would it be all right if Mr santha is treated like this in OZ?
gur...@yahoo.com
what a disgrace..
taunting by indians! what has world come to.
Shikari Shambhu
> http://www.smh.com.au/news/Sport/Indian-spectators-racially-abuse-Sym...
>
> what a disgrace..
> taunting by indians! what has world come to.
Symonds is mistaken. It was not some spectators making monkey noises.
They were real monkeys. Didn't he see that tree in the stadium?
Macjoubert
It may be of some surprise but Indian cricket fans are the most racist
of all South Asian fans, they routinely mock Whites and Blacks
whenever they come across them.
Read about Keith Athurton's sad tryst during the Hero cup when
epithets and abuse was directed at him.
Symonds is mixed and almost the same tone as Indians so it's even more
surprising that they know of his ethnic background.
Vig
to his face have more to do with the taunts. Indian fans routinely call
Malinga and Sreesanth names like ape and monkey without racial
prejudice. I routinely call him a savage (or Jungli) for his approach to
cricket and I refer to Hayden in the same vein. I seriously doubt if
Lara would be abused in India (unless he has weird sunblock). Of course,
you have the dumb shit crowd which is going to do this anyhow, but that
is the price we pay for the illiteracy in India.
Cheers!
--
Vig
David Singh
<gur...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1192102970....@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
> http://www.smh.com.au/news/Sport/Indian-spectators-racially-abuse-Symonds/2007/10/11/1191696078095.html
>
> what a disgrace..
> taunting by indians! what has world come to.
>
As long as they dont racially abuse Sreesanth I dont care. Making monkey
noises has no racial over tones.
nsriram
> gurl...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >http://www.smh.com.au/news/Sport/Indian-spectators-racially-abuse-Sym...
>
> > what a disgrace..
> > taunting by indians! what has world come to.
>
> I seriously think that the hair and the sunscreen that Symonds applies
> to his face have more to do with the taunts. Indian fans routinely call
> Malinga and Sreesanth names like ape and monkey without racial
> prejudice. I routinely call him a savage (or Jungli) for his approach to
> cricket and I refer to Hayden in the same vein. I seriously doubt if
> Lara would be abused in India (unless he has weird sunblock). Of course,
> you have the dumb shit crowd which is going to do this anyhow, but that
> is the price we pay for the illiteracy in India.
The concept of racism as it is commonly understood in Australia
doesn't neatly apply in India
Symonds skin tone is lighter than perhaps 90% of Indians. His choice
of putting white sunscreen on his lips does make him look somewhat
unusual, clownish.
http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200703/r133472_447172.jpg
Monkeys are revered in India, FYI.. Hanuman, the monkey god is pretty
important
No doubt the crowd was making merry over his appearance but it has
little to do with black-white racism (as it is understood) in
Australia
It is morally equivalent to calling Powar or Inzy as a "fatso"..
deriding someone based on their appearance.. but not implying anything
about their racial heritage etc.
Ian Thorpe
>
> what a disgrace..
> taunting by indians! what has world come to.
>
There are no races in India. Throwing bottles on the ground has been
happening since 70s. Fans do it when they get upset at their own team not
putting up a fight. This incident reminds me of Indian fans throwing bottles
on to the ground and setting a part of the ground on fire when India caved
in meekly to their subcontinental neighbors in World Cup 96 semifinals
Australian media is twisting general harassment from fans into racial abuse.
Ian Thorpe
"nsriram" <srins...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1192137296.1...@v3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Well put
will_s
"Vig" <v...@gatech.eedeeyoo> wrote in message
news:felgi4$nrt$1...@news-int2.gatech.edu...
<QUOTE>
However the Indian camp had condemned the behaviour of their fans.
"This should not happen but the problem is trying to control the crowds and
in some areas there can be some trouble," said team manager Lalchand Rajput
<QUOTE>
will_s
"David Singh" <DavidS...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fem142$9ua$1...@aioe.org...
aLL OF THESE iNDIAN POSTS JUST CONFIRM WHAT i HAVE ALWAYS THOUGHT....iNDIANS
ARE JUST ABOUT THE BIGGIST RACIST GOING AROUND
will_s
David Singh
"will_s" <willsju...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:470ea5af$0$14825$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> "Vig" <v...@gatech.eedeeyoo> wrote in message
> news:felgi4$nrt$1...@news-int2.gatech.edu...
>> gur...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> http://www.smh.com.au/news/Sport/Indian-spectators-racially-abuse-Symonds/2007/10/11/1191696078095.html
>>>
>>> what a disgrace..
>>> taunting by indians! what has world come to.
>>>
>> I seriously think that the hair and the sunscreen that Symonds applies to
>> his face have more to do with the taunts. Indian fans routinely call
>> Malinga and Sreesanth names like ape and monkey without racial prejudice.
>> I routinely call him a savage (or Jungli) for his approach to cricket and
>> I refer to Hayden in the same vein. I seriously doubt if Lara would be
>> abused in India (unless he has weird sunblock). Of course, you have the
>> dumb shit crowd which is going to do this anyhow, but that is the price
>> we pay for the illiteracy in India.
>>
>> Cheers!
>> --
>> Vig
>
>
> <QUOTE>
> However the Indian camp had condemned the behaviour of their fans.
>
As they should.
> "This should not happen but the problem is trying to control the crowds
> and in some areas there can be some trouble," said team manager Lalchand
> Rajput
> <QUOTE>
>
Making monkey noises is not racism. They behaved rudely and should be
condemned which is what was done by team management.
David Singh
Pot calling the kettle black
Ian Thorpe
I condemn the crowd behavior too. Ozzies are making a mountain out of a mole
hill by twisting by unruly rude behavior as racist.
dumb...@yahoo.com.au
> "will_s" <willsjunkrem...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
>
> news:470ea647$0$22253$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
>> > "Ian Thorpe" <IanThorpe19...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:fem5n8$n6u$1...@aioe.org...
>
> >> <gurl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >>news:1192102970....@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
> >>>http://www.smh.com.au/news/Sport/Indian-spectators-racially-abuse-Sym...
>
> >>> what a disgrace..
> >>> taunting by indians! what has world come to.
>
> >> There are no races in India. Throwing bottles on the ground has been
> >> happening since 70s. Fans do it when they get upset at their own team not
> >> putting up a fight. This incident reminds me of Indian fans throwing
> >> bottles on to the ground and setting a part of the ground on fire when
> >> India caved in meekly to their subcontinental neighbors in World Cup 96
> >> semifinals
>
> >> Australian media is twisting general harassment from fans into racial
> >> abuse.
>
> > <QUOTE>
> > However the Indian camp had condemned the behaviour of their fans.
>
> > "This should not happen but the problem is trying to control the crowds
> > and in some areas there can be some trouble," said team manager Lalchand
> > Rajput
> > <QUOTE>
>
> I condemn the crowd behavior too. Ozzies are making a mountain out of a mole
>
> - Show quoted text -
As an Indian, I am ashamed at this incident and strongly condemn the
crowd's behavior.
If this is how we treat people when they visit our country, we do not
deserve to be treated
any better ourselves! The sad thing is that the people who did this
don't even realize
how offensive this type of behavior is.
India is probably the most racist country in the world. We cry foul at
the slightest hint of
perceived racism, but we discriminate amongst people based on caste,
skin colour and so forth.
There is an implicit, self-hating assumption that lighter skinned =
superior.
Otherwise, why would "Fair and Lovely" and "Fair and Handsome"
products would be
flying off the shelves.This self-hating attitude leads people to think
that it is acceptable to call anybody
who is dark-skinned or of African descent a monkey.
But Australians are not immune either. I don't understand why none of
the Aussie commentators
(Richard Earle, Alex Brown) reported on the incident without talking
about the "irony of dark-skinned Indians
abusing the dark-skinned Symonds". Isn't alluding to the fact that it
is ironic inherently racist?
Ian Thorpe
<dumb...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1192166113.9...@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
You are over reacting and extrapolating this issue to the whole country. You
need to stop self hating yourself first.
> India is probably the most racist country in the world. We cry foul at
> the slightest hint of
> perceived racism,
At least Indians didnt attack, kill and loot other races unlike british,
aussies and americans.
>but we discriminate amongst people based on caste,
> skin colour and so forth.
Speak for yourself first. Nobody in India asks for your caste when you apply
for a job in the private sector. Lower castes get reservations so they
mention their caste when they apply for jobs in govt.
> There is an implicit, self-hating assumption that lighter skinned =
> superior.
Not necessarily. But the movie industry projects light skinned to be
superior and the mass follows it.
> Otherwise, why would "Fair and Lovely" and "Fair and Handsome"
> products would be
> flying off the shelves.This self-hating attitude leads people to think
> that it is acceptable to call anybody
> who is dark-skinned or of African descent a monkey.
Wrong deduction. Patrick Ewing remindes me of a monkey, George Bush reminds
me of a monkey ( I usually call him a white chimp). This has nothing to do
with their skin color.
> But Australians are not immune either. I don't understand why none of
> the Aussie commentators
> (Richard Earle, Alex Brown) reported on the incident without talking
> about the "irony of dark-skinned Indians
> abusing the dark-skinned Symonds". Isn't alluding to the fact that it
> is ironic inherently racist?
>
It is. But they missed the point entirely since making monkey noises had
nothing to do with Symonds mixed race but with his appearance with the white
color on his mouth. Sometimes in India monkeys are decorated with flowers
and various colors on their mouths in carnivals and festivals. One of the
Indian gods Hanuman is always portrayed resembling a monkey with colors on
the mouth.
dumb...@yahoo.com.au
> <dumbal...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
I don't hate myself. I am very proud of my Indian heritage and hold it
to very high
standards. My western friends who visit India routinely are stunned by
how warm
and friendly the Indian people are. I love it, and that is why I think
I have the right
to be critical of the negative facets of the culture, many driven by
ignorance.
Ian Thorpe
<dumb...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1192168048.9...@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
You have every right to be critical but you are extrapolating the Vadodara
issue to the whole country.
If I recall correctly there was no crowd hooliganism or player abuse in
Kochi, Bangalore, Chandigarh and Hyderabad OD matches.
Sanjiv Karmarkar
> I don't hate myself. I am very proud of my Indian heritage and hold it
If you really were proud of your heritage, you would not paint the
entire nation with a broad brush. You would have simply condemned the
incidence, instead of calling the entire nation "the most racist
country in the world". Despite what you say, your self hate is
apparent (perhaps not to yourself as often is the case) as is your
knowledge of the history of racism in others parts of the world.
Sanjiv Karmarkar
Sanjiv Karmarkar
> However the Indian camp had condemned the behaviour of their fans.
>
> "This should not happen but the problem is trying to control the crowds and
> in some areas there can be some trouble," said team manager Lalchand Rajput
Which was the right thing to do; the behavior deserved to be rebuked
and chastised. But Rajput never called it 'racist'.
The treatment of Symonds by a section of Indian fans was indeed
indefensible and we are all condemning it. The point is, it was not a
'racist' act.
Sanjiv Karmarkar
rodney...@gmail.com
>> crowd's behavior.
>> If this is how we treat people when they visit our country, we do not
>> deserve to be treated
>> any better ourselves! The sad thing is that the people who did this
>> don't even realize
>> how offensive this type of behavior is.
> You are over reacting and extrapolating this issue to the whole country. You
> need to stop self hating yourself first.
Oh, grow up.
>> India is probably the most racist country in the world. We cry foul at
>> the slightest hint of
>> perceived racism,
> At least Indians didnt attack, kill and loot other races unlike british,
> aussies and americans.
The "at least" argument is almost always a weak, straw-clutching and
wholly extraneous attempt at crawling out of a self-dug hole. You've
done nothing here to disprove that notion.
>> but we discriminate amongst people based on caste,
>> skin colour and so forth.
> Speak for yourself first. Nobody in India asks for your caste when you apply
> for a job in the private sector. Lower castes get reservations so they
> mention their caste when they apply for jobs in govt.
Proof?
>> There is an implicit, self-hating assumption that lighter skinned =
>> superior.
> Not necessarily. But the movie industry projects light skinned to be
> superior and the mass follows it.
Which would make the masses racists.
>> Otherwise, why would "Fair and Lovely" and "Fair and Handsome"
>> products would be
>> flying off the shelves.This self-hating attitude leads people to think
>> that it is acceptable to call anybody
>> who is dark-skinned or of African descent a monkey.
> Wrong deduction. Patrick Ewing remindes me of a monkey, George Bush reminds
> me of a monkey ( I usually call him a white chimp). This has nothing to do
> with their skin color.
