India lodge complaint against Hogg, should be Level 3
Govandi
Apparently the word in question is "bastard". This is a serious
offence as it insults the person's descent. Hogg should be charged
with Level 3, ie. 2 to 4 tests, if it is proven true.
3.3 of ICC Code of Conduct
"using language or gestures that insults a person on the basis of
race, religion, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin."
Govandi
The Indians alleged that Brad Hogg referred to an Indian player as a
"bastard", which is considered to be a highly offensive term in India.
eusebius
Attributed to Victor Richardson, in reference to Jardine, to his
teammates, and certainly apocryphal:
"Which one of you bastards called this bastard a bastard?"
DesertRat
961f4c...@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
Then im sure you would find this offensive "Symonds came down a tree just
after you left your spot on a branch."
prabh...@hotmail.com
> eusebius <eusebiu...@gmail.com> wrote in news:de599787-5eef-42b5-820f-
> 961f4c448...@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
Are you saying that Symonds has a fear of heights?
eusebius
> eusebius <eusebiu...@gmail.com> wrote in news:de599787-5eef-42b5-820f-
> 961f4c448...@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>
> >>http://inhome.rediff.com/cricket/2008/jan/06hogg.htm
>
> >> Apparently the word in question is "bastard". This is a serious
> >> offence as it insults the person's descent. Hogg should be charged
> >> with Level 3, ie. 2 to 4 tests, if it is proven true.
>
> >> 3.3 of ICC Code of Conduct
> >> "using language or gestures that insults a person on the basis of
> >> race, religion, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin."
>
> > Attributed to Victor Richardson, in reference to Jardine, to his
> > teammates, and certainly apocryphal:
> > "Which one of you bastards called this bastard a bastard?"
>
> Then im sure you would find this offensive "Symonds came down a tree just
> after you left your spot on a branch."
Hoo ha. Hoo hoo hoo ha ha ha. Ha HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
Don't you know that calling somebody a monkey is just a harmless prank
in India, just like beating up dalits for smiling at your sister.
Racism can only come from white honkey countries, that is an
established fact.
eusebius
He is certainly something of a cheetah.
And I think he should ease off the black and white minstrel
impersonations.
We know that Indians have extreme sensitivities when it comes to
casting racial aspersions, at least when directed AT them, if never BY
them.
great...@fastmail.fm
Not true. The Chinese are supposed to be greater racists than Whites.
sdavmor
It may be apocryphal but still brilliant.
--
Cheers,
SDM -- a 21st century schizoid man
Systems Theory internet music project links:
official site <www.systemstheory.net>
MySpace MP3s <www.myspace.com/systemstheory>
CDBaby <www.cdbaby.com/systemstheory>
"Soundtracks For Imaginary Movies" CD released Dec 2004
"Codetalkers" CD coming Xmas 2007
NP: nothing
DesertRat
news:96c68304-37f0-4db0...@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
Indeed I do and I also know you can be thrown off Ayers Rock for being
Aborigine.
Geico Caveman
Bad strategy on India's part. They should have followed Ponting's example
and tried to get a bowler like Lee banned. We have had some difficulty
playing him.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Rodney Ulyate
It is a highly offensive term anywhere, but how does it offend on the
basis of race, religion, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin?
This is nothing more than shamefully shameless straw-clutching, and it
makes you, the straw-clutcher, look decidedly pathetic. Why do you and
your groping cohorts insist on sniffing out opponents' crimes every time
your own people or players do (or are accused of doing) something naughty?
--
Cheers,
Rodney Ulyate
"You can never plan the future by the past."
Edmund Burke
sdavmor
> Govandi groped:
>> On Jan 6, 4:14 pm, Govandi <govand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> http://inhome.rediff.com/cricket/2008/jan/06hogg.htm Apparently
>>> the word in question is "bastard". This is a serious offence
>>> as it insults the person's descent. Hogg should be charged with
>>> Level 3, ie. 2 to 4 tests, if it is proven true. 3.3 of ICC
>>> Code of Conduct "using language or gestures that insults a
>>> person on the basis of race, religion, colour, descent or
>>> national or ethnic origin."
>> http://www.theage.com.au/news/cricket/indians-counter-with-abuse-claim-against-hogg/2008/01/06/1199554486314.html
>>
>>
>>
>> The Indians alleged that Brad Hogg referred to an Indian player
>> as a "bastard", which is considered to be a highly offensive term
>> in India.
>
> It is a highly offensive term anywhere, but how does it offend on
> the basis of race, religion, colour, descent or national or ethnic
> origin?
Do keep up with the class, Rodney! The key word is "descent". As in
you are descended from you mother and father. And had they not been
married you would ergo be a "bastard".
> This is nothing more than shamefully shameless straw-clutching, and
> it makes you, the straw-clutcher, look decidedly pathetic. Why do
> you and your groping cohorts insist on sniffing out opponents'
> crimes every time your own people or players do (or are accused of
> doing) something naughty?
Sorry, but I couldn't disagree with you more. IMO it's nothing of the
sort, Rodders. The allegation against Hogg may or may not be true, but
that's for the MR and/or some other agent of the ICC to decide. But
calling another player a bastard (other than over a friendly beer and
sandwich after the game with your feet up watching the stars...."you
lucky bastard! you know I had you LBW!") is exactly what the use of
the word "descent" is there to prevent. And now that cat is out of the
bag I guess even the mate-ish use of bastard will have to stop, just
to be safe.
ShowsOn
> The Indians alleged that Brad Hogg referred to an Indian player as a
> "bastard", which is considered to be a highly offensive term in India.
Maybe so, but it isn't racist.
Geoff Muldoon
But if known to be culturally offensive, worthy of punishment.
GM
kenh...@hotmail.com
> Govandi groped:
>
> > On Jan 6, 4:14 pm, Govandi <govand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>http://inhome.rediff.com/cricket/2008/jan/06hogg.htm
> >> Apparently the word in question is "bastard". This is a serious
> >> offence as it insults the person's descent. Hogg should be charged
> >> with Level 3, ie. 2 to 4 tests, if it is proven true.
> >> 3.3 of ICC Code of Conduct
> >> "using language or gestures that insults a person on the basis of
> >> race, religion, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin."
> > The Indians alleged that Brad Hogg referred to an Indian player as a
> > "bastard", which is considered to be a highly offensive term in India.
>
> It is a highly offensive term anywhere, but how does it offend on the
> basis of race, religion, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin?
>
> This is nothing more than shamefully shameless straw-clutching, and it
> makes you, the straw-clutcher, look decidedly pathetic. Why do you and
> your groping cohorts insist on sniffing out opponents' crimes every time
> your own people or players do (or are accused of doing) something naughty?
>
> --
Probably because they've seen Australians use the tactic to such good
effect in the past.
If you can't beat 'em, join 'em
Higgs
Mad Hamish
<rodney...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Govandi groped:
>> On Jan 6, 4:14 pm, Govandi <govand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> http://inhome.rediff.com/cricket/2008/jan/06hogg.htm
>>> Apparently the word in question is "bastard". This is a serious
>>> offence as it insults the person's descent. Hogg should be charged
>>> with Level 3, ie. 2 to 4 tests, if it is proven true.
>>> 3.3 of ICC Code of Conduct
>>> "using language or gestures that insults a person on the basis of
>>> race, religion, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin."
>> http://www.theage.com.au/news/cricket/indians-counter-with-abuse-claim-against-hogg/2008/01/06/1199554486314.html
>> The Indians alleged that Brad Hogg referred to an Indian player as a
>> "bastard", which is considered to be a highly offensive term in India.
>
>It is a highly offensive term anywhere,
no it's not.
>but how does it offend on the
>basis of race, religion, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin?
--
"Hope is replaced by fear and dreams by survival, most of us get by."
Stuart Adamson 1958-2001
Mad Hamish
Hamish Laws
newsunsp...@iinet.unspamme.net.au
rodney...@gmail.com
wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 07:27:23 +0200, Rodney Ulyate
> <rodney.uly...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Govandi groped:
> >> On Jan 6, 4:14 pm, Govandi <govand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>http://inhome.rediff.com/cricket/2008/jan/06hogg.htm
> >>> Apparently the word in question is "bastard". This is a serious
> >>> offence as it insults the person's descent. Hogg should be charged
> >>> with Level 3, ie. 2 to 4 tests, if it is proven true.
> >>> 3.3 of ICC Code of Conduct
> >>> "using language or gestures that insults a person on the basis of
> >>> race, religion, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin."
> >> The Indians alleged that Brad Hogg referred to an Indian player as a
> >> "bastard", which is considered to be a highly offensive term inIndia.
> >It is a highly offensive term anywhere,
> no it's not.
Where is it not?
rodney...@gmail.com
> effect in the past.
Although I am given to understand that you and Pratmel are in cahoots,
it would be greatly appreciated if you would see fit to refrain from
appropriating his fondness for big statements and no evidence.
Unless, of course, you still intend to provide some of the latter.
<snip>
CDK
> Govandi groped:
>> On Jan 6, 4:14 pm, Govandi <govand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> http://inhome.rediff.com/cricket/2008/jan/06hogg.htm
>>> Apparently the word in question is "bastard". This is a serious
>>> offence as it insults the person's descent. Hogg should be charged
>>> with Level 3, ie. 2 to 4 tests, if it is proven true.
>>> 3.3 of ICC Code of Conduct
>>> "using language or gestures that insults a person on the basis of
>>> race, religion, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin."
>> http://www.theage.com.au/news/cricket/indians-counter-with-abuse-claim-against-hogg/2008/01/06/1199554486314.html
>>
>> The Indians alleged that Brad Hogg referred to an Indian player as a
>> "bastard", which is considered to be a highly offensive term in India.
>
> It is a highly offensive term anywhere,
Not really.
The funniest scene in the TV miniseries Bodyline is when Jardine
complains to Woodfull about being called a bastard and Richardson turns
to the dressing room and asks "which one of you bastards called this
bastard a bastard."
CDK
<snip>
CDK
Austalia. Bastard is often used as a term of endearment.
e.g. Upon greeting a friend you may say, "How are you you old bastard"
When a friend wins a game you may call him a "lucky bastard"
etc
CDK
CDK
Why are you being so culturally offensive to the Aboriginals?
CDK
Govandi
Who cares if it is this "ist" or that "ist"? It is a culturally
offensive term,
deemed to be of the *same* offence level by the ICC Code of Conduct.
Shit can come in different hues (you can check with Mike Holmans
on this).
Govandi
rodney...@gmail.com
> Rodney Ulyate wrote:
> > Govandi groped:
> >> On Jan 6, 4:14 pm, Govandi <govand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>http://inhome.rediff.com/cricket/2008/jan/06hogg.htm
> >>> Apparently the word in question is "bastard". This is a serious
> >>> offence as it insults the person's descent. Hogg should be charged
> >>> with Level 3, ie. 2 to 4 tests, if it is proven true.
> >>> 3.3 of ICC Code of Conduct
> >>> "using language or gestures that insults a person on the basis of
> >>> race, religion, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin."
> >> The Indians alleged that Brad Hogg referred to an Indian player as a
> >> "bastard", which is considered to be a highly offensive term in India.
> > It is a highly offensive term anywhere,
> Not really.
> The funniest scene in the TV miniseries Bodyline is when Jardine
> complains to Woodfull about being called a bastard and Richardson turns
> to the dressing room and asks "which one of you bastards called this
> bastard a bastard."
Indeed, and the fictional Jardine seemed decidedly offended.
rodney...@gmail.com
> rodney.uly...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Jan 7, 3:52 pm, Mad Hamish <newsunspammel...@iinet.unspamme.net.au>
> > wrote:
> >> On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 07:27:23 +0200, Rodney Ulyate
> >> <rodney.uly...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Govandi groped:
> >>>> On Jan 6, 4:14 pm, Govandi <govand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>http://inhome.rediff.com/cricket/2008/jan/06hogg.htm
> >>>>> Apparently the word in question is "bastard". This is a serious
> >>>>> offence as it insults the person's descent. Hogg should be charged
> >>>>> with Level 3, ie. 2 to 4 tests, if it is proven true.
> >>>>> 3.3 of ICC Code of Conduct
> >>>>> "using language or gestures that insults a person on the basis of
> >>>>> race, religion, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin."
> >>>>http://www.theage.com.au/news/cricket/indians-counter-with-abuse-clai...
> >>>> The Indians alleged that Brad Hogg referred to an Indian player as a
> >>>> "bastard", which is considered to be a highly offensive term inIndia.
