Jings - Leggoland

[plgsarmy 111]

Where's the "play on words" in the 2nd banner?

 

What does the inclusion of the word "Yanks" add to the message?

 

Tell me, please, because to me that's an unequivocal and wholly unnecessary anti-American sentiment.

 

BTW Carlos Bocanegra said at the time of the banner, "Being Amercian and seeing "go home Yanks" banner was unfortunate but I know it’s not the feeling of the entire country. It’s a minority of people and that stuff happens."

 

So n American Rangers player felt that way about the banners. I'd call that hugely embarrassing, what about you?

 

I must have missed the 'Go home Yanks' banner.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

I must have missed the 'Go home Yanks' banner.

 

you me and everyone else.

[3909 04 0]

Jeez, how many times do I have to say that we had nothing to do with the banners and I don't think the person who paid for them posts on any website. As for 'not one is seen to be involved in any RST-backed fund-raising schemes' what fund-raising schemes are you talking about?

As for your last question, I have no idea, I suspect it has no effect but I don't know.

 

I'm afraid I don't accept the veracity of anything you've said, especially your wholly unconvincing last line.

 

As such, there is no point debating with you any further.

[3909 04 0]

Some might use that very logic to deem your username sectarian.

 

Yes they might, to which I could say, "What do you mean? It's just a number."

 

Would you buy that? No?

 

Well neither do I buy the weak denials of the meaning behind the "Yanks No Thanks" banner.

[Stimpy 0]

 

just so people can decide for themselves if this is racism

 

First I've seen those. Ill Phil would tar them as racist and his daughter would cry!

 

Wonder if 39090 will praise the RST for embracing and promoting the scarf campaign which was the single biggest source of income for the RFFF and a subsequent symbol of our time on admin? Or is the tone strictly negative?

[plgsarmy 111]

I'm afraid I don't accept the veracity of anything you've said, especially your wholly unconvincing last line.

 

As such, there is no point debating with you any further.

 

So you are saying I'm lying, even although I have far greater knowledge about this than you. Okay then but you didn't mention these fund-raising schemes that the ex-Board members aren't involved in.

[3909 04 0]

First I've seen those. Ill Phil would tar them as racist and his daughter would cry!

 

Wonder if 39090 will praise the RST for embracing and promoting the scarf campaign which was the single biggest source of income for the RFFF and a subsequent symbol of our time on admin? Or is the tone strictly negative?

 

Yes, the RST are good at devising and participitating in schemes to collect funds provided by Rangers supporters.

 

And the RST's most prominent member and most longstanding board member always seems to be involved.

 

Interesting.

[Stimpy 0]

Yes, the RST are good at devising and participitating in schemes to collect funds provided by Rangers supporters.

 

And the RST's most prominent member and most longstanding board member always seems to be involved.

 

Interesting.

 

Should see his house and car. BLING!

[3909 04 0]

So you are saying I'm lying, even although I have far greater knowledge about this than you. Okay then but you didn't mention these fund-raising schemes that the ex-Board members aren't involved in.

 

I don't think you're giving your true opinions, certainly not regarding the banner. If the site known as V*******Bears had sponsored such a banner, for example, I believe your FF/RST cohorts would have been the first to shriek in horror and outrage at such a "threatening" message.

 

But I bear you no ill-will and I really don't want to argue with you so let's leave it please?

[the gunslinger 3,366]

you see to summarise this is it.

 

the rst put out racist banners. - truth is they didn't and the banners weren't racist anyway.

 

then we have the accusation that mark dingwall is somehow making out of the rst with no detail or evidence. ou cant even argue against that its so utterly vague.

 

then its the notion that the rst membership despite a 30% rise is being held back by marks involvement. again no evidence and its hard to see how the reasoning is even arrived at.

 

and you can point these things out till your blue in the face but the only thing thats certain is in a few months we will be here again with the same unsupportable accusations being made.

 

at least this thread has the input from bluedell, shorerbear, brahim and plgsarmy on the rules for refunds which seems to boil down to the rules being stretched but for all the right reasons. that at least comes down to each individuals view on how rigidly rules should be followed. personally i have no problem breaking the rules if its the right thing to do. but i know some see that as a path to anarchy.