JohnMc

Yeah, I know, we've not even finished discussing the last match yet, however the next one is less than 48 hours away...

Rangers v Hibs – The Practice Of Cryptozoology

In ‘Raptor’ his excellent book on the UK’s birds of prey, James Macdonald Lockhart describes his attempts to see a Honey Buzzard in the wild as cryptozoology. He knows it exists, others have seen it, yet it remains elusive to him. He spends days in the Forest Of Dean, rising early, using hides and spending hours in what he believes are the perfect positions to observe this magnificent, if elusive, animal. Yet it remains tantalisingly out of reach. His frustration and disappointment are clear, he wants proof this bird exists in Britain and to see, and enjoy, its drama and beauty for himself. He’s willing to invest significant time and effort into this too. Cryptozoology is, in essence, about studying and finding things that just might not be there.

There are cryptozoologists among the Rangers support just now. They believe a fluid, strong Rangers side, a side capable of putting in a sustained challenge for the title, tactically astute, hard to beat, determined and skilful, defensively strong, with guile and quality and goals throughout the team exists. They have faith. This faith is largely built around a belief in Pedro Caixhina. The charismatic, multi-lingual, Portuguese, retains the goodwill and trust of a large percentage of our support, despite some evidence he might not be what we hoped he was.

Yet, there have been glimpses of promise, evidence discovered, catalogued and observed closely. Our opening weekend’s win over Motherwell was as pleasing as it was unexpected for some of us. In spells we looked very good. As yet though we don’t know just how good a side Motherwell are this season, perhaps everyone will collect full points at Fir Park, perhaps it’ll be a fortress. At the end though I was left with the feeling that, whether through luck or design, this was a match we’d have dropped points in last season.

A comprehensive demolishing of Dunfermline at Ibrox followed this. A 6-0 victory over any side can’t be ignored and having spent time in the Championship we know first hand how well organised and difficult to breakdown clubs there can be. Not only did we win but our forwards suddenly burst into life too, the previously uninspiring Morelos found his form and Miller continued to defy old father time. However, this is a Dunfermline side that beat Hearts in the cup, yet only drew with newly promoted Livingston in the league. They’ve cut budgets this season, getting rid of their development side and losing their two best players to Championship rivals. It’s also worth remembering that we hammered both Peterhead and Queen of the South this time last season at home too and we all know how that worked out.

So, have we finally seen conclusive evidence of a Rangers team we all hope exists?

For me, this Saturday, will be the first real litmus test. Hibernian visit filled with confidence and no shortage of ability. Fresh from their own demolishing of a lower league side in the cup and a good opening day win at home to Thistle, Hibs are still riding high on the momentum of last season’s promotion. Managed by our old foe Neil Lennon, this is a Hibs side that’s easy on the eye, can attack at speed and has goals throughout the team. They might have lost the talismanic Jason Cummings in the summer but Lennon has strengthened his side with some astute recruitment. The talented Simon Murray from Dundee Utd, the under-rated Swanson from St Johnstone, experience in Anthony ‘not a fan of Elvis’ Stokes and the mercurial Stephen Whittaker and, somewhat surprisingly, Vykintas Slivka a midfielder from Juventus. These bolster an already decent squad with the much-lauded John McGinn still their most potent creative force.

They’ll arrive in Govan believing they can win, I expect they’ll look to hit Rangers on the break, keeping it tight at the back and counter-attacking at speed, playing for set-pieces and trying to frustrate Rangers. They’ll be backed by a good sized and noisy travelling support too. It’s a rare Saturday afternoon kick off which should enhance the atmosphere even more.

Rangers might be without captain Lee Wallace who was a late call off against Dunfermline. A section of the Hibs’ support have a problem with Wallace, apparently taking exception to being assaulted isn’t the done thing in Leith, hopefully Wallace will be fit to help inflict more discomfort on them. If he’s not I expect Hodson will fill the left back berth.

