"English" county cricket

[RH156RH]

Hants v Mddx being played today

Hants

JJ Weatherley
JHK Adam
SM Ervine
FS Organ
IG Holland
CM Dickinson
GK Berg
KJ Abbott
MS Crane
FH Edwards

4 English
4 SA
1 Oz
1 Windies
1 Zim

Mddx

SD Robson
NRD Compton
SS Eskinazi
MDE Holden
A Voges
JA Simpson
JEC Franklin (c)
JAR Harris
OP Rayner
TG Helm
ST Finn

5 English
3 Australian
1 SA
1 NZ
1 Welsh

Out 22 players in the match 11 are not English. RH

[Vidcapper]

On 15/09/2017 16:32, RH156RH wrote:
>
> Hants v Mddx being played today
>
>

> Out 22 players in the match 11 are not English. RH

Were there fewer people than expected paying to watch it? If not, what's
the problem?
>


--

Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

[grabber]

What matters is whethey they are England-qualified, not whether they are
RH-English. Apart from the Kolpak loophole, overseas players'
participation is strictly limited.

No-one cares about your ideas about RH-Englishness, not least because
you cannot even suggest a workable proposal for what you'd like the
eligibility rules to be.

[Mike Holmans]

I'm impressed by the arithmetic.

4 + 5 = 9.

Allegedly, then, 22 - 9 = 11.

The Fucking Ignorant Moron does like demonstrating his innumeracy,
doesn't he?

Cheers,

Mike

[RH156RH]

Even worse. 13 are not English... RH

[max.it]

He doesn't have enough fingers and toes for a major calculation like
that.

max.it

[RH156RH]

Ah, Lazarus gives us an insight into his mathematical ability... RH

[rodney...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, 16 September 2017 11:07:56 UTC+2, Mike Holmans wrote:
> The Fucking Ignorant Moron does like demonstrating his innumeracy,
> doesn't he?

He does, but that's a bit rich coming from you. Remember the time, midway through last year, when you denounced poll numbers in which Trump trumped Clinton as "nonsensical"?

It's a bit like your way of decrying RH's racism while, at the same time, on your blog, peddling all manner of bigoted stereotypes about Russia and Russians. If we were talking about black people, or more saliently about Jews, we'd know exactly what to call this.

Rodney

[RH156RH]

Now, about your unashamed support for the SA racist selection policies... RH

[rodney...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, 19 September 2017 09:49:00 UTC+2, RH156RH wrote:
> Now, about your unashamed support for the SA racist selection policies... RH

Your memory is as crooked as your numeracy. The briefest word-search of this newsgroup would turn up multiple threads in which I argue my opposition to those policies. Next!

Rodney

[rodney...@gmail.com]

I should substantiate my claims about Holmans's xenophobia. Just read this and related posts on his blog:

http://motleymoose.net/2017/07/16/7288/british-breakfast-and-euro-punditry-3/

Could there be anything more pathetic than Clintonite whinging about alleged Russian interference in the 2016 American election? Call me naive, but my jaw never fails to drop at their failure to mention *Clintonite* interference in the 1996 *Russian* election, which was far more extensive as well as far more destructive, in that it preserved a regime whose neoliberal economic measures, led (or better say enforced) by Jeff "Shock Therapy" Sachs, brought about the deaths of several million people:

http://press.thelancet.com/privatisationfinal.pdf

But Russian lives and Russia democracy matter not a jot to Holmans.

In that case, furthermore, the electoral interference was not merely alleged; it was boasted of openly at the time, including *in* TIME, and on its cover:

http://img.timeinc.net/time/magazine/archive/covers/1996/1101960715_400.jpg

Does it get more brazen than that? Well, yes it does: There's even a Jeff Goldblum flick about it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinning_Boris

The tagline, "Electing a Russian President the American Way," is almost poetic.

Rodney

[hamis...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 6:24:36 PM UTC+10, rodney...@gmail.com wrote:
> I should substantiate my claims about Holmans's xenophobia. Just read this and related posts on his blog:
>
> http://motleymoose.net/2017/07/16/7288/british-breakfast-and-euro-punditry-3/
>
> Could there be anything more pathetic than Clintonite whinging about alleged Russian interference in the 2016 American election?

Yeah, you creaming yourself over Trump

[rodney...@gmail.com]

The only thing that excites me about Donald Trump is his arteriosclerosis.

Rodney

[rodney...@gmail.com]

I should say, incidentally, that it says a lot about your parochial mode of thought, and about its coherency, that it should equate opposition to electoral meddling and mass murder with support for an orange-haired orangatang.

Rodney

[rodney...@gmail.com]

I should also say that I'm now 2-0 this morning in the you-said-this-no-I-didn't stakes. Anyone else?

Rodney

[Mike Holmans]

It's certainly interesting to be accused of xenophobia because I
compile a weekly selection of articles from the European press for
presentation to a largely American audience, focusing on coverage of
US politics but also keeping tabs on what happens in European
elections as a way of providing some insight into how European
politics works.

But then Rodney is a notedly stupid conspiracy theorist and
professional idiot with a terminal case of Clinton Derangement
Syndrome.

Cheers,

Mike

[rodney...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, 19 September 2017 13:17:39 UTC+2, Mike Holmans wrote:
> It's certainly interesting to be accused of xenophobia because I
> compile a weekly selection of articles from the European press for
> presentation to a largely American audience, focusing on coverage of
> US politics but also keeping tabs on what happens in European
> elections as a way of providing some insight into how European
> politics works.

You deny, then, that you blame Clinton's defeat on Russian meddling, and that, like your media darling Rachel Maddow, you see a Kremlin plot behind every corner?

> But then Rodney is a notedly stupid conspiracy theorist

You say this very frequently, and it serves well enough as a cognitive security blanket, but you've never quite gotten round telling me which "conspiracy" I'm supposed to be "theorising" about. I'd be fascinated to know, because everything I've said here is public domain and undisputed. In fact, one of my central points is that it has been openly admitted -- that is to say, bragged about -- by the perpetrators.

Which makes it entirely distinct from (inter many alia) your bald assertion that Julian Assange is a "Russian agent."

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.sport.cricket/KjxuFTaT9CE/Cbb5BCxOBQAJ

Now *that* meets the definition of "conspiracy theory." Assange obviously has bigger, less oleaginous fish to fry, but what I'd give to see him turn to the friendly libel laws of the country which you and he currently inhabit. There seems little doubt that you've violated them.

Rodney

[rodney...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, 19 September 2017 12:14:07 UTC+2, rodney...@gmail.com wrote:
> I should also say that I'm now 2-0 this morning in the you-said-this-no-I-didn't stakes. Anyone else?

3-0. Nice of Holmans to oblige.

Rodney

[MaybeNot]

ANSWER THE QUESTION.

[hamis...@gmail.com]

Your scoring system seems to be at an RH level of reliability

[Mike Holmans]

I find it hilarious that poor old deluded Rodney feels so threatened
by a mainstream British Liberal Democrat that he combs the web to find
evidence of my boringly-somewhat-left-of-centre views. And then makes
up his own wildly OTT fanciful interpretation of them. He and the FIM
are two peas from the same pod.

Cheers,

Mike

[rodney...@gmail.com]

Why bother, Hamish, with the back-and-forth? Do you really think you're any good at it?

Holmans attributed a "conspiracy theory" to me, but is unable to say what it is. Drawing the obvious conclusion, I chalk off another point. If you have any ideas, you're welcome to do his work for him.

Rodney

[rodney...@gmail.com]

You accused me of conspiracy-theorising. I argued that I had done no such thing (but that you had), and asked where you'd come by the idea. You still haven't said, which raises certain suspicions in the mind of any reasonable reader. Nevertheless, I ask again:

1. What conspiracy have I theorised?
2. Does your allegation about Julian Assange -- that he's a "Russian agent" -- meet that definition, and if not, why not?

