andy steel

Drop 'em, Charles. You're getting it!

So as not to be sneaky, I'd like to say that I have reported this post on the grounds that I hate language such as this on a Rangers forum. It reflects badly on the club. If it's considered OK, I'd like to know.

As much as I hate Cosgrove bellowing out of my radio, it's only fair to say that he's been heading up C4's coverage of the Paralympics and will be back, no doubt obsessing about Rangers, from next week.

A pathetic response. Not even worth answering in detail. If you can't see the difference between Rangers fan x speeding and Rangers fan x sending a parcel to various celtc fans which may or may not be bombs (I bow to GovenAllan on this) I have nothing to add.

"Now the opinion of many Rangers fans â?? that there is an orchestrated campaign by the Roman Catholic church to eradicate Protestantism in Scotland and bring in â??Rome ruleâ? - may have more than a ring of truth to it." Unless someone else is writing for him, he's saying the Roman conspiracy theory has more than a ring of truth to it.

"well balanced"? Don't tell me you believe there is a Roman conspiracy as well?

I'm not asking for any apology from Rangers. I don't think a condemnation of these two Rangers fans is in any way a big thing to ask.

They are Rangers fans, are they not?

Yes, I agree, but with one or two reservations. I still don't believe we have done quite enough to say we have cleaned up our act completely, though. Still a work in progress for me. I hope I just missed it, but has the club banned the two lunatics who sent the bombs to Lennon? A public condemnation is a must. Have we done away with the F word? Not quite, but it has to go. Not saying other teams have no issues but until we have solved ours we are and will remain vulnerable to the haters. Any points McMurdo might raise about others will inevitably be drowned in the tidal wave of hate for anything non-Unionist in his blogs. If he stuck to football he might get an audience; as it is, he'll just be viewed as another one unable to seperate football from baggage and so worthy of being ignored. There's no question we get a raw deal - I was unfortunate enough to succumb to curiosity and look at a Motherwell forum when we drew them, and quickly left. The hate is amazing. As Timotei is quick to almost comment, if you replace the word Hun with any other group you'd be in big trouble. I can live with it, but it's a bit unfair that we get slaughtered while others can say whatever they like!

I'll admit to still being a bit dignified silence. All the hot air from critics over our support and signings has been music to my ears. I enjoy listening to other people suffering, seeing as I've had to put up with it for ages! We all know they are scraping every excuse together they can while desperately trying to avoid saying 'it's coz we hate Rangers'...I dunno why they are so shy, we had noticed our unpopularity. But I don't need the club to publicly respond to whining from arseholes. I don't object to them doing it, I just don't personally feel any happier or unhappier based on a club statement. I remember years ago, Walter dug up Tommy Burns for two or three days in a row and it really was devastating because it was so unexpected. Get a rep for doing your talking in public and it has less effect. Anyway, I can see why Ally feels the need to reply; you'd need a hide of rhino skin not to get cranky at our coverage.

I blame the Hhome Office.

:surprised: I know that bloke is obsessed with us, but now he shows our games? No intention of watching. I plan a night of shouting abuse at a dozen or so provincial losers, though. It is disappointing to be back playing the shite of the SPL though. I do enjoy the variety of D3.

I do think he's a cracking player, but I didn't think he played that well on Sunday. Looked better as Elgin ran out of puff, poor decisions in the early portion of the game. Can definitely improve.

For goodness' sake.

This is so true and I'm as guilty of ignoring it as anyone. I don't mean religious stuff btw, which has as good as died out in my experience at Ibrox. There's a few songs about King Billy either being on the ball or the wall (I don't know this song, or where it's from, tho I could guess) - I mean just not screwing the nut and not swearing like a trooper in the family stand or whatever. But I did that too in the west enclosure when I was young so it's total hypocrisy to whine about it now. The point I'm struggling to make is that if I don't have the guts to tell the (admittedly pretty big) guy beside me to wrap it with the swearing when there's a row of 7 year olds in front of him, I can't criticise others.

