Anchorman 0 Posted March 1, 2015 Share Posted March 1, 2015 Sorry mate but we have now had 4 years of bullshit and saying things that will please the supporters. I now want to hear what the new board are planning to improve our situation. We know he is a Rangers supporter with a big blue heart but I want to hear what I don't know, including what are the plans for the future of Rangers. If I want to read or hear bullshit I will look up the Charles Green interviews on you tube.That he makes a mention of these things in an article, fair enough but two full articles on playing to the audience just isn't what I want to hear or read at this moment. Fair enough. Maybe I'm a bit more defensive because I know him, but the Jack Irvine comment was uncalled for. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted March 1, 2015 Share Posted March 1, 2015 Does every article have to have an agenda? The guy was asked to do an interview to give the fans an insight into the man behind the suit. He answered what was put to him. He didn't contact the paper and say "Ive got an exclusive". They contacted him.I've heard so many times over the last few years to White and then the Easdales "prove you're the bluenoses you say you are". Then John comes out with a harmless interview and get slaughtered. What the point? Where did I say that? The point I'm making is people don't know anything about him yet feel that slurring with with Jack Irvine association is warranted. Comment away but at least save him from a kangaroo court this early. So we aren't to critic use or be skeptical just because he is a bluenose ? Or because you know him ? The one thing we should ALL have learned in the last 3 years is that skepticism is a MUST. Bluenoses in charge or not. Pete's right anyway, it does come across as a piece done to simply get fans on board. You may not like it, you nay not agree, but it does look like it. Put another way..... I can almost guarantee that you would agree with Pete if you removed John's name from the interview and put 'Easdale's" in it instead. I'm not against John at all and don't doubt his Rangers credentials, but parity would be nice. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anchorman 0 Posted March 1, 2015 Share Posted March 1, 2015 So we aren't to critic use or be skeptical just because he is a bluenose ? Or because you know him ? I stopped reading after that silly comment. Read my responses first eh before you join the 'gang'. Parity you say? Associating his article with Jack Irvine just because it appeared patronising is balanced criticism? Give me peace!! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete 2,499 Posted March 1, 2015 Share Posted March 1, 2015 Fair enough. Maybe I'm a bit more defensive because I know him, but the Jack Irvine comment was uncalled for. I would have thought that if he was asked to give interviews he may have thought that we might be interested in what his role will be in the new Rangers board and not the two pieces that he gave. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anchorman 0 Posted March 1, 2015 Share Posted March 1, 2015 I would have thought that if he was asked to give interviews he may have thought that we might be interested in what his role will be in the new Rangers board and not the two pieces that he gave. I'm not disagreeing with that. It was 'very safe' and not overly interesting. But Jack Irvine spun "bullshit"? A wee bit OTT I think. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted March 1, 2015 Share Posted March 1, 2015 I stopped reading after that silly comment. Read my responses first eh before you join the 'gang'. Parity you say? Associating his article with Jack Irvine just because it appeared patronising is balanced criticism? Give me peace!! As is your prerogative. I stopped reading when you suggested a gang mentality simply because I agreed with Pete"s observation. I notice you didn't comment on how the article would be construed had you substituted Johns name for an Easdale's. Which us, I believe, the point Pete was making. As you say.... Give me peace. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted March 1, 2015 Share Posted March 1, 2015 The different is its true. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anchorman 0 Posted March 1, 2015 Share Posted March 1, 2015 As is your prerogative. I stopped reading when you suggested a gang mentality simply because I agreed with Pete"s observation. I notice you didn't comment on how the article would be construed had you substituted Johns name for an Easdale's. Emmm, I would hardly be likely to comment on something I didn't read. As I said, I stopped reading at the point you started playing to the gallery with petty antagonistic comments. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted March 1, 2015 Share Posted March 1, 2015 Antagonistic ? Very good. Enjoy your Sunday. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anchorman 0 Posted March 1, 2015 Share Posted March 1, 2015 Antagonistic ? Very good. Enjoy your Sunday. I am already but thanks anyway. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.