Perfectly fair queries, and surely not too difficult to answer (which is why your evasions aren't nearly as sedulous as you appear to believe).

Rodney

[max.it]

On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 14:20:34 +0100, Mike Holmans
<mi...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>two peas from the same pod.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Mike
>

Two cheeks of the same arsehole.

max.it

[rodney...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, 19 September 2017 16:03:32 UTC+2, max.it wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 14:20:34 +0100, Mike Holmans
> <mi...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >two peas from the same pod.

> Two cheeks of the same arsehole.

I'm definitely plagiarising this next time I get the opportunity.

Rodney

[rodney...@gmail.com]

In the meantime, I still haven't been told what conspiracy theory I'm supposed to be subscribing to. Please hurry up with that; I'm genuinely interested.

Rodney

[max.it]

On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 07:14:01 -0700 (PDT), rodney...@gmail.com
wrote:

It's from George Galloway.

max.it

[rodney...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, 19 September 2017 16:26:18 UTC+2, max.it wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 07:14:01 -0700 (PDT), rodney...@gmail.com
> wrote:
> >I'm definitely plagiarising this next time I get the opportunity.

> It's from George Galloway.

Oh god. I'll give it a pass, then. This episode takes some forgetting:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzWNXEtwHUc

Rodney

[rodney...@gmail.com]

Still nothing, Holmans? Shall I take this for an admission that there *is* nothing?

Rodney

[max.it]

On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 10:32:22 -0700 (PDT), rodney...@gmail.com
wrote:

>Still nothing, Holmans? Shall I take this for an admission that there *is* nothing?
>
>Rodney

Cheetas and southern kings are playing in the pro 14. I heard on comms
that their budget is about 25% of the poorest of the rest of the
teams.

max.it

[Mike Holmans]

Thanks for nothing, max. I didn't particularly want to know that Mr
Tinfoil-Hatte was wasting his time by trying to get me to read his
idiotic drivel, but now you've quoted him, I had to waste four seconds
of my valuable time wondering what he was asking about.

Cheers,

Mike

[max.it]

I was just wondering about the two sa teams in the pro14 rugby this
season. They got relegated right out of their home competition and had
to sign up for the pro 14. They're still going to get thrashed every
week but now it's costing them a complete fortune.

maxz.it

[rodney...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, 19 September 2017 20:14:28 UTC+2, max.it wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 18:56:30 +0100, Mike Holmans
> <mi...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 17:47:24 GMT, m...@tea.time (max.it) wrote:
> >>On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 10:32:22 -0700 (PDT), rodney...@gmail.com
> >>wrote:
> >>>Still nothing, Holmans? Shall I take this for an admission that there *is* nothing?

> >>Cheetas and southern kings are playing in the pro 14. I heard on comms
> >>that their budget is about 25% of the poorest of the rest of the
> >>teams.
> >Thanks for nothing, max. I didn't particularly want to know that Mr
> >Tinfoil-Hatte was wasting his time by trying to get me to read his
> >idiotic drivel, but now you've quoted him, I had to waste four seconds
> >of my valuable time wondering what he was asking about.

> I was just wondering about the two sa teams in the pro14 rugby this
> season. They got relegated right out of their home competition and had
> to sign up for the pro 14. They're still going to get thrashed every
> week but now it's costing them a complete fortune.

Well, it was the only way they could continue to exist as franchises (if at all, given the parlous state of the Currie Cup) after their expulsion from Super Rugby. Personally I think it's a fool's errand. But have they played any home games yet? The size of the crowds should be instructive.

Rodney

PS: Would you mind asking Holmans yourself the questions I've been so keen to have answered, or at any rate leave this bit quoted in your response? I don't particularly buy his excuse, but I do think it only fair that he be stripped of plausible deniability. The questions are these:

1. "What are these 'conspiracies' I'm supposed to have 'theorised'? You go on and on about how paranoid and fanciful you think my position on the Clintons, and claim to have been so put off by it that you've killfiled me, but not once have you said *why* you think so. It's surely not asking too much that you mention or link to one of the myriad conspiracies I'm supposed to have alleged. Just one. If I could think of any, I wouldn't ask."
2. "Does your allegation about Julian Assange -- that he's a 'Russian agent' -- meet the definition of 'conspiracy theory,' and if not, why not? And would you agree that he is well within his rights to sue you for libel?"

[RH156RH]

Ah, so you unequivocally condemn the racist SA selection regime? RH

[MaybeNot]

ANSWER THE QUESTION.

[max.it]

On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 11:33:10 -0700 (PDT), rodney...@gmail.com
wrote:

>On Tuesday, 19 September 2017 20:14:28 UTC+2, max.it wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 18:56:30 +0100, Mike Holmans
>> <mi...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 17:47:24 GMT, m...@tea.time (max.it) wrote:
>> >>On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 10:32:22 -0700 (PDT), rodney...@gmail.com
>> >>wrote:

>> >>>Still nothing, Holmans? Shall I take this for an admission that there =

>*is* nothing?
>> >>Cheetas and southern kings are playing in the pro 14. I heard on comms
>> >>that their budget is about 25% of the poorest of the rest of the
>> >>teams.
>> >Thanks for nothing, max. I didn't particularly want to know that Mr
>> >Tinfoil-Hatte was wasting his time by trying to get me to read his
>> >idiotic drivel, but now you've quoted him, I had to waste four seconds
>> >of my valuable time wondering what he was asking about.
>> I was just wondering about the two sa teams in the pro14 rugby this
>> season. They got relegated right out of their home competition and had
>> to sign up for the pro 14. They're still going to get thrashed every
>> week but now it's costing them a complete fortune.
>

>Well, it was the only way they could continue to exist as franchises (if at=
> all, given the parlous state of the Currie Cup) after their expulsion from=
> Super Rugby. Personally I think it's a fool's errand. But have they played=

> any home games yet? The size of the crowds should be instructive.
>
>Rodney

I think they have had all away games so far. I think SK beat Treviso
or Zebre, but mostly they have been tanked. Funny thing I noticed at
the Ulster game was Cheetas began playing super rugby style and looked
great, but Ulster then copied them and then spanked them basically at
their own game.
I reckon they're in the wrong competition really.
>
>PS: Would you mind asking Holmans yourself the questions I've been so keen =
>to have answered, or at any rate leave this bit quoted in your response? I =
>don't particularly buy his excuse, but I do think it only fair that he be s=

>tripped of plausible deniability. The questions are these:
>

>1. "What are these 'conspiracies' I'm supposed to have 'theorised'? You go =
>on and on about how paranoid and fanciful you think my position on the Clin=
>tons, and claim to have been so put off by it that you've killfiled me, but=
> not once have you said *why* you think so. It's surely not asking too much=
> that you mention or link to one of the myriad conspiracies I'm supposed to=

> have alleged. Just one. If I could think of any, I wouldn't ask."

>2. "Does your allegation about Julian Assange -- that he's a 'Russian agent=
>' -- meet the definition of 'conspiracy theory,' and if not, why not? And w=

>ould you agree that he is well within his rights to sue you for libel?"

What!! He'd chew my bollox off, but, afaik I am not in Mike's Bozo bin
so he might read this post.
Remember I'm a religious apistevist, a political atheist, and a DTAP
(don't trust anyone person). Free and easy, rough and ready.

max.it

[rodney...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, 19 September 2017 21:49:49 UTC+2, RH156RH wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 8:54:00 AM UTC+1, rodney...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 19 September 2017 09:49:00 UTC+2, RH156RH wrote:
> > > Now, about your unashamed support for the SA racist selection policies... RH
> > Your memory is as crooked as your numeracy. The briefest word-search of this newsgroup would turn up multiple threads in which I argue my opposition to those policies. Next!

