reflections on andy's article - thoughts about we the fans in the aftermath of hutton

[bmck 117]

there's no doubt someone or something was sufficiently under fire in andy's article. i think it was quite easy to take from it that anyone with reservations about the hutton affair was laughably, ridicously nuts. as someone with reservations about the hutton affair, though i make no pretense at general mental wellness, i think i dont really fall into that group. i do think its fair to say when we have less than all the facts, there is room for healthy speculation - otherwise quantum mechanics would've destroyed science, and the economy would fall. but this speculation was, andy said, just gossip. he seemed to be saying more than that those who believed all the speculation as fact were Not Quite Right; he seemed to be saying that any wandering beyond the received facts at all was unhealthy.

 

this all struck me as quite familiar - the fans reaction to the hutton affair, the different sorts of reaction, were quite like the worldwide reaction to 9/11. if it seems like quite far fetched, give me a second. there seemed to be people who believe all the 9/11 conspiracies, no matter how far fetched or contradictory, and they tend to believe them loudly. i think there are rangers fans who are willing to see all the evil conspiracies about the transfer saga, no matter how far fecthed and contradictory, and they tend to believe them all very loudly, on radio programmes and the like. i think though the wording of the article went further, these are the sorts of people andy had in mind. it tends to be these sort of people who disregard people who think there is no conspiracy as puppets of the evil mastermind (be it bush, the cia, or murray) which also accounts for andy's quite defiant stance.

 

but this defiant stance seemed quite like the response to 9/11 that says if you dont believe exactly the given story then you are a conspiracist nutjob. any speculation beyond exactly the given facts is troublemaking/gossip etc. that is, they take the super conservative view defiantly.

 

now if we've learned anything from the many studies into the psychology of conspiracy theorists and their imaginings, and the thing i think is important to this discussion of the hutton saga, is that conspiracy theories and theorists arise when the human imagination is forced to wander because there is a) a precedent for lies in the official story, and b) there isn't full disclosure of the facts. the kind of stuff that would show the far fetched ridiculousness of some of the stories also happens to be classified, or not available (usually for decent reason).

 

andy's probably right that its to play into the media's hands to turn into a mumbling club-hater without the relevant facts, positing the wildest of speculations as if they had actually be shown to be true, phoning in radio programmes and making an arse of yourself. that said, its likewise to play into the media's hands to never ever speculate from the facts as given, especially when there is a precedent of lies ("I will buy a striker from my own pocket") and there isn't full disclosure of the facts ("Excuse me, Mr Murray, when you inevitably talked to Hutton about this, what was your position, and how did you put it?"). you have to use your intution, and make conclusions that are willing to go further than exactly what we know, but without rabidly holding these conclusions as if they were obvious to all and sundry.

 

i think the biggest problems the rangers fans face at this time are a) apathy, and b) disorganisation/disunity. we are calling out for people who will have strong opinions - andy has his, the punters on the phonelines have theirs, but i think that each keeping the other at laughable distance only, as St. Mark would have it, divides the Kingdom of Gersfans against itself, and makes it succeptable to fall. no matter what the differences are its only through some sort of organised unity, the best version we have being the rst, that some greater good, whatever it may be, can be achieved.

 

--

 

as a finishing aside i'd just like to say the tone's so hard on the internet. i like the general principle that people should be able to say pretty much what they like, have good strong debates, but still be able to have a pint afterwards. in calling your style condescending, i didnt want to censor you, i just thought it was condescending. here you'll be perfectly entitled to say "Well, c'est la vie, if you don't like it that much, dont respond". the reason i did reply because it was a good post, with a decent argument, even if i didnt agree with it all. may ye have many more strong opinions i can disagree with, because there's nothing so ugly as apathy. :cheers:

[Frankie 8,552]

Amen brother...

[andy steel 0]

fine post. no, it wasn't you who was suggesting censorship, it was the other chap.

 

i maintain that in criticising those who leapt upon the murray/bain axis during the hutton saga, i was not suggesting anyone suspicious of them is a paranoid loony. that to me is a massive overreaction, and not contained (and certainly not meant) in my post.

from that perspective, you will understand my bewilderment at some of the points raised. concisley: me- hey guys, those phone in guys calling murray a disgrace are way off beam! i'm gonna make fun of them! others - fuck you, you smartarse bastard! think you're so clever, don't you? well, i think you're a tit! what do you think of that? me- yes...i'll get my coat.

[bmck 117]

concisley: me- hey guys, those phone in guys calling murray a disgrace are way off beam! i'm gonna make fun of them!

 

to be honest i think this is the part of it that i missed. you were saying "the people on the phone in who are talking as if its been scientifically proven that david murray is the antichrist are morons" and i took you to be saying "anyone with reservations about murray are the kind of people who phone in phone ins to talk about murray as if he is the antichrist". to be honest, rightly or wrongly (i think, on reflection wrongly), if i thought you were talking specifically about phone in peope i would've said "anyone that pays money to phone in to speak to peope who are paid to twist what you say to anger more people to make more phone calls and more money are not the kind of peope i woud expect sense from", which is probably far more condescending than anything you might have said. and is pretty wrong actually. there are plenty of good reasons to phone phone ins, but thats probaby what i woud have said. i thought you were talking about half the rangers fans and you were talking about 0.005% them.

 

anyway, taken wrongly or not, its been the most controversial piece in a while (Cammy needs to start writing controversia pieces again), so cheers.