Apart from that the defence should pick itself. Alves and Cardoso in the middle with Tavernier on the right. In front of them I expect Ryan Jack to return to the side despite Rossiter’s good performance against the Pars. Dorrans along side him with the ever improving Windass on the left and Candieas on right. It’s upfront the manager has a decision to make. Herrera has started the season as the first choice centre forward however at times he’s looked a bit isolated and ineffective. I feel you can see the player in there and his movement and touch has created space for others, however goals have been missing from his game. Morelos, who I thought looked very poor when he came on against Motherwell, had a great game in midweek, scoring two, working hard and being involved in everything. As a striker no more can be asked and he can rightly expect to start the next match. One of them will partner Kenny Miller, but I’m not sure which one, Caixhina has a big decision to make.

With Foderingham returning in goals suddenly this Rangers side is taking on a familiar look, you can see its spine, there is a balance and certainty to it that’s been missing until very recently. Are we starting to see the real thing, or is it simply a case of looking too hard for what we want to believe is there?

Like our visitors this Saturday it was a man from Edinburgh, Ivan Sanderson, who coined the phrase Cryptozoology to describe the hunt for the rumoured, the unexplained and the paranormal. Often derided and dismissed as fantasy Cryptozoologists retain, above all other things, belief. Football fans can easily relate to this. We cling to the flimsiest of evidence, we spend hours analysing, dissecting and discussing it, convincing ourselves, and other like-minded people, as to its worth.

This Saturday we’ll discover if this is a real Rangers side, or simply another false sighting of a myth we all hoped was genuine. A bad result will undo very quickly the goodwill Pedro has rebuilt over the last 3 weeks, a good result will confirm sceptics like me should have had more faith, the proof was there, we just didn’t know how to find it.

Jeez, time for the next preview and the last game has just finished. I should have Saturday's preview ready early evening, got some of it done at lunchtime. Do I post here or directly into the forum?

Sorry no that is not the right filmhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2REkk9SCRn0

 

Sorry the film must just have moved on before I copied. This is the right one I checked this time.

Yeah, I think I preferred the one with the aliens.

Life ain't like the movies in my experience. You'd have been kicked to death at my secondary school if you'd come out as gay, so if it helps move kids on from that very low base I guess it can't hurt.

I would rather run 100 yards round the Ibrox track as 100 yards up a sandy hill. Was it just not pre-season we done that to get the holiday laziness out of the way?

It was pre-season and it was done to get fitness and strength up, same as every club does. Wallace knew the players thought the sand dunes were harder, in fact he told them they were, but in actual fact running up sand-dunes makes you no fitter than running up the stairs of the terraces as many clubs did or today using a stairmaster or similar running machine. It was all in the head, the players believed they were fitter than they'd ever been, they believed they'd be fitter than the opposition were. That gave them a psychological advantage that Rangers needed. Celtic were dominating, Rangers had been second best for years despite having one of our best ever sides, and Wallace knew the side needed something to make them believe they could better Celtic over a season. Gullane helped him do that.

Wallace is often depicted as a fearsome warrior, terrifying players, shouting and balling. Some of that is true but it's only a part of the picture. He was an astute tactician and understood the mental side of the game very clearly. You didn't best Jock Stein by being a Neanderthal and that's often how some people like to depict the ex-miner and jungle soldier.

One of the best people on Wallace is Gary Linekar, he speaks glowingly about him and particularly about his ability to make his players mentally stronger and give everything for the team. There's a reason why there are so many photographs of 'murder hill', because Wallace wanted the players, the media, the supporters and those at other clubs to think Rangers were the fittest team in the league. It worked. He did exactly the same thing at Leicester when he went there.

Great photos, thanks for posting. We've had this discussion before (or was it somewhere else?) but you know the whole purpose of Murder Hill was psychological? You didn't actually get any fitter running up and down sand dunes you just thought you did. It was a piece of managerial genius by Wallace, who was a far more nuanced and intelligent manager than he's given credit for or often portrayed.

What's a working class man?

 

Who paid for the biscuits?

C'mon BD, nobody 'paid' for the biscuits, they were looted from a country on the other side of the world 100 years ago, as you know fine well...

