Ibrox: Jurassic Park?

[amms 0]

I think you will find AMMS that I have not replied to any of the points raised in the latter part of that thread - so your non response is not exclusive - I have been busy elsewhere. as well as other forums I also have family committments.

 

I will give it a look and respond in due course.

 

No need, that wasn't what I was getting at.

[andy steel 0]

Firstly I didnt expect anyone to write a critique of my original post - the forum exists for discussion relative to opening posts. Normally on forums when an opening posts is promulgated and there is a bone of contention - subsequent posts seek clarification of points which are unclear to readers.

 

You state there cannot be any other interpretation of what I have written - well clearly there is and I have given you it. The option existed for you Andy to clarify anything you were unclear about' date=' even disagreed with as per normal forum behaviour in responses to posts - instead you chose to write your own piece, which we have not progressed to discussing yet.

 

[i']I thought that, my post being humungus, it would be better in a standalone thread. I also write posts like that one to be published in order to generate traffic on Gersnet, and posts within threads tend not be published; again, a reason to go for a standalone. I was a little unsure about the whole thing hence my PM to you prior to posting, which unfortunately it appears other commitments have prevented you seeing. I think a lot of this could have been avoided had I waited for a reply, a lesson which I assure you has been learned.[/i]

 

I dont see the point of taking the article down - to me that would be a form of censorship - and you are perfectly entitled to your own right of expression, every bit as much as I am.

 

Purely because I think this arguing is dispiriting. I appreciate your feeling but being accused of misrepresentation by my oldest online comrade is not an experience I wish to extend any longer than necessary and since we are not going to agree I'm keen to finish it by whatever means possible. If that means binning the article so be it...it's not that big a deal to me to see a post erased if it keeps the peace.

 

I would have preferred however if you had used my quotations verbatim from the original and then espoused your thoughts rather than take them out of their original context and jumbled them up with your own inference in the middle. To me that is misrepresenting the original article. You may not disagree - but there we are.

 

Let me give you an example of what Im talking about.

 

"I'm happy to say OK, I got the gist wrong" , I acted out of anger , "How about withdrawing the whole shebang?"

 

With the wrong inference in the middle is that a true reflection of what you said ?

 

Plainly not, but I maintain my sentence is an accurate reflection of what you wrote. Might not have been what you were thinking -

hence my willingness to say the gist was wrong given your subsequent explanations- but its what appeared on my screen and I will can't in clear conscience shift my ground on that.

 

I think we've both set out our stalls quite clearly and would again urge referring this to Frankie, Bluedell and the rest to make a decision, if (as I suspect you won't be!) you're not satisfied with this reply.

[D'Artagnan 173]

Plainly not, but I maintain my sentence is an accurate reflection of what you wrote. Might not have been what you were thinking -

hence my willingness to say the gist was wrong given your subsequent explanations- but its what appeared on my screen and I will can't in clear conscience shift my ground on that.

 

I think we've both set out our stalls quite clearly and would again urge referring this to Frankie, Bluedell and the rest to make a decision, if (as I suspect you won't be!) you're not satisfied with this reply.

 

There is little point referring the matter Andy - what difference will that make other than some will agree/disagree with our respective points. Lets move the debate on to the issues I have raised.

[D'Artagnan 173]

No need, that wasn't what I was getting at.

 

 

Im not getting at anything - Its an honest answer - Ive been busy elsewhere and furthermore up till today I have not posted in that thread. So "no need" right back at you.

[amms 0]

Im not getting at anything - Its an honest answer - Ive been busy elsewhere and furthermore up till today I have not posted in that thread. So "no need" right back at you.

 

Jeez, you're touchy.

For clarity, I took it as an honest answer. I said 'no need' because there is genuinely no need. I didn't raise it so you would answer I raised it to help explain why Andy might have started a new thread rather than post on the original.

Seriously, I meant no more than that.

[simplythebest 0]

Mon then.

 

(attempt at lightheartedness )

[D'Artagnan 173]

Jeez, you're touchy.

For clarity, I took it as an honest answer. I said 'no need' because there is genuinely no need. I didn't raise it so you would answer I raised it to help explain why Andy might have started a new thread rather than post on the original.

Seriously, I meant no more than that.

 

Too much testosterone flying about - but Ive attempted to answer the points you raised.

[andy steel 0]

To the first couple of points:

 

I have trouble with this Andy – I don’t think I suggested in the original article that there was an exclusivity – though if I was pushed I would suggest they were exclusive to our club. Prof Graham Walker alludes to Rangers becoming the platform for the Protestant people of the West of Scotland - in response to their desire to have a club which similarly reflected their identity and culture in the way Celtic did for the Irish Catholic in Scotland.

