Mysterion Posted May 11, 2011 Share Posted May 11, 2011 Our problem is just as small as a percentage of the overall support as yours is. We just have a much larger fanbase, thus the problem is accentuated. I'm happy to accept that does mean we have a larger problem, but the only people who can point fingers and take the moral high ground on that sort of thing is someone who supports a club with no sectarian element. That, sir, is not you. On the whole, I disapprove of Black's thuggish approach to the game, and I'm sure you'll be happy to know I disapprove of McCulloch when he launches himself into challenges, though he's far less sneaky about his will to go through a player than Black is. Tonight, I'm willing to make an exception because there's the potential for a particularly violent little ned to get his comeuppance. I don't support the death penalty, but I would like to see paedophiles eradicated. Same principle at work. Back to you, Mysterion, care to point out any of these 'ridiculous statements'? The opening paragraph - OK if we're honest no one can prove that the percentages are bigger on either side but Rangers fans should not hide behind the excuse of "there's more of us but it's the same statistical value." That's like saying Team A has 40 fans and 20 are bigots. Team B has 80 fans and 40 are bigots. Either way - there's a lot more hate filled bigots for team B regardless of how you look at it. How many were at Hampden promoting their bile ? Was it about 25k ? Using the statistical method you are keen to highlight that's between 40-50% of the Rangers home support. Ouch! The last paragraph. It's ramblings from someone who talks about moral high ground then in the next breath is overjoyed at Scott Brown getting injured. You can't say it's fine for Black to injure one player but squeal when it's your own. It reeks of stupidity. Good try though.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun.lawson Posted May 11, 2011 Share Posted May 11, 2011 Fine, everything else in the post I was fairly clearly responding directly to was motivated by bitterness. As for your expectation that I would, apropos of nothing, (1) denigrate my own club's fans for sectarianism, and players for cheating and fouling, I'm sure you realise how ridiculous that is. Hearts fans will see every other club in a worse light than they see their own, just as Rangers fans will, and just as every other club in Scotland's fans will. The sectarian element is a poison in our support, and one which has to be dealt with. (2) The club has made massive strides over the years to deal with it, making your claim that the club encourage it outlandish and a little daft. (3) Our depiction of ourselves as victims? I'm quite sure you're mixing us up with the collection of ambulance chasers over at Torbett Towers. Bain made a single reference to what he believed to be a concerted campaign against us from the media, and from that point of view, I can see his point. When talking about the bombs sent to Neil Lennon the BBC put their roving reporter outside Ibrox, the assumption was made immediately that these were being sent by Rangers fans, and Neil Lennon courted the press interest by insisting that he was being targetted as a result of his religion, hometown, and current job. There was an article in the London Times calling Rangers an (4) 'institutionally sectarian club', and an 'imbecilic club' because we allowed a supporters group to place Union Flags on the seats. There can be little doubt that we're a current favourite target from the media, but that's down to no mark journalists trying to make a name for themselves by poking at whichever target is currently softest, and I'm sure it'll stop as soon as another soft target arises or we toughen up a bit at boardroom level. On the pitch, we get good decisions and bad decisions, just like any other club. We're no more victims than we are an 'establishment club'. To suggest we are either is simple stupidity. Diego, you have a tiny support compared to ours. As a percentage of the overall support, true bigots will be on a similar level, and the 90 minute bigots who go to football only to spout bile in an arena where they think it's tolerated will be on a similar level. 1. So you won't condemn sectarianism or violent foul play when it's your club doing it? How principled. 2. No it hasn't. Your club is dependent on many of these fans for revenue; your manager, players, board etc have lives to live and families to protect. Meaning Rangers can't afford to deal with sectarianism properly. And to repeat: Rangers' response to UEFA punishing the club for the fans singing sectarian lyrics to Simply The Best was, er, to start playing Simply The Best on the PA system at every game. "Massive strides"? You're having a laugh. 3. When the news that UEFA were about to punish you for yet more sectarian chanting emerged, your club's immediate response was to cry 'conspiracy!' Even though the sectarian chanting had happened; even though the fans were guilty of it. And leaders of fans' groups have been talking about 'dark forces at work against Rangers FC' for years now: it's beyond comical actually. 