> >>> It is a highly offensive term anywhere,
> >> no it's not.
> > Where is it not?
> Austalia.
Which country is that?
> Bastard is often used as a term of endearment.
> e.g. Upon greeting a friend you may say, "How are you you old bastard"
> When a friend wins a game you may call him a "lucky bastard"
By the same token, my mates and I often greet one another as "shit-
heads". That we are using it as a term of endearment does not make it
any less offensive.
kenh...@hotmail.com
Clarification, Rodney.
You're asking me to provide evidence of Australians sniffing out
evidence of other people's wrongdoing everytime one of their own is
accused of wrongdoing?
Where to start?
The numerous recent posts about poor Indian crowd behaviour in
response to complaints over crowd behaviour in Australia?
The numerous recent posts about sledging from all other teams in
response to claims that Australians sledge?
The numerous recent posts about excessive Indian appealing in response
to claims that Australians appealed over zealously in this game?
Or did you have something else in mind?
Higgs
Rodney Ulyate
> eusebius wrote:
>> On Jan 7, 1:14 am, Govandi <govand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> http://inhome.rediff.com/cricket/2008/jan/06hogg.htm
>>> Apparently the word in question is "bastard". This is a serious
>>> offence as it insults the person's descent. Hogg should be charged
>>> with Level 3, ie. 2 to 4 tests, if it is proven true.
>>> 3.3 of ICC Code of Conduct
>>> "using language or gestures that insults a person on the basis of
>>> race, religion, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin."
>> Attributed to Victor Richardson, in reference to Jardine, to his
>> teammates, and certainly apocryphal:
>> "Which one of you bastards called this bastard a bastard?"
> It may be apocryphal but still brilliant.
I don't believe that it is entirely apocryphal. Frithy's "Bodyline
Autopsy", from memory, quoted another version.
--
Rodney Ulyate
"The mincing run-up resembles someone in high heels and a panty girdle
chasing after a bus."
Martin Johnson on Merv Hughes
Rodney Ulyate
> Rodney Ulyate wrote:
>> Govandi groped:
>>> On Jan 6, 4:14 pm, Govandi <govand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> http://inhome.rediff.com/cricket/2008/jan/06hogg.htm Apparently
>>>> the word in question is "bastard". This is a serious offence
>>>> as it insults the person's descent. Hogg should be charged with
>>>> Level 3, ie. 2 to 4 tests, if it is proven true. 3.3 of ICC Code of
>>>> Conduct "using language or gestures that insults a person on the
>>>> basis of race, religion, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin."
>>> http://www.theage.com.au/news/cricket/indians-counter-with-abuse-claim-against-hogg/2008/01/06/1199554486314.html
>>> The Indians alleged that Brad Hogg referred to an Indian player as a
>>> "bastard", which is considered to be a highly offensive term
>>> in India.
>> It is a highly offensive term anywhere, but how does it offend on the
>> basis of race, religion, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin?
> Do keep up with the class, Rodney!
I can't hear above the din.
> The key word is "descent". As in you are descended from you mother and
> father. And had they not been married you would ergo be a "bastard".
<snivel>
They *weren't* married.
</snivel>
>> This is nothing more than shamefully shameless straw-clutching, and
>> it makes you, the straw-clutcher, look decidedly pathetic. Why do
>> you and your groping cohorts insist on sniffing out opponents' crimes
>> every time your own people or players do (or are accused of doing)
>> something naughty?
> Sorry, but I couldn't disagree with you more. IMO it's nothing of the
> sort, Rodders. The allegation against Hogg may or may not be true, but
> that's for the MR and/or some other agent of the ICC to decide. But
> calling another player a bastard (other than over a friendly beer and
> sandwich after the game with your feet up watching the stars...."you
> lucky bastard! you know I had you LBW!") is exactly what the use of
> the word "descent" is there to prevent. And now that cat is out of the
> bag I guess even the mate-ish use of bastard will have to stop, just
> to be safe.
Orright, you pedantic bastard. I misinterpreted "descent".
What's the game coming to, though, if you can't dub an opponent a
packsaddle son?
--
Rodney Ulyate
"The game of cricket played by men of true sport is incomparable."
Sir Neville Cardus
Stephen Ulyate
[...]
> Clarification, Rodney.
> You're asking me to provide evidence of Australians sniffing out
> evidence of other people's wrongdoing everytime one of their own is
> accused of wrongdoing?
Yep.
> Where to start?
> The numerous recent posts about poor Indian crowd behaviour in
> response to complaints over crowd behaviour in Australia?
> The numerous recent posts about sledging from all other teams in
> response to claims that Australians sledge?
> The numerous recent posts about excessive Indian appealing in response
> to claims that Australians appealed over zealously in this game?
> Or did you have something else in mind?
Care to cite a few? I am afraid that a poster with your track record is
hardly the most believable when it comes to anti-Aussie claims.
--
Rodney Ulyate
"What I like to drink most is wine that belongs to others."
Diogenes
CDK
Crap.
No word in itself is offensive
CDK
CDK
Poor chappie.
It still does not make the word in itself offensive. No words are
offensive, it is only in how they are used that they may become offensive.
CDK
kenh...@hotmail.com
> kenhig...@hotmail.com sought:
> [...]
>
> > Clarification, Rodney.
> > You're asking me to provide evidence of Australians sniffing out
> > evidence of other people's wrongdoing everytime one of their own is
> > accused of wrongdoing?
>
> Yep.
>
> > Where to start?
> > The numerous recent posts about poor Indian crowd behaviour in
> > response to complaints over crowd behaviour in Australia?
Two days ago, Mad Hamish wrote this respoonse:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>"Against any team that would be wrong except against Australia. They
>are the very dregs of the Cricketing world and would stop at nothing
>to win. It is not just Thommo and Lillee that win matches for them. It
>is their umpires, their crowds and the whole bloody cricket
>establishment. Remember this is a country which manhandled John Snow
>when he was in the fielding." Tony Grieg (after England won the
>Cenetenary Test).
It's a country where yob in the outer manhandled John Snow after he'd
cracked a genuine tail ender in the head before helmets and had
ignored his captain's instructions not to go and field in that area.
btw, you might want to look at what has been thrown at players in
India, I seem to recall Sylvester Clarke's ammunition was thrown at
him before he threw it back...
I also seem to recall a crowd setting fire to stands when their team
was losing a world cup semi-final....
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seems to me a fairly obvious example of a direct quote of an
Australian bringing up poor Indian crowd behaviour in response to
complaints about crowd behaviour in Australia (and managing to blame
Snow for the incident to boot).
Given your track record, it's hardly surprising that you've missed the
numerous posts on this issue alone.
Whether that's by accident or design is anyone's guess
There's none so blind and all that
Higgs
Paul Robson
> It's a country where yob in the outer manhandled John Snow after he'd
> cracked a genuine tail ender in the head before helmets and had
> ignored his captain's instructions not to go and field in that area.
I have a memory of a test match in India about this time (vs Australia)
having to be stopped or abandoned because of crowd rioting.
Rodney Ulyate
You bastard! That was most offensive.
> No word in itself is offensive
The dictionary on my lap seems to disagree.
--
Rodney Ulyate
Alvey's Most Readable Poster of 2007 ("when he's not being too pretentious")
Prabhu's Least Readable Poster of 2007 ("especially with posts of
blinding brilliance like 'Ah', 'Oh', 'Ok', '<Burp>', '<Fart>, other
onomatopoeiacal sounds followed by a humungous 10 line signature")
CDK
> CDK replied:
>> rodney...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Jan 8, 12:51 am, CDK <mickymo...@disneyland.com> wrote:
>>>> Bastard is often used as a term of endearment.
>>>> e.g. Upon greeting a friend you may say, "How are you you old bastard"
>>>> When a friend wins a game you may call him a "lucky bastard"
>>> By the same token, my mates and I often greet one another as "shit-
>>> heads". That we are using it as a term of endearment does not make it
>>> any less offensive.
>> Crap.
>
> You bastard! That was most offensive.
>
>> No word in itself is offensive
>
> The dictionary on my lap seems to disagree.
Examples?
CDK
>
Rodney Ulyate
> Rodney Ulyate wrote:
>> CDK replied:
>>> No word in itself is offensive
>> The dictionary on my lap seems to disagree.
> Examples?
"*bastard* [...] n. 1. OFFENSIVE TERM an offensive term for a
disagreeable or obnoxious person (slang insult)"
Encarta World English Dictionary
--
Rodney Ulyate
"Umpires have changed, much for the worse, since the War. All games and
pastimes suffer when they are subject to the deadening hand of science.
Cricket has been taken over by the strategists and planners.
Performance may advance, but pleasure departs. Games are, primarily,
not for winning, they are for enjoying."
Harry East
CDK
> CDK requested:
>> Rodney Ulyate wrote:
>>> CDK replied:
> [...]
>>>> No word in itself is offensive
>>> The dictionary on my lap seems to disagree.
>> Examples?
>
> "*bastard* [...] n. 1. OFFENSIVE TERM an offensive term for a
> disagreeable or obnoxious person (slang insult)"
> Encarta World English Dictionary
>
bastard
/baastrd/
• noun 1 archaic or derogatory an illegitimate person. 2 informal an
unpleasant or despicable person. 3 informal a person of a specified
kind: the poor bastard.
Oxford Compact English Dictionaray
CDK
sdavmor
There you. When in doubt go to Oxford for English language definitions.
I have Webster's on my desk (I'm in the USA). It says:
bastard n 1. An illegitimate child. 2. Something of irregular or
inferior origin, kind or form. 3. Slang: a mean or disagreeable person.
It adds several things including an interesting word history:
In Old French "fils de bast" literally meant "child of a packsaddle".
The phrase refers to the unsanctified circumstances in which a child
was conceived. Travelers used packsaddles as beds. Often, no doubt, as
impromptu marriage beds. The word bastard was formed in Old French
from bast (packsaddle), and the perjorative suffix -ard.
CDK
So not offensive.
CDK
kenh...@hotmail.com
Err, 0 out of 10, for AutismUK.
Sad Hamish wrote that, I quoted him
HTH
Higgs
kenh...@hotmail.com
> sdavmor wrote:
> > CDK wrote:
> >> Rodney Ulyate wrote:
> >>> CDK requested:
> >>>> Rodney Ulyate wrote:
> >>>>> CDK replied:
> >>> [...]
> >>>>>> No word in itself is offensive
> >>>>> The dictionary on my lap seems to disagree.
> >>>> Examples?
>
> >>> "*bastard* [...] n. 1. OFFENSIVE TERM an offensive term for a
> >>> disagreeable or obnoxious person (slang insult)" Encarta World
> >>> English Dictionary
>
> >> Get a real dictionary not the microsoft one
>
> >> bastard
>
> >> /baastrd/
>
> >> an unpleasant or despicable person. 3 informal a person of a
> >> specified kind: the poor bastard.
>
> >> Oxford Compact English Dictionaray
>
> >> CDK
>
> > There you. When in doubt go to Oxford for English language definitions.
>
> > I have Webster's on my desk (I'm in the USA). It says:
>
> > bastard n 1. An illegitimate child. 2. Something of irregular or
> > inferior origin, kind or form. 3. Slang: a mean or disagreeable person.
>
> > It adds several things including an interesting word history:
>
> > In Old French "fils de bast" literally meant "child of a packsaddle".
> > The phrase refers to the unsanctified circumstances in which a child
> > was conceived. Travelers used packsaddles as beds. Often, no doubt, as
> > impromptu marriage beds. The word bastard was formed in Old French
> > from bast (packsaddle), and the perjorative suffix -ard.
>
> So not offensive.
>
>
Obviously not.
The definition '3. Slang: a mean or disagreeable person.'
Is obviously meant as a term of endearment, rather than a term of
offense.
Much like 'monkey' or 'black cunt'
HTH
Higgs
Rodney Ulyate
<snip>
> Seems to me a fairly obvious example of a direct quote of an
> Australian bringing up poor Indian crowd behaviour in response to
> complaints about crowd behaviour in Australia (and managing to blame
> Snow for the incident to boot).
Thank you. That's all I wanted.
> Given your track record, it's hardly surprising that you've missed the
> numerous posts on this issue alone.
My track record? I'd appreciate some elucidation there, too, Ken.
> Whether that's by accident or design is anyone's guess
> There's none so blind and all that
Perhaps *you* have the time to trawl through every one of the 500-plus
posts that come through here every day, but I most certainly don't.
That I used a slightly antagonising tone does not mean that you, like
our Indian and Australian friends, should look for an excuse to follow
suit -- less still a false excuse. It seems that, for all I have tried
to keep an open mind about you, you are indeed the liar that you have
been made out to be.
