Walter Smith: Faceless fans are tarnishing the club

[outlaw69uk 123]

Ah, well, my perspective is that I have re-phrased his post, and, given examples and thoughts as to why it was not as "rambling" as you perceive it to be. All the points I raised were in respect to these. I took 2 points from his post, the one regarding protestant=bigot, and expanded on this, also providing reasoning as to why it can be taken as relevant. The 2nd point, around the politics, again as before, these were simple reasonings as to why the opus Dei discussion may not be as ridiculous as some are saying

Or was the point about something else?

The point was you claimed all Mr. Dignity's mad diatribe was truth. Yes...I understand you moved the goal posts afterwards but there's no escaping that.

I am begining to think your from another planet mate, or just not reading (listening would have been better, but, its in type)!

Taking apart his "mad diatribe" and, you get the 2 main points I have been talking about since yesterday, how is that moving the goalposts? I can only assume my introduction of common sense was too much

[Briton 394]

Ah, well, my perspective is that I have re-phrased his post, and, given examples and thoughts as to why it was not as "rambling" as you perceive it to be. All the points I raised were in respect to these. I took 2 points from his post, the one regarding protestant=bigot, and expanded on this, also providing reasoning as to why it can be taken as relevant. The 2nd point, around the politics, again as before, these were simple reasonings as to why the opus Dei discussion may not be as ridiculous as some are saying

Or was the point about something else?

The point was you claimed all Mr. Dignity's mad diatribe was truth. Yes...I understand you moved the goal posts afterwards but there's no escaping that.

I am begining to think your from another planet mate, or just not reading (listening would have been better, but, its in type)!

Taking apart his "mad diatribe" and, you get the 2 main points I have been talking about since yesterday, how is that moving the goalposts? I can only assume my introduction of common sense was too much

You said his post (you didn't even bother to quote but referred to it simply as, BD's post 52, or whatever) was 'very sad, but true'. Now you are saying if you dissect this post and remove a couple of points, and then look at them in a particular way, you agree. Now that is a perfect example of moving the goal posts. That's without going into what you said in reply to WVB in relation to the post. As I said earlier, put the shovel down.

[WVB 2,560]

As I said earlier, put the shovel down.

Priceless.

[Briton 394]

As I said earlier, put the shovel down.

Priceless.

Still hurting eh? LOL

[BLUEDIGNITY 33,647]

Ah, well, my perspective is that I have re-phrased his post, and, given examples and thoughts as to why it was not as "rambling" as you perceive it to be. All the points I raised were in respect to these. I took 2 points from his post, the one regarding protestant=bigot, and expanded on this, also providing reasoning as to why it can be taken as relevant. The 2nd point, around the politics, again as before, these were simple reasonings as to why the opus Dei discussion may not be as ridiculous as some are saying

Or was the point about something else?

The point was you claimed all Mr. Dignity's mad diatribe was truth. Yes...I understand you moved the goal posts afterwards but there's no escaping that.

I am begining to think your from another planet mate, or just not reading (listening would have been better, but, its in type)!

Taking apart his "mad diatribe" and, you get the 2 main points I have been talking about since yesterday, how is that moving the goalposts? I can only assume my introduction of common sense was too much

You said his post (you didn't even bother to quote but referred to it simply as, BD's post 52, or whatever) was 'very sad, but true'. Now you are saying if you dissect this post and remove a couple of points, and then look at them in a particular way, you agree. Now that is a perfect example of moving the goal posts. That's without going into what you said in reply to WVB in relation to the post. As I said earlier, put the shovel down.

Oh right ! Very clearly explained ! And if your auntie had balls she'd be you uncle I suppose ! What a lot of flannel ! It's not a shovel you are using it's a JCB !

[outlaw69uk 123]

Ah, well, my perspective is that I have re-phrased his post, and, given examples and thoughts as to why it was not as "rambling" as you perceive it to be. All the points I raised were in respect to these. I took 2 points from his post, the one regarding protestant=bigot, and expanded on this, also providing reasoning as to why it can be taken as relevant. The 2nd point, around the politics, again as before, these were simple reasonings as to why the opus Dei discussion may not be as ridiculous as some are saying

Or was the point about something else?

The point was you claimed all Mr. Dignity's mad diatribe was truth. Yes...I understand you moved the goal posts afterwards but there's no escaping that.

I am begining to think your from another planet mate, or just not reading (listening would have been better, but, its in type)!

Taking apart his "mad diatribe" and, you get the 2 main points I have been talking about since yesterday, how is that moving the goalposts? I can only assume my introduction of common sense was too much

You said his post (you didn't even bother to quote but referred to it simply as, BD's post 52, or whatever) was 'very sad, but true'. Now you are saying if you dissect this post and remove a couple of points, and then look at them in a particular way, you agree. Now that is a perfect example of moving the goal posts. That's without going into what you said in reply to WVB in relation to the post. As I said earlier, put the shovel down.