4. But it is. That's why so many of us can't stand your club. Take away the sectarianism and bigotry that Rangers is founded upon, and there'd be next to nothing left. And when a Rangers fan like Graham Spiers points this out, the response of other fans is to give him death threats. Which, I'm afraid, very much says it all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnpp Posted May 11, 2011 Share Posted May 11, 2011 The last paragraph. It's ramblings from someone who talks about moral high ground then in the next breath is overjoyed at Scott Brown getting injured. You can't say it's fine for Black to injure one player but squeal when it's your own. It reeks of stupidity. I've already addressed the other issues you've raised there in another post, so I'll just take this one. It isn't a long rebuttal. Do you approve the death of Saddam Hussein or Osama Bin Laden? Would you approve the death of Tony Blair or Barack Obama? It's an extreme example with the figures involved polarised much more than in our current discussion, but as I said before the principle is the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnpp Posted May 11, 2011 Share Posted May 11, 2011 1. So you won't condemn sectarianism or violent foul play when it's your club doing it? How principled. 2. No it hasn't. Your club is dependent on many of these fans for revenue; your manager, players, board etc have lives to live and families to protect. Meaning Rangers can't afford to deal sectarianism properly. And to repeat: Rangers' response to UEFA punishing the club for the fans singing sectarian lyrics to Simply The Best was, er, to start playing Simply The Best on the PA system at every game. "Massive strides"? You're having a laugh. 3. When the news that UEFA were about to punish you for yet more sectarian chanting emerged, your club's immediate response was to cry 'conspiracy!' Even though the sectarian chanting had happened; even though the fans were guilty of it. And leaders of fans' groups have been talking about 'dark forces at work against Rangers FC' for years now: it's beyond comical actually. 4. But it is. That's why so many of us can't stand your club. Take away the sectarianism and bigotry that Rangers is founded upon, and there'd be next to nothing left. And when a Rangers fan like Graham Spiers points this out, the response of fans is to give him death threats. Which, I'm afraid, very much says it all. Take my post as a whole, rather than cutting out soundbytes and responding to those as though they're a point in and of themselves, and you'll find each and every one of your rebuttals, to use the term loosely, is rendered irrelevant. Good work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun.lawson Posted May 11, 2011 Share Posted May 11, 2011 Take my post as a whole, rather than cutting out soundbytes and responding to those as though they're a point in and of themselves, and you'll find each and every one of your rebuttals, to use the term loosely, is rendered irrelevant. Good work. You've failed to rebut any of these points - no doubt because the truth hurts. I'm going to make one of them for a third time. What kind of club, after being punished by the authorities and warned it could be banned from European competition unless sectarian chanting stopped, would instead of taking a zero tolerance approach to sectarianism of any shape or form, actually start playing the very song whose alternative lyrics had incurred UEFA's wrath loudly on its PA system before every home game? Can you defend this? If you can't, it's proof that Rangers actually encourage sectarianism within its support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mysterion Posted May 11, 2011 Share Posted May 11, 2011 I've already addressed the other issues you've raised there in another post, so I'll just take this one. It isn't a long rebuttal. Do you approve the death of Saddam Hussein or Osama Bin Laden? Would you approve the death of Tony Blair or Barack Obama? It's an extreme example with the figures involved polarised much more than in our current discussion, but as I said before the principle is the same. I mean come on... how feckin' ridiculous do you have to be to bring Obama, Blair, Osama and Sadam into a football forum and suggest that Black is as polarising as them in order to win an argument! :really: You're the only one talking about the death penalty in this thread and you're doing a horrendous job of not making yourself look ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnpp Posted May 11, 2011 Share Posted May 11, 2011 I mean come on... how feckin' ridiculous do you have to be to bring Obama, Blair, Osama and Sadam into a football forum and suggest that Black is as polarising as them in order to win an argument! :really: You're the only one talking about the death penalty in this thread and you're doing a