> Ah, so you unequivocally condemn the racist SA selection regime? RH

Not unequivocally. I'd be fine with it if I thought it did any good. But no-one has ever furnished any evidence that it does, so I'm opposed to it. Now do the decent thing, please, and retract your charge of "shameless support."

Rodney

[rodney...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, 19 September 2017 22:23:15 UTC+2, max.it wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 11:33:10 -0700 (PDT), rodney...@gmail.com
> wrote:
> >Well, it was the only way they could continue to exist as franchises (if at=
> > all, given the parlous state of the Currie Cup) after their expulsion from=
> > Super Rugby. Personally I think it's a fool's errand. But have they played=
> > any home games yet? The size of the crowds should be instructive.

> I think they have had all away games so far. I think SK beat Treviso
> or Zebre, but mostly they have been tanked. Funny thing I noticed at
> the Ulster game was Cheetas began playing super rugby style and looked
> great, but Ulster then copied them and then spanked them basically at
> their own game.

Ouch.

> I reckon they're in the wrong competition really.

The Kings did themselves proud in Super Rugby after their expulsion was confirmed, and ultimately even finished ahead of a few sides whose places were safe. Bit of a farce, that.

> What!! He'd chew my bollox off, but, afaik I am not in Mike's Bozo bin
> so he might read this post.
> Remember I'm a religious apistevist, a political atheist, and a DTAP
> (don't trust anyone person). Free and easy, rough and ready.

After my own heart.

Sorry to put you to such trouble, but I can't shake the curiosity. Holmans has accused me on four separate occasions in this thread of spouting what he calls "conspiracy theories," and I genuinely have no idea what they might be.

Rodney

[Mike Holmans]

And the discussion the idiot wants to have is off-topic for this
newsgroup. I am not going to waste my or anyone else's time on it.

Cheers,

Mike

[max.it]

I have that Free and Easy album on a 33 1976 compilation of nice
tunes. It must have been their first compilation album.
I also have tons of sobs, and some others that Im stuffed if I can
remember the names of. One I think is just called Free and then
another Free live, I think I have fire and water too.
Kossof(sp)guitar style was easy to replicate, his riffs were cool with
sweet timing.

max.it

[jzfre...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, September 20, 2017 at 3:56:34 AM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
> Thanks for nothing, max. I didn't particularly want to know that Mr
> Tinfoil-Hatte was wasting his time by trying to get me to read his
> idiotic drivel, but now you've quoted him, I had to waste four seconds
> of my valuable time wondering what he was asking about.

Mike The Coward Holmans at his best.

He unleashes a lie-filled attack on someone, and when challenged about it, blocklists the person and runs away.

[rodney...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, 20 September 2017 00:08:08 UTC+2, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> Mike The Coward Holmans at his best.
> He unleashes a lie-filled attack on someone, and when challenged about it, blocklists the person and runs away.

Apart from anything else, it's extremely stupid. His country's libel laws are notoriously pliable, and his opponent in this case is notoriously combative. I also (as Holmans well knows) have a law degree. If there's a set of circumstances in which you *don't* want to go around defaming someone, it's these.

Rodney

[jzfre...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, September 20, 2017 at 4:04:32 PM UTC+10, rodney...@gmail.com wrote:
> Apart from anything else, it's extremely stupid. His country's libel laws are notoriously pliable, and his opponent in this case is notoriously combative. I also (as Holmans well knows) have a law degree. If there's a set of circumstances in which you *don't* want to go around defaming someone, it's these.

Meh. You're not going to launch international legal action over something as petty as this. I know it, Mike knows it, you know it.

[hamis...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, September 20, 2017 at 4:04:32 PM UTC+10, rodney...@gmail.com wrote:

Sure, we all believe you Robby.
You're a big man who's Dangerous...

[RH156RH]

Thank you for confirming that you have no moral objection to the SA racist selection regime... RH

[Mike Holmans]

Someone decides to come to a newsgroup devoted to the discussion of
English cricket and related matters which is read by (probably) less
than a hundred people and allege that I'm xenophobic, citing as
evidence a blog post consisting of excerpts from European newspaper
articles about Donald Trump and then going on to say that commenting
therein about Trump's possible Russian connections is pathetic.

The subject of Trump's Russian connections is the subject of a huge
on-going investigation by a special counsel, not to mention at least
four US Congressional investigations.

It would clearly be very silly to reply to such a post by suggesting
that the poster was a conspiracy theorist, and it would be entirely
understandable for the poster to demand apologies for such a terrible
allegation made in such a public forum. Should those demands go unmet,
it would obviously be normal behavious to become more and more shrill
in one's demands, and to start making threats of legal action.

It would obviously be grossly insulting to imply that someone who
behaved like that was an unhinged conspiracy theorist, and if anyone
made such an inference from any remarks I may have made, then they
should be aware that their inference is entirely invalid, and that
Rodney Ulyate is one of the sanest and most balanced human beings ever
to tread the planet.

Cheers,

Mike

[rodney...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, 20 September 2017 09:43:49 UTC+2, Mike Holmans wrote:
> Someone decides to come to a newsgroup devoted to the discussion of
> English cricket and related matters which is read by (probably) less
> than a hundred people and allege that I'm xenophobic, citing as
> evidence a blog post consisting of excerpts from European newspaper
> articles about Donald Trump and then going on to say that commenting
> therein about Trump's possible Russian connections is pathetic.
> The subject of Trump's Russian connections is the subject of a huge
> on-going investigation by a special counsel, not to mention at least
> four US Congressional investigations.
> It would clearly be very silly to reply to such a post by suggesting
> that the poster was a conspiracy theorist

It would, because nothing you've attributed to me proposes a conspiracy. Do you even know what that word means? A conspiracy is "a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful." It is "the action of plotting or conspiring." I haven't alleged any of that.

When I have done is this: I've pointed out that *you* have imbibed and disseminated a series of popular but xenophobic allegations, as yet unproven, about sinister Russians and their meddling in the 2016 US presidential race, and also that you've made the very serious claim, without a shred of evidence, that Julian Assange is a Kremlin agent.

If I have this right, then, what makes me a conspiracy theorist is that I don't buy *your* conspiracy theories! What a fascinating little mind you have!

Please consider this your last chance. I think I've already fulfilled the pre-action protocols, but you know how to prevent me from confirming as much with my attorneys.

Rodney

[rodney...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, 20 September 2017 09:34:33 UTC+2, RH156RH wrote:
> Thank you for confirming that you have no moral objection to the SA racist selection regime... RH

You're not so different, you and Holmans.

Rodney

[rodney...@gmail.com]

It's actually the second clause in that sentence that's persuaded me. Holmans issues defamatory lies because he thinks he can get away with them. It would cost me very little to show that he can't, and him absolutely nothing to issue a public retraction. Seems a no-brainer, really.

Rodney

[jzfre...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, September 20, 2017 at 7:06:29 PM UTC+10, rodney...@gmail.com wrote:
>and him absolutely nothing to issue a public retraction

He won't.
That's the kind of person he is, as we know.

BTW...

It's about a billion-to-1 that Russia didn't make attempts to interfere in the US election. Asking for a member of the public (me, mike) to give proof of said interference is just silly. We don't have access to the proof, and if we did, we'd not post it here.

Mike is just as silly if he thinks Russian interference cost Hillary the election. There's no one on the planet who can tell us which votes were cast differently.

Hillary, and the DNC, deserved to lose as they themselves interfered in the election, by rigging the primaries and replacing a good candidate (Sanders), with a shit one (Hillary).

[Andy Walker]

On 20/09/17 08:43, Mike Holmans wrote:
> Someone decides to come to a newsgroup devoted to the discussion of
> English cricket and related matters which is read by (probably) less

> than a hundred people and allege [...].