Oh I gave you more credit than this

You dismiss the entire thing as ludicris, then, I point out it has merits, and I am moving the goalposts?

You seem to have a shovel issue as well. I seriously dont think you would be dismissing everything had the original source been someone else

[Briton 394]

Ah, well, my perspective is that I have re-phrased his post, and, given examples and thoughts as to why it was not as "rambling" as you perceive it to be. All the points I raised were in respect to these. I took 2 points from his post, the one regarding protestant=bigot, and expanded on this, also providing reasoning as to why it can be taken as relevant. The 2nd point, around the politics, again as before, these were simple reasonings as to why the opus Dei discussion may not be as ridiculous as some are saying

Or was the point about something else?

The point was you claimed all Mr. Dignity's mad diatribe was truth. Yes...I understand you moved the goal posts afterwards but there's no escaping that.

I am begining to think your from another planet mate, or just not reading (listening would have been better, but, its in type)!

Taking apart his "mad diatribe" and, you get the 2 main points I have been talking about since yesterday, how is that moving the goalposts? I can only assume my introduction of common sense was too much

You said his post (you didn't even bother to quote but referred to it simply as, BD's post 52, or whatever) was 'very sad, but true'. Now you are saying if you dissect this post and remove a couple of points, and then look at them in a particular way, you agree. Now that is a perfect example of moving the goal posts. That's without going into what you said in reply to WVB in relation to the post. As I said earlier, put the shovel down.

Oh I gave you more credit than this

You dismiss the entire thing as ludicris, then, I point out it has merits, and I am moving the goalposts?

You seem to have a shovel issue as well. I seriously dont think you would be dismissing everything had the original source been someone else

Oh I would if they started banging on about an all encomposing Opus Dei conspiracy. It's called destroying your credibility. It's true, as you suggest, that this particular poster has none anyway, but the rule would apply to anybody who blurted that stuff. Same goes for anyone agrees with it.

[WVB 2,560]

As I said earlier, put the shovel down.

Priceless.

Still hurting eh? LOL

Yes, but only when i laugh.

[Briton 394]

As I said earlier, put the shovel down.

Priceless.

Still hurting eh? LOL

Yes, but only when i laugh.

Let in go son. It'll only result in another of your pantie wetting incidents. Hehe.

[WVB 2,560]

As I said earlier, put the shovel down.

Priceless.

Still hurting eh? LOL

Yes, but only when i laugh.

Let in go son. It'll only result in another of your pantie wetting incidents. Hehe.

Am i getting you wet dear?

[Briton 394]

As I said earlier, put the shovel down.

Priceless.

Still hurting eh? LOL

Yes, but only when i laugh.

Let in go son. It'll only result in another of your pantie wetting incidents. Hehe.

Am i getting you wet dear?

No...I have a strong bladder, laughing at your hissy fit has tested it to the full.

[Wreckedroy 33]

The condemnation of the manager on here is way off the mark. Rangers FC are a football club.It should not be used as a vehicle for political and religous views. If you feel strongly about such matters, join a church, a political party etc. Viewing forum topics regards religion and politics is at best decribed as down right embarrasing and has no place on a "football" forum or in connection with a football club whatsoever.

Excellent post mate.

Those who think they somehow have an inalienable right to sing or chant about their religious beliefs at a sports event need a reality check.

[Boab 73]

Outlaw.....

No point arguing with a faceless fan who lives in Cornwall & is about as far removed from everyday life in Scotland as someone from Timbuctoo. He has his bizarre mindset, and we have our balanced opinions, based on what we see happening in front of our very eyes.

Does Briton have any idea how far up the Opus Dei tree Mrs Cherie Blair is? Or Ruth Kelly? Or Brian Wilson? Or Dr Death Reid? Or Des Browne? Or indeed Mt Tony B.Liar himself, now that his mask has finally slipped? I'll bet he has no idea.

No....we're just rambling nutters, whereas Mr Miles Away Briton is telling us how it is,partially assisted by snidey wee toad-boy the grass.

Outlaw isn't in Scotland either btw. No offence to outlaw though, just relevant to your point.

[minstral 5,375]

The condemnation of the manager on here is way off the mark. Rangers FC are a football club.It should not be used as a vehicle for political and religous views. If you feel strongly about such matters, join a church, a political party etc. Viewing forum topics regards religion and politics is at best decribed as down right embarrasing and has no place on a "football" forum or in connection with a football club whatsoever.

Excellent post mate.

Those who think they somehow have an inalienable right to sing or chant about their religious beliefs at a sports event need a reality check.

walter used to sing the same songs along with the late jock wallace.

[WVB 2,560]

No...I have a strong bladder, laughing at your hissy fit has tested it to the full.

