bmck

IMHO, Elderslie wasn't guessing, he was stating a lack of evidence...

 

the burden of proof lies on whoever makes a claim. the two propositions "he will be affected" / "he wont be affected" both demand evidence. also the two ideas "we should think about ability" / "we should think about mental state" are both in need of justification.

dont play him.

^ another dramatic goodbye f_j? who would fake their id to get back on somewhere they hated? this persecution complex is pish. ask calscot if he feels persecuted here - his views get plenty of respect because he is grown up to argue them intelligently. gtf.

i dont think its too big a leap to say that someone who has a very large interest in keeping injury free (all issues of loyalty aside) may not be going in 100%, tbh.

you dont think someones loyalty towards something can affect their mentality towards it?

im with ian. i understand the arguments about ability, and do acknowledge we are paying his wages, but i still think boyd should get the nod. we need a goal and he has scored at the highest level (international). given that no-one at ibrox seems to be too fussed about the uefa cup there seems to me plenty of reason to play him (even if just so walter can then say "see, i told you so, this is why i havent been playing him"). but i think he could do it for us tonight.,

PS Is it not a sad day when you can't express your religion in public eg by crossing yourself?

it is, yes.

what are these insidious ends that come from someone flying a british flag? here again you jump from "likes britain" to "secretly would like to see all catholics murdered" with no justificaiton.

^ agreed. i think broadfoot could go on to be a fine player for us. he has a good few of the traditional scottish centreback qualities but he also seems quited skillfull and composed.

^ agreed. sometimes i think its good to have ridiculously large expectations as it keeps ambition high. i think there needs to be a certain number of people in the crowd annoyed when you are not winning six nill every game just to remind yourself that you are watching a big team. on one hand i think its good that we have gotten more realistic, but on the other hand i cant help but think that if everyone became as realistic and sensible as the people running the club we would cease to be a big club. i dunno. all that aside, i cant help but be quietly pleased with what we now have.

i dont think we are as bad as all that - we have had some real highs this season, more than can be expected of a team formed almost entirely the same year.

no worries.

I can see your point Frankie, but you have to admit our history is blighted by sectarianism. To prove that we are not just paying lip service to Government and UEFA legislation, I think we have to be careful and almost portray a whiter than white front.

i dont think our history is blighted by sectarianism, but then i dont really think sectarianism is an actual problem. but where i disagree most fundamentally is that we should bend over backwards to portray ourselves as anything to anyone - no one likes us? we dont care. to bow down in some grandoise act of morality to the government, the media & UEFA is to bow down before institutions that are at least as rotten to the core as we are. if everyone wants to make people singing bad songs at each other some massive social problem, let them.

 

now, i know you think that a world in which we only sang football songs, just supported our team and its worthwhile traditions (sportsmanship etc) - left all the religious & political baggage at the door - is the best way forward for our club. but the problem is that as things stand this is not the majority view. people are quite happy to be rid of sectarianism and keep the old songs & traditions they (for whatever reasons incomprehensible to you) enjoy. call your view the liberal secular view, call theirs the conservative unionist view. whilst both sides are fine under the law, to legislate so as to bring the other about will just cause resentment. you might think your view will inevitabley prevail because its better, but you cant start ascribing bad motives to people who only wish to comply and no more as there are many very good reasons. we dont need more justification than we like the sound to sing the sash - no matter how uncouth, oldfashioned or hypocritical people might view it. i say "we", but i tend not to like that side of things myself, but i dont think of myself as dinstict from it either. i just dont care.

 

anyway, just my tuppence - whilst your twos view may be the best way forward, most people dont want it, so you have to make the decision whether you think we should try and force people into your way of thinking, or just let them get there inevitably come round.

 

i said to frankie that i think it would be worthwhile doing a contrasting perspectives on the Way Forward for Rangers Article with a couple of people from here like yourself outlining what they think is important when going forward (sound business, promoting a secular approach, say) and we can contrast and compare with other views.

