pmu 0 Posted November 8, 2014 Share Posted November 8, 2014 Ah well 400 posts and t4c has finished his "microscopic examination " of all things bh related. It had the characteristics of an anal probe rather than a gentle cough and hand on the baws... With a life to go get t4c should be busy for the next few weeks. Surprised that bh didn't tell him to do one about 395 post ago.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbr 1,247 Posted November 8, 2014 Share Posted November 8, 2014 Thank's, I'll look for a link if you don't have it.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 400 posts and we still don't have a satisfactory answer or explanation from you regards some of the main issues. If that's as far as you are prepared to go then I think it tells it's own story and may be worth a new thread wrt to a 'sitrep', looking forward. No you dont , and you never will , because no matter what BH posts it wont be good enough , you continually twist and stretch the truth with regards to what he's posted , give it a rest. Your now going to go back to a post he wrote years ago to do what exactly , are we not allowed to change our opinions on things over time , as I said give it a rest Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 4,808 Posted November 8, 2014 Share Posted November 8, 2014 Ah well 400 posts and t4c has finished his "microscopic examination " of all things bh related. It had the characteristics of an anal probe rather than a gentle cough and hand on the baws... With a life to go get t4c should be busy for the next few weeks. Surprised that bh didn't tell him to do one about 395 post ago.... That's not really a measured and constructive post is it ? It doesn't seem to reflect the number of posters on this thread that are unhappy with the situation. It doesn't want to address issues but rather attack an individual with such terms as 'anal probe' Going after me or defending BH is all very well but it doesn't actually serve any useful or constructive purpose within this thread. Indeed, your post only helps highlight the weakness or lack of real clarity being offered. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 4,808 Posted November 8, 2014 Share Posted November 8, 2014 No you dont , and you never will , because no matter what BH posts it wont be good enough , you continually twist and stretch the truth with regards to what he's posted , give it a rest. Your now going to go back to a post he wrote years ago to do what exactly , are we not allowed to change our opinions on things over time , as I said give it a rest It is "we" not just me.......To actually go down that road with the evidence of this thread in front of you reveals the poverty of that argument. Below is an example of someone considered knowledgeable and objective having an exchange with BH on the matters at hand. They are two seperate replies by Bluedell to BH, neither of which were answered. Originally Posted by BrahimHemdani The proposal was that the Board do not communicate directly in future with unelected leaders of groups. At the last meeting it was agreed to put this to the directors. As I was at great pains to point out there are a number of groups who have properly elected leaders who would not be excluded by the proposal. I agree with the proposal and I have also explained why I agree with it. Originally Posted by BluedellThen I would call on all members of the RFB who agreed to this to resign their positions as they are clearly attempting to restrict fan access to directors and clearly allowing their own petty agendas to dictate their views rather than attempting to represent all fans. ---------------------------- Originally Posted by BrahimHemdani I know this has been a very long thread, BD but I did deal with that point specifically at #277. Just to be clear the RFB only agreed to discuss the matter with the Club. Originally Posted by BluedellYou attempt to dismiss the point by claiming that small groups of, say, 2 people would not have any credibility. However size is not mentioned under the current proposal so surely as an RFB member you would equally support a small group as you would a large one? Does that mean that when you approached Rangers directors as a single person that you had no credibility? Are you suggesting with you emphasis of size of constituency that FF has a lot more credibility than Gersnet and they should be afforded more of a say if both had elected leaders? The RFB should not be agreeing to discuss this with the club and you have obviously lost a lot of credibility by doing so. Trying to limit supporters' voices should have instantly been dismissed as a proposition. ------------------------------------------------------------ No clarity = No rest Try to be constructive rather than just shout loudly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbr 1,247 Posted November 8, 2014 Share Posted November 8, 2014 You are hand picking selective posts to back up your very dodgy agenda , give it a rest Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 4,808 Posted November 8, 2014 Share Posted November 8, 2014 You are hand picking selective posts to back up your very dodgy agenda , give it a rest Another empty and vacuous reply. If you have nothing constructive to say, it might be in your interests not to publicly dig a deeper hole. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbr 1,247 Posted November 8, 2014 Share Posted November 8, 2014 Totally hypocritical and ironic post , all you are doing is causing division and well you know it Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 4,808 Posted November 8, 2014 Share Posted November 8, 2014 Totally hypocritical and ironic post , all you are doing is causing division and well you know it That's more interesting. Could you explain how I'm causing division ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbr 1,247 Posted November 8, 2014 Share Posted November 8, 2014 You accuse BH of plotting with the executive board to setup the fans board pre AGM 2013, unless you have definitive proof of this you really should go and look up the definition of divisive Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 4,808 Posted November 8, 2014 Share Posted November 8, 2014 You accuse BH of plotting with the executive board to setup the fans board pre AGM 2013, unless you have definitive proof of this you really should go and look up the definition of divisive I didn't accuse him of that. I asked him questions concerning a suggestion he himself had made regards a fans membership scheme, that predated the AGM of 2013. He answered those questions without any fuss (I'm still trying to find the article involved). To be clear, I did point to the involvement of a spindoctor/his company in the planning behind what would be the macro issues between the club executive and any RFB. I first did so approximately 11 months ago. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts