question...only serves to underline the false and malicious nature of your original allegation.

I admire your indefatigability D'Art.

But you will not get a straight answer, only deflection.

Then you'll be accused of deflection

That's why I don't bother engaging with them any more.

I have to say my life is an a much better balance for that decision. And I feel cleaner.

[bauba30 1]

From the first run in I had with you on here, I had you pegged as a dodger and a deflector - from the first time you avoided the debate and made it personal - you are at it even today - I gave you pages 23-26 for you as exmples - your pal David took up your mantle today (as he often does) and deflected some more.

If you do not want to be accused of it, then start debating the threads. Instead of posting your ideas, then lambasting anyone else whos ideas are contrary to your own.

Nope.

Dont give me pages nos.....give me one question you have posed which I apparently "dodged" as per your accusations.

If... as you suggest I am characterised by it - then it shouldn't be too difficult for you.

Your continued failure to produce such a question...only serves to underline the false and malicious nature of your original allegation.

Sure, I'll play your game - post 265 - when you dodge around discussing the point at hand and instead throw a disgraceful slur on a fellow bear

I know why you do it - it is to get him on the defensive - just don't deny you do it

You first did it with me by instead of debating the point, you would instead ask why I would attack a fellow bear, when it was clear that I was not.

But thats how it is, we have gotten used to it

[bauba30 1]

From the first run in I had with you on here, I had you pegged as a dodger and a deflector - from the first time you avoided the debate and made it personal - you are at it even today - I gave you pages 23-26 for you as exmples - your pal David took up your mantle today (as he often does) and deflected some more.

If you do not want to be accused of it, then start debating the threads. Instead of posting your ideas, then lambasting anyone else whos ideas are contrary to your own.

Nope.

Dont give me pages nos.....give me one question you have posed which I apparently "dodged" as per your accusations.

If... as you suggest I am characterised by it - then it shouldn't be too difficult for you.

Your continued failure to produce such a question...only serves to underline the false and malicious nature of your original allegation.

Don't give me page nos? Why the heck not anyway - you too lazy to look them up or are you just ashamed of your conduct

Anyway, on that loving note - Im off home

Speak to you all tomorrow

[D'Artagnan 13,319]

Sure, I'll play your game - post 265 - when you dodge around discussing the point at hand and instead throw a disgraceful slur on a fellow bear

I know why you do it - it is to get him on the defensive - just don't deny you do it

You first did it with me by instead of debating the point, you would instead ask why I would attack a fellow bear, when it was clear that I was not.

But thats how it is, we have gotten used to it

Unfortunately you are not playing any game.

We are entering serious territory now Bauba. You have made an accusation and appear unable to substantiate it.

You have referred me to post 265 where I have asked Ibroxblue..

Actually the more I read that....

Are you now calling Amo a lying racist ?

This is the third time I have asked you to provide 1 question you have posed me anywhere on these boards which I have dodged.

Despite this being the third time of asking you are still unable to do it. And this failure despite your earlier allegation that I do it so much that I am characterised by it.

As I said this only serves to underline the false and malicious nature of your original allegation.

[D'Artagnan 13,319]

Frankie it can be summed up thus,

Amo - big bad racist that plays for Rangers

DF - Big bad bigot that works for rangers

Lemmon - Victim victim victim

A simple but very accurate summary DO.

What seems to be beyond the grasp of others is how a such a falsehood manages to manifest itself.

[BLUEDIGNITY 33,658]

Frankie it can be summed up thus,

Amo - big bad racist that plays for Rangers

DF - Big bad bigot that works for rangers

Lemmon - Victim victim victim

A simple but very accurate summary DO.

What seems to be beyond the grasp of others is how a such a falsehood manages to manifest itself.

Chip chip chip and tell a lie long enough and the mugs will believe it, just like Big Jock didnae know and he deserves a postumous knighthood ???? Jesuit/IRA style !

[Ibroxblue 122]

There are significant differences between the two situations - and other possible differences (as I said, I can't remember all the details):

1. Racism is generally regarded as worse than sectarianism.

2. Amo exaggerated the situation by lying.

3. There was an international dimension to the Amo affair. Interest was wider than in a domestic match.

4. (Possible difference) The Lennon footage was unclear. I can't remember how clear or not the Amo footage was.

5. The source of the complaint about Lennon was opposing fans. You can't get much less objective than an opposing fan in the Old Firm situation. (I can't remember the source of the Amo allegations.)

I'll ask you the same question I asked D'Artagnan. If the media are so anti-Rangers, why don't they bring up Amo indulging in racist abuse and lying about it?

This really is quite incredible - just how far will you stoop to defend Neil Lennon - a man who called you and I DOBs clearly on television...!?

1. Racism is worse than sectarianism? Who defined that - you? Funny, how the Scottish Executive deemed sectarianism Scotland's Shame. Yes, that's right - not racism; not sexism - sectarianism. The problem is much worse in Scotland than racism even according to the authorities. It is also against the law. Moreover, Lennon claims to be a victim of said crime so him actually being guilty of it would be big news surely? No, not even a wee bit apparently?

2. The article says Amo couldn't remember doing it before he then apologised. That not good enough for you? It seemed good enough for the media when Celtic said Pearson/Hartson were not at Letterkenny and didn't chant IRA slogans - when they were and when they did. Did that not exaggerate that example? At least Amoruso belatedly admitted he did it and apologised. What has Lennon or Pearson done again in that regard?

3. There was an international dimension because the media coverage was so intense. Unlike the Lennon example where you refuse to explain the minimal coverage.

4. Erm, watch the YouTube clip. It couldn't be any clearer. Certainly no less clear than the Amo clip.

5. So, an opposing player is more objective than opposing fans? Ok then!

6. If you actually read my post above (and I'm not sure you did given you bizarre deflection from my points), you'll read that I suggest the media won't bring up Amo's past discretions because the issue was fully covered at the time and the player apologised. Further to that, we don't have Amo appearing every other week in front stories hypocritically suggesting he was the victim of racism during his time in the game. That sound reasonable to you?

Now, I think I've been more than respectful by answering your questions fully and accurately. Why don't you answer mine fully and without trying to deflect the issue?

The fact is Neil Lennon was guilty of a clear example of sectarian behaviour. Such behaviour is against the law in Scotland and the subject is extremely high profile. Yet, for some reason the media failed to cover it in the same way as the shameful Amoruso racism issue.

Why is that?

As I've said several times I don't agree that the Lennon example was clear. So, in my view, your question is based on a false premise. You hold a different opinion about that - so be it.

Moreover, I'm not attempting to "defend" Lennon. That is a distortion. Maybe that's why you find it "quite incredible" - because it's not actually true.

You suggest there was "not even a wee bit" of news about the Lennon incident. That is also untrue. It was in at least two papers plus Spiers mentioned it on radio, on STV and in the Herald.

1. Racism is generally regarded as worse than sectarianism. Sectarianism may be more common in Scotland but that is not the same thing as being a more serious offence.

2. If Amo had just said he couldn't remember the incident that would have been one thing (though would it have convinced Rangers-haters?). But he also claimed to have said something in an Italian dialect.

3. There was an international dimension to the Amo incident because it happened in a European game!

4. See above about clarity. (I've seen the YouTube clip.)

5. I never actually mentioned an opposing player. Though I'd say players making charges is more likely to get attention than opposing Old Firm fans.

6. So the Rangers-hating media don't mention it because the Rangers player apologised? Doesn't sound at all convincing to me.