 

I just wonder what the feelings are about this film that has gone viral.

I personally have mixed feelings on it. While I understand the message is that it tells kids it is okay to have these feelings it may also cause some to chase people who do not have these feelings and cause problems. It may also be promoting kids to have these feelings. As I say I get the main message I am just not sure everything will work out as in the film.

Eh, I'm not sure what that film is trying to say, it's way too intellectual for me. But the next time an attractive blue alien gives me a glowing ball I'll relax knowing it simply contains a Lynx. Or something. Did I watch the same film you did?

You are asking me how do I get though 90 minutes at Ibrox with all that swearing? I don't like it but I have little option but to tolerate it, just as many of the minorities we've discussed on here have to put up with language they find distasteful. However, once again you're showing yourself to be someone who believes you can decide what is acceptable and what isn't. Equally, you found it appropriate to express yourself using language which was applied purely and simply to offend me. Pretending it was used for any other purpose is just nonsense. Apologising afterwards makes it ok does it? If you thought that, just delete it before you send it. The hypocrisy you're exhibiting is astounding. You're throwing stones from a very large glass house.

Yes Gaffer, you having to listen to people swearing at the football is exactly the same as institutional discrimination against the LGBT community, good comparison. I don't decide what is acceptable and what isn't for anyone but myself, but if you can find an example of it then let me know.

You know Gaffer I'm doing my best to keep playing the ball not the man here but you make it difficult. Why don't you put me on your ignore list, it must be getting very fucking tedious for everyone else. Oops.

It's a fair statement from Dunfermline.

Is it not the case that Dunfermline themselves contacted the SFA to report issues with the running of Dunfermline prior to the current owners taking over, is that not the complaint that's being investigated? Then some Celtic fan has got wind of it and put 2 and 2 together got giraffe. You get the feeling that the rest of Scottish football is starting to weary of them.

What a ridiculous response, in my opinion. You're trying to twist arguments and construct something there, and to make matters worse, you deliberately try to offend me. Why? Was there any need for that? I was asking some questions, and looking for a debate, but you've managed to kill it for me. That's the difference .... others were using terms by accident. You do it deliberately, and yet you're taking the moral high ground?!?

What have I twisted? I'm trying to keep the 'debate' on topic, it's not me who introduced the Spanish problem or any of the other tangents. I tried to answer every point you raised.

How do you get through 90 minutes at Ibrox with that aversion to swearing you apparently have, how does that work for you? Sometimes swearing is required, it adds emphasis and conveys feeling, in that context I felt it helped convey my feelings towards the opening line of your previous post. I apologised at the time.

Who are "we" in this instance?

 

People hold views that I personally deem abhorrent and no doubt some people find some of my views to be abhorrent too, I don't have a problem with that and in no way think that I am superior because of that.

 

Views I find abhorrent today I may find acceptable tomorrow and views I find acceptable today I may find abhorrent tomorrow. Peoples views can and do change.

 

It does not follow that because I hold my view on a particular point someone who disagree's with me is wrong, in the main I'm agnostic but that doesn't mean atheists, Christians, Muslims, Sikhs etc...etc.. are wrong and that I am superior to them.

That's two posts in a row you've introduced the word 'superior' FS, no one I've read has even hinted they feel superior to anyone else. Again with the strawmen.

The thread was about a poster applauding the club's signing up to the Equality Charter and Bluedell's equally valid response that he didn't think it was an issue. For me some of the posts on this thread demonstrated it clearly is an issue and, in my opinion, there's a lot of education still required when it comes to LGBT issues. If the club can help with that then great.

That's not about feeling in anyway superior to anyone else, that's not about denying someone a view, it's not about 'PC gone mad' or not knowing what the correct term is to call someone from Catalonia or whether the club has done enough to assist fans with disabilities. It's not an either or scenario. The club have done a good thing, in my opinion, you might feel it isn't a good thing, you might feel it is, I can't tell.