--
Rodney Ulyate
"The traditional dress of the Australian cricketer is the baggy green
cap on the head and the chip on the shoulder. Both are ritualistically
assumed."
Simon Barnes
Rodney Ulyate
> Rodney Ulyate wrote:
>> CDK requested:
>>> Rodney Ulyate wrote:
>>>> CDK replied:
>> [...]
>>>>> No word in itself is offensive
>>>> The dictionary on my lap seems to disagree.
>>> Examples?
>> "*bastard* [...] n. 1. OFFENSIVE TERM an offensive term for a
>> disagreeable or obnoxious person (slang insult)"
>> Encarta World English Dictionary
> Get a real dictionary
It *is* a real dictionary, and certainly not the online tripe that you
seem to have taken it as. How else would it be sitting on my lap?
Anyway, I provided a poor example there, sticking to the express topic
when I ought not to have done.
According to my lap-bound dictionary, the word "fuck" is an offensive
term in itself. Each of the ten definitions are preceeded by the banner
"OFFENSIVE TERM".
<snip>
--
Rodney Ulyate
"When love and skill work together, expect a masterpiece."
John Ruskin
kenh...@hotmail.com
> kenhig...@hotmail.com replied:
> <snip>
>
> > Seems to me a fairly obvious example of a direct quote of an
> > Australian bringing up poor Indian crowd behaviour in response to
> > complaints about crowd behaviour in Australia (and managing to blame
> > Snow for the incident to boot).
>
> Thank you. That's all I wanted.
>
And you got it.
> > Given your track record, it's hardly surprising that you've missed the
> > numerous posts on this issue alone.
>
> My track record? I'd appreciate some elucidation there, too, Ken.
>
No problem, Rodders.
You seem to have taken rather readily to attacking my posts.
I'm quite prepared to defend my cormer.
> > Whether that's by accident or design is anyone's guess
> > There's none so blind and all that
>
> Perhaps *you* have the time to trawl through every one of the 500-plus
> posts that come through here every day, but I most certainly don't.
> That I used a slightly antagonising tone does not mean that you, like
> our Indian and Australian friends, should look for an excuse to follow
> suit -- less still a false excuse. It seems that, for all I have tried
> to keep an open mind about you, you are indeed the liar that you have
> been made out to be.
>
Rodney, I don't have time to trawl through the 500 odd posts here
everyday either, but it really doesn't take much effort to find
examples of Australians bringing up poor Indian crowd behaviour or
similar. You only have to look at the thread titles.
There are currently plenty about 'Indian Cheats', 'Is this an example
of Harby cheating' etc etc.
I mentioned that Australians had done this (brought up past events)
and you not only disputed my claim, but made antagonistic remarks
towards me and hinted that I was being less than truthfull.
I provided the evidence you so craved and, yes, I did lob in a few
barbs aimed at you in retaliation.
Tough luck.
As I've said, I can give as good as I get.
Your comment
"That I used a slightly antagonising tone does not mean that you, like
our Indian and Australian friends, should look for an excuse to
follow
suit -- less still a false excuse. "
is basically hogwash.
You throw barbs at people on rsc and you'll undoubtedly get some in
return (unless you're dealing with John Hall or Aslam*).
You've been here long enough to know that.
Higgs
* who was that poster who started having a go at Aslam a few years
back?
prakmel
> kenhig...@hotmail.com sought:
> [...]
>
> > Clarification, Rodney.
> > You're asking me to provide evidence of Australians sniffing out
> > evidence of other people's wrongdoing everytime one of their own is
> > accused of wrongdoing?
>
> Yep.
>
> > Where to start?
> > The numerous recent posts about poor Indian crowd behaviour in
> > response to complaints over crowd behaviour in Australia?
> > The numerous recent posts about sledging from all other teams in
> > response to claims that Australians sledge?
> > The numerous recent posts about excessive Indian appealing in response
> > to claims that Australians appealed over zealously in this game?
> > Or did you have something else in mind?
>
> Care to cite a few? I am afraid that a poster with your track record is
> hardly the most believable when it comes to anti-Aussie claims.
>
> --
> Rodney Ulyate
So yet another nick to the collection - Stephen Ulyate.
But signing as Rodney. Fascinating how you convince yourself who you
are.
I guess it must be confusing remembering what you are signing as when
you have the option of so many different names that you can converse
with yourself as you are doing in this thread.
By the way Stephen, you presumably also claim to live in South Africa
- or are you going to be in a different country or continent this
time?
Seeing that claimed to be 18 when you were posing as Rodney, Colin how
old are you now :-)
Rodney Ulyate
<snip>
By God, you are a coward.
--
Rodney Ulyate
"What is this lure [...] that cricket exercises [...? T]he passion for
[it] is in our blood. Small boys have it, youths have it, grown men
have it, old men have it; and no amount of disappointment, no ducks, can
change it."
E.V. Lucas
pra...@gmail.com
> pratmel wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> By God, you are a coward.
>
> --
> Rodney Ulyate
So it is back to Rodney now. What happened to your uncle Stephen?
As I asked, how old are you Stephen? Presumably at least as old as
Rodney? Probably exactly methinks :-)
Don't you grow tired of playing these childish games?
Rodney Ulyate
> On Jan 13, 12:31 pm, Rodney Ulyate <rodney.uly...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> pratmel wrote:
>> <snip>
>> By God, you are a coward.
> So it is back to Rodney now. What happened to your uncle Stephen?
He's my brother. And nothing happened to him, you sick fuck; he is
sleeping at present.
> As I asked, how old are you Stephen? Presumably at least as old as
> Rodney? Probably exactly methinks :-)
> Don't you grow tired of playing these childish games?
Stop it. If you don't, I'll find a lawyer who will.
--
Rodney Ulyate
"It is probable that no atheist was ever a good cricketer."
Harry East
Rodney Ulyate
> On Jan 12, 5:53 am, Rodney Ulyate <rodney.uly...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> kenhig...@hotmail.com replied:
>> <snip>
>>> Seems to me a fairly obvious example of a direct quote of an
>>> Australian bringing up poor Indian crowd behaviour in response to
>>> complaints about crowd behaviour in Australia (and managing to blame
>>> Snow for the incident to boot).
>> Thank you. That's all I wanted.
> And you got it.
That goes without saying (unless, of course, you think it sounds clever
and want to sound clever yourself).
>>> Given your track record, it's hardly surprising that you've missed the
>>> numerous posts on this issue alone.
>> My track record? I'd appreciate some elucidation there, too, Ken.
> No problem, Rodders.
> You seem to have taken rather readily to attacking my posts.
> I'm quite prepared to defend my cormer.
As you should be, but, as far as "attacking" your posts is concerned, I
cannot think of one. I certainly wasn't "attacking" you here. Perhaps
you can provide another example?
>>> Whether that's by accident or design is anyone's guess
>>> There's none so blind and all that
>> Perhaps *you* have the time to trawl through every one of the 500-plus
>> posts that come through here every day, but I most certainly don't.
>> That I used a slightly antagonising tone does not mean that you, like
>> our Indian and Australian friends, should look for an excuse to follow
>> suit -- less still a false excuse. It seems that, for all I have tried
>> to keep an open mind about you, you are indeed the liar that you have
>> been made out to be.
> Rodney, I don't have time to trawl through the 500 odd posts here
> everyday either, but it really doesn't take much effort to find
> examples of Australians bringing up poor Indian crowd behaviour or
> similar. You only have to look at the thread titles.
> There are currently plenty about 'Indian Cheats', 'Is this an example
> of Harby cheating' etc etc.
I simply haven't seen them.
> I mentioned that Australians had done this (brought up past events)
> and you not only disputed my claim, but made antagonistic remarks
> towards me and hinted that I was being less than truthfull.
I cannot find any hint of a hint in the words "Although I am given to
understand that you and Pratmel are in cahoots, it would be greatly
appreciated if you would see fit to refrain from appropriating his
fondness for big statements and no evidence. Unless, of course, you
still intend to provide some of the latter."
[...]
> Your comment
> "That I used a slightly antagonising tone does not mean that you, like
> our Indian and Australian friends, should look for an excuse to
> follow suit -- less still a false excuse. "
> is basically hogwash.
How so? You made up bile about a "track record" of recent attacks
against you.
<snip>
--
Rodney Ulyate
"When appealing the Australians make a statement; we ask a question."
Vic Marks
CDK
> CDK demanded:
>> Rodney Ulyate wrote:
>>> CDK requested:
>>>> Rodney Ulyate wrote:
>>>>> CDK replied:
>>> [...]
>>>>>> No word in itself is offensive
>>>>> The dictionary on my lap seems to disagree.
>>>> Examples?
>>> "*bastard* [...] n. 1. OFFENSIVE TERM an offensive term for a
>>> disagreeable or obnoxious person (slang insult)"
>>> Encarta World English Dictionary
>> Get a real dictionary
> [...]
>
> It *is* a real dictionary, and certainly not the online tripe that you
> seem to have taken it as.
I never suggested it was online I suggested it wasthe microsoft one. It is.
> How else would it be sitting on my lap?
So Microsoft are only associated with online shite?
> Anyway, I provided a poor example there, sticking to the express topic
> when I ought not to have done.
>
> According to my lap-bound dictionary, the word "fuck" is an offensive
> term in itself. Each of the ten definitions are preceeded by the banner
> "OFFENSIVE TERM".
Which only shows you should get a real dictionary!!
fuck
vulgar slang
• verb 1 have sexual intercourse with. 2 damage or ruin.
• noun an act of sexual intercourse.
• exclamation a strong expression of annoyance or contempt.
OED
The complete Oxford has considerably more information
CDK
Rodney Ulyate
> Rodney Ulyate wrote:
>> How else would it be sitting on my lap?
> So Microsoft are only associated with online shite?
Why do you combative folk insist on answering questions with questions?
>> Anyway, I provided a poor example there, sticking to the express topic
>> when I ought not to have done.
>> According to my lap-bound dictionary, the word "fuck" is an offensive
>> term in itself. Each of the ten definitions are preceeded by the
>> banner "OFFENSIVE TERM".
> Which only shows you should get a real dictionary!!
> fuck
> vulgar slang
> • verb 1 have sexual intercourse with. 2 damage or ruin.
> • noun an act of sexual intercourse.
> • exclamation a strong expression of annoyance or contempt.
I highly doubt that most care *how* the word is used. Simply hearing
it, irrespective of its context, is enough to cause offence. It is,
therefore, offensive in itself.
<snip>
CDK
> CDK wrote:
>> Rodney Ulyate wrote:
> [...]
>>> How else would it be sitting on my lap?
>> So Microsoft are only associated with online shite?
>
> Why do you combative folk insist on answering questions with questions?
>
>>> Anyway, I provided a poor example there, sticking to the express
>>> topic when I ought not to have done.
>>> According to my lap-bound dictionary, the word "fuck" is an offensive
>>> term in itself. Each of the ten definitions are preceeded by the
>>> banner "OFFENSIVE TERM".
>> Which only shows you should get a real dictionary!!
>> fuck
>> vulgar slang
>> • verb 1 have sexual intercourse with. 2 damage or ruin.
>> • noun an act of sexual intercourse.
>> • exclamation a strong expression of annoyance or contempt.
>
> I highly doubt that most care *how* the word is used. Simply hearing
> it, irrespective of its context, is enough to cause offence. It is,
> therefore, offensive in itself.
Bullshit.
Fuck is now heard on TV. Yes you will get the "religious right" who
will kick up a stink and complain to the Broadcasting authorities, but
most people who watch TV are not offended by the word at all.
Taken further the word fuck is extremely common in movies, and everyday
conversation.
To say fuck is offensive is to suggest that praying is offensive or
wearing a sign of your religion is offensive.
CDK
Rodney Ulyate
> Rodney Ulyate wrote:
>> CDK wrote:
>>> Rodney Ulyate wrote:
[...]
>>>> topic when I ought not to have done.
>>>> According to my lap-bound dictionary, the word "fuck" is an
>>>> offensive term in itself. Each of the ten definitions are preceeded
>>>> by the banner "OFFENSIVE TERM".
>>> Which only shows you should get a real dictionary!!
>>> fuck
>>> vulgar slang
>>> • verb 1 have sexual intercourse with. 2 damage or ruin.
>>> • noun an act of sexual intercourse.
>>> • exclamation a strong expression of annoyance or contempt.
