Kirbys House
Well-Known Member
Social Media, working with them.
I can only imagine their social media rants to be 'hysterical gibberish' as you put it, wouldn't read them myself.
Social Media, working with them.
Simple fact is if we were winning shit like this wouldn’t appear on here.
It’s not a coincidence they believed all this shit when we were winning everything in sight
remember the days when you knew who voted for whatIndeed.
Come on guys, out yourselves, so the rest of us can just ignore everything else you ever say again
Being serious, would it be possible for admin to just publish the list and make it a sticky . A sort of users helpful resource
This isn't a carry-on.Off the scale dude, totally off the scale.
Carry on though.
Were you on here back then?And what everyone forgets to acknowledge that when we were winning, it wasn't appearing at all on here.
Simple fact is if we were winning shit like this wouldn’t appear on here.
It’s not a coincidence they believed all this shit when we were winning everything in sight
Simple fact is if we were winning shit like this wouldn’t appear on here.
It’s not a coincidence they believed all this shit when we were winning everything in sight
And what everyone forgets to acknowledge that when we were winning, it wasn't appearing at all on here.
Were you on here back then?
Because when we have been winning in the past, we still discussed refereeing errors...back then!
We understood they were discussing them and we balanced their usual allegations against our own.
More or less there was a balance of sorts.
Perhaps you can lead us through the balance of this season.
In fact, your stance on this thread almost demands that you do, lest you become ridiculous.
No offence mate but that's bullshit.
I think you need to climb down off your moral high horse and spare me the fake outrage.
I was making an exaggerated analogy of just how bonkers it is to deny we're subject to shit refereeing. I also allude to paedophilia in the same way in my post - should you not be outraged about that as well - or were you too busy jumping in arse first thinking you could score some cheap points about Auschwitz and respect?
Sorry, but it ain't shit.
What they thought when we genuinely had better players is of no consequence here.
This thread is not about the relative strengths and weaknesses of the respective squads . . . there are numerous threads covering these aspects.
This thread relates to the double standards which clearly exist, and your refusal to acknowledge these is actually a large part of our problem in progressing.
So you're arguing that we've always argued about refs on here, thereby weakening the claim made by many on here that it's only recently (as we're a far poorer team) that we've come to be reffed differently?
Your opinion is so blinkered, you should feel bad.What i think doesnt matter, my point was about people like you not allowing others to voice their opinion without making them feel bad
No, I was always sure you would not.I've been on this website in some form since 2004.
Refereeing errors were discussed - which I've not disputed - but certainly not in the same level, depth or scrutiny. There are several reasons for this, I'd anticipate.
I would take umbrage at the idea of there being a "balance of sorts", though.
I've also not said anything about the "balance" of this season, and I'm certainly not going to lead you through a blow-by-blow account of the decisions that have gone against us this season.
I can't think of a time we didn't discuss poor refs on here.
You said 'when we were winning, it wasn't appearing at all on here' which, again, is bull,
No, I was always sure you would not.
I accept you have been on this forum all that time, I just don't recognise your username, which I suppose you have changed.
But you could expand some more about your 'anticipation' and your 'umbrage'.
It will be interesting to read what you write and whilst I accept the needlessness of going through a blow by blow account of what has gone against us this season, (I think we all know this), I confess I was actually more interested in the blow by blow account of those decisions given in our favour that were in any way controversial.
That at least cuts down my challenge to you by a considerable percentage.
You used the Holocaust in the context of anyone not agreeing with your view.
No need for my high horse or fake outrage
You've shown yourself up enough without my help
As for the Paedo reference
Again you really need to drag yourself out the gutter
Strawman argument?I'm not arguing that we've been on the awful end of some decisions this year, or that we've not been on the receiving end of more beneficial decisions but - and you've done this really quite skilfully, so you deserve credit for your approach to the strawman argument - that's not what I'm on here to argue about at all.
Strawman argument?
What strawman argument?
This is a thread about referee's and their approach to dealing with Rangers our team and our players in contrast to how they deal with other sides and more particularly how they referee Filth games.
There is no deflection from this singular issue.
No other false case to dissemble from the particular.
The case stands on facts, it stands on statistics it stands on evidence.
These are relevant, they are tangible and they are independently compiled and they are conclusive.