I'm unaware of posting anything in this thread that would give the impression that I favour discriminating against anyone or using derogatory and offensive language against them on the grounds of their sexual orientation, as I've stated the world has changed and my views to a degree along with it others haven't moved apace but I don't see that as reason to condemn them or think I'm superior to them, I think they're as free to hold their opinion as I or you are ours.

Well I'm struggling to know what you think, other than everyone is free to think what they want, hence my question. I've already said I think the 'age' excuse is a poor one. I don't have any problem with someone holding a contrary view, but they should be able to back it up when challenged on it.

If indeed Anchorman has left the site over this then I share the disappointment at his departure.

 

However where I digress is that I don't think the fact that Pete is a mod here makes a blind bit of difference, he's entitled to his own opinion same as each and every one of us here and I don't see his words having any more authority or causing anymore offence than anyone else. It was clearly a personal opinion and his mod status is in my view irrelevant.

See my reply to Pete in post 104.

When I am giving my opinion it has nothing to do with being a Mod. We do not have an admin party line on here. I told Frankie I thought he was wrong the other day. Because he is site owner does not mean that he is right all the time. If being a moderator means I cannot give my opinion then I will pack it in as I come on here to give my opinion in discussion and not to moderate per se.

I accept that, I was trying to explain, rightly or wrongly, why I thought Anchorman reacted as he did.

You're suggesting that it's ok to be offensive towards a section of society that hasn't been considered to have broken the law in the past? I don't understand that. I fail to understand the difference between one type of offensive word and another. As I asked, who decides?

The society you live in decides Gaffer, this isn't a hard concept to grasp, and it's already decided on this matter. And I didn't suggest anything of the fucking kind (sorry for offending you there). If you can't understand why describing someone who is gay as "not a normal human" is more offensive than calling someone from Barcelona 'Spanish' then I can't help you.

As for keeping up to speed, did you know from your social interactions and friends that elderly was offensive? I didn't. There are some terms and discriminations that receive a great deal of press coverage, and others that don't, and that was my point. It seems that it's those that get the attention that also receive the greatest level of condemnation when used.

Yes, I've friends who work in the health service and they've spoken about the language used to describe various groups in society. It's most certainly not a term that is universally described as offensive though, but it's being dropped from official usage. It's nothing like as loaded a term as 'homo' is. Language is fluid, and none more so than English, the meaning of words changes, sometimes over relatively short periods of time,

And for the record, I would never ever choose to read a newspaper or watch the news.

That comes as no surprise.

You're correct of course that there are laws against many types of discrimination, and I agree with that. And contrary to your assertion, I don't believe that any right (such as free speech) should be used without a sense of responsibility when executing that right.

 

What I have a problem with is people who take it upon themselves to decide what is an offensive word and what isn't. Furthermore, there are those people that take it upon themselves to decide the level of condemnation that the said word is deserving of. I'm in a minority (I believe) which finds the use of many swear words offensive. I also take offence to being openly called a 'hun'. Who decided that it's ok to call me that, but I'm not allowed to call someone elderly? This is a Rangers forum and I'm sure there are many on here that encounter such offence and discrimination on a daily basis. Why are we not afforded the same protection?

Society decided Gaffer, the politicians we elect, the media we consume, the law-makers we entrust, that's who. No one decided you can't use the word 'elderly'. It's a collective noun and very, very different from describing a gay man as a 'homo' Gaffer, you can surely see that. Are you really unaware of the barbaric acts that the LGBT community suffered in the recent past? Of the active discrimination they suffered, open hatred based on nothing but ignorance and fear? You simply can't compare that to being over 65, from Bilbao or even being a Rangers supporter.

No I'm not suggesting that at all but I think you know that already.

Yeah, I did, fair enough.

What I am suggesting is in more general terms that not every societal change is for the better i.e. the current march of positive discrimination which I find as every bit as abhorrent as the discrimination that it allegedly counters. All that should matter is that the person best qualified for a job should get it whatever their gender, whatever their sexual orientation, whatever their colour, whatever their religion etc.

But we're agreed that discriminating against people because of their sexual orientation is a bad thing, right? And the use of words and terms that are derogatory and offensive to them should be discouraged too, yeah? The rest is a strawman.