Anything else sounds a bit 'mind-control'-esque. You'd be as well trying to outlaw stupidity. The problem is not so much people lying, as liars being given a platform from which to lie. There's far more editorial rigour needed - media today seems to think that bloggers and fanzine writers are a good source of writers. There's a reason they never made it as writers in the first place - they're not good enough. Jim Spence, CQN, Div from Pie & Bovril...the list goes on. If you, as an editor, choose to employ trumpets who sound as though O grade English was a struggle, you are going to have to put up with the results.

Govan Allan wrote: As much as I wish we would be more proactive in addressing one or two minor issues of taste, I totally agree with this. The bottom line is they will always find something to complain about as long as Rangers exists. Doesn't mean we should ignore our lapses, but if the aim is to get into the good books of others you might as well forget it. Big Gordy wrote: Do you actually believe this?

I was a bit concerned in case it looked as though the first post was saying 'we must have freedom of speech! Except for people we disagree with!' hence the second post. Should people be allowed to tell lies? I don't see how you can stop them. Should the same people be held up as reliable, honest, etc? No.

Language is fascinating. Notice how the writer from The Herald attempts to create a reaction in the reader when suggesting a personality behind this statement: "Green also boasted of the strength of Rangers' financial position. The club shed all its debt when the oldco went into liquidation." How daaaaaaaaaaaaaare he boast! Where is his morality??? The 'boasting' is in the imagination of the writer, which we perhaps ought not to be surprised at, given he works at a paper which employs the like of Spiers. Perhaps Charles was smoking a huge cigar at the time, while taunting penniless Reeperbahn urchins with shiny florins. A direct link between shoddy business practice, and new financial strength, with the traditional Rangers superiority complex thrown in for good measure. Tells you a lot more about the person who wrote it rather than Charles Green. As to the point, I think we need to get ourselves up and running in Scotland before we think about exploiting the market in China. But then I am a staid Jock and not a businessman.

Apologies for quoting my own post. I just want to make it clear that means allowing the likes of Roy and Phil the right to free speech, even if what they say is complete rubbish. We can always respond with sanction if we like, such as bans or complaints, but they must be allowed to express their opinions. That doesn't mean newspapers - even shit ones like The Sun - ought to be paying them. Akin to offering money to Nick Griffen, in truth.

I wonder what Roy would make of this journalist's work? As Scots we know that the above portrayal is both shaming and accurate enough and could easily apply to us; to deny it on the grounds that it is offensive would be pathetic. Dickens was a journalist, and a damn good one, when he wrote these words. Words such as these would be banned in Roy and Phil's universe; a frightening thought. For a literary dissident (how far up your own rectum do you have to be to describe yourself thus?) Phil seems gloriously unaware of the writing of that greatest dissident, George Orwell. Journalism is only worth defending if it is prepared to explore or allow opposing points of view. A journalism which is only interested in defending democracy when it suits, which insists on rules for itself but different rules for others, and which silences those who do not fit the template is a perversion of the hard won right to free speech. I'll be damned if I'm going to let advocates of terrorism lecture me on democracy - I may have little interest in Ireland and its history, but I do know that anyone who supported the blowing up of children to achieve a political end loses the right to the moral high ground. I'm glad these people are only bloggers. We have had to endure some amount of shit journalism and journalists since the days of Boz, but if we ever reach the stage where these pass for actual journos we're in a sad old state.

Excellent point, but good luck persuading football clubs to give up a revenue stream! A good, imaginative point - except we'd have to go through the SPL (if we were in it) to sell a player! I can't say as that is very attractive, right now. Someone else! Thank the Lord...I have been regretting my candour about McKay all day.

An attack on a football club is an attack on football, and, ipso facto, an attack on the leisure time of the Scottish working class. Anyone can put together some crap and make it a statement. Fucking idiot.

Motherwell at Ibrox.

Aw diddums, did we not die like we were supposed to? GIRFUY.