Monkey Tennis Posted April 20, 2013 Share Posted April 20, 2013 Nope. Whataboutery is where both sides use each others offensive crap as an excuse for their own. If there is no crap in one of the examples, there is no whataboutery, and though they tried to shitstir with the zombie flag , there was nothing to it. That sounds like a narrow definition. I'd have thought whataboutery also involved criticising the other side while exonerating your own for similar antics. I'll concede however that I'm no expert on the subject - it's not really my thing, you see. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted April 20, 2013 Share Posted April 20, 2013 That sounds like a narrow definition. I'd have thought whataboutery also involved criticising the other side while exonerating your own for similar antics. I'll concede however that I'm no expert on the subject - it's not really my thing, you see. The banners are not similar monkey tennis, that was why I made the comparison. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted April 20, 2013 Share Posted April 20, 2013 The banners are not similar monkey tennis, that was why I made the comparison. For me they are. Both are juvenile. Both are apparently a bit tasteless, but only the Green Brigade one was overtly so to the untrained eye. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted April 20, 2013 Share Posted April 20, 2013 Bollox. http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=1961&newsCategoryID=3&newsID=10252 You keep repeating this word temporary, guess how many times the SFA say temporary? you got it, they dont, the only fiction is in your post. OK dough ball, Supposing Rangers had played Brechin and then Brechin decided to lodge a complaint with the SFA that Rangers were not registered properly and didn't have a valid licence at the time and then you were asked to defend Rangers at the hearing. SFA "OK Tedi did Rangers have a licence at the time Rangers played Brechin ?" Tedi "It's still being finalized M'lud" SFA "I'll ask you again Tedi did Rangers have in their possession an SFA licence to play against Brechin ?" Tedi "The details are being sorted and we shall receive the licence very soon" SFA "So you don't actually have it in your possession at the time Rangers played Brechin ?" Tedi "Erm ! no actually but we are getting it very soon" SFA "If you haven't actually received the licence and it is not actually in your possession at the time but it is still to be finalized and Rangers played Brechin then Brechin have a legitimate complaint to have the game annulled in their favour and awarded a 3 nil victory wouldn't you say ?" Tedi "Naw because we beat them fair and square M'lud" SFA " But Rangers didn't actually own a valid licence and there is no option but to award Brechin a 3 nil victory because you could have had a temporary one issued before the game until the full licence was finalized days later" Tedi "AW FCUK" And also from your link numbnut. A conditional membership will be issued to Sevco Scotland Ltd today, allowing Sunday’s Ramsdens Cup tie against Brechin City to go ahead. Following the completion of all legal documentation, the Scottish Premier League will conduct the formal transfer of the league share between RFC (IA) and Dundee FC on no later than Friday 3rd August 2012. At this point, the transfer of Scottish FA membership will be complete. It clearly shows there are two licences there in bold a conditional membership is not actually a full licence is it ?.And don't even think of trying to use the complete bit to argue your point either because that means the signatures required from D&P,the SFA & Green have to be on the licence and then a lawyer would have to then make sure it's legal and then it gets handed over to Green but it is not a valid licence to play football until that has been done. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edi1011 Posted April 20, 2013 Share Posted April 20, 2013 Bollox. http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=1961&newsCategoryID=3&newsID=10252 You keep repeating this word temporary, guess how many times the SFA say temporary? you got it, they dont, the only fiction is in your post. Really ? did Sevco have a vote in the League Reconstruction talks ? If they didn't what would be the possible reason for it ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dindeleux Posted April 20, 2013 Share Posted April 20, 2013 Possibly it isn't, but it is for me. And I do think they'll be gone afore any league meeting, just need to avoid them in the cups. If we did get drawn with them I would hope we would hit them for 10 but I will not watch/listen to a Celtic v an ibrox team ever again. Why not? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted April 20, 2013 Share Posted April 20, 2013 Why not? Because there should be no team in blue that play out of ibrox. They died. If it was a new team called something else, playing elsewhere with the same fanbase, I would watch and laugh. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted April 20, 2013 Share Posted April 20, 2013 ??????? Bemused by the reactions to the boat/blue sea of Ibrix banner today. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted April 20, 2013 Share Posted April 20, 2013 OK dough ball, Supposing Rangers had played Brechin and then Brechin decided to lodge a complaint with the SFA that Rangers were not registered properly and didn't have a valid licence at the time and then you were asked to defend Rangers at the hearing. SFA "OK Tedi did Rangers have a licence at the time Rangers played Brechin ?" Tedi "It's still being finalized M'lud" SFA "I'll ask you again Tedi did Rangers have in their possession an SFA licence to play against Brechin ?" Tedi "The details are being sorted and we shall receive the licence very soon" SFA "So you don't actually have it in your possession at the time Rangers played Brechin ?" Tedi "Erm ! no actually but we are getting it very soon" SFA "If you haven't actually received the licence and it is not actually in your possession at the time but it is still to be finalized and Rangers played Brechin then Brechin have a legitimate complaint to have the game annulled in their favour and awarded a 3 nil victory wouldn't you say ?" Tedi "Naw because we beat them fair and square M'lud" SFA " But Rangers didn't actually own a valid licence and there is no option but to award Brechin a 3 nil victory because you could have had a temporary one issued before the game until the full licence was finalized days later" Tedi "AW FCUK" And also from your link numbnut. It clearly shows there are two licences there in bold a conditional membership is not actually a full licence is it ?.And don't even think of trying to use the complete bit to argue your point either because that means the signatures required from D&P,the SFA & Green have to be on the licence and then a lawyer would have to then make sure it's legal and then it gets handed over to Green but it is not a valid licence to play football until that has been done. