bmck

You sound confident Zaps.

I think a draw, honestly. Big matches take it out you in a way that's hard to quantify.

No Country for Old Men did deserve the hype. What's his face is a great modern author. As for "A Serious Man", it was a good film. It just wasn't an enjoyable film. Now, back on topic before I dish out warnings to the three of us (Still never seen Miller's Crossing!)

Amen to that! Pass me a block of sugar!

Fixed! :D

Not in "A Serious Man"

Aye TGWUTSITGFWTSCB would be a good choice.

Crocker would be fine if he didn't repeat himself so often. What's that Ido? Davie Weir's quite old? If I hadn't heard you say it four times a game this season I'd never have known. Was he doing the commentary for sky last night? Isn't it usually someone else for European games? I like Provan, can't stand Walker. Dunno about bias, but Walker's just a knob. Burley, however, is the worst summariser and pundit I've ever heard (no comments Gribzy, you're just wrong!).

Ach it was fine. I should've just looked at the seat numbers. I just saw restricted view, was baffled. Should've saw it was near the front. I'm just ill, I had a season ticket a few rows back. Cheers for the comments lads.

Was just having a look at my tickets for tonight and the Man U game; it says both are restricted view on the tickets. I honestly can't think anywhere there are restricted views in those areas. Raging, if it is restricted, that it never said at the time I bought them. Anyone any thoughts?

What ear cupping thing?

Don't think there's anything to say he's feeling down about Ibrox. He's just had an inconsistent start to the season - to be fair, Steven Davis is always quite inconsistent - he was even inconsistent in 2009, just done enough often enough that was memorable enough.

I thought I was doing well having divided it into sentences rather than my paragraph length sentence punctuated by dashes and semi colon approach

Murray strikes me as a shrewd, ballsy, 80s-style business man. A sort of likely lad for whom it all turned out. The carefully crafted sentiment of the day - in which Rangers are lumped in with all the things not to be liked, empire, conservatism, protestantism, established institutions etc - is not something he has the vision to see for what it is - fashion, and fashion created by those whose voice is loudest now in reaction to those whose voice was loudest before. He seems too keen to be liked, to be seen to be part of, current tastes in the Established Wisdom of what's good and what isn't, not realising that it lasts a day. Rangers will outlast all these fads and fashions. In his desire not to be seen as going against the temperament of the opinion-fosterers such as Spiers, to be one of those ones who know better than the dirty masses, he's alienated the very people he needs. Sooner or later he's going to realise, when fashion changes as it inevitably does, that it's not dirty to be protestant, unionist, etc it's going to be too late for him. Remember the Hamburg (I think it was) chairman saying he loved Rangers because they were a good protestant club? Imagine him saying that? Imagine him saying "If Richard Dawkins can say raising Catholic children is akin to child abuse, as an intellectual, but Rangers fans can't express a similar indignation, isn't that essentially just middle class moralism that picks and chooses the easiest targets?" If he'd said "The songs Rangers fans sing are not to my tastes, but the day we start making what people shout about at football matches a real societal problem we've lost the plot. What about the fat people who are hurt, or the blind people offended, when the ref gets abuse - is it any less offensive to people with weight issues or sight problems? If he'd made any attempt, rather than just fall like a shaking autumnal leaf, to the wind emitted by people like Spiers who are bereft of a single original thought, regardless of their position, we'd be able to remember the good times he brought more fondly. The thing that summed Murray up for me was reading a piece by Spiers talking about the signing of Klos. He'd been over for dinner and Murray was bragging that, even with it being 2am, he could get him on the phone. Spiers said "No chance" and Murray went on to do it. If he's willing to do things that are absurd as that to impress irrelevancies like Spiers I'm not suprised he's trying to fit in with the so-called cultured opinion of the narrow minded broadsheet media in this country. Even if he didn't believe in it all himself, even like I don't, the underlying truth that Rangers fans are no worse than any other fans in this country at least gives him enough ammo to at least step up to it as a challenge, something to be fought and overcome. I can't stand the guy. I honestly think he's spineless.

When Bob Malcom wrote *** it was the biggest thing to happen since Christ left Partick.

