Vanguard Bears - Statement on the RFFF Committee

[Frankie 8,150]

Gagging order by Gersnet re: Vanguard Bears. Is this for real?

 

That's me out then as I can think of far more negatives than positives in relation to their "work".

 

There is no gagging order just a simple request for people to be civil when they discuss any subject.

 

For example, the VB released a statement last week talking about 'demented' bears and the like. That, IMO, was divisive and not worthy of discussion so I closed the topic. However, this statement is slightly less confrontational and the issues within it worth discussing.

 

Generally it's my view that bears should, as much as possible, be polite and sensible when using forums. That's not to say people, groups or whoever can't be strongly criticised, just that on this forum we'd prefer it was done constructively.

 

I don't think that's too much to ask.

[amms 0]

Gagging order by Gersnet re: Vanguard Bears. Is this for real?

 

That's me out then as I can think of far more negatives than positives in relation to their "work".

 

It can be difficult but it's worth always trying to address the message rather than the messenger. I've always been a little wary of Vanguard Bears, I find their imagery and rhetoric is often needlessly confrontational and passive aggressive. I think this statement follows that pattern again. That being said they've been involved with efforts in the past I have agreed with and applaud them for. Trying to disentangle the message from the messenger can be difficult though, I accept that.

 

I don't have the same problem a lot of other seem to have with what the RFFF announced. Letting it be known that they were considering supporting a man who has done a lot to help the club recently I thought was admirable. I've strong feelings on Mr Easedale and I felt this legal threat was all bluster and an attempt at intimidation.

 

I can understand why some feel differently though. I can see why some might feel it wasn't an appropriate use of funds. However I'd point out that no funds were used, it didn't get any further than a statement about their consideration of the matter. I see no harm actually done.

 

As for the statement it is, once again, needlessly combative, aggressive and offensive. I'm also unsure how it can claim to represent the view of 'vast majority of donators' but perhaps they've contacted them all.

 

A simple 'Vanguard Bears disagrees with the decision to ..... and feels it is not what the money donated was for and as such voted against.' would have surely got across the same message in a way many more people could have engaged with. But by calling out individuals and making accusations of charlatanism, rabble rousing and destabilising the club is not only ironic but simply raising the hackles of those involved.

 

It's an odd statement in many ways, it manages to achieve the exact opposite of what it tries to achieve. It entrenches positions and I doubt anyone will resign on the back of it.

[Frankie 8,150]

I don't get the need for any of the fan websites to release a statement at all.

 

For example this site could do it every week but what affect would it have? Absolutely none...

[the gunslinger 3,366]

I don't get the need for any of the fan websites to release a statement at all.

 

For example this site could do it every week but what affect would it have? Absolutely none...

 

but how will you ram your opinions down peoples throats otherwise.

[Frankie 8,150]

but how will you ram your opinions down peoples throats otherwise.

 

Well, we do contribute various articles in order to do that but I really don't see how turning these into statements would be in any way useful. For example, how on earth can I make the leap from writing about my opinion to saying I speak for all of the GN members?

 

No matter, even if I did want to indulge myself or this site in that way, I'd much rather be a bit more conciliatory in delivery. For me, as much as VB do the odd bit of good work, their attitude (or at least the attitude of their more vocal members) undermines any positive stuff they do carry out. For the life of me, I don't understand how they can't see that so I can only presume they are aware of it so prefer the antagonising style.

[chilledbear 16]

Their attacks on Rangers Supporters negates any good work they have done.

 

Cowardly and devisive.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

Their attacks on Rangers Supporters negates any good work they have done.

 

Cowardly and devisive.

 

it's just impossible to take them seriously with the way so many of their members carry on in wider society. which is a shame because their concept is good and they do do the odd good thing.

[chilledbear 16]

I see they are now targeting RF.

 

DG

‏@dcgriff2000

@Falkirkbear @GordonKeane @JP_1872 @Spinvicta Do it, bud. They'd welcome callers' views on what looks like a Buy Rangers bid to takeover RF.

[aweebluesoandso 290]

Folks - Please delete my Gersnet account.

Sadly I cannot accept your censorship.

I'm biting my tongue here! Please remove me from this forum.

 

Let's rise above the petty vindictiveness, this forum is a sanctuary in a sea of madness. If we need a good punch up we can go on other forums, i do my banter has got me numerous bans over the sites, but i get up dust myself off and start all over again. This is the only user name i have not been banned on lol.

[Zappa 0]

Folks - Please delete my Gersnet account.

Sadly I cannot accept your censorship.

I'm biting my tongue here! Please remove me from this forum.

 

That's a bit of an overreaction is it not?