How are the Taig fans seen as angels by our media

[The Dude 20,026]

2 minutes ago, plumbGER said:

I think you would be better taking this up with @D'Artagnan i really don't get it why you would feel the need to drag that lassie into the argument (aye i know she works for trinity mirror)

This is kinda de-railing the thread and it seems like you are holding a personal grudge against D'art and using this as a means of getting at him, i would never say a bad word against the man and have enjoyed his blogs and contributions to this site.

I have enjoyed some of yours too it must be said, i think you would be better off concentrating on them than getting into petty feuds online and holding grudges.

Sometimes it's better to ignore people if they have nothing positive to say to you, likewise it's better to say nothing if you have nothing decent to say yourself.

Again, I did. Unfortunately D took his ball and went home. 

She was one of a number of TM folk I mentioned. Oddly, she was the only one D called ‘part of the problem’.

No grudges held, I’ve been called much worse online by folk and will likely be called much worse in the future. I have no need to get at him, I’m more than comfortable with what I do (and who I do it for) and will - and have previously - happily explain my justification for doing so. 

I don’t make any secret that this is my main job now and tbh, for all people can dig up a handful of tweets of mines that they want to get their knickers in a twist about, if anyone can find any articles of mine where I’m ‘anti-Rangers’. 

Boycotting doesn’t work (that’s a whole different conversation) and the ONLY way imo that things change is by getting folk into jobs in the media and the like. 

 

[plumbGER 24,518]

20 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Again, I did. Unfortunately D took his ball and went home. 

She was one of a number of TM folk I mentioned. Oddly, she was the only one D called ‘part of the problem’.

No grudges held, I’ve been called much worse online by folk and will likely be called much worse in the future. I have no need to get at him, I’m more than comfortable with what I do (and who I do it for) and will - and have previously - happily explain my justification for doing so. 

I don’t make any secret that this is my main job now and tbh, for all people can dig up a handful of tweets of mines that they want to get their knickers in a twist about, if anyone can find any articles of mine where I’m ‘anti-Rangers’. 

Boycotting doesn’t work (that’s a whole different conversation) and the ONLY way imo that things change is by getting folk into jobs in the media and the like. 

 

You don't have to justify yourself to me, how you earn your corn is of no concern to me.

Boycotting is working alright for me, i haven't bought a paper in about 10 years, and it wasn't even a planned boycott i just stopped buying.

I agree that we need to get people on the inside fighting our corner, but it has to be the right people aswell.

[The Dude 20,026]

1 minute ago, plumbGER said:

You don't have to justify yourself to me, how you earn your corn is of no concern to me.

Boycotting is working alright for me, i haven't bought a paper in about 10 years, and it wasn't even a planned boycott i just stopped buying.

I agree that we need to get people on the inside fighting our corner, but it has to be the right people aswell.

It’s been a good while since I bought one. 

Totally agree that it needs to be the right people but there’s also the thing where folk will almost ALWAYS find reason to complain about someone, especially given how fractured our support can be.

 

[plumbGER 24,518]

12 minutes ago, The Dude said:

It’s been a good while since I bought one. 

Totally agree that it needs to be the right people but there’s also the thing where folk will almost ALWAYS find reason to complain about someone, especially given how fractured our support can be.

 

I probably never will again, if i am in the doctors/dentist waiting room i will read my phone unless the local rag (Greenock Telegraph) is lying there then i will have a swatch at that to see who's been jailed etc.

People will always find faults no matter what you do, but you could always help yourself by refusing to get into petty squabbles, lifes much easier when you do so. Let's you focus on the good things you have on your mind if you block out the negative shite. 

[D'Artagnan 13,319]

12 hours ago, plumbGER said:

No idea of the context in which these comments were made from D'art but what i would say is that he is generally spot on with his views.

Its good to know PG that he is still bleating on about this. Must be beelin if he is dragging this into a thread.

Even better to see chivalry is not dead though as he dragged the young lady into it with his @ her ( Ms Johansson) I believe that is the twittter equivalent of "hauners"

[The Dude 20,026]

24 minutes ago, D'Artagnan said:

Its good to know PG that he is still bleating on about this. Must be beelin if he is dragging this into a thread.

Even better to see chivalry is not dead though as he dragged the young lady into it with his @ her ( Ms Johansson) I believe that is the twittter equivalent of "hauners"

Aye, hauners ? Is that what you were aiming for when trying to make it look like I’d written the comment on the tackle on Jack? 

Have you raised your issue over Gordon Parks’ comment with Gordon Parks yet? 

[KeyserSoze 14,545]

10 hours ago, bluenose244 said:

So they are all completely impartial? 

 I couldn’t care less.

Have you seen some of the abuse chucked at players/management/board/supporters on here? Do you think “we” are impartial.  

