bmck

thats my thoughts.

The rules: This thread is for false Murray promises, as a point of reference for any future debate on the matter. Only direct quotes should be included - any paraphrasing will be deleted as it must have some integrity as a resource. Try to number them so we can refer to "Murray thread - point 6" or whatever, but its not essential as I'll keep it tidy. If anyone disagrees that one of these is a false promise start a new thread to discuss it. disputed points will be in red =============================================== 1. "when we make the changes, and if people are not happy, then protest all you want" - Evening Times - Darrell King 10/02/06 2. "there is a massive moonbeam of success waiting for us" - Darrell King 10/02/06 3. "There is going to be a major financial input to the club" - Darrell King 10/02/06

i'm thinking of making a "false murray promises" thread and stickying it to the top of the forum as a point of reference for those who defend murray (obviously other than people like beattie who admit he's arsed us about, but we really dont have much choice but to put up with it).

i think you'll find we do. well, calscot does anyway.

dont think you'll get much disagreement with that general sentiment online, its just when you get out into the real world that the real problems start.

cammy's being saying the same on here for years. i just have a horrible feeling we're going to learn the hard way. but you never know, murray may save us yet. my only hope of him doing so is as a matter of personal pride, i certainly wont be counting on his altruism.

aye, its not a tactic though, its just the truth. we can be sick to death of the bile these papers spew, but so long as the majority are happy wiping the vomit off their brow daily, we'll continue to be burdened with it. there's no escape even in the broadsheets with spiers and his ilk. nothing short of a revolutionary waking of the slumbering masses will lead us anywhere else than the stony road the media are leading us blindly down. and thats not just in football.

this is one thing i agree with murray on. the only people to blame (well, not really, but largely) are the people who buy the papers. instead of picking it up, just dont pick it up. and as soon as loads of people dont pick it up, and it hits them in the pocket, then they'll start fairer reporting.

dunno about poofs, but they're definitely fags.... ..... i'll get my coat.

excellent post. very hard to disagree with anything there. like frankie says though - its my apathy, fans like me (i'm just being honest) who will end up heading for the subway rather than protest. i feel like i've done my bit when i join the rst. but its not enough. there's much to be done if we are to re-assert ourselves as a top club, and it starts with each of us as individuals.

