3 x U20s Pushing Close To First Team Action

[MrMckee 3,424]

SO.. these youngsters any good or what? 

[MisterC 12,282]

6 hours ago, mitre_mouldmaster said:

A shit load of our ex players write for that paper. Should hardly start a campaign to get them banned from Ibrox.

If anything, he should be applauded for not hiding on here. 

I don't always agree with his posts but I do agree with these sentiments

[MrMckee 3,424]

In regards to the debate going on in the thread regarding the dude and working for the rhebel and posting on here etc. Surely the reason you get into a profession like journalism in the first place is to write about something you feel passionate about and to express yourself and opinions as an individual. Due to this I have no sympathy for the old 'my boss told me to do it argument'. If you want to do a job right you need to believe in what you are doing, if you believe it you acheive it, if you fake it you won't make it is what I say! You should be speaking to your boss about the profitability of writing pro Rangers articles and the massive market there is out there for articles like that and not dancing like a monkey to the organ grinders tune! Nothing great was ever achieved without taking risks and you cannot achieve any change by following there orders. You need to sell the idea of pro Rangers articles to them and not hoping by writing the shite they want you to that some day you will work your way up the ranks and than be able to change things and I think you would be lying to yourself if that is your mindset when writing that rubbish! I may not be the most grammatically correct like some people on here and might not have many qualifications etc but with my line of work those principles and passion is what makes you successful! Be your own man and remember why you got into the job in the first place! 

[The Dude 20,026]

1 hour ago, MrMckee said:

In regards to the debate going on in the thread regarding the dude and working for the rhebel and posting on here etc. Surely the reason you get into a profession like journalism in the first place is to write about something you feel passionate about and to express yourself and opinions as an individual. Due to this I have no sympathy for the old 'my boss told me to do it argument'. If you want to do a job right you need to believe in what you are doing, if you believe it you acheive it, if you fake it you won't make it is what I say! You should be speaking to your boss about the profitability of writing pro Rangers articles and the massive market there is out there for articles like that and not dancing like a monkey to the organ grinders tune! Nothing great was ever achieved without taking risks and you cannot achieve any change by following there orders. You need to sell the idea of pro Rangers articles to them and not hoping by writing the shite they want you to that some day you will work your way up the ranks and than be able to change things and I think you would be lying to yourself if that is your mindset when writing that rubbish! I may not be the most grammatically correct like some people on here and might not have many qualifications etc but with my line of work those principles and passion is what makes you successful! Be your own man and remember why you got into the job in the first place! 

I need to sell the idea of something that we already do (and was the post quoted in the OP)?

[SJGF5 38]

I don't often post on here but I spend a lot of time reading The Bears Den and maybe on this one area I have a bit more of an insight than most... not sure what difference it will make but I do know that the current situation in this thread (and others before it regarding The Dude) is toxic to the atmosphere and quality of this forum so something needs to change.

In my previous work life I was a journalist. I'd like to think a fairly successful one ( building up and running a site with millions of hits a month) but my time in that industry (15+ years) I learned a few things. The main point of note is that the vast majority of journalists are utter *insert your insult of choice*. It is an industry which just seems to attract complete arses. Those arses then tend to seek out like-minded arses, working together towards a common goal. It is exacerbated by the fact that the people journalists mostly deal with have ended up in their role due to failing at life. Entry level PR and Marketing people, for example, tend to be barely competent but very good at forming nice little cliques with journalists/writers/editors who agree with them. It suits all of them to have this relationship as the journalists will get exclusives from their friends, the PR people will be given an easier ride in harder times as you don't tend to have a go at your mates, etc. In Glasgow you can see it happening all the time in the relationship between the DR and celtic. 

It's for this reason that the theory of joining the staff or working freelance for the DR while hoping to change them from within falls apart. By the time the organisation is outwardly taking actions which are pro one club/company and anti another the culture is set. To survive in there you've got to adapt and follow the thoughts/actions of that culture. Culture change is maybe possible (I've never seen it happen in that industry) but it would take maybe 10+ years I'd think and so in the case of the DR in its paper form it will be an irrelevance by that point. Online, who knows. My thought on the online front is that it will have a limited audience. The more extreme readers will always have more extreme sites to visit.

