Vanguard Bears - just who are they?

[Bluedell 5,376]

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.

 

It's not the fact that FF is referred to in derogatory terms. It's the fact that it seems as if it's constantly referred to. You have even admitted it was part of the basis of the site's assessment of Whyte.

 

I understand the history but feel that it should be moving on from it now. None of the forums are perfect and deserve criticism at times, but the first response to criticism doesn't need to be "ah but FF....."

 

However my post was meant constructively. Hopefully it's taken that way.

[frost 0]

I still think VB has an overblown sense of its own importance, most elitist private members sites do in my opinion.

[3909 04 0]

It's not the fact that FF is referred to in derogatory terms. It's the fact that it seems as if it's constantly referred to. You have even admitted it was part of the basis of the site's assessment of Whyte.

 

I understand the history but feel that it should be moving on from it now. None of the forums are perfect and deserve criticism at times, but the first response to criticism doesn't need to be "ah but FF....."

 

However my post was meant constructively. Hopefully it's taken that way.

 

OK, I'll take your post in the intended spirit.

 

What might be considered an acceptable VBer's response to an FFer's Craig Whye jibe? "Mea culpa"? "I'm sorry"? "It's a fair cop, guv"?

 

I presume such remarks are aimed at eliciting a response; I'm just wondering what it is.

 

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.

 

Yes, it is ridiculous. What do you put it down to? Dare I suggest divise elements within the support?

 

Given your personal history with fans' groups, some might find your post more than a little ironic. Dontcha think?

[the gunslinger 3,366]

its certainly how they come accross frost.

[Frankie 8,200]

 

 

Yes, it is ridiculous. What do you put it down to? Dare I suggest divise elements within the support?

 

Given your personal history with fans' groups, some might find your post more than a little ironic. Dontcha think?

 

Yes there are divisive elements - I've already pointed that out. People won't move past petty squabbles and personality clashes.

 

As for my own personal history with fan groups, I won't pretend my performance was fantastic but I always tried my best to be inclusive.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

given every club should have a trust if you want only one external orgonisation that has to be it.

[Frankie 8,200]

given every club should have a trust if you want only one external orgonisation that has to be it.

 

I'd generally agree but when our trust performs so poorly/selectively then it's not a surprise to see people look for alternatives.

 

Unfortunately, we have a somewhat of a vicious circle when it comes to our fan organisations.

[3909 04 0]

I'd generally agree but when our trust performs so poorly/selectively then it's not a surprise to see people look for alternatives.

 

Unfortunately, we have a somewhat of a vicious circle when it comes to our fan organisations.

 

Which as you know is the main reason we have such a splintered fan group.

 

A Trust is the best vehicle for fans to effect change, no question, but it won't happen at Rangers with the RST in its present guise, especially not with the existing long-standing personnel still running the show.

 

That's not sniping, it's an irrefutable fact.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

yes very much so Frankie.

[Bluedell 5,376]

What might be considered an acceptable VBer's response to an FFer's Craig Whye jibe? "Mea culpa"? "I'm sorry"? "It's a fair cop, guv"?

 

To a certain extent, yes. I think that there are times where you have to accept it. However, and without trying to speak for him, I don't think FS was posting as a "FFer". He was a guy who questioned CW the whole way along, even when CW was being lauded by a majority of FF, so I'm sure he'd be critical of them (and many on here) as well.

 

While not disagreeing with the previous generalisation comments, there's also much to criticise FF about, for example in respect of the hysteria of Green's early days. It wasn't all posters but there were many that just jumped on the bandwagon being pushed by some at that point. I'm therefore not arguing that FF shouldn't be criticised but VB is much more than just an anti-FF site which it could come across as to casual observers.