i'm not sure whether you're deliberately missing the point or not. assuming the best, i'll restate it. your argument (one part of it) was that people shouldn't be allowed to smoke, or have an area, because someone else will have to pick up after them. extending this logic, burgers whose packets were thrown down , which has to be picked up by other people, should likewise be banned. that is, if smokers douts are an issue (as rubbish) then all things that generate rubbish should be equally be an issue. burgers should be banned just like fag douts as rubbish generators. 1. i hope you can see how ridiculous it is to say with incredulity "Smokers smoke, and having no area to smoke in, smoke in my air". they are polluting other people's air precisely because they have nowhere else to smoke, you complain if they have somewhere to smoke, and you complain if they smoke where you are. 2. yes, smokers drop litter. but people also drop big mac boxes, newspapers, fish and chip wrappers - will be ban all those things too? what more (in terms of litter) is achieved by banning smoking that couldn't simply be achieved by enforcing the litter laws we already have in place? no, i'm the opposite. i just think anyone with half a brain will realise that the answer isn't to ban the things that cause the litter. extinguished fag douts are no more hazardous to clean than empty crisp packets. it seems that most big companies who have a large number of smoking clients have managed to provide some facilities without going out of business (pubs/bingos etc), so i'll put down these "put up costs of everyone's season ticket price" down to over enthusiastic posturing, since you cant possibly know the prices involved. also comparing smoking to slavery is one of the wildest metaphors i've seen in a while. perhaps if you take it on a yearly basis - but the damage that is being done to the environment by car emissions, when taken on, say, a centuries basis, could be infinitely more devastating. and on another tangent, there are infinitely more deaths on the road per year than there are with smoking - shall be ban cars? well, i hope you're going to be consistent and vote for everything to be banned. yes, you dont defend yourself the way smokers do because you've picked a nice niche wherein your sensibilities can be offended. you say "look, in the last 5 years, X amount of people have died from passive smoking", whilst driving a car that could contribute the end of humanity within 500 years. my point is, that as a moral argument, its nonsense. that being said, i believe its people's right not have to breathe other people's smoke - that is beyond question. but i dont think its right to remove all the rights of the people who do smoke in the process. quiting smoking is expensive and inconvenient. sounds cool. i'm a bit like you myself on this front, but thats an aside to the main point of debate. ask a smoker. they'll tell you it calms their nerves/averts boredom/inspires creative thoughts by looking at the swirling smoke. whatever. who cares? 'useful' is a subjective notion. should all non-energy efficient bulbs be banned? thats not what i'm saying. i'm talking about the hypocrisy of ostracising smokers whilst you (the generative 'you') are doing just as much harm to the planet - if not more. 1. violence and smoking in segregated area are utterly incomparable. 2. but how is your cleaner environment affected by smokers having a smoking area? just dont go in there. why does anyone do stupid things? when you start going down the road of regulating other people's stupidity you're walking straight into fascism. where have i said otherwise? i thank god i've never tried a cigarette. total waste of money and health. my uncle right now is going through an excruciating death due to lung cancer. its heartbreaking. just because i think addiction is bad doesn't mean i automatically agree that whatever your chosen social-economic-criminal punishment for smokers is just. you wont get me arguing ever that you need inhale another's smoke, or be in a situation where you are forced to inhale another's smoke. just because i agree with this sentiment doesn't mean that i'm going to condone you approach with how to deal with them "denying them any rights because they are smelly and icky and hurting themselves". i stand by what i said - i think one must speak from a pretty high horse to deny another their right to smoke just because you think its stupid. its not a matter of intelligence. there are loads of intelligent junkies. their reasoning is affected by their addiction - thats how addiction works (thats what makes 'addiction problem' a different medical term than 'discontinuation problem'). you seem to have this idea that the-right-thing-to-do is the same as the-most-intelligent-thing-to-do. one considers morality, the other logic. they aren't the same thing. i can say it is morally wrong to be bigotted without saying its morally wrong to smoke. should we ban saturated fats? i just prefer to trust that people will eventually decide they are a bad idea of their own accord without being forced by a government or a bunch of moralist lobbyists. also, i'm not sure what school of logical thought say "because there are currently rarely times when smoking doesn't affect others, the only solution is banning, and not seeking alternatives". it certainly seems the New Labour way, but i always credited you as a thinking person. whose harming me, other than me, if i go to a shop and buy fags and smoke them at my leisure? who are you to deny me that right? you might think its stupid, but i dont - i may be a nihilist, and all your common sense in the world isn't going to affect me. you cant just ban things because you dont like them - you can only ban them when they affect you (and banning - wholesale denial of liberty - should always be a last resort when all other alternatives have been considered).

good stuff. i might take my wee maw again because she enjoyed it so much.

ah right. so we getting a gersnet table organised again?

i havent heard anything about this, i must not have renewed my membership. i was sure i did. can you check that frankie? if i register the now will i be in time to register for the dinner?

he's saying there's no leadership, and barry ferguson's supposed to be the leader.