I bought the two match package and only really wanted the Valencia game! Too late now

andy andy what's the score!

who can fail to be familiar with twisted jesuistic casuistry.

jesuitical is actually pretty apt choice in what he's describing. it also has rc-bashing connotations, which some of the target audience may enjoy.

"Rangers minded" is some false and insidious revisionary shit, perhaps the clearest example of conscious bad motives in the press I've ever seen. "Celtic minded" is codeword for "similarly bigotted Tim"; there's no analogy at Rangers. We have our share of bigots, but they're not so sneaky as to try give it any bullshit veneer.

I think that typifies their pettiness. They'd really cut off their own nose if they suspected it was blue to spite their faces. The two Jimmys made Aberdeen a difficult prospect. McGhee is an utter farce of a manager, yet he gets limitless scope. Alex McLeish was more succesfull than MON, yet the latter is a saint, whereas we Chesney was more succesful than both and was never accepted. Too ideological to even enjoy success - works for me, they can enjoy getting beat but putting on a spirited (that is, violent) display, and I'll just enjoy our victories :spl: :spl:

Think they in general just raise their game against the OF, while quaintly hating us more. It's just that we're better than Celtic

Aye, it's about a million percent more witty than I'd expect of them.

No matter how hard I try I can't get worked up about this tho. They're just ignorant, leave them to their obscurity.

I only meant with Hello Hello that any form of celebration of even terrorist death would probably, in the strictest sense, be sinful for both religious protestants and catholics. Certainly not that I'd have a conscience singing it myself I think we are not so much going back to the stage where we need to be prepared to take a stance against the RCC, but are essentially always already there. Ignoring matters of genuine faith for a second, and their beliefs, or individual catholics, the RCC are a very big and very powerful organisation. For them there is no difference between furthering the interests of the Church and doing God's work because doing God's work can't be divorced from the increasing influence of The Church into all areas of life, which God has granted it sovereignty. For protestants the church is something 'invisible', made up of people who truly believe that Christ has taken away man's sin individually and makes him presentable to God. God's sovereignty is over each person individually. But for Catholics it is only through the Church that salvation can come, not just for persons, but for societies and the world and because they're based on a strict top-down approach to authority, they are also extremely efficient at adapting to all situations, and are always in the pursuit of increasing their influence. In emerging powerful countries in Latin America it will be hard to be a succesful politician without the RCC's backing, and hence influence, just like it is to a lesser degree here if you're a politician, or want a job of power in the GCC etc. In areas where they don't have lots of influence like, say, the British parliament, then they'll adapt to, say, "ensuring their right to practice their faith" as the best means of furthering the influence of the Church. They adapt to any and all situations and do so with a view to taking the most advantageous stance in furthering their influence. For protestants being a good Christian involves things like evangelism and prayer, as the Church is not an actual organisation you can point at or touch; it's a spiritual collection of those saved by Christ. For catholics, being a good catholic means using whatever resources are available to you to further the Church. If you're an academic, journalist, or politician you'll be sure that to some degree your own personal interests will be, insofar as its possible, adapted to the Church's. Academics will study the traumatic effects on women of abortion, journalists will report on catholic persecution, politicians will do whatever's possible within the current political climate to pursue the church's interests without costing votes. I'm not saying their intentions are always bad, or always wrong, but the point is that if you're not Catholic, and don't want them to have more influence for whatever reason - whether it's because, as a member of the protestant faith, you think they're essentially idolatorous and substitute worship of man for worship of God, or if you're not religious, just because just because you don't want religious folk running countries, or because your a woman and don't want restrictions on abortion, you always have to take a stance because you can be sure whereever there's a Catholic in any position of power, they'll already be making theirs. All the usual caveats included - most individual catholics, just average ones, don't share this sense of increasing influence. They just live out their life tryign to be good catholics - some of the most genuine and thorough kindness I've received has been through catholics just trying to be good catholics. But for practicing Catholics what it means to actually be a good catholic involves good works, and those good works rarely come divorced from the larger aims of the Church, as they are managed so well from the top down. For a Catholic with little, the demands you'll get from your priest is to try and share what little you have. For a Catholic with a peerage, the demands you'll get from your priest may be a little bit more worrying for those of us who don't share that priests preoccupations. Feck me, can't believe I wrote that much, I need to go get back on with work!