If you are in the position of The Dude, wanting to change the balance of reporting, what should you do? You've got two options. One is that you identify a publication which is as unbiased as possible and you work there, even for free if need be at first, using that platform to build your skills, reputation and audience.

The second option is you start your own site. It won't be easy, it will consume your life. You'll probably need to work another job to support your family while building that business. There will be days you don't sleep (on more than one occasion I got up in the morning, took the kids to school worked through the day and night, took the kids to school the next day and then slept) but it is possible. The key to success on this option is hard work, insane levels of perseverance and quality content. If you are truly passionate about journalism being your calling then the hard work and long hours will barely be an issue and the creation of good content will be easier. It's incredibly rewarding too.

In summary, the journalism world can be distilled into two different areas. Low quality, hit grabbing, (often extreme) publications who's standards are low and audience like minded and unlikely to change. Vs. considered, thoughtful, respected, factual reporting by people who care about their work. There isn't a middle ground, just various extremes of each and I don't think it is possible to cross between the two... or at least not in the good direction. To give you an example, if I was running one of the more respected sports journalism departments and was hiring a writer, I (or more than likely one of my HR team) would be looking at two aspects of a candidate. Their past work and their character. Nowadays part of that character would come from meeting them in the interview process but the other part would be looking at their online persona. Twitter, forum posts etc. If the tone of those posts are not in keeping with the quality of candidate I am looking for then that person finds themselves further down the pile of candidates, if not removed completely. 

On a personal note, I don't know The Dude so I can't say if he is an arse. Experience tells me that it's possible but as a Rangers fan, I can say that I'd never consider working for the DR in any capacity. With some of the writing around the cup final (as one example) they went beyond what any true fan could find acceptable in my opinion. I'm with those that say journalists should be banned from having accounts here... well, sports/financial journalists. People who write about the latest happenings in the world of competitive decorating and the like, they can stay.

TL: DR Most journalists are arses. They don't change. Change can only happen through competing with them, finding your audience and beating the arses by doing your job to a higher standard. And specifically, anyone who works for the DR is not a Rangers fan. Maybe they once were but not now. That's fine, but as a non Rangers fan they probably shouldn't have an account on here either.

[K.A.I 36,183]

19 minutes ago, SJGF5 said:

I don't often post on here but I spend a lot of time reading The Bears Den and maybe on this one area I have a bit more of an insight than most... not sure what difference it will make but I do know that the current situation in this thread (and others before it regarding The Dude) is toxic to the atmosphere and quality of this forum so something needs to change.

In my previous work life I was a journalist. I'd like to think a fairly successful one ( building up and running a site with millions of hits a month) but my time in that industry (15+ years) I learned a few things. The main point of note is that the vast majority of journalists are utter *insert your insult of choice*. It is an industry which just seems to attract complete arses. Those arses then tend to seek out like-minded arses, working together towards a common goal. It is exacerbated by the fact that the people journalists mostly deal with have ended up in their role due to failing at life. Entry level PR and Marketing people, for example, tend to be barely competent but very good at forming nice little cliques with journalists/writers/editors who agree with them. It suits all of them to have this relationship as the journalists will get exclusives from their friends, the PR people will be given an easier ride in harder times as you don't tend to have a go at your mates, etc. In Glasgow you can see it happening all the time in the relationship between the DR and celtic. 

It's for this reason that the theory of joining the staff or working freelance for the DR while hoping to change them from within falls apart. By the time the organisation is outwardly taking actions which are pro one club/company and anti another the culture is set. To survive in there you've got to adapt and follow the thoughts/actions of that culture. Culture change is maybe possible (I've never seen it happen in that industry) but it would take maybe 10+ years I'd think and so in the case of the DR in its paper form it will be an irrelevance by that point. Online, who knows. My thought on the online front is that it will have a limited audience. The more extreme readers will always have more extreme sites to visit.

If you are in the position of The Dude, wanting to change the balance of reporting, what should you do? You've got two options. One is that you identify a publication which is as unbiased as possible and you work there, even for free if need be at first, using that platform to build your skills, reputation and audience.