what a pointless argument. 1. why should we be allowed food at games if all we do is throw it on the ground when we're done? hell, why should we be allowed any product if all we do is throw away the container and kill our planet (and hence our children etc). 2. there are absolutely no health issues related to sweeping up fag douts. to suggest so is ridiculous. 3. as to "why should they get a room?", a decent (if not conclusive) answer is simply because they exist, and they are of decent number. they are paying fans just like you, and have enjoyed the right to smoke for centuries - to end it all without any tapering out is ridiculous. oh please. dont make this a moral argument, whilst driving your car, burning non-energy efficient bulbs, buying your clothes from brand names, flying in planes - all of which have a more detrimental effect on the future of the planet - the lives of human beings. just because you personally find smoking icky is no right to deny people their liberty to smoke anywhere, even in designated smoking areas. its hard to care for you, perhaps, because you're selectively ignoring your liberal tendancies - that of empathy with other human's situations -because you Just Dont Like Smoking. i'd like to think other people were more willing to try and accommodate their peers, instead of ostracising them as lepers who deserve no rights because they dont like the same things as you. oh, you're kidding? you honestly think that people who smoke might have an addiction? just as well you're here to point that out to them, calscot, because i think they may not have noticed. of course they have an addiction. thats the point. its been a socially acceptable addiction for the last few centuries and has went vastly out of fashion in the past few months. carefully pointing out that an addiction for centuries may, infact, be an addiction is unhelpful in the extreme - the issue is not whether it would be ideal if they never had the addiction, it is deciding how to deal with it presupposing that they do. saying "you can't do that here" doesn't stop people having addictions. i realise that it must be hard to hear us* underlings from way up there on your high horse - but i think most smokers are intelligent enough to know the benefits of not smoking, but nonetheless decide to/or are to addicted not to continue. this has been the situations for years upon years, and there have been infinitely more helpful ways of getting people off the fags other than your stating the obvious. * i say, us, of course, myself having never smoked this is a horrifying statement. OF COURSE ITS THEIR RIGHT. rights are something that can only be granted by a government. it has nothing to do with the government what you do to your own body (or, at least, it shouldn't be). you enjoy your right to eating saturated fats, salts, driving, drinking so long as it doesn't affect other people. there are institutions and companies built around allowing you to enjoy these rights - you are accommodated - yet you deny this basic right to smokers. as soon as you are quick to surrender the right to keep yourself from harm to your government, you are in big, big trouble. this country horrifies me.

aye, agreed.

wait, if barry ferguson is an experienced player, and the experienced players aren't helping the youngsters, how can it be f.a to do with barry ferguson?

making anyone who does it a run an ibrox gommy would be my chosen punishment.

wow, not really. just dont see whats humorous about it (although you're more than welcome to find it funny. ) x: i'm scared for my son y: we're going to kill your son everyone else: hahaha dunno, just dont get it. maybe if it was: x: those horrible orange bastards are going to get my son y (a horrible orange bastard): i'm going to kill your son i could appreciate the irony, but it wouldnt really find it funny.

no eye-winking from me. if anything happened to his son it was be absolutely disgraceful (or him, for that matter).

"We would not have been allowed to have become complacent. We had so many characters in the team. "I was speaking to a good friend on Sunday and we were discussing Johan Cruyff at Barcelona, when my brother was there, and he signed Hristo Stoichkov. "Not just as a player but also because he was a little bit crazy and Cruyff thought the dressing room was getting a bit too friendly. "That was the secret behind our success in the nine-in-a-row team at Rangers. "We had a backbone of Scottish players and they do not have that any more which a great shame. "We had Goram, Gough, McCall, Ferguson and McCoist. A lot of good Scottish players. "It is very difficult for the young players at Rangers at this moment. "If you come into a settled side with a lot of experienced players, it is a lot easier to settle in. "I watched Rangers on Saturday and was impressed by Steven Smith, he is a young promising player. "But, if you are looking at one of the younger players to be a leader on the park, that's wrong. "That is maybe the problem at the moment. Rangers have a lot of foreign players and they have to get used to the language, the way of life and football and that takes time. "There is a new manager as well and, while I think he'll come good, it will be a rollercoaster for the next couple of months." ------ a dig at barry ferguson perhaps? he has also supported david murray.

tabloids are evil, evil, evil. there's no two ways about it. i'd go as far to say that blowing them up is morally defensible.

m8, nil by mouth are bringing god up on sectarian charges for showing his protestant bias in designing them that colour.

just to clarify the admin's stance on this: we are against censorship of personal opinion, and also against disparagement of fellow bears. sometimes these two things can come into conflict, and in these cases we try to be guided by common sense. mostly, we just like to allow the conversation or debate to run, as long as it is civil. in this case i think donald's comments aren't an over the top attack on fellow bears, and your response is firm but civil, and leaves the discussion open to healthy debate. but i would say to everyone that wholesale slagging of members of FF is not on. it is sometimes an easy hate target, but in these days we need all the unity we can get. cheers, barry