That different posters have different views on a subject to those held by either yourself or I isn't in itself a surprise, I think everyone one of us on here will hold views that will shock others but I see that as pretty normal and a reflection of a wide cross section of society who just happen to be brought together by one common love. Be a pretty boring planet if we were all held the same homogeneous views.

See I'm cool with people having different views from me, I'm not backwards in expressing my disagreement with some views, as you might have noticed, so I've no problem with other people doing the same. Indeed I quite enjoy it sometimes. It was Anchorman who left the site, not me. I don't think he should have, it was an over-reaction in my opinion, but I can see why Pete's position on here as a 'mod' gave his words more authority and so carried more offence. Pete's explained and apologised, for me that's enough.

I could see how a Basque or a Catalan might not be happy at being described as Spanish, or a Portuguese even, but what others from the Iberian Peninsula feel this way? It's a poor comparison anyway, as is the 'elderly' one. Being Spanish, or old, wasn't illegal in Scotland until 1980. As far as I know no one was ever forcibly admitted to hospital and treated as being mentally ill for being over 65 or from Valencia.

I've read the thread again and I can't see where anyone told Pete, or anyone else, they weren't "allowed" certain opinions. Indeed, we're currently 8 pages into this thread which suggests this is actually being discussed and debated. I don't speak for Anchorman, he was clearly angry at Pete's post and let him know that. He didn't ask him to be banned though. The fact Pete's a 'mod' and comes across as a pretty decent bloke certainly made his post all the more surprising to me. Pete apologised to Anchorman and further explained his choice of words. I don't think he should be banned for it and I believe him when he says he didn't realise the word was offensive.

As for how you 'keep up to speed' with social norms I find myself wondering how anyone is able not to keep up to speed with this. I mean open a paper, watch the news, go online, read a book, have a wide circle of friends, it's not hard.

Discriminating against people on the basis of their sexual orientation is illegal in this country Gaffer, if Pete, or anyone else, called their co-worker a 'homo' they'd almost certainly face a reprimand. You might not like that, you might think that's an infringement of your free speech, but currently the law, and pretty much every political party in the UK except the DUP and UKIP, doesn't agree.

Probably but if I can just interpret this Dutch Sentence it may make it that Glaciers are not the exact same all over the world.

 

Homofiel is een ouderwets woord voor homoseksueel, dat in Nederland en België vanaf eind jaren veertig tot in de jaren zeventig in gebruik was. Sindsdien is het vervangen door homoseksueel, homo of gay.

 

It says: Homophile is an old fashioned word for Homosexual that was used between the end of the forties until in the seventies.. Since then it has been replaced by Homosexual Homo or gay.

 

Even in the Dutch dictionary the word Homo is given as: a person who is attracted to people of the same Gender.

 

Only when I turn to the English dictionary is there a mention that it is a derogatory word but it also gives that it is short for Homosexual which is unfortunately the context I used it in. It was more laziness than a derogatory meaning. I have apologised and as I have lived in Holland for nearly 40 years I do tend to be more up-to-date with the Dutch way of life. Maybe I am slower than a glacier but not all glaciers take the same route or have the same shape.

Unfortunately mate it's English we tend to use around here. You're up to speed now though so looks like the Equality Network partnership has its first success!

The Crimson Forehead, love it.

You won't read a better piece on Rangers or Scottish football this month. There are some superb lines in that. Well done.

Well they are clearly suggesting that Dunfermline have some sort of paper trail that implicates them and, I assume, Rangers in some sort of cheating. It's quite an accusation and I can see why they won't make it publicly because they'd need to prove it or be sued into oblivion. They seem quite sure of themselves on this but then that's nothing new.

There was no doubt that Gavin Masterton, one time owner of Dunfermline, and David Murray were close. Jimmy Calderwood has spoken publicly about David Murray's influence in securing him the manager's job at East End Park for example. Some Tims have been convinced for years that Masterton was behind trying to put them out of business when he was at the Bank Of Scotland, well it's easier to blame him than the people running the club I suppose.