horrendous job of not making yourself look ridiculous. How ridiculous do you need to be to take a sentence which states all of those figures are much more polarising than Black, and translate it into a sentence which states he's as polarising as they are? EDIT - Also, I'm not trying to win anything. It's fairly obvious you all have your preconceived notions of what Rangers fans and players are, and one fan isn't going to change any of your views with 12 posts in one thread. I'm simply putting across my views and trying to explain why I hold them. If you don't want to read what I'm actually saying, rather than your own twisted take on what you think I'm saying, by all means stop responding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnpp Posted May 11, 2011 Share Posted May 11, 2011 You've failed to rebut any of these points - no doubt because the truth hurts. I'm going to make one of them for a third time. What kind of club, after being punished by the authorities and warned it could be banned from European competition unless sectarian chanting stopped, would instead of taking a zero tolerance approach to sectarianism of any shape or form, actually start playing the very song whose alternative lyrics had incurred UEFA's wrath loudly on its PA system before every home game? Can you defend this? If you can't, it's proof that Rangers actually encourage sectarianism within its support. We played Simply the Best on the PA long before the alternative lyrics surfaced. There's no case to answer there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun.lawson Posted May 11, 2011 Share Posted May 11, 2011 We played Simply the Best on the PA long before the alternative lyrics surfaced. There's no case to answer there. When those alternative lyrics are routinely sung by your fans, to the point whereby UEFA sanctioned you for it, yet you carried on playing it anyway, there's a massive case to answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnpp Posted May 11, 2011 Share Posted May 11, 2011 When those alternative lyrics are routinely sung by your fans, to the point whereby UEFA sanctioned you for it, yet you carried on playing it anyway, there's a massive case to answer. I see. So once you realise you're wrong, you change the question and keep hammering away at the same moot point. Very good. Those alternative lyrics are no longer sung and Simply the Best is now played entirely unspoilt before every home game. To stop playing the song simply because a few arseholes had come up with their own offensive lyrics would have been the club giving in to sectarianism rather than combatting it. Had the club pulled the song the message would have been "Yes, we do have sectarian fans, but there's nothing we can do about them but to refuse them the platform", whereas by keeping the song and getting rid of the bigoted lyrics, the message sent was "yes, we do have sectarian fans, but we're slowly but surely weeding them out and getting rid of their bile". The second message is much more positive than the first. As I said, no case to answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASSASSIN Posted May 11, 2011 Share Posted May 11, 2011 I was told the Gers fans have a banner.... "Walter Smith - Legned" lol need to find a pic of that hahahaha ive a couple of glory hunter hun mates id love to show it to Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vlad-Stupid Posted May 11, 2011 Share Posted May 11, 2011 Or as the Rangers fans put it Bunch of Roasters the lot of them!!! lol need to find a pic of that hahahaha ive a couple of glory hunter hun mates id love to show it to Posted earlier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broomie Hearts Posted May 11, 2011 Share Posted May 11, 2011 walter smith is one of the few managers of other scottish teams i secretly wished would some day come to hearts. along with sir fergie,kenny dalglish,and jim mclean. i would have loved to have seen how the west coast media coped with one of them making Heart of Midlothian a realistic challenger to the old firm. credit where its due imho, he must have racked up a few co-effiency points to the benefit of us and others. so i say, well done walter, thanks for the memories. if for nothing else then,thank you for outing that poor excuse for a journalist chick young as utter pussy, BBC Scotlands answer to nigel winterburn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mysterion Posted May 11, 2011 Share Posted May 11, 2011 lol need to find a pic of that hahahaha ive a couple of glory hunter hun mates id love to show it to Let me help you with that! As you can see - the standard of education has significantly improved in the Rangers support. Only 1 spelling mistake!