>> I highly doubt that most care *how* the word is used. Simply hearing
>> it, irrespective of its context, is enough to cause offence. It is,
>> therefore, offensive in itself.
> Bullshit.
Another offensive term.
> Fuck is now heard on TV.
The appearance on our television sets of violence and adultery does not
justify them nor render them unoffensive. Why should it be otherwise
with expletives?
> Yes you will get the "religious right" who will kick up a stink and
> complain to the Broadcasting authorities, but most people who watch TV
> are not offended by the word at all.
That some do not take offence to the word does not make the word any
less offensive. There must be *some* reason why parents bar their brood
from saying "bullshit" and "fuck".
> Taken further the word fuck is extremely common in movies, and everyday
> conversation.
That is more a reflection on the pithy vocabularies of modern
conversationalists than the ostensible unoffensiveness of the term.
> To say fuck is offensive is to suggest that praying is offensive or
> wearing a sign of your religion is offensive.
I fail to see how one can draw such parallels between profanity and
acceptable religious practice without being one of those iconoclastic
Bible-scorners who turns atheism into recusant piety. In which case my
respect for you is little.
--
Rodney Ulyate
"There is a widely held and quite erroneous belief that cricket is just
another game."
The Duke of Edinburgh
CDK
> CDK wrote:
>> Rodney Ulyate wrote:
>>> CDK wrote:
>>>> Rodney Ulyate wrote:
> [...]
>>>>> Anyway, I provided a poor example there, sticking to the express
>>>>> topic when I ought not to have done.
>>>>> According to my lap-bound dictionary, the word "fuck" is an
>>>>> offensive term in itself. Each of the ten definitions are
>>>>> preceeded by the banner "OFFENSIVE TERM".
>>>> Which only shows you should get a real dictionary!!
>>>> fuck
>>>> vulgar slang
>>>> • verb 1 have sexual intercourse with. 2 damage or ruin.
>>>> • noun an act of sexual intercourse.
>>>> • exclamation a strong expression of annoyance or contempt.
>>> I highly doubt that most care *how* the word is used. Simply hearing
>>> it, irrespective of its context, is enough to cause offence. It is,
>>> therefore, offensive in itself.
>> Bullshit.
>
> Another offensive term.
Not at all.
>> Fuck is now heard on TV.
>
> The appearance on our television sets of violence and adultery does not
> justify them nor render them unoffensive. Why should it be otherwise
> with expletives?
Adultery in itself isn't necessarily offensive. The term adultery is a
religious one anyway, which in itself could be construed as offensive.
>
>> Yes you will get the "religious right" who will kick up a stink and
>> complain to the Broadcasting authorities, but most people who watch TV
>> are not offended by the word at all.
>
> That some do not take offence to the word does not make the word any
> less offensive.
That most do not take offense to the word shows that the community at
large do not consider it offensive.
> There must be *some* reason why parents bar their brood
> from saying "bullshit" and "fuck".
Some do some don't.
>> Taken further the word fuck is extremely common in movies, and
>> everyday conversation.
>
> That is more a reflection on the pithy vocabularies of modern
> conversationalists than the ostensible unoffensiveness of the term.
It is an indication that it is an accepted word in todays language.
If it wasn;t the film companies would not allow then to be used as it
would turn people off their films.
>> To say fuck is offensive is to suggest that praying is offensive or
>> wearing a sign of your religion is offensive.
>
> I fail to see how one can draw such parallels between profanity and
> acceptable religious practice without being one of those iconoclastic
> Bible-scorners who turns atheism into recusant piety. In which case my
> respect for you is little.
The fact that many religions attempt to ram their beliefs down
the throats of others is offensive.
that many religions attempt to demand that their beliefs are the only
true beliefs is offensive.
That many religions maintain that their morality is the only morality
that is valid is offensive.
CDK
Rodney Ulyate
> Rodney Ulyate wrote:
>> CDK wrote:
>>> Rodney Ulyate wrote:
>>>> CDK wrote:
>>>>> Rodney Ulyate wrote:
>> [...]
>>>>>> Anyway, I provided a poor example there, sticking to the express
>>>>>> topic when I ought not to have done.
>>>>>> According to my lap-bound dictionary, the word "fuck" is an
>>>>>> offensive term in itself. Each of the ten definitions are
>>>>>> preceeded by the banner "OFFENSIVE TERM".
>>>>> Which only shows you should get a real dictionary!!
>>>>> fuck
>>>>> vulgar slang
>>>>> • verb 1 have sexual intercourse with. 2 damage or ruin.
>>>>> • noun an act of sexual intercourse.
>>>>> • exclamation a strong expression of annoyance or contempt.
>>>> I highly doubt that most care *how* the word is used. Simply
>>>> hearing it, irrespective of its context, is enough to cause
>>>> offence. It is, therefore, offensive in itself.
>>> Bullshit.
>> Another offensive term.
> Not at all.
Don't be daft. Would you not feel affronted (even slightly) were I to
pour scorn over your views with a grunted one-word vulgarity?
>>> Fuck is now heard on TV.
>> The appearance on our television sets of violence and adultery does
>> not justify them nor render them unoffensive. Why should it be
>> otherwise with expletives?
> Adultery in itself isn't necessarily offensive.
How isn't it necessarily offensive?
> The term adultery is a religious one anyway
Yet myriad theism-rejecters demur to it, too.
> which in itself could be construed as offensive.
How so?
>>> Yes you will get the "religious right" who will kick up a stink and
>>> complain to the Broadcasting authorities, but most people who watch TV
>>> are not offended by the word at all.
>> That some do not take offence to the word does not make the word any
>> less offensive.
> That most do not take offense to the word shows that the community at
> large do not consider it offensive.
Given the ethical corrosion of the community at large, that says very
little, I'm afraid.
>> There must be *some* reason why parents bar their brood from saying
>> "bullshit" and "fuck".
> Some do some don't.
Allow me to correct that: the preponderance do; few do not.
As I understand it, Colin, *you* have children. Are you okay with the
profusion of swear-words probably replete in their vocabularies?
>>> Taken further the word fuck is extremely common in movies, and
>>> everyday conversation.
>> That is more a reflection on the pithy vocabularies of modern
>> conversationalists than the ostensible unoffensiveness of the term.
> It is an indication that it is an accepted word in todays language.
> If it wasn;t the film companies would not allow then to be used as it
> would turn people off their films.
If it was an accepted word into today's language, those films would not
have age-restrictions imposed on them for using it.
>>> To say fuck is offensive is to suggest that praying is offensive or
>>> wearing a sign of your religion is offensive.
>> I fail to see how one can draw such parallels between profanity and
>> acceptable religious practice without being one of those iconoclastic
>> Bible-scorners who turns atheism into recusant piety. In which case
>> my respect for you is little.
> The fact that many religions attempt to ram their beliefs down
> the throats of others is offensive.
What does that have to do with anything? It certainly doesn't validate
your claim that "[t]o say fuck is offensive is to suggest that praying
is offensive or wearing a sign of your religion is offensive". So,
unless you have acquired a sudden fondness for tangents, I really have
no idea what you're getting at. Do explain.
> that many religions attempt to demand that their beliefs are the only
> true beliefs is offensive.
Again, what relevance has that to the matter at hand? You're only
adding petroleum to my Colin-is-an-atheist-bedlamite inferno.
> That many religions maintain that their morality is the only morality
> that is valid is offensive.
I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago.
--
Rodney Ulyate
"Frankly Vic, you wouldn't know if a bus was up your arse until the
passengers got off."
alvey
Spaceman Spiff
[snip]
>
>>> There must be *some* reason why parents bar their brood from saying
>>> "bullshit" and "fuck".
>> Some do some don't.
>
> Allow me to correct that: the preponderance do; few do not.
>
> As I understand it, Colin, *you* have children. Are you okay with the
> profusion of swear-words probably replete in their vocabularies?
>
oh dear. you haven't been around here long enough.
colin is not only ok with it, he encourages it.
colin disputes that anything at all can be considered obscene.
i had a discussion with him about this a few years ago.
--
stay cool,
Spaceman Spiff
get your own damn grateful dead lyrics.
http://arts.ucsc.edu/gdead/agdl/
Rodney Ulyate
> Rodney Ulyate <rodney...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [snip]
>>>> There must be *some* reason why parents bar their brood from saying
>>>> "bullshit" and "fuck".
>>> Some do some don't.
>> Allow me to correct that: the preponderance do; few do not.
>> As I understand it, Colin, *you* have children. Are you okay with the
>> profusion of swear-words probably replete in their vocabularies?
> [snip]
> oh dear. you haven't been around here long enough.
> colin is not only ok with it, he encourages it.
> colin disputes that anything at all can be considered obscene.
> i had a discussion with him about this a few years ago.
In which case, exhaling deeply, I concede this argument. Well done, Colin.
--
Rodney Ulyate
"The greatest duffer at the game is the most enthusiastic."
R.A. Fitzgerald
CDK
No.
But then I am clearly not as precious as you.
>>>> Fuck is now heard on TV.
>>> The appearance on our television sets of violence and adultery does
>>> not justify them nor render them unoffensive. Why should it be
>>> otherwise with expletives?
>> Adultery in itself isn't necessarily offensive.
>
> How isn't it necessarily offensive?
Adultery is only offensive to the religious.
I know quite a number of married people whoi have sex with people who
are not their partners with full knowledge and blessing of their spouse.
>> The term adultery is a religious one anyway
>
> Yet myriad theism-rejecters demur to it, too.
There are a lot of prudish people Rodney.
There are many people thoiugh that believe that you can in fact have
meaningful sexual relationships with more than one partner.
>> which in itself could be construed as offensive.
>
> How so?
It is an example of one section of the community endeavouring to impose
their narrow view of morality on another section of the community.
>>>> Yes you will get the "religious right" who will kick up a stink and
>>>> complain to the Broadcasting authorities, but most people who watch TV
>>>> are not offended by the word at all.
>>> That some do not take offence to the word does not make the word any
>>> less offensive.
>> That most do not take offense to the word shows that the community at
>> large do not consider it offensive.
>
> Given the ethical corrosion of the community at large, that says very
> little, I'm afraid.
Etchical is a subjective term as well Rodney.
There are as many different interpretations of that word as there is people.
>>> There must be *some* reason why parents bar their brood from saying
>>> "bullshit" and "fuck".
>> Some do some don't.
>
> Allow me to correct that: the preponderance do; few do not.
Maybe in your church they do.
> As I understand it, Colin, *you* have children.
That I do.
> Are you okay with the
> profusion of swear-words probably replete in their vocabularies?
Define swear word Rodney!!
Yes my kids 'swear', the vast majority of kids do. I tend to correct
then if they use any word inappropriately, but I am not so prudish as to
suggest that they don't "swear".
>>>> Taken further the word fuck is extremely common in movies, and
>>>> everyday conversation.
>>> That is more a reflection on the pithy vocabularies of modern
>>> conversationalists than the ostensible unoffensiveness of the term.
>> It is an indication that it is an accepted word in todays language.
>> If it wasn't the film companies would not allow then to be used as it
>> would turn people off their films.
>
> If it was an accepted word into today's language, those films would not
> have age-restrictions imposed on them for using it.
No our censors consider it far more approrpiate for our children to
witness voilence.
Quite simply the rating system in Australia is fucked.
>>>> To say fuck is offensive is to suggest that praying is offensive or
>>>> wearing a sign of your religion is offensive.
>>> I fail to see how one can draw such parallels between profanity and
>>> acceptable religious practice without being one of those iconoclastic
>>> Bible-scorners who turns atheism into recusant piety. In which case
>>> my respect for you is little.
>> The fact that many religions attempt to ram their beliefs down
>> the throats of others is offensive.
>
> What does that have to do with anything? It certainly doesn't validate
> your claim that "[t]o say fuck is offensive is to suggest that praying
> is offensive or wearing a sign of your religion is offensive". So,
> unless you have acquired a sudden fondness for tangents, I really have
> no idea what you're getting at. Do explain.
I believe your assertion that the word fuck is offensive is a religious
based one, particularly given your religiously emotive language.
I do not believe it is a rational one, and I suggest you are attempting
to ram your religious beliefs down my throat.
>> that many religions attempt to demand that their beliefs are the only
>> true beliefs is offensive.
>
> Again, what relevance has that to the matter at hand? You're only
> adding petroleum to my Colin-is-an-atheist-bedlamite inferno.
Given you are clearly taking the view of a regular churchgoer and
endeavouring to suggest it is a rational and reasoned viewpoint, that is
funny.
>> That many religions maintain that their morality is the only morality
>> that is valid is offensive.