"[W]hite chimp" has nothing to do with skin colour? Do me a favour.
>> But Australians are not immune either. I don't understand why none of
>> the Aussie commentators
>> (Richard Earle, Alex Brown) reported on the incident without talking
>> about the "irony of dark-skinned Indians
>> abusing the dark-skinned Symonds". Isn't alluding to the fact that it
>> is ironic inherently racist?
> It is. But they missed the point entirely since making monkey noises had
> nothing to do with Symonds mixed race but with his appearance with the white
> color on his mouth.
How could you possibly know that? I'm pretty sure that you weren't at
the ground, and I doubt that you've spoken to any who were.
> Sometimes in India monkeys are decorated with flowers and various colors
> on their mouths in carnivals and festivals. One of the Indian gods
> Hanuman is always portrayed resembling a monkey with colors on
> the mouth.
That's irrelevant (unless, of course, you're suggesting that the fans
were *complimenting* Symonds).
--
Rodney Ulyate
"A loving wife is better than making fifty in cricket, or even 99.
Beyond that I will not go."
J.M. Barrie
rodney...@gmail.com
I'd wager that his extrapolations (with which, for the record, I don't
agree) are far better founded than your own. Indeed, it's mildly
amusing to see you backtracking from those nasty remarks about self-
hate to telling him politely now that he's every right to an opinion.
--
Rodney Ulyate
"What is Human Life but a Game of Cricket?"
Duke Of Dorset
Wog George
<rodney...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1192197483....@k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> Ian Thorpe pined:
>> Wrong deduction. Patrick Ewing remindes me of a monkey, George Bush
>> reminds
>> me of a monkey ( I usually call him a white chimp). This has nothing to
>> do
>> with their skin color.
>
> "[W]hite chimp" has nothing to do with skin colour? Do me a favour.
>
I'll have to disagree with you on this one, Chewy.
While Mr Thorpe might refer to GWB as a "white chimp", the "white" part is
merely a descriptive term to signify how GWB differs from one's usual idea
of what a chimp looks like. To simply refer to Mr Bush as a chimp would
encourage the counter argument that chimps do not bear Mr Bush's physical
attributes. To include "white" qualifies the statement and adds
credibility. While "white" is an obvious reference to Mr Bush's skin
colour, it is the "chimp" part that is designed to offend.
It is no different to referring to Sachin or Brian as the "black Bradman".
Recognising that someone is of a different physical appearance isn't, of
itself, racist. It is no more than observation.
When my Indian friend David visits for a free guitar lesson, I notice that
he has very large dark fingers. I'm only actually interested in the
dimensions of his fingers and where on the guitar he happens to put them,
but the colour of his fingers stands out because of the appearance relative
to the fingerboard when compared to my own. That's just the way it is. He
and his wife own a blue car. Their blue car is blue, they are a dark
brownish colour, I am some sort of indefinable light creamy pinky colour,
the grass is mostly green, and the magpies are black and white. To see
anything else would be blind.
Returning to the original point of this post, "white chimp" is indeed an
offensive remark. It is the likening of GWB to a lower order primate that
is the offensive part. He is actually a white man, so calling him "white"
could hardly be offensive. It could be reasoned that he also fits the rest
of the bill too, but that is outside the scope of my post.
Can we argue now?
--
George
"The standard measuring unit for human faeces. One Katie Couric is
approximately 2˝ pounds of excrement." - European Faecal Standards &
Measurements - 10 October 2007
Ian Thorpe
<rodney...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1192197660.6...@v29g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Sanjiv one of your rsc fans answered you. Thanks Sanjiv.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.cricket/msg/a41f944780f8d26f
Ian Thorpe
<rodney...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1192197483....@k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> Ian Thorpe pined:
>> <dumb...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:1192166113.9...@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>> As an Indian, I am ashamed at this incident and strongly condemn the
>>> crowd's behavior.
>>> If this is how we treat people when they visit our country, we do not
>>> deserve to be treated
>>> any better ourselves! The sad thing is that the people who did this
>>> don't even realize
>>> how offensive this type of behavior is.
>> You are over reacting and extrapolating this issue to the whole country.
>> You
>> need to stop self hating yourself first.
>
> Oh, grow up.
I did. You have long way to go before you can catch up with me.
>>> India is probably the most racist country in the world. We cry foul at
>>> the slightest hint of
>>> perceived racism,
>> At least Indians didnt attack, kill and loot other races unlike british,
>> aussies and americans.
>
> The "at least" argument is almost always a weak, straw-clutching and
> wholly extraneous attempt at crawling out of a self-dug hole. You've
> done nothing here to disprove that notion.
I reworded my comment.
"Indians didnt attack, kill and loot other races unlike british,
aussies and americans."
Problem solved.
>>> but we discriminate amongst people based on caste,
>>> skin colour and so forth.
>> Speak for yourself first. Nobody in India asks for your caste when you
>> apply
>> for a job in the private sector. Lower castes get reservations so they
>> mention their caste when they apply for jobs in govt.
>
> Proof?
You are asking proof of something obvious to every Indian. I wish I have as
much time as you do posting kiddo stuff.
>>> There is an implicit, self-hating assumption that lighter skinned =
>>> superior.
>> Not necessarily. But the movie industry projects light skinned to be
>> superior and the mass follows it.
>
> Which would make the masses racists.
They do it to sell their products. Manipulated masses I call them.
>>> Otherwise, why would "Fair and Lovely" and "Fair and Handsome"
>>> products would be
>>> flying off the shelves.This self-hating attitude leads people to think
>>> that it is acceptable to call anybody
>>> who is dark-skinned or of African descent a monkey.
>> Wrong deduction. Patrick Ewing remindes me of a monkey, George Bush
>> reminds
>> me of a monkey ( I usually call him a white chimp). This has nothing to
>> do
>> with their skin color.
>
> "[W]hite chimp" has nothing to do with skin colour? Do me a favour.
I use it as an identifier. Only God can educate you.
>>> But Australians are not immune either. I don't understand why none of
>>> the Aussie commentators
>>> (Richard Earle, Alex Brown) reported on the incident without talking
>>> about the "irony of dark-skinned Indians
>>> abusing the dark-skinned Symonds". Isn't alluding to the fact that it
>>> is ironic inherently racist?
>> It is. But they missed the point entirely since making monkey noises had
>> nothing to do with Symonds mixed race but with his appearance with the
>> white
>> color on his mouth.
>
> How could you possibly know that? I'm pretty sure that you weren't at
> the ground, and I doubt that you've spoken to any who were.
I was at the ground. I am one of those abusive fans.
>> Sometimes in India monkeys are decorated with flowers and various colors
>> on their mouths in carnivals and festivals. One of the Indian gods
>> Hanuman is always portrayed resembling a monkey with colors on
>> the mouth.
>
> That's irrelevant (unless, of course, you're suggesting that the fans
> were *complimenting* Symonds).
>
> --
> Rodney Ulyate
>
> "A loving wife is better than making fifty in cricket, or even 99.
> Beyond that I will not go."
> J.M. Barrie
It is relevant to deduce that making monkey noises is not racism.
I have already read plenty of comments accusing fans they called Symonds a
monkey when in fact they did not as per news reports.
It goes to show how easy it is to spread lies and rumors among (un)educated
humans like you.
rodney...@gmail.com
foramen, put in:
> <rodney...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1192197483....@k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>> Ian Thorpe pined:
>>> Wrong deduction. Patrick Ewing remindes me of a monkey, George Bush
>>> reminds
>>> me of a monkey ( I usually call him a white chimp). This has nothing to
>>> do
>>> with their skin color.
>> "[W]hite chimp" has nothing to do with skin colour? Do me a favour.
> I'll have to disagree with you on this one, Chewy.
RRRREEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAWWWWW!!!
> While Mr Thorpe might refer to GWB as a "white chimp", the "white" part is
> merely a descriptive term to signify how GWB differs from one's usual idea
> of what a chimp looks like. To simply refer to Mr Bush as a chimp would
> encourage the counter argument that chimps do not bear Mr Bush's physical
> attributes. To include "white" qualifies the statement and adds
> credibility. While "white" is an obvious reference to Mr Bush's skin
> colour, it is the "chimp" part that is designed to offend.
Well I'll be jiggered, Woggy, if you aren't in a pedantic mood today!
A word of caution, though: my faculty for picking nits and bones is
similarly fierce, so pull thy scrum-cap on over thy lowly head and
brace thyself for a murderously unpalatable rhubarb!
<clears throat>
It seems quite obvious to me that, in your frothing excitement, you
missed a crucial point. But worry not! I shall take the liberty of
elucidating it for you...
<more throat-clearing>
The one and only thing to which I take exception here is Mr Thorpe's
erroneous averment that calling America's omnipopular leader a
"*white* chimp" (my emphasis) "has nothing to do with their [sic] skin
color [sic]". As you have so eloquently pointed out, however, it has
actually rather a lot to do with the colour of Mr Bush's skin. My beef
ain't with the opprobrious word primarily responsible for whatever
offence this description is intended to cause, but rather with Mr
Thorpe's mistaken belief that the word "white" does not constitute
reference to the hue of G.W.B.'s integument.
> It is no different to referring to Sachin or Brian as the "black Bradman".
> Recognising that someone is of a different physical appearance isn't, of
> itself, racist. It is no more than observation.
Ah, but you'd much rather be compared to Braddles than a Caucasian
primate, would you not? To label someone a chimp has in itself
extremely negative connotations; to adjoin to that label the pertinent
racial adjective only fills said racial adjective with negative
connotations, too. And, when you're met with negative racial
connotations, you may be excused for crying racist.
> When my Indian friend David visits for a free guitar lesson, I notice that
> he has very large dark fingers. I'm only actually interested in the
> dimensions of his fingers and where on the guitar he happens to put them,
> but the colour of his fingers stands out because of the appearance relative
> to the fingerboard when compared to my own. That's just the way it is. He
> and his wife own a blue car. Their blue car is blue, they are a dark
> brownish colour, I am some sort of indefinable light creamy pinky colour,
> the grass is mostly green, and the magpies are black and white. To see
> anything else would be blind.
Alas, Woggy, I suffer chronic daltonism.
> Returning to the original point of this post, "white chimp" is indeed an
> offensive remark. It is the likening of GWB to a lower order primate that
> is the offensive part. He is actually a white man, so calling him "white"
> could hardly be offensive. It could be reasoned that he also fits the rest
> of the bill too, but that is outside the scope of my post.
Still, it does afford me the very welcome opportunity to give some
exposure to my favourite South African cartoonist:
http://www.fodder.co.za/2006/04/zapiro_targets_.html
(This isn't, of course, anything like the best example of the opinion
that you and Zapiro both share, but I'm afraid that my mastery of the
Google search engine is not as yet at an optimum.)
> Can we argue now?
You're on, bitch! I'm sick of your stupid monkeyshine! Were you wise,
you'd leave this fray immediately, for I've the violent might of
Scipio behind these fibrous words of Cicero. So yield thee, coward,
and live to be the show and gaze o' the time: we'll have thee, as our
rarer monsters are, painted on a pole, and underwrit, "Here may you
see the tyrant!"
--
Rodney Ulyate
"Cricket is the greatest game that the wit of man has yet devised."
Sir Pelham Warner
rodney...@gmail.com
> The one and only thing to which I take exception here is Mr Thorpe's
> erroneous averment that calling America's omnipopular leader a
> "*white* chimp" (my emphasis) "has nothing to do with their [sic] skin
> color [sic]". As you have so eloquently pointed out, however, it has
> actually rather a lot to do with the colour of Mr Bush's skin. My beef
> ain't with the opprobrious word primarily responsible for whatever
> offence this description is intended to cause, but rather with Mr
> Thorpe's mistaken belief that the word "white" does not constitute
> reference to the hue of G.W.B.'s integument.
A weird echo there. (It's what happens to me when I post off Groups.)
rodney...@gmail.com
> <rodney...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1192197483....@k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>> Ian Thorpe pined:
>>> <dumb...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
>>> news:1192166113.9...@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>>> As an Indian, I am ashamed at this incident and strongly condemn the
>>>> crowd's behavior.
>>>> If this is how we treat people when they visit our country, we do not
>>>> deserve to be treated
>>>> any better ourselves! The sad thing is that the people who did this
>>>> don't even realize
>>>> how offensive this type of behavior is.
>>> You are over reacting and extrapolating this issue to the whole country.
>>> You
>>> need to stop self hating yourself first.
>> Oh, grow up.
> I did.
No you didn't.
> You have long way to go before you can catch up with me.
