PresidentRomanov Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 Does a nice man bully the media into saying exactly what he wants, PB? And in this case, my context rules certainly applies: I recall you saying what a corking chap Andy Goram was too... Unlike yourself, I take people as I find them Shaun, when I met Andy Goram, I found him to be a very nice man too, I know I should've hated him because he played for another football team, but I didn't I'm afraid. You should try meeting spme people in real life yourself, and you might understand what I'm on about Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Dover Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 Presumably then, Tom English will no longer write Banner Headline Exclusives on the basis of "a club insider informed him that....", or "it is believed that...." or "someone close to the club has announced that....", given his stance on identities being made public? Aye right!! Ha, was going to post something similar myself..............a case of 'sauce for the goose' surely ? Anyway, what is the guy trying to say, other than just anything 'warm and fuzzy' about Sir David ? He has agreed that and many of the comments make an excellent point and the people behind this movement ( WDB ) have had no problem 'outing' themselves' on various Football phone-ins of late ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun.lawson Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 Unlike yourself, I take people as I find them Shaun, when I met Andy Goram, I found him to be a very nice man too, I know I should've hated him because he played for another football team, but I didn't I'm afraid. You should try meeting spme people in real life yourself, and you might understand what I'm on about I have no problem at all with who Andy Goram played for. I have rather more of a problem with his alleged paramilitary connections. Out of interest, does your "taking people as you find them" rule extend to former Hibs or Celtic players? I mean, as a man of the world, you must've met some of them, I presume? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PresidentRomanov Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 I have no problem at all with who Andy Goram played for. I have rather more of a problem with his alleged paramilitary connections. Out of interest, does your "taking people as you find them" rule extend to former Hibs or Celtic players? I mean, as a man of the world, you must've met some of them, I presume? Yes I have, I used to be very friendly with Alex Cropley, also a very nice man. And when I met Andy Goram, it was just after Scott Crabbe had scored his wonder goal against him, which was long before his alleged connections, but to be honest, given the "alleged" nature of the accusations, it probably wouldn't have made any difference to me, as I've alrady said, I'm mature enough to take people as I find them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Groot Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 I have no problem at all with who Andy Goram played for. I have rather more of a problem with his alleged paramilitary connections. Out of interest, does your "taking people as you find them" rule extend to former Hibs or Celtic players? I mean, as a man of the world, you must've met some of them, I presume? Just because I love being pedantic, Goram is an ex-Hibs player Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eldar Hadzimehmedovic Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 Christ, Tom English sounds like Murray's lawyer in that article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spellczech Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 I've known David for 23 years, and can tell you he's actually a very nice man, he was a nice man before he developed an interest in Rangers FC, and he still is. Would you say someone who actually knows him, is better judged to pass comment on the kind of person he is, rather than someone who takes his opinion purely on what people write about his running of a football club? Personally, I think your judgement is clouded by the football club he owns, whick makes you as bigoted and narrowminded as anyone you think you're above. But if David Murray was asked if he knew a Mr PickyBum what would he say? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brownkg Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 But if David Murray was asked if he knew a Mr PickyBum what would he say? "I refer the speaker to the article my lawyer wrote":mw_rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portobellojambo1 Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 I would have thought the content of a post, and the veracity of said content, must surely be more important than the user name posting it. If David Murray wished to take any of the website comments on board I am sure he could arrange to meet with said posters somewhere, where their true identities would then be revealed. I would tend to treat Tom English, and other journalists more seriously if they identified full names when writing pieces about football clubs, rather than stating that "a source revealed" etc. Just give us the sources real feckin names, don't hide behind something you dislike others hiding behind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest S.U.S.S. Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 More people know me as SUSS so by using my real name, it would only serve to confuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victorian Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 it's a very convenient excuse to say that the rangers fans who are slating the club are faceless wonders who don't have valid views to air because they aren't coming forward in name. what happens if some of them come forward to the club with their views completely in the open, and giving their identities? are you seriously telling me the smith and murray would say "ok well done guys, at least you're not hiding behind a keyboard, come into the boardroom and lets see if we can work together". NO!!! they would tell them to fek off and leave the football club business to them. murray is in a position which means he can actually abuse his position by dictating to the media what they can and what they cannot say. he has appointed himself as editor-in-chief for all media sources withing his grasp. can you imagine the utter outcry if romanov attempted to do what SDM does on a regular basis, to censor the media? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PresidentRomanov Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 it's a very convenient excuse to say that the rangers fans who are slating the club are faceless wonders who don't have valid views to air because they aren't coming forward in name. what happens if some of them come forward to the club with their views completely in the open, and giving their identities? are you seriously telling me the smith and murray would say "ok well done guys, at least you're not hiding behind a keyboard, come into the boardroom and lets see if we can work together". ? They might, I emailed Chris Robinson a few years ago, complaining about his plan to share a stadium with Hibs, and he invited me along to meet him in the boardroom. The fact that they're going about their campaign in such a cowardly manner, means they'll never know though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherlock Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 ...The fact that they're going about their campaign in such a cowardly manner, means they'll never know though. As far as i can make out, English is commenting about RST's 'We Deserve Better' campaign and the subsequent discussions on FF by huns known by a username. Given that Murray and the hun top brass(ic) know the identities and real names of the RST top brass, how is the campaign cowardly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Titor Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 I'm genuine... