Ibrox: Jurassic Park?

[andy steel 0]

'Times change and so do attitudes and beliefs, often for the better. But for several generations, including my own, Rangers were not just a football club. They represented who we were, what we stood for and the things which we believed in. And it still does today, no matter how society moves on to other things.'

 

I'm not getting where I've misrepresented you, D'Artagnan. The bit in bold seems pretty clear: that Rangers have NOT moved on with society, but retained the 'things which we believed in', which I took to mean the virtues you go on to discuss? I'm keen not to have screwed up but I can't see how the paragraph above does anything other than root Rangers firmly in a historical past irregardless of the present, even allowing for tolerance of Jon Daly!

 

I'll be more than happy to admit an error if its there but I don't see misrepresentation as yet, I have to say. I will go back and re-read your post and see if I can get my head round it.

Edited July 31, 2013 by andy steel

[D'Artagnan 173]

'Times change and so do attitudes and beliefs, often for the better. But for several generations, including my own, Rangers were not just a football club. They represented who we were, what we stood for and the things which we believed in. And it still does today, no matter how society moves on to other things.'

 

I'm not getting where I've misrepresented you, D'Artagnan. The bit in bold seems pretty clear: that Rangers have NOT moved on with society, but retained the 'things which we believed in', which I took to mean the virtues you go on to discuss? I'm keen not to have screwed up but I can't see how the paragraph above does anything other than root Rangers firmly in a historical past irregardless of the present, even allowing for tolerance of Jon Daly!

 

I'll be more than happy to admit an error if its there but I don't see misrepresentation as yet, I have to say.

 

In that case the misrepresentation continues.

 

Times change', the article notes, but Rangers must stay the same, 'no matter how society moves on to other things'.

 

Firstly we had a set of quotations - the first part is accurate and quoted verbatim - the second part (not in quotes) is inference on your part - the third part again in quote - I never even said in the original article - that is purely poetic licence on your part Andy. If that is not erroneous - then I dont know what is.

[andy steel 0]

2nd para, 5th sentence: 'And they still do today, no matter how society moves on to other things.'

 

The article opens by listing historical, Rangers associated virtues, states unequivocally that they still apply - 'and they still do today' - and goes on to express the hope that they will continue to do so. I can't see how that can be interpreted as anything other than expressing the hope the club stays the same, hence the paraphrasing.

 

I'm sorry if I'm missing something really obvious here, but I don't see it. Is it the inference you object to? And could you please tell me what bit you 'never even said in the original article' because if it's the 'no matter how' etc you blinking well did!

[D'Artagnan 173]

2nd para, 5th sentence: 'And they still do today, no matter how society moves on to other things.'

 

The article opens by listing historical, Rangers associated virtues, states unequivocally that they still apply - 'and they still do today' - and goes on to express the hope that they will continue to do so. I can't see how that can be interpreted as anything other than expressing the hope the club stays the same, hence the paraphrasing.

 

I'm sorry if I'm missing something really obvious here, but I don't see it. Is it the inference you object to? And could you please tell me what bit you 'never even said in the original article' because if it's the 'no matter how' etc you blinking well did!

 

I will come to that in a moment - and explain where you have mis-interpreted that part.

 

But if you are going to write a critique of my articles, out of courtesy, I would appreciate, if you are going to quote me - you do so verbatim rather than suggest to readers by use of quotation marks, that I have said something which I have not.

Edited July 31, 2013 by D'Artagnan

[andy steel 0]

Sorry, laptop crashed.

 

I think we should refer this to board moderation tbh. I believe any inferences made were entirely justified in the context of your article and hardly required verbatim quotations, but if others agree with you then fine, I'll edit them out.

 

I have to go out so for ease of decision making I'll abide by whatever decision is taken.

[D'Artagnan 173]

Sorry, laptop crashed.

 

I think we should refer this to board moderation tbh. I believe any inferences made were entirely justified in the context of your article and hardly required verbatim quotations, but if others agree with you then fine, I'll edit them out.

 

I have to go out so for ease of decision making I'll abide by whatever decision is taken.

 

You really are not getting this Andy are you ?

 

I get you disagree with what Ive written. No problem you know I like debate.

 

I get that the characteristics and identity I have espoused dont sit comfortably with you. No problem - this club is a broad church - each to their own.

 

I even get that you have mis-interpreted some of the things I have alluded to in the original article. No problem - Im happy to discuss them

 

What you clearly dont get is that you have misquoted me in my original article. Its all there in black and white - hence why Frankie had to put the "disclaimer" on your published article.

[The Real PapaBear 0]

You really are not getting this Andy are you ?

 

I get you disagree with what Ive written. No problem you know I like debate.

 

I get that the characteristics and identity I have espoused dont sit comfortably with you. No problem - this club is a broad church - each to their own.

 

I even get that you have mis-interpreted some of the things I have alluded to in the original article. No problem - Im happy to discuss them

 

What you clearly dont get is that you have misquoted me in my original article. Its all there in black and white - hence why Frankie had to put the "disclaimer" on your published article.

 

For the life of me I can't see where he has misquoted you. As far as I can see, when he uses quotation marks, it is around what you actually said. He's not making stuff up or attempting to misrepresent your viewpoint; he is simply quoting what you wrote in order to present a counter argument. Perfectly legitimate.

 

Maybe you can explain what you mean when you say (in post 72):

"the third part again in quote - I never even said in the original article - that is purely poetic licence on your part Andy. "

because it seems to me, what you're denying having said, you *did* say in the original article: line 6; " And it still does today, no matter how society moves on to other things."

[D'Artagnan 173]

For the life of me I can't see where he has misquoted you. As far as I can see, when he uses quotation marks, it is around what you actually said. He's not making stuff up or attempting to misrepresent your viewpoint; he is simply quoting what you wrote in order to present a counter argument. Perfectly legitimate.

 

Maybe you can explain what you mean when you say (in post 72):

"the third part again in quote - I never even said in the original article - that is purely poetic licence on your part Andy. "

because it seems to me, what you're denying having said, you *did* say in the original article: line 6; " And it still does today, no matter how society moves on to other things."

 

Times change', the article notes, but Rangers must stay the same, 'no matter how society moves on to other things'

 

I have not said the above anywhere in the original article. If you think otherwise please show me.

 

Andy has taken parts of what I have said, repositioned them from their original context, placing an inference of his own between them. Its really that simple.

[Guest Chelios]

Times change'' date=' the article notes, but Rangers must stay the same, 'no matter how society moves on to other things'

 

I have not said the above anywhere in the original article. If you think otherwise please show me.

 

Andy has taken parts of what I have said, repositioned them from their original context, placing an inference of his own between them. Its really that simple.[/quote']

 

Good evening D'Artagnan,

 

After making your grievance known regarding Steel's article, is there anything else in the article you'd like to discuss and chew over ?

 

I only ask because it would be a shame for such a well written article/thread to be pushed aside due to a misunderstanding.

[Bluedell 5,356]

Good evening D'Artagnan,

 

After making your grievance known regarding Steel's article, is there anything else in the article you'd like to discuss and chew over ?

 

I only ask because it would be a shame for such a well written article/thread to be pushed aside due to a misunderstanding.

 

I was considering asking him to remove my bit. It's fine when quoting me or referring to what I've written in a forum post where I have the right of reply but not in a published article where I don't. However it's probably a bit late for that and also may be a bit petty.