The Real PapaBear
-
Posts
2,366 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by The Real PapaBear
-
No, I mean, are you suggesting that McCoist, when offered the opportunity to invest in the club, should have refused?
-
our equivalent is "once bitten, twice shy". The difference between you, the three amigos and the rest of us is that you think this dog can be tamed. You'll find out differently when it bites you on the arse. Again.
-
So are you suggestingthat McCoist, when offered the opportunity to invest in the club, should have refused?
-
Between McCoist saying that he couldn't tell fans to buy tickets and then telling fans to buy tickets, what had changed? What was happening in the background? Let's have some meat on teh bones instead of just chucking around epithets and character assasination. Taking two statements at different times and out of context serves no purpose other than to support a fabricated argument. You'd be as well calling the captain of the Titanic a liar because he said everything was fine on Saturday afternoon and then told everybody to abandon ship on Sunday night. As for the penny shares; did. McCoist set the value of those shares? Did he coose to sell the shares to himself at that price? Or was he putting in as much as he could of his own personal money into the club as a sign of faith? And as to his salary, criticising him for taking the salary offered is just perverse. How else should that conversation have gone: Employer: "Here's your salary for the year" Employee: "Nah, that's too much because you're mismanaging the club you've just bought and you can't be trusted with the tens of millions of pounds you've just raised"
-
I don't see what's excellent about an attack on McCoist's integrity and honesty, based on nothing more than hearsay, rumour, innuendo and half remembered events seen with the perfect vision of 20/20 hindsight. By all means have a go at him as a manager if you want, but the other stuff is more what you'd expect to read on a Timmy forum. The two greatest Rangers, Grieg and McCoist reduced to figures of mockery and derision from elements of our own support; Who's next? Walter Smith? They must be laughing their heads of in Janefield Street
-
can't see it, mate. The rebuilding job that is required will see them struggle next season at least. Butcher will need at least that amount of time to beat out all the creativity from the players he signs.
-
Champions league Final Madrid Derby
The Real PapaBear replied to Gribz's topic in General Football Chat
It's hard to believe nowadays, but true nonetheless, that in 1968 the number one ranked footballing city in Europe was Glasgow. hey-ho. -
bad? no, not bad.
-
That, my friend, is one of the best posts I have ever read on this or any other forum. Well said, you.
-
that is a very good shout 26! I don't think BH's idea of playing celtic is a starter - too much fresh bitterness and hatred. The GSoA deserves more than that. It would be better if we did our thing and they did theirs and the school gets twice the love. If our club was being properly run, the people in charge would probably be interested in the idea - as it is Celtic will probably organise something, and we'll be left behind looking small and mean.
-
I went there once in the late 70s and got out without a scratch. That counts as a good night in Fauldhouse.
-
yep - thanks and respect to everyone who went along today. Shame on those who mock their effort and committment.
-
It would be like Lady Gaga playing the Fauldhouse Miners Welfare
-
Lennon resigns as Celtic manager
The Real PapaBear replied to Whosthedado's topic in General Football Chat
oh please let it be Keane, please god, please, please -
We share the same objectives, mate I think we're just talking tactics. You're right that the issue doesn't have a close season and that we need to maintain momentum. However, given that everyone's mind is elsewhere during the summer, the media included, I think the risk of dissipating the existing momentum is too great. Once you lose what momentum you have, it's infinitely more difficult to get it back again. Tactically, I think they'd be better advised to work with UoF to do a 'spectacular' on the opening weekend and spend the summer building up to it - but I'm certainly never going to criticise fellow bluenoses who get off their arses and do something, even if I think it's not the best thing for them to do.
-
then I would suggest that first, you open a dictionary and look up the meaning of both 'pompous' and 'dismissive', as my observation was neither and second, that you try engaging debate without ad hominem. The point I'm making is that by holding a series of on-going protests over a period where people are on holiday or their minds are not on football first and foremost, SoS is simply going to dilute the power of their protest because the numbers will dwindle. You don't build momentum with dwindling numbers and no media is going to cover these protests. The result of this is that the board will be able to point to the ever weakening protests in order to justify dismissing them. I'm very supportive of SoS and think they have done a fantastic job so far - I just don't want to see them making a mistake from which they may not recover.
-
this is not a good idea. An increasing number of protests with a decreasing number turning up each time will simply end up helping the board
-
right...ok.... I'm not sure what's just happened there.
-
And yet, unbelievably, still it happens. People look at the big signs in the stations and despite the fact that the graphics are clear as day and easy to understand, they just don't comprehend them. Actually, come to think of it, Very much like the case of the SoS petition, with its clearly signposted recipients and all that. that's ehm, that's not an analogy, BH - that's an anecdote, mate. Although it does go someway to explaining why you're making no sense
-
Apropos illogical. Correct me if I go wrong at any point here: You are telling me that you believe BM (and by extension yourself) would think that sending a digital signature on line on the web site of a company who are entirely and only web based would result in this being printed off onto paper, put into boxes and transported to the offices of the recipient? You don't appear, if I may say, to have put a great deal of thought into the logistics or practicality of this; almost as little thought as BM gave when he signed the petition but didn't look at the graphic under the petition. I've repeated the following about four or five times now, and this will be the last because if you don't understand it at the 6th time of asking then you never will. BM clicked the send button on a piece of software which sends an e-mail when clicked. There is no holding pen from which the emails are further forwarded; they are sent immediately and directly. BM is thus the sender. SoS merely provided the platform from which to send the email. They did not send an email on his behalf. The graphic and text at the bottom of the petition should be enough for anyone with their wits about them to understand that the message shown in the graphic would be sent to the recipients shown in the graphic and would include the signatory's name where indicated in the graphic.
-
While I do enjoy being patronised as much as the next man, I have to assure you there's no confusion. Change.org provides the infrastructure and hardware but don't themselves utilise that infrastructure. That infrastructure is put at the disposal of the petitioners for the petitioners to make use of. At the risk of analogying everyone to death, it's a bit like Railtrack (change.org) and the Railway companies. (SoS). Change provide the infrastructure to allow SoS to carry out their business - but the fact remains that the passanger should know where he's going before he gets on the train.
-
Under the Petition itself, where it said: To: Graham Wallace, Rangers Football Club Sandy Easdale, Rangers Football Club Give written legally binding assurances to fans that Ibrox stadium will not be sold or used as security for any loans Sincerely, [Your name] what did you think that meant? How did you think the recipients would receive your petition? Did you think a Cistercian monk was going to scribe it in gold leaf on parchment before tying it to the leg of a carrier pigeon?
-
Jesus wept! Was *everybody* off school the day they did 'Analogy' in Higher English? it's not like saying that at all. It's not ever remotely similar. Look, BD signed a petition which had been set up to forward his signature to the petition recipient. Sending the email was not a nefarious afterthought on the part of SoS; it was done as part of the system setup. He was thus, the sender. BD's failure to understand how the system works is nobody else's fault.
-
You're right, it's not a difficult concept, but your analogy is so arse-end-furrits that it's making the simple very complicated. You signed a petition on a web site. The web site explained that the petition would be sent to the recipient. You pressed 'send' and the 'email' was sent. Your failure to make yourself aware of what it was that you were doing, understandable as that may be, is nobody else's responsibility. You clicked 'send'. You are the sender.
-
sorry, don't follow; "intent" for what?