I'd rather sit watching a piss poor Rangers team than watch another team just because it's more entertaining

i agree, i dont even watch the epl at all. i dont support rangers as entertainment - i support rangers because i support rangers, but in a world where fans are being treated more & more as customers this sort of thing will happen. but i still think gavs terrible for doing it!

Like I said earlier in this thread, I often turn over to another match rather than watch Rangers bore me to tears.

this is the problem - as reprehensible as i would find this in myself who has no care whatsoever about english games/teams - if you are asking people to choose between entertainment a or b at the touch of a button on sky, they are going to choose the more entertaining one.

^ uhm, you would go to the games and not join in with anything that you were against, like everyone else? or are you one of these people who think tolerance for your view is never hearing anything contrary?

There's nothing wrong with the flags themselves, but you have question the REAL reasoning behind them. When you have a certain reputation then no-one believes your motives anymore.

things that dont have to be justified shouldnt be justified. things like flying the flag of a country you live in, say.

Your argument is so easy to knock down. Are you tolerant of IRA flags or even innocent Irish tricolours? To be "actually all inclusive" we should drop the BJK and welcome pedophiles with open arms.

it isnt really. support for terrorists isnt the same as a countrys flag - though i personally dont care if people fly ira flags. i dont think anyone anywhere is saying that celtic fans shouldnt be able to fly a tricolour. when i said all inclusive, i meant, as you did, as representative of what are considered decent in our society. unionism, given that were are in a union, simply cant be considered some lunatic fringe view. all the great acts of stupidity start when someone ascribes the "real" motives of things when they arent clear. you are trying to imply that every britain flag secretly reveals the holders wish to burn catholics to death, when, all things considered, its probably at most to wind up celtic fans. when you want to know what someones motive for something is, you are better just asking them.

^ thats inclusive. i hate this fascist idea of pluralism that means because there are lots of choices, theoretically equally as valid, that you shouldnt just make one. if this bear or that bear is unionist, then that can only be fine - anything less is censorship in the name of fairness or something. ridiculous.

i think the only reason people are perhaps overly disappointed/bored with the football we are playing is the abundance of better football they have literally at their fingertips. almost everyone here has a second english team - the contrast is only going to get bigger too.

^ im sorry m8, but to be all inclusive, actually all inclusive, you cant moan about the flag ffs. or are we only to be tolerant of people who arent proud of their country?

whatever it is must be quite tenuous. they would need to be reading something like "because dublins full of tims, and they are our enemies" into it. but why this is more probable than "because dublins full of celtic supporters", i dunno. your taste in offense would have to be quite well refined for it to be spurned towards censorship so readily.

^ i agree with this. i think our current identity is quite dispirate. we have been accused of more than is reasonable (the sash is not sectarian) which creates a sense of injustice, and with the defiance comes deeper entrenchment (people who have no interest in the sash tend to sing it out of defiance against the view that only bigots would sing it, say). we like to portray ourselves as open to all cultures and beliefs but i do tend to wonder how this will play out against the protestant-lite unionism that still seems dominant. interesting times ahead.

i still think he may be having to cover for weir slightly too much, but i think that this only puts him up in my estimation. he has been a standout this season - exactly the sort of professional the club should be after.

... then let it only be about the football then, i'd be quite happy with that

now thats a better argument. why dont you start a thread about it? im sure plenty of people here will take either side.

I gave my views on a trend in my first post on this thread - i was accused of being the Rangers thought police!!!!!!

 

Is that the point you are struggling to make?

what, straight after you managed to read someones malign intentions into the creation of a flag? you accused them of being an typical antiscottish ibrox moron long before they turned on your intentions, so lets stop the poor me syndrome please. you dislike the british emphasis in our club? you are one of many, not some minority group. either be bold enough to have your own views, or dont say anything at all - this persecution complex on a message board shit is ridiculous.