Oh, grow up.
>>>> India is probably the most racist country in the world. We cry foul at
>>>> the slightest hint of
>>>> perceived racism,
>>> At least Indians didnt attack, kill and loot other races unlike british,
>>> aussies and americans.
>> The "at least" argument is almost always a weak, straw-clutching and
>> wholly extraneous attempt at crawling out of a self-dug hole. You've
>> done nothing here to disprove that notion.
> I reworded my comment.
> "Indians didnt attack, kill and loot other races unlike british,
> aussies and americans."
> Problem solved.
No it isn't.
>>>> but we discriminate amongst people based on caste,
>>>> skin colour and so forth.
>>> Speak for yourself first. Nobody in India asks for your caste when you
>>> apply
>>> for a job in the private sector. Lower castes get reservations so they
>>> mention their caste when they apply for jobs in govt.
>> Proof?
> You are asking proof of something obvious to every Indian.
Yes. Where is it?
> I wish I have as much time as you do posting kiddo stuff.
Evidently you haven't yet grown up yet, given that you're still
hankering after juvenile pursuits.
>>>> There is an implicit, self-hating assumption that lighter skinned =
>>>> superior.
>>> Not necessarily. But the movie industry projects light skinned to be
>>> superior and the mass follows it.
>> Which would make the masses racists.
> They do it to sell their products. Manipulated masses I call them.
Manipulated into racism, if you're to be believed.
>>>> Otherwise, why would "Fair and Lovely" and "Fair and Handsome"
>>>> products would be
>>>> flying off the shelves.This self-hating attitude leads people to think
>>>> that it is acceptable to call anybody
>>>> who is dark-skinned or of African descent a monkey.
>>> Wrong deduction. Patrick Ewing remindes me of a monkey, George Bush
>>> reminds
>>> me of a monkey ( I usually call him a white chimp). This has nothing to
>>> do
>>> with their skin color.
>> "[W]hite chimp" has nothing to do with skin colour? Do me a favour.
> I use it as an identifier.
What? The skin colour?
> Only God can educate you.
Whereas no-one could possibly make a mark on you.
>>>> But Australians are not immune either. I don't understand why none of
>>>> the Aussie commentators
>>>> (Richard Earle, Alex Brown) reported on the incident without talking
>>>> about the "irony of dark-skinned Indians
>>>> abusing the dark-skinned Symonds". Isn't alluding to the fact that it
>>>> is ironic inherently racist?
>>> It is. But they missed the point entirely since making monkey noises had
>>> nothing to do with Symonds mixed race but with his appearance with the
>>> white
>>> color on his mouth.
>> How could you possibly know that? I'm pretty sure that you weren't at
>> the ground, and I doubt that you've spoken to any who were.
> I was at the ground. I am one of those abusive fans.
It shows.
>>> Sometimes in India monkeys are decorated with flowers and various colors
>>> on their mouths in carnivals and festivals. One of the Indian gods
>>> Hanuman is always portrayed resembling a monkey with colors on
>>> the mouth.
>> That's irrelevant (unless, of course, you're suggesting that the fans
>> were *complimenting* Symonds).
> It is relevant to deduce that making monkey noises is not racism.
At a push, perhaps, but it's nowhere near enough.
> I have already read plenty of comments accusing fans they called Symonds a
> monkey when in fact they did not as per news reports.
<plasters noddy-badge onto Ian's violently perspirating forehead>
> It goes to show how easy it is to spread lies and rumors among (un)educated
> humans like you.
I haven't read or seen a report of the incident in question, so how
these lies and rumours have reached me I'm not too sure.
--
Rodney Ulyate
"At its best, cricket is the most wonderful entertainment in the
world."
Parky
Wog George
<rodney...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1192215262.9...@k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> An atypically flowery Wog George, pedantry oozing from his every
> foramen, put in:
>> <rodney...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1192197483....@k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>>> Ian Thorpe pined:
>>>> Wrong deduction. Patrick Ewing remindes me of a monkey, George Bush
>>>> reminds
>>>> me of a monkey ( I usually call him a white chimp). This has nothing
>>>> to
>>>> do
>>>> with their skin color.
>>> "[W]hite chimp" has nothing to do with skin colour? Do me a favour.
>> I'll have to disagree with you on this one, Chewy.
>
> RRRREEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAWWWWW!!!
>
>> While Mr Thorpe might refer to GWB as a "white chimp", the "white" part
>> is
>> merely a descriptive term to signify how GWB differs from one's usual
>> idea
>> of what a chimp looks like. To simply refer to Mr Bush as a chimp would
>> encourage the counter argument that chimps do not bear Mr Bush's physical
>> attributes. To include "white" qualifies the statement and adds
>> credibility. While "white" is an obvious reference to Mr Bush's skin
>> colour, it is the "chimp" part that is designed to offend.
>
> Well I'll be jiggered, Woggy, if you aren't in a pedantic mood today!
It is a day of the week ending in "Y". Those are my best days.
> A word of caution, though: my faculty for picking nits and bones is
> similarly fierce, so pull thy scrum-cap on over thy lowly head and
> brace thyself for a murderously unpalatable rhubarb!
>
If you ever saw the rhubarb patch I tended as a child, you'd know that
you're on shaky ground.
> <clears throat>
>
I won't ask what you've been up to...
> It seems quite obvious to me that, in your frothing excitement, you
> missed a crucial point. But worry not! I shall take the liberty of
> elucidating it for you...
>
I saw the point, but chose the path which considered the intent of Mr
Thorpe's white pointer rather than his actual wording. I was trying out
Pedant LE 2007, which is more forgiving than the full version.
> <more throat-clearing>
>
Whatever you've been doing, you must have been doing an awful lot of it.
> The one and only thing to which I take exception here is Mr Thorpe's
> erroneous averment that calling America's omnipopular leader a
> "*white* chimp" (my emphasis) "has nothing to do with their [sic] skin
> color [sic]". As you have so eloquently pointed out, however, it has
> actually rather a lot to do with the colour of Mr Bush's skin. My beef
> ain't with the opprobrious word primarily responsible for whatever
> offence this description is intended to cause, but rather with Mr
> Thorpe's mistaken belief that the word "white" does not constitute
> reference to the hue of G.W.B.'s integument.
>
Technically, I am defenseless on this point. My only haven is as per my
remark (just up there a bit) about being less than customarily stringent in
my yearning for absolute correctness. I trust that you don't take the
apologetic nature of this paragraph to in any way mean that we aren't in the
midst of a fierce battle.
>> It is no different to referring to Sachin or Brian as the "black
>> Bradman".
>> Recognising that someone is of a different physical appearance isn't, of
>> itself, racist. It is no more than observation.
>
> Ah, but you'd much rather be compared to Braddles than a Caucasian
> primate, would you not? To label someone a chimp has in itself
> extremely negative connotations; to adjoin to that label the pertinent
> racial adjective only fills said racial adjective with negative
> connotations, too. And, when you're met with negative racial
> connotations, you may be excused for crying racist.
>
When Lara has been lauded as the black Bradman, I'm sure he was honoured.
If McGrath at any point referred to Lara as his black bunny (which he
didn't, but is included for demonstration only), there would have been hell
to pay. It seems that if the entire term is complimentary, then the
adjectival component, viz the description pertinent to the skin colour, is
seen as just that. If the entire term is intended to be offensive, then
that same adjectival component is deemed to be an integral part of the
offense. The inconsistency, while understandable much of the time, often
leads to the offendee reacting for precisely the wrong reason.
>> When my Indian friend David visits for a free guitar lesson, I notice
>> that
>> he has very large dark fingers. I'm only actually interested in the
>> dimensions of his fingers and where on the guitar he happens to put them,
>> but the colour of his fingers stands out because of the appearance
>> relative
>> to the fingerboard when compared to my own. That's just the way it is.
>> He
>> and his wife own a blue car. Their blue car is blue, they are a dark
>> brownish colour, I am some sort of indefinable light creamy pinky colour,
>> the grass is mostly green, and the magpies are black and white. To see
>> anything else would be blind.
>
> Alas, Woggy, I suffer chronic daltonism.
>
My mother once suffered from Jimmy Dalton. That's the last time one of my
brother's friends ever stayed at my mother's house!
>> Returning to the original point of this post, "white chimp" is indeed an
>> offensive remark. It is the likening of GWB to a lower order primate
>> that
>> is the offensive part. He is actually a white man, so calling him
>> "white"
>> could hardly be offensive. It could be reasoned that he also fits the
>> rest
>> of the bill too, but that is outside the scope of my post.
>
> Still, it does afford me the very welcome opportunity to give some
> exposure to my favourite South African cartoonist:
>
> http://www.fodder.co.za/2006/04/zapiro_targets_.html
>
> (This isn't, of course, anything like the best example of the opinion
> that you and Zapiro both share, but I'm afraid that my mastery of the
> Google search engine is not as yet at an optimum.)
>
That is an absolute pearler! The interchangeable last letter pretty much
sums up CWB (Chimp (white) Bush).
If the caricature was a bit shorter and had a fatter head, it would have
looked prexactly like Prime Minister John Howard of Orstraylya.
>> Can we argue now?
>
> You're on, bitch! I'm sick of your stupid monkeyshine! Were you wise,
> you'd leave this fray immediately, for I've the violent might of
> Scipio behind these fibrous words of Cicero. So yield thee, coward,
> and live to be the show and gaze o' the time: we'll have thee, as our
> rarer monsters are, painted on a pole, and underwrit, "Here may you
> see the tyrant!"
>
On the subject of fibre, my last effort was only about 4 Courics. It may
have been fraying around the edges, but it was one whole piece with no
seams.
--
George
"If I was a towel, why would I be wearing this hat and this fake
moustache" - Steven McTowelie - 19 April 2006
Ian Thorpe
<rodney...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1192217569....@v29g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> The hopelessly cornered Ian Thorpe cried desperately:
>> <rodney...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1192197483....@k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>>> Ian Thorpe pined:
>>>> <dumb...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
>>>> news:1192166113.9...@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> As an Indian, I am ashamed at this incident and strongly condemn the
>>>>> crowd's behavior.
>>>>> If this is how we treat people when they visit our country, we do not
>>>>> deserve to be treated
>>>>> any better ourselves! The sad thing is that the people who did this
>>>>> don't even realize
>>>>> how offensive this type of behavior is.
>>>> You are over reacting and extrapolating this issue to the whole
>>>> country.
>>>> You
>>>> need to stop self hating yourself first.
>>> Oh, grow up.
>> I did.
>
> No you didn't.
You are blind.
>> You have long way to go before you can catch up with me.
>
> Oh, grow up.
You need help.
>>>>> India is probably the most racist country in the world. We cry foul at
>>>>> the slightest hint of
>>>>> perceived racism,
>>>> At least Indians didnt attack, kill and loot other races unlike
>>>> british,
>>>> aussies and americans.
>>> The "at least" argument is almost always a weak, straw-clutching and
>>> wholly extraneous attempt at crawling out of a self-dug hole. You've
>>> done nothing here to disprove that notion.
>> I reworded my comment.
>> "Indians didnt attack, kill and loot other races unlike british,
>> aussies and americans."
>> Problem solved.
>
> No it isn't.
Poor comeback as usual.
>>>>> but we discriminate amongst people based on caste,
>>>>> skin colour and so forth.
>>>> Speak for yourself first. Nobody in India asks for your caste when you
>>>> apply
>>>> for a job in the private sector. Lower castes get reservations so they
>>>> mention their caste when they apply for jobs in govt.
>>> Proof?
>> You are asking proof of something obvious to every Indian.
>
> Yes. Where is it?
You should not be discussing threads you have no clue and knowledge.
>> I wish I have as much time as you do posting kiddo stuff.
>
> Evidently you haven't yet grown up yet, given that you're still
> hankering after juvenile pursuits.
Juvenile pursuits like you stalking me in every thread and posting senseless
unintelligent garbage.
>>>>> There is an implicit, self-hating assumption that lighter skinned =
>>>>> superior.
>>>> Not necessarily. But the movie industry projects light skinned to be
>>>> superior and the mass follows it.
>>> Which would make the masses racists.
>> They do it to sell their products. Manipulated masses I call them.
>
> Manipulated into racism, if you're to be believed.
>>>>> Otherwise, why would "Fair and Lovely" and "Fair and Handsome"
>>>>> products would be
>>>>> flying off the shelves.This self-hating attitude leads people to think
>>>>> that it is acceptable to call anybody
>>>>> who is dark-skinned or of African descent a monkey.