Your choice to ignore them, your argument that dismisses them, all your posts that want them not to be there is the crux of my debate with you.
Either they are relevant and conclusive or in order to support your position you dismantle them in word and phrase on here now.
Go on. you either do this or admit you are wrong!
Is acknowledging that the refs are the sole barrier - as some on here believe - towards success not actually a hindrance towards our chances of success, as it implies that there is nothing we can do because of them? What's the point in even trying?
At no time have I suggested that refs are the sole barrier.
I simply posted a poll addressing one major issue, and it is an issue that needs addressed.
Or a timFor me, this is the easiest question to answer on FF, ever.
If you vote no, you are ignoring all the data available.
Forget it mate, I am messing with you.I'm not arguing that we've been on the awful end of some decisions this year, or that we've not been on the receiving end of more beneficial decisions but - and you've done this really quite skilfully, so you deserve credit for your approach to the strawman argument - that's not what I'm on here to argue about at all.
In as broad a church as the Rangers support is, and it is a broad church rather than a monoculture like certain other clubs, I can not recall a poll producing such a huge percentage voting one way as this.
At least that is encouraging that folk realise this now.
I struggle to see why anyone arguing against a fairly conclusive evidence based narrative can escape some sort of criticism.The Rangers support is broad, but FF probably isn't, so it's hardly that conclusive.
Anyone arguing otherwise is automatically being labelled a Tim, for instance.
I came on here to acknowledge my belief that when we were winning games the support, as a whole, generally strayed away from criticising refs.
Whether I believe that refs are out to get us or not - a viewpoint I've not actually stated either way - does not actually invalidate what was a fairly routine comment I made simply because I've got work to finish and I'm procrastinating.
For what it's worth, I've actually started to believe that we're probably reffed differently to some degree. Sensing blood or the chance of an easy victory you've jumped in like a clown trying to have a go at me when I hadn't even suggested that one way or another.
Wind it in next time or you'll look even more like an idiot.
You dont know what my opinion is but i will tell youYour opinion is so blinkered, you should feel bad.
Anyone believing that we are reffed differently is labelled as acting like a tim.The Rangers support is broad, but FF probably isn't, so it's hardly that conclusive.
Anyone arguing otherwise is automatically being labelled a Tim, for instance.
My point stands . It has been proven . No matter who you support you will believe that referees have it in for your club. It is nonsense. The fact is that referees are brutal but what chance do they have ?Delusion?
Naivety?
Stupidity?
Misguided sense of staunchness and desire not to 'act like a tim'?
Being contrary for the sake of it?
All of the above?
I genuinely can't decide.
So RangersYou and the other 40 blind people should apply for a grant to the RNIB, you really need all the help you can get.
Disprove my argument ! You can’t. It’s a factual statement.You and the other 40 blind people should apply for a grant to the RNIB, you really need all the help you can get.
Mickey Devlin sent off against Kilmarnock for denying a clear goalscoring opportunity, though the foul was 40 yards from goal.you can pick several "similar" incidents and look at how they are dealt with
example:
McGregor of Hibs throws arm back as Morelos is harrying for ball - hits him in the face = yellow
Morelos is stamped on the ankle by Brown, reacts and throws arm in chest = red
and even more damning is the case of a penaly not given and one given
ball into box at Easter Rd - Arfield clearly pushed as he is about to head towards goal = play on
ball into St Johnstone box vs St Mirren, slight nudge = penalty given
SAME ref in both of those penalty incidents
Sure fans of every club believe this.My point stands . It has been proven . No matter who you support you will believe that referees have it in for your club. It is nonsense. The fact is that referees are brutal but what chance do they have ?
Simple fact is if we were winning shit like this wouldn’t appear on here.
It’s not a coincidence they believed all this shit when we were winning everything in sight
He's another troll. Doesn't believe that BBC Scotland are biased either. His head is planted firmly in the ground.This isn't a carry-on.
This is serious and if you cannot work your way through the conclusive evidence on your own, then it is worrying.
I suggest you look again.
This isn't knee jerk one-eyed bias from supporters who can't properly see through their blue-tinted specs, this is evidence-based and the evidence isn't being compiled by Bears, it is there recorded on the SFA's own statistics.