Jump to content

Houston hits back


plumbGER

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, ianferguson said:

I read the posts on his epic speech and they were virtually all sympathetic ,in stark contrast to RM, that good enough for you ?. Any doubts you could do the same smart arse, it's open to anyone.

Thanks I'll pass, but I was wondering if you have been as inquisitive on there as to why there is such a glaring disparity between their view and that on here.

Epic? In what sense?

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, reallyruff said:

Most lies are damaging because of the intention behind them. In CH's case he lied in an attempt to evade a reasonable question about why he hadn't taken an alternative course of action to the one which saw him "grassing" on fellow Rangers fans i.e. why hadn't he simply reported what he considered to be the offensive posts to RM admin/mods even by proxy. His posturing on the issue together with those lies are what caused the offence on here regarding that particular issue. Many other posters throughout this thread have offered other reasons for their dislike/disapproval/disappointment of him e.g. the boycott, harassment of fellow fans, his history, self-serving statements, etc. Some posters have been supportive of CH, and have been willing to debate the issues surrounding him. Yet others have openly stated their hostility stems from personal issues they've had with him. The cumulative effect on this forum has been, as anyone can see, that the majority of opinion is disapproval. However, that opinion has been reached individually as well as collectively, not because we are sheep, but because here on RM debate and discussion is welcomed whereas censorship is not tolerated or administered. I feel we can be congratulated for that, and if it sets us apart from other forums then good because I'm confident we've reached our position the correct way.

You can't say with any degree of certainty how much peoples opinions are swayed by sheep mentality,and you can't say yes for FF and no for RM. The Houston debate clearly shows that objectivety is in short supply for both. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, reallyruff said:

Thanks I'll pass, but I was wondering if you have been as inquisitive on there as to why there is such a glaring disparity between their view and that on here.

Epic? In what sense?

Epic in the sense that it took 20 mins to read it, do you think I'm daft enough to imply a Houston speech was Epic in any other sense while in RM .? . You pass , I'll pass.

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ianferguson said:

You can't say with any degree of certainty how much peoples opinions are swayed by sheep mentality,and you can't say yes for FF and no for RM. The Houston debate clearly shows that objectivety is in short supply for both. 

Given the absence of censorship on here I think it's safe to assume people get to make their own minds up, evidenced by the frequency of disputes on here. The wide variety of reasons displayed for why people don't approve of CH personally, or how he behaves, or how he goes about things is indicative of objectivity i.e. everyone has their own reasons.

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, ianferguson said:

Epic in the sense that it took 20 mins to read it, do you think I'm daft enough to imply a Houston speech was Epic in any other sense while in RM .? . You pass , I'll pass.

Thanks for the clarification. Care to answer as to whether or not you've been equally inquisitive during your sojourn on FF?

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, reallyruff said:

Given the absence of censorship on here I think it's safe to assume people get to make their own minds up, evidenced by the frequency of disputes on here. The wide variety of reasons displayed for why people don't approve of CH personally, or how he behaves, or how he goes about things is indicative of objectivity i.e. everyone has their own reasons.

And all are objective, none are from sheep ?. You know that's nonsense. Think other posters on this thread have admitted it as a fact of human nature.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ianferguson said:

And all are objective, none are from sheep ?. You know that's nonsense. Think other posters on this thread have admitted it as a fact of human nature.

Then we can enjoy another benefit of RM not enjoyed elsewhere, we can agree to disagree. I see the the way RM allows differing opinions to be beneficial and believe that the variety of reasons being given for disapproval of CH to be indicative of individual thinking, you appear to believe we all just want to fit in, despite the lack of censorship actually encouraging diversity. I can accept the birds of a feather element to your argument though, but wanting to converse with like-minded people is a far cry from following the flock.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, reallyruff said:

Then we can enjoy another benefit of RM not enjoyed elsewhere, we can agree to disagree. I see the the way RM allows differing opinions to be beneficial and believe that the variety of reasons being given for disapproval of CH to be indicative of individual thinking, you appear to believe we all just want to fit in, despite the lack of censorship actually encouraging diversity. I can accept the birds of a feather element to your argument though, but wanting to converse with like-minded people is a far cry from following the flock.