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted April 20, 2013 Share Posted April 20, 2013 You are at it again, for the last time the SFA never used the word temporary, no 100 word irrelevant bullshit will change this. Yes they said it was conditional (not temporary) the condition was the legal paperwork being completed for the transfer of the SPL share to dundee. Yes they said At this point, the transfer of Scottish FA membership will be complete this clearly suggests the transfer had already begun. It was the same membership. Thanks for bolding that bit Tedi, You point it out but fail to actually comprehend what it actually means "IT IS NOT COMPLETED YET". Rangers played their first game when ? Rangers received the full SFA licence proper when ? So how the fucking hell can you use something if you do not have it your possession ? Conditional when it is used in you SFA link means that there were conditions in place for when the temporary one & the full one that would be available to Green to procure said licences ! the five way agreement ? they were the conditions. More from your link that tightens the rope around your neck or as WRK would put it ? painting yourself into a corner. A conditional membership will be issued to Sevco Scotland Ltd today, allowing Sunday’s Ramsdens Cup tie against Brechin City to go ahead. Following the completion of all legal documentation, the Scottish Premier League will conduct the formal transfer of the league share between RFC (IA) and Dundee FC on no later than Friday 3rd August 2012. At this point, the transfer of Scottish FA membership will be complete. We have reached agreement on all terms and conditions attached to the transfer of membership and are able to grant conditional membership, ahead of the formal transfer of the SPL share a week today. can you understand that quote above or do you want some more paint ? granted a conditional membership ahead of the formal transfer.It means they were given a signed piece of paper from the SFA to play their first ever fixture until they got the PLC's licence because the PLC will have relinquished both licences at the same time and would no longer be a club any more,ie the PLC still is in possession of the SFA licence until the 3rd of August when it will be transferred. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted April 20, 2013 Share Posted April 20, 2013 You only read things from the walls in the toilets at POLO. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted April 21, 2013 Share Posted April 21, 2013 Another boring essay, you really struggle to get your point across. Again you are making it up as you go along. The SFA never said temporary, saying it over and over will not change this. 'ahead of' was not used either. Conditional means it was conditional on something, that something was the completeion of the legal paperwork pertaining to the transfer of the SPL share. It was the full membership with that condition attached to it. you posted an official SFA link that has and I quote "ahead of" and you claim I have made it up brilliant Tedi and this will go to five star status if you persist . You can't use something you do not already possess you numpty and Green did not acquire the PLC's licence until the 3rd of August . For everyone else to see that Tedi claims I make things up and I'm a proven liar and all that .We will see that the SFA has actually used the term "ahead of" “We have reached agreement on all terms and conditions attached to the transfer of membership and are able to grant conditional membership, ahead of the formal transfer of the SPL share a week today. This will allow the season to kick-off as planned this weekend and I am sure there will be many who will join me in welcoming the start of the new football season in Scotland. You will find the above quote in the link Tedi provided which he probably didn't read but wanted to prove something but got it all wrong in his haste to debunk something I posted but left the door open for me to make him look STUPID .Look for the paragraph above in the link Tedi provided earlier . http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=1961&newsCategoryID=3&newsID=10252 You seriously don't get it Tedi because you are blinded by the point to prove it's the very same club when it is clearly evident that the club you now support played it's first ever fixture with a brand new SFL licence and a provisional/temporary or what ever the fcuk you want to call it licence before it got the PLC's licence. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apache Don Posted April 21, 2013 Share Posted April 21, 2013 Ya Fucking dancer! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weirdcal Posted April 21, 2013 Share Posted April 21, 2013 If rangers are full members... Why don't they get a vote? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted April 21, 2013 Share Posted April 21, 2013 If rangers are full members... Why don't they get a vote?Are you getting the SFA confused with the SFL? Thats just weird. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weirdcal Posted April 21, 2013 Share Posted April 21, 2013 If rangers are full members... Why don't they get a vote?Are you getting the SFA confused with the SFL?Thats just weird.</blockquote> So not the spl either. Christ it's a clusterfuck up here 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearwithme Posted April 21, 2013 Share Posted April 21, 2013 If rangers are full members... Why don't they get a vote? Rangers are full members of the SFA with the same membership as always (for about 140 years). Rangers are associate members of the SFL and don't get a vote there. The same applied to Annan until quite recently. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
k-ton Posted April 21, 2013 Share Posted April 21, 2013 Blue C of Ibox, sorry if that upset you. Which one? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted April 21, 2013 Share Posted April 21, 2013 Rangers got their first banning by the sfa about 135 years ago. Should've seen the writing on the wall even then..... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted April 21, 2013 Share Posted April 21, 2013 Oh number eight....my heart bleeds..... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.