>
> I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago.
You are like the 'Moral Majority' Rodney, which incidentally is neither.
CDK
CDK
> Rodney Ulyate <rodney...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [snip]
>>>> There must be *some* reason why parents bar their brood from saying
>>>> "bullshit" and "fuck".
>>> Some do some don't.
>> Allow me to correct that: the preponderance do; few do not.
>>
>> As I understand it, Colin, *you* have children. Are you okay with the
>> profusion of swear-words probably replete in their vocabularies?
>>
> [snip]
>
> oh dear. you haven't been around here long enough.
> colin is not only ok with it, he encourages it.
> colin disputes that anything at all can be considered obscene.
Which is an incorrect represenation of my stance.
I dispute that any word in itself is obscene.
There is a very distinct difference.
In the right context most words can be used in an obscene manner.
To suggest that a word is obscene, just because it can be used in an
obscene way is patently ridiculous.
> i had a discussion with him about this a few years ago.
And clearly missed the point.
CDK
Spaceman Spiff
not much point discussing anything with you, colin.
CDK
Not when you act like kenny Higgs Spliff.
CDK
>
Spaceman Spiff
[snip]
>>
>> not much point discussing anything with you, colin.
>
> Not when you act like kenny Higgs Spliff.
>
and how would that be?
you have your own sense of morality. fine, that's yours and it works for
you.
don't force it on everyone else.
> CDK
Rodney Ulyate
Bullshit.
>>>>> Fuck is now heard on TV.
>>>> The appearance on our television sets of violence and adultery does
>>>> not justify them nor render them unoffensive. Why should it be
>>>> otherwise with expletives?
>>> Adultery in itself isn't necessarily offensive.
>> How isn't it necessarily offensive?
> Adultery is only offensive to the religious.
You abase yourself to a cipher with sweeping (and obviously wrong)
generalisations -- especially when they contradict you.
> I know quite a number of married people whoi have sex with people who
> are not their partners with full knowledge and blessing of their spouse.
Out of interest, do they outnumber those whom you know who find a
smidgeon of fault with wanton, extra-marital bonking?
>>> The term adultery is a religious one anyway
>> Yet myriad theism-rejecters demur to it, too.
> There are a lot of prudish people Rodney.
You say "prudish"; I say "disciplined".
> There are many people thoiugh that believe that you can in fact have
> meaningful sexual relationships with more than one partner.
I have no doubt that you can. The fuck-buddy concept is one which I
wholeheartedly endorse -- but only when the fingers of its participants
are not adorned by shiny bands.
>>> which in itself could be construed as offensive.
>> How so?
> It is an example of one section of the community endeavouring to impose
> their narrow view of morality on another section of the community.
I think that, like so many who feel menaced by voices opposed to theirs,
you have mistaken view-giving for view-imposing. Well could it be
argued that *you* are attempting to impose *your* views on *me*. It was
indeed *you* who kicked off this debate by opining that "bastard" is
"not really" (contrary to what I had averred) "a highly offensive term
anywhere".
It renders somewhat rich your subsequent claim that I was attempting to
ram my religious beliefs (non-existent as they are) down your throat.
>>>>> Yes you will get the "religious right" who will kick up a stink and
>>>>> complain to the Broadcasting authorities, but most people who watch TV
>>>>> are not offended by the word at all.
>>>> That some do not take offence to the word does not make the word any
>>>> less offensive.
>>> That most do not take offense to the word shows that the community at
>>> large do not consider it offensive.
>> Given the ethical corrosion of the community at large, that says very
>> little, I'm afraid.
> Etchical is a subjective term as well Rodney.
> There are as many different interpretations of that word as there is
> people.
Much that is applied objectively is founded on subjectivity, the Law
being the most obvious example. My interpretation of ethics is no
different.
You are asking rather a lot if you expect me not to hold subjective
preconceptions, Colin. You would do well, certainly, to examine your
own first.
>>>> There must be *some* reason why parents bar their brood from saying
>>>> "bullshit" and "fuck".
>>> Some do some don't.
>> Allow me to correct that: the preponderance do; few do not.
> Maybe in your church they do.
I do not go to church.
>> As I understand it, Colin, *you* have children.
> That I do.
'Ooda thunk it? Pratmel's good for something.
>> Are you okay with the profusion of swear-words probably replete in
>> their vocabularies?
> Define swear word Rodney!!
A swear word is a word that is considered, through social construction,
to be unacceptable in proper, everyday discource. It may have
blasphemous, offensive or obscene connotations.
> Yes my kids 'swear', the vast majority of kids do. I tend to correct
> then if they use any word inappropriately, but I am not so prudish as to
> suggest that they don't "swear".
And when would you consider the application of, for the sake of
relevance, "fuck" unacceptable?
>>>>> Taken further the word fuck is extremely common in movies, and
>>>>> everyday conversation.
>>>> That is more a reflection on the pithy vocabularies of modern
>>>> conversationalists than the ostensible unoffensiveness of the term.
>>> It is an indication that it is an accepted word in todays language.
>>> If it wasn't the film companies would not allow then to be used as it
>>> would turn people off their films.
>> If it was an accepted word into today's language, those films would
>> not have age-restrictions imposed on them for using it.
> No our censors consider it far more approrpiate for our children to
> witness voilence.
> Quite simply the rating system in Australia is fucked.
For what it is worth (just in case, by "our", you are implying national
solidarity), I live in South Africa.
>>>>> To say fuck is offensive is to suggest that praying is offensive or
>>>>> wearing a sign of your religion is offensive.
>>>> I fail to see how one can draw such parallels between profanity and
>>>> acceptable religious practice without being one of those
>>>> iconoclastic Bible-scorners who turns atheism into recusant piety.
>>>> In which case my respect for you is little.
>>> The fact that many religions attempt to ram their beliefs down
>>> the throats of others is offensive.
>> What does that have to do with anything? It certainly doesn't
>> validate your claim that "[t]o say fuck is offensive is to suggest
>> that praying is offensive or wearing a sign of your religion is
>> offensive". So, unless you have acquired a sudden fondness for
>> tangents, I really have no idea what you're getting at. Do explain.
> I believe your assertion that the word fuck is offensive is a religious
> based one, particularly given your religiously emotive language.
> I do not believe it is a rational one, and I suggest you are attempting
> to ram your religious beliefs down my throat.
I suggest that you endeavour henceforth to be a trifle less presumptuous
about your co-arguer's religious beliefs.
The instrinsic flaw in that presumptuousness is borne out spectacularly
here: my religious beliefs are none (unless, of course, you believe that
not believing is a belief).
There is a very significant difference, Colin, between those beliefs
which are ethical and those which are religious. That my variety of the
former coincides in some ways with others' variety of the latter does
not necessarily mean that I subscribe to all of the others' variety of
the latter.
Frankly, the notion that a big man up in the sky felt lonely and so to
ease his loneliness created Heaven, Earth and Man, placing Man on Earth
and deciding without active intervention (the sort which might just curb
His loneliness) whether or not they are worthy of Heaven, and banishing
them to Hell if they are not, is one of the more ridiculous that I have
heard touted in my experience of notion-touting.
>>> that many religions attempt to demand that their beliefs are the only
>>> true beliefs is offensive.
>> Again, what relevance has that to the matter at hand? You're only
>> adding petroleum to my Colin-is-an-atheist-bedlamite inferno.
> Given you are clearly taking the view of a regular churchgoer and
> endeavouring to suggest it is a rational and reasoned viewpoint, that is
> funny.
Yes, these things are funniest when you take them under false premises.
>>> That many religions maintain that their morality is the only morality
>>> that is valid is offensive.
>> I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago.
> You are like the 'Moral Majority' Rodney, which incidentally is neither.
It would appear, ironically, that, in your disdain for this non-existent
moral majority, you make yourself even more akin to it than you appear
to believe that I am. You make the mistake of presuming that its
morality is the only morality to which someone with my outlook could
subscribe.
Do ask first in future. I found it offensive.
--
Rodney Ulyate
"I owe it all to little chocolate donuts."
John Belushi, perhaps with sdavmor in mind
CDK
> CDK <micky...@disneyland.com> wrote:
> [snip]
>>> not much point discussing anything with you, colin.
>> Not when you act like kenny Higgs Spliff.
>>
>
> and how would that be?
Misrepresentation.
> you have your own sense of morality. fine, that's yours and it works for
> you.
> don't force it on everyone else.
What like you for example?
CDK
CDK
Should I be offended?
I'm not incidentally.
>>>>>> Fuck is now heard on TV.
>>>>> The appearance on our television sets of violence and adultery does
>>>>> not justify them nor render them unoffensive. Why should it be
>>>>> otherwise with expletives?
>>>> Adultery in itself isn't necessarily offensive.
>>> How isn't it necessarily offensive?
>> Adultery is only offensive to the religious.
>
> You abase yourself to a cipher with sweeping (and obviously wrong)
> generalisations -- especially when they contradict you.
Given that it has been shown in many surveys that 60% of males and 40%
of females admit to having had an extramarital affair it is fair to say
that half the adult population at least don't find adultery offensive.
>> I know quite a number of married people whoi have sex with people who
>> are not their partners with full knowledge and blessing of their spouse.
>
> Out of interest, do they outnumber those whom you know who find a
> smidgeon of fault with wanton, extra-marital bonking?
By quite a margin.
>>>> The term adultery is a religious one anyway
>>> Yet myriad theism-rejecters demur to it, too.
>> There are a lot of prudish people Rodney.
>
> You say "prudish"; I say "disciplined".
It all depends on the rules agreed to in a partnership Rodney.
>> There are many people thoiugh that believe that you can in fact have
>> meaningful sexual relationships with more than one partner.
>
> I have no doubt that you can. The fuck-buddy concept is one which I
> wholeheartedly endorse -- but only when the fingers of its participants
> are not adorned by shiny bands.
Hmm interesting.
You endorse random sex when not in a legal relationship construct, but
once that changes you change your view.
So what about the multitude of 'de facto' couples, is that sort of grey
area?
Also what of pagans who do not hold with the legal construct and have a
handfasting which can involve the exchange of rings yet not be legally a
marraige in any other form than a 'de facto' one?
>>>> which in itself could be construed as offensive.
>>> How so?
>> It is an example of one section of the community endeavouring to
>> impose their narrow view of morality on another section of the community.
>
> I think that, like so many who feel menaced by voices opposed to theirs,
> you have mistaken view-giving for view-imposing. Well could it be
> argued that *you* are attempting to impose *your* views on *me*. It was
> indeed *you* who kicked off this debate by opining that "bastard" is
> "not really" (contrary to what I had averred) "a highly offensive term
> anywhere".
I actually suggested that the word bastard was not an offensive term in
Australia.
you dug out Billy Gates dictionary in an attempt to disagree.
You also said it was "a highly offensive term anywhere", to which i very
accurately replied that it wasn't "really"
It is not an offensive term in quite a number of places.
> It renders somewhat rich your subsequent claim that I was attempting to
> ram my religious beliefs (non-existent as they are) down your throat.
You were making the sweeping generalisation that bastard was "a highly
offensive term anywhere". There is quite a number of places it isn't an
offensive term, and in many others it might be considered mildly
offensive and in a very few places it would be considered 'highly offensive'
You act like it.
>>> As I understand it, Colin, *you* have children.
>> That I do.
>
> 'Ooda thunk it? Pratmel's good for something.
I wouldn't have thought so.
Madlooni is a complete waste of air.
>>> Are you okay with the profusion of swear-words probably replete in
>>> their vocabularies?
>> Define swear word Rodney!!
>
> A swear word is a word that is considered, through social construction,
> to be unacceptable in proper, everyday discource. It may have
> blasphemous, offensive or obscene connotations.
Depending on how my kids use words will depend on how I react.
For example I will admonish them if they use the term 'gay' as an insult.
If they were to say something like "Ken Higgs is a fucking idiot", I
would have no problem with that, as they would be both accurate and
appropriate.
>> Yes my kids 'swear', the vast majority of kids do. I tend to correct
>> then if they use any word inappropriately, but I am not so prudish as
>> to suggest that they don't "swear".
>
> And when would you consider the application of, for the sake of
> relevance, "fuck" unacceptable?
In the presence of their grandparents, or certain other relatives.
>>>>>> Taken further the word fuck is extremely common in movies, and
>>>>>> everyday conversation.
>>>>> That is more a reflection on the pithy vocabularies of modern
>>>>> conversationalists than the ostensible unoffensiveness of the term.
>>>> It is an indication that it is an accepted word in todays language.
