calscot

I don't think I'll be talking about us winning the title for a long time - with the quickest scenario being for us to beat them at Ibrox to move even or greater than on points.

I don't know how to explain it clearer, your post was virtually unrelated to mine, so the fact that people agree is shall we say, just a bit strange... Maybe they read it in isolation rather than seeing is as "diametrically opposed" to mine which wouldn't make much sense. I can't see how it makes them disagree with me when there is no connection. If anyone wants to disagree with the actual points I make then they are entitled to and I'll happily debate them. I do realise I'm in a minority when it comes to sticking with Rangers related songs and banners, so I don't actually expect people to agree with me, and that's ok. Like I said I didn't say that, although I do see that point, although I essentially disagree with it. However, I did restate my point hoping that you might actually get it the second time (sigh). Maybe you would care to read it again. You equated mocking of paedophiles and their protectors with mocking innocent victims who died in a terrible accident. I disagree with that moral equality. Read my post again, "Both are petty point scoring". The point is that if you take that part away and legitimise them, one would be against paedophiles and covering them up and the other would be against Rangers fans breathing. That makes them NOT EQUAL. So with the pettiness, one is pretty bad, the other is pretty much psychopathic. You made up a story about me condoning banners of Savile, I've explained my position many times and so you should be able to avoid misunderstanding me in a kneejerk way, due to reading my previous posts. That's what I was pointing out. "It's the massive moral hypocrisy I was highlighting". That's strange, you just pointed it out in your previous paragraph... You're making up how I see things again. I agree using the paedophile stuff as point scoring is bad - but like I say if you think they are the same as mocking innocent victims then I totally disagree for obvious reasons that I've explained. IF we were mocking the victims of Torbet etc then I'd get your point. The equivalent for them would be if there was a mass murder of Rangers fans and they mocked the murderer. I think here you are falling for their rhetoric. This makes no sense. Were the authorities and media insensitive to the Saville victims when it all came out? Surely it's what they want? I haven't been a victim of that kind of stuff but I've been badly injured when attacked by neds, and that also affected me psychologically, and if people had a verbal go at the perpetrators (if they were ever caught) even now, I would be completely fine about it. I think it's a lame, twisted defence by them to make us look like were evil once again, for bringing it up. But it would be nice if you disagreed with what I actually said and meant...

Wouldn't mind seeing their predictions before the last game... Looks like Graeme Macpherson doesn't get the irony of the Gazza quote... Must be Celtic minded - they don't do irony.

Once again your reply says to me that you didn't really read my post and understand it. The amount of agreements you get on your post shows that that's a malaise of the forum. If you can point to the bit where I condone a banner of Savile then I'll be able to respond. As it is, you seem to have replied to something I didn't write. I will say again (sigh). I think ALL our banners should be Rangers and football related - I can't make that clearer, and I've been totally consistent on that. BUT I really don't agree with equating slagging off paedophiles and their cover ups with mocking innocent deaths. Both are petty point scoring but one is nowhere near as bad as the other. If you want to discuss either of those two points then I'm happy to do so. Your current stance seems to be that you disagree with me and therefore both those points. On a final note, I saw Celtic were applauded for highlighting the plight of the Palestinians against certain opposition, maybe the same people would applaud Rangers fans for highlighting the plight of paedophile victims against certain opposition... It's the massive moral hypocrisy I was highlighting, which you don't seem to see, and just equate the two very uneven sides. As for Savile, I don't really see the relevance beyond tenuous, and don't see that as part of the debate.

Sorry Craig, I'm once again going to disagree with you. Maybe you just haven't thought about it but you are equating the mocking of victims of accidental death with the mocking of covering up perpetrators of paedophilia, which is a bit extreme. Paedophiles are NOT victims and you seem to be accidentally condoning doing nothing about them. Hushing up such stuff has led to so much suffering by children so I can't understand your attitude about it being hypocritical to condemn the cover ups. The suggestion that demanding justice for victims of paedophiles is equal to actually celebrating accidental mass deaths is something I find quite appalling. I don't condone the using of the Torbet stuff for point scoring, it's too serious, and always want any banners we show and songs we sing to be totally about Rangers (and seem to be in a tiny minority there) - BUT to me, the two things you equate are completely diametrically opposed, and only encourage the brushing under the carpet of horrific crimes. I can't subscribe to that.

I can do that to an extent, although with the nature of things it's probably more like sympathy.

I'm sorry but in my opinion, Ladas were crap. Just because one of them lasted 10 years doesn't make it generally good, even if you liked it. I've driven a couple and they are crap to drive - exceptionally so, I've been in quite a few and they are crap to be in, I've seen a lot and they are crap to look at... They have crap performance, crap handling, crap equipment, and I'll bet they are crap in safety tests. If you like it then hey, fine, good on you, but it doesn't make them good cars. Sorry. Maybe it's relative where they were better than a Trabant? Anyway, I was just using it as an analogy and it's the worst car I can think of - we really can't use Skodas now, although they are ugly... Ok, swap Lada for Reliant Robin...

