Ibrox: Jurassic Park?

[The Real PapaBear 0]

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']

 

OK, happy to show you.

 

Andy has taken parts of what you said and put those parts in quotation marks. His own inference was *not* put in quotation marks, so he clearly made a conscious decision to differentiate between his own words and yours. This is the proper and correct thing to do.

 

Those parts which he did place within quotation marks were not "repositioned ... from their original context" at all, forming as they do, the nucleus of the sentence idea.

You begin with the assertion that 'Times change', which you then further qualify after the conjunction 'and'. This would be a form of 'non-defining relative clause', i.e it does not define the preceding subject, but, rather, adds additional information. {For those unfamiliar with the term, an example of a ndrc would be, "the sun, which seemed bigger and brighter than usual, was painfully hot". We can safely remove the part about bigger and brighter without changing the core idea that the sun was painfully hot. Lesson over.No charge}

 

It is thus perfectly justified, in your case, to remove the ndrc to focus on the subject, i.e 'times change'. By doing only this, there is no alteration or corruption of the initial idea of that first sentence.

 

You then go on to say that in the past Rangers represented certain values you have and Rangers continue to represent those values today; i.e Rangers is unchanging in its representation of your values. The third idea of the paragraph is that society has changed.

 

So, in summary, your paragraph is 1) Times change 2) Rangers doesn't change (with regard to representing your values) 3 ) society has changed. Those are the ideas of your paragraph and they are presented in that order; 1 then 2 then 3.

 

Those are exactly the ideas that Andy addresses, again in that same order.

 

First, he quotes you for idea 1 (editing the quote but maintaining, as I have shown, the integrity of the quote);

Second, he places his own twist on the central tenet of your argument. This, he does not place in quotes, as it is his own viewpoint he is promoting.

Third, he quotes you verbatim when you say 'no matter how society moves on to other things'.

 

He has used a common device of using your initial assertion and your conclusion as a means of attacking the central core of your argument, and by using quotation marks around what you said and not using them around his own words, he has done so properly.

 

I really, honestly don't see what your problem is with this.

 

Now, I also have to return to the question that Andy asked you, and then I asked you, but you haven't responded to.

You appear to have denied having said "the third part" of Andy's 'problem' sentence, i.e the one where he interposes his own idea between quoting you twice:

 

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

The third part of Andy's 'problem sentence reads:' " And it still does today, no matter how society moves on to other things."

You said exactly that in Line 6 of the original article yet you appear to deny having said it and are accusing Andy of having fabricated the quote. I reckon an apology is in order, mate.

 

For avoidance of doubt, here is the relevant section in full:

"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.".

[chilledbear 16]

Before 9 'clock in the morning.

[D'Artagnan 173]

Thank you for taking the time to put this together RPB.

 

You are absolutely correct with regard to what has been done - unfortunately its the interpretation and inference which is erroneous. The inference in particular with two quotes from the original - taken out of their context - give an impression of something being said which was not.

 

Perhaps I should clarify and you will perhaps understand where I am coming from

 

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 am not talking about the club - I am talking about the beliefs of those who follow. For those who profess to be Protestants their beliefs are based around spiritual laws which do not change - irrespective of societal shifts or attitude changes. Hence why we see so many schisms between the Church and politics and also within churches themselves as some surrender fundamental beliefs to play catch up with society's attitudes.

 

Those who follow the club and profess such a belief will not adapt to those societal changes, they will remain true to that which they believe in, as I said these are spiritual laws and are treated accordingly. Many will not agree, perhaps not even understand - but thats part of the entailment of accepting the Protestant faith. (any other faiths for that matter based around spiritual laws)

 

What I have written is that for them the club till represents their culture and identity - hence why they sing the songs they do, and sing them with particular gusto. Their beliefs are what has not changed according to society - not Rangers.

Edited August 1, 2013 by D'Artagnan

[andy steel 0]

While I would rather not argue I have to stick to my guns - if my interpretation of your piece is erroneous I am bound to reply by saying in that case its your writing and not my interpretation which is causing the fault, because for the life of me I can't see how your piece can be interpreted in other any way.

 

I'm happy to say OK, I got the gist wrong but expecting me to read your mind rather than your words is going a bit far. As to BD's comment, as you said in this very thread you can comment where and when you like - how do you not have right of reply?

 

How about withdrawing the whole shebang? I'm clearly not going to retract so as a compromise what say we take the article down? In the end its only a post, read by maybe a couple of hundred people. Bin it?

 

ps; if you had asked for your bit to be taken out, BD, I'd have said no. Why on earth would I?

[Bluedell 5,356]

ps; if you had asked for your bit to be taken out, BD, I'd have said no. Why on earth would I?

 

I wasn't really being serious, hence the smiley.

 

I don't care about the use of it but was trying to get my head around the concept of what would be the situation if I did (theoretical debate only) and although I didn't reach any firm conclusion in my head, I think had the sitation been reversed I'd take the same attitude as you are.

[The Real PapaBear 0]

Thank you for taking the time to put this together RPB.

 

You are absolutely correct with regard to what has been done - unfortunately its the interpretation and inference which is erroneous. The inference in particular with two quotes from the original - taken out of their context - give an impression of something being said which was not.