>>>> If it wasn't the film companies would not allow then to be used as
>>>> it would turn people off their films.
>>> If it was an accepted word into today's language, those films would
>>> not have age-restrictions imposed on them for using it.
>> No our censors consider it far more approrpiate for our children to
>> witness voilence.
>> Quite simply the rating system in Australia is fucked.
>
> For what it is worth (just in case, by "our", you are implying national
> solidarity), I live in South Africa.
Where I doubt it is much better.
As with pretty much all religion.
You do come accross though as a fundamentalist, with your viewpoints.
Forgive me if I was wrong.
>>>> that many religions attempt to demand that their beliefs are the
>>>> only true beliefs is offensive.
>>> Again, what relevance has that to the matter at hand? You're only
>>> adding petroleum to my Colin-is-an-atheist-bedlamite inferno.
>> Given you are clearly taking the view of a regular churchgoer and
>> endeavouring to suggest it is a rational and reasoned viewpoint, that
>> is funny.
>
> Yes, these things are funniest when you take them under false premises.
I generally go by the idea that if it walks like a duck and sounds like
a duck it probably is a duck.
And you were sounding just like a fundamentalist.
>>>> That many religions maintain that their morality is the only
>>>> morality that is valid is offensive.
>>> I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago.
>> You are like the 'Moral Majority' Rodney, which incidentally is neither.
>
> It would appear, ironically, that, in your disdain for this non-existent
> moral majority, you make yourself even more akin to it than you appear
> to believe that I am. You make the mistake of presuming that its
> morality is the only morality to which someone with my outlook could
> subscribe.
>
> Do ask first in future. I found it offensive.
My apologies.
CDk
>
kenh...@hotmail.com
> Spaceman Spiff wrote:
And there's the rub.
You have your view, and both Rodney and Spaceman have theirs (which
also differ, even though they both disagree with you).
They've not resorted to personal attacks and have argued their points
quite civily. They've even conceded the points to you.
Yet you are obviously quite incapable of discussing anything with
anyone without resorting to personal attacks and indulging in petty
hectoring and point scoring. You've even taken the opportunity to to
throw a barb or two in my direction.
Hasn't it ever struck you that the reason you argue with and trade
insults with virtually every poster you interact with on rsc is down
to your personality, rather than theirs?
No, I don't suppose it has..............
Higgs
Spaceman Spiff
however, you refuse to accept that some (non-racist) words should be banned
from sledging, etc, because they may be considered obscene.
e.g., "bastard" may not be a big deal in australia, but it certainly is in
india.
CDK
> CDK <micky...@disneyland.com> wrote:
>> Spaceman Spiff wrote:
>>> CDK <micky...@disneyland.com> wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>>>> not much point discussing anything with you, colin.
>>>> Not when you act like kenny Higgs Spliff.
>>>>
>>> and how would that be?
>> Misrepresentation.
>>
>>
>>> you have your own sense of morality. fine, that's yours and it works
>>> for you.
>>> don't force it on everyone else.
>> What like you for example?
>>
> i have not tried to force my morality on you.
> however, you refuse to accept that some (non-racist) words should be banned
> from sledging, etc, because they may be considered obscene.
The words themselves are not obscene.
Would you ban all hammers from use just because someone uses one as a
murder weapon?
> e.g., "bastard" may not be a big deal in australia, but it certainly is in
> india.
Yet "monkey" is perfectly alright.
CDK
Rodney Ulyate
> Rodney Ulyate wrote:
>> CDK wrote:
>>> Rodney Ulyate wrote:
>>>> CDK wrote:
>>>>> Rodney Ulyate wrote:
>>>>>> CDK wrote:
>>>>>>> Fuck is now heard on TV.
>>>>>> The appearance on our television sets of violence and adultery
>>>>>> does not justify them nor render them unoffensive. Why should it
>>>>>> be otherwise with expletives?
>>>>> Adultery in itself isn't necessarily offensive.
>>>> How isn't it necessarily offensive?
>>> Adultery is only offensive to the religious.
>> You abase yourself to a cipher with sweeping (and obviously wrong)
>> generalisations -- especially when they contradict you.
> Given that it has been shown in many surveys that 60% of males and 40%
> of females admit to having had an extramarital affair it is fair to say
> that half the adult population at least don't find adultery offensive.
I find that logic somewhat difficult to grasp. That we do something
does not necessarily mean that we think it an inoffensive thing to do.
By way of crude example, yours truly often finds himself urinating
against trees in public parks. Although he knows that it is a most
offensive thing to do -- it is, in fact, a prosecutable offence --, and
although his bladder is more than capable of standing the test of time,
he does it anyway.
I cannot say whether it is because he find trees alluring or the act of
peeing irresistibly gratifying, or indeed whether his crapulence gets
the better of him on such occasions, but I *can* say that he does not
for one second endorse it. Certainly, when he is so unfortunate as to
see someone relieving himself at the expense of an unsuspecting oak, he
feels highly offended.
>>>>> The term adultery is a religious one anyway
>>>> Yet myriad theism-rejecters demur to it, too.
>>> There are a lot of prudish people Rodney.
>> You say "prudish"; I say "disciplined".
> It all depends on the rules agreed to in a partnership Rodney.
Unfortunately, those rules are often -- nay, usually -- set down
tacitly, which makes applying them somewhat difficult and litigious.
Premarital arrangements are far less common that one would think. Many
are the unfortunate souls who have fallen out with their partners owing
to the infringement of some unspoken antenup -- a wholly preventable
occurrence but for the "unspoken" bit.
>>> There are many people thoiugh that believe that you can in fact have
>>> meaningful sexual relationships with more than one partner.
>> I have no doubt that you can. The fuck-buddy concept is one which I
>> wholeheartedly endorse -- but only when the fingers of its
>> participants are not adorned by shiny bands.
> Hmm interesting.
> You endorse random sex when not in a legal relationship construct, but
> once that changes you change your view.
> So what about the multitude of 'de facto' couples, is that sort of grey
> area?
> Also what of pagans who do not hold with the legal construct and have a
> handfasting which can involve the exchange of rings yet not be legally a
> marraige in any other form than a 'de facto' one?
I was not referring to marriage in the legal sense. Not at all. To
distort a piece of wise counsel that I was given recently, I generally
go by the idea that, if it walks like a marriage and sounds like a
marriage, it probably is a marriage. And, even if it is not, it is
usually marriagey enough for me to leave hair-splitting to the solicitors.
>>>>> which in itself could be construed as offensive.
>>>> How so?
>>> It is an example of one section of the community endeavouring to
>>> impose their narrow view of morality on another section of the
>>> community.
>> I think that, like so many who feel menaced by voices opposed to
>> theirs, you have mistaken view-giving for view-imposing. Well could
>> it be argued that *you* are attempting to impose *your* views on
>> *me*. It was indeed *you* who kicked off this debate by opining that
>> "bastard" is "not really" (contrary to what I had averred) "a highly
>> offensive term anywhere".
> I actually suggested that the word bastard was not an offensive term in
> Australia.
I was getting at what you said, not what you were suggesting in saying
it. The inverted commas ought to have made that as obvious as Chester's
missing limb.
> you dug out Billy Gates dictionary in an attempt to disagree.
I disagreed with you even before I employed the dictionary. I used it
only in an attempt to justify that disagreement.
> You also said it was "a highly offensive term anywhere", to which i very
> accurately replied that it wasn't "really"
[...]
Is that not exactly what I recounted in the piece of my post to which
you were responding?
"It was indeed *you*," I wrote, "who kicked off this debate by opining
that 'bastard' is 'not really' (contrary to what I had averred) 'a
highly offensive term anywhere'."
By responding with "You also said it was 'a highly offensive term
anywhere', to which i very accurately [modest fellow] replied that it
wasn't 'really'", you are essentially just repeating what I said, not
adding to it, as the word "also" would seem to suggest.
In light of all this, I must ask what in the name of Euclid you are on
about. So, what in the name of Euclid are you on about, Colin?
> It is not an offensive term in quite a number of places.
[...]
I sent an email to my Australian auntie recently, and she and my cousin
(her daughter) are both in steadfast disagreement with you. Which in
itself puts to bed the ridiculous notion that "bastard" is not an
offensive term Down Under, as there are people Down Under who find it
offensive.
So there.
>>>>>> There must be *some* reason why parents bar their brood from
>>>>>> saying "bullshit" and "fuck".
>>>>> Some do some don't.
>>>> Allow me to correct that: the preponderance do; few do not.
>>> Maybe in your church they do.
>> I do not go to church.
> You act like it.
How so? I do not recall advocating a visit to the local vicar,
referring you to Psalms 11:1 -- "In the Lord, put your trust" -- nor
even encouraging you to get down on your knees and proffer supplications
to an imaginary friend, so what about my behaviour you find akin to that
of a church-goer would be most intriguing to learn.
Really, Colin, your reasoning (when there is some) confounds me.
>>>> As I understand it, Colin, *you* have children.
>>> That I do.
>> 'Ooda thunk it? Pratmel's good for something.
> I wouldn't have thought so.
> Madlooni is a complete waste of air.
He doubtless believes that you are arguing with yourself.
That right, Pratmel?
>>>> Are you okay with the profusion of swear-words probably replete in
>>>> their vocabularies?
>>> Define swear word Rodney!!
>> A swear word is a word that is considered, through social
>> construction, to be unacceptable in proper, everyday discource. It
>> may have blasphemous, offensive or obscene connotations.
> Depending on how my kids use words will depend on how I react.
> For example I will admonish them if they use the term 'gay' as an insult.
[...]
That is an interesting case. In my part of the world, "gay" has come to
mean something completely different to "happy" and "homosexual", whilst
still maintaining those two meanings.
Walking out of the gratuitous trash that was /Die Hard 4.0/ a few months
ago, and wondering just how much Brucie has left in the tank, I found
myself telling my peers how very "gay" it was.
Essentially, the word has come to mean also "bad" and "poor-quality" in
its adjectival form.
>>> Yes my kids 'swear', the vast majority of kids do. I tend to correct
>>> then if they use any word inappropriately, but I am not so prudish as
>>> to suggest that they don't "swear".
>> And when would you consider the application of, for the sake of
>> relevance, "fuck" unacceptable?
> In the presence of their grandparents, or certain other relatives.
[...]
<gasps>
Why? Do they find it ... *offensive*?!
> You do come accross though as a fundamentalist, with your viewpoints.
> Forgive me if I was wrong.
You were wrong, but, however false your apology may be, you are
forgiven. (There's me being a church-goer again.)
>>>>> that many religions attempt to demand that their beliefs are the
>>>>> only true beliefs is offensive.
>>>> Again, what relevance has that to the matter at hand? You're only
>>>> adding petroleum to my Colin-is-an-atheist-bedlamite inferno.
>>> Given you are clearly taking the view of a regular churchgoer and
>>> endeavouring to suggest it is a rational and reasoned viewpoint, that
>>> is funny.
>> Yes, these things are funniest when you take them under false premises.
> I generally go by the idea that if it walks like a duck and sounds like
> a duck it probably is a duck.
Thankfully, unlike most flat-billed, short-legged, water-bound,
quack-voiced, web-footed, down-covered incarnations, I am able to
confirm whether or not I am a duck. You need but ask.
<snip>
--
Rodney Ulyate
"He's gone to put out the milk bottles and the back door's closed behind
him!"
Danny Morrison on a stumping
Rodney Ulyate
> CDK wrote:
>> Rodney Ulyate wrote:
>>> CDK wrote:
>>>> Rodney Ulyate wrote:
>>>>> CDK wrote:
>>>>>> Rodney Ulyate wrote:
>>>>>>> CDK wrote:
> [...]
>>>>>>>> Fuck is now heard on TV.
You know what would have been real clever?
<blank expressions of incomprehension>
Is if I had written "So is 'BLEEP!'" in response to that.
<laughter>
Ah well.
--
Rodney Ulyate
"I will still be Sreesanth, because that brings out the best in me."
Sri Sreesanth
Spaceman Spiff
> Spaceman Spiff wrote:
>> CDK <micky...@disneyland.com> wrote:
>>> Spaceman Spiff wrote:
>>>> CDK <micky...@disneyland.com> wrote:
>>>> [snip]
>>>>>> not much point discussing anything with you, colin.
>>>>> Not when you act like kenny Higgs Spliff.
>>>>>
>>>> and how would that be?
>>> Misrepresentation.
>>>
>>>
>>>> you have your own sense of morality. fine, that's yours and it
>>>> works for you.