A strong bladder does not make up for your weak argument unfortunately.

[WVB 2,560]

Outlaw.....

No point arguing with a faceless fan who lives in Cornwall & is about as far removed from everyday life in Scotland as someone from Timbuctoo. He has his bizarre mindset, and we have our balanced opinions, based on what we see happening in front of our very eyes.

Does Briton have any idea how far up the Opus Dei tree Mrs Cherie Blair is? Or Ruth Kelly? Or Brian Wilson? Or Dr Death Reid? Or Des Browne? Or indeed Mt Tony B.Liar himself, now that his mask has finally slipped? I'll bet he has no idea.

No....we're just rambling nutters, whereas Mr Miles Away Briton is telling us how it is,partially assisted by snidey wee toad-boy the grass.

Outlaw isn't in Scotland either btw. No offence to outlaw though, just relevant to your point.

Just fuck off you little snake, i've no more to say to you.

[Boab 73]

Fine by me!

[outlaw69uk 123]

Outlaw.....

No point arguing with a faceless fan who lives in Cornwall & is about as far removed from everyday life in Scotland as someone from Timbuctoo. He has his bizarre mindset, and we have our balanced opinions, based on what we see happening in front of our very eyes.

Does Briton have any idea how far up the Opus Dei tree Mrs Cherie Blair is? Or Ruth Kelly? Or Brian Wilson? Or Dr Death Reid? Or Des Browne? Or indeed Mt Tony B.Liar himself, now that his mask has finally slipped? I'll bet he has no idea.

No....we're just rambling nutters, whereas Mr Miles Away Briton is telling us how it is,partially assisted by snidey wee toad-boy the grass.

Outlaw isn't in Scotland either btw. No offence to outlaw though, just relevant to your point.

Thats true, and, none taken I am up every month or 2, so, fairly up on the current "issues" there

Out of curiosty, whats your take on the "debate" I have been having with Briton over the last couple of pages then? I cant help but feel he has missed the point somewhere, and, deflects and ignores better than most

[Wreckedroy 33]

Walter Smith has only spoke facts there so how can anybody disagree?

Mr Smith offered his opinions - not necessarily definable as facts - and therefore it would be very easy to disagree.

I sense a more worrying, sinister aspect to this constant attack from our own club. I've long suspected the mantras trotted out (Smith, Bain, & Murray are all singing from the same, media ready, politically corrected and meticulously prepared hymn sheets) are more to do with marketing the club and it's public visage to a place where they (Smith, Bain, Murray and the like) are beyond criticism. And to a certain extent it's worked. Even Britney Spiers is known to trot out the line that 'Rangers as a club have wrestled manfully with the problem of sectarianism'.

But, I think the public stance is a lie. Think back to when Murray tossed Donald Findlay to the lions, was that really the first he knew that his friend liked to sing along with the supporters? That Findlay knew the lines inside out? I doubt it - which would mean that Murray knows and tacitly accepts aspects of the culture attached the club. But, damningly, acts only when he either feels he needs to be seen to do so or - worse - when he sees another chance to turn criticism away from himself.

More worrying still; why are Rangers apparently convinced that they must have a role dealing with social issues far beyond the club itself? And why are they motivated at all to lend their weight to an attack on rights to free speech? What they are lazily and cheaply defining as sectarian could just as easily be recognised as legitimate protest. Even if they do not like it - it's my belief that it's not their place and not within their remit to be suppressing others right to opinions and beliefs they (publicly at least) do not share.

Moses i understand your train of thought here, but i wasnt looking into it in the extent that you are. I think if were all honest WS has spoke on the matter and it is pretty evident that the majority of damage that has been and is being done to tarnish the clubs name is through "faceless fans" . I think from what i have seen at matches etc the fans have been tremendous , however there is a certain element of support for the club through these faceless fans that will be very hard to eradicate.

WS took very little trouble to speak critically of his own supporters - if he wants to adopt a lazy, poorly thought out stance then it's the nature of the game he is playing along with that he will be criticised for it.

For my own part - I think those currently charged with leading our greatest of club are playing games to suit how they wish to be publicly portrayed.

Again, I think he said very little about the fans, and, on ballance, it was directed more towards the press and the politicians, and, the highly biased descriptions of both old firm clubs. I take more issue with fans who believe this doesnt happen.

We are also missing the fact that, by mentioning the "faceless minority", and then concentrating on other areas that are attacking/damaging the club, he did not fall into the "tit for tat" trap, and, is not coming across like the tims (I saw reid on gmtv this morning!) who harp on about everything being perfect, and, how they are perfect etc etc. Its actually a very clever thing to do. It says, essentially, "we arent 100% perfect, however, the way we are being portayed is ridiculous, and wrong". I seem to be the only one who can see this?

Have we become so sensitive that if we see the word fan in an article somewhere we forget about the rest of it in order to feel persecuted? That isnt OUR role in life.

