SteveC

It must have been difficult getting anyone for the first date. Most teams will be on holiday (Will Bury even have started training by then?) and will be watching the World Cup quarter finals.(Presuming players still watch such games. A report in an English paper four years ago suggested they did not)

Perhaps when you bellow: "take those clothes off", she's thinking you have things other than colour in mind? Just a thought...

Only if it changes, plus they didn't win games that they probably would have if they had needed to do so - in addition to the one(s?) they lost because it hurt us. It's impossible to judge from point tallies in non-competitive seasons. We had a couple of years in our (latest) 9-in-a-row where our points tallies and many of our results were utterly shocking - but we didn't care because we knew we'd won it before it had even started.

A slight update on dB's posting above: STEVEN Gerrard is set to clinch his fourth signing as Rangers boss as Liverpool kid Ovie Ejaria closes in on a move to Ibrox. Rangers have already completed deals for Scott Arfield, Allan McGregor and Jamie Murphy this summer. And SportTimes understands a swoop for Ejaria is now imminent. The 20-year-old spent time on loan at Sunderland last season and is now set to leave Anfield on a temporary basis once again. Gerrard officially started as Light Blues boss last Friday and will put his squad through their paces for the first time later this month. Rangers will head to Spain for a ten day training camp before returning to Glasgow to step up their preparations for the Europa League qualifiers and new Premiership campaign. Gerrard will be given funds to bolster his Gers ranks this summer and Ejaria is now poised to become the latest Light Blues recruit. http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/sport/rangers/16266629.Rangers_set_to_clinch_loan_deal_for_Liverpool_kid_Ovie_Ejaria/

Not muddled at all, far less 'very' or 'indeed'. No need to jump to that conclusion if you have difficulty following. Admittedly my brevity will not have helped if you didn't realise that my responses took a turn in response to your post, that's all. Simplified: I thought you were provocatively returning to the recently closed topic regarding the risible view that posting something on Gersnet, which was already widely circulating, was "dancing to the tune of our enemies". If it is already spreading far and wide in MSM and twitter and other outlets that "amplification" seems a rather grand and misleading term for it being shared on Gersnet, as did the above accusation re dancing to our enemies' tune. Life is not a simple matter of black and white, no matter the modern inability or disinclination to grasp that it is actually something more complex. Here there are two points. The actions of the press and the practice of mutilating dogs. I am against both but the latter takes precedence for me over the former. Two wrongs do not make a right they say, and nor does the secondary wrong (press's timing) mean the primary fault (mutilating dogs for personal gain and/or 'fashion') should not be reported, even if one would have hoped for it to be reported at another time. There surely would be similar cases for anyone, as in however bad you felt the press's timing was there are surely some things that you'd still want to be reported even if the timing was another reason to feel an injustice (a separate one) was being done by that timing. The injustice of the timing would not negate the need to report on whatever the subject may be - drug running, child abuse, murder, animal cruelty, slave trading, defrauding, bullying or whatever the case may be. I realise we would all have different ethical or criminal transgressions which we'd place as more serious than the press's timing of stories, but there would surely be, for everyone, a point where we'd say "yes, the press's timing is lousy/underhand/a matter for complaint but over and above that the action being reported is abhorrent and should be discussed."

Perhaps or perhaps I was making the point that the timing of press's release of the story does not obviate the content of the story itself. A story which concerns an abhorrent practice that should be stopped. Hence, my reference to the word "irrespective" and it not holding sway over me as detailed in: " the first half to me is a large enough issue to remain just that, an issue, even given that". I know you like to control what people post on here but, like Ian, I'll decide what I think I should post.

Deja Vu time, as the locked Collymore Tweet thread theme resurfaces. There is no "irrespective" for me. Despite thinking the same as der Berliner in the second part of his sentence, the first half to me is a large enough issue to remain just that, an issue, even given that. Edit: PS - Sorry, I forgot to answer the question - "Yes, of course". I only posted it here, but thanks for that suggestion.

Love it. Very expressive.

Probably, no doubt he'll issue a statement soon. Apparently - according to that thread - he has posted about them on the past on twitter and bears have pulled him up about it. I don't follow Twitter so I'm just repeating what was said there, and it may or may not be true.