How am I being disingenuous when you repeat what I said? I don't think you have understood my post and instead gone for what you think you will hear. I never said it was exclusive and took efforts to say so, but I believe it obviously causes a load of ills where there might be a lot less without it. Read my post. The Palestinian issue is a perfect example. Hitler was known to be quite religious so you're wrong there, and Stalin trained as a Priest, Pol Pot had Buddhist and Catholic teachings and I'm sure he used divine guidance as an excuse for his atrocities, with some kind of "new start". Secular ideologies - I don't think that's very accurate. But I already dealt with all this in my previous post: I'll say again "The good do good, the evil do evil, but for good people to do evil takes religion". Taking religion away doesn't take away all evil, but it takes away a big chunk of it. I already said that in my post - did you actually read it? The thing is a lot of the secular ones you listed changed after the deaths of those leaders you talk about. What do you think of Germany now? And compare it to Iran, since they became a religious state... So which are your list of 5 best governments in the world? Are they secular or non-secular?

Maybe he's not sure yet he wants to sign and/or Warburton is not sure yet he wants to sign him... Think the answer is in your question...

Just wondering if anyone actually thinks, if you have two neighbouring countries that have a contradictory belief systems that say that they are the only important people in the world and all others are pretty much worthless in comparison, that they have the right to take what land they think has been promised them by some ancient book, by extreme force, and that they believe that genocide is a good and just way to achieve this - that they are ever going to get on? Now what parts of that would them turning secular solve?

Strange question. If I said, don't buy a Lada, they are crap cars, your answer would be that there are plenty of non-Ladas that are crap, therefore I'm wrong? That's quite a fallacy. Here's the thing, good people do good, evil people do evil, for good people to do evil, takes religion. You don't think that maybe the middle east would be a better place without being ruled by religion? As for North Korea - secular? Isn't their leader seen as some kind of demigod with divine right to rule? But that kind of shows you haven't really thought about it. I never said secular government was a panacea - due to evil people. But get rid of religious government - and evil government, and I promise the world will be a better place...

For me Israel are nutters and Palestine are nutters - kind of reflective of non-secular societies. I don't know how any rational person can empathise with either side.

Having a driving policy of signing players to sell at a profit on seems like an exercise in futility and diverts from any reasonable ethos of our club being something to do with winning trophies and sporting excellence. If that happens, I think we'll be moribund and on the way to a slow, inglorious death. It's not something I'd welcome. There's nothing wrong with assessing the risks of paying good money for players with the hedging of a possible residual or speculatively increasing value, but we should be primarily buying players we think will play successfully in our team, and so help us win trophies and do realistically well in Europe. Losing a great player we've discovered for a high fee, should be because the money is compensation for the loss, not our raison d'etre. The state of the game where we find ourselves is depressing enough, without going down a road of some sort of perpetual feeder club.

Thank sweary word for that. I still think that, results wise, while our defence is shaky, losing one goal should be fine; however, we need to be constantly scoring 2 or 3, and that's the bit that looks more deficient at the moment. I realise, though, that if you lose a soft, early goal in this league, the opposition will defend resolutely, which makes it harder to score. Top of the league again, in a virtual sense... ?

Just thinking that that could be a marketing win which could raise our profile down south... He's got more than 10 times the exposure of the club feed. Had a look at Warburton and he's "only" got 72k but I think it's higher than most other current Scottish football personalities - Joey aside.

I'm assuming the Twitter thing is just a laugh. Otherwise a bit crap to find out that Swansea AFC (592k) and Stoke City (569k) have more than twice the "profile" of us (258k). Celtic (358k) have about 40% more. But it looks like we must have signed one of the best players of all time if twitter counts - if only we could get Justin Beiber (86.5M) to play for us... Or maybe make do with re-signing Gordon Ramsay at 3.3m, which makes him better than Barton...

Pasta and vegetables sounds like a terrible diet for a footballer. High in simplex cards and ultra low in protein. If you want to be fat and weak, that will work well... ? The veggies could be good for you depending on how you cook them. As for the diet of fish suppers, sounds like bullshit. ?

I think one of the problems with the OS is that it lacks independence which makes it all puff pieces. (It's exactly the example of why we need any fans body to be fully independent.)

Just a small point, but I'm unlikely to click on a link if there is no explanation of where it goes and what it's about. I like to know if it's interesting, relevant, doesn't need registering, is not excessive in intrusive advertising and most of all: SFW... (safe for work). There's valid reasons for wanting to stay on this site... Saying that, the official site should pass those tests - but I still won't click unless there's a description... (none of this is a criticism of anyone, just feedback in how I browse, that might also apply to others)

It would be good to at least get those two on the bench.

Looking forward to that front three...

Not the nicest way of looking at it, but on the flip side, we haven't missed him - not because of his undoubted ability, but due to his horrendous injury problems.

Sounds like you're a Pokemon fan...

Maybe not quite squeaky bum but the last 20 minutes were definitely a bit uncomfortable at times. However, that might have been made worse for me by my internet starting to slow down and buffer quite a bit. In fact the whole of the second half had a bit of "tension" to it that a two goal cushion would have relieved.

Have to agree here - I always thought the introduction of the third sub was so that you could do two tactical substitutions and still have one in reserve for injury - I don't really think it should be used until the final couple of minutes unless necessary. Having said that, I think the Forester substitution was a bit necessary without injury - but then I think he should have been hooked on 60 minutes.