The second option is you start your own site. It won't be easy, it will consume your life. You'll probably need to work another job to support your family while building that business. There will be days you don't sleep (on more than one occasion I got up in the morning, took the kids to school worked through the day and night, took the kids to school the next day and then slept) but it is possible. The key to success on this option is hard work, insane levels of perseverance and quality content. If you are truly passionate about journalism being your calling then the hard work and long hours will barely be an issue and the creation of good content will be easier. It's incredibly rewarding too.

In summary, the journalism world can be distilled into two different areas. Low quality, hit grabbing, (often extreme) publications who's standards are low and audience like minded and unlikely to change. Vs. considered, thoughtful, respected, factual reporting by people who care about their work. There isn't a middle ground, just various extremes of each and I don't think it is possible to cross between the two... or at least not in the good direction. To give you an example, if I was running one of the more respected sports journalism departments and was hiring a writer, I (or more than likely one of my HR team) would be looking at two aspects of a candidate. Their past work and their character. Nowadays part of that character would come from meeting them in the interview process but the other part would be looking at their online persona. Twitter, forum posts etc. If the tone of those posts are not in keeping with the quality of candidate I am looking for then that person finds themselves further down the pile of candidates, if not removed completely. 

On a personal note, I don't know The Dude so I can't say if he is an arse. Experience tells me that it's possible but as a Rangers fan, I can say that I'd never consider working for the DR in any capacity. With some of the writing around the cup final (as one example) they went beyond what any true fan could find acceptable in my opinion. I'm with those that say journalists should be banned from having accounts here... well, sports/financial journalists. People who write about the latest happenings in the world of competitive decorating and the like, they can stay.

TL: DR Most journalists are arses. They don't change. Change can only happen through competing with them, finding your audience and beating the arses by doing your job to a higher standard. And specifically, anyone who works for the DR is not a Rangers fan. Maybe they once were but not now. That's fine, but as a non Rangers fan they probably shouldn't have an account on here either.

I don't mean to take one small bit of your post when there's much more to it but the dude has no intention of changing things from the inside out - I'm trying to think what the issue was the other month he refused to write about ... was something to do with celtic but still Rangers related - it was an open goal (like what our blazers have at the moment with celtic/Lawwell and the SPFL lies) but refused and is happy to be the Records wee bitch instead

[SJGF5 38]

11 minutes ago, K.A.I said:

I don't mean to take one small bit of your post when there's much more to it but the dude has no intention of changing things from the inside out - I'm trying to think what the issue was the other month he refused to write about ... was something to do with celtic but still Rangers related - it was an open goal (like what our blazers have at the moment with celtic/Lawwell and the SPFL lies) but refused and is happy to be the Records wee bitch instead

I guess I was trying to give the benefit of the doubt on that front. Looking for reasons why someone might think it was worthwhile working for them (other than financial). So you may be right. 

While I'm here, trying to keep the thread on topic. The original brief from the Editor comes across to me as a bit of a token Rangers story but at the very least it opened up the potential to over deliver on two fronts.

Firstly I would say it's not particularly time sensitive, so the writer has the opportunity to put their own stamp on it. Get out to a game or two (or get footage from them), form your own opinions. Deliver what you were asked for, reporting on what the Academy has said, but give the readers some of your personal opinions on who stands out too.  It would be a better article and a better read (rather than reading like a list of stats and fairly bland events). No Editor of a decent standard should turn down something from a writer which shows quality and initiative. If they claim it is time sensitive, pitch alternate ideas to fill the column that day and deliver the original request as soon as possible after.

If they do turn down the extended version then your second opportunity is to take the extra work you've done and shape it into your own blog/social media post. It's not wasted effort and helps build an audience.

An opportunity for a high-quality Rangers story missed in my opinion.

[HG5 11,134]

Back on topic - these guys had better be better than Ralston.

End of.

[Turnberry18 3,204]

37 minutes ago, SJGF5 said:

I guess I was trying to give the benefit of the doubt on that front. Looking for reasons why someone might think it was worthwhile working for them (other than financial). So you may be right. 

While I'm here, trying to keep the thread on topic. The original brief from the Editor comes across to me as a bit of a token Rangers story but at the very least it opened up the potential to over deliver on two fronts.