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victorian Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 They might, I emailed Chris Robinson a few years ago, complaining about his plan to share a stadium with Hibs, and he invited me along to meet him in the boardroom. The fact that they're going about their campaign in such a cowardly manner, means they'll never know though. sorry but they wouldn't give them the time of day. even in the event of paying lip service or playing some kind of PR stunt to invite certain people in for talks, there is no way on earth that supporters would ever influence the course that rangers are on. SDM can scream and shout as much as he wants about his detractors being anonymous usernames on forums, the truth is that he is simply frustrated because this is the one form of criticism that he has no control over. he can't pick up the phone and get it to stop and boy oh boy doesn't it just burn him up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
269miles Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 Presumably then, Tom English will no longer write Banner Headline Exclusives on the basis of "a club insider informed him that....", or "it is believed that...." or "someone close to the club has announced that....", given his stance on identities being made public? Aye right!! Very good point. SAF was/is very good at giving 'off the record' briefings. He took exception at the Guardian reporting his words and attributing them to him directly. When he complained , the Guardian then refused to write anything he said that wasn't directly attributable. After a long feud the Guardian was banned. As far as the Glasgow 'journalist' is concerned: he concedes that Hunsfans have some good points to make but apparently are not to be taken seriously because they don't post under their real names. Is the journalist not aware of social convention/behaviour on the internet ? And as soemone else pointed out , it would certainly suit Davros if he could find out who they are - 'know your enemy' and all that It still doesn't explain why there has been a deafening silence from the Glasgow media on the cuurent Ibrox fire sale of players though. Still , you can always blame the fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deevers Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 Very good point. SAF was/is very good at giving 'off the record' briefings. He took exception at the Guardian reporting his words and attributing them to him directly. When he complained , the Guardian then refused to write anything he said that wasn't directly attributable. After a long feud the Guardian was banned. As far as the Glasgow 'journalist' is concerned: he concedes that Hunsfans have some good points to make but apparently are not to be taken seriously because they don't post under their real names. Is the journalist not aware of social convention/behaviour on the internet ? And as soemone else pointed out , it would certainly suit Davros if he could find out who they are - 'know your enemy' and all that It still doesn't explain why there has been a deafening silence from the Glasgow media on the cuurent Ibrox fire sale of players though. Still , you can always blame the fans. Doesn't take too much effort to work out that the deafening silence is becuae they are all safely tucked up in SDM's back pocket. They would even try to explain away Rangers going into administration as "sound financial restructuring" . The media here make Dr Goebbels propaganda machine look amateurish in there efforts to make sure that little of no negative stuff is printed or broadcast about their beloved Rangers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy Bigtime Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 I am Spartacus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 I am Spartacus Not Keyser Soze then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 I don't think its a good idea to use your real name on an Internet fans forum .You might be safe enough if you stay in England or Australia but if you stay locally you have to be aware that it's not just fellow Jambos who can read your posts. Since I only moved to Australia last year, I would point out that I used my own name when I resided in Edinburgh and Dunfermline! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JWL Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 They might, I emailed Chris Robinson a few years ago, complaining about his plan to share a stadium with Hibs, and he invited me along to meet him in the boardroom.The fact that they're going about their campaign in such a cowardly manner, means they'll never know though. I wonder if Murray would tell as many barefaced lies as Robinson did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PresidentRomanov Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 I wonder if Murray would tell as many barefaced lies as Robinson did. I'd guarantee it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gav Aitchison Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 I think Tom English is spot on. He's not saying there's anything wrong, per se, in using a pseudonym online - but if you're trying to show support for a credible cause, then you need to put your real identity to it. Would you sign a petition in your neighbourhood with a jokey nickname? Then why do it online. Apart from trivialising your own argument, there are also clear problems with verifying that the signatories are real and separate. And saying that English (or any journalist) should routinely name their sources is nonsense and goes 100% against the journalists' code of practice. Gav (real name) - and a sc*mmy journalist to boot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun.lawson Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 I think Tom English is spot on. He's not saying there's anything wrong, per se, in using a pseudonym online - but if you're trying to show support for a credible cause, then you need to put your real identity to it. Would you sign a petition in your neighbourhood with a jokey nickname? Then why do it online. Apart from trivialising your own argument, there are also clear problems with verifying that the signatories are real and separate. And saying that English (or any journalist) should routinely name their sources is nonsense and goes 100% against the journalists' code of practice. Gav (real name) - and a sc*mmy journalist to boot I agree. There is, though, another reason why Murray and Smith have suggested their critics should at the very least be open about who they are, as good old Graham Spiers underlined yesterday: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/scotland/article5542856.ece A rare case, I would suggest, of good for Minty and Watty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.