I hope you intended to write "fewer"; but in any case, on this
matter you're "(probably)" wrong. There have been 34 distinct posters
in the past month. In the days of "arbitron", when it was possible to
measure such things with at least some semblance of accuracy, the ratio
of lurkers to posters was typically around 100 to 1. On that basis,
there would be ~3400 readers. I would be mildly astonished if the ratio
is less than 10 to 1 [340 readers] or greater than 1000 to 1 [34000].

As regards Rodney's complaint, I would refer the pair of you to
recent discussion in "uk.legal.moderated" and "uk.net.news.moderation".
A post was rejected on the grounds that it exposed the moderators to a
risk of action against them for defamation, and questions were raised
about numbers of readers and about prospects of serious harm.

--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.

[Mike Holmans]

On Wed, 20 Sep 2017 10:54:21 +0100, Andy Walker <a...@cuboid.co.uk>
wrote:

>On 20/09/17 08:43, Mike Holmans wrote:
>> Someone decides to come to a newsgroup devoted to the discussion of
>> English cricket and related matters which is read by (probably) less
>> than a hundred people and allege [...].
>
> I hope you intended to write "fewer"; but in any case, on this
>matter you're "(probably)" wrong. There have been 34 distinct posters
>in the past month. In the days of "arbitron", when it was possible to
>measure such things with at least some semblance of accuracy, the ratio
>of lurkers to posters was typically around 100 to 1. On that basis,
>there would be ~3400 readers. I would be mildly astonished if the ratio
>is less than 10 to 1 [340 readers] or greater than 1000 to 1 [34000].

Interesting. And thanks for the correction of the faux pas.

I wonder if such ratios are still common on what's left of Usenet. In
days of yore, a lurker:poster ratio of 100:1 would have been entirely
believable.

In those days, it was normal to see at least one new poster per day in
any reasonably-patronised ng. Lurker-to-poster conversion ws
definitely a sign that the ng was provoking interest from new people.
But if we've seen a new poster in uk.s.c in 2017 (other than
spambots), I've missed it.

My impression is that newsgroups nowadays are only read by people who
posted to them in years gone by, and that the armies of lurkers there
used to be have all been demobbed.

I would be mildly astonished to find that more than a hundred people
have read uk.s.c in the last month.

Cheers,

Mike

[rodney...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, 20 September 2017 11:19:17 UTC+2, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> It's about a billion-to-1 that Russia didn't make attempts to interfere in the US election.

I should make a distinction. It's one thing to believe that they undertook a bit of hi-tech information warfare, but that's par for the course, and is scarcely worth mentioning. I'm talking about meddling of the kind that the Clintons undertook in Russia in 1996 or in Haiti in 2011.

In the former case there was open collusion with the candidate (of the kind that no-one has been able to prove, but everyone likes to insinuate, against Trump). It extended to the laundering of money, the stuffing of ballots, and the bullying of independent monitoring organisations. It consolidated the selling off of public assets and the looting of the economy, and culminated in the deaths of millions upon millions of people. It did not outrage Mike Holmans.

The latter case I remember very well, because it implicated my own country. After kidnapping the democratically elected leader of Haiti in 2004, and dumping him in the Central African Republic, the United States permitted his passage to South Africa, where he lived in exile for the next half-decade. In 2011, following the earthquake, and on the eve of that crucial election, he expressed a desire to go back home. The Clinton State Department was having none of it, however, and lobbied my government to prevent his doing so. (They even got Obama to make a threatening call to President Jacob Zuma.) Again, I'm not theorising here; I'm simply stating the facts as we know them, and as they were reported by mainstream sources at the time.

For Russian meddling in 2016 to even approximate this, Putin would have to have kidnapped Clinton, dumped her in Moldova and prevented her return for the vote. He'd have to have sent over Russian advisers to help with Trump's propaganda efforts, funneled millions of dollars illegally into his campaign, looked the other way as the ballots were stuffed, and pressured international monitors to keep mum. Then he'd have to have bragged about it on the front page of /Pravda/ while commissioning his film industry to make a forgettable comedy about it.

The bigotry of Holmans and his co-thinkers is thus proven. They have nothing to say about open, far-reaching violations on the part of their favoured states and actors, but scream blue murder at even the most banal naughtiness, usually unproven, on the part of those dastardly Eastern Europeans. I never fail to cringe at the West's cartoonish depictions of these people. Replace the word "Russian" with the word "Jew," and see how it sounds.

> Mike is just as silly if he thinks Russian interference cost Hillary the election. There's no one on the planet who can tell us which votes were cast differently.
> Hillary, and the DNC, deserved to lose as they themselves interfered in the election, by rigging the primaries and replacing a good candidate (Sanders), with a shit one (Hillary).

It's worth noting, too, that Clinton's support for vote rigging is a matter of public record. We have it in her own words:

http://observer.com/2016/10/2006-audio-emerges-of-hillary-clinton-proposing-rigging-palestine-election/

Again, no outrage from Holmans. He is a bigot and a fanboy.

Rodney

[rodney...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, 20 September 2017 12:22:52 UTC+2, rodney...@gmail.com wrote:
> It's worth noting, too, that Clinton's support for vote rigging is a matter of public record. We have it in her own words:
> http://observer.com/2016/10/2006-audio-emerges-of-hillary-clinton-proposing-rigging-palestine-election/
> Again, no outrage from Holmans. He is a bigot and a fanboy.

Oh, and I forgot to mention Honduras! She brags about her meddling there in the first edition of her memoirs (but cut it out of the paperback after it drew notice and criticism). I kind of admire the fact that, despite all this, she's been able to position herself as the *victim* of electoral fraud and foreign interference.

Rodney

[jzfre...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, September 20, 2017 at 8:22:52 PM UTC+10, rodney...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, 20 September 2017 11:19:17 UTC+2, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> > It's about a billion-to-1 that Russia didn't make attempts to interfere in the US election.
>
> I should make a distinction. It's one thing to believe that they undertook a bit of hi-tech information warfare, but that's par for the course, and is scarcely worth mentioning. I'm talking about meddling of the kind that the Clintons undertook in Russia in 1996 or in Haiti in 2011.

Well, from the top of my head there are 3 prongs to their meddling;
1. giving Trump dirt
2. hacking of e-voting
3. online propaganda designed to aid Trump.

I don't think you can just pass it off as "par for the course". I also don't think you can "move the goalposts" to "they meddled, but not as bad as the US has done previously". If THAT is the discussion you want to have, you'll have no takers. The US has meddled in about 300 elections.

[jzfre...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, September 20, 2017 at 8:40:05 PM UTC+10, jzfre...@gmail.com > Well, from the top of my head there are 3 prongs to their meddling;

> 1. giving Trump dirt
> 2. hacking of e-voting
> 3. online propaganda designed to aid Trump.

4. help fund the Trump campaign

[hamis...@gmail.com]

advising the trump campaign on places to campaign

[hamis...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, September 20, 2017 at 8:22:52 PM UTC+10, rodney...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Wednesday, 20 September 2017 11:19:17 UTC+2, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> > It's about a billion-to-1 that Russia didn't make attempts to interfere in the US election.
>
> I should make a distinction. It's one thing to believe that they undertook a bit of hi-tech information warfare, but that's par for the course, and is scarcely worth mentioning. I'm talking about meddling of the kind that the Clintons undertook in Russia in 1996 or in Haiti in 2011.
>
> In the former case there was open collusion with the candidate (of the kind that no-one has been able to prove, but everyone likes to insinuate, against Trump). It extended to the laundering of money, the stuffing of ballots, and the bullying of independent monitoring organisations. It consolidated the selling off of public assets and the looting of the economy, and culminated in the deaths of millions upon millions of people. It did not outrage Mike Holmans.

