bmck

I dont want anyone to take this the wrong way, but if some of you guys put as much positive effort into debating all things Rangers from cultural, football through to the stewardship (or lack of) as you have on a non subject like having a smoke, this could be one of the best sites going.

Priorities and effort for the real wars...

Just my opinion for what its worth

i think you'll find we do.

well, calscot does anyway.

I would profer that there's as much chance of Murray saving us as me winning the next London Marathon.

 

I would love him to prove me wrong. In fact I retract that, I want him out no matter what for his failure to defend the club and it's fans in the face of detractors. Full stop.

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.

I have a feeling a lot of them would still be sleeping if bulldozers rolled up Edmiston Drive mate.

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.

Simplistic (not being cheeky) and a failed tactic already as the Rangers support themsleves cant agree on anything...even mutual hate figures nowadays!

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.

And Boyd last night in a B international!!

Scotland is just embarrassing with the amount of airbrushing that goes on. Scandal number 8 million and 7 swept under carpet

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.

I should have added "and all smokers are p00fs" and got more of a response!

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.

Pretty pointless argument yourself. Many people DON'T discard rubbish, I'm one of them. .... I've nothing against people smoking in their own home but I don't like it when it has negative effects on others or our environment.

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.

The thing is I don't know many smokers who stop their smoke (which is analogous to rubbish) polluting other people's air,.... I also see packets everywhere too.

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?

So are you all for discarding anything you like? Sorry I'm totally against it.

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.

Maybe a fair point ..... Not entirely ridiculous as it's proven that smoke is a health hazzard.

extinguished fag douts are no more hazardous to clean than empty crisp packets.

Have you thought about the costs and the amount of space that would be needed. ..... When you put up with crap for decades there comes a time to make a stand.

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.

A car's pollution causes far less illness and deaths than passive smoking. They've pretty much cleaned up their act with catalytic converters, and carbon dioxide is the big threat now.

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?

However, they reckon the CO2 produced by cars has less impact than the electricity and gas we use at home and work, so everything we do has a guilty impact.

well, i hope you're going to be consistent and vote for everything to be banned.

But, I don't defend driving the way smokers defend themselves, in fact I cycle to work ..... I'm actually considered a bit of a nutter by a smoking friend who would never dream about cycling to a golf club.

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.

The trouble is that a car feels like a necessity as the alternatives are generally either very expensive or incredibly inconvenient.

quiting smoking is expensive and inconvenient.

I plan to look for a more fuel efficient car the next time I trade in, and in fact would have a motorbike ..... The car I'm interested in is a Loremo. You can look it up if you're interested.

sounds cool. i'm a bit like you myself on this front, but thats an aside to the main point of debate.

My one defence .... quickly and easily. What's useful thing about smoking again?

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.

I agree that we should use them and most of my bulbs are of that ilk. They should definitely .... and making all government buildings have them, but that's another debate.

should all non-energy efficient bulbs be banned?

Sorry we�ve just been t..... that it�s all ok and we should allow people to do as much damage as they like?

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.

I also don�t like violence and so don�t care so much about the rights of people to be violent, does that mean I�m not being empathetic.....empathetic with non smokers or people who like a cleaner environment.

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.

I think you are being naive here, just like many addicted smokers who actually don�t think they are addicted, ........., please, please tell me, why the hell do they start?

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.

Maybe it is unhelpful, but the lack of acknowledgement is excruciating. Addiction is bad. Can�t you acknowledge that?

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.

Hmm judging by some of what youââ?¬â?¢ve said maybe your horse is as big as mine, if not bigger. .... pissed off about how incredibly badly Iââ?¬â?¢ve been treated by smokers over the years and then had their ââ?¬Å?rightsââ?¬Â shoved down my throat as well as their poisonous smoke.

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.

But they seem to have an intelligence bypass when it comes to realising those benefits.

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').

