'contacts and his 'information'

[bmck 117]

These online forums are informative and fun, they do not represent the vast majority of Rangers Supporters. About time some people realised this.

 

Yup, as much as we'd all love an online consensus (or, at least a cessation of hostilities!), I doubt that it would even loosely approximate the 'consensus' reached out there in the world. That's not to say that those who rigorously analyse the goings on, as those online do, aren't in the best position to represent. There's a danger in looking at the vanity of the forums and, in a reactionary manner, deify the offline support.

 

Personally I just find the bickering tedious in the same sense that Hollyoaks is.

[wabashcannonball 0]

The apparent fulcrum of dissent appears to be Muir, either you accept he works for Murray or you don't, I accept he is Murrays man and whatever he does to clean up Murray's mess is OK by me, it is not as if he is some sort of amateur in his field of expertise.

[Danny 0]

Yup, as much as we'd all love an online consensus (or, at least a cessation of hostilities!), I doubt that it would even loosely approximate the 'consensus' reached out there in the world. That's not to say that those who rigorously analyse the goings on, as those online do, aren't in the best position to represent. There's a danger in looking at the vanity of the forums and, in a reactionary manner, deify the offline support.

 

Personally I just find the bickering tedious in the same sense that Hollyoaks is.

 

When folk dislike behaviour on forums, it tends to be the cheap way out to suggest that it's 'different in the real world'. Well if someone came up to me in the real world and asked me for an opinion, it would not differ from what I'd say on a forum.

 

The only difference is online you get time to consider your response and to make it succinct.

 

So while the way the opinion is delivered differs, the opinion itself does not.

 

So, yes, I'd say RM, this, VB, FF...are indeed all representative of the Rangers support because it's the Rangers support on them. Different areas of it yes, but the Rangers support.

[rbr 1,270]

When folk dislike behaviour on forums, it tends to be the cheap way out to suggest that it's 'different in the real world'. Well if someone came up to me in the real world and asked me for an opinion, it would not differ from what I'd say on a forum.

 

The only difference is online you get time to consider your response and to make it succinct.

 

So while the way the opinion is delivered differs, the opinion itself does not.

 

So, yes, I'd say RM, this, VB, FF...are indeed all representative of the Rangers support because it's the Rangers support on them. Different areas of it yes, but the Rangers support.

 

 

 

But in this kiddy on world you dont have to look someone in the eye when answering , we can all be who we want to be sitting behind a key board

[Super_Ally 0]

The apparent fulcrum of dissent appears to be Muir, either you accept he works for Murray or you don't, I accept he is Murrays man and whatever he does to clean up Murray's mess is OK by me, it is not as if he is some sort of amateur in his field of expertise.

 

Not me, I think a sensible approach needs to be taken to this and stripping Rangers as much as posisble and hurting our chances to be succesful is not necessarily the smartest way for the bank to recoup their money. Not saying he is doing that, just pointing out we should be wary of him having free reign to achieve those aims however he wants.

[Danny 0]

But in this kiddy on world you dont have to look someone in the eye when answering , we can all be who we want to be sitting behind a key board

 

So you're saying the opinions on these forums are lies?

 

That's all I am saying - you're right that you don't have to look someone in the eye, but that doesn't make you change your opinion of something.

 

I've never known anyone who differed in person compared to online regarding their beliefs.

[Super_Ally 0]

I think it's fair to say that people's opinions are going to be less forthright if they have to be more accountable for the actions. It seems fairly obvious to me that not everyone is going to the same online as they are offline as people even behave differently in different social groups.

[Zappa 0]

I think it's fair to say that people's opinions are going to be less forthright if they have to be more accountable for the actions. It seems fairly obvious to me that not everyone is going to the same online as they are offline as people even behave differently in different social groups.

.

Just as there's devious games played in real life and the same online, but there's a BIG difference in these games and in many cases they won't be comparable at all. Still, Danny's basic point about most online Rangers fans speaking the truth & saying what they actually feel may be valid. I personally don't think that's the case though, since many fans online just as in real life hold back their true feelings due to a multitude of factors & that means that you've got a hell of a lot of people not saying what they really would (ideally) like to say or express.

[williamh 0]

What were genuine good Rangers supporters doing having secret meetings with Muir.Surely they went in there to get clarification of whats been going on and to try and end all this nonsense.If so why not bring it all into the open and let us make up our own minds and stop all this mudslinging

[OnlyOneAmoruso 0]

What were genuine good Rangers supporters doing having secret meetings with Muir.Surely they went in there to get clarification of whats been going on and to try and end all this nonsense.If so why not bring it all into the open and let us make up our own minds and stop all this mudslinging

 

 

Thats why clarity is a must.

 

If this brings about some nasty truths regarding Rangers fans then thats unfortunate but clarity is required.