bmck

not yet man; work is horrible just now, and study intense. should hopefully get some time at the weekend.

another excellent-bitta-prose, sir.

equally it could be seen as presenting (and hence encouraging) the nobler aspects of the cultural differences.

what is a tour operator?

fiiiiiiixxxxxxxxxxxx!!!!!

which of our strikers is the one who can trap a ball?

... it was interesting to hear the commentator's lack of comprehension at the booing and attitude of the fans the other night. i don't think he got it at all. no suprise colin stein does though:

Sorry man, I'm being dense Do you mean is this something that's up for debate? I think everything's got to be. You only get further my trodding unlightly on the sacred cheers, barry bataille :fish:

I think anyone with any portion of intelligence is going to realise that these comments are petty regardless of whether you agree with the war or not. Who-ever's fault the war is, even with the most cynical of the war's motivations, it's not the army's fault or bad motives. The army should be celebrated especially when fighting an unjust war because it's our collective fault they're there. They go where they are sent. Where we send them. In a Spiersian-Celtic universe you can't seem to seperate support-for-a-war from support-of-the-army, which is among the stupidest things I've ever heard.

I think it's brilliant. Regardless of what I personally think of unionism, it en-nobles the aspects of the stereotypical Rangers political position that are normally open to deconstruction. It says 'patriotism' rather than 'nationalism' etc. Celtic have been excellent at playing this game. Their bizarre and vitriolic politics are completely rebranded as leftism, and standing with the oppressed, time and time again. Excellent move, in my opinion.

every single day every western government thinks of the pope as a "religious leader", just like the dahli lama and any other number. where he thinks of himself as the very voice of the one true god on earth. the way government's treat him as just another religious leader like the rest probably pisses him off more than a few people who thinks his religion is backwards and contemptible.

i think spiers is quaint. he's like the little permanently-outraged uncle that no-one really listens to. i'm not sure what's so especially contentious about fuck the pope. it's perfectly fine for people to hate religious figures these days.

no-one else think papac has been at the centre of most of wents wrong in the last few weeks?

my mrs has been singing that at random intervals and laughing to herself since going to ibrox the other week.

i think time is showing the rangers supporters trust are more interested in the rangers supporters trust than rangers, the supporters, or any semblance of trust. great concept, but when clearly decent and informed people like UCB have to resort to the "he's entitled to his opinion" rhetoric when he must know that the opinion's nonsense, it's hard to take them seriously. UCB is here to promote the RST, and develop inter-site links, while the other members undermine it on follow follow.

so you're saying you're the man for the job maineflyer?

is it bad to feel happy about a decent bit of journalism when that-journaled is so sober and grim?

That actually is my view. But the other major difference is that obviously, the Rangers supporters weren't elected to represent us at Ibrox; they paid for that right. It probably took a lot of effor for the people who did go to get there too. I mean, I would've stayed, but I've also left early (though always less than that) to stop my 5 min journey home on the subway turning into over 2 hours with queues. Although I just realised the other day I'd be home walking in half an hour so that's what I'm going to do in the future. Anyway, I would've stayed - I think staying is better than going - but I don't think I've got a right to get too jumpy-up-and-downy about it if I'm not there. You decided to stay at home; they decided to leave early. You're not going to comparatively psychologise here. Everyone's responsible for the decisions they make and work with internal and external factors invisible to others. Some maybe just couldn't watch, some have been disillusioned for a while. Some felt a crash coming on and had to make it back to the Walter Smith Disaster Support Group over at non-footie chat. It would've been better had everyone stayed, I agree, but I don't think their excuses will be that much worse than yours for not going at all. Yup.

must just have been the telly, and me projecting my own fears onto the world around me. i miss hello hello, just for the aggressiveness and intimidation of it. i think maybe the wind just went out the sails in the second half.

Yeah, but I only talk about logical fallacies when it suits me I'm not going to disagree that leaving-when-the-going-gets-tough is generally poor form, but another principle of the same sort argues that never arriving at all weakens your position to criticise. If I criticise someone for taking the easy option, say, of voting for Labour without thinking, I'd still be right if I myself never voted at all. But my argument would be undermined by justified charges of hypocricy. Yeah, but that criticism is a lot easier to ignore. You can be a customer and supporter at the same time, but I see the point. Paying �£40 is also supporting the team in a way that saying if-I-was-there-I-wouldn't-have-left isn't. Moreover, your same argument - that the individual's criticism is independent of their own situation - should make criticism of the players valid who-ever makes it whenever it is made. I'm not saying it's nice or fun. I'm saying, as I wasn't there, I'd feel stupid criticising them too harshly. Yeah, the players and club benefit from your being there 'in spirit' more than they benefit from the �£40 and singing until the fourth went in.... People can do what they want, obviously, but it's hard to take them that seriously when they do. It's hard for me at least. A person's sexuality is their own business...

it didn't sound right on the telly. it reminded me of a few seasons ago - i cant remember who we were playing, but it was under eck and michael ball was playing - just seemed so subdued and unexpectant.

don't think people who don't go can criticise those who do.

agree 100%. it is too simple to say "if you don't like it, don't read it", but i think there is a distinction between the sort of institution the bbc is, and the sort newspapers are. but you're right. it's bad especially given that in all the best responses and nash equilibriums and whatever they use to work out the marketing aspects it is good business practice to tend towards monopoly. the closer you are to monopoly, and away from perfect competition, the better they are doing. the further business' get from the ideal situation for the consumer, the better they are doing. i think this works fine in terms of economics, but you would like to think that newspapers were a special sort of business. somehow fundamentally different than macdonalds and coke. responsible, and interesting in making money so long as truth and quality isn't sacrificed. economics aims at the lowest common denominator if they're the biggest market, and i think that's what's happening. if their profits get hit, they just fire reporters. not solely the public's fault, or the paper's fault (if everyone said 'this isn't good enough', something would happen), but it's led to this sort of state of affairs where cretinous reporting gets mixed in with inept reporting and the only people satisfied are the suprised directors that people will pay for this drivel. maybe the newspapers are too big a target. the bbc is more accessible to us than overturning the dubious machinations of globalised capitalism.

aye, but we have the power not to give them any money, and because they have obligations to their shareholders, if we were to dent their profits they'd change their stories accordingly (in theory). they may be multi national, but if they stop making profits in backwater glasgow, you'll be sure someone up the chain'll be asking why. even so, the point is that it doesn't matter how powerful they are, i don't have to give them money. if i want to watch even the bill, i have to give the bbc money. there is a difference between boycotting a product which you fund through purchasing it, and the bbc, which you fund through taxation. it's not about who's the more likely target to report fairly, but who has a taxed mandate to. that said, i don't even care, i'm just playing devil's advocate. the bbc can do what it wants, i don't watch anything that doesn't come out on DVD, and you can be sure sportscene coverage doesn't make it there.

that's not necessarily a wrong approach; it depends on the people. the STS contributors were a top bunch though