Ibrox: Jurassic Park?

[The Real PapaBear 0]

Im asking you to qualify the statement you have made and provide the sources which cause you to arrive at such a conclusion - and just to be as precise as possible lets omit the first sentence of your statement.

 

So Im asking you to both qualify and provide sources for the following statement you have made :-

 

 

We're at the risk of going round in circles here, so let's try to clarify things before it starts.

 

You said that I had made a definitive statement, and that this definitive statement was one with which two Rangers historians disagreed.

 

I actually make three separate statements and one hypothesis, so If you can tell me which of those statements amounts to a "definitive conclusion" and show me how and where the two gentlemen disagree with that conclusion, I'd be delighted to discuss it further.

 

Perhaps you can also clarify why you're asking for sources? It's just that I haven't ever seen you ask for sources before, so I'm curious as to why you're starting now.

[D'Artagnan 173]

We're at the risk of going round in circles here, so let's try to clarify things before it starts.

 

You said that I had made a definitive statement, and that this definitive statement was one with which two Rangers historians disagreed.

 

I actually make three separate statements and one hypothesis, so If you can tell me which of those statements amounts to a "definitive conclusion" and show me how and where the two gentlemen disagree with that conclusion, I'd be delighted to discuss it further.

 

Perhaps you can also clarify why you're asking for sources? It's just that I haven't ever seen you ask for sources before, so I'm curious as to why you're starting now.

 

Its quite simple despite your attempts to deflect. The only one who appears to be going round in circles is yourself. As an Ulster Scot I find your comment quite offensive, particularly your comments about "sub-culture". That kind of comment is straight out of Phill 3 names vocabulary. Furthermore as someone with a keen interest in our clubs history and development I note your statement is at particular odds with the historical commentators who have written about that period - Prof Graham Walker in various discourses as well as books and Bill Murray in his book The Old Firm and Sectarianism.

 

I presume you were not alive at the time, therefore the conclusion you have made regarding this period in our club's history must have been drawn from somewhere - hence my request for sources.

[The Real PapaBear 0]

Its quite simple despite your attempts to deflect. The only one who appears to be going round in circles is yourself. As an Ulster Scot I find your comment quite offensive' date=' particularly your comments about "sub-culture". That kind of comment is straight out of Phill 3 names vocabulary. Furthermore as someone with a keen interest in our clubs history and development I note your statement is at particular odds with the historical commentators who have written about that period - Prof Graham Walker in various discourses as well as books and Bill Murray in his book The Old Firm and Sectarianism.

 

I presume you were not alive at the time, therefore the conclusion you have made regarding this period in our club's history must have been drawn from somewhere - hence my request for sources.[/quote']

 

Firstly, far from trying deflect, I have asked you repeatedly what the definitive conclusion is that you are talking about and how the Rangers historians disagree with this conclusion.

 

It was you who said I had reached a definitive conclusion and you who said that two Rangers historians disagreed with it.

All I'm asking is that you clarify for me what conclusion it is you are referring to, or which statement in particular if you prefer, and how these historians disagree with it.

If you're accusing me of something, it's only fair I know what I'm being accused of.

 

Secondly, if you are offended by the term sub-culture, then I can only suggest that you have misunderstood the its meaning. It is in no way a perjorative term, but rather sociological.

"a cultural group within a larger culture, often having beliefs or interests at variance with those of the larger culture:" Oxford.

[D'Artagnan 173]

Firstly, far from trying deflect, I have asked you repeatedly what the definitive conclusion is that you are talking about and how the Rangers historians disagree with this conclusion.

 

It was you who said I had reached a definitive conclusion and you who said that two Rangers historians disagreed with it.

All I'm asking is that you clarify for me what conclusion it is you are referring to, or which statement in particular if you prefer, and how these historians disagree with it.

If you're accusing me of something, it's only fair I know what I'm being accused of.

 

Secondly, if you are offended by the term sub-culture, then I can only suggest that you have misunderstood the its meaning. It is in no way a perjorative term, but rather sociological.

"a cultural group within a larger culture, often having beliefs or interests at variance with those of the larger culture:" Oxford.

 

And three times now I have told you - the whole statement with the omission of the first sentence.

[The Real PapaBear 0]

And three times now I have told you - the whole statement with the omission of the first sentence.

