AJ -Whyte still involved!!

[crucible 0]

I really will leave it with you and your words, forgive me for laughing at your naivety..

 

"But you are denying it based on CF being Rangers-hating. Rangers-hating doesnt make it untruthful".

[chilledbear 16]

CF twitter account been shut again?

 

The truth is slowly coming out.

[craig 5,199]

I really will leave it with you and your words, forgive me for laughing at your naivety..

 

"But you are denying it based on CF being Rangers-hating. Rangers-hating doesnt make it untruthful".

 

Every Rangers-hating website has been untruthful ? Aye, funny that - RTC was Rangers hating - but they got a LOT of stuff right, not all, but a LOT.

 

Try to uncover your blue-tinted specs once in a while and understand that just because they hate Rangers doesnt mean they dont have facts on us.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

What is it that cf has got wrong? It seems to me everything has been genuine and as I say mather and stockbridge confirmed as much at the meeting with the fans reps.

[Calgacus 8]

The truth can be much more damaging than a lie.

[Dragonfly Trumpeter 50]

There are reasons the Pinsent Mason report was not published. If it were clean, it would have been front page news, Toxic would have it on the billboards. There are reasons why Toxic has worked like a spinning trojan on the subject.

 

Is it possible Toxic's spin is vital to his cause because the report contains no spin, only substance?

[calscot 0]

Not really, no. For three reasons:

 

(1) I don't like your attitude i.e. "my opinion picked at random". I've been around a long time as has the man in question. My memories of his service to our Club go way beyond the recent events cited here. My opinion has not been picked at random, and it will remain my opinion.

 

I feel the touchy nature of this post requires a reply even though it's a bit late as I wasn't on here much at the weekend except for info on the game.

 

I feel I need to remind you that forums are generally for debating - if you refuse to debate your opinion from the word go then I'm sorry but in MY opinion, it comes across as if you haven't much faith in putting it up for debate, which for me is a big part of the reason for being on here.

 

To me this is a place for forming and testing your opinion, not for just preaching it. Plenty of people have pretty random opinions that they form without thinking or reasoning it much and without analysing any evidence or counter opinion. They tend stick to like it's gospel, and they obviously don't like debating them because there is not much substance to them. How am I to know yours is any different if you point blank refuse to debate it?

 

I don't like YOUR attitude of saying, "we'll agree to disagree" when you haven't even started to debate the points and counter points. It comes across as an arrogant, "we'll just say I'm right and you're wrong, end of discussion."

 

 

(2) I don't feel that I have to justify my admiration and trust for a guy who had a long and distinguished career with Rangers, and who is highly regarded throughout the Western corporate world. I certainly don't want to narrow his record down to one or two debatable incidents.

 

You don't HAVE to justify anything, but one wonders why you're here and how great your admiration is when you refuse to share the reasoning behind it. I don't know the guy at all, but I understand what an opinion is, which is a best fit, rational model of any situation, given the information you have and bit of time thinking it through, taking into account the evidence and different ways of thinking and viewpoints, including those of others. Of course the more effort you put into that, the more solid your opinion will be.

 

If you give me a compelling argument then I may end up admiring the guy too. I'm pretty open to that, but I only know what I see in the news for him about Rangers, and after weighing that up it doesn't look so admirable to me. He seems to be part of the failure at Rangers but comes back stirring the pot like he's the soothsayer, without actually telling us anything we can use.

 

(3) You have a very 'black or white' outlook on things (and I don't wish to get drawn into a very time consuming discussion when I have my view that will not change and I won't insult you by thinking I can change yours). There appears to be no area in between.

 

 

They say that people often judge others by their own standards and that seems to be happening here. If you think I have a black and white view then I put it to you that either you're just not playing attention or maybe you form random, snap judgements on people without evidence or reason.

 

I think if you look at my posts the evidence is there. For one I'm happy to explain my reasoning and evidence behind my opinions in great depth if necessary and also happy to counter the other side with reasoning. I also like to explore things from many angles - sometimes in a way that others are uninterested in looking from or taking the effort to understand. That's possibly boring to those that have their mind set from the start but incredibly hard to do if you see things in black and white - that's when people say things like, "We'll agree to disagree".