Your evidence supporting these claims and that the Clintons were involved in it go here...
The only things I've seen is that the IMF provided funds to the Russian Government to allow them to get through a major financial crisis where people hadn't been paid for months...
There's a suggestion that the money may have been raided but that's a long way

and that there were Republicans involved in the Yeltsin campaign
from
https://www.globalresearch.ca/us-meddling-in-1996-russian-elections-in-support-of-boris-yeltsin/5568288
"Campaign strategists for the former Republican governor of California Pete Wilsoncovertly made their way to the President Hotel in Moscow where, behind a guard and locked doors, they served as Yeltsin’s “secret campaign weapon” to save Russia for Democracy."

the Clintons being so loved by the Republicans in 1996 obviously that's a sign that the Clintons were involved...

>
> The latter case I remember very well, because it implicated my own country. After kidnapping the democratically elected leader of Haiti in 2004, and dumping him in the Central African Republic, the United States permitted his passage to South Africa, where he lived in exile for the next half-decade.

Well there's also the fact that there was a coup d'état which was invading the capital at the time.
So a less paranoid consideration would be that they got him out of the country because otherwise he'd probably have been killed.
Also note that this was while George W Bush was president.

> In 2011, following the earthquake, and on the eve of that crucial election, he expressed a desire to go back home. The Clinton State Department was having none of it, however, and lobbied my government to prevent his doing so. (They even got Obama to make a threatening call to President Jacob Zuma.) Again, I'm not theorising here; I'm simply stating the facts as we know them, and as they were reported by mainstream sources at the time.

Firstly it's worth pointing out that the earthquake was in Jan 2010, Aristide announced he would be returning in Feb 2011
Well you're assuming that it was Clinton driving it and forcing Obama to make the call rather than Obama making the decision.
Information I've seen suggests that Obama requested that he not return before the presidential election, perhaps not entirely unjustified when a government needs to drive recovery after a natural disaster.

>
> For Russian meddling in 2016 to even approximate this, Putin would have to have kidnapped Clinton, dumped her in Moldova and prevented her return for the vote. He'd have to have sent over Russian advisers to help with Trump's propaganda efforts, funneled millions of dollars illegally into his campaign, looked the other way as the ballots were stuffed, and pressured international monitors to keep mum. Then he'd have to have bragged about it on the front page of /Pravda/ while commissioning his film industry to make a forgettable comedy about it.
>
> The bigotry of Holmans and his co-thinkers is thus proven.

Because Rodders has stamped his foot and applied huge spin to twist facts to support his preferred narrative.

> They have nothing to say about open, far-reaching violations on the part of their favoured states and actors, but scream blue murder at even the most banal naughtiness, usually unproven, on the part of those dastardly Eastern Europeans. I never fail to cringe at the West's cartoonish depictions of these people. Replace the word "Russian" with the word "Jew," and see how it sounds.

And yet your own complaint about the Clintons is that they enabled Russians who did all sorts of things you are blaming the Clintons for
what was it again?

"It consolidated the selling off of public assets and the looting of the economy, and culminated in the deaths of millions upon millions of people."

You might want to look at some of what Russia has been doing...

>
> > Mike is just as silly if he thinks Russian interference cost Hillary the election. There's no one on the planet who can tell us which votes were cast differently.
> > Hillary, and the DNC, deserved to lose as they themselves interfered in the election, by rigging the primaries and replacing a good candidate (Sanders), with a shit one (Hillary).
>
> It's worth noting, too, that Clinton's support for vote rigging is a matter of public record. We have it in her own words:
>
> http://observer.com/2016/10/2006-audio-emerges-of-hillary-clinton-proposing-rigging-palestine-election/

Actually we don't have anything there supporting vote rigging.
There is a suggestion that Israel and the USA should have done something to avoid Hamas winning, which doesn't seem overly controversial as far as avoiding a terrorist organisation winning government.
(what the actions would have been aren't specified, it could have been making favorable deals with a side)

Also note that theobserver is owned by Jared Kushner and the reliability of it's coverage of Clinton in 2016 is questionable.

>
> Again, no outrage from Holmans. He is a bigot and a fanboy.
>

Or maybe you're a sucker who's believing propaganda from the Trumps...

[hamis...@gmail.com]

Yeah, enforcing the rules so that only registered democrats could vote in places is rigging elections.

> and replacing a good candidate (Sanders), with a shit one (Hillary).

Sanders lost the public vote to Hillary by over 3.5 million votes

The Rupublican party hadn't even started to attack Sanders, they'd been working on Hillary for 20 years.
How many voters do you think would have been turned off him by the GOP propaganda about him being a socialist?
Attacking him for being anti-business, soft on crime, attacking police, an enemy of Israel, soft on terrorism and of course comments that he's not a Christian...

[rodney...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, 20 September 2017 12:40:05 UTC+2, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 20, 2017 at 8:22:52 PM UTC+10, rodney...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 20 September 2017 11:19:17 UTC+2, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > It's about a billion-to-1 that Russia didn't make attempts to interfere in the US election.
> > I should make a distinction. It's one thing to believe that they undertook a bit of hi-tech information warfare, but that's par for the course, and is scarcely worth mentioning. I'm talking about meddling of the kind that the Clintons undertook in Russia in 1996 or in Haiti in 2011.
> Well, from the top of my head there are 3 prongs to their meddling;
> 1. giving Trump dirt

This is as yet only an allegation, and is possibly evened out by the Steele dossier (which falls under precisely the same category) and whatever Clinton got from the Ukrainians.

> 2. hacking of e-voting

Apparently so, but I've yet to see it alleged that they successfully tampered with the tallies. The Crosscheck program is the real scandal on this front, and the Russians had nothing to do with that.

> 3. online propaganda designed to aid Trump.

Nothing unusual there.

> I don't think you can just pass it off as "par for the course".

It's milquetoast compared to what the ostensible victims of their meddling get up to all the time.

> I also don't think you can "move the goalposts" to "they meddled, but not as bad as the US has done previously".

I'm not moving the goalposts. I maintain that these allegations are unproven. What I'm saying in passing is that, even if true, they'd be laughably minor. But as yet we have precisely *zero* independent verification of any of them. Our source for all this is American intelligence, whose probity we have very good reason to doubt. (Heck, they can't even get their story straight on how many of them -- the oft-quoted seventeen, or the quietly admitted four? -- agree on all this.) Would you be so readily accepting of analogous claims from the Russian side?

Whereas, in contrast, as I've shown, there's absolutely *no* doubt about the infinitely more extensive American meddling in Haiti and Russia: In the first case it happened in public, and in the second it was freely admitted.

Rodney

[Vidcapper]

Well, you don't seem to have a problem with your own racist selection
criteria, so why would you have a problem with South Africa's?
>


--

Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

[rodney...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, 20 September 2017 16:05:47 UTC+2, hamis...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 20, 2017 at 8:22:52 PM UTC+10, rodney...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 20 September 2017 11:19:17 UTC+2, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > It's about a billion-to-1 that Russia didn't make attempts to interfere in the US election.
> > I should make a distinction. It's one thing to believe that they undertook a bit of hi-tech information warfare, but that's par for the course, and is scarcely worth mentioning. I'm talking about meddling of the kind that the Clintons undertook in Russia in 1996 or in Haiti in 2011.
> > In the former case there was open collusion with the candidate (of the kind that no-one has been able to prove, but everyone likes to insinuate, against Trump). It extended to the laundering of money, the stuffing of ballots, and the bullying of independent monitoring organisations. It consolidated the selling off of public assets and the looting of the economy, and culminated in the deaths of millions upon millions of people. It did not outrage Mike Holmans.
> Your evidence supporting these claims and that the Clintons were involved in it go here...