 

and I will now ask you for the fifth - and final - time: what is this "definitive conclusion" I have reached and how do the historians disagree with it?

 

Let me remind you, *you* are the one who entered the thread making the claim that Rangers historians disagreed with my "definitive conclusion" - and, despite being asked four times, you have refused to say what this conclusion is supposed to be and how they disagree with it. And, still you expect me to enter into a discussion about it?

 

If you are unable or, for whatever reason, unwilling to back up these claims then this exchange is over; if you're not going to answer after five requests to do so, then it's unlikely you ever will.

[D'Artagnan 173]

and I will now ask you for the fifth - and final - time: what is this "definitive conclusion" I have reached and how do the historians disagree with it?

 

Let me remind you, *you* are the one who entered the thread making the claim that Rangers historians disagreed with my "definitive conclusion" - and, despite being asked four times, you have refused to say what this conclusion is supposed to be and how they disagree with it. And, still you expect me to enter into a discussion about it?

 

If you are unable or, for whatever reason, unwilling to back up these claims then this exchange is over; if you're not going to answer after five requests to do so, then it's unlikely you ever will.

 

"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

You can waffle, you can deflect all you like. Im sure somewhere along the line an English lesson will come in.

 

Just qualify the assertions you have made and quote your references in arriving at such a conclusion.

Edited August 3, 2013 by D'Artagnan

[The Real PapaBear 0]

You can waffle' date=' you can deflect all you like. Im sure somewhere along the line an English lesson will come in.

 

Just answer the assertion you have made and quote your references in arriving at such a conclusion.[/quote']

 

Well, it took you 6 posts, but finally you managed to come up with the "definitive conclusion" part (- it's actually no such thing, but I'll spare us all another English lesson. ) but still haven't managed the second part which, in case you need reminding of the previous 5 requests, was "...and how do they disagree with it".

Once you've substantiated the second part of your two part claim, we'll take it further.

[D'Artagnan 173]

Well, it took you 6 posts, but finally you managed to come up with the "definitive conclusion" part (- it's actually no such thing, but I'll spare us all another English lesson. ) but still haven't managed the second part which, in case you need reminding of the previous 5 requests, was "...and how do they disagree with it".

Once you've substantiated the second part of your two part claim, we'll take it further.

 

Another deflection. You cant substantiate what you have written- no surprise there.

 

Do you know what - your comments without any grounds for substance - have all the hallmarks of hatred and intolerance.

[The Real PapaBear 0]

Another deflection. You cant substantiate what you have written- no surprise there.

 

Do you know what - your comments without any grounds for substance - have all the hallmarks of hatred and intolerance.

 

I honestly don' t know where the laugh or hang my shaking head in disbelief.

*You* come barging into this thread decrying my "definitive conclusion" and announcing that Rangers historians disagree with my "definitive conclusion".

I then, politely ask you to define what you take this definitive conclusion to be and to clarify how these historians disagree with it.

 

We then have a multi-post exchange with you refusing to answer (6 times) those requests - refusing to answer uncomfortable questions being your forté, as it transpires - with you becoming increasingly hysterical and offensive and now, despite denying me the opportunity to engage with this alleged diasgreement, you have decided that my posts have the hallmarks of "hatred and intolerance".

 

If Carling did hypocrisy ....

[D'Artagnan 173]

I honestly don' t know where the laugh or hang my shaking head in disbelief.

*You* come barging into this thread decrying my "definitive conclusion" and announcing that Rangers historians disagree with my "definitive conclusion".

I then, politely ask you to define what you take this definitive conclusion to be and to clarify how these historians disagree with it.

 

We then have a multi-post exchange with you refusing to answer (6 times) those requests - refusing to answer uncomfortable questions being your forté, as it transpires - with you becoming increasingly hysterical and offensive and now, despite denying me the opportunity to engage with this alleged diasgreement, you have decided that my posts have the hallmarks of "hatred and intolerance".

 

If Carling did hypocrisy ....

 

I think most people will read the foregoing and draw their own conclusions.

 

Mine are that you have made a comment without any substance of foundation and you can neither qualify it or provide any sort of historical source to substantiate it.

 

Several times I have highlighted the relative part - however rather answer you have prevaricated continually.