>>>> Wrong deduction. Patrick Ewing remindes me of a monkey, George Bush
>>>> reminds
>>>> me of a monkey ( I usually call him a white chimp). This has nothing
>>>> to
>>>> do
>>>> with their skin color.
>>> "[W]hite chimp" has nothing to do with skin colour? Do me a favour.
>> I use it as an identifier.
>
> What? The skin colour?
Yes
>> Only God can educate you.
>
> Whereas no-one could possibly make a mark on you.
I dont want it.
>>>>> But Australians are not immune either. I don't understand why none of
>>>>> the Aussie commentators
>>>>> (Richard Earle, Alex Brown) reported on the incident without talking
>>>>> about the "irony of dark-skinned Indians
>>>>> abusing the dark-skinned Symonds". Isn't alluding to the fact that it
>>>>> is ironic inherently racist?
>>>> It is. But they missed the point entirely since making monkey noises
>>>> had
>>>> nothing to do with Symonds mixed race but with his appearance with the
>>>> white
>>>> color on his mouth.
>>> How could you possibly know that? I'm pretty sure that you weren't at
>>> the ground, and I doubt that you've spoken to any who were.
>> I was at the ground. I am one of those abusive fans.
>
> It shows.
Shows you are ignorant.
>>>> Sometimes in India monkeys are decorated with flowers and various
>>>> colors
>>>> on their mouths in carnivals and festivals. One of the Indian gods
>>>> Hanuman is always portrayed resembling a monkey with colors on
>>>> the mouth.
>>> That's irrelevant (unless, of course, you're suggesting that the fans
>>> were *complimenting* Symonds).
>> It is relevant to deduce that making monkey noises is not racism.
>
> At a push, perhaps, but it's nowhere near enough.
More than enough. Google for Hindu God Hanuman pictures. Almost all of them
will have god hanuman's lips colored.
>> I have already read plenty of comments accusing fans they called Symonds
>> a
>> monkey when in fact they did not as per news reports.
>
> <plasters noddy-badge onto Ian's violently perspirating forehead>
You must be conspiring to murder me.
>> It goes to show how easy it is to spread lies and rumors among
>> (un)educated
>> humans like you.
>
> I haven't read or seen a report of the incident in question, so how
> these lies and rumours have reached me I'm not too sure.
> --
> Rodney Ulyate
>
> "At its best, cricket is the most wonderful entertainment in the
> world."
> Parky
Then You should not be discussing this thread since you admitted you have
not read or seen a report of this incident in question. You probably need a
conference with a few thousand of your genius colleagues to clear the
confusion in your brain.
Which automatically proves you are stalking and hankering me with your
juvenile pursuits.
rodney...@gmail.com
> <rodney...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1192215262.9...@k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>> An atypically flowery Wog George, pedantry oozing from his every
>> foramen, put in:
>>> is
>>> merely a descriptive term to signify how GWB differs from one's usual
>>> idea
>>> of what a chimp looks like. To simply refer to Mr Bush as a chimp would
>>> encourage the counter argument that chimps do not bear Mr Bush's physical
>>> attributes. To include "white" qualifies the statement and adds
>>> credibility. While "white" is an obvious reference to Mr Bush's skin
>>> colour, it is the "chimp" part that is designed to offend.
>> Well I'll be jiggered, Woggy, if you aren't in a pedantic mood today!
> It is a day of the week ending in "Y". Those are my best days.
And my worst, as it happens. I detest with especial venom the one
beginning with "Monda".
>> A word of caution, though: my faculty for picking nits and bones is
>> similarly fierce, so pull thy scrum-cap on over thy lowly head and
>> brace thyself for a murderously unpalatable rhubarb!
> If you ever saw the rhubarb patch I tended as a child, you'd know that
> you're on shaky ground.
Actually, I tend a rather virile patch of rhubarb myself. (Yes, that
*is* a joke-foreshadowing lie. Brace yourself.)
>> <clears throat>
> I won't ask what you've been up to...
Wise.
>> It seems quite obvious to me that, in your frothing excitement, you
>> missed a crucial point. But worry not! I shall take the liberty of
>> elucidating it for you...
> I saw the point, but chose the path which considered the intent of Mr
> Thorpe's white pointer rather than his actual wording. I was trying out
> Pedant LE 2007, which is more forgiving than the full version.
I tried Googling it, but all I got was a load of froggy pages (and
that only after changing "Pedant" to "Pendant"). It's a French
computer game, no?
I discovered the other day, after successfully translating one of
Gavin Cawley's philosophical meanderings, that I'm rather adept at the
language of love, so, if ever, as you work your way through the game,
you should find yourself in dire need of an interpreter, just gimme a
shout.
Fichu, je suis absolument superbe.
>> <more throat-clearing>
> Whatever you've been doing, you must have been doing an awful lot of it.
Aye, and that's why I've taken the tough but necessary decision to cut
down on it. It's stored away safely in the rhubarb patch now.
>> The one and only thing to which I take exception here is Mr Thorpe's
>> erroneous averment that calling America's omnipopular leader a
>> "*white* chimp" (my emphasis) "has nothing to do with their [sic] skin
>> color [sic]". As you have so eloquently pointed out, however, it has
>> actually rather a lot to do with the colour of Mr Bush's skin. My beef
>> ain't with the opprobrious word primarily responsible for whatever
>> offence this description is intended to cause, but rather with Mr
>> Thorpe's mistaken belief that the word "white" does not constitute
>> reference to the hue of G.W.B.'s integument.
> Technically, I am defenseless on this point. My only haven is as per my
> remark (just up there a bit) about being less than customarily stringent in
> my yearning for absolute correctness.
One-nil to me!
> I trust that you don't take the apologetic nature of this paragraph to
> in any way mean that we aren't in the midst of a fierce battle.
Pah! You ain't foolin' no-one, punk.
>>> It is no different to referring to Sachin or Brian as the "black
>>> Bradman".
>>> Recognising that someone is of a different physical appearance isn't, of
>>> itself, racist. It is no more than observation.
>> Ah, but you'd much rather be compared to Braddles than a Caucasian
>> primate, would you not? To label someone a chimp has in itself
>> extremely negative connotations; to adjoin to that label the pertinent
>> racial adjective only fills said racial adjective with negative
>> connotations, too. And, when you're met with negative racial
>> connotations, you may be excused for crying racist.
> When Lara has been lauded as the black Bradman, I'm sure he was honoured.
For the record (and in keeping with the sad pedantry which has already
established itself as the predominant theme of this bitter feud), it
was George Headley, not Brian Lara, who was lauded as "The Black
Bradman". *Two*-nil?
> If McGrath at any point referred to Lara as his black bunny (which he
> didn't, but is included for demonstration only), there would have been hell
> to pay.
In light of Pigeon's celebrated spat with Sarwan, I'd've thought it
more pertinent to refer (for the purposes of demonstration only, of
course) to his calling Lara a "black sexual-favour-seeker" --
although, admittedly, it doesn't have quite the same ring to it.
> It seems that if the entire term is complimentary, then the adjectival
> component, viz the description pertinent to the skin colour, is seen
> as just that. If the entire term is intended to be offensive, then
> that same adjectival component is deemed to be an integral part of the
> offense.
Quite rightly so.
> The inconsistency, while understandable much of the time, often
> leads to the offendee reacting for precisely the wrong reason.
And what, pray tell, might that be?
>>> When my Indian friend David visits for a free guitar lesson, I notice
>>> that
>>> he has very large dark fingers. I'm only actually interested in the
>>> dimensions of his fingers and where on the guitar he happens to put them,
>>> but the colour of his fingers stands out because of the appearance
>>> relative
>>> to the fingerboard when compared to my own. That's just the way it is.
>>> He
>>> and his wife own a blue car. Their blue car is blue, they are a dark
>>> brownish colour, I am some sort of indefinable light creamy pinky colour,
>>> the grass is mostly green, and the magpies are black and white. To see
>>> anything else would be blind.
>> Alas, Woggy, I suffer chronic daltonism.
> My mother once suffered from Jimmy Dalton. That's the last time one of my
> brother's friends ever stayed at my mother's house!
He wasn't a Teenager, evidently.
>>> Returning to the original point of this post, "white chimp" is indeed an
>>> offensive remark. It is the likening of GWB to a lower order primate
>>> that
>>> is the offensive part. He is actually a white man, so calling him
>>> "white"
>>> could hardly be offensive. It could be reasoned that he also fits the
>>> rest
>>> of the bill too, but that is outside the scope of my post.
>> Still, it does afford me the very welcome opportunity to give some
>> exposure to my favourite South African cartoonist:
>> http://www.fodder.co.za/2006/04/zapiro_targets_.html
>> (This isn't, of course, anything like the best example of the opinion
>> that you and Zapiro both share, but I'm afraid that my mastery of the
>> Google search engine is not as yet at an optimum.)
> That is an absolute pearler! The interchangeable last letter pretty much
> sums up CWB (Chimp (white) Bush).
Unfortunately, Zapiro spends far more time these days analysing
celebrities' cartoons in F.H.M. than ransacking Dubya in the slander-
filled pages of the Sunday Times. Or maybe it's just that I no longer
read said rag. F.H.M., for some reason, is a far more appealing to my
adolescent tastes.
> If the caricature was a bit shorter and had a fatter head, it would have
> looked prexactly like Prime Minister John Howard of Orstraylya.
Speaking of Australian politicians, I recently created a Google Alert
for Tom Garrett, one of Australia's finest Nineteenth-Century
cricketers. Instead of being regaled with all manner of ancient
cricket lore, however, I found my inbox jam-packed with mountains of
insipid tripe about an environment-friendly chap named *Peter*
Garrett. Who is this impostor?
>>> Can we argue now?
>> You're on, bitch! I'm sick of your stupid monkeyshine! Were you wise,
>> you'd leave this fray immediately, for I've the violent might of
>> Scipio behind these fibrous words of Cicero. So yield thee, coward,
>> and live to be the show and gaze o' the time: we'll have thee, as our
>> rarer monsters are, painted on a pole, and underwrit, "Here may you
>> see the tyrant!"
> On the subject of fibre, my last effort was only about 4 Courics.
Huh? The only Couric I know is Katie of NBC's "Today".
> It may have been fraying around the edges, but it was one whole piece
> with no seams.
The poor girl!
--
Rodney Ulyate
"Bloody medieval most of 'em."
Ian Botham on the English cricket administration
Wog George
<rodney...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1192311629.1...@k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>
<snip>
>
> In light of Pigeon's celebrated spat with Sarwan, I'd've thought it
> more pertinent to refer (for the purposes of demonstration only, of
> course) to his calling Lara a "black sexual-favour-seeker" --
> although, admittedly, it doesn't have quite the same ring to it.
>
If he sought these favours in the wrong quarters, perhaps his ring would
never quite be the same again.
<snip>
> Speaking of Australian politicians, I recently created a Google Alert
> for Tom Garrett, one of Australia's finest Nineteenth-Century
> cricketers. Instead of being regaled with all manner of ancient
> cricket lore, however, I found my inbox jam-packed with mountains of
> insipid tripe about an environment-friendly chap named *Peter*
> Garrett. Who is this impostor?
>
A hairless white monkey. Perhaps you should cancel the alert and try again,
only with quotation marks this time.
<snip>
>> On the subject of fibre, my last effort was only about 4 Courics.
>
> Huh? The only Couric I know is Katie of NBC's "Today".
>
The very same, as seen in my appropriate yet highly inappropriate sig.
rodney...@gmail.com
> <rodney...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1192311629.1...@k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> <snip>
What? Snip my post, will you? This simply will not do, Woggy.
Kindly return to it and respond adequately to all the bits that you
left out, or this argument will officially be mine.
<evil laugh>
>> In light of Pigeon's celebrated spat with Sarwan, I'd've thought it
>> more pertinent to refer (for the purposes of demonstration only, of
>> course) to his calling Lara a "black sexual-favour-seeker" --
>> although, admittedly, it doesn't have quite the same ring to it.
> If he sought these favours in the wrong quarters, perhaps his ring would
> never quite be the same again.
On that note, I'd advise you against helping Sreesanth with his
cricket bag.
> <snip>
>> Speaking of Australian politicians, I recently created a Google Alert
>> for Tom Garrett, one of Australia's finest Nineteenth-Century
>> cricketers. Instead of being regaled with all manner of ancient
>> cricket lore, however, I found my inbox jam-packed with mountains of
>> insipid tripe about an environment-friendly chap named *Peter*
>> Garrett. Who is this impostor?
> A hairless white monkey.
Racist bigot.