My point exactly,I come on here looking  for objective ,varied  opinions and too often I'm  faced with "like -minded people" having a rant out of agenda. The very same people who say FF is full of sheep ?.

Link to post
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, ianferguson said:

My point exactly,I come on here looking  for objective ,varied  opinions and too often I'm  faced with "like -minded people" having a rant out of agenda. The very same people who say FF is full of sheep ?.

There have been dissenting opinions on FF but they've mainly been banned, their posts censored and thankfully they are now members on here where they get to disagree with each other, the admin, the mods and everything.

Link to post
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, ianferguson said:

My point exactly,I come on here looking  for objective ,varied  opinions and too often I'm  faced with "like -minded people" having a rant out of agenda. The very same people who say FF is full of sheep ?.

What 'agenda' do you think people have on here? 

If one forum bans people who have a differing opinion from those of its controller (accompanied by a pathetic e-mail in many cases attested to on here) then its bound to be populated by 'like minded' people. 

Its different though when a forum doesn't ban people just for an opinion and is moderated by a range of people (some with wildly varying perspectives). It may be many reach the same conclusions but you have been given a wide range of reasons (with evidence) as to why posters have come to their view. 

The fact that you are commenting negatively about the forum and no one is calling for you to be banned would seem to suggest that your premise about 'sheep' is erroneous as you would have been shepherded off of here. If you want a forum full of sheep then this may be more your thing.

http://www.afc-chat.co.uk/forums/ :rofl:

Strange that you haven't made the same remarks on FF or is it that you know what the outcome would be? I stopped posting on there years ago when it became clear that dissent wasn't tolerated.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, RFC Eagle said:

What 'agenda' do you think people have on here? 

If one forum bans people who have a differing opinion from those of its controller (accompanied by a pathetic e-mail in many cases attested to on here) then its bound to be populated by 'like minded' people. 

Its different though when a forum doesn't ban people just for an opinion and is moderated by a range of people (some with wildly varying perspectives). It may be many reach the same conclusions but you have been given a wide range of reasons (with evidence) as to why posters have come to their view. 

The fact that you are commenting negatively about the forum and no one is calling for you to be banned would seem to suggest that your premise about 'sheep' is erroneous as you would have been shepherded off of here. If you want a forum full of sheep then this may be more your thing.

http://www.afc-chat.co.uk/forums/ :rofl:

Strange that you haven't made the same remarks on FF or is it that you know what the outcome would be? I stopped posting on there years ago when it became clear that dissent wasn't tolerate

 

That's just not right on so many levels,each admin of each forum will have there own rules,some of which we will disagree with,before the internet we actually spoke with one and other face to face.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, sonowilliam1 said:

That's just not right on so many levels,each admin of each forum will have there own rules,some of which we will disagree with,before the internet we actually spoke with one and other face to face.

Thats my personal experience so to say 'its not right' is nonsensical. 

What about what I posted, in your opinion, is not right? I've pointed to the different rules that the operate on the two fora. One being tolerant of a rangecof opinions one not tolerating dissent from the conyrollers viewpoint. You do understand who controls FF?

I have no clue who spoke to who 'before the internet' but that isn't even relevant when we are talking about 2 internet based fora? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, RFC Eagle said:

Thats my personal experience so to say 'its not right' is nonsensical. 

What about what I posted, in your opinion, is not right? I've pointed to the different rules that the operate on the two fora. One being tolerant of a rangecof opinions one not tolerating dissent from the conyrollers viewpoint. You do understand who controls FF?

I have no clue who spoke to who 'before the internet' but that isn't even relevant when we are talking about 2 internet based fora? 

Dont know what you'e slavering about Eddie ( thats Eddie the Eagle )

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, sonowilliam1 said:

Dont know what you'e slavering about Eddie ( thats Eddie the Eagle )

You really are a muppet aren't you? Maybe you should learn to comprehend English. Your pitiful attempts at sarcasm (you have so little confidence in it you have to explain it:rofl:) show you for what you truly are. Have you not got a bridge to get back under?

