the gunslinger 3,366 Posted December 17, 2013 Share Posted December 17, 2013 Thats about as accurate GS as your earlier allegation that RM breached Data Protection. i know it is. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'Artagnan 173 Posted December 17, 2013 Share Posted December 17, 2013 I never said it was. They have deliberately tried to put the boot in to suit their own agenda. Do you believe toxic Jack didn't leak the story to STV? Do you think RM/VB have been running all sort of spurious articles, in the name of seeking the truth? complete guff and you know it, Then why keep mentioning them ? You do the RST no favours at all by attempting to smear others for the fall out relating to an internal matter within the organisation. PS Edit - to answer youre question no I actually dont think on this occasion Toxic Jack was responsible. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little General 80 Posted December 17, 2013 Share Posted December 17, 2013 Then why keep mentioning them ? You do the RST no favours at all by attempting to smear others for the fall out relating to an internal matter within the organisation. Smear others? I think RM/VB and toxic Jack are doing a great job of that. For an internal matter they seem to have a big voice in what is happening, when not very many are members. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted December 17, 2013 Share Posted December 17, 2013 Its not deflection at all Zap - Ive had a nice day away from forums with my grandchildren - had a quick look at RM and decided I didnt want to read the same guys going over the same tired old arguments. In that case it's probably best not catching up on some of the forum chatter mate because very little of it makes for very nice reading. Incitement followed by threats followed by counter incitement followed by threats' date=' it's all been there today. The wrong decisions refer to the circumstances surrounding the resignation and subsequent vilification of Alan Harris. That wasn't even remotely obvious from the comment you posted before, but I've got you now, so thanks! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little General 80 Posted December 17, 2013 Share Posted December 17, 2013 PS Edit - to answer youre question no I actually dont think on this occasion Toxic Jack was responsible. Who was then? (only if you know) 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'Artagnan 173 Posted December 17, 2013 Share Posted December 17, 2013 Smear others? I think RM/VB and toxic Jack are doing a great job of that.For an internal matter they seem to have a big voice in what is happening, when not very many are members. Yes smear others. You are blaming them for a situation they most certainly had no part in the development of. None of them have a big say, in fact their views are irrelevant unless they are members - but are you honestly surprised Irvine has pounced on this ? Im quite sure others would have done the same had the situation been reversed. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bossy 0 Posted December 17, 2013 Share Posted December 17, 2013 Unless the RST identifies where the real problem lies very quickly' date=' they may never recover from this. And it certainly isnt Toxic Jack, RM or VB.[/quote'] And just what is the 'real problem'? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'Artagnan 173 Posted December 17, 2013 Share Posted December 17, 2013 Who was then? (only if you know) I dont. I read a post, perhaps on here, which suggested the fall out within the RST had been particularly acrimonious - and there was a suggestion on of the parties involved in that may have leaked it. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
barca72 440 Posted December 17, 2013 Share Posted December 17, 2013 What implication? I merely stated the facts that both RM and Rangers could have seen that the pm notification was linked to the @rangers.co.uk if they so desired. You can pretend all you f*&king like but the fact is whether you choose to believe it or not but it was set up so pm notifications of the iamrangers username account were sent to the imranahmad @ rangers.co.uk email account. It seems you're having a day of jumping to wrong conclusions, eh? Let me see if I have this correct, because you swear at me and make an unsubstantiated statement, which I have no way of confirming but which suggests a knowledge of privileged information from the RM server if you are right, I should conclude that you are telling me the truth. Is that right, eh? Now before you come back let me say this - I am perfectly capable of deducing what went on with that account's postings on RM. That is not, and never has been the point. The point is that people posting, and I include TRS in this, unsubstantiated material are not being helpful to the Rangers support. Surely the speculation on every subject from the BTC to the present AGM has taken its toll on the nerves of the Rangers support - look at the present levels of division among the support. When is enough, enough? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little General 80 Posted December 17, 2013 Share Posted December 17, 2013 Yes smear others. You are blaming them for a situation they most certainly had no part in the development of. None of them have a big say' date=' in fact their views are irrelevant unless they are members - but are you honestly surprised Irvine has pounced on this ? Im quite sure others would have done the same had the situation been reversed.[/quote'] No, I am blaming them for pouring fuel on the fire, as i said in my first post. Not for causing it. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.