12 May 2016 07:28:50
I would never compare football to war, but as I am a bit of a ww2 enthusiast, I can't help thinking that in terms of being weakened the last few years in demotion have been similar to the weakened state of the US after Pearl Harbor. We lost our top players and couldn't acquire the type of players we wanted, but stage by stage we have re established ourselves and have played some quality football in the last season while attaining notable triumphs, (battles) ie promotion to the Premiership and beating Celtic to get to the cup final.
We are now a lot stronger than we were a few years ago and while the ultimate triumph maybe winning the Premiership, (the war) we are now on a firm footing and are back where we belong.
1.) 12 May 2016
12 May 2016 09:28:13
As I'm sure MW says when he addresses the troops, The Corps, The Corps and The Corps!
2.) 12 May 2016
12 May 2016 09:57:19
Do you Really think you should be comparing a football team to events that killed so many people during a war?
3.) 12 May 2016
12 May 2016 12:00:45
Biffo did you not read his first sentence?
4.) 12 May 2016
12 May 2016 13:27:32
His first sentence said he'd never do "it", then he proceeded to do "it".
Biffo is right to take exception to it. It's one of the most cringeworthy things ever written on here.
5.) 12 May 2016
12 May 2016 13:46:36
there was no malice in his statement biffo!
6.) 12 May 2016
12 May 2016 15:46:31
Poetic: You obviously haven't read it correctly either, as a rule I wouldn't compare the two, I was thinking of the numbers and capacity in the sense of the loss and the comeback that had to be made.
7.) 12 May 2016
12 May 2016 15:49:05
Cringe worthy PP?
He was having a laugh is all.
Still not found your sense of humour since the semi?
Normally your posts are better than that, worth a read even.
As 'Big Jock' says, come on now, I could buy and sell ye!
8.) 12 May 2016
12 May 2016 16:04:30
Thought it was general Douglas MacArthur who said that, don't think he played for Gers.
9.) 12 May 2016
12 May 2016 17:41:59
Here we go.
Scotjo--
I read it fine. Read my reply. I was saying Biffo has every right to take exception based upon what you said. You've actually just done it again: I wouldn't compare the two, BUT. and then you compare the two. That's your privilege, just as it's Biffo's to take exception to it. A prefix of, "I wouldn't compare them. " doesn't change that.
And I was cringing at the ridiculous comparison, nothing else.
Pieandbovril--
See above. He can have a laugh. I can say it's a cringe worthy comparison. What's the problem?
As for your comment on the semi final, I'll say this once more as it's boring me now: I was on directly after the semi final. I was conversing with any and all. I gave props. I took the hits. Many other posters will testify to this. So your go to is as redundant as it is erroneous. My sense of humour is fine. Infact, your entire reply seems to be working on the (mis) understanding that Scotjo made a joke and I took it (too) serious. Not at all. Scotjo made a comment (I have no idea if it was a joke or not) and Biffo responded. I was defending his right to such a response given Scotjo's comment. I found the original comment neither funny nor offensive. It made me cringe as a comparison. That is all.
TamBurns--
I genuinely can't remember a time I have ever used the phrase 'panty wetters'. Maybe you could find one? I doubt you can but even giving you the benefit of the doubt on that, I can safely say I don't do it at "any opportunity". So you have either mixed me up with someone else, or you are talking nonsense. Either way there is little point in engaging any further except to say, read my replies above: I never said Scotjo intended any ill will. I said Biffo has the right to say what he said.
10.) 12 May 2016
12 May 2016 18:12:02
Sea of Ibrox
Yeah I read the first sentence then read the rest it's very clear you did compare the 2.
11.) 12 May 2016
12 May 2016 18:26:23
Patient : I don't think it was cringeworthy, that is my privilege also, I also pointed out I wasn't actually comparing it to war, mire the mechanics as I already explained.
12.) 12 May 2016
12 May 2016 19:01:59
Biffo: Didn't actually, I wasn't trying to directly compare the two, if I was I would have said football and war, bloodthirsty tackling, people trying to kill each other, this is war.
It was an aspect of the aftermath of Pearl Harbor I was trying to get across, like often people will compare topics totally different but with certain aspects that can be compared, like (and I agree this ain't a great comparison to what I mean) the manager is a genius, does this actually mean the manager would win Mastermind?
Certain things like that, not quite the same as I said but there are certain situations that can be light years away from each other but certain aspects can arise which are similar and when someone draws attention to it they are always labelled as simply comparing the whole topic to the other.
13.) 12 May 2016
12 May 2016 19:54:31
I am also a WW2 enthusiast and your comparisons are extremely confusing and pretty much totally wrong. Your comparison is we both "lost our top players and couldn't acquire the type of players we wanted"
The U. S Navy didn't lose any of it's top players during the strike on Pearl Harbour. It lost some ships but none of the crucial Aircraft carriers which were not in port that day. Most of the lost ships were also quickly repaired and salvaged with no great loss.
America was also the most industrial country in the world at the time and the attack on Pearl Harbour did nothing to weaken the country's production. They continued and advanced in production of weapons and machinery with the "type of player they wanted". before, during and after the attack on Pearl Harbour.
I truly am at a loss as to your logic behind this comparison?
14.) 12 May 2016
12 May 2016 20:06:31
Dunc: I am at a loss to your loss, if you can't see any comparison there then there's not much I can do. So are you saying the USA wasn't seriously weakened?
15.) 12 May 2016
12 May 2016 20:16:54
How did the loss of a few insignificant ships, which were easily replaced damage the greatest military power in the word?