Actually, it went here:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/uk.sport.cricket/VRHbGCehv0U/VlcSxPsAAwAJ

But I appreciate that scrolling upwards is difficult for you.

> The only things I've seen is that the IMF provided funds to the Russian Government to allow them to get through a major financial crisis where people hadn't been paid for months...
> There's a suggestion that the money may have been raided but that's a long way
> and that there were Republicans involved in the Yeltsin campaign
> from
> https://www.globalresearch.ca/us-meddling-in-1996-russian-elections-in-support-of-boris-yeltsin/5568288
> "Campaign strategists for the former Republican governor of California Pete Wilsoncovertly made their way to the President Hotel in Moscow where, behind a guard and locked doors, they served as Yeltsin’s “secret campaign weapon” to save Russia for Democracy."
> the Clintons being so loved by the Republicans in 1996 obviously that's a sign that the Clintons were involved...

Dick Dresner, who helped Clinton to his election as Arkansas governor, was a hostile Republican?

> > The latter case I remember very well, because it implicated my own country. After kidnapping the democratically elected leader of Haiti in 2004, and dumping him in the Central African Republic, the United States permitted his passage to South Africa, where he lived in exile for the next half-decade.
> Well there's also the fact that there was a coup d'état which was invading the capital at the time.

A coup d'état which was consummated, not thwarted, by Aristide's kidnapping.

> So a less paranoid consideration would be that they got him out of the country because otherwise he'd probably have been killed.
> Also note that this was while George W Bush was president.

The only way to protect a man from an attack is to force him into a helicopter and dump him in another continent? How convenient -- and, on second thought, how self-evidently absurd. I note also the imperial presumption, which comes as naturally to you as breathing, that the US had any *right* to take that action. Aristide maintains that he was kidnapped. Do I believe him or his kidnappers, who subsequently made every effort to prevent his return?

> > In 2011, following the earthquake, and on the eve of that crucial election, he expressed a desire to go back home. The Clinton State Department was having none of it, however, and lobbied my government to prevent his doing so. (They even got Obama to make a threatening call to President Jacob Zuma.) Again, I'm not theorising here; I'm simply stating the facts as we know them, and as they were reported by mainstream sources at the time.
> Firstly it's worth pointing out that the earthquake was in Jan 2010, Aristide announced he would be returning in Feb 2011

Yes. The one followed the other. That's why I used the word "following."

> Well you're assuming that it was Clinton driving it

The State Department drove it. And who led the State Department at the time?

> and forcing Obama to make the call rather than Obama making the decision.
> Information I've seen suggests that Obama requested that he not return before the presidential election, perhaps not entirely unjustified when a government needs to drive recovery after a natural disaster.

Again, the presumption! I should say that it's starting to look as much racist as imperial. What business was this of Obama's? What right had either he or my government to keep Aristide out of his country? I'm no admirer of Jacob Zuma, but he deserves credit for telling Obama to shove it.

Quite apart from which, the country that gave us Toussaint L'Ouverture and Fanmi Lavalas needs no instruction in democracy, least of all the United States. As a cricket fan, you should have enough knowledge of the work of CLR James to appreciate that.

> > For Russian meddling in 2016 to even approximate this, Putin would have to have kidnapped Clinton, dumped her in Moldova and prevented her return for the vote. He'd have to have sent over Russian advisers to help with Trump's propaganda efforts, funneled millions of dollars illegally into his campaign, looked the other way as the ballots were stuffed, and pressured international monitors to keep mum. Then he'd have to have bragged about it on the front page of /Pravda/ while commissioning his film industry to make a forgettable comedy about it.
> > The bigotry of Holmans and his co-thinkers is thus proven.
> Because Rodders has stamped his foot and applied huge spin to twist facts to support his preferred narrative.
> > They have nothing to say about open, far-reaching violations on the part of their favoured states and actors, but scream blue murder at even the most banal naughtiness, usually unproven, on the part of those dastardly Eastern Europeans. I never fail to cringe at the West's cartoonish depictions of these people. Replace the word "Russian" with the word "Jew," and see how it sounds.
> And yet your own complaint about the Clintons is that they enabled Russians who did all sorts of things you are blaming the Clintons for
> what was it again?
> "It consolidated the selling off of public assets and the looting of the economy, and culminated in the deaths of millions upon millions of people."
> You might want to look at some of what Russia has been doing...

See my remarks above, on the binary manner in which you think:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/uk.sport.cricket/VRHbGCehv0U/L4Ud10MGAwAJ

> > > Mike is just as silly if he thinks Russian interference cost Hillary the election. There's no one on the planet who can tell us which votes were cast differently.
> > > Hillary, and the DNC, deserved to lose as they themselves interfered in the election, by rigging the primaries and replacing a good candidate (Sanders), with a shit one (Hillary).
> > It's worth noting, too, that Clinton's support for vote rigging is a matter of public record. We have it in her own words:
> > http://observer.com/2016/10/2006-audio-emerges-of-hillary-clinton-proposing-rigging-palestine-election/
> Actually we don't have anything there supporting vote rigging.
> There is a suggestion that Israel and the USA should have done something to avoid Hamas winning, which doesn't seem overly controversial as far as avoiding a terrorist organisation winning government.
> (what the actions would have been aren't specified, it could have been making favorable deals with a side)

"We should have made sure that we did something to determine who was going to win."

I must congratulate you on finding a way to spin this.

> Also note that theobserver is owned by Jared Kushner and the reliability of it's coverage of Clinton in 2016 is questionable.

The tape exists, darling, and had nothing to do with The Observer. Eli Chomsky worked for The Jewish Press when he made it. You can listen to it yourself:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GUpG730snU

Rodney

[Andy Walker]

On 20/09/17 11:20, Mike Holmans wrote:
> I wonder if such ratios are still common on what's left of Usenet. In
> days of yore, a lurker:poster ratio of 100:1 would have been entirely
> believable.

In those days, it was not merely "believable", it was [with a
fair number of caveats] measured. It is probably still measurable in
principle, but no-one here will have the resources to do so. I don't
see any reason why the ratio should change dramatically. FWIW, I am
still subscribed to a reasonable number of groups, inc some reasonably
active ones, to which I never contribute.

> In those days, it was normal to see at least one new poster per day in
> any reasonably-patronised ng.

In that case, I think your "yore" is considerably more recent
than mine [mid-80s].

> Lurker-to-poster conversion ws
> definitely a sign that the ng was provoking interest from new people.

Yes, but lack of same is not a sign of anything interesting.

> But if we've seen a new poster in uk.s.c in 2017 (other than
> spambots), I've missed it.

Of the 34 posters previously alluded to, 6 were not known to me
as regular posters, and 3 had something to contribute. I don't know
whether that proves anything more than a fallible memory, nor whether
any of them were, are or will become regular lurkers.

> My impression is that newsgroups nowadays are only read by people who
> posted to them in years gone by, and that the armies of lurkers there
> used to be have all been demobbed.

Yes, but where does that impression come from? By definition,
we know nothing about the lurkers.

> I would be mildly astonished to find that more than a hundred people
> have read uk.s.c in the last month.

Two data points which may well be irrelevant but are perhaps of
interest:

(a) In my PP, I referred to a legal discussion about libel. In that
discussion, there was a reference to a specific court case, in which
the readership of the Huffington Post came into question; and, IIRC,
it was agreed that there were approximately 6000 readers. That needs
slightly more activity than lurking here. But it should be possible
to estimate the number of contributors to the HP [should anyone here
admit to reading it], which would give a data point towards a lower
bound on the lurker:poster ratio.