 

You pretty much cement your way of thinking by saying, " I have my view that will not change." That is where we are very different. I am always very open to change my opinion, given compelling enough an argument or new evidence. It's how I form my opinion in the first place, with it being refined and built on by subsequent rationale, counterpoint and knowledge. It does sometimes make my opinion quite strong in that if I've built it up with a lot of thinking, debate and evidence, it's hardly going to be completely u-turned by a counter argument that has little depth.

 

The sad part is that you say there is no area in between, when you haven't even debated it yet. If we'd being debating for a while and getting nowhere then I'd understand that, but you took this entrenched position right from the start, which is why I cajoled you into entering the debate but instead of doing so, you wrote this antagonistic reply.

 

Your argument states if he had no concrete evidence on any matter he should basically shut up and butt out. That is just nonsense.

 

If he has no evidence then what good is he doing selling pot stirring speculation to a newspaper we hate? It doesn't even have to be concrete but this smacks of boy who cried wolf. We have had many people stir things up with speculation and half truths - who are we supposed to believe? Something Keith Jackson wrote? AJ doesn't have much credibility for me, and that's because he doesn't give us anything we can use. He's scaremongering us with some vague threat and the way he tells it, it's so ethereal that there's nothing we can actually do about it. He'd be as well warning us about the bogie man (which is kind of what he's done).

 

(You see an old woman in a car stuck on a railway line at a railway crossing, but you are on the other side of a high security fence. You know that security guards come on shift in half an hour but you don't know when the next train is. Would you try to raise an alarm with someone? Or would you walk away and mention nothing to anybody? After all you have no concrete evidence that a train is coming in the next half hour! That is your approach to the world!!)

 

 

I really don't see how this analogy works. The train has already hit us and AJ didn't have enough credibility at the time for people to heed his unsubstantiated warning which was as late as a Scott Brown tackle. I'd say that may be his failure rather than ours.

 

If Whyte is about to hit us again, he should at least tell us where the rail track is that he's coming on and what we can do about it. We're still very busy clearing the mess from the last disaster and other very imminent dangers.

[Anchorman 0]

Me touchy? This all stems from me saying "we can agree to disagree", which you have stated you took as "we'll just say I'm right and you're wrong, end of discussion." And then you have gone off on one. I'm afraid that is not my problem. It was said from a place of diplomacy and not the way you took it.

I had no appetite for getting into 'war and peace' over something we obviously disagreed on. I didn't have the time or the desire. My judgement has proved to be spot on.

[calscot 0]

Me touchy? This all stems from me saying "we can agree to disagree", which you have stated you took as "we'll just say I'm right and you're wrong, end of discussion." And then you have gone off on one. I'm afraid that is not my problem. It was said from a place of diplomacy and not the way you took it.

I had no appetite for getting into 'war and peace' over something we obviously disagreed on. I didn't have the time or the desire. My judgement has proved to be spot on.

 

Diplomacy? I don't see governments sending diplomats round the world to tell everyone they agree to disagree at the first challenging of policies... And a diplomat does not crack and descend into a personal attack on a public forum at the first mild cajoling to engage him in debate. He should also be wise enough to understand that by doing such a thing, there will probably be a reply. Here's a wee tip, I don't know AJ enough to have that much to say about him, but I suspect most people have a pretty large tome when defending their character - maybe you don't get irony.

 

Anyway, I sincerely apologise for suspecting there was a chance you had a well reasoned point to make that might be interesting to the debate. It's a mistake that won't be made twice.

[Anchorman 0]

Diplomacy? I don't see governments sending diplomats round the world to tell everyone they agree to disagree at the first challenging of policies... And a diplomat does not crack and descend into a personal attack on a public forum at the first mild cajoling to engage him in debate. He should also be wise enough to understand that by doing such a thing, there will probably be a reply. Here's a wee tip, I don't know AJ enough to have that much to say about him, but I suspect most people have a pretty large tome when defending their character - maybe you don't get irony.

Anyway, I sincerely apologise for suspecting there was a chance you had a well reasoned point to make that might be interesting to the debate. It's a mistake that won't be made twice.

 

Absolutely staggering that this all stems from me saying "we can agree to disagree". 'Personal attack on a public forum'? Are you serious???????? Go argue with someone else mate - I've better things to spend my time on.