Murray was one of the most influential figures in Scottish business circles for two decades. He knew everyone worth knowing, he probably did business with many of them too. But, how you'd go about convincing 11 footballers to throw a game, or several games, and then keep quiet about it for years later, well I struggle to believe even some as once powerful as Murray could manage that.

Masterton did some murky business things, they've already been reported, even if it turns out he did some of them with Sir Dave, it's a big jump to anything else. I say let them work themselves into a tumescent state over this, any climax might be more difficult to achieve though.

Reading Mr O'Rourke's missives I can't be the only one hoping that one day he gets given a board position at Celtic.

I don't mind if your reply is aimed at me or not as everyone is entitled to an opinion and I don't for a second expect everyone to share mine.

 

While Bruce Hornsby may well not be to your musical taste it does relate to what's being discussed.

It wasn't aimed at you, that's why I edited as it could easily be read that way. I'm not sure how quoting lift music at me relates to anything frankly, but I guess that's just the way it is...

Being in my fifties I concur that many things that were acceptable to me in my younger days are no longer so but equally there are many things that have changed for the worse.

 

Undoubted times change attitudes but not everyone moves at the same pace, whether you like it or not that's just the way it is.

Are you suggesting that societal attitudes to gay rights have changed for the worse FS? When you were born it was still illegal in the UK to be gay. We've had posters on this thread say "normal human beings" and "homo", I can accept that not everyone moves at the same pace but there are glaciers moving at a faster pace than some of us it seems.

Christ, just when I thought this thread couldn't get any worse you go and quote Bruce Hornsby lyrics to me. That's a new low for Gersnet...

Getting older is no excuse for deciding you no longer want to learn, you no longer want to understand what's happening around you and you no longer want to accept change, even change that has almost no bearing at all upon your life except you need to modify the language you use to describe some people. There's a hundred things people in their fifties today thought was acceptable when they were children that they know isn't today. I call bullshit on lazy, selfish ignorance being used to hide deep-seated prejudice.

Quote Pete Townshend next time.

EDIT - I don't mean 'you' specifically FS, it's a collective 'you'.

If anything proved the need for Rangers to sign up to the Equality Network it's some of the posts in this thread. Bloody hell.

I've never bought the generational excuse for someone using racist, bigoted or homophobic language. Being old isn't a good excuse.

I'm sorry to see Waghorn leave and wish him all the best in the future. I can only assume this has been sanctioned as we've someone else lined up because we're weak up front.

It's difficult to judge today's performance. Motherwell had a load of new players, it'll be weeks before we can see if they're a top six side or relegation fodder.

I thought we started well and for the first 20 minutes or so looked pretty decent, attacking at pace and closing down Motherwell. From then on the game was more even and Moult should have equalised, it was an open goal albeit coming at pace and an awkward height. We're weak on the flanks and Motherwell figured that out eventually and started to exploit it. Candeias and Windass need to work harder defensively for me, their five in midfield started to overrun our four.

Cardosa made a very good tackle towards the end when Motherwell broke with men over. Their attacker got a bit of stick for it but I thought Cardosa held him up before sticking a leg in and knocking it out. Windass had a good first half but might as well have stayed inside at half time.

I actually quite liked Herrera on today's showing. He works really hard and had decent movement, we need someone to play alongside him though, Miller hasn't got a full season starting every match in him I don't think. Whereas I thought Morelos looked like he'd won a competition and the prize was to get a game when he came on. He was only on for ten minutes so I'll reserve judgement, but I watched the ball run past him at one point and wondered just what Ryan Hardie has to do to get into the match day squad. Dorrans and Wallace played well, the defence will need a few more games together before any judgement.

I was puzzled by the substitutions, Wilson for Miller at 2-1 was taking a bit of a chance for me and inviting pressure. I'd have stuck on Holt for Miller, it was in midfield we were struggling.

Despite all that we won, away, and on balance we were the better side. I think last season we'd have dropped at least two points in that match. I think Hibs will be a harder test for us, looking forward to it all the same.