>>>> don't force it on everyone else.
>>> What like you for example?
>>>
>> i have not tried to force my morality on you.
>> however, you refuse to accept that some (non-racist) words should be
>> banned from sledging, etc, because they may be considered obscene.
>
> The words themselves are not obscene.
>
well, if you are referring to words as a collection of letter, then
obviously they are not obscene.
but their meanings and the intent with which they are uttered can make them
obscene in context.
> Would you ban all hammers from use just because someone uses one as a
> murder weapon?
>
>
>> e.g., "bastard" may not be a big deal in australia, but it certainly
>> is in india.
>
> Yet "monkey" is perfectly alright.
>
in india, it is.
> CDK
CDK
> CDK <micky...@disneyland.com> wrote:
>> Spaceman Spiff wrote:
>>> CDK <micky...@disneyland.com> wrote:
>>>> Spaceman Spiff wrote:
>>>>> CDK <micky...@disneyland.com> wrote:
>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>> not much point discussing anything with you, colin.
>>>>>> Not when you act like kenny Higgs Spliff.
>>>>>>
>>>>> and how would that be?
>>>> Misrepresentation.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> you have your own sense of morality. fine, that's yours and it
>>>>> works for you.
>>>>> don't force it on everyone else.
>>>> What like you for example?
>>>>
>>> i have not tried to force my morality on you.
>>> however, you refuse to accept that some (non-racist) words should be
>>> banned from sledging, etc, because they may be considered obscene.
>> The words themselves are not obscene.
>>
>
> well, if you are referring to words as a collection of letter, then
> obviously they are not obscene.
> but their meanings and the intent with which they are uttered can make them
> obscene in context.
Wow you have finally got it.
>> Would you ban all hammers from use just because someone uses one as a
>> murder weapon?
>>
>>
>>> e.g., "bastard" may not be a big deal in australia, but it certainly
>>> is in india.
>> Yet "monkey" is perfectly alright.
> in india, it is.
Even if you use the word to address someone you know considers it a
racist term?
CDK
CDK
The act in itself is not offensive.
It would be offensive for example if you did it in front of someone else
deliberately to offend.
But if you were discreet then it surely isn't offensive.
> -- it is, in fact, a prosecutable offence --, and
> although his bladder is more than capable of standing the test of time,
> he does it anyway.
>
> I cannot say whether it is because he find trees alluring or the act of
> peeing irresistibly gratifying, or indeed whether his crapulence gets
> the better of him on such occasions, but I *can* say that he does not
> for one second endorse it. Certainly, when he is so unfortunate as to
> see someone relieving himself at the expense of an unsuspecting oak, he
> feels highly offended.
For what reason?
Because the person was not discreet?
Because it isn't you?
To be offended by something you yourself do it quite hypocritical.
>>>>>> The term adultery is a religious one anyway
>>>>> Yet myriad theism-rejecters demur to it, too.
>>>> There are a lot of prudish people Rodney.
>>> You say "prudish"; I say "disciplined".
>> It all depends on the rules agreed to in a partnership Rodney.
>
> Unfortunately, those rules are often -- nay, usually -- set down
> tacitly, which makes applying them somewhat difficult and litigious.
>
> Premarital arrangements are far less common that one would think. Many
> are the unfortunate souls who have fallen out with their partners owing
> to the infringement of some unspoken antenup -- a wholly preventable
> occurrence but for the "unspoken" bit.
And many people have well negotiated partnerships that may or may not
have been negotiated pre marriage. I know of people who have negotiated
before marriage and others who have only had the discussion after marriage.
>>>> There are many people thoiugh that believe that you can in fact have
>>>> meaningful sexual relationships with more than one partner.
>>> I have no doubt that you can. The fuck-buddy concept is one which I
>>> wholeheartedly endorse -- but only when the fingers of its
>>> participants are not adorned by shiny bands.
>> Hmm interesting.
>> You endorse random sex when not in a legal relationship construct, but
>> once that changes you change your view.
>> So what about the multitude of 'de facto' couples, is that sort of
>> grey area?
>> Also what of pagans who do not hold with the legal construct and have
>> a handfasting which can involve the exchange of rings yet not be
>> legally a marraige in any other form than a 'de facto' one?
>
> I was not referring to marriage in the legal sense. Not at all. To
> distort a piece of wise counsel that I was given recently, I generally
> go by the idea that, if it walks like a marriage and sounds like a
> marriage, it probably is a marriage. And, even if it is not, it is
> usually marriagey enough for me to leave hair-splitting to the solicitors.
So where then does adultery start?
Can gay couples commit adultery?
<snip>
>>>>> Are you okay with the profusion of swear-words probably replete in
>>>>> their vocabularies?
>>>> Define swear word Rodney!!
>>> A swear word is a word that is considered, through social
>>> construction, to be unacceptable in proper, everyday discource. It
>>> may have blasphemous, offensive or obscene connotations.
>> Depending on how my kids use words will depend on how I react.
>> For example I will admonish them if they use the term 'gay' as an insult.
> [...]
>
> That is an interesting case. In my part of the world, "gay" has come to
> mean something completely different to "happy" and "homosexual", whilst
> still maintaining those two meanings.
>
> Walking out of the gratuitous trash that was /Die Hard 4.0/ a few months
> ago, and wondering just how much Brucie has left in the tank, I found
> myself telling my peers how very "gay" it was.
>
> Essentially, the word has come to mean also "bad" and "poor-quality" in
> its adjectival form.
I suggest that if you were to use that term to describe the film to a
gay person they would be quite offended.
>>>> Yes my kids 'swear', the vast majority of kids do. I tend to
>>>> correct then if they use any word inappropriately, but I am not so
>>>> prudish as to suggest that they don't "swear".
>>> And when would you consider the application of, for the sake of
>>> relevance, "fuck" unacceptable?
>> In the presence of their grandparents, or certain other relatives.
> [...]
>
> <gasps>
>
> Why? Do they find it ... *offensive*?!
My father is a minister
>> You do come accross though as a fundamentalist, with your viewpoints.
>> Forgive me if I was wrong.
>
> You were wrong, but, however false your apology may be, you are
> forgiven. (There's me being a church-goer again.)
>
>>>>>> that many religions attempt to demand that their beliefs are the
>>>>>> only true beliefs is offensive.
>>>>> Again, what relevance has that to the matter at hand? You're only
>>>>> adding petroleum to my Colin-is-an-atheist-bedlamite inferno.
>>>> Given you are clearly taking the view of a regular churchgoer and
>>>> endeavouring to suggest it is a rational and reasoned viewpoint,
>>>> that is funny.
>>> Yes, these things are funniest when you take them under false premises.
>> I generally go by the idea that if it walks like a duck and sounds
>> like a duck it probably is a duck.
>
> Thankfully, unlike most flat-billed, short-legged, water-bound,
> quack-voiced, web-footed, down-covered incarnations, I am able to
> confirm whether or not I am a duck. You need but ask.
You still come across as a fundamentalist.
CDK
SultanOfSwing
> prak...@gmail.com:
>
> > On Jan 13, 12:31 pm, Rodney Ulyate <rodney.uly...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> pratmel wrote:
> >> <snip>
> >> By God, you are a coward.
> >> Rodney Ulyate
> > So it is back to Rodney now. What happened to your uncle Stephen?
>
> He's my brother. And nothing happened to him, you sick fuck; he is
> sleeping at present.
>
> > As I asked, how old are you Stephen? Presumably at least as old as
> > Rodney? Probably exactly methinks :-)
> > Don't you grow tired of playing these childish games?
>
> Stop it. If you don't, I'll find a lawyer who will.
I seriously doubt whether you would be able to sue Prakash
Melwani for slander on Usenet. IIRC, Alvey threatened
to sue Larry De Silva for slander a couple of years back.
I don't know the eventual outcome. IMHO, the very
anarchical nature of Usenet makes it seemingly impossible
to sue anyone. (Our resident lawyer, Aditya Basrur, can confirm
whether there are any precedents of people suing for slander on
Usenet)
Not that I agree with Prakash. How on earth could he have
confused a 19 year old pipsqueak with curmudgeonly CDK?
James Farrar
There are precedents for suing for *libel* on Usenet, Usenet being a
published medium.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godfrey_v._Demon_Internet_Service
Spaceman Spiff
well, duh!
i never said that the words should be expurged from the dictionary.
my only point was that the use of certain words in specific contexts should
be disallowed on the cricket field.
calling someone a fucking cocksucker is always going to be more provocative
than calling him a big fat stupidhead, even though its all just words.
that's just reality, and if you don't understand that then you're living in
some fantasy world.
however, feel free to use any words you like at home with your family,
friends and your clients.
>
>>> Would you ban all hammers from use just because someone uses one as
>>> a murder weapon?
>>>
>>>
>>>> e.g., "bastard" may not be a big deal in australia, but it
>>>> certainly is in india.
>>> Yet "monkey" is perfectly alright.
>
>> in india, it is.
>
> Even if you use the word to address someone you know considers it a
> racist term?
>
frankly, in india, monkey is playground abuse used only by kids.
no adult would use it to swear at another adult.
if an indian wanted to be racist, there are a lot more choice words that he
could use rather than monkey.
regardless, whatever was said by harby on the field, roy had it coming to
him for launching an absolutely unprovoked stream of abuse at harby.
they had shaken hands at mumbai and agreed not to swear or sledge each
other.
too bad that symonds lied about that agreement.
CDK
So i guess you didn't see the Indian crowds during the last ODO series
Australia played there, or is the definition of adult in India 'over 100'?
> regardless, whatever was said by harby on the field, roy had it coming to
> him for launching an absolutely unprovoked stream of abuse at harby.
So you condone racist abuse if it is in retaliation to non racist abuse?
> they had shaken hands at mumbai and agreed not to swear or sledge each
> other.
> too bad that symonds lied about that agreement.
Too bad Harby lied in the CoC hearing.
CDK
kenh...@hotmail.com
It was pretty poor behaviour.
I dunno who was responsible, it may well have been Australian expats
in India, so we probably need a bit more proof than we currently have.
> > regardless, whatever was said by harby on the field, roy had it coming to
> > him for launching an absolutely unprovoked stream of abuse at harby.
>
> So you condone racist abuse if it is in retaliation to non racist abuse?
>
Well, you obviously condone racist abuse.
You supported the abuse of SAfricans in Perth
> > they had shaken hands at mumbai and agreed not to swear or sledge each
> > other.
> > too bad that symonds lied about that agreement.
>
> Too bad Harby lied in the CoC hearing.
>
Where did he lie?
He denied using the term monkey.
There's no proof that he used that term
Higgs
Spaceman Spiff
[snip]
>>
>> frankly, in india, monkey is playground abuse used only by kids.
>> no adult would use it to swear at another adult.
>> if an indian wanted to be racist, there are a lot more choice words
>> that he could use rather than monkey.
>
> So i guess you didn't see the Indian crowds during the last ODO series
> Australia played there, or is the definition of adult in India 'over
> 100'?
if the aussies hadn't made such huge deal about how it offended symonds,
they may not have done it.
once the crowd learned that an innocuous word like "monkey" could reap such
huge dividends, it was inevitable.
symonds started out the tour by publicly disparaging the indian team and its
fans.
what goes around comes around.
>
>> regardless, whatever was said by harby on the field, roy had it
>> coming to him for launching an absolutely unprovoked stream of abuse
>> at harby.
>
> So you condone racist abuse if it is in retaliation to non racist
> abuse?
if you start beating someone with a stick, would he be justified in shooting
you with a gun?
>
>> they had shaken hands at mumbai and agreed not to swear or sledge
>> each other.
>> too bad that symonds lied about that agreement.
>
> Too bad Harby lied in the CoC hearing.
>
prove it.
CDK
> CDK <micky...@disneyland.com> wrote:
> [snip]
>>> frankly, in india, monkey is playground abuse used only by kids.
>>> no adult would use it to swear at another adult.
>>> if an indian wanted to be racist, there are a lot more choice words
>>> that he could use rather than monkey.
>> So i guess you didn't see the Indian crowds during the last ODO series
>> Australia played there, or is the definition of adult in India 'over
>> 100'?
>
> if the aussies hadn't made such huge deal about how it offended symonds,
> they may not have done it.
So you are condonming racist crowd reactions?
> once the crowd learned that an innocuous word like "monkey" could reap such
> huge dividends, it was inevitable.
So that makes it right?
> symonds started out the tour by publicly disparaging the indian team and its
> fans.
He said India had gone over the top with their celebrations on winning
the 20/20 WC.