> Perhaps you should cancel the alert and try again, only with quotation
> marks this time.
Pure genius (albeit of an annoyingly sardonic, patronising nature).
>>> On the subject of fibre, my last effort was only about 4 Courics.
>> Huh? The only Couric I know is Katie of NBC's "Today".
> The very same, as seen in my appropriate yet highly inappropriate sig.
That has all the charm of a used-car salesman.
--
Rodney Ulyate
"This softness comes from playing county cricket, which is all very
matey and lovey-dovey."
Nasser Hussain
Wog George
<rodney...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1192319768....@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> Woggy replied:
>> <rodney...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1192311629.1...@k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>> <snip>
>
> What? Snip my post, will you? This simply will not do, Woggy.
> Kindly return to it and respond adequately to all the bits that you
> left out, or this argument will officially be mine.
>
> <evil laugh>
>
--
George
"If you lose the big game, that little boy is gonna die faster than Steve
Irwin in a tank full of stingrays" - Cancer Doctor - 14 November 2006
kenh...@hotmail.com
> The hopelessly cornered Ian Thorpe cried desperately:
>
>
>
>
>
> >news:1192197483....@k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> >> Ian Thorpe pined:
> >>>news:1192166113.9...@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> >>>> As an Indian, I am ashamed at this incident and strongly condemn the
> >>>> crowd's behavior.
> >>>> If this is how we treat people when they visit our country, we do not
> >>>> deserve to be treated
> >>>> any better ourselves! The sad thing is that the people who did this
> >>>> don't even realize
> >>>> how offensive this type of behavior is.
> >>> You are over reacting and extrapolating this issue to the whole country.
> >>> You
> >>> need to stop self hating yourself first.
> >> Oh, grow up.
> > I did.
>
> No you didn't.
>
> > You have long way to go before you can catch up with me.
>
> Oh, grow up.
>
Rodney,
you're wasting your time.
Racists almost always rationalise their comments and portray them as
entirely reasonable.
What I'm finding humorously ironic is the Australian comments this
time around, given their defence of/rationalisation of/denial of the
comments made by Lehmann, the abuse of SAfrican players 2 years ago
and the comments made to Monty Panesar ('stupid Indian, can you speak
English') last year.
It's even more ironic than Ponting complaining about poor Indian
behaviour on the field
Higgs
rodney...@gmail.com
> <rodney...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1192217569....@v29g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>> The hopelessly cornered Ian Thorpe cried desperately:
>>> <rodney...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1192197483....@k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>>>> Ian Thorpe pined:
>>>>> <dumb...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
>>>>> news:1192166113.9...@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>> As an Indian, I am ashamed at this incident and strongly condemn the
>>>>>> crowd's behavior.
>>>>>> If this is how we treat people when they visit our country, we do not
>>>>>> deserve to be treated
>>>>>> any better ourselves! The sad thing is that the people who did this
>>>>>> don't even realize
>>>>>> how offensive this type of behavior is.
>>>>> You are over reacting and extrapolating this issue to the whole
>>>>> country.
>>>>> You
>>>>> need to stop self hating yourself first.
>>>> Oh, grow up.
>>> I did.
>> No you didn't.
> You are blind.
And you are sadly lacking in logic. Were I blind, I wouldn't have made
it to my computer.
>>> You have long way to go before you can catch up with me.
>> Oh, grow up.
> You need help.
Oh, grow up.
>>>>>> India is probably the most racist country in the world. We cry foul at
>>>>>> the slightest hint of
>>>>>> perceived racism,
>>>>> At least Indians didnt attack, kill and loot other races unlike
>>>>> british,
>>>>> aussies and americans.
>>>> The "at least" argument is almost always a weak, straw-clutching and
>>>> wholly extraneous attempt at crawling out of a self-dug hole. You've
>>>> done nothing here to disprove that notion.
>>> I reworded my comment.
>>> "Indians didnt attack, kill and loot other races unlike british,
>>> aussies and americans."
>>> Problem solved.
>> No it isn't.
> Poor comeback as usual.
No it isn't.
>>>>>> but we discriminate amongst people based on caste,
>>>>>> skin colour and so forth.
>>>>> Speak for yourself first. Nobody in India asks for your caste when you
>>>>> apply
>>>>> for a job in the private sector. Lower castes get reservations so they
>>>>> mention their caste when they apply for jobs in govt.
>>>> Proof?
>>> You are asking proof of something obvious to every Indian.
>> Yes. Where is it?
> You should not be discussing threads you have no clue and knowledge.
Mm. But where is it?
>>> I wish I have as much time as you do posting kiddo stuff.
>> Evidently you haven't yet grown up yet, given that you're still
>> hankering after juvenile pursuits.
> Juvenile pursuits like you stalking me in every thread and posting senseless
> unintelligent garbage.
You hanker after *that*? Oh my. You're in far worse a state than I'd
originally suspected, what with that and the many tell-tale signs of
delusion. A search for "Ian Thorpe" on my Google Groups profile
yields only fourteen results, and that (to my mind at least) does not
amount to stalking; indeed, there's a massive difference between being
stalked and being argumentatively cornered.
>>>>>> Otherwise, why would "Fair and Lovely" and "Fair and Handsome"
>>>>>> products would be
>>>>>> flying off the shelves.This self-hating attitude leads people to think
>>>>>> that it is acceptable to call anybody
>>>>>> who is dark-skinned or of African descent a monkey.
>>>>> Wrong deduction. Patrick Ewing remindes me of a monkey, George Bush
>>>>> reminds
>>>>> me of a monkey ( I usually call him a white chimp). This has nothing
>>>>> to do with their skin color.
>>>> "[W]hite chimp" has nothing to do with skin colour? Do me a favour.
>>> I use it as an identifier.
>> What? The skin colour?
> Yes
Which rather contradicts your earlier assertion (seen just seven lines
above) that "[t]his has nothing to do with their skin color [sic]."
>>> Only God can educate you.
>> Whereas no-one could possibly make a mark on you.
> I dont want it.
In which case you'll remain a brainless troglodyte for the rest of
your days.
>>>>>> But Australians are not immune either. I don't understand why none of
>>>>>> the Aussie commentators
>>>>>> (Richard Earle, Alex Brown) reported on the incident without talking
>>>>>> about the "irony of dark-skinned Indians
>>>>>> abusing the dark-skinned Symonds". Isn't alluding to the fact that it
>>>>>> is ironic inherently racist?
>>>>> It is. But they missed the point entirely since making monkey noises
>>>>> had
>>>>> nothing to do with Symonds mixed race but with his appearance with the
>>>>> white
>>>>> color on his mouth.
>>>> How could you possibly know that? I'm pretty sure that you weren't at
>>>> the ground, and I doubt that you've spoken to any who were.
>>> I was at the ground. I am one of those abusive fans.
>> It shows.
> Shows you are ignorant.
Your being an abusive fan shows that I am ignorant? Your sad dearth
in logic reveals itself again.
>>>>> Sometimes in India monkeys are decorated with flowers and various
>>>>> colors
>>>>> on their mouths in carnivals and festivals. One of the Indian gods
>>>>> Hanuman is always portrayed resembling a monkey with colors on
>>>>> the mouth.
>>>> That's irrelevant (unless, of course, you're suggesting that the fans
>>>> were *complimenting* Symonds).
>>> It is relevant to deduce that making monkey noises is not racism.
>> At a push, perhaps, but it's nowhere near enough.
> More than enough. Google for Hindu God Hanuman pictures. Almost all of them
> will have god hanuman's lips colored.
That doesn't prove that comparing Symonds to a monkey ain't racism.
>>> I have already read plenty of comments accusing fans they called Symonds
>>> a
>>> monkey when in fact they did not as per news reports.
>> <plasters noddy-badge onto Ian's violently perspirating forehead>
> You must be conspiring to murder me.
A noddy-badge is hardly indicative of murderous intent.
>>> It goes to show how easy it is to spread lies and rumors among
>>> (un)educated
>>> humans like you.
>> I haven't read or seen a report of the incident in question, so how
>> these lies and rumours have reached me I'm not too sure.
> Then You should not be discussing this thread since you admitted you have
> not read or seen a report of this incident in question.
The matter about which you and I are arguing has little to do with the
content of press reports.
> You probably need a conference with a few thousand of your genius
> colleagues to clear the confusion in your brain.
Oh dear. That sounds remarkably familiar (as, come to think of it,
does the rubbish about murder). You're not ... *him*, are you?
> Which automatically proves you are stalking and hankering me with your
> juvenile pursuits.
A confusion-clearing conference proves that I'm stalking you?
--
Rodney Ulyate
"If Stalin had learned to play cricket, the world might now be a
better place."
Richard Downey
rodney...@gmail.com
> On Oct 13, 5:32 am, rodney.uly...@gmail.com wrote:
>> The hopelessly cornered Ian Thorpe cried desperately:
>>> <rodney.uly...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1192197483....@k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>>>> Ian Thorpe pined:
>>>>> <dumbal...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
>>>>> news:1192166113.9...@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>> As an Indian, I am ashamed at this incident and strongly condemn the
>>>>>> crowd's behavior.
>>>>>> If this is how we treat people when they visit our country, we do not
>>>>>> deserve to be treated
>>>>>> any better ourselves! The sad thing is that the people who did this
>>>>>> don't even realize
>>>>>> how offensive this type of behavior is.
>>>>> You are over reacting and extrapolating this issue to the whole country.
>>>>> You
>>>>> need to stop self hating yourself first.
>>>> Oh, grow up.
>>> I did.
>> No you didn't.
>>> You have long way to go before you can catch up with me.
>> Oh, grow up.
> Rodney, you're wasting your time.
I know, but it's a choice between excessive posting to Usenet and
practising a few mind-numbing sequences and series for tomorrow's
algebra exam. As much as it pains me to say it, I find Thorpey's
puerile chunderings way more fun.
> Racists almost always rationalise their comments and portray them as
> entirely reasonable.
The worst part is their wholehearted belief that such comments *are*
rational.
--
Rodney Ulyate
"In an England cricket eleven, the flesh may be of the South, but the
bone is of the North, and the backbone is Yorkshire."
Len Hutton
Ian Thorpe
<rodney...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1192386412.2...@e34g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
Your mind blind. Blind people can make it to a computer.
>>>> You have long way to go before you can catch up with me.
>>> Oh, grow up.
>> You need help.
>
> Oh, grow up.
Get serious help for your shortcomings and deficiencies. Your only forte is
complex English vocabulary which very few people comprehend and useless in
this newsgroup.
You have zero knowledge about caste system in India.
>>>> I wish I have as much time as you do posting kiddo stuff.
>>> Evidently you haven't yet grown up yet, given that you're still
>>> hankering after juvenile pursuits.
>> Juvenile pursuits like you stalking me in every thread and posting
>> senseless
>> unintelligent garbage.
>
> You hanker after *that*? Oh my. You're in far worse a state than I'd
> originally suspected, what with that and the many tell-tale signs of
> delusion. A search for "Ian Thorpe" on my Google Groups profile
> yields only fourteen results, and that (to my mind at least) does not
> amount to stalking; indeed, there's a massive difference between being
> stalked and being argumentatively cornered.
Argumentatively cornered by you ? Must be the joke of this decade.
Thanks for the amusement.
>>>>>>> Otherwise, why would "Fair and Lovely" and "Fair and Handsome"
>>>>>>> products would be
>>>>>>> flying off the shelves.This self-hating attitude leads people to
>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>> that it is acceptable to call anybody
>>>>>>> who is dark-skinned or of African descent a monkey.
>>>>>> Wrong deduction. Patrick Ewing remindes me of a monkey, George Bush
>>>>>> reminds
>>>>>> me of a monkey ( I usually call him a white chimp). This has nothing
>>>>>> to do with their skin color.
>>>>> "[W]hite chimp" has nothing to do with skin colour? Do me a favour.
>>>> I use it as an identifier.
>>> What? The skin colour?
>> Yes
>
> Which rather contradicts your earlier assertion (seen just seven lines
> above) that "[t]his has nothing to do with their skin color [sic]."
Saying this guy looks like a "black chimp" or "white chimp" or "brown chimp"
has no racial overtones. The color of the skin is an identifier just like
saying this guy looks like a fat black pig or fat white/red pig.
>>>> Only God can educate you.
>>> Whereas no-one could possibly make a mark on you.
>> I dont want it.
>
> In which case you'll remain a brainless troglodyte for the rest of
> your days.
Ignorance is bliss. I wish I am ignorant so I cant see utterly stupid idiots
like you.