Firstly I would say it's not particularly time sensitive, so the writer has the opportunity to put their own stamp on it. Get out to a game or two (or get footage from them), form your own opinions. Deliver what you were asked for, reporting on what the Academy has said, but give the readers some of your personal opinions on who stands out too.  It would be a better article and a better read (rather than reading like a list of stats and fairly bland events). No Editor of a decent standard should turn down something from a writer which shows quality and initiative. If they claim it is time sensitive, pitch alternate ideas to fill the column that day and deliver the original request as soon as possible after.

If they do turn down the extended version then your second opportunity is to take the extra work you've done and shape it into your own blog/social media post. It's not wasted effort and helps build an audience.

An opportunity for a high-quality Rangers story missed in my opinion.

Your first post, curiously, leaves out the most crucial factor in journalism; and if you don't know what it is, then I won't say.

[SJGF5 38]

24 minutes ago, Turnberry18 said:

Your first post, curiously, leaves out the most crucial factor in journalism; and if you don't know what it is, then I won't say.

As far as I'm concerned the most crucial factor in journalism is to report the facts/truth. I touched on that here: "considered, thoughtful, respected, factual reporting" as well as the comment about the DR reporting on the events around the cup final (where they failed on those fronts).

If you think the most crucial factor in journalism is something else then I'm very much open to hearing it.

[Turnberry18 3,204]

9 minutes ago, SJGF5 said:

As far as I'm concerned the most crucial factor in journalism is to report the facts/truth. I touched on that here: "considered, thoughtful, respected, factual reporting" as well as the comment about the DR reporting on the events around the cup final (where they failed on those fronts).

If you think the most crucial factor in journalism is something else then I'm very much open to hearing it.

It's not just the most crucial factor, although it is that as well, it is the basis of all journalism; and for you, a former journalist, to have left that out is interesting. 

[SJGF5 38]

1 hour ago, Turnberry18 said:

It's not just the most crucial factor, although it is that as well, it is the basis of all journalism; and for you, a former journalist, to have left that out is interesting. 

It would be interesting if I had left it out. Which I didn't. Again, from my original post:

"In summary, the journalism world can be distilled into two different areas. Low quality, hit grabbing, (often extreme) publications who's standards are low and audience like minded and unlikely to change. Vs. considered, thoughtful, respected, factual reporting by people who care about their work."  

[Turnberry18 3,204]

9 hours ago, SJGF5 said:

It would be interesting if I had left it out. Which I didn't. Again, from my original post:

"In summary, the journalism world can be distilled into two different areas. Low quality, hit grabbing, (often extreme) publications who's standards are low and audience like minded and unlikely to change. Vs. considered, thoughtful, respected, factual reporting by people who care about their work."  

I agree with a great deal of what have to you say in both posts, but you gave very little emphasis on the role the "reader"; or the "implied reader" to be exact, plays in every publication, or indeed anything ever written; I don't doubt you were a journalist, but I think you could have been even more helpful to the Dude had you done so. In regards to the Dude, in my opinion he has to write for the readership first; I personally think people are being unreasonable if they expect otherwise. He's earning an honest crust, and if he supports Rangers whilst doing so, then all the better. No matter what any writer writes about, they will have to do so with a reader in mind; in this case, if they write about a particular club, then they will have to have a specific reader in mind, quite probably the person who is a fan of that club, or else they wouldn't be doing their job; to expect otherwise is unfair, in my opinion. It would also be unfair for anyone to ask any writer to pick and choose where and when they write, especially when they have so little experience in the first place; it is very rare for any writer to write with such freedom; you highlight a few options, but you rightly state the difficulties likely to be encountered.  As I said earlier, I think you could have been more helpful if you paid more emphasis on the reader, and less on the petty squabbles between journalists and so on.

[LaudrupsPatrickBoots 13,510]

Can always rely on a thread relating to @The Dude to get all the forum mongos choking on their spaghetti hoops as they smash their keyboards in a blind rage.

Wonderful reading, it really is.

