'contacts and his 'information'

[Danny 0]

.

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.

 

Well whether folk hold back in real life and online or whether they say what they feel doesn't really make a difference.

 

If I could be so blunt as to say that on here I've supported Lafferty in ways perhaps some others haven't. 'in the real world' I'm not slagging him off saying he's been a waste of money.

 

I rate Kenny Miller on here. In person I am not saying he's a rotten striker.

 

My views are consistent as are everyone else's, but I accept the manner, delivery, conduct and demeanour of folk radically changes online - believe me, it's something I'm significantly interested in.

 

But people don't like apples online and in the real world hate them. There has to be a fundamental tenet of consistency in opinion otherwise people are worthless and nothing any of them say has anything value as it will change from one day to the next. From one medium to the next.

[Frankie 8,674]

Almost forgot but a salient point in this whole debate is that I believe the editor of FF posted the other day about he and a prominent TBO member were invited to meet Donald Muir but turned this down.

 

Why would they do that when they clearly have a lot of questions for the man?

 

Because they were asked to keep such a meeting secret or the contents private? Perhaps I suppose but similar meetings have occurred between the club and such people in the past. Eventually the information filters out even if the meeting is private or minuted generically.

 

However, if the offer was genuine, then why wait until contacts' posts his article before speaking about it? Surely Muir's alleged possible demand for secrecy would be the ideal stick to beat him with when supplying reasons for asking the support to buy into this (still reasonable) clarity request.

 

Found that a bit strange but the club's activities aren't the only ones that are as clear as mud. Many have a part to blame in the misinformation, rumour-mongering and name-calling we've seen of late. Ergo, if contacts is to be villified for posting about sources and releasing unsubstantiated info while changing his mind; then I'm sure Barry221 will be eager to right another piece (or 5) on other key figures in the debate.

[boss 0]

To be clear Boss retracted the Duffy criticism because he felt he'd done the wrong thing in terms of being controversial for controversial's sake.

 

To be even clearer I did not retract or apologise for the factual stuff I wrote about Duffy - that's because it's all true, and freely available from Companies House. So the FF author's conclusion that I apologised when I supposedly found out that Duffy was using a stockbroking friend doesn't make any sense. I still have absolutely no idea whether that person acts for Duffy and I would be astonished if he would breach client confidentiality rules and tell me anyway.

 

Also, I have never met, spoken to, had email or any other contact with Donald Muir ever, or indeed Martin Bain for that matter. I neither move in these cirlces nor wish to.

[Frankie 8,674]

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

 

I think that's why they've tried to do via the article.

 

I'd question the method but not the person's intentions. Same goes for other people who have posted information in good faith from other 'sources'...

[andy steel 0]

I don't consider myself stupid, but I have no idea what that OP is saying. And I'm amazed that such an incomprehensible post can generate five pages!

[rbr 1,270]

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.

 

 

Sorry Danny I didn't put it across very well , what I meant was it is very easy to be , well let's say a bit naughty and playful on here , as opposed to in real life , you can get away with being mischevious far easier than if someone is looking at you directly and has the ability to question you face to face .

 

I certainly wasn't accusing anyone of telling untruth's , heaven forbid

[chilledbear 16]

Do we think what was going on last night on RM, would have happened, if people were talking face to face? Accusations, name calling [what age are these people], it might have started but I am sure it wouldn't have lasted for long. :box:

[chilledbear 16]

I think that's why they've tried to do via the article.

 

I'd question the method but not the person's intentions. Same goes for other people who have posted information in good faith from other 'sources'...

 

But surely that's the problem, leaks posted online, where a few hundred genuine Rangers Supporters read them. The vast majority having no idea what is happening, it is only when a WS says a few words in an after match interview that folk get an inkling. Who are these people that get meetings with high heid yins inside Ibrox, where did they come by their influence, are they worthy of that influence??

[Frankie 8,674]

But surely that's the problem, leaks posted online, where a few hundred genuine Rangers Supporters read them. The vast majority having no idea what is happening, it is only when a WS says a few words in an after match interview that folk get an inkling. Who are these people that get meetings with high heid yins inside Ibrox, where did they come by their influence, are they worthy of that influence??

 

I agree with that mate - I've asked for clarity and leadership from all involved. From the chairman of the club, to the team manager, to the fan groups, to the potential buyers. Contacts isn't excused from that criticism just because I may be friendly with him.

 

The problem we have is that we have to distinctly different viewpoints:

 

1. Everything is extremely bad and the club is in danger - Walter Smith alluded to this, fan leaders had said similar, potential buyers are provoking more rumours and people are rightly asking for clarity as a result.

 

2. Meanwhile, the other 'camp' are suggesting things might not be so bad - financial performance is improving, players haven't been sold, manager is only worried about future signing quality and they're asking for similar clarity - although are more conservative in their plea.

 

Thus, while there may be two points of view, there isn't a big difference between them so the efforts by both to discredit each other are extremely counter-productive.

 

The only way out of this vicious circle is if someone starts leading from the front. Unfortunately, no fan leader seems to want to take charge. No buyer wants to stand up. The manager has went quiet.

 

This only leads to further division. We're just lucky the team is still winning as if they weren't I dread to think what would be happening.

[chilledbear 16]

It looks to me that certain individuals are seeking a foot in the door, a place at the top table, and will do anything to get it.

 

Reminds me of journalists backing certain managers for the Scotland/England job, only because they would have inside information.