I agree totally with your assessment of the article. Too many people seem to be reading the headline and ignoring the actual content of the interview. This was not Smith launching an attack on our fans, it was more about gaining the moral high ground and keeping it. A very clever reply to a very leading question.

[radlord 24]

I think you need to calm down a bit, WVB.

Things not going so well in life off the board, aye?

Some of the things you've said today border on mildly psychotic.

[Briton 394]

No...I have a strong bladder, laughing at your hissy fit has tested it to the full.

A strong bladder does not make up for your weak argument unfortunately.

Strong enough for you to resort to throwing hissy fits though...LMAO. As I said...let it go, you'll only get upset again.

[outlaw69uk 123]

Walter Smith has only spoke facts there so how can anybody disagree?

Mr Smith offered his opinions - not necessarily definable as facts - and therefore it would be very easy to disagree.

I sense a more worrying, sinister aspect to this constant attack from our own club. I've long suspected the mantras trotted out (Smith, Bain, & Murray are all singing from the same, media ready, politically corrected and meticulously prepared hymn sheets) are more to do with marketing the club and it's public visage to a place where they (Smith, Bain, Murray and the like) are beyond criticism. And to a certain extent it's worked. Even Britney Spiers is known to trot out the line that 'Rangers as a club have wrestled manfully with the problem of sectarianism'.

But, I think the public stance is a lie. Think back to when Murray tossed Donald Findlay to the lions, was that really the first he knew that his friend liked to sing along with the supporters? That Findlay knew the lines inside out? I doubt it - which would mean that Murray knows and tacitly accepts aspects of the culture attached the club. But, damningly, acts only when he either feels he needs to be seen to do so or - worse - when he sees another chance to turn criticism away from himself.

More worrying still; why are Rangers apparently convinced that they must have a role dealing with social issues far beyond the club itself? And why are they motivated at all to lend their weight to an attack on rights to free speech? What they are lazily and cheaply defining as sectarian could just as easily be recognised as legitimate protest. Even if they do not like it - it's my belief that it's not their place and not within their remit to be suppressing others right to opinions and beliefs they (publicly at least) do not share.

Moses i understand your train of thought here, but i wasnt looking into it in the extent that you are. I think if were all honest WS has spoke on the matter and it is pretty evident that the majority of damage that has been and is being done to tarnish the clubs name is through "faceless fans" . I think from what i have seen at matches etc the fans have been tremendous , however there is a certain element of support for the club through these faceless fans that will be very hard to eradicate.

WS took very little trouble to speak critically of his own supporters - if he wants to adopt a lazy, poorly thought out stance then it's the nature of the game he is playing along with that he will be criticised for it.

For my own part - I think those currently charged with leading our greatest of club are playing games to suit how they wish to be publicly portrayed.

Again, I think he said very little about the fans, and, on ballance, it was directed more towards the press and the politicians, and, the highly biased descriptions of both old firm clubs. I take more issue with fans who believe this doesnt happen.

We are also missing the fact that, by mentioning the "faceless minority", and then concentrating on other areas that are attacking/damaging the club, he did not fall into the "tit for tat" trap, and, is not coming across like the tims (I saw reid on gmtv this morning!) who harp on about everything being perfect, and, how they are perfect etc etc. Its actually a very clever thing to do. It says, essentially, "we arent 100% perfect, however, the way we are being portayed is ridiculous, and wrong". I seem to be the only one who can see this?

Have we become so sensitive that if we see the word fan in an article somewhere we forget about the rest of it in order to feel persecuted? That isnt OUR role in life.

I agree totally with your assessment of the article. Too many people seem to be reading the headline and ignoring the actual content of the interview. This was not Smith launching an attack on our fans, it was more about gaining the moral high ground and keeping it. A very clever reply to a very leading question.

Cheers, I was beginning to think I was the only one who noticed it

[WVB 2,560]

No...I have a strong bladder, laughing at your hissy fit has tested it to the full.

A strong bladder does not make up for your weak argument unfortunately.

Strong enough for you to resort to throwing hissy fits though...LMAO. As I said...let it go, you'll only get upset again.

Link please?

[BLUEDIGNITY 33,647]

No...I have a strong bladder, laughing at your hissy fit has tested it to the full.

A strong bladder does not make up for your weak argument unfortunately.

Strong enough for you to resort to throwing hissy fits though...LMAO. As I said...let it go, you'll only get upset again.

Link please?

Absolute ball breaker Mate ! Keep up the good work !

[Briton 394]

No...I have a strong bladder, laughing at your hissy fit has tested it to the full.

A strong bladder does not make up for your weak argument unfortunately.

Strong enough for you to resort to throwing hissy fits though...LMAO. As I said...let it go, you'll only get upset again.

Link please?

Post 180 in this thread. Calm down Gloria.