bmck

I dont quite see the distinction, but thats fine. Who he does what with is none of my concern. I dont care if he acts in a manner the papers like or if he doesnt. I am not sure where you get morally righteous from. I was really originally annoyed by that very thing in you, no offense. Again, its the morally righteous that want to start being outraged by the ongoings of celebrities. The only high horse being rode is who-ever starts shouting about it in the first place. It was your moral righteousness that managed to take a moral stance on what McGregor should and shouldnt be doing, talking about "irresponsible", "foolish" etc. You want to take the moral high ground with him, but then accuse me of doing that thing when I tell you its not worth bothering abut. Doesnt make sense to me. So, wait. Its being morally righteous to not start morally condemning, and think its not sensible to start morally condemning, people who Ive never met and what they do with their dick? But its not being morally righteous to read the paper and say "Oh, this is terrible, look what he has done". Honestly, I am lost. Thats why I qualified it with "Of the mst uninteresting sort." Seriously, I am not asking you to abstain if you enjoy, I am just saying I dont think its sensible. If you think its weird not to care, then I am not going to be offended by that. When you say things like "irresponsible", "it happens", "foolish", "its not fair to" you are talking about right and wrong. Personally I dont care for right and wrong, I get by fine with fun and dull, beautiful and ugly. Im not really one for morality.

That's my view. While they may be sensible in every other facet of their life, they're not in that. I don't think it's right that people are interested in the 'scandal' of people they don't know. If that's a 'smear', so be it. People who care one way or another what Alan McGregor does with his personal life aren't sensible (in that respect). To me it's voyeurism of the most uninteresting sort. It's not newsworthy. Alan McGregor's private life should be of no more concern to a person than someone they walked past on the road without noticing. I just can't understand why either the papers or the readers of the papers would be interested.

Yes, and so would any sensible person. I like news to be about newsworthy things. The idea that people care one way or another is a travesty, but I think people care far less than the media.

Ach, its OF week - who cares about accuracy, lets just get intae them! :spl:

Thats pesky reporting. He didnt say anything like that! Hope the game is, uhm, character building for him though!

I can understand their reticence if it makes their bargaining position weaker, as it's fundamentally a business transaction. But I can't for the life of me think how that could possibly be the case. You would think that any case that incorporated the fans would force Murray's "I have the best interests of the club and its future at heart" pretensions.

I was having a laugh, but when you start making NOTW articles about dogs and furniture an excuse for a rant - siding with the scummiest sort of degenerate journalism - then you're not going to garner a lot of support. I wouldn't even hold anything written in the NOTW against a Celtic player. And the sky is blue because the sky is blue and alcohol is alcoholic because its alcohol and the grass is green because its green.... I've got a fair few complaints about Lafferty, but if you think I'm going to hold him responsible for the NOTW thinking some complaint about a dog is newsworthy it's really you that's one of the laughs you keep mentioning.

I think Johnnys point was that if you just think he is a hopeless player, you didnt need to cite a rag that would make and already-caught-killed-and-deep-fat-fried fish blush with shame at being wrapped in it, to make your case. Even if Lafferty is downright evil, nothing in the NOTW is going to make him look any worse. Its like saying lafferty must be crap because fred west said so. The fact that you would use Fred West to have an excuse to have a pop at Lafferty doesnt reflect very well on you... the lengths some fans would goto to vent at a player.... shame on you!

Here thats an idea. Thatd be my wee maws ultimate mothers day!

I think this is really pretty much all the answers we need at this stage. Donald Muir appears to be acting in Murray's best interests. Does this mean wabash can finally come to terms with the protests? In lobbying Muir you seem to be lobbying Murray as he exists within Rangers.

Well, certainly the symbolism is there, and what it symbolises is up for debate. I think it's probably the fear of ingratiating-sorts in you that makes this seem the most plausible explanation. I mean, I know catholic theology quite well, and detest it. There are, however, lots of excellent catholics despite their theological background. To me it's nothing more than a Rangers scarf in with the Celtic scarves when Tommy Burns died mixed with Ally trying to appropriate a sense of gravitas for himself if he's to be a future manager of stature. It's, I dunno, a little cringworthy, but not bad. On the whole, I tend to think that Ally McCoist is a legend, and what he does with his own money is largely none of my concern.

Do they teach Catholicism with the funds? Or do they just help people? If they just help people, there's nothing objectionable in that.

That would be the best thing ever.

im getting fear about an inverse helichopper sunday because im a pessimist!

they are now trying to make the spl love them!

Suprised more people haven't been talking about this. Seems a bit like another of WS' semi-coded messages.

hope you have a healthy wad of cruciferous vegetables in your dinner there for your memory

I definitely think it's the best thing to aim for - but are there examples of any clubs who regularly produce top top quality youngsters?

It means it can succesfully produce solid players, and the question whether it's possible for one club to do more.

Aye, that's true.

Cal, you argued this before, but I'll stick it out again. Would it be better to get rid of the youth setup altogether and invest all the money in scouting youth players and buying the best before they're expensive? You wait to see which young players are making it in Scotland - say 4 over 4 years to make it analagous to our current system - and by them for a million each. Would that be less expensive than Murray Park?

best compliment i can give boydy is that he stops my penalty psychosis. i try to think "we are going to miss this" to make the universe think i dont think its going to go in, so it does the opposite. the universe doesnt reward optimism. but then if i slip and think "hah, thats me cheated the universe" it knows i really think we are going to score and makes us miss. and on it goes until whatever happens. boydy cuts all that out as i think "fuck the universe, statistically he is probably going to score". more boydy penalties please!

nothing piques my irrational fitbaw superiority complex quite like when other teams have to make do with outspoken "best X team in the country" where X is passing, footballing, sporting, attacking while we have the infinitely better though always unspoken "best team in the country" with no participles at all.

Hehe, we could just copy and paste andys old one - cest toujours la meme chose! eta: will do when i get a sec m8.

As a naive one-forum contributor and observer of stuff I must say I find the whole protest issue incomprehensible. I only have a similar level of incomprehension and skepticism at election time - each party deconstructs the other by ascribing them dubious motives. The pro-protest people are working for the anonymous consortium say one, and the anti-protest people are working for the club, says the other. The effect of this electioneering style ethic is that its hard to listen to what either side actually says because their respective wells have been poisoned with plausible sounding allegations. The overarching question is ultimately who does this divided distrustful state suit? The answer is always that division suits the status quo - the very status quo all parties agree is unacceptable. The only solution is, as it always has been, for all parties - the club, the fans involved, and any potential consortium - to speak openly and honestly and let good sense prevail. Too much to hope for?