reflections on we fans, over hutton

[andy steel 0]

thin skins on here, by crikey.

 

if i may attempt to clarify my position. on the personal level, a few people take exception to what they perceive as patronisation and a condescending style. my points were written, frankly, in despair. if a reader takes from them that they are being patronised, bluntly that's their lookout and not mine.

 

this is a forum for opinion, is it not? is superally not entitled to refer to my style as 'idiotic?' don't insult others, btw you write in an idiotic idiom? just as superally must be allowed to post his/her views on me, i should be allowed mine. if that goes, what's the point? however, as an infrequent poster here i plainly have transgressed the accepted boundaries.

 

on the substance of the debate, one or two points caught my stereotyping and condescending eye. 'clearly swept along by murray propaganda,' what a ridiculous conclusion! i think it's a good deal for us, and i reckon we're way strong enough to win the flag. murray is not really there to think emotionally imo, in that respect i think it is an advantage not to be a lifelong rangers man. any of us would probably have said no sale regardless of price but as the man who holds the pursestrings he must view things differently, at least he should do. coming to the conclusion that he'd done the right thing is scarcely the same as 'falling for propaganda', it is actually my weighing up what i can see and read and thinking for myself. were i to be pedantic i would point out that this is at least as condescending as that which i was chastised for earlier, but i won't.

 

hutton rejecting the offer meant he wanted to stay

you can read that into it, equally valid to say he may have been weighing up his options with 3 weeks of the window to go. all specu---gossip, sorry, and one man's view is as valuable or worthless as anothers. what i was looking for was something where alan was interviewed and just said 'i don't want to go yet.'

 

this post is going to go on quite a bit, if anyone wants to put the kettle on.

 

but i dont think its obvious rangers board arent only interested in money, and i dont think its obvious that david murray cares about the fans

me neither, not sure why we're arguing about that one. reasons above

 

or rather big baddy david murray. it seems to suggest that its absolutely bewildering to you that someone might suggest david murray done more harm than these people. to me its not so bewildering - certainly not laughably so.

i woudn't go that far, but i certainly feel some of the 'murray forced him out' stuff is way ott and frankly, bordering on the monomaniacal. that's hardly a ringing endorsement of sdm, mind you. it's my opinion on people who are willing to put the boot into murray on the flimsiest of grounds.

 

i actually think there is at least a possibility that selling hutton could be detrimental to our season

it could, but it's going too far to say that we have thrown away the title, and that was the point.

 

the last paragraph implies that anybody who thinks this wasnt a good deal has some desperately malign view of murray, and are some sort of nutjobs

there have to be some crossed wires here, somewhere. what is this obsession with stupidity, nutjobs and so on? to me, they're wrong. and the people at whom the criticism was directed have almost without exception vented their spleen against the chairman and bain, asserting without to my eyes any hard evidence that he forced the boy out the door. i quite accept that he preferred that hutton leave as he viewed it in the best interests of rfc, but nevertheless if alan had wanted to stay he would still be there. i'm not sure i agree with murray 100%, but i can see where he's coming from and i don't see it as any sort of anti-rangers move, which is most certainly how it has been portrayed by those i complain about.

 

you've felt confident & bold enough to satire quite a lot of ideas, so i hope you take some criticism of it as given

be a bit pointless posting if i felt only people who agreed with me were allowed to answer. i do, tho, object to people inserting their own views into my opinions, that seems most unfair. also, i object massively to being told how it would be better to write...that's censorship.

 

i found your post excessively condescending towards those who didnt share your views on the whole issue (of which I, and many other more sensible people are included),

i got a lot of pleasure out of sending up the people who had wound me up big time. suppose i am massively condescending? suppose i'm the most arrogant sob who has ever walked the earth? you can always ban me.

Edited February 23, 2017 by andy steel

[Super_Ally 0]

I was aware of some of the hypocrisy of my post. I hope you can see it in your own.

 

Yours views and posts were quite frankly antagonistic and insulting in points. To come on here with such a brash attitude, when the comments that so offended your sensibilities did not initially come from here was odd and quite frankly a stupid move on your part. Best highlighted below;

 

i found your post excessively condescending towards those who didnt share your views on the whole issue (of which I, and many other more sensible people are included),

i got a lot of pleasure out of sending up the people who had wound me up big time.

 

Perhaps you are not the giant intellect that you so obviously percieve yourself to be and a more humble approach may allow you to engage in more fruitful debate.