The article doesn't say he personally did it or ordered it to be done. I'm pretty sure it is illegal here despite some on here apparently supporting it. Ordering dogs specifically because they've had this done to them, to increase their sell on price, is surely bad enough? This is the FF thread: https://www.followfollow.com/forum/threads/is-something-big-happening-today.32382/

It's done to make them look "hard" in the owners' eyes and therefore, by reflection, them too- as someone asks in the comments to the article, "Does this make your dick feel bigger?"

I know but hard to get it all into a title frame!

line 1 - I missed a word out in the title, now corrected, thanks for that line 2 - No thanks at all for that.

Same here, but many animal cruelty things which are illegal in the UK are routinely carried out. (Not that I am saying that is what happened here, though importing them after, and specifically because of mutilation, is also unforgiveable )

"Rangers’ James Tavernier under fire over cruel and illegal ear-cropping of dogs" http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/16263637.___Really_shameful_stuff_____Rangers____James_Tavernier_under_fire_over_cruel_and_illegal_ear-cropping_of_dogs/ I've not C&P#d because the photos are important to the story I can't understand this behaviour at all. 1) The vicious cruelty 2) Doing it for money when already rich 3) Spreading it all over social media 4) Thinking (I use the term loosely) yourself a dog lover (rather than mutilator) 5) The utter madness of what you are doing in the first place.

They will lie, the MSM will go along with it and we'll be ignored. Situation normal.

I see that, in a manner reminiscent of Barack Obama's use of "queue", the term "outwith" has raised questions as to whose words were being transmitted, here. Day 1, SG, a foretaste of what's to come. Everything is scrutinised. It was a silly error by whoever used that word, it has to be said (a la Obama's UK speech writer for the day)

It's surely been a very long time since someone who was not at our wished for level (unless you mean pie in the sky dream levels) "should command a good fee down south". A keeper in a team 3rd in an atrocious league who lost so many goals? I'm not saying they were all his fault, of course, but I don't see why he "should command a good fee". PS - On the other hand, they do have mountains of cash to throw around, down South!

The 'impact' part was not a debate regarding whether or not it was 'a great idea to post what is being posted elsewhere'. Rather, it was over the ridiculous notion that Gersnet was giving publicity oxygen to something that had that a thousandfold over without our involvement. Some of us do think - nice of you to tell us what we should do, though, especially as we've also just been told how and what to think by another poster. Some of us are too old and been around the block too often to dance, but thanks for letting us know that in an Admin controlled environment of a fans' football forum, Ian should carefully weigh up each and every one of the many items he goes out of his way to share with his fellow fans. For this, he has my thanks and gratitude and sympathies for the way in which this thread has turned out.

That's a terrible thing to say about Ian. oh, wait, I see....

I think you are getting the impact of Gersnet in relation to the widespread retweeting of his tweets by others, especially that mob, and all the other forums it will have appeared on seriously out of balance here. It will have gathered huge attention regardless of what is said on here. yes, "Posts and retweets are making him relevant" but that's nothing to do with Ian posting on here, they are happening, and will continue to happen, regardless.

He's high profile - was a big name player and has had a meda presence. That makes him different to every raving lunatic who tweets even though he is in that category, too. And. basically, I trust Ian - it was him I was supporting!

His tweets spread far and wide. Being on Gersnet is not what he is after, giving us a bad rep all over is what he is after and, sadly, no doubt getting - just imagine how many of them have retweeted this. I think we should always know the lies that are being spread so that we are ready to counter them.

Yes, but if his comfort zone does not include being on Rangers TV as a co-commentator or speaking on mainstream TV or radio then why is it that this is where we find him? Also, what exactly is he going to do for the club in his new position that is within his comfort zone (whatever that comfort zone actually is supposed to be)?

His giggling talk with Tom Miller regarding what "human geography" could possibly mean - a conversation in which both started lost for words because of incomprehension of basic English sentences and ended it lost for words as they were overcome with their own primary school 'wit' - bore, uniquely eloquent, testimony against this notion. The only time I have heard him on Clyde we were ripped to pieces - with untruths at that - and he made one feeble attempt at partially defending us before letting them get on with it and he joined in the laughing at our expense at the end. I idolised him as a player. I'll never forget him at centre-half v Ajax. A wonderful display but how anyone can talk about him and 'global ambassador' in the same sentence is beyond comprehension.