andy steel

Sorry for not replying sooner; I'm struggling a bit with the 'new post' function. Agreed on the court ruling nonsense: as you'll know from RM I would see that as a ruling class judgement on those dreadful lower types and all their common ways. The ruling is colossally flawed and, unless the judicial system is too far gone, must surely be overturned on appeal. I don't know, Craig, if it's a matter of being brighter and/or understanding the matter. I know lots of people who are way brainier than I but who devote a monstrous amount of their time to what is, in the end, a football game. If they have issues with society or tolerance or whatever, they'd be far better addressing those concerns through a more appropriate forum. So I kind of view those who get het up over this, whether bright or thick, as barking up the wrong tree and I suppose I am guilty of lumping everyone in together. But I don't claim to be omniscient (sp?); these are just my opinions. This bit from Don Quixote does well for summing it up for me. "Look there, friend Sancho - there are 30 outrageous giants whom I intend to encounter..." "Look again sir, those are not giants but windmills, the arms you see are their sails!" "I tell you they are giants, and if you are afraid then say your prayers...for I am resolved to engage in a dreadful, unequal combat against them all..." Not word perfect but as close as I can recall it.

Assuming that happens - not saying you are making it up, but I've never heard it - I would put it down to people being bothered by media bleating about big bad bigots. I choose not to be bothered, others do.

I can't agree with that. The reputation of the club is such that it can easily withstand the calumnies and brickbats of those whom, I would say, can be shown to be acting out their own adolescent revenge fantasies. Given that in a Scottish context, we know where we stand and so does everyone else - by that I mean, 99% of Scots who are interested will know eg Gerry McNee is a tim and can discount anything he says as biased - the issue is a dead duck imo. In a UK context, no-one cares. If they did, and there was a sophisticated campaign, I would maybe take it seriously depending on the participants. But there isn't, I doubt there will be, so I remain sanguine. And I must protest, mildly. Not taking halfwits seriously cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be described as 'apathy.' I would prefer 'maturity', but of course, I'm biased.

As I said, it would depend on the chastiser. After all, Hugh Keevins is never going to do anything other than slag us, but I certainly won't lose any sleep over it. Despite their best efforts, as a regular chastisee I can say it has zero effect on me.

No, I hadn't noticed. I had clocked some fairly simple types doing the usual 'aren't Rangers awful' stuff. But I've heard it all before, and I don't rate it as any more than the usual piss and wind. To be fair, unless the likes of Stephen Fry, Clive James and Gore Vidal issue a statement denouncing us as beyond the pale, I shall continue to treat as trifling those who take a pop.

I think I rather prefer the overkill approach of our media; it's so outrageous that it's easy to expose as fallacy and bias. A real, concerted approach, which concentrated solely on our all too real problems while ignoring those of others, and used some intelligent, sophisticated tactics would be a nightmare to counter, given the media's control of major outlets. As it is, crushing the pitiful forays and squibs of the likes of Spiers is child's play.

While tending to my grounds, I heard the 7 o'clock news on RealRadio go with the 'thousands fought running battles with police for 5 hours after the game' line. If I didn't feel silly getting worked up about tims getting off on writing (to them) titillating news lines, I might have been annoyed. As it was, I merely plunged my gardening fork savagely into an innocent bit of garden, savouring the exquisite metaphoric moment as I turned up, all too appropriately, a bit o'cat shit.

It's a fair enough point given the cyclopic coverage of naughtiness concerning the 2 teams, but to be balanced I do feel let down quite often by our support and that feeling is not much obviated by their lot acting like fuds. I've met plenty of arses who support neither team, anyway; the whole issue is one of people unable to process alcohol repeatedly getting drunk as part of the whole male ritual.

I don't suppose they would, being more used to that sort of behaviour.

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.

alright. fair enough. i asked a chap on here if he thought it would be alright to post this, plainly it was a bad idea. Yours views and posts were quite frankly antagonistic and insulting in points duh! they were meant to be! Perhaps you are not the giant intellect that you so obviously percieve yourself to be and a more humble approach may allow you to engage in more fruitful debate. perhaps not. after all, my job in a supermarket offers me so much scope for intellectual achievement, i may have overstretched myself trying it at home too! you don't know me, so childish attempts to insult are meaningless. Perhaps other fans of reasonable acumen have evaluated the man's tenure at the club and merely come to a differing opinion to you as to Murray's impact on the club? gosh, do you think so? that had never occurred to me! thank you for opening my eyes etc. you first stated that the views i was attacking did not come from here, so you plainly know i was talking about the clyde and RR suspects. why you are then trying to suggest i'm insulting fans of reasonable acumen i have no idea, other than you have taken a strong dislike to me. <shrugs>

