Vanguard Bears - just who are they?

[amms 0]

A bit political is it not.

 

Hahaha! <applause>

[Frankie 8,200]

While it's true that generalisations should be avoided, it's also fair to say there are some sites whose editorial policy more accurately reflects the views of most of its posters than other sites.

 

FF is certainly one. VB is another, whereas this site contains a far more broad range of opinions with little or no editorial influence apparent.

 

That's probably fair in terms of editorial policy but I still don't think it's accurate to say FF thought that, RM thinks this or VB do that. Sure, key opinion formers may dictate the narrative but doesn't mean the majority agree with their thoughts or actions.

 

Generally speaking our fanbase needs to stop thinking so narrowly about each other just because of the forum we use or the fan group we're a member of (or not as the case may be).

 

We need to remember we're all Rangers fans so, generally speaking again, we'll agree on most subjects. Any disagreement therefore is healthy and should be encouraged but not to the detriment of the overall relationship.

 

For example, each site and fan group has their strengths and weaknesses. Rather than be defensive about the latter we should be working together to maximise the former.

[Frankie 8,200]

I wouldn't say that, the bold Frankie turned my thumb upside down on my Union Bears article...

 

 

I realise you're not being overly serious but if I wanted to influence anything, I'd have deleted the post and banned you. Instead I disagreed politely and merely requested people avoid insults in any criticism they want to offer of specific subjects.

 

It would be a boring place if everyone agreed and we banned people/debate just because they didn't match admin opinion.

[EDGE 0]

I realise you're not being overly serious but if I wanted to influence anything, I'd have deleted the post and banned you. Instead I disagreed politely and merely requested people avoid insults in any criticism they want to offer of specific subjects.

 

It would be a boring place if everyone agreed and we banned people/debate just because they didn't match admin opinion.

 

You are correct, Frank, I'm wasn't being overly serious.

[Bluedell 5,376]

an on-line forum "FollowFollow.com" run by someone who purports to be a Rangers supporter, Mark Dingwall, but which allows supporters of not just Rangers, but of Celtic and other Scottish clubs to post,

 

Neither did FF,

 

The reason VBers were reluctant to condemn Whyte is they refused to follow the lead of FF posters in joining Celtic-loving journalists like Daly using Craig Whyte as a mechanism to heap public ridicule on Rangers. I remember posts on FF praising Mark Daly's role in setting Rangers on the road to recovery. Yeah, right. That was his rationale all along, we all see that.

.

 

We have FF referenced when VBs are describing who they are, they are referenced when they are criticised and they are even used in their decision making about Whyte.

 

The VBs do a lot of great work but they need to move away from this fixation they have of FF. They have done enogh to establish themselves as an influenctial group within our support. You don't get on with FF or the RST? Fine. Ignore them and get on with your own stuff. It diminishes what you do come up with by constantly referring to them.

 

As for Whyte, there was no major reason for anyone to get overly worried by the Mark Daly programme. It was clearly done with someone with an agenda and had little evidence. It was the Daily Record's Ticketus article that should have had alarm bells ringing and was when everyone should have started considering what he was up to. There was enough prima facie evidence to suggest something was seriously wrong. However we all make mistakes and hopefully we learn from them and move on.

 

Hopefully the VBs can move away from the FF references and just carry on with the good work that they do.

[Bluedell 5,376]

You are correct, Frank,

 

 

That's funny, for some reason.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

We have FF referenced when VBs are describing who they are, they are referenced when they are criticised and they are even used in their decision making about Whyte.

 

The VBs do a lot of great work but they need to move away from this fixation they have of FF. They have done enogh to establish themselves as an influenctial group within our support. You don't get on with FF or the RST? Fine. Ignore them and get on with your own stuff. It diminishes what you do come up with by constantly referring to them.

 

As for Whyte, there was no major reason for anyone to get overly worried by the Mark Daly programme. It was clearly done with someone with an agenda and had little evidence. It was the Daily Record's Ticketus article that should have had alarm bells ringing and was when everyone should have started considering what he was up to. There was enough prima facie evidence to suggest something was seriously wrong. However we all make mistakes and hopefully we learn from them and move on.

 

Hopefully the VBs can move away from the FF references and just carry on with the good work that they do.

 

an excellent post bluedell.

[pete 2,499]

an excellent post bluedell.

 

Don't get him all big headed now.

[3909 04 0]

We have FF referenced when VBs are describing who they are, they are referenced when they are criticised and they are even used in their decision making about Whyte.

 

The VBs do a lot of great work but they need to move away from this fixation they have of FF. They have done enogh to establish themselves as an influenctial group within our support. You don't get on with FF or the RST? Fine. Ignore them and get on with your own stuff. It diminishes what you do come up with by constantly referring to them.

 

As for Whyte, there was no major reason for anyone to get overly worried by the Mark Daly programme. It was clearly done with someone with an agenda and had little evidence. It was the Daily Record's Ticketus article that should have had alarm bells ringing and was when everyone should have started considering what he was up to. There was enough prima facie evidence to suggest something was seriously wrong. However we all make mistakes and hopefully we learn from them and move on.

 

Hopefully the VBs can move away from the FF references and just carry on with the good work that they do.

 

My first post was in direct response to a GersNet user (who posts on FF with the same username) after he made a less than complimentary comment about VB & Whyte. Almost the same line as he used - "Are VB still backing Whyte?" - is used universally by way of criticism of VB on FF to this day.

 

In any event, VB only came about as a site as a result of several longstanding FF users being permanently banned from FF for going against what Frankie diplomatically terms "the site narrative".

 

Rather than everyone throwing their hands up in mock horror every time FF is mentioned in even the most mildly derogatory terms on here, it might help to understand the context of the posts in question, not to mention the history behind both sites.

[Frankie 8,200]

No-one is throwing their hands up in horror - we allow and have allowed criticism of most forums on here just as you'll see of this place elsewhere also.

 

As someone who has been active in the online community (though not VB) for many years and suffered from abuse/insults from people on all sites, I'm well aware of the context of inter-community squabbles. It's water off a duck's back and generally exaggerated by many so it's a shame we can't move past a few individuals and act in a more cohesive manner.

 

It really is ridiculous how many fan groups we have. There should be two and that's it - one part of the club and one independent of it. The fact we seem to have at least 6 (Assembly, Association, Trust, Working Group, RFFF, RU, USP) is bordering on the insane.