Comment Moderation Thread


Let’s see if the ban is over :eek: 1, …

Comment on Comment Moderation Thread by Greenock Jack.

Let’s see if the ban is over 😮

1, 2, 3 Test

Greenock Jack Also Commented

Comment Moderation Thread
I may be wrong (though I am relating what I was told) and you may be right. But why should my post be removed? And if money was the only reason, why did Wallace take the ‘secret’ to his grave? And as he kept it a secret, how do you know?

The sectarian angle that your post leads toward is of little relevance to this blog even if you had the evidence to back it up. The fact that it is little more than heresay about a dead man and his dead parents should have your post and our subsequent discussion removed.

I didn’t say money was the only issue and like you I don’t know what else, if anything the ‘secret’ might have been.

If there were any negative implications or pejorative use of the language about either Jock Wallace or his parents, then I would agree with you. But there aren’t. Also, there is nothing sectarian in AJ’s remarks at all. OT perhaps, but not offensive.
The story is also not a new one though and has the same theme as other speculation surrounding his departure and contemporaneously, the attempted recruitment of Alex Ferguson and Jim McLean as manager – none of which is 2+2=1690 either

Comment Moderation Thread
Finally, I am rather surprised that Greenock Jack has chosen to comment, as his contribution was made a short while after he mailed the mods asking to be “perma-banned”, averring, ” I promise I won’t make a fuss about it!”. This for reasons totally unknown to the mod who received the mail. I assume that this mail was sent shortly before his namesake begun spinning the Amsterdam story.

TSFM, please allow me to reply.

That is misleading and it also betrays the confidence of what I thought to be private channel of communication.

Why misleading ?
A “short while” will be assumed to be a handful of hours or at least after my previous post (Wednesday evening). I made that request a number of days ago (IIRC Sunday night/ 5 days and a whole lot of posts ago) I was peeved and had in that moment had enough of being what I preceived to be wrongly and repeatedly accused of deflection. During which time I had actually posted on the board for the mods to ban me if they thought deflection to be the case.

So you can’t assume anything re.Amsterdam because the Celtic support were still in Glasgow or had at least not arrived in Amsterdam. As for the other Jack reference, you don’t know how far you are off the mark with that one, I believe spin to be a modern day cancer on society.

The fact that I tend to see things differently will naturally mean I will attract verbal jousting but let me get on with it (within the guidelines) instead of the above type of misleading reply or instead ban me.

I haven’t had much time in the last couple of days, nor will over this weekend and I had come onto reply to Resin but found this post. I’ll try and get back to you later today.

Moving on

Balance and Consistency
The matter of Amsterdam has certainly hit the headlines and I’ll repeat what I said yesterday, if using consistency on here, football supporters should simply condem the disgraceful scenes and move on. Mitigating factors may exist but remember how they are roundly rejected and considered inadmissable if they come from the blue side of the city.

What about David Somers, any further links to the spivs on top of this mornings DR piece ?
I saw his interview and he refused the opportunity to deny connections with those who are and have been involved with Rangers in the last couple of years.

Comment Moderation Thread

Recent Comments by Greenock Jack

The Offline Game
Where have I ‘played the man’?
I ask because all I see is that I may have disagreed with someone, put forward my reasons and I need to know your interpretation. 
It’s plain I’m not going to be on the same page as the majority here so that would probably mean fairly lively contested debates if and when I was on. I think it comes down to if those in charge really want such debates or not.

I’ve been too far away from events in recent months to be able to do a blog at present and looking at the present situation, it would need a tweak in direction. 

The Offline Game
Have any other media outlets picked up on the ‘Carlisle exclusive’ ?

The Offline Game
Ally: “Lots of bears come to town, with lots of songs and unpleasant behaviour made worse by a new chip on their shoulder = there’s a price to pay for more money”
The point I was making was that your emotive language didn’t reflect the reality of the Rangers journey through the divisions. Unless of course the new standard of behaviour has changed to ‘Sunday School Outing’ rather than that of football fans going to a game. 
I point this out because it has become far too easy to automatically take a negative slant re. Rangers fans and/or single them out for criticism.
Part of this is our own fault and simply down to bad behaviour but another significant part of it is also down to ‘other reasons’.
‘Other reasons’ is a whole issue in itself.

The Offline Game
HOMUNCULUS, thank’s for the reply.
1. I didn’t say you hadn’t.
2. From a Rangers fan POV, I disagree. You at least recognised the positive but went on to speculate regards the vote. You did so from from your own POV when the real and only relevant POV was that of the voting clubs. ie. the numbers in the article have a firm base but your slant which whilst involoving real options is only looking at it from your very hypothetical point (that was very far from reality)…..and the substantive and real point to take from the article is Positive.
3. As I said above, a very hypothetical fact that wasn’t ever in the real world of 90%+ of lower league clubs back in 2012. Hypocritical IMO because of how larger clubs prioritise finance (you as an individual may have a different view).

To sum-up
I can understand most of your logic but would point out that the base for which to have made one of it’s main points ( options) relevant, was never going to be touched or be seriously considered. It was a fact but so is that Edinburgh City may win the Scottish Cup next season.

Hence, IMO the general financial benefits to lower league clubs and the numbers behind them are the real story here. Others who instantly reject them (not yourself) seem to do so very quickly, almost automatically and without offering alternative numbers.

The Offline Game
Is it wrong to try and focus on a general positive for the majority of senior Scottsih football clubs instead of always having to find an angle that in someway points towards ‘Big Bad Rangers’ ?
I suppose at least I can understand the logic of the negative you want to take from a positive.
But what hypocritical right does any supporter of a larger club have in effectively (4 years later) blaming the smaller clubs for not voting to refuse Rangers a place in the Scottish League (so as to currently make a positive into a negative) ? The logic suggests that it doesn’t really matter what happens to the wee clubs, just help us get rid of Rangers.

Allyjambo on the other hand and IMO presents a more naked logic. He quickly twists the Rangers support from those who were part of contributing to the relative financial windfall for the lower leagues into drunken and badly behaved group of singing bears, surrounded by Police. 
I don’t consider that fair, balanced or a reflection of the reality throughout the huge majority of our away trips in the lower leagues.
It’s fair to say that Hearts will have contributed somewhat to the numbers presented in the article. 

Quite a surprise to see the ‘Carlisle Rangers Exclusive’ but I personaly doubt it to have real substance.


About the author