(b) In my capacity as Admissions Tutor, before I retired [2008], I
spoke regularly to large audiences of actual or potential applicants,
parents, grandparents and general hangers-on. Around once per year,
I would be asked, usually by a middle-aged gentleman, whether I was
the Andy Walker who contributed to this group [followed usually by
some comment on a then-current debate]. That would suggest that in
its heyday, roughly [say] 1 in 3000 of the population, call it 20000
people, read this group sufficiently to recognise my name. But that
is a serious underestimate, for the same "lurker:poster" reason --
most of the audience would not care to queue to talk to me just to
exchange pleasantries about cricket, and even less to stick their
hands up while the talk was in full flow. OTOH, there may have been
a degree of bias in the audience. So 20000 is at least a decent guess
at that peak audience. I accept that numbers have declined since.
But we still get ~30 posts/day [which would have made us one of the
top few groups in "days of yore", and would have taken around 5 minutes
of CPU time to process on a VAX 750 under B News, and a similar time
to expire each night -- multiply that by the number of active groups
to see that there was a real problem with newsgroups in those days,
with people complaining that they were taking over the departmental
computer]. I doubt whether we ever got more than 100 or so. Someone
with sufficient interest could no doubt count up numbers of posters
and articles around a decade ago from one of the archive sites.

Summary: From peak, I think we have lost perhaps 70% of the
articles, and, at a pure guess, there may well have been a similar
decline in the number of posters, whether regular or occasional. A
similar decline again in the number of readers would take us down to
perhaps 6000 readers. A *further* 90% decline would take us down to
about 600 readers. I'm guessing that that is a reasonable number.
You are claiming to be mildly astonished if even 17% of those are
still with us. Go figure!

--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.

[RH156RH]

Now, about your lack of moral objection to the SA racist selection regime ... RH

[rodney...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, 20 September 2017 16:56:03 UTC+2, rodney...@gmail.com wrote:
> Quite apart from which, the country that gave us Toussaint L'Ouverture and Fanmi Lavalas needs no instruction in democracy, least of all from the United States.

Typo corrected.

Rodney

[rodney...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, 20 September 2017 19:16:51 UTC+2, RH156RH wrote:
> Now, about your lack of moral objection to the SA racist selection regime ... RH

Do *you* have a moral objection to it? If so, how do you square it with your advocacy of just such a regime for your own country?

Rodney

[rodney...@gmail.com]

But, just so we're clear, I have no steady moral objection to every case in which certain groups are favoured or promoted over others, provided that the intention is not to oppress or to marginalise.

Which is to say that I have no moral objection in this case, because the intention is to *overcome* oppression and marginalisation. My objection is a practical one: I believe that these measures serve to undermine the very cause they are intended to promote.

Rodney

[Vidcapper]

You're the last person in a position to criticise someone else's
'racist' selection scheme!

--

Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

[RH156RH]

Thank you for so emphatically confirming that you have no moral objection to SA racist selection regime...RH

[RH156RH]

Translation: I want the national side called England to be comprised of Englishmen... RH

[Richard Dixon]

On Thursday, 21 September 2017 08:17:08 UTC+1, RH156RH wrote:

> Translation: I want the national side called England to be comprised of Englishmen... RH

You want the national side called England to be comprised of your archaic view of what an Englishman is.

Richard

[RH156RH]

[RH156RH]

I have a moral objection to those who condemn Apartheid while embracing anti-white racism. RH

[Vidcapper]

On 21/09/2017 08:17, RH156RH wrote:

>
>
> Translation: I want the national side called England to be comprised of Englishmen... RH
>

You missed out the word 'white'...

--

Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

[grabber]

But you are incapable of proposing practical selection rules defining
RH-Englishness, so you don't even have a position, let alone a position
worth a millisecond of anyone's time.

[rodney...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, 21 September 2017 09:16:14 UTC+2, RH156RH wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 20, 2017 at 7:39:18 PM UTC+1, rodney...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 20 September 2017 20:31:50 UTC+2, rodney...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, 20 September 2017 19:16:51 UTC+2, RH156RH wrote:
> > > > Now, about your lack of moral objection to the SA racist selection regime ... RH
> > > Do *you* have a moral objection to it? If so, how do you square it with your advocacy of just such a regime for your own country?
> > But, just so we're clear, I have no steady moral objection to every case in which certain groups are favoured or promoted over others, provided that the intention is not to oppress or to marginalise.
> > Which is to say that I have no moral objection in this case, because the intention is to *overcome* oppression and marginalisation. My objection is a practical one: I believe that these measures serve to undermine the very cause they are intended to promote.

> Thank you for so emphatically confirming that you have no moral objection to SA racist selection regime...RH

Pleasure. Gratitude becomes you.

Rodney

[RH156RH]

SIGH. I have posted such a definition a number of times. Here is is again


Qualifications based on legal definitions of nationality, birth or residence are practically irrelevant in the context of national sporting teams, for the instinctive emotional commitment and sense of oneness, which are an essential part of a successful national side, cannot be gained so mechanically. And that is often true even where a conscious decision to emigrate has been made by a player’s parents. A sense of national place is demonstrably not simply derived from living in a country – as Wellington said to those who insisted on calling him an Irishman, ‘Just because a man is born in a stable it does not make him a
horse.’

The natural criterion for Test selection, apart from cricketing talent, is surely the sense a man has that he is naturally part of a nation, for if national sides do not embody the nation what distinguishes them from any collection of disparate individuals? What is it that gives a man such a sense of place and a natural loyalty? ....

In an interview with Rob Steen published in the Daily Telegraph (11/8/89) he [Nasser Hussain] said ‘If anyone asks about my nationality, I’m proud to say ‘Indian’, but I’ve never given any thought to playing for India. In cricketing terms I’m English.’ Mr Hussain has an English mother. He has lived in this country since he was six. He attended an English public school and an English university. Of all the England qualified players with black or Asian blood currently playing county cricket, he might be thought to have had the best chance of a full integration into English life. Yet here we have him saying that he is proud to describe himself as Indian. I do not criticise Mr Hussain or any other player of foreign ancestry for feeling this way. It is an entirely natural thing to wish to retain one’s racial/cultural identity. Moreover, the energetic public promotion of “multiculturalism” in England has actively encouraged such expressions of independence. However, with such an attitude, and whatever his professional pride as a cricketer, it is difficult to believe that Mr Hussain has any sense of wanting to play above himself simply because he is playing for England. From what, after all, could such a feeling derive? If Mr Hussain has such a lack of sentimental regard for the country which nurtured him, how much less reason have those without even one English parent or any of his educational advantages to feel a deep, unquestioning commitment to England. Norman Tebbit’s cricket test is as pertinent for players as it is
for spectators.

Read more at https://englandcalling.wordpress.com/2013/08/22/the-trouble-with-england/
RH

[Mike Holmans]

He envisages being at selection meetings himself and being asked for
his verdict whenever a name is suggested: "Fails on parentage", "Fails
on bat-waving", "Born in New Zealand to New Zealander parents, so
definitely eligible", and so on.