Your inability to engage in debate is not surprising in the slightest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, RFC Eagle said:

What 'agenda' do you think people have on here? 

If one forum bans people who have a differing opinion from those of its controller (accompanied by a pathetic e-mail in many cases attested to on here) then its bound to be populated by 'like minded' people. 

Its different though when a forum doesn't ban people just for an opinion and is moderated by a range of people (some with wildly varying perspectives). It may be many reach the same conclusions but you have been given a wide range of reasons (with evidence) as to why posters have come to their view. 

The fact that you are commenting negatively about the forum and no one is calling for you to be banned would seem to suggest that your premise about 'sheep' is erroneous as you would have been shepherded off of here. If you want a forum full of sheep then this may be more your thing.

http://www.afc-chat.co.uk/forums/ :rofl:

Strange that you haven't made the same remarks on FF or is it that you know what the outcome would be? I stopped posting on there years ago when it became clear that dissent wasn't tolerated.

 

 

Are you serious ?. Firstly your comments about FF show blatant agenda and you'll surely be happy to admit it which in turn clouds your objectivity imo  . You mention me being banned for negative comments about RM as if it were a serious possibility ?.I'd  need to sign up to FF to make comments on it , are you recommending it ?. RM is not a club ,the fact that anyone would have an issue with my opinion which has been already been vindicated on this very thread by other posters is a worry.

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, RFC Eagle said:

You really are a muppet aren't you? Maybe you should learn to comprehend English. Your pitiful attempts at sarcasm (you have so little confidence in it you have to explain it:rofl:) show you for what you truly are. Have you not got a bridge to get back under?

Your inability to engage in debate is not surprising in the slightest.

C'mon admit it that last comment from me hurt you,Craig Houston goes through 100 times plus,get of the lads back ffsl

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, ianferguson said:

Are you serious ?. Firstly your comments about FF show blatant agenda and you'll surely be happy to admit it which in turn clouds your objectivity imo  . You mention me being banned for negative comments about RM as if it were a serious possibility ?.I'd  need to sign up to FF to make comments on it , are you recommending it ?. RM is not a club ,the fact that anyone would have an issue with my opinion which has been already been vindicated on this very thread by other posters is a worry.

Do you understand the difference between an opinion and an agenda? I have no 'agenda' I give an opinion on this and many other things because this is a forum that welcomes opinions.

I have had experience of both FF and RM and my opinion has been formed by interacting with both. 

What do you think my 'agenda' is?

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, RFC Eagle said:

Do you understand the difference between an opinion and an agenda? I have no 'agenda' I give an opinion on this and many other things because this is a forum that welcomes opinions.

I have had experience of both FF and RM and my opinion has been formed by interacting with both. 

What do you think my 'agenda' is?

Quite obviously your agenda is to criticise FF . I'm not knocking you for it just stating your negative experiences of it may cloud your objectivity on the subject. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, ianferguson said:

Quite obviously your agenda is to criticise FF . I'm not knocking you for it just stating your negative experiences of it may cloud your objectivity on the subject. 

I'm voicing an opinion on my experience on FF. There is no 'agenda' other than giving an opinion. You, clearly, don't get the difference between an agenda and an opinion. What outcome do you think I seek with this supposed agenda? 

I joined FF (before I was aware of RM) with no pre-conceptions. My experience on it (and personally interacting with key figures associated with it) led me to form an opinion, without any help from anyone. I don't want anyone banned from here or for FF to disappear I merely give my opinion about it.

My opinion on CH, again, has been formed from personal experience. My agenda there is clear, my aim would be to remove him from any involvement in any aspect of Rangers or any fans group.

That sums up where opinion and agenda diverge.

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.

  • Upcoming Events

    • 30 March 2024 15:00 Until 17:00
      0  
      Rangers v Hibernian
      Ibrox Stadium
      Scottish Premiership
×
×
  • Create New...