aofjays

Was there a clue somewhere in that emotional tear stained rant which explains how we are arguing? Or did you just quote my post because you thought it looked nice?

What argument? I answered a question for you (very nice of me I thought). You then made out like you hadn't understood and I expressed disbelief you could be so simple. You have a very strange definition of argument.

That's fantastic that you've found a way to discount reports of sectarianism and sexism in your fellow supporters. If celtic fans can be sexist then obviously rangers fans don't need to worry about being sectarian sexists. Stands to reason. You should feel proud of your accomplishment.

You're just trolling now. No way are you too stupid to understand this.

FTFY

Some people have no comprehension of what seriously means.

Yeah, you totally showed her. I'm sure that will be a rude awakening for her and definitely not instantly dismissed as some wee teenager being a fanny on the internet. Well done you.

His posts usually have one or two gaping holes/lies in them. Today they have been more like a mendacious Swiss cheese. It's a bit odd.

I didn't say it was good for Scottish football. I said it was good for the SFA. You really are rubbish today, are you ill?

Glad you think so benny. Coming from you, that's really high praise. Cheers.

No. Whatever gave you that idea? I was explaining it's purpose to tedi and he was sticking his fingers in his ears and screaming "no it isn't". To have an argument would have required tedi to produce a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition. HTH.

Shh, don't give them ideas. McCoist must stay!!

Again this is the purpose YOU wish this rule to have, not it's actual purpose. Rational discussion? From Mr. call everyone angry? Whatever dude. If you think that opinion would have been popular with the rest of the ranger loyal (you know the sort of clowns that march on the bbc for pointing out CW is a crook) you are as stupid as I thought you were pretending to be. What would be your reaction if the SFA brought in YOUR rule and banned DK from taking over? Poor tedi just can't understand, "they have a shit rule that serves zero purpose", it serves exactly it's required purpose, just because you don't like it's purpose doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Yes, it is a brilliant rule. It's no catch 22 but it's still a beauty. Imagine they had rule which actually served YOUR purpose. Are you honestly going to claim that if the SFA had told CW to bugger off you would have been happy about it? I think we all know that would not be true. The best bit of course is as CW wouldn't have taken over no-one would have any proof that he was going to screw you. This way those less burdened with intelligence would forever be able to claim the SFA had it in for them because they stopped the takeover. SFA are dammed if they do and dammed if they don't so the best thing for them to do is make sure they are divorced from responsibility - which, funnily enough, this rule very effectively does.

Of course it's fit for the purpose - that is it's purpose. It's not fit for YOUR purpose but why should anyone care about that? Come on tedi, at least attempt to make sense.

The purpose is to allow the SFA to wash their hands which it achieves very very well. You really are on poor form today tedi, I hope you are OK.

You are making this too easy today. Try harder please. Because rangers lied about CW the SFA could not block CW. As everyone and their granny knows DK is dodgy as a 7 bob note there is a possibility they could block DK even if sevco continue in the lying cheating traditions of their predecessors. I doubt they will as once again they would just be able to point at sevco lies and wash their hands, but the possibility exists. No hypocrisy by the moustache just your inability refusal to understand English.

Ah, just trolling then, thanks for clearing that up. I was worried for you.

I really hope you're just trolling and don't actually believe that. Rangers not fulfilling their obligations and lying is the sfa's fault? If you believe that you need proper help.

Telling someone (press sfa etc) rangers were lying about his fitness would have done nothing in your eyes? Even if it came from someone like Grieg?

The test is done by the club. The club lied. That's why no-one at the SFA has taken responsibility. They were not responsible. It's bloody hilarious when rangers fan trot this keich out, can you imagine the reaction if the SFA had blocked him? The teddy bear rage would be off the radar.

Yes, and it was explained to you then that rangers cheating a test doesn't make it a bad test - it makes rangers cheats.

Tbh I'm still not sure I believe him, he's just so sincere though. Before Sky's story I was wondering if some random jake had convinced him he was DK.

It was funny. I'm sure snafu knows people collecting for provos don't carry charity cards. But the idea that republican twats have, for years, been generously donating to the local neds buckfast budget amused me.

Greenie owed.