 

That's a poor final sentence I've written. Iirc, it was supposed to be along the lines of (the virtues) 'are seen as absolutely central to, and furthermore exclusive to, Rangers.' I'm not sure what happened to the first bit...it was a big post. Anyhow, if they were not exclusive to Rangers, they have become so as the other walks of life in which they dominated have been reduced in importance. 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.

 

As to exclusivity in a football context, I'd wager that the boardrooms of few Scots clubs before the 60s/70s featured many RC's. Of course, we are the only ones who are held up to opprobrium for this...ironically by many bodies such as BBC Scotland or The Herald who only stopped their restricted hiring practices about 15 years before us.

 

When the SPL - not that one, the Scottish Protestant League - was formed in the 1920's, it only enjoyed minor popularity and was frowned upon not least by the Church of Scotland; the official bodies of state were well able to defend Britishness. My argument with Prof.Walker's thesis is that propelling Rangers up the list of defenders of Protestantism seems unlikely. The Protestant people of the West of Scotland had their church, their workplace, their monarch, their history...there just wasn't any need for a football club as well when the official bodies were there already. Of course I should need to read his work but it seems unconvincing at first glance.

 

That is at odds with what observers have said. When Jeff Randall remarked that Rangers were “The quintessential British club” – was that unattractive ?

 

I'm not sure what context he said it in so I can't really answer fairly. To define quintessentially British is a futile waste of time - how long is a piece of string? To some, it may be the Mother of Democracies crossed with a nice cup of tea, to others a sfa ehaven from persecution for many minorities, for some it may be whatever the EDF believe in. To the present government apparently the Post Office is not quintessentially British and they will sell it off next month; it's one of the things I would list as being woven into the three centuries of Britain as quintessentially British.

 

Of course I view the current government as quintessentially horrendous but even so. The point remains: short of imposing some kind of group think on the nation the expression is 'essentially' meaningless.

[D'Artagnan 173]

To the first couple of points:

 

 

 

That's a poor final sentence I've written. Iirc, it was supposed to be along the lines of (the virtues) 'are seen as absolutely central to, and furthermore exclusive to, Rangers.' I'm not sure what happened to the first bit...it was a big post. Anyhow, if they were not exclusive to Rangers, they have become so as the other walks of life in which they dominated have been reduced in importance. 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.

 

As to exclusivity in a football context, I'd wager that the boardrooms of few Scots clubs before the 60s/70s featured many RC's. Of course, we are the only ones who are held up to opprobrium for this...ironically by many bodies such as BBC Scotland or The Herald who only stopped their restricted hiring practices about 15 years before us.

 

When the SPL - not that one, the Scottish Protestant League - was formed in the 1920's, it only enjoyed minor popularity and was frowned upon not least by the Church of Scotland; the official bodies of state were well able to defend Britishness. My argument with Prof.Walker's thesis is that propelling Rangers up the list of defenders of Protestantism seems unlikely. The Protestant people of the West of Scotland had their church, their workplace, their monarch, their history...there just wasn't any need for a football club as well when the official bodies were there already. Of course I should need to read his work but it seems unconvincing at first glance.

 

 

 

I'm not sure what context he said it in so I can't really answer fairly. To define quintessentially British is a futile waste of time - how long is a piece of string? To some, it may be the Mother of Democracies crossed with a nice cup of tea, to others a sfa ehaven from persecution for many minorities, for some it may be whatever the EDF believe in. To the present government apparently the Post Office is not quintessentially British and they will sell it off next month; it's one of the things I would list as being woven into the three centuries of Britain as quintessentially British.

 

Of course I view the current government as quintessentially horrendous but even so. The point remains: short of imposing some kind of group think on the nation the expression is 'essentially' meaningless.

 

Thats an interesting slant on things Andy and I would agree the Protestant people of the west of Scotland probably didn't really require a football club to define their identity or culture. But the point is that whether they needed one or not, they wanted one and Rangers became that chosen vessel. We could talk all day exercising hindsight as to what should/should not have happened - but it wont change things. But of course thats only part of the story. The real defining of that Protestant identity came from within Ibrox itself - with men like Sir John Ure Primrose stamping a definitive character to our club - though some would suggest such defining was motivated by commercial gain rather than anything else - something both OF clubs have been accused of exploiting with regard to their identities.

 

Its important to note Prof Walker is not propelling Rangers as some kind of champion of the Protestant people - all he has attempted to do is explain why that Protestant identity became attached to our club. He also seeks to explore the rise of British expression within our support - and suggests this showed a considerable increase in the early 1920's.

[Zappa 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....

Edited August 2, 2013 by Zappa
typo