Big Jaws

You could have started that post of saying... This is what we're capable of its inexplicable why we we're not consistent. Jeest sayin!

I've got to be honest folks I feared the worst for tonight but so far thats much more like it... we've been first to every breakdown in the middle of the park and it shows Pena pushes our line up enough to cause concern, his touches have been outstanding and his late runs into the box are extremely dangerous. I've also got to say that McCrorie is a natural in that right half role he reads the game in front of him very well and has started at least a couple of chances in assist. I'm enjoying how tonight has panned out so far another couple in the second half and the same again on Sunday would be very very nice.

Windass got lucky with his goal, lucky that Herrera pulled the defence wide open. Not a first choice from Murty whose selections could play all day and not score. I don't blame the guy he's a youth coach but it doesn't half show. We're not treading water we're going backwards. AGM is gonna be uncomfortable for the suits.

According to Tom Miller Hamliton haven't won at Ibrox in the league in 90 years 1927.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion but on this one you are completely wrong. First of all gender is a social construct and there are arguments which suggest certain gender traits can be discussed in terms of learned behaviours. What I believe you were attempting to say was that 'sex' or rather 'biological sex' was binary and even if that is what you were trying to say then you are wrong in the assumption too. The reason why you are wrong is because biology and the science of genetics has shown us that 'biological sex' is NOT in fact binary. That is, there are males, there are females and there are any number of permutations and combinations in between. These cases are normally referred to in official circles as inter sexed. The recent high profile case of the South African runner Caster Semenya who has a condition known as hyperandrogenism had this issue at its core as she is inter sexed. The argument was whether or not she was a biological female or not because she has testosterone levels three times the normal level found in women and approaching those of a man. Furthermore, she has no womb or ovaries, and instead, owing to a chromosomal abnormality, internal testes. These internal testes are what gives her her masculine appearance. Through rigorous testing much of which was invasive and regardless of how she might look she is technically and to the letter of the law a biological female. As far as her gender is concerned she identifies as a woman, her sexuality is that of a gay woman. Taken in the context the OP adding in your post there is quite clearly nothing straight forward in the slightest about any of this at all!

Couple of things bother me about Windass. First is that he was absolutely spent when he was subbed @ 70 mins and the second is that he jumps out of tackles. Other than that he's better than a 60 grand player.

I could be wrong but I think Mack was referring to not knowing if Partick had a poppy on their shirt and that they respected the 1 minute silence.

The partnership with him and Wilson worked fairly well. From what I can see he's right footed. His covering and passing are excellent, he's got pretty decent pace and balance, he's decent in the air and a strong in the tackle. Sometimes he's a wee bit late to challenge but he'll learn that and when he steps out with the ball I'd like to see him cross the half way line more because he's got the range off passing to do that well. For my money he's one of the best young Scottish players I've seen in quite a long time and looks like a traditional right half type more than just a defender.

He's had two matches and steadied the ship so far which is good for him and us fans but he's the youth coach and thats what he wants to do. His stock and rep with fans is quite high but he's not under any pressure right now which would change if he was given the job. Personally I think he's well aware of that and I dont think he wants the job but that doesnt mean he wouldnt throw his name in the hat if asked to put it forward.

I'd keep John and Tav but we need two full backs both right and left. I have no idea why people think that Hodson can do a job, he cant. He's poor going forwards, he's poor in defence and he offers very little cover. When a player doesn't know whether to stick or twist they often find themselves out of position which he does regularly and he doesn't have the pace or the vision to make up the ground when he finds himself in that position regularly. Wallace on the other side can be quite similar and what I find frustrating about him is that he does have the pace and vision to make up the yards but has absolutely no urgency whatsoever. In the case of Hodson he's simply nowhere near good enough but thats not his fault really as thats all he's got to work with. Wallace on the other hand is a different story. We need a couple of LMF's that can play wide with pace one to play regularly and one for cover. We also need cover for Candieas. We need a more consistent AMF, at least more consistent than Pena, who can break the oppositions lines and arrive late in the penalty box to either support a single striker or to add a +1 if we play with 2 up. Thats all I can think of at the moment. We need at least 26 players for our squad to try do it on anything less is stupid anyway thats what I think we need regardless of what manager we get in.

I've said it more than once on these boards and I'll say it again. I like Derek he's a good lad but I don't want him to be the Rangers manager. Theres no need to repeat whats already been said and the Rangers Observer article sums up exactly why I think that.

He obviously didnt have the right genetics for Strachan!

It depends oh how the current board have performed or rather how they are perceived to have performed?