>>>>>>> But Australians are not immune either. I don't understand why none
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> the Aussie commentators
>>>>>>> (Richard Earle, Alex Brown) reported on the incident without talking
>>>>>>> about the "irony of dark-skinned Indians
>>>>>>> abusing the dark-skinned Symonds". Isn't alluding to the fact that
>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>> is ironic inherently racist?
>>>>>> It is. But they missed the point entirely since making monkey noises
>>>>>> had
>>>>>> nothing to do with Symonds mixed race but with his appearance with
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> white
>>>>>> color on his mouth.
>>>>> How could you possibly know that? I'm pretty sure that you weren't at
>>>>> the ground, and I doubt that you've spoken to any who were.
>>>> I was at the ground. I am one of those abusive fans.
>>> It shows.
>> Shows you are ignorant.
>
> Your being an abusive fan shows that I am ignorant? Your sad dearth
> in logic reveals itself again.
Pot calling the kettle black. It is you who proactively abused me.
>>>>>> Sometimes in India monkeys are decorated with flowers and various
>>>>>> colors
>>>>>> on their mouths in carnivals and festivals. One of the Indian gods
>>>>>> Hanuman is always portrayed resembling a monkey with colors on
>>>>>> the mouth.
>>>>> That's irrelevant (unless, of course, you're suggesting that the fans
>>>>> were *complimenting* Symonds).
>>>> It is relevant to deduce that making monkey noises is not racism.
>>> At a push, perhaps, but it's nowhere near enough.
>> More than enough. Google for Hindu God Hanuman pictures. Almost all of
>> them
>> will have god hanuman's lips colored.
>
> That doesn't prove that comparing Symonds to a monkey ain't racism.
Making monkey noises is not racism in Vadodara case.
>>>> I have already read plenty of comments accusing fans they called
>>>> Symonds
>>>> a
>>>> monkey when in fact they did not as per news reports.
>>> <plasters noddy-badge onto Ian's violently perspirating forehead>
>> You must be conspiring to murder me.
>
> A noddy-badge is hardly indicative of murderous intent.
Violently perspirating forehead is subtle indication of murderous intent.
>>>> It goes to show how easy it is to spread lies and rumors among
>>>> (un)educated
>>>> humans like you.
>>> I haven't read or seen a report of the incident in question, so how
>>> these lies and rumours have reached me I'm not too sure.
>> Then You should not be discussing this thread since you admitted you have
>> not read or seen a report of this incident in question.
>
> The matter about which you and I are arguing has little to do with the
> content of press reports.
It does have to do with the content of the press reports. You are a liar and
an expert spinner as is typical of your ilk.
>> You probably need a conference with a few thousand of your genius
>> colleagues to clear the confusion in your brain.
>
> Oh dear. That sounds remarkably familiar (as, come to think of it,
> does the rubbish about murder). You're not ... *him*, are you?
I am Ian Thorpe. I dont think even God can get rid of your spinning and
lying ability.
>> Which automatically proves you are stalking and hankering me with your
>> juvenile pursuits.
>
> A confusion-clearing conference proves that I'm stalking you?
You are an English language expert as is typical of your expert spinning
ilk. You will even beat Bill Clinton.
Ian Thorpe
<kenh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1192364810.8...@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
I never said crowd behavior in Vadodara is reasonable. It was indefensible
but was not racist.
> What I'm finding humorously ironic is the Australian comments this
> time around, given their defence of/rationalisation of/denial of the
> comments made by Lehmann, the abuse of SAfrican players 2 years ago
> and the comments made to Monty Panesar ('stupid Indian, can you speak
> English') last year.
>
> It's even more ironic than Ponting complaining about poor Indian
> behaviour on the field
>
> Higgs
Last night Brad Hogg appealed for a long time in Dravids lbw shout but he
will not get fined.
Ian Thorpe
<rodney...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1192398248.8...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Stay away from mind numbing algebra. Its not for English language experts
like you.
>As much as it pains me to say it, I find Thorpey's
> puerile chunderings way more fun.
You will get recognition for your English language mastery in English
literature groups. Your brian seem to forget this is a sports newsgroup.
>> Racists almost always rationalise their comments and portray them as
>> entirely reasonable.
>
> The worst part is their wholehearted belief that such comments *are*
> rational.
You may be an English vocabulary genius but your comprehension and logical
ability is zilch.
Indian fans never commented on Andrew Symonds. They made monkey noises.
rodney...@gmail.com
Do you often speak like a Hollander?
> Blind people can make it to a computer.
Not without training, practice or aid.
>>>>> You have long way to go before you can catch up with me.
>>>> Oh, grow up.
>>> You need help.
>> Oh, grow up.
> Get serious help for your shortcomings and deficiencies.
Oh, grow up.
> Your only forte is complex English vocabulary which very few people
> comprehend and useless in this newsgroup.
In which case it's a hardly a forte.
>>>>>>>> but we discriminate amongst people based on caste,
>>>>>>>> skin colour and so forth.
>>>>>>> Speak for yourself first. Nobody in India asks for your caste when
>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>> apply
>>>>>>> for a job in the private sector. Lower castes get reservations so
>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>> mention their caste when they apply for jobs in govt.
>>>>>> Proof?
>>>>> You are asking proof of something obvious to every Indian.
>>>> Yes. Where is it?
>>> You should not be discussing threads you have no clue and knowledge.
>> Mm. But where is it?
> You have zero knowledge about caste system in India.
No proof, then?
>>>>> I wish I have as much time as you do posting kiddo stuff.
>>>> Evidently you haven't yet grown up yet, given that you're still
>>>> hankering after juvenile pursuits.
>>> Juvenile pursuits like you stalking me in every thread and posting
>>> senseless
>>> unintelligent garbage.
>> You hanker after *that*? Oh my. You're in far worse a state than I'd
>> originally suspected, what with that and the many tell-tale signs of
>> delusion. A search for "Ian Thorpe" on my Google Groups profile
>> yields only fourteen results, and that (to my mind at least) does not
>> amount to stalking; indeed, there's a massive difference between being
>> stalked and being argumentatively cornered.
> Argumentatively cornered by you ?
Nah. You're bringing about your own downfall.
> Must be the joke of this decade.
The one about the horse in the bar just betters it, I reckon.
> Thanks for the amusement.
'Tis mutual.
>>>>>>>> Otherwise, why would "Fair and Lovely" and "Fair and Handsome"
>>>>>>>> products would be
>>>>>>>> flying off the shelves.This self-hating attitude leads people to
>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>> that it is acceptable to call anybody
>>>>>>>> who is dark-skinned or of African descent a monkey.
>>>>>>> Wrong deduction. Patrick Ewing remindes me of a monkey, George Bush
>>>>>>> reminds
>>>>>>> me of a monkey ( I usually call him a white chimp). This has nothing
>>>>>>> to do with their skin color.
>>>>>> "[W]hite chimp" has nothing to do with skin colour? Do me a favour.
>>>>> I use it as an identifier.
>>>> What? The skin colour?
>>> Yes
>> Which rather contradicts your earlier assertion (seen just seven lines
>> above) that "[t]his has nothing to do with their skin color [sic]."
> Saying this guy looks like a "black chimp" or "white chimp" or "brown chimp"
> has no racial overtones.
How so? White, black and brown are all races. Any sentence
containing those words (in the given context, of course), has racial
overtones.
> The color of the skin is an identifier just like saying this guy looks like
> a fat black pig or fat white/red pig.
But, as I've pointed out elsewhere, using an "identifier" in
conjunction with an insulting term incorporates the identifier into
the insult and often makes it insulting in itself.
>>>>> Only God can educate you.
>>>> Whereas no-one could possibly make a mark on you.
>>> I dont want it.
>> In which case you'll remain a brainless troglodyte for the rest of
>> your days.
> Ignorance is bliss. I wish I am ignorant so I cant see utterly stupid idiots
> like you.
You've got "blindness" confused again. Ignorance doesn't impair one's
sight.
>>>>>>>> But Australians are not immune either. I don't understand why none
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> the Aussie commentators
>>>>>>>> (Richard Earle, Alex Brown) reported on the incident without talking
>>>>>>>> about the "irony of dark-skinned Indians
>>>>>>>> abusing the dark-skinned Symonds". Isn't alluding to the fact that
>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>> is ironic inherently racist?
>>>>>>> It is. But they missed the point entirely since making monkey noises
>>>>>>> had
>>>>>>> nothing to do with Symonds mixed race but with his appearance with
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> white
>>>>>>> color on his mouth.
>>>>>> How could you possibly know that? I'm pretty sure that you weren't at
>>>>>> the ground, and I doubt that you've spoken to any who were.
>>>>> I was at the ground. I am one of those abusive fans.
>>>> It shows.
>>> Shows you are ignorant.
>> Your being an abusive fan shows that I am ignorant? Your sad dearth
>> in logic reveals itself again.
> Pot calling the kettle black. It is you who proactively abused me.
What, exactly, about "[y]our sad dearth in logic reveals itself again"
refers to proactive abuse?
>>>>>>> Sometimes in India monkeys are decorated with flowers and various
>>>>>>> colors
>>>>>>> on their mouths in carnivals and festivals. One of the Indian gods
>>>>>>> Hanuman is always portrayed resembling a monkey with colors on
>>>>>>> the mouth.
>>>>>> That's irrelevant (unless, of course, you're suggesting that the fans
>>>>>> were *complimenting* Symonds).
>>>>> It is relevant to deduce that making monkey noises is not racism.
>>>> At a push, perhaps, but it's nowhere near enough.
>>> More than enough. Google for Hindu God Hanuman pictures. Almost all of
>>> them
>>> will have god hanuman's lips colored.
>> That doesn't prove that comparing Symonds to a monkey ain't racism.
> Making monkey noises is not racism in Vadodara case.
Which is the statement that I'm asking you to substantiate. Mere
reiteration does not suffice as proof.
>>>>> I have already read plenty of comments accusing fans they called
>>>>> Symonds a monkey when in fact they did not as per news reports.
>>>> <plasters noddy-badge onto Ian's violently perspirating forehead>
>>> You must be conspiring to murder me.
>> A noddy-badge is hardly indicative of murderous intent.
> Violently perspirating forehead is subtle indication of murderous intent.
How does a perspiring forehead subtly foreshadow a murder?
>>>>> It goes to show how easy it is to spread lies and rumors among
>>>>> (un)educated humans like you.
>>>> I haven't read or seen a report of the incident in question, so how
>>>> these lies and rumours have reached me I'm not too sure.
>>> Then You should not be discussing this thread since you admitted you have
>>> not read or seen a report of this incident in question.
>> The matter about which you and I are arguing has little to do with the
>> content of press reports.
> It does have to do with the content of the press reports.
Then point me in the direction of a press report which has anything to
do with your argument.
> You are a liar and an expert spinner
On what grounds say you that?
> as is typical of your ilk.
Come now. That's almost as just as racist as derogatory monkey
noises.
>>> You probably need a conference with a few thousand of your genius
>>> colleagues to clear the confusion in your brain.
>> Oh dear. That sounds remarkably familiar (as, come to think of it,
>> does the rubbish about murder). You're not ... *him*, are you?
> I am Ian Thorpe. I dont think even God can get rid of your spinning
> and lying ability.
I wasn't lying. You really *did* sound like him there.
>>> Which automatically proves you are stalking and hankering me with your
>>> juvenile pursuits.
>> A confusion-clearing conference proves that I'm stalking you?
> You are an English language expert as is typical of your expert spinning
> ilk. You will even beat Bill Clinton.
Erm ... right, but back to the question which you failed so
emphatically to answer: how is it that a confusion-clearing conference
proves that I'm stalking you?
--
Rodney Ulyate
"Cricket is a game full or forlorn hopes and sudden dramatic changes
of fortune and its rules are so ill-defined that their interpretation
is partly an ethical business."
George Orwell
Ian Thorpe
<rodney...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1192404167.7...@y27g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
I am not an English vocabulary and language expert like you Rodney.
>> Blind people can make it to a computer.
>
> Not without training, practice or aid.
Doesnt matter. You said blind people cannot make it to a computer.
>>>>>> You have long way to go before you can catch up with me.
>>>>> Oh, grow up.
>>>> You need help.
>>> Oh, grow up.
>> Get serious help for your shortcomings and deficiencies.
>
> Oh, grow up.
Get serious help for your shortcomings and deficiencies.
>> Your only forte is complex English vocabulary which very few people
>> comprehend and useless in this newsgroup.
>
> In which case it's a hardly a forte.
Fact remains your only forte is Complex English vocabulary.