thin skins on here, by crikey. if i may attempt to clarify my position. on the personal level, a few people take exception to what they perceive as patronisation and a condescending style. my points were written, frankly, in despair. if a reader takes from them that they are being patronised, bluntly that's their lookout and not mine. this is a forum for opinion, is it not? is superally not entitled to refer to my style as 'idiotic?' don't insult others, btw you write in an idiotic idiom? just as superally must be allowed to post his/her views on me, i should be allowed mine. if that goes, what's the point? however, as an infrequent poster here i plainly have transgressed the accepted boundaries. on the substance of the debate, one or two points caught my stereotyping and condescending eye. 'clearly swept along by murray propaganda,' what a ridiculous conclusion! i think it's a good deal for us, and i reckon we're way strong enough to win the flag. murray is not really there to think emotionally imo, in that respect i think it is an advantage not to be a lifelong rangers man. any of us would probably have said no sale regardless of price but as the man who holds the pursestrings he must view things differently, at least he should do. coming to the conclusion that he'd done the right thing is scarcely the same as 'falling for propaganda', it is actually my weighing up what i can see and read and thinking for myself. were i to be pedantic i would point out that this is at least as condescending as that which i was chastised for earlier, but i won't. hutton rejecting the offer meant he wanted to stay you can read that into it, equally valid to say he may have been weighing up his options with 3 weeks of the window to go. all specu---gossip, sorry, and one man's view is as valuable or worthless as anothers. what i was looking for was something where alan was interviewed and just said 'i don't want to go yet.' this post is going to go on quite a bit, if anyone wants to put the kettle on. but i dont think its obvious rangers board arent only interested in money, and i dont think its obvious that david murray cares about the fans me neither, not sure why we're arguing about that one. reasons above or rather big baddy david murray. it seems to suggest that its absolutely bewildering to you that someone might suggest david murray done more harm than these people. to me its not so bewildering - certainly not laughably so. i woudn't go that far, but i certainly feel some of the 'murray forced him out' stuff is way ott and frankly, bordering on the monomaniacal. that's hardly a ringing endorsement of sdm, mind you. it's my opinion on people who are willing to put the boot into murray on the flimsiest of grounds. i actually think there is at least a possibility that selling hutton could be detrimental to our season it could, but it's going too far to say that we have thrown away the title, and that was the point. the last paragraph implies that anybody who thinks this wasnt a good deal has some desperately malign view of murray, and are some sort of nutjobs there have to be some crossed wires here, somewhere. what is this obsession with stupidity, nutjobs and so on? to me, they're wrong. and the people at whom the criticism was directed have almost without exception vented their spleen against the chairman and bain, asserting without to my eyes any hard evidence that he forced the boy out the door. i quite accept that he preferred that hutton leave as he viewed it in the best interests of rfc, but nevertheless if alan had wanted to stay he would still be there. i'm not sure i agree with murray 100%, but i can see where he's coming from and i don't see it as any sort of anti-rangers move, which is most certainly how it has been portrayed by those i complain about. you've felt confident & bold enough to satire quite a lot of ideas, so i hope you take some criticism of it as given be a bit pointless posting if i felt only people who agreed with me were allowed to answer. i do, tho, object to people inserting their own views into my opinions, that seems most unfair. also, i object massively to being told how it would be better to write...that's censorship. i found your post excessively condescending towards those who didnt share your views on the whole issue (of which I, and many other more sensible people are included), i got a lot of pleasure out of sending up the people who had wound me up big time. suppose i am massively condescending? suppose i'm the most arrogant sob who has ever walked the earth? you can always ban me.

i've yet to see any of the 'hutton says he wants to stay' stuff. as i posted on another forum, if someone can hook me up to AH coming out with that i will stand corrected. what absolute nonsense. these things are speculation if you want to call it speculation, go ahead. gossip, innuendo, etc...mere semantics and not even worth arguing about. to dismiss anything beyond blind repetition of available facts as gossip (with all its negative connotations) when all is not known is just idiotic. and to do it so condescendingly makes it all the more ironic - im not sure it is wise to look down on speculators who are speculating out of some dis-satisfaction with the situation, and portray your own ignorance, and contentment with ignorance, as some sort of pedestal to look down from. you can put me on an imaginary pedstal if you like. you can also attribute characteristics to me all you want. i'm not going to get involved in childish personal name calling, if that's what goes on here you'll be glad to know i shall stick to RM. and how exactly are you feeling about your taking your "half our supporters are actually dicks who cant distinguish between hitler & murray" stereotypes around the internet? infact, by the gross horrorshow that forms the logic of your argument anyone who has any dis-satisfaction with these proceedings is actually stupid enough to think murray is some stage baddie. anyone who doesnt accept things exactly as they are is clearly some misinformed troublemaker, it would seem. im sorry, but its this fascistically conservative philosophy thats doing the harm to our club, not a few morons on radio programs no-one in their right mind would listen to. finally some substance. where do you get 'half our fans' from? if you think all rangers fans are members of mensa you are plainly following a different glasgow rangers than i am, but i don't recall quantifying the amount. the people i was targeting are those who play the media game and phone up radio stations, and papers, with the 'it's a disgrace, we are a laughing stock, murray gtf' routine. i'm happy to stand by my opinion of such people as morons, and also my opinion that they are harming the club. i don't recall advocating Kz lagers for them, mind you.