And thatââ?¬â?¢s intelligent? Actually this reminds me of the arguments of the proddy bigots that follow Rangers. ââ?¬Å?I know itââ?¬â?¢s wrong and hurtful to others but Iââ?¬â?¢m going to do it anyway, itââ?¬â?¢s my right to do what I want.ââ?¬Â

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.

I try not to eat saturated fat as much as possible, I rarely add salt to anything, I don�t think driving is a right and I�m starting to get used to the idea that we either need alternative fuels or an alternative transport strategy. I�m am all for smokers rights as long as it affects no-one else. Unfortunately, there are very few times when it doesn�t.

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.

When someone is harming you and you are powerless to prevent it, it�s time for the government to step in and I�m glad they do.

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?

Ive read the comments a good few times and cant see where he is having a dig at Barry Ferguson.

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

Why should smokers get a room when all they'll do is drop ash and but-ends on the floor while browning the paint with their smoke? There is also the question of who has to clean it and whether that will affect their health.

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.

Smokers kill us with their smoke, make our eyes water and smart, make us cough and feel ill, make us and our clothes smelly, burn our skin and clothes, dirty our clothes with their ash, ruin our meals with their smoke, make where-ever they go dirty, smelly and covered in ash and burns, and then they want sympathy when we try to protect people from the above?

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.

Maybe they need a room but it's hard to care. There would have to be many of them which costs quite a bit of money just for the space and then you have to consider the ventilation, the cleaning and the redecoration.

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.

There's also the point that if you can't do without a cigarette for a couple of hours then you have an addiction - that means you are not smoking for pleasure, you are ruled by your cravings.

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.

Maybe then it's time to ask yourself if it's time to get back in control of your own body. You would advise an alcoholic to go to AA so why not do something similar for yourself. It would also not only benefit your health and longevity but would save you and your family a fortune.

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

It's funny how people feel so staunchly that it's their right to be addicted to something that does nothing but harm...

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 fair point, phrased that wrong.

 

What I meant was that I don't think Laudrup was singeling (sp) out Barry as you had suggested. As one of the senior members he does take some responsibility though.

aye, agreed.

I think he's saying the experienced players aren't helping the ypoung guys liek Smith. They aren't being leaders on the field and making it easier for the young boys to integrate into the side. Infact if anything the reverse is happening as the older players aren't prforming, and this should not be the case.

 

Think it has f.a to do with Barry tbh.

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?

Kinda means any other skanky basturt might think twice about doing the same though...which aint all bad

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

wow, humour bypass?

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.

Hope nothing serious is about to befall Sean the Papists son.

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.

ban the blue bells are blue i say , most sectarian words i've ever heard

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

Donald, I'm a recent member here and I'm a fairly long term poster on FF. Your post, like some I have read, makes a sweeping and grossly unfair generalisation and is frankly not true. FF may have its share of posters who have long since been aware of what David Murray has/hasn't been doing, but please, don't mug off something because you haven't fancied a thread or a tone.

Welcome to here.I, like you enjoy debate and am finding this site pretty good. But slagging off FF is just a wee bit disingenuous. Open minds and blue hearts.

Aye

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

WATP being the most recent and most ridiculous.

Not one inch more.

yup, unfortunately i think its too late. i just think its the natural course of things once the floodgates have opened. moreover, i dont think there's really anyone at rangers who is strong enough to stand up to anyone at the minute.

I'd be more worried if his views carried any influence on Scottish football and am happy that his stupid rantings are heard by less and less people.

the problem is that anyone with, how shall we phrase it, an alternative agenda, will be more than happy to pick up on and champion even a two-bit hack like mcnee.

"Bold pundit speaks truth on sectarianism" etc.

"Good on Gerry McNee for finally saying what we know is true about the hidden undercurrent of sectarianism in these songs".

pffffft.

almost everyone was for the "hello hello" ban, but i had a funny feeling it would be a slippery slope. once the beaurocracts get a sniff of censorship they've got to take it to extremes.

if i were to rant i would moan about the amount of supporters denying people their basic right to voice their concerns in a peaceful way.