>>>>>>>>> but we discriminate amongst people based on caste,
>>>>>>>>> skin colour and so forth.
>>>>>>>> Speak for yourself first. Nobody in India asks for your caste when
>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>> apply
>>>>>>>> for a job in the private sector. Lower castes get reservations so
>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>> mention their caste when they apply for jobs in govt.
>>>>>>> Proof?
>>>>>> You are asking proof of something obvious to every Indian.
>>>>> Yes. Where is it?
>>>> You should not be discussing threads you have no clue and knowledge.
>>> Mm. But where is it?
>> You have zero knowledge about caste system in India.
>
> No proof, then?
I have no time to educate you and you have no knowledge about caste system
to comment and argue about it.
>>>>>> I wish I have as much time as you do posting kiddo stuff.
>>>>> Evidently you haven't yet grown up yet, given that you're still
>>>>> hankering after juvenile pursuits.
>>>> Juvenile pursuits like you stalking me in every thread and posting
>>>> senseless
>>>> unintelligent garbage.
>>> You hanker after *that*? Oh my. You're in far worse a state than I'd
>>> originally suspected, what with that and the many tell-tale signs of
>>> delusion. A search for "Ian Thorpe" on my Google Groups profile
>>> yields only fourteen results, and that (to my mind at least) does not
>>> amount to stalking; indeed, there's a massive difference between being
>>> stalked and being argumentatively cornered.
>> Argumentatively cornered by you ?
>
> Nah. You're bringing about your own downfall.
I fight until the last drop of my blood against all odds unlike you who call
cops at the first incident of trouble.
>> Must be the joke of this decade.
>
> The one about the horse in the bar just betters it, I reckon.
I guess they serve alcohol to horses (peoples boy/girl friends) where you
live.
>> Thanks for the amusement.
>
> 'Tis mutual.
Poor comeback as usual.
>>>>>>>>> Otherwise, why would "Fair and Lovely" and "Fair and Handsome"
>>>>>>>>> products would be
>>>>>>>>> flying off the shelves.This self-hating attitude leads people to
>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>> that it is acceptable to call anybody
>>>>>>>>> who is dark-skinned or of African descent a monkey.
>>>>>>>> Wrong deduction. Patrick Ewing remindes me of a monkey, George Bush
>>>>>>>> reminds
>>>>>>>> me of a monkey ( I usually call him a white chimp). This has
>>>>>>>> nothing
>>>>>>>> to do with their skin color.
>>>>>>> "[W]hite chimp" has nothing to do with skin colour? Do me a favour.
>>>>>> I use it as an identifier.
>>>>> What? The skin colour?
>>>> Yes
>>> Which rather contradicts your earlier assertion (seen just seven lines
>>> above) that "[t]his has nothing to do with their skin color [sic]."
>> Saying this guy looks like a "black chimp" or "white chimp" or "brown
>> chimp"
>> has no racial overtones.
>
> How so? White, black and brown are all races. Any sentence
> containing those words (in the given context, of course), has racial
> overtones.
No. I already said the color is used as an identifier with no racial
overtones.
>> The color of the skin is an identifier just like saying this guy looks
>> like
>> a fat black pig or fat white/red pig.
>
> But, as I've pointed out elsewhere, using an "identifier" in
> conjunction with an insulting term incorporates the identifier into
> the insult and often makes it insulting in itself.
It doesnt based on the local usage and cultural issues. There are no races
ie black, white, yellow in India like in the west.
>>>>>> Only God can educate you.
>>>>> Whereas no-one could possibly make a mark on you.
>>>> I dont want it.
>>> In which case you'll remain a brainless troglodyte for the rest of
>>> your days.
>> Ignorance is bliss. I wish I am ignorant so I cant see utterly stupid
>> idiots
>> like you.
>
> You've got "blindness" confused again. Ignorance doesn't impair one's
> sight.
Mind sight, yes.
Dont comeback with that hollander stuff again.
I guess you are an expert in complex english words but very poor in simple
english words like "proactive abuse"
>>>>>>>> Sometimes in India monkeys are decorated with flowers and various
>>>>>>>> colors
>>>>>>>> on their mouths in carnivals and festivals. One of the Indian gods
>>>>>>>> Hanuman is always portrayed resembling a monkey with colors on
>>>>>>>> the mouth.
>>>>>>> That's irrelevant (unless, of course, you're suggesting that the
>>>>>>> fans
>>>>>>> were *complimenting* Symonds).
>>>>>> It is relevant to deduce that making monkey noises is not racism.
>>>>> At a push, perhaps, but it's nowhere near enough.
>>>> More than enough. Google for Hindu God Hanuman pictures. Almost all of
>>>> them
>>>> will have god hanuman's lips colored.
>>> That doesn't prove that comparing Symonds to a monkey ain't racism.
>> Making monkey noises is not racism in Vadodara case.
>
> Which is the statement that I'm asking you to substantiate. Mere
> reiteration does not suffice as proof.
You have already been proven wrong about your statement that Indians made
"comments' about Symonds when in fact they didnt.
You will argue for the rest of your life as is typical of immature people
who lose their arguments.
>>>>>> I have already read plenty of comments accusing fans they called
>>>>>> Symonds a monkey when in fact they did not as per news reports.
>>>>> <plasters noddy-badge onto Ian's violently perspirating forehead>
>>>> You must be conspiring to murder me.
>>> A noddy-badge is hardly indicative of murderous intent.
>> Violently perspirating forehead is subtle indication of murderous intent.
>
> How does a perspiring forehead subtly foreshadow a murder?
In this day and age of superior and secret western futuristic miniaturized
electronic weapons and viruses like H5N1 anything is possible.
>>>>>> It goes to show how easy it is to spread lies and rumors among
>>>>>> (un)educated humans like you.
>>>>> I haven't read or seen a report of the incident in question, so how
>>>>> these lies and rumours have reached me I'm not too sure.
>>>> Then You should not be discussing this thread since you admitted you
>>>> have
>>>> not read or seen a report of this incident in question.
>>> The matter about which you and I are arguing has little to do with the
>>> content of press reports.
>> It does have to do with the content of the press reports.
>
> Then point me in the direction of a press report which has anything to
> do with your argument.
Read cricinfo or other news reports. Or ask your parents or organization you
work for to spoon feed you everything.
>> You are a liar and an expert spinner
>
> On what grounds say you that?
Your comments are full of spin and fiction.
>> as is typical of your ilk.
>
> Come now. That's almost as just as racist as derogatory monkey
> noises.
Another spin.
>>>> You probably need a conference with a few thousand of your genius
>>>> colleagues to clear the confusion in your brain.
>>> Oh dear. That sounds remarkably familiar (as, come to think of it,
>>> does the rubbish about murder). You're not ... *him*, are you?
>> I am Ian Thorpe. I dont think even God can get rid of your spinning
>> and lying ability.
>
> I wasn't lying. You really *did* sound like him there.
Get some help for your poor perception abilities.
>>>> Which automatically proves you are stalking and hankering me with your
>>>> juvenile pursuits.
>>> A confusion-clearing conference proves that I'm stalking you?
>> You are an English language expert as is typical of your expert spinning
>> ilk. You will even beat Bill Clinton.
>
> Erm ... right, but back to the question which you failed so
> emphatically to answer: how is it that a confusion-clearing conference
> proves that I'm stalking you?
>
> --
> Rodney Ulyate
>
> "Cricket is a game full or forlorn hopes and sudden dramatic changes
> of fortune and its rules are so ill-defined that their interpretation
> is partly an ethical business."
> George Orwell
I never said a confusion clearing conference proves you are stalking me.
rodney...@gmail.com
> <rodney...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1192319768....@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> Woggy replied:
>>> <rodney...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1192311629.1...@k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>>> <snip>
>> What? Snip my post, will you? This simply will not do, Woggy.
>> Kindly return to it and respond adequately to all the bits that you
>> left out, or this argument will officially be mine.
>> <evil laugh>
> I declare this Usenet argument yours. Do you accept that you won?
No, I do not accept that.
In allowing you to allow me to win, I'm actually (in a way that makes
sense right now but won't in a minute or so) allowing *you* to win.
D'you follow?
--
Rodney Ulyate
"To think of playing cricket for hard cash! Money and gentility would
ruin any pastime under the sun."
Mary Russell Mitford
Wog George
<rodney...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1192451422.1...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> Woggy waved the white flag:
>> <rodney...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1192319768....@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>> Woggy replied:
>>>> <rodney...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:1192311629.1...@k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>>>> <snip>
>>> What? Snip my post, will you? This simply will not do, Woggy.
>>> Kindly return to it and respond adequately to all the bits that you
>>> left out, or this argument will officially be mine.
>>> <evil laugh>
>> I declare this Usenet argument yours. Do you accept that you won?
>
> No, I do not accept that.
>
> In allowing you to allow me to win, I'm actually (in a way that makes
> sense right now but won't in a minute or so) allowing *you* to win.
> D'you follow?
>
>
fine trophy...
http://static.flickr.com/75/195983063_e380efd610.jpg
--
George
"Kyle, I swear, if I didn't have a guy's hand up my asshole right now, I'd
leap across the room and kick you in the nuts" - Eric Cartman - 19 March
2003
rodney...@gmail.com
> <rodney...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1192398248.8...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> Ken Higgs weighed in:
>>> On Oct 13, 5:32 am, rodney.uly...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> The hopelessly cornered Ian Thorpe cried desperately:
>>>>> <rodney.uly...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:1192197483....@k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>> Ian Thorpe pined:
>>>>>>> <dumbal...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:1192166113.9...@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>>> Oh, grow up.
>>> Rodney, you're wasting your time.
>> I know, but it's a choice between excessive posting to Usenet and
>> practising a few mind-numbing sequences and series for tomorrow's
>> algebra exam.
At last we agree on something, Thorpey -- although I get the distinct
impression that you're not being particularly earnest about it.
Still, seeing that your mind's under permanent anaesthesia, I'll take
your word for it.
> Its not for English language experts like you.
Too true, but I need Maths if I'm to make it to university.
Tomorrow's geometry exam (thank heavens) will be the last that I ever
see of the stuff. Shall I let you know how it goes?
>> As much as it pains me to say it, I find Thorpey's
>> puerile chunderings way more fun.
> You will get recognition for your English language mastery in English
> literature groups. Your brian seem to forget this is a sports newsgroup.
For one thing, I don't own a Brian -- that's a quite illicit activity
called slavery --; for another, no self-confessed Brian contributes to
this newsgroup.
>>> Racists almost always rationalise their comments and portray them as
>>> entirely reasonable.
>> The worst part is their wholehearted belief that such comments *are*
>> rational.
> You may be an English vocabulary genius but your comprehension and logical
> ability is zilch.
Oh, grow up. I may not be the most logically-inclined R.S.Cer -- of
that I'm rather proud --, but I do at least make the effort. It's
very rich of someone like you to be lecturing me about my dearth in
logic when you yourself never employ it at all.
> Indian fans never commented on Andrew Symonds.
If you believe that you're refuting a claim of mine there, I challenge
you to find it.
> They made monkey noises.
Clever boy.
--
Rodney Ulyate
"Those who run cricket in this country, especially at the domestic
level, are for the most part a self-serving, pusillanimous and self-
important bunch of myopic dinosaurs unable to take any but the
shortest-term view of everything."
Henry Blofeld
rodney...@gmail.com
> <rodney...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1192398248.8...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> Ken Higgs weighed in:
>>> On Oct 13, 5:32 am, rodney.uly...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> The hopelessly cornered Ian Thorpe cried desperately:
>>>>> <rodney.uly...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:1192197483....@k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>> Ian Thorpe pined:
>>>>>>> <dumbal...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:1192166113.9...@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>>> Oh, grow up.
>>> Rodney, you're wasting your time.
>> I know, but it's a choice between excessive posting to Usenet and
>> practising a few mind-numbing sequences and series for tomorrow's
>> algebra exam.
At last we agree on something, Thorpey -- although I get the distinct
impression that you're not being particularly earnest about it.
Still, seeing that your mind's under permanent anaesthesia, I'll take
your word for it.
> Its not for English language experts like you.
Too true, but I need Maths if I'm to make it to university.
Tomorrow's geometry exam (thank heavens) will be the last that I ever
see of the stuff. Shall I let you know how it goes?
>> As much as it pains me to say it, I find Thorpey's
>> puerile chunderings way more fun.
> You will get recognition for your English language mastery in English
> literature groups. Your brian seem to forget this is a sports newsgroup.
For one thing, I don't own a Brian -- that's a quite illicit activity
called slavery --; for another, no self-confessed Brian contributes to
this newsgroup.