one of our promising players has signed for spurs. they offered a deal worth around 7-8m, and the player stands to become a fantastically wealthy young man. those are the things we can say with some certainty. here are some things we can put down as rumour, gossip and innuendo: he didn't want to leave as he wanted a medal before he left his gf wanted to stay in scotland as she is pregnant he was forced out the door at ibrox villanous, moustachioed and evil, david murray doesn't care about the fans rangers are only interested in money, not cups oh, and here's one other thing we can say with 100% conviction: the fans calling the radio shows and the papers have done more to damage rangers this season than all the decisions taken by insane, top hatted victorian stage baddie david murray. here's the reality. we have got a fantastic, quite frankly amazing price for a player who has had a good 12 months. not even 12 months! not only that, a player whose position can be filled by players of equal ability for a lot less cash. it just so happens that we may well have one already in steven whittaker, however it seems already that some have made up their minds that he's crap...just like hutton was, as well. at any rate, we won't have to play anyone out of position at RB, like a certain team also based in glasgow...who have decided that despite having a dodgy keeper, a makeshift, over physical, lumbering defence, plus a midfield that has been posted missing for the last 2 months, they need extra cover up front and have signed samaras. are we weakened and 'they' strengthened? only if you fear robson...i doubt that includes many of us. throwing away the league by selling hutton? catch a grip of yourselves! if AH comes out and says psychotic, cape wearing ne'er do well david murray tied him to the railway lines and drove a locomotive at him, threatening to run him over unless he signed for spurs while at the same time leering in a menacing fashion at his expectant girlfriend, all the while doing a laugh like the hooded claw, then i'll agree that he was harshly treated and that murray, last seen running off with a large sack marked 'swag' over his shoulder, is guilty as charged, and is attempting to run rangers into the ground. plainly, in his unhinged mind, this is the best way to make the club attractive to a new buyer. until that day comes, though, i shall continue to see this as excellent business for rangers and that those who have chosen to play into the hands of the media are the ones hurting the club.

i bet you don't. i bet you sit there till he turns out to be not bad and then cheer him on like the others...in my lifetime gary stevens, ally mccoist, jorg albertz, mark hateley, right up to alan hutton. 'he's pish! whit a disgrace!' right enough, lets decide how good he is from watching the occasional game on MoTD over the last 10 years. this is indicitive of the fact that there's not much to moan about just now.

what can you say? i refer the honourable gentlemen in the stand to one jorg albertz esq, loudly and roundly lambasted as a lazy german barsteward. now, of course, everyone wishes he was back and thinks he was brilliant. the only thing i hate about being a rangers man is having to listen to other rangers fans (sometimes). i don't suppose we're any worse than other teams, but then i don't listen to fans of other teams at all.

as long as no one is voting for the clydesdale dray that masquerades as our left midfielder i'm happy. that's harsh, he has plenty of ability but for crying out loud lose some weight and do some sprint training, charlie!

eritrean boy wonder mogadon ennui and tabloide xasperasian, the armenian big hope, are rumoured to be on their way for trials. thanks for the welcomes, btw.

in an ideal world, we'd see broadfoot getting some game time in. but if we're still there or thereabouts in the league we have to go with the best side. winning the title is obviously more important than blooding broadfoot. i'd say he can certainly pass muster in the SPL, higher than that we can't say as he's untried beyond scotland u-21 level. luckily he seems a bright guy and understands the position, and having trained with the saints for years in the mud i imagine he's still loving simply being a ranger. that won't be good enough for some, esp. those who claim to be 'real rangers men', but that's how it is.

mcevely would do, as long as we're ready for a player who is not the finished article. none of the above happening would be bad news to me, other than hutton going but if someone offers 7-8m, we can't say no.

was on the setanta site the other day, and read rob maclean criticising the cancellation decision as it more or less certainly gave celtic a 7 point lead on us. i left a comment suggesting this was wishful thinking on the sheep's part, and i will have the enormous pleasure in the next few minutes of nipping over there to gloat.

might it be getting to the stage where the trust and the club 'give up' on the media? you can only bang your head off a brick wall for so long, after all. since it's fairly obvious many are leaning to the east - 'outremer' - it might be a valid argument to say you're wasting your time trying. we could learn a lesson from the early days of the socialist movement in glasgow - education is the key to empowerment. a more constructive use of the energies of the RST et al could be to continue their work in a purely Rangers environment, address RSC meetings, host conferences, leaflet games. it may seem a bit patronising and i daresay a few people would tell you to take a hike but it seems more constructive than hoping radio scotland will deign to give you 3 minutes to say little.