Ibrox: Jurassic Park?

[Chibmark 15]

Verbatim?

 

I always thought that meant you giving a Tim a "doing"?

[The Real PapaBear 0]

Excellent debate guys.

 

If I can add one small thing, it's that I agree with D'Artagnan's basic gripe with you here Andy, which is that you should try to use quotations verbatim from the original in their whole form and not chop them up to suit and mix with your own point or agenda. This is one of the gripes that I think many of us have had with the Scottish sports press and media over the years, so I don't see why we shouldn't at least try to work to higher standards. It's not easy though and in Andy's defense D'Art, I think most of us have done exactly the same or very similar at one point or another....

 

All due respect, Zappa, that's just nonsense. In the paragraph under discussion, D'art had three ideas. An introductory idea (times change) followed by a core proposition (Rangers continue to represent his values) followed by a conclusion (the values of society have changed). Andy quoted verbatim from ideas 1 and 3. He shortened the quotes but omitted nothing of importance from the ideas. He, properly, placed those quotes in quotation marks.

 

Andy's bone of contention with D'arts article was with the central idea of RFC representing certain values (idea 2). When dealing with this he did not use quotation marks, he did not seek to mislead or misrepresent and he did not use the quotes out of context. What he did was to use a common debating technique of using an opponents own precis and conclusion to attack the central idea. Technically, Andy's attack on D'art's piece was of a good technical standard.

 

If you're going to start proscribing how we are allowed to debate (providing of course that there is no abuse malice or dishonesty) then you're going to have to employ a sub-editor to keep up.

 

I'm available at reasonable rates and time and a half at weekends

[The Real PapaBear 0]

However, the dominant culture in a nation doesn't need a social identifier, such as a sports club, as the dominant culture IS its' identity: therefore there shouldn't have been any need for a reply to Celtic's Irish immigrant identity.

 

A point which actually explains why we did become the antithesis of Celtic's shamrockery. It was the arrival of the Belfast shipbuilders in the early part of the century which saw the British/Protestant/Unionist ethos being fundamentally associated with the club. And why? Because this NI sub-culture, whilst akin, was not exactly the same as the dominant Scottish culture and so they probably felt the need to show themselves to be more British/Protestant/Unionist than we were. Add to that the conflict they had left behind and you get teh anti-Irish anti-Catholic thing which scarred our club for the best part of the century.

[chilledbear 16]

''I'm available at reasonable rates and time and a half at weekends ''

 

Is it 'French Lessons'

[D'Artagnan 173]

All due respect, Zappa, that's just nonsense. In the paragraph under discussion, D'art had three ideas. An introductory idea (times change) followed by a core proposition (Rangers continue to represent his values) followed by a conclusion (the values of society have changed). Andy quoted verbatim from ideas 1 and 3. He shortened the quotes but omitted nothing of importance from the ideas. He, properly, placed those quotes in quotation marks.

 

Andy's bone of contention with D'arts article was with the central idea of RFC representing certain values (idea 2). When dealing with this he did not use quotation marks, he did not seek to mislead or misrepresent and he did not use the quotes out of context. What he did was to use a common debating technique of using an opponents own precis and conclusion to attack the central idea. Technically, Andy's attack on D'art's piece was of a good technical standard.

 

If you're going to start proscribing how we are allowed to debate (providing of course that there is no abuse malice or dishonesty) then you're going to have to employ a sub-editor to keep up.

 

I'm available at reasonable rates and time and a half at weekends

 

I dont want to continue this but that in itself is absolute nonsense RPB. Andy himself has already commented on this, that his interpretation of what I was actually saying was different to his understanding - and perhaps thats down to the way I had written the original article - that erroneous insertion between the 2 quotations has created a different meaning from the original. And its bound to, if the inserted part is in itself based on an incorrect assumption.

 

Disappointingly, I have noticed in the original thread that contributors personal political beliefs have overtaken any discussion with regard to the club itself or its identity, and I note RPB you appear to be as guilty as anyone of this,

[The Real PapaBear 0]

I dont want to continue this but that in itself is absolute nonsense RPB. Andy himself has already commented on this' date=' that his interpretation of what I was actually saying was different to his understanding - and perhaps thats down to the way I had written the original article - that erroneous insertion between the 2 quotations has created a different meaning from the original. And its bound to, if the inserted part is in itself based on an incorrect assumption.[/quote']

 

We are all agreed that what you wrote and what you wanted to convey were two different things and that Andy's reply was based on that reading of your original post.

 

That, however, is not the point here. You continue to confuse *what* he said and *how* he said it. As I have demonstrated, Andy's quotations and the way he did them were technically and ethically correct and his insertion was not erroneous. The insertion itself was perfectly legitimate; his *assertion* may have been erroneous, based as it was on a lack of clarity about what you wrote, but there was nothing wrong with his insertion.

 

Disappointingly' date=' I have noticed in the original thread that contributors personal political beliefs have overtaken any discussion with regard to the club itself or its identity, and I note RPB you appear to be as guilty as anyone of this,[/quote']

 

Before I comment further, you'll have to give me an example of what you mean.

[D'Artagnan 173]

We are all agreed that what you wrote and what you wanted to convey were two different things and that Andy's reply was based on that reading of your original post.

 

That, however, is not the point here. You continue to confuse *what* he said and *how* he said it. As I have demonstrated, Andy's quotations and the way he did them were technically and ethically correct and his insertion was not erroneous. The insertion itself was perfectly legitimate; his *assertion* may have been erroneous, based as it was on a lack of clarity about what you wrote, but there was nothing wrong with his insertion.

 

 

 

Before I comment further, you'll have to give me an example of what you mean.

 

I dont think there is much point continuing with this - we are not going to agree.

 

If in a multi page thread, which was originally about about Rangers identity - which is full of posts examining the worth of the various political arguements - you still need an example then I doubt very much any example will suffice.

[Guest Chelios]

11 pages in and still picking nits.

 

Did someone just praise the '' debate '' ? what debate ? its an English lesson 11 pages long ( which is more than I got at school oddly enough )

 

Think it would be a good idea to start debating the points within the article and not on any misrepresentation stuff, it's starting to look like a deliberate derailing of the thread.

[D'Artagnan 173]

11 pages in and still picking nits.

 

Did someone just praise the '' debate '' ? what debate ? its an English lesson 11 pages long ( which is more than I got at school oddly enough )

 

Think it would be a good idea to start debating the points within the article and not on any misrepresentation stuff, it's starting to look like a deliberate derailing of the thread.

 

My thoughts exactly Chelios

[Zappa 0]

All due respect, Zappa, that's just nonsense. In the paragraph under discussion, D'art had three ideas. An introductory idea (times change) followed by a core proposition (Rangers continue to represent his values) followed by a conclusion (the values of society have changed). Andy quoted verbatim from ideas 1 and 3. He shortened the quotes but omitted nothing of importance from the ideas. He, properly, placed those quotes in quotation marks.

 

With all due respect, I don't need you to explain to me what Andy did or didn't do because I understand the technical arguments perfectly well.

 

Nobody is "going to start proscribing how we are allowed to debate" (when it's within the forum guidelines) and forum debate is not what we're talking about here, we're talking about written articles which critique other fans' articles like Andy writing about D'Artagnan's.

 

Cherry picking key points to twist an argument in your favour when attacking certain aspects of a subject is commonplace and as I said, I think we all do it or have certainly done it at one point or another.

 

Anyway, let's get back on topic please folks. Thanks.