>>> Racists almost always rationalise their comments and portray them as
>>> entirely reasonable.
>> The worst part is their wholehearted belief that such comments *are*
>> rational.
> You may be an English vocabulary genius but your comprehension and logical
> ability is zilch.
Oh, grow up. I may not be the most logically-inclined R.S.Cer -- of
that I'm rather proud --, but I do at least make the effort. It's
very rich of someone like you to be lecturing me about my dearth in
logic when you yourself never employ it at all.
> Indian fans never commented on Andrew Symonds.
If you believe that you're refuting a claim of mine there, I challenge
rodney...@gmail.com
> <rodney...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1192451422.1...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> Woggy waved the white flag:
>>> <rodney...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1192319768....@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>>> Woggy replied:
>>>>> <rodney...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:1192311629.1...@k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> <snip>
>>>> What? Snip my post, will you? This simply will not do, Woggy.
>>>> Kindly return to it and respond adequately to all the bits that you
>>>> left out, or this argument will officially be mine.
>>>> <evil laugh>
>>> I declare this Usenet argument yours. Do you accept that you won?
>> No, I do not accept that.
>> In allowing you to allow me to win, I'm actually (in a way that makes
>> sense right now but won't in a minute or so) allowing *you* to win.
>> D'you follow?
> It wasn't quite as simple as that. I was just keen on awarding you this
> fine trophy...
> http://static.flickr.com/75/195983063_e380efd610.jpg
In that case, I'll graciously accept my victory.
--
Rodney Ulyate
House: What can I say? Chicks with no teeth turn me on.
Wilson: That's fairly disgusting.
House: That's ageism.
rodney...@gmail.com
That is very good, Thorpey. Now that we have that one out in the
open, why not a few more? You could begin, certainly, by confessing
that none of your arguments have any substance.
>>> Blind people can make it to a computer.
>> Not without training, practice or aid.
> Doesnt matter.
Neither does the apostrophe, but we use it anyway.
> You said blind people cannot make it to a computer.
I am hoping against hope that that is a lie -- everyone lies, after
all, and you seem especially prone --, because it is infinitely
preferable to the distinct possibility that you suffer short-term
amnesia.
>>>>>>> You have long way to go before you can catch up with me.
>>>>>> Oh, grow up.
>>>>> You need help.
>>>> Oh, grow up.
>>> Get serious help for your shortcomings and deficiencies.
>> Oh, grow up.
> Get serious help for your shortcomings and deficiencies.
Stop projecting.
>>> Your only forte is complex English vocabulary which very few people
>>> comprehend and useless in this newsgroup.
>> In which case it's a hardly a forte.
> Fact remains your only forte is Complex English vocabulary.
I assume that you are acknowledging the statement "In which case it's
a hardly a forte". If so, I once more find myself acutely befuddled
at your ceaseless tendency towards contradiction. First you admit
that it is not a forte; then you tell me that it *is* a forte -- my
only one, apparently. Do make up your torpid mind.
Besides, how could you possibly know my life so intimately as to have
grounds for asserting that it is limited to only one forte (even
though, confusingly, it isn't a forte)? Do tell me, you hypocritical
omadawn, who's the stalker now?
>>>>>>>>>> but we discriminate amongst people based on caste,
>>>>>>>>>> skin colour and so forth.
>>>>>>>>> Speak for yourself first. Nobody in India asks for your caste when
>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>> apply
>>>>>>>>> for a job in the private sector. Lower castes get reservations so
>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>> mention their caste when they apply for jobs in govt.
>>>>>>>> Proof?
>>>>>>> You are asking proof of something obvious to every Indian.
>>>>>> Yes. Where is it?
>>>>> You should not be discussing threads you have no clue and knowledge.
>>>> Mm. But where is it?
>>> You have zero knowledge about caste system in India.
>> No proof, then?
> I have no time to educate you and you have no knowledge about caste system
> to comment and argue about it.
And yet you have time aplenty to chuck around inane, irrelevant and
incarnately infantile insults? I can only deduce from this latest
canard (or bout of short-term amnesia) that you *haven't* any proof.
This might come as as much of a shock as a Chris Martin cover-drive,
but one of the essential prerequisites for any arguer is his ability
to prove his argument. That yours is wholly devoid of proof makes it
an emphatic failure, in which case it would probably be wise to give
it up.
>>>>>>> I wish I have as much time as you do posting kiddo stuff.
>>>>>> Evidently you haven't yet grown up yet, given that you're still
>>>>>> hankering after juvenile pursuits.
>>>>> Juvenile pursuits like you stalking me in every thread and posting
>>>>> senseless
>>>>> unintelligent garbage.
>>>> You hanker after *that*? Oh my. You're in far worse a state than I'd
>>>> originally suspected, what with that and the many tell-tale signs of
>>>> delusion. A search for "Ian Thorpe" on my Google Groups profile
>>>> yields only fourteen results, and that (to my mind at least) does not
>>>> amount to stalking; indeed, there's a massive difference between being
>>>> stalked and being argumentatively cornered.
>>> Argumentatively cornered by you ?
>> Nah. You're bringing about your own downfall.
> I fight until the last drop of my blood against all odds unlike you who call
> cops at the first incident of trouble.
Hell, I don't even know the number, although what relevance that has
to our debate -- and I use the term loosely -- I am none too sure.
>>> Must be the joke of this decade.
>> The one about the horse in the bar just betters it, I reckon.
> I guess they serve alcohol to horses (peoples boy/girl friends) where you
> live.
You have obviously never heard of the one about the horse in the bar
-- and I'm not going to tell it to you -- and, less surprisingly, my
home town. While Krugersdorp ain't exactly the industrial heart of
South Africa, it is far from the ideal venue for grass-munching
quadrupeds.
>>> Thanks for the amusement.
>> 'Tis mutual.
> Poor comeback as usual.
As is yours, although why, as (admittedly immature) adults, we should
be racking our brains for jerky "comebacks" is quite beyond me.
Kindly stick to the topic unless you deem a digression absolutely
necessary.
If you find that you cannot hold back that insatiable and typically
circumlocutory urge to make an irrelevant taunt, simply start a new
thread. A detailed investigation into my alleged murder plot would go
down pretty well.
That you did, but you were wrong. Colour refers, in this instance, to
race; by definition, it has "racial overtones". I cannot present it
any more lucidly than that.
>>> The color of the skin is an identifier just like saying this guy looks
>>> like
>>> a fat black pig or fat white/red pig.
>> But, as I've pointed out elsewhere, using an "identifier" in
>> conjunction with an insulting term incorporates the identifier into
>> the insult and often makes it insulting in itself.
> It doesnt based on the local usage and cultural issues.
There are plenty of examples of where it does.
> There are no races ie black, white, yellow in India like in the west.
How is that gross and grossly erroneous generalisation in any way
pertinent?
>>>>>>> Only God can educate you.
>>>>>> Whereas no-one could possibly make a mark on you.
>>>>> I dont want it.
>>>> In which case you'll remain a brainless troglodyte for the rest of
>>>> your days.
>>> Ignorance is bliss. I wish I am ignorant so I cant see utterly stupid
>>> idiots
>>> like you.
>> You've got "blindness" confused again. Ignorance doesn't impair one's
>> sight.
> Mind sight, yes.
Lloyd Hopkins's brainchild or just another piece of the hastily-
processed muck which sporadically filters through the dense layer of
osseous which encases your soft excuse for a brain?
> Dont comeback with that hollander stuff again.
Zwijg! U bent stom!
And *you* are very poor at answering questions, even the most
appallingly simple ones. Truth be told, you seem wholly incapable.
Go on, though -- I dare you --: prove me wrong.
>>>>>>>>> Sometimes in India monkeys are decorated with flowers and various
>>>>>>>>> colors
>>>>>>>>> on their mouths in carnivals and festivals. One of the Indian gods
>>>>>>>>> Hanuman is always portrayed resembling a monkey with colors on
>>>>>>>>> the mouth.
>>>>>>>> That's irrelevant (unless, of course, you're suggesting that the
>>>>>>>> fans
>>>>>>>> were *complimenting* Symonds).
>>>>>>> It is relevant to deduce that making monkey noises is not racism.
>>>>>> At a push, perhaps, but it's nowhere near enough.
>>>>> More than enough. Google for Hindu God Hanuman pictures. Almost all of
>>>>> them
>>>>> will have god hanuman's lips colored.
>>>> That doesn't prove that comparing Symonds to a monkey ain't racism.
>>> Making monkey noises is not racism in Vadodara case.
>> Which is the statement that I'm asking you to substantiate. Mere
>> reiteration does not suffice as proof.
> You have already been proven wrong about your statement that Indians made
> "comments' about Symonds when in fact they didnt.
When and where? Prove it.
> You will argue for the rest of your life
I shall take your word, oh all-knowing seer.
> as is typical of immature people who lose their arguments.
You'd know best.
>>>>>>> I have already read plenty of comments accusing fans they called
>>>>>>> Symonds a monkey when in fact they did not as per news reports.
>>>>>> <plasters noddy-badge onto Ian's violently perspirating forehead>
>>>>> You must be conspiring to murder me.
>>>> A noddy-badge is hardly indicative of murderous intent.
>>> Violently perspirating forehead is subtle indication of murderous intent.
>> How does a perspiring forehead subtly foreshadow a murder?
> In this day and age of superior and secret western futuristic miniaturized
> electronic weapons and viruses like H5N1 anything is possible.
That, again, fails to answer my question. If you're going to accuse
someone of plotting to murder you, it's always wise to give a reason
for your thinking so.
>>>>>>> It goes to show how easy it is to spread lies and rumors among
>>>>>>> (un)educated humans like you.
>>>>>> I haven't read or seen a report of the incident in question, so how
>>>>>> these lies and rumours have reached me I'm not too sure.
>>>>> Then You should not be discussing this thread since you admitted you
>>>>> have
>>>>> not read or seen a report of this incident in question.
>>>> The matter about which you and I are arguing has little to do with the
>>>> content of press reports.
>>> It does have to do with the content of the press reports.
>> Then point me in the direction of a press report which has anything to
>> do with your argument.
> Read cricinfo or other news reports.
Read my request again -- upwards of ten times should do the trick for
you --, and then make a concerted effort to understand it. I am *not*
going to trawl through stale news reports in search of evidence to
corroborate *your* argument; that's *your* prerogative.
> Or ask your parents or organization you work for to spoon feed you everything.
Do you honestly believe that these insipidly disdainful jibes are
gaining you ground? They really only add weight to my "Oh, grow up"
supplications.
>>> You are a liar and an expert spinner
>> On what grounds say you that?
> Your comments are full of spin and fiction.
Elaborate (preferably by means of an example).
>>> as is typical of your ilk.
>> Come now. That's almost as just as racist as derogatory monkey
>> noises.
> Another spin.
You must be getting dizzy -- which would explain a lot.
>>>>> You probably need a conference with a few thousand of your genius
>>>>> colleagues to clear the confusion in your brain.
>>>> Oh dear. That sounds remarkably familiar (as, come to think of it,
>>>> does the rubbish about murder). You're not ... *him*, are you?
>>> I am Ian Thorpe. I dont think even God can get rid of your spinning
>>> and lying ability.
>> I wasn't lying. You really *did* sound like him there.
> Get some help for your poor perception abilities.
Oh really? Both you and CretinLeague have, in recent times,
(a) associated me, without reason, with murder;
(b) called me a genius;
(c) mocked my use of the English language;
(d) exhibited an unhealthy obsession with American leaders; and
(e) accused me, without reason, of "spinning".
It is patently you, Thorpey, who is deficient in the subtle art of
perception. It is one that I fear you will never come to grasp.
>>>>> Which automatically proves you are stalking and hankering me with your
>>>>> juvenile pursuits.
>>>> A confusion-clearing conference proves that I'm stalking you?
>>> You are an English language expert as is typical of your expert spinning
>>> ilk. You will even beat Bill Clinton.
>> Erm ... right, but back to the question which you failed so
>> emphatically to answer: how is it that a confusion-clearing conference
>> proves that I'm stalking you?
> I never said a confusion clearing conference proves you are stalking me.
"You probably need a conference with a few thousand of your genius
colleagues to clear the confusion in your brain.
"Which automatically proves you are stalking and hankering me with
your
juvenile pursuits."
Sound at all familiar?
--
Rodney Ulyate
"I cannot for the life of me see why the umpires, the only two people
on
a cricket field who are not going to get grass stains on their knees,
are the only two people allowed to wear dark trousers."
Katharine Whitehorn