 

Perhaps I should clarify and you will perhaps understand where I am coming from

 

 

 

I am not talking about the club - I am talking about the beliefs of those who follow. For those who profess to be Protestants their beliefs are based around spiritual laws which do not change - irrespective of societal shifts or attitude changes. Hence why we see so many schisms between the Church and politics and also within churches themselves as some surrender fundamental beliefs to play catch up with society's attitudes.

 

Those who follow the club and profess such a belief will not adapt to those societal changes' date=' they will remain true to that which they believe in, as I said these are spiritual laws and are treated accordingly. Many will not agree, perhaps not even understand - but thats part of the entailment of accepting the Protestant faith. (any other faiths for that matter based around spiritual laws)

 

What I have written is that for them the club till represents their culture and identity - hence why they sing the songs they do, and sing them with particular gusto. Their beliefs are what has not changed according to society - not Rangers.[/quote']

 

That certainly helps clarify what your intentions were behind what you wrote, and thank you for doing so. However, I think you would have been bettered served by offering a rebuttal to the points Andy made in his piece, rather than suggesting that he had deliberately misrepresented and misquoted you - which, as I think I showed, he didn't.

If his article was based on getting hold of the wrong end of the stick, may I suggest that was because that was the end of the stick that your writing appeared to offer and that any misunderstanding was based more on your sloppy syntax than any malevolence of his part .

 

Now, if we could move on to a discussion of the piece itself, I would have to say that I found it to be a mixture of naivety and self-regarding nonsense. Would love to discuss.

[D'Artagnan 173]

While I would rather not argue I have to stick to my guns - if my interpretation of your piece is erroneous I am bound to reply by saying in that case its your writing and not my interpretation which is causing the fault, because for the life of me I can't see how your piece can be interpreted in other any way.

 

I'm happy to say OK, I got the gist wrong but expecting me to read your mind rather than your words is going a bit far. As to BD's comment, as you said in this very thread you can comment where and when you like - how do you not have right of reply?

 

How about withdrawing the whole shebang? I'm clearly not going to retract so as a compromise what say we take the article down? In the end its only a post, read by maybe a couple of hundred people. Bin it?

 

ps; if you had asked for your bit to be taken out, BD, I'd have said no. Why on earth would I?

 

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, 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 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.

 

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 ?

[amms 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 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.

 

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 ?[/quote']

 

Andy is more than capable of speaking for himself however I'd gently point out that I questioned an aspect of your original post on page 5 of the original thread on the 28th July. Nearly four full days later and 10 pages further on in the thread you've not replied. Now you are under no obligation to ever reply and I don't want to seem so arrogant that I think you should, I only point it out to explain why posting in a thread isn't always the correct response.

 

Plus it seems fairly clear Andy didn't feel he needed clarification, like a number of others, me included, he could so no other possible meaning from your words.

 

It is good you have replied to Andy though and added further clarity to your piece.

[D'Artagnan 173]

D'Artagnan goes on to describe how the ethos of the 4 virtues evolved at Rangers over time, rather than being instilled from conception. This can scarce be argued with, although one could certainly point to periods of ebb and flow in their popularity or importance. I just think it odd that the periods in which these virtues were strongly held at Ibrox are seen as somehow exclusively belonging to Rangers.

 

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.

 

There's no point beating around the bush - the expression of Britishness that comes out of Ibrox is not one which many people outwith Bluenoses finds attractive, and I include in that group people who entirely fit the virtues menu

 

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

 

Furthermore..

 

What about songs like 'Rule Brittainia'? Apart from being historically at least 100 years out of date in terms of accuracy, it requires a degree of willful ignorance to keep us singing this hymn to Imperialism.

Do you honestly believe this an expression of support for imperialism ? It is not rather that this song is one of our country’s popular anthems ? And thus is just a celebration of our Britishness – much like it is cherished at the Last Night of the Proms ?

 

And where do we draw the line with our celebration of Britishness. Should we stop forthwith our behind closed doors toast to the Monarch from the Loving Cup. Or remove Her Majesty’s portrait from the Ibrox dressing room ?

 

Should we no longer host a Tribute Day to Our Armed Forces or does that not come under the heading of celebrating our British identity ?

 

When the Union Flag with the Lee Rigby tribute thereon was passed around the ground at Sheffield and fans of both clubs shared the moment was that “unattractive” ? Apparently the late soldier’s family did not think so – they went out of their way to thank the Rangers support.

 

Well, I'm happy to say that society does move on - it would be pretty boring otherwise - and I don't believe any amount of effort at resurrecting the extinct

 

The problem with that Andy is it not extinct nor in need of resurrection. It is alive and well within a section of the Rangers support. It expresses itself in the form of song repertoire and symbolism such as flags. Furthermore whilst not all are Protestant, Unionist, etc they appear to sympathise enough with the beliefs that they are happy also to join in such singing – I believe Frankie alluded to this in the other thread.

 

You may not like – you may disagree with it – but its there.

[D'Artagnan 173]

Andy is more than capable of speaking for himself however I'd gently point out that I questioned an aspect of your original post on page 5 of the original thread on the 28th July. Nearly four full days later and 10 pages further on in the thread you've not replied. Now you are under no obligation to ever reply and I don't want to seem so arrogant that I think you should, I only point it out to explain why posting in a thread isn't always the correct response.

 

Plus it seems fairly clear Andy didn't feel he needed clarification, like a number of others, me included, he could so no other possible meaning from your words.

 

 

It is good you have replied to Andy though and added further clarity to your piece.

 

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.