[K.A.I 36,183]

2 hours ago, LaudrupsPatrickBoots said:

Can always rely on a thread relating to @The Dude to get all the forum mongos choking on their spaghetti hoops as they smash their keyboards in a blind rage.

Wonderful reading, it really is.

And can always rely on cunts like you (similarly the tartan army cunt running down the union the other week) to have fuck all to say about the people that are the arseholes to begin with but plenty to say to others who respond to them in the first place 

wonder why that is - never an answer forthcoming 

[cushynumber 25,178]

16 hours ago, SJGF5 said:

I don't often post on here but I spend a lot of time reading The Bears Den and maybe on this one area I have a bit more of an insight than most... not sure what difference it will make but I do know that the current situation in this thread (and others before it regarding The Dude) is toxic to the atmosphere and quality of this forum so something needs to change.

In my previous work life I was a journalist. I'd like to think a fairly successful one ( building up and running a site with millions of hits a month) but my time in that industry (15+ years) I learned a few things. The main point of note is that the vast majority of journalists are utter *insert your insult of choice*. It is an industry which just seems to attract complete arses. Those arses then tend to seek out like-minded arses, working together towards a common goal. It is exacerbated by the fact that the people journalists mostly deal with have ended up in their role due to failing at life. Entry level PR and Marketing people, for example, tend to be barely competent but very good at forming nice little cliques with journalists/writers/editors who agree with them. It suits all of them to have this relationship as the journalists will get exclusives from their friends, the PR people will be given an easier ride in harder times as you don't tend to have a go at your mates, etc. In Glasgow you can see it happening all the time in the relationship between the DR and celtic. 

It's for this reason that the theory of joining the staff or working freelance for the DR while hoping to change them from within falls apart. By the time the organisation is outwardly taking actions which are pro one club/company and anti another the culture is set. To survive in there you've got to adapt and follow the thoughts/actions of that culture. Culture change is maybe possible (I've never seen it happen in that industry) but it would take maybe 10+ years I'd think and so in the case of the DR in its paper form it will be an irrelevance by that point. Online, who knows. My thought on the online front is that it will have a limited audience. The more extreme readers will always have more extreme sites to visit.

If you are in the position of The Dude, wanting to change the balance of reporting, what should you do? You've got two options. One is that you identify a publication which is as unbiased as possible and you work there, even for free if need be at first, using that platform to build your skills, reputation and audience.

The second option is you start your own site. It won't be easy, it will consume your life. You'll probably need to work another job to support your family while building that business. There will be days you don't sleep (on more than one occasion I got up in the morning, took the kids to school worked through the day and night, took the kids to school the next day and then slept) but it is possible. The key to success on this option is hard work, insane levels of perseverance and quality content. If you are truly passionate about journalism being your calling then the hard work and long hours will barely be an issue and the creation of good content will be easier. It's incredibly rewarding too.

In summary, the journalism world can be distilled into two different areas. Low quality, hit grabbing, (often extreme) publications who's standards are low and audience like minded and unlikely to change. Vs. considered, thoughtful, respected, factual reporting by people who care about their work. There isn't a middle ground, just various extremes of each and I don't think it is possible to cross between the two... or at least not in the good direction. To give you an example, if I was running one of the more respected sports journalism departments and was hiring a writer, I (or more than likely one of my HR team) would be looking at two aspects of a candidate. Their past work and their character. Nowadays part of that character would come from meeting them in the interview process but the other part would be looking at their online persona. Twitter, forum posts etc. If the tone of those posts are not in keeping with the quality of candidate I am looking for then that person finds themselves further down the pile of candidates, if not removed completely. 

On a personal note, I don't know The Dude so I can't say if he is an arse. Experience tells me that it's possible but as a Rangers fan, I can say that I'd never consider working for the DR in any capacity. With some of the writing around the cup final (as one example) they went beyond what any true fan could find acceptable in my opinion. I'm with those that say journalists should be banned from having accounts here... well, sports/financial journalists. People who write about the latest happenings in the world of competitive decorating and the like, they can stay.

