Claudio Reyna's son

Pud You do not have the majority of people on this forum. You may have a majority of the few that are posting today.
Funny Edge see this as mock grief. I have to say I agree 100% with Edge and that is something I don't often say.
Edge is correct unless you know what it is like to have a similar loss it is not possible to suffer the real grief.
It is difficult to understand how these posters who are showing what Edge calls mock grief can reconcile their current
grief with the sentiments they have expressed against Rangers, their team and club before and after the team died.
Each and everyone of you that is jumping up in mock anger at me have all expressed nasty things against that lot.
People in glass houses should not throw stones.
Let those without sin cast the first stone.

 

Listen you me you ****ing loon, don't tell me i'm not being sincere when I say my heart goes out to him, who the **** do you think you are?

****ing cretin that you are, why don't you just **** off and give everyone peace from your incessant drivel.

 

The way I see it, everyone has a choice regarding whether or not to respond to any post. If one finds a post obnoxious it can either be challenged or ignored and I believe it would be a very boring forum if everyone who posted anything contentious was to be banned. It doesn't matter a jot IMO whether or not a poster is a credible representative of our club/supporters as I believe everyone has a right to their opinion. I also believe they have a right to air that opinion and the option is there for others to challenge it, if indeed they feel the inclination to do so.

Reb posted the information on this thread and some posters responded by empathizing with the death of a child which seems to me to be a very humane response. I do not see any evidence of 'mock' grief or over-reaction in any of those expressions of empathy and they are fairly measured in their responses. If sh does not feel inclined to respond in similar fashion, that is his prerogative and I do not believe he should be vilified for his response. He may be misguided or he may have good reason for his response - I am in no position to judge.

In the main I tend to concur with John Dunne's powerful words - "... any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, ..." However, I do believe that for some reason nowadays there is a tendency to over-react to deaths in relation to 'popular' individuals - the death of Princess Diana being a prime example of mass hysteria and grief from the general public, none of whom knew her personally. One wonders just what is missing from peoples' lives when they resort to such an imagined loss which has no bearing whatsoever on their daily lives. Personal tragedy or grief visits us all sooner or later and I would have thought that is enough to contend with in life without seeking to find grief in other people's tragedies which have no tangible connection to our own lives. That is not to say that one should not empathize with the misfortunes of others and I must emphasize that neither am I in any way relating this to the empathy shown by posters on this thread who empathize with Claudio Reyna in regard to the tragic death of his child. These are just some random thoughts which occurred to me on reading all of the posts on this thread and the criticism and call for the banning of sh which I believe is somewhat unfair, especially given some of the obnoxious stuff posted on various topics on other threads.

 

Hmm.

I suppose the question may then arise as to who decides what constitutes a “credible manner” in the representation of (in this instance) Celtic and her supporters? Also, who takes it upon themselves to judge these things and in what manner are they authorised to do so at the expense of other people/fellow supporters?

Or, put very simply, if you were to say: “Super Hooper, I don’t like your views and, in my opinion, you make Celtic look bad” - in what way would this trump the legitimacy of Super Hooper turning round and responding: "Tioga, I don’t like your views and, in my opinion, you make Celtic look bad”?

Perhaps you could take a vote on these things? And then, with a majority on your side, you could banish the people you don’t care for and keep them from having their say - but only if you despise democracy, perhaps, and the notion of free speech. And only, perhaps, if the thought of a blandly levelling homogeneity doesn’t make your skin crawl, a place where in-group thinking seeks to shelter itself from the inconvenience of differing or difficult (or even repulsive) views?

Banning someone from having their say – however objectionable and tiresome you may find their views (never minding however tiresome and objectionable they may find you and yours) - should be the very, very, very last resort, surely? Unless you were joking, of course, in which case I've not only wasted two minutes of your life - for which I apologise - but two minutes of my own life, as well. A much more serious crime. Nightmare.

Still, very generally speaking, I do find the seeming ease with which some suggest the banning of people for their ideas (or wind-ups) a little bit depressing. Where on earth do we draw the line? What if everyone was allowed to ban people that annoyed or offended them in some way? How many do you think would be left and how varied would their thinking and outlooks be - and how nice would they look in brown shirts?

It's maybe better to try to persuade other people of the strength of your own argument, rather than simply have them banished and silenced? Or, maybe better still, ignore them.

Who knows?

 

Ah, the majority ... but are majorities always 'right'? I don't believe so and I think you will find that in a significant number of minority struggles in countries around the world, the majority regimes proved to be unjust. If, for the sake of argument, you were to view sh as a Mandela-like figure (and I'm not suggesting for one moment you should, but if you did) you might have a totally different point if view. Think about it, who, in their right mind, would opt to spend 27 years in prison when all one had to do was support the majority viewpoint and be rewarded well for doing so? Yet, this man, Mandela, is not seen as an imbecile but hailed as an heroic figure who struggled valiantly against the 'majority' viewpoint in his country. It worked out alright for him in the end ... but some might think, what a waste of 27 years of one's short time on this earth.

sh, to me, is being treated as an outcast. I have yet to see anyone respond to his posts with a reasonable argument or to engage him in discussion in an attempt to persuade him of the perceived error of his ways. The tendency is always to insult, degrade and jump on the bandwagon of calling him a WUM. He may or may not be a WUM and there may be more than one person posting under that title but so what? I do not think he is a WUM although I believe he does intentionally set out to wind up certain individuals on occasions, as do others - but then I am probably in the minority, so does this in itself make me wrong?

If others find sh's posts boring why don't they just ignore them? If they disagree with him and are inclined to do so, why not engage him in a reasoned discussion?

I have seen Reb, from time to time, be insulted and vilified for posts he has made, yet, to his great credit and much to my admiration, he responds, not with insults, but with reasoned and IMO persuasive argument. sh does not respond in the same way, nevertheless is he not entitled to be given the opportunity to discuss his views?

 

He is extremely irritating and tiresome but personally I would not ban him for that because plenty of people fall into that cetegory.

I don't really care one way or the other but I would like him to explain why he thinks posters are guilty of "Mock" sympathy, as you say Mick, plenty of people on here have kids of their own.

 

I'm going to close this now as it's moved on from the original point of the thread...