> what goes around comes around.
So racial abuse is acceptable if someone has made crictical comment on
your behaviour?
>>> regardless, whatever was said by harby on the field, roy had it
>>> coming to him for launching an absolutely unprovoked stream of abuse
>>> at harby.
>> So you condone racist abuse if it is in retaliation to non racist
>> abuse?
>
> if you start beating someone with a stick, would he be justified in shooting
> you with a gun?
Definitely not.
>>> they had shaken hands at mumbai and agreed not to swear or sledge
>>> each other.
>>> too bad that symonds lied about that agreement.
>> Too bad Harby lied in the CoC hearing.
>>
>
> prove it.
There in lies the rub. I believe he called Symonds a monkey. The
stories coming from the Indian camp were incredibly inconsistent. And
the standover tactics used by the BCCI were disgraceful.
CDK
Spaceman Spiff
> Spaceman Spiff wrote:
>> CDK <micky...@disneyland.com> wrote:
>> [snip]
>>>> frankly, in india, monkey is playground abuse used only by kids.
>>>> no adult would use it to swear at another adult.
>>>> if an indian wanted to be racist, there are a lot more choice words
>>>> that he could use rather than monkey.
>>> So i guess you didn't see the Indian crowds during the last ODO
>>> series Australia played there, or is the definition of adult in
>>> India 'over 100'?
>>
>> if the aussies hadn't made such huge deal about how it offended
>> symonds, they may not have done it.
>
> So you are condonming racist crowd reactions?
>
i am explaining it.
>
>> once the crowd learned that an innocuous word like "monkey" could
>> reap such huge dividends, it was inevitable.
>
> So that makes it right?
>
i don't care one way or the other. i am just explaining why it happened.
>> symonds started out the tour by publicly disparaging the indian team
>> and its fans.
>
> He said India had gone over the top with their celebrations on winning
> the 20/20 WC.
>
>
>> what goes around comes around.
>
> So racial abuse is acceptable if someone has made crictical comment on
> your behaviour?
>
i did not say that. symonds was already persona non grata with the indian
public.
>
>>>> regardless, whatever was said by harby on the field, roy had it
>>>> coming to him for launching an absolutely unprovoked stream of
>>>> abuse at harby.
>>> So you condone racist abuse if it is in retaliation to non racist
>>> abuse?
>>
>> if you start beating someone with a stick, would he be justified in
>> shooting you with a gun?
>
> Definitely not.
strange world you live in.
so you would rather that this hypothetical person (say a woman) be beaten to
death with a baseball bat by some thug, than that she defend herself with a
gun?
>
>
>>>> they had shaken hands at mumbai and agreed not to swear or sledge
>>>> each other.
>>>> too bad that symonds lied about that agreement.
>>> Too bad Harby lied in the CoC hearing.
>>>
>>
>> prove it.
>
> There in lies the rub. I believe he called Symonds a monkey.
i.e., you cannot prove it.
i think symonds called harby a fucking faggot.
> The stories coming from the Indian camp were incredibly inconsistent. And
> the standover tactics used by the BCCI were disgraceful.
>
can you point out the inconsistencies in the stories coming from the indian
camp?
CDK
> CDK <micky...@disneyland.com> wrote:
>> Spaceman Spiff wrote:
>>> CDK <micky...@disneyland.com> wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>>>> frankly, in india, monkey is playground abuse used only by kids.
>>>>> no adult would use it to swear at another adult.
>>>>> if an indian wanted to be racist, there are a lot more choice words
>>>>> that he could use rather than monkey.
>>>> So i guess you didn't see the Indian crowds during the last ODO
>>>> series Australia played there, or is the definition of adult in
>>>> India 'over 100'?
>>> if the aussies hadn't made such huge deal about how it offended
>>> symonds, they may not have done it.
>> So you are condonming racist crowd reactions?
>>
>
> i am explaining it.
Sounds like condoning it.
>>> once the crowd learned that an innocuous word like "monkey" could
>>> reap such huge dividends, it was inevitable.
>> So that makes it right?
>>
>
> i don't care one way or the other. i am just explaining why it happened.
So racism is something that you don't care about!!!
>>> symonds started out the tour by publicly disparaging the indian team
>>> and its fans.
>> He said India had gone over the top with their celebrations on winning
>> the 20/20 WC.
>>
>>
>>> what goes around comes around.
>> So racial abuse is acceptable if someone has made crictical comment on
>> your behaviour?
>>
>
> i did not say that. symonds was already persona non grata with the indian
> public.
So you make excuses for their racism. Sounds like you consider it
acceptable.
>>>>> regardless, whatever was said by harby on the field, roy had it
>>>>> coming to him for launching an absolutely unprovoked stream of
>>>>> abuse at harby.
>>>> So you condone racist abuse if it is in retaliation to non racist
>>>> abuse?
>>> if you start beating someone with a stick, would he be justified in
>>> shooting you with a gun?
>> Definitely not.
>
> strange world you live in.
> so you would rather that this hypothetical person (say a woman) be beaten to
> death with a baseball bat by some thug, than that she defend herself with a
> gun?
You said nothing about beating somone to DEATH with a stick.
In my world the person wouldn't have the option of having a gun. The
more guns that are available to the general public the more people who
get killed by guns.
>>>>> they had shaken hands at mumbai and agreed not to swear or sledge
>>>>> each other.
>>>>> too bad that symonds lied about that agreement.
>>>> Too bad Harby lied in the CoC hearing.
>>>>
>>> prove it.
>> There in lies the rub. I believe he called Symonds a monkey.
>
> i.e., you cannot prove it.
> i think symonds called harby a fucking faggot.
Which is not as bad as Harby calling Symonds a monkey.
Almost as bad, but not as bad.
>> The stories coming from the Indian camp were incredibly inconsistent. And
>> the standover tactics used by the BCCI were disgraceful.
> can you point out the inconsistencies in the stories coming from the indian
> camp?
Yep there were claims that Harby said nothing and there were claims he
said Teri Maaki (however you spell the selected obsfucation)
CDK
Lenin Maran
news:47aa...@news.comindico.com.au...
>
> Yep there were claims that Harby said nothing and there were claims he
The claim was that Harby said nothing racist that obviously includes TM.
CDK
> "CDK" <micky...@disneyland.com> wrote in message
> news:47aa...@news.comindico.com.au...
>
>> Yep there were claims that Harby said nothing and there were claims he
> The claim was that Harby said nothing racist that obviously includes TM.
Tendulkar said nothing untoward was said.
Funny that Harby was found guilty of abuse.
Does that mean that Tendulkar thinks teri maaki is accpetable?
Or is he lying about hearing what was said?
CDK
rodney...@gmail.com
posts to Usenet impossible.
guyan...@yahoo.com
> I am going to concede this one, Colin. Demands on my time make long
> posts to Usenet impossible.
Nigger is back, Hey motherfucker what post to yourself from different
IDs, you piece of shit!
Spaceman Spiff
> Spaceman Spiff wrote:
>> CDK <micky...@disneyland.com> wrote:
>>> Spaceman Spiff wrote:
>>>> CDK <micky...@disneyland.com> wrote:
>>>> [snip]
>>>>>> frankly, in india, monkey is playground abuse used only by kids.
>>>>>> no adult would use it to swear at another adult.
>>>>>> if an indian wanted to be racist, there are a lot more choice
>>>>>> words that he could use rather than monkey.
>>>>> So i guess you didn't see the Indian crowds during the last ODO
>>>>> series Australia played there, or is the definition of adult in
>>>>> India 'over 100'?
>>>> if the aussies hadn't made such huge deal about how it offended
>>>> symonds, they may not have done it.
>>> So you are condonming racist crowd reactions?
>>>
>>
>> i am explaining it.
>
> Sounds like condoning it.
>
you hear what you want to hear.
>
>>>> once the crowd learned that an innocuous word like "monkey" could
>>>> reap such huge dividends, it was inevitable.
>>> So that makes it right?
>>>
>>
>> i don't care one way or the other. i am just explaining why it
>> happened.
>
> So racism is something that you don't care about!!!
>
as a non-white living in a predominantly white country with a history of
racism, i have seen and experienced more racism than you will ever know.
and based upon my experiences, i really don't care if poor diddums symonds
has his feelings hurt by being called a monkey.
>
>>>> symonds started out the tour by publicly disparaging the indian
>>>> team and its fans.
>>> He said India had gone over the top with their celebrations on
>>> winning the 20/20 WC.
>>>
>>>
>>>> what goes around comes around.
>>> So racial abuse is acceptable if someone has made crictical comment
>>> on your behaviour?
>>>
>>
>> i did not say that. symonds was already persona non grata with the
>> indian public.
>
> So you make excuses for their racism. Sounds like you consider it
> acceptable.
>
frankly, i really don't care for symonds at all. i don't care for him or how
he feels.
he made himself unwelcome in india by making disparaging comments about the
indian team and the indian fans as soon as he stepped on indian soil.
he made it publicly known that being called a monkey was offensive to him.
what did you think was going to happen next?
i am not making any comment about whether it is right or wrong, because i
personally dislike symonds, but it is what it is.
how is this any different from the treatment the south africans received in
oz a few years ago, which you lot tried to pass off as the work of a few
seth african expats?
>
>>>>>> regardless, whatever was said by harby on the field, roy had it
>>>>>> coming to him for launching an absolutely unprovoked stream of
>>>>>> abuse at harby.
>>>>> So you condone racist abuse if it is in retaliation to non racist
>>>>> abuse?
>>>> if you start beating someone with a stick, would he be justified in
>>>> shooting you with a gun?
>>> Definitely not.
>>
>> strange world you live in.
>> so you would rather that this hypothetical person (say a woman) be
>> beaten to death with a baseball bat by some thug, than that she
>> defend herself with a gun?
>
> You said nothing about beating somone to DEATH with a stick.
>
doesn't matter. if you launch an unprovoked attack on someone, you lose all
right to complain about how they respond.
it was true for mcgrath and sarwan, and it is true for symonds and harby.
the only distinction i would draw is crossing the line from verbal to
physical- i.e., responding to verbal attack with a physical response.
> In my world the person wouldn't have the option of having a gun. The
> more guns that are available to the general public the more people who
> get killed by guns.
>
i agree. but the reality is that there will always be members of the general
public (perhaps not in oz) who have guns.
>
>>>>>> they had shaken hands at mumbai and agreed not to swear or sledge
>>>>>> each other.
>>>>>> too bad that symonds lied about that agreement.
>>>>> Too bad Harby lied in the CoC hearing.
>>>>>
>>>> prove it.
>>> There in lies the rub. I believe he called Symonds a monkey.
>>
>> i.e., you cannot prove it.
>> i think symonds called harby a fucking faggot.
>
> Which is not as bad as Harby calling Symonds a monkey.
>
why not? why is homophobia better than racism?
> Almost as bad, but not as bad.
>
what is the difference in punishment for homophobic behavior in oz? how
about for racist behavior?
>
>
>>> The stories coming from the Indian camp were incredibly
>>> inconsistent. And the standover tactics used by the BCCI were
>>> disgraceful.
>
>> can you point out the inconsistencies in the stories coming from the
>> indian camp?
>
>
> Yep there were claims that Harby said nothing and there were claims he
> said Teri Maaki (however you spell the selected obsfucation)
>
nonsense. tendulkar said that harby did not say anything significant. he
never said that harby said nothing. obviously he said something. everybody
could see that he said something. he never denied that he abused symonds.
teri maaki is roughly on par with motherfucker, which, if i am to believe
you, is appropriate language for business conversations between accountants
and their clients.
i.e., nothing significant (at least in oz).
> CDK
--
stay cool,
Spaceman Spiff
The pig go. Go is to the fountain. The pig put foot. Grunt. Foot in
what? ketchup. The dove fly. Fly is in sky. The dove drop something.
The something on the pig. The pig disgusting. The pig rattle. Rattle
with dove. The dove angry. The pig leave. The dove produce. Produce is
chicken wing. With wing bark. No Quack.
http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/No,_We_Need_a_Neural_Network.aspx
rodney...@gmail.com
> On Feb 7, 9:16 am, rodney.uly...@gmail.com wrote:
> > I am going to concede this one, Colin. Demands on my time make long
> > posts to Usenet impossible.
> Nigger
My skin is of a hue commonly described as white, although, owing to a
few days beneath the harsh Grahamstown sun, it is really quite brown.
<snip incoherent bile>
pks-gm
sorry about that maan, we guyanese have seen too much racism from
blacks! Stay cool.
rodney...@gmail.com
'Tsall good.