TL: DR Most journalists are arses. They don't change. Change can only happen through competing with them, finding your audience and beating the arses by doing your job to a higher standard. And specifically, anyone who works for the DR is not a Rangers fan. Maybe they once were but not now. That's fine, but as a non Rangers fan they probably shouldn't have an account on here either.

good post

[LaudrupsPatrickBoots 13,510]

33 minutes ago, K.A.I said:

And can always rely on cunts like you (similarly the tartan army cunt running down the union the other week) to have fuck all to say about the people that are the arseholes to begin with but plenty to say to others who respond to them in the first place 

wonder why that is - never an answer forthcoming 

I was running down the union? When was this?

How is he an arsehole? Because you don't agree with his articles or who he writes them for? Seems like you're the one with the problem, not him.

Used to think you were a good poster but you cling on to grudges like a sad wee boy. Even in another thread someone started about Gascoigne, your first post is to reference Griffiths because of these tweets from The Dude. It's tragic.

And if anyone is a cunt here it's you. I'm amazed you weren't banned months ago after your comments on a thread about a bear who had passed away but I supposed admin gave you a free pass because you got one of your mates to tidy it up for you ?

[PRW. 5,631]

4 minutes ago, LaudrupsPatrickBoots said:

I was running down the union? When was this?

How is he an arsehole? Because you don't agree with his articles or who he writes them for? Seems like you're the one with the problem, not him.

Used to think you were a good poster but you cling on to grudges like a sad wee boy. Even in another thread someone started about Gascoigne, your first post is to reference Griffiths because of these tweets from The Dude. It's tragic.

And if anyone is a cunt here it's you. I'm amazed you weren't banned months ago after your comments on a thread about a bear who had passed away but I supposed admin gave you a free pass because you got one of your mates to tidy it up for you ?

Did you just ask why TheDude is an arsehole then mention a bit about the Gascoigne/Griffiths comments? So you know what he wrote? I think thats all the evidence you need, but theres plenty more.

[LaudrupsPatrickBoots 13,510]

6 minutes ago, PRW. said:

Did you just ask why TheDude is an arsehole then mention a bit about the Gascoigne/Griffiths comments? So you know what he wrote? I think thats all the evidence you need, but theres plenty more.

Don't agree with his tweets but let's not pretend there hasn't been worse things said on the forum.

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,753]

He has previously said or tweeted the things about the the Queen / Nazies and Gazza/ Griffiths which I think are low. Distasteful as a minimum.

The club's 2nd biggest shareholder has asked for a boycott of the Rhebel. He works for them in a writing capacity, and until recently published his articles on here. Unacceptable.

He stated he would be true to himself, wouldn't allow his personal opinions to be manipulated or suppressed, would write as he saw fit. He saw the benefit of media challenge and change, small as it was, from the inside. Yet on this thread alone he has accepted writing things he doesn't agree with. Sell out.

He now appears to write bheast positive articles, for bheasts payers, to be read by bheasts. Terminology such as "hoops" and championing their proud history appear to roll off the tongue. Maybe trivial to some, makes me wonder how far he would go.

And then onto my question on this thread which he answered.

Where he admitted  he WOULD certainly consider taking on a paid article targetting (negative) comments made by bears online. Yes there were other factors he'd consider but it was a yes to publicising bears comments and we all know where that leads. A bear happily firing in bears for personal benefit is how I see it.

Now he stated he wouldn't lift comments from here. As it's easier from elsewhere, how generous.

But if you've ever posted or tweeted anything abusive or outwith the letter of the law, or the guy at the game beside you has, or your mate or family member have, then the Dude would have no issue theoretically with publishing those if it suited him beneficially.

And for me that is absolutely a line crossed. A dangerous line.

In all walks of life you make choices or they are made for you. I make my choice to come on here with bears, many of whom I agree with, some of whom I don't.

But for me someone who writes for the rhebel, with that mindset, should not have that opportunity on here regardless of if they were a member previously.

And again, I'll butt out.

 

[The Dude 20,026]

42 minutes ago, Sportingintegritymyarse said:

He has previously said or tweeted the things about the the Queen / Nazies and Gazza/ Griffiths which I think are low. Distasteful as a minimum.

The club's 2nd biggest shareholder has asked for a boycott of the Rhebel. He works for them in a writing capacity, and until recently published his articles on here. Unacceptable.