1. You've been informed where the chant originated and why (IFS support of Nazism). 2. You've been informed that the chant was adopted by that faction probably sometime after the Battle of Bogside in 1969 which if you weren't aware is the event that many observers attribute to sparking the troubles of the 70's in N.I. 3. You've been informed that the term is considered sectarian and therefore unlawful by the Law enforcement agencies in N.I. 4. Northern Ireland is a province and territory of the UK therefore if something is considered unlawful and sectarian in nature in N.I. then it must also be considered unlawful and sectarian across the whole state of the UK. In short you've been informed and given more than enough information to investigate the truth or if you prefer the 'why' of it. What is clear is that your own personal view point is 'heresay' and will likely continue to be due to your refusal to grasp the key points that have been presented to you. I have nothing further to add on the matter.

I asked you where you sourced the information that the term Hun came to be used by Celtic supporters, or anyone else for that matter, because of the Royal family hereditary connexion to Germany. This if I'm not mistaken is your main premise in the original post and therefore is of significant importance.

If there was a point in time I'd me more inclined to say it stemmed from would probably be around the Bogside incident 1969 although in saying that I certainly don't remember them using it till at least 1970-1 perhaps slightly later.

Do you intend to answer the questions posed in post #39?

There is no doubt some of the information you've cited on these boards are facts. Facts, on the one hand, are only part of a story, facts cannot be combated by reasoning precisely because they are existential and objective. However the same cannot be said for truth as truth on the other hand is far more ethereal and subjective therefore there is much to be said for the person who steps down from the pulpit, amongst the people, to deliver such sermon dear reverend. I feel I've little option but to remind the poster that there is a vast difference between educating than lecturing from an elevated aloof platform and my Presbyterian upbringing encourages me, not only, to highlight this but urges me to raise the issue.

I know fine well there is no debate. However there are some of us who believe education and a degree of humility are more important than being righteous pricks!

I'm quite happy to debate the word and its origin and how it relates to football and in particular Rangers Football club. I'm not prepared to debate the British Empire or its politics which is historical but not football related.

You've been shown in countless posts in this very thread where the chant from a football fan perspective originates and where the change in use of the word originates yet you maintain that no one can tell you why its now our 'badge'...thats quite a stretch and also quite odd. Where did you get the information or rather what was the source that lead you to believe that Rangers fans were Huns because the Royal family are of German decent?

Admin. Time to move this thread to the Bluenose lounge... It gives the impression that it is football related but its not its political.

Most of that is not very fair. We ran the game yesterday for the first 25 mins then we had 10-15 mins where we were pretty poor we then get a grip on the game again and score just before half time. We come out for the second half and manage/control the game until the final whistle in that time we score a further 2 goals. There are times where we make mistakes in and out of possession of course we do however they did show that they are coming to terms with how to manage games better to change up the pace of play and its movement both vertically and horizontally. Not one of the teams we've faced this season or last for that matter have done anything different. They are not tactically superior nor do they have better footballers than us however what they do have though, and it exists only when they play us, is extremely physical players who will charge into ours irrespective of where the ball is Provided it is within the laws of the game then I have no issues with the physical aspect. However what I've seen over the course of these two season, the physical contact, is not only against the laws of the game but also dangerous. As far as Rangers are concerned are they the finished article absolutely not. That doesn't mean that we don't hold them to have high standards or that we don't think we should be better than what we are. It is a commentary on what we see before us.

That is as I understand it too Pete. In an attempt to pull all the info in this thread together I'll leave that quick summary from Pete in place manly as a place holder. Eire, the republican government from the 1930's rather than condemn the Reich chose to present a neutral stance mostly because they suspected the reports of Nazi atrocities were all British propaganda (that was at the very least their public stance). Truman US president wanted to make a statement and send a message to De Valera whom he suspected of more than just neutrality which ironically Churchill lobbied against. On 2nd of May 1945 De Valera attended a very public condolence ceremony at the German embassy to mourn the death of Hitler. It brought world wide condemnation and finally sealed Eire stance in the eyes of the public although as the poster Union points out above the opinion had more than already taken root. So it was first introduced by FOOTBALL fans, not just Rangers supported, to highlight, isolate and condemn the Celtic supports republican stance and its connexions with those of the Eire government. In 2013 the Irish who went to war against Hitler were finally pardoned by Eire government. The claim that Hun is a collective term for Rangers supporters is at best spurious as it, is applied to not only Rangers but also Hearts and Linfield supporters or anyone else whom is suspected of protestantism, which is quite clearly sectarian in nature and especially in NI where it began to appear daubed on walls to depict protestantism (I believe, it is also a criminal offence there). Its not in any way shape or form anything other than an offensive derogatory term. So with that said I do prefer to educate first rather than condemn however it is understandable that posters will suspect you of treachery and close ranks when you don't accept the signposts and go do the research and examine the information they are pointing you towards for yourself.