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dipped Flake Posted May 11, 2011 Share Posted May 11, 2011 Our problem is just as small as a percentage of the overall support as yours is. We just have a much larger fanbase, thus the problem is accentuated. I'm happy to accept that does mean we have a larger problem, but the only people who can point fingers and take the moral high ground on that sort of thing is someone who supports a club with no sectarian element. That, sir, is not you. On the whole, I disapprove of Black's thuggish approach to the game, and I'm sure you'll be happy to know I disapprove of McCulloch when he launches himself into challenges, though he's far less sneaky about his will to go through a player than Black is. Tonight, I'm willing to make an exception because there's the potential for a particularly violent little ned to get his comeuppance. I don't support the death penalty, but I would like to see paedophiles eradicated. Same principle at work. Shaun, El Hadji Diouf is an utter scumbag. A man with such a wayward moral compass that he professed support for Colonel Gadaffi. For the timebeing though he pulls on a Rangers jersey and that means I support him on the pitch 100%. The rest of your points about Rangers seem to be motivated by nothing more than pure bitterness, so I'll leave them be since as you said yourself, personal dislike is not a good reason to denigrate something in a debate. Back to you, Mysterion, care to point out any of these 'ridiculous statements'? Please feel free to jog off back to follow follow whenever you want but before you do I would just like to point out that our club has never, in anyway, been sectarian. Your joke of a club has carried out blatant sectarianism for years, actively supported by the managers and boards of your club. Just because we have a few mini-hun numpties in our support does not make our club sectarian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rudy T Posted May 11, 2011 Share Posted May 11, 2011 Please feel free to jog off back to follow follow whenever you want but before you do I would just like to point out that our club has never, in anyway, been sectarian. Your joke of a club has carried out blatant sectarianism for years, actively supported by the managers and boards of your club. Just because we have a few mini-hun numpties in our support does not make our club sectarian. Not trying to help out our blue friend here but you must be very young to think this? The bottom line is, since Murray has lost his power many journo's now have there chance to say what they have thought for a long time, but where in fear of the jobs so toed the party line. It's open season now, especially Wattie's gone, welcome to everyone elses world. The fact Rangers published a banned song list and fans argued the merits of that list I think speaks volumes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broomie Hearts Posted May 11, 2011 Share Posted May 11, 2011 ive got a couple of question for the rangers fan on this thread, 1st the circumstances early in the 20th century, about 224 years after another certain battle to be precise. his majesty the king,Great britain,the commonwealth and its allies were involved in a terrible war. 1st question when the call was sent out to the football community to do its bit for king and country,what did glasgow rangers do??. 2nd question given the actions of both our clubs when our country needed them,who would have more right to fly the union flag? 3rd question are you suitably ashamed of your clubs answer to king and country?? the rangers badge needs sorting you need to remove the word READY take that lion off your badge. i would suggest a white feather with the word ABSENT. http://likeyoudo.org.uk/gwmc/index.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vlad-Stupid Posted May 11, 2011 Share Posted May 11, 2011 the rangers badge needs sorting you need to remove the word READY take that lion off your badge. i would suggest a white feather with the word ABSENT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnpp Posted May 12, 2011 Share Posted May 12, 2011 1st question when the call was sent out to the football community to do its bit for king and country,what did glasgow rangers do??. The same thing as most clubs. You should be proud that your club stood up and was counted, and I'm glad they were, but to attempt to denigrate a fan, not even of a rival club, for something that happened the best part of 100 years ago is extremely small minded. 2nd question given the actions of both our clubs when our country needed them,who would have more right to fly the union flag? Neither. Every club in Britain has equal right to fly the British flag. 3rd question are you suitably ashamed of your clubs answer to king and country?? Nope. I am however proud of my own service for queen and country. Given your irrelevant line of questioning and the apparent glee you're taking in a one hundred year old disparity in our club's actions, I'm going to assume you haven't served queen or country. Disgraceful behaviour. The stock response of an idiot seeing a point he could never have made himself, but which he thinks he can latch onto in some way by professing his support. Top work lads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.