He stated he would be true to himself, wouldn't allow his personal opinions to be manipulated or suppressed, would write as he saw fit. He saw the benefit of media challenge and change, small as it was, from the inside. Yet on this thread alone he has accepted writing things he doesn't agree with. Sell out.

He now appears to write bheast positive articles, for bheasts payers, to be read by bheasts. Terminology such as "hoops" and championing their proud history appear to roll off the tongue. Maybe trivial to some, makes me wonder how far he would go.

And then onto my question on this thread which he answered.

Where he admitted  he WOULD certainly consider taking on a paid article targetting (negative) comments made by bears online. Yes there were other factors he'd consider but it was a yes to publicising bears comments and we all know where that leads. A bear happily firing in bears for personal benefit is how I see it.

Now he stated he wouldn't lift comments from here. As it's easier from elsewhere, how generous.

But if you've ever posted or tweeted anything abusive or outwith the letter of the law, or the guy at the game beside you has, or your mate or family member have, then the Dude would have no issue theoretically with publishing those if it suited him beneficially.

And for me that is absolutely a line crossed. A dangerous line.

In all walks of life you make choices or they are made for you. I make my choice to come on here with bears, many of whom I agree with, some of whom I don't.

But for me someone who writes for the rhebel, with that mindset, should not have that opportunity on here regardless of if they were a member previously.

And again, I'll butt out.

 

Actually, the Queen comment was that if folk are so offended by the Pope being head of the 'world biggest peado ring' then why, as head of CofE, doe Liz get a pass from being head of a religion which handles peadophiles in the same manner.

Nazi comment was pointing out how Hitler established his own, reformed, Protestant church and wasn't the big, bad kafflick he is painted as.

Can you explain where being paid to write an article reporting quotes and offering no personal opinion equates to my personal opinion being manipulated or suppressed?

You're upset I might show up the fuckwits in our support for the fuckwits they are for personal gain? Simple way to avoid that...dont be a fuckwit and put yourself in a position where something you've posted might drw attention because it it's not me doing it, it'll be someone else.  If your answer to that is  to blame the person who highlighted it and not the original comment which got the attention then tough titty tbh.

You're right that we all make choices. I'm more than comfortable with mine, if you're worried that someone might highlight something you've posted, said or whatever then, chance are, you made a wrong one somewhere.

 

[The Dude 20,026]

1 hour ago, LaudrupsPatrickBoots said:

Don't agree with his tweets but let's not pretend there hasn't been worse things said on the forum.

Weird how you can't point out a criminal conviction but you can accuse former players of the club of all sort.

[A.T.G 10,773]

A bear being paid to shop a bear.

[.Williamson. 82,409]

1 minute ago, A.T.G said:

A bear being paid to shop a bear.

He's not a bear.

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,753]

On 14/09/2017 at 13:58, The Dude said:

Is it? Then I wrote it.

Not everything I write in these is my personal opinion. I've written stuff I completely disagree with but it's what I've been asked to write by my boss.

My post;

"He stated he would be true to himself, wouldn't allow his personal opinions to be manipulated or suppressed, would write as he saw fit. He saw the benefit of media challenge and change, small as it was, from the inside. Yet on this thread alone he has accepted writing things he doesn't agree with. Sell out."

14 minutes ago, The Dude said:

 

Can you explain where being paid to write an article reporting quotes and offering no personal opinion equates to my personal opinion being manipulated or suppressed?

And as for

"You're upset I might show up the fuckwits in our support for the fuckwits they are for personal gain? Simple way to avoid that...dont be a fuckwit and put yourself in a position where something you've posted might drw attention because it it's not me doing it, it'll be someone else.  If your answer to that is  to blame the person who highlighted it and not the original comment which got the attention then tough titty tbh.

You're right that we all make choices. I'm more than comfortable with mine, if you're worried that someone might highlight something you've posted, said or whatever then, chance are, you made a wrong one somewhere"

 

Wow.

Loads of folk make mistakes in life. It's an every day occurrence.

Takes a special sort have no qualms in using it for their own financial benefit. Worse than being a grass actually.

Lowest of the low for any bear.

Maybe you will make it in your chosen field after all.