 

The reason I suggest you fall for the "moonbeams" so easily is not down to you being pro the transfer of Hutton. It is the manner of your origianl post in which you dismissed the opinions of others who are anti-Murray with sarcasm and a ridiculous idea of an old-fashioned silent-movie villain. Whilst some people may have ridiculous notions of SDM, to tar all his detractors with that brush is childish and naive and has you reeking of arrogance. Perhaps other fans of reasonable acumen have evaluated the man's tenure at the club and merely come to a differing opinion to you as to Murray's impact on the club?

[andy steel 0]

alright. fair enough. i asked a chap on here if he thought it would be alright to post this, plainly it was a bad idea.

 

Yours views and posts were quite frankly antagonistic and insulting in points duh! they were meant to be!

 

Perhaps you are not the giant intellect that you so obviously percieve yourself to be and a more humble approach may allow you to engage in more fruitful debate. perhaps not. after all, my job in a supermarket offers me so much scope for intellectual achievement, i may have overstretched myself trying it at home too! you don't know me, so childish attempts to insult are meaningless.

 

Perhaps other fans of reasonable acumen have evaluated the man's tenure at the club and merely come to a differing opinion to you as to Murray's impact on the club?

gosh, do you think so? that had never occurred to me! thank you for opening my eyes etc. you first stated that the views i was attacking did not come from here, so you plainly know i was talking about the clyde and RR suspects. why you are then trying to suggest i'm insulting fans of reasonable acumen i have no idea, other than you have taken a strong dislike to me. <shrugs>

[Super_Ally 0]

alright. fair enough. i asked a chap on here if he thought it would be alright to post this, plainly it was a bad idea.

 

Yours views and posts were quite frankly antagonistic and insulting in points duh! they were meant to be!

 

Perhaps you are not the giant intellect that you so obviously percieve yourself to be and a more humble approach may allow you to engage in more fruitful debate. perhaps not. after all, my job in a supermarket offers me so much scope for intellectual achievement, i may have overstretched myself trying it at home too! you don't know me, so childish attempts to insult are meaningless.

 

Perhaps other fans of reasonable acumen have evaluated the man's tenure at the club and merely come to a differing opinion to you as to Murray's impact on the club?

gosh, do you think so? that had never occurred to me! thank you for opening my eyes etc. you first stated that the views i was attacking did not come from here, so you plainly know i was talking about the clyde and RR suspects. why you are then trying to suggest i'm insulting fans of reasonable acumen i have no idea, other than you have taken a strong dislike to me. <shrugs>

 

I'm sure it was fine to post that here. I'm not admin, they don't share my views.

 

Your initial reposte in the above post seems at odds with the rest of it. If you were trying to be antagonistic and insulting, why have you taken a bit of a strop here when someone has given you the attention you crave?

[Frankie 8,150]

Of course it was fine to post it here...

 

This is exactly the kind of robust debate this place needs.

[Wija 0]

Andy,

 

This is a board/forum that is for discussion. It is not however a place to antagonise by stating that people who differ from your point of view are less than able in the grey matter department.

 

I think it is wholly acceptable that I and others do not agree with you. It is clear you do not and you simply pour scorn on people who do not tow your line.

 

Sorry mate, but that is democracy... and I for one will not be "pidgeon holed" by a guy who thinks we should bow to his superior intellect after 23 posts!

[Wija 0]

Of course it was fine to post it here...

 

This is exactly the kind of robust debate this place needs.

 

 

Agreed... although the tone and the bit about moustachioed hooded claw types was a little 19th century for me!

[Frankie 8,150]

To be fair to Andy - I invited him here from another forum - I found the piece well written and the metaphors very funny. I actually agreed with a fair part of it and while it's tone was perhaps a wee bit confrontational, there's nothing wrong with a bit of emotion when writing.

 

It's not easy to go onto other forums as a newbie and post in such a style and expect to be 'accepted' by regulars. However, we have a good core of posters on here who are more than capable of debating his points and agreeing to disagree when necessary without insult. Andy can do the same and doesn't need me to defend him.

 

That's what makes this wee forum a bit more agreeable than the busier ones out there.

 

Strong opinions are healthy especially when they can be backed up with intelligent, reasoned debate. Even better when there are clear disagreements of opinion which can only be constructive for Gersnet.

[elderslieblue 0]

I like debate [especially when the manner it's written in would suggest someone with an I.Q. above room temperature]. I don't even mind abuse as long as the abuser is at some point making a relevant point.

 

It's easy to get carried away and become Goliath with a keyboard.

 

Haveny seen anything on this thread to upset me tbh.

 

............mind you, I'm an auld c@nt with very thick, leathery skin.

[bmck 117]

alright. fair enough. i asked a chap on here if he thought it would be alright to post this, plainly it was a bad idea.

 

of course its alright to post it, man - but in general if you are going to write bold posts you'll get just as bold responses! i'll get back to your response later.