Papers change their face like the wind to ensure maximum impact and readership it’s been like that since ink was invented. I bet you enjoyed a good read when that lot were utter shite, I know I couldn’t get enough of the “dream team”  in the 90’s 

But that was not my real point. 

[plumbGER 24,518]

1 hour ago, D'Artagnan said:

Its good to know PG that he is still bleating on about this. Must be beelin if he is dragging this into a thread.

Even better to see chivalry is not dead though as he dragged the young lady into it with his @ her ( Ms Johansson) I believe that is the twittter equivalent of "hauners"

It has no place in this thread really, not sure why he felt the need to bring it in as it wasn't really relevant to his original point imo.

It's not something i would have done, but i don't do twitter and get into those debates, but still i wouldn't drag someone else into my argument regardless.

Each to their own though.

[bluenose244 2,618]

8 minutes ago, KeyserSoze said:

Have you seen some of the abuse chucked at players/management/board/supporters on here? Do you think “we” are impartial.

No I don't think "we" are impartial, I think "we" are the complete opposite of impartial in fact, we are supporters of a football club.

[With Heart and Hand 8,949]

 

14 hours ago, The Dude said:

I don’t just mean me in this. I’d love to know which of my pieces were perceived as a bit ‘jump the dyke’ tbh. 

stop kidding yourself on

you either know

or you don't know which means you are so out if touch with the support that you shouldn't be parading yourself as a journalist representing Rangers fans 

I'm not going to spend all day moaning at you like some, but shot yourself in the foot and should just at my you were a dick for it move on instead of playing the victim

[The Dude 20,026]

6 minutes ago, With Heart and Hand said:

 

stop kidding yourself on

you either know

or you don't know which means you are so out if touch with the support that you shouldn't be parading yourself as a journalist representing Rangers fans 

I'm not going to spend all day moaning at you like some, but shot yourself in the foot and should just at my you were a dick for it move on instead of playing the victim

1

Genuinely have no idea which of my articles could be considered a bit 'jump the dyke'. If folk are referring to some of my tweets then tbh, it's a load of pish. they are no more 'jump the dyke' than christ knows how many comments you can read on here aimed at former players of the club.

[With Heart and Hand 8,949]

Just now, The Dude said:

Genuinely have no idea which of my articles could be considered a bit 'jump the dyke'. If folk are referring to some of my tweets then tbh, it's a load of pish. they are no more 'jump the dyke' than christ knows how many comments you can read on here aimed at former players of the club.

comments here are in house amongst Rangers fans

I'll slate certain Club players and staff on here and with other bears but not publicly

[The Dude 20,026]

1 minute ago, With Heart and Hand said:

comments here are in house amongst Rangers fans

I'll slate certain Club players and staff on here and with other bears but not publicly

Comments on here are just as public as any I make on Twitter. This isn't a closed forum and anyone with internet access can view them without the need for a log-in.

[With Heart and Hand 8,949]

2 hours ago, The Dude said:

Comments on here are just as public as any I make on Twitter. This isn't a closed forum and anyone with internet access can view them without the need for a log-in.

We both know that's not true and that Twitter is a much more public forum than Rangersmedia is. 

[KeyserSoze 14,545]

2 hours ago, bluenose244 said:

No I don't think "we" are impartial, I think "we" are the complete opposite of impartial in fact, we are supporters of a football club.

And so might they be. But we’re never going to know  

[The Dude 20,026]

Just now, With Heart and Hand said:

We both know that's not true and that Twitter is a much more public forum than Rangersmedia is. 

What’s not true about it? This site is as public as Twitter is. I can view this place without ever being signed up as a member and can lift posts, share them elsewhere and pretend to be offended by them. 

Just like folk can with Twitter

[With Heart and Hand 8,949]

4 minutes ago, The Dude said:

What’s not true about it? This site is as public as Twitter is. I can view this place without ever being signed up as a member and can lift posts, share them elsewhere and pretend to be offended by them. 

Just like folk can with Twitter

You don't get banned for being a taig on Twitter

You're just making yourself look more an more of a dick by your desperation to appear innocent when everyone has seen your tweet

[The Dude 20,026]

7 minutes ago, With Heart and Hand said:

You don't get banned for being a taig on Twitter

You're just making yourself look more an more of a dick by your desperation to appear innocent when everyone has seen your tweet

And what does that have to do with how public this site is? 

Or people’s comments being a bit “jump the dyke”. There’s nothing I’ve said on here I wouldn’t ‘publicly’ and vice versa. 

I’d much rather than than be all happy clappy in public then making some of the comments I’ve seen on here aimed at current and ex players and mistakenly thinking they are ‘private’.

[BridgeIsBlue 66,606]

Me me me me me me.