I have done a lot of research into this and have found no evidence to back up your theory.
16.) 12 May 2016
12 May 2016 20:34:26
It put a delay on the US entering the war and ultimately succeeding, this was my point in comparison to Rangers.
17.) 12 May 2016
12 May 2016 20:58:02
The attack on Pearl Harbour is widely accepted as being the catalyst for America entering WW2. It delayed absolutely nothing. If it had not been for the attack on Pear Harbour, the U. S. A might have taken a lot longer to enter the war.
So once again you are completely wrong.
18.) 12 May 2016
12 May 2016 21:08:47
And they weren't delayed by the attack? Every historian seems to think so, so once again you are completely wrong.
19.) 12 May 2016
12 May 2016 21:27:57
So there was no delay due to the recovery from the attack? Once again I suggest you are completely wrong.
20.) 12 May 2016
12 May 2016 21:40:53
As I have already stated. No they were not delayed by they attack as before the attack there was no agenda. It was the attack itself which prompted their inclusion in the war.
I would love for you to tell me which part of the attack on Pearl Harbour set back the inclusion of the U. S. A. And please name me one historian who backs up your agenda, As I have read many and am yet to find one.
I am starting to think that either you are extremely young, or extremely not worth giving a logical and factually correct argument against.
21.) 13 May 2016
12 May 2016 21:47:43
Essentially my post was about recovering and re-establishing power, I saw some similarities in each topic, sure we can all pick the bones when we research these things but I have always seen similarities as there will always be differences as these aren't like for like topics.
22.) 13 May 2016
12 May 2016 23:31:48
I am not extremely young, your missing my point, it was about a team having to recover itself and get itself back on it's feet, we can all look up books and nitpick and as the two sepcenaros are totally different then there will be differences, doesn't mean to say there are no similarities.
23.) 13 May 2016
12 May 2016 23:37:54
Everyone knows that is what brought about their entry into the war, I was not disputing that, I was liking that entry to the fight back Rangers had to show to recover from the demotion.
24.) 13 May 2016
13 May 2016 07:23:52
Cringeworthy? Only to you Poetic.
25.) 13 May 2016
13 May 2016 08:49:05
Apparently not.
26.) 13 May 2016
13 May 2016 10:26:23
Apparently so, I agree with him.
27.) 13 May 2016
13 May 2016 13:38:53
Well Poetic, your the only one who mentioned cringeworthy.
28.) 13 May 2016
13 May 2016 13:58:41
Scotjo-
I may be the only one who used the word cringe worthy, but I'm not the only one who disagrees with the comparison - evidenced by the ongoing disagreement with you and Dunc. It appears he has had some comments removed (for whatever reason) but he clearly has/ had issue with your original comparison and your (apparent lack of) knowledge re the incident. I'd argue that this disagreement and my original statement about your comparison being cringe worthy, are largely the same thing. Perhaps not. Perhaps he only finds your comparison/ post redundant.
JohnBlue-
Not much to say here other than you agreeing/ disagreeing means nothing in relation to what we are talking about. Scotjo is claiming that only I find his comparison cringeworthy, I am saying that's (apparently) not the case given his 12 hour debate with Dunc. You're assessment that you don't find it cringeworthy proves very little. It certainly has no merit it terms of debunking my aforementioned claim.
29.) 13 May 2016
13 May 2016 15:05:08
Why does someone agreeing with it prove any less than you calling it cringeworthy?
It's a banter page, you don't own it, as for You thinking your assessment was near the mark because Dunc disagreed is also neither here nor there as that disagreement was more to inaccuracies although there was a certain similarity.
30.) 13 May 2016
13 May 2016 15:54:06
JohnBlue-
Serious question - what do you think this debate is about?
"Why does someone agreeing with it prove any less than you calling it cringeworthy? "
It doesn't - but that's not (nor has it ever been) the argument. I said Dunc's disagreement and fervor meant it wasn't just me who found it cringe worthy. Scotjo claims otherwise.
Your agreement with Scotjo is fine. It's your right. But Scotjo is claiming no one (but me) finds/ found it cringe worthy. I am NOT claiming that no one agrees with him, so your agreement means nothing to the argument. That was my original point. If I was, then your agreement (with him) would immediately end my claim. I wasn't. It doesn't.
As for the "it's a banter page" statement, I agree - but insinuating that I think I own it is ridiculous. I can only assume it's because I dared put forth my points and actually read the context/ content of the posts before responding.
"You thinking your assessment was near the mark because Dunc disagreed is also neither here nor there as that disagreement was more to inaccuracies although there was a certain similarity. "
Again, see above. My point was that if Scotjo's claim was that only I had an issue with his statement/ comparison, then Dunc's disagreement puts paid to that claim. The end. There is no debate - other than to the degrees of which Dunc disagrees, which becomes an exercise in semantics.
31.) 13 May 2016
13 May 2016 14:16:59
Hardly a 12 hour debate and to me there was no apparent lack of knowledge as I found some of the comparison accurate.
Only apparent lack of knowledge, well maybe better than Dunc.
32.) 13 May 2016
13 May 2016 17:05:04
I honestly don't even know what you are trying to say anymore.
FYI Dunc posted his first message at 8pm last night, Scotjo's last response before mine was at 7.20am. Hardly 12 hours right enough.
{Ed001's Note - just to point out johnblue and scotjo are posting from the same IP.}
33.) 13 May 2016
13 May 2016 17:55:11
Thanks for the heads up ED. I guess with that, I'm out!