Cheers,

Mike

[grabber]

On 9/21/2017 7:42 PM, RH156RH wrote:
> On Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 6:53:12 PM UTC+1, grabber wrote:
>> On 9/21/2017 8:17 AM, RH156RH wrote:
>>> On Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 6:55:08 AM UTC+1, Paul Hyett wrote:
>>>> On 20/09/2017 18:16, RH156RH wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, September 20, 2017 at 9:49:47 AM UTC+1, rodney...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Wednesday, 20 September 2017 09:34:33 UTC+2, RH156RH wrote:
>>>>>>> Thank you for confirming that you have no moral objection to the SA racist selection regime... RH
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're not so different, you and Holmans.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rodney
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, about your lack of moral objection to the SA racist selection regime ... RH
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You're the last person in a position to criticise someone else's
>>>> 'racist' selection scheme!
>>>
>>>
>>> Translation: I want the national side called England to be comprised of Englishmen... RH
>>
>> But you are incapable of proposing practical selection rules defining
>> RH-Englishness, so you don't even have a position, let alone a position
>> worth a millisecond of anyone's time.
>
>
> SIGH. I have posted such a definition a number of times. Here is is again
>
>
> Qualifications based on legal definitions of nationality, birth or residence are practically irrelevant in the context of national sporting teams, for the instinctive emotional commitment and sense of oneness, which are an essential part of a successful national side, cannot be gained so mechanically. And that is often true even where a conscious decision to emigrate has been made by a player’s parents. A sense of national place is demonstrably not simply derived from living in a country – as Wellington said to those who insisted on calling him an Irishman, ‘Just because a man is born in a stable it does not make him a
> horse.’
>
> The natural criterion for Test selection, apart from cricketing talent, is surely the sense a man has that he is naturally part of a nation,

Get real Robert: how is it practical to use a person's subjective
feelings about themself as a qualification criterion?

Come back when you have something better to offer.

[Vidcapper]

On 21/09/2017 19:42, RH156RH wrote:
> On Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 6:53:12 PM UTC+1, grabber wrote:
>>
>> But you are incapable of proposing practical selection rules
>> defining RH-Englishness, so you don't even have a position, let
>> alone a position worth a millisecond of anyone's time.
>
>
> SIGH. I have posted such a definition a number of times. Here is is
> again
>
>
> Qualifications based on legal definitions of nationality, birth or
> residence are practically irrelevant in the context of national
> sporting teams, for the instinctive emotional commitment and sense of
> oneness, which are an essential part of a successful national side,
> cannot be gained so mechanically.

But so subjective a criteria would be impossible to utilise. After all,
how can you possibly tell how 'English' someone feels, let alone how
that might affect their play? Don't forget that even many native Brits
who've been 'brainwashed' by political correctness, actively resent
their own country.

You might as well suggest that people who voted Remain in the EU
referendum should be ineligible, as their loyalties are to Europe,
rather than England... :p


--

Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

[Vidcapper]

All this 'parentage' BS is just a red herring anyway - the overriding
criteria that RH is unwilling to admit to, is skin colour.

I suspect that, even if someone was a 3rd generation immigrant, whose
West Indian grandparents & parents were all born & raised in England,
Robert would still not consider them English enough to represent this
country. I wonder just how many generations it *would* take...?



--

Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

[rodney...@gmail.com]

On Friday, 22 September 2017 08:27:51 UTC+2, Paul Hyett wrote:
> But so subjective a criteria would be impossible to utilise. After all,
> how can you possibly tell how 'English' someone feels, let alone how
> that might affect their play?

We're fast approaching that point in every RH debate when, backed into a corner, he starts firing off what pass in his mind for witty one-line put-downs. I'd prefer it, personally, if he did what Holmans does in such circumstances, which is to put his hands to his ears and scream, "I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" at the top of his lungs -- or, even better, what Hamish does, which to disappear for a conspicuous length of time.

It's certainly demanding too much, of any of these needle-dicked low-lives, to expect a retraction or a mea culpa.

Rodney

[hamis...@gmail.com]

On Friday, September 22, 2017 at 8:59:08 PM UTC+10, rodney...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, 22 September 2017 08:27:51 UTC+2, Paul Hyett wrote:
> > But so subjective a criteria would be impossible to utilise. After all,
> > how can you possibly tell how 'English' someone feels, let alone how
> > that might affect their play?
>
> We're fast approaching that point in every RH debate when, backed into a corner, he starts firing off what pass in his mind for witty one-line put-downs. I'd prefer it, personally, if he did what Holmans does in such circumstances, which is to put his hands to his ears and scream, "I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" at the top of his lungs -- or, even better, what Hamish does, which to disappear for a conspicuous length of time.

Yes, obviously I couldn't have other things on like work, sport and going out to a live music gig.
It's solely to avoid you and your opinion that you've refuted every point made (by waving your arms wildly and going bah)

[RH156RH]

It is just a matter of political will... RH

[RH156RH]

It is just a matter of political will.. RH

[grabber]

You can have all the political will you like, but if you cannot even
state precisely what it is that you want, you are clearly not going to
persuade anyone to give it to you.

You know how the existing qualifications are drafted: how do you propose
to re-draft them? You will need tests that can actually be applied in
practice. You have frequently been invited make such a proposal, but
have never come up with one. I suggest you go away and get your ideas
straight, and in the meantime stop wasting everyone's time with an idea
you have not even taken the trouble to think through.

[RH156RH]

What did you do in the apartheid years Rodney? RH

[rodney...@gmail.com]

On Friday, 22 September 2017 18:40:40 UTC+2, hamis...@gmail.com wrote:
> Yes, obviously I couldn't have other things on like work, sport and going out to a live music gig.
> It's solely to avoid you and your opinion that you've refuted every point made (by waving your arms wildly and going bah)

You had time enough to post this. Apparently you need a bit more to think how you're going to acquit yourself of the charge that you hold Haiti and Haitians in racist contempt.

Rodney

[rodney...@gmail.com]

On Friday, 22 September 2017 19:56:50 UTC+2, RH156RH wrote:
> What did you do in the apartheid years Rodney? RH

My memory of those years is foggy, but I'm reliably informed that I spent most of them crying, sleeping, eating and shitting myself.

I was an infant when apartheid ended.

Rodney

[max.it]

On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 12:04:58 -0700 (PDT), rodney...@gmail.com
wrote:

That must be about right, I think the first time I encountered you was
when you were still a wee lad, late teens maybe.
Cheetas appear to be hammering Leinster this evening. I'm watching
Ulster 2nds are humbling Dragons bigtime.

max.it

[rodney...@gmail.com]

On Friday, 22 September 2017 21:41:20 UTC+2, max.it wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 12:04:58 -0700 (PDT), rodney...@gmail.com
> wrote:
> >On Friday, 22 September 2017 19:56:50 UTC+2, RH156RH wrote:
> >> What did you do in the apartheid years Rodney? RH
> >My memory of those years is foggy, but I'm reliably informed that I spent most of them crying, sleeping, eating and shitting myself.
> >I was an infant when apartheid ended.

> That must be about right, I think the first time I encountered you was
> when you were still a wee lad, late teens maybe.
> Cheetas appear to be hammering Leinster this evening. I'm watching
> Ulster 2nds are humbling Dragons bigtime.

I added the South African sides to the "My Teams" section of my Flashscore profile after our chat about them. I'm not rugby-mad, but my country is, and it's generally a pretty miserable place when our representatives are struggling. Good to hear the Cheetahs put in such an impressive first half.

Any word on the crowd?

Rodney

[max.it]

On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 13:42:28 -0700 (PDT), rodney...@gmail.com

wrote:

>On Friday, 22 September 2017 21:41:20 UTC+2, max.it wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 12:04:58 -0700 (PDT), rodney...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>> >On Friday, 22 September 2017 19:56:50 UTC+2, RH156RH wrote:
>> >> What did you do in the apartheid years Rodney? RH

>> >My memory of those years is foggy, but I'm reliably informed that I spen=

>t most of them crying, sleeping, eating and shitting myself.
>> >I was an infant when apartheid ended.

>> That must be about right, I think the first time I encountered you was
>> when you were still a wee lad, late teens maybe.
>> Cheetas appear to be hammering Leinster this evening. I'm watching
>> Ulster 2nds are humbling Dragons bigtime.
>

>I added the South African sides to the "My Teams" section of my Flashscore =
>profile after our chat about them. I'm not rugby-mad, but my country is, an=
>d it's generally a pretty miserable place when our representatives are stru=

>ggling. Good to hear the Cheetahs put in such an impressive first half.
>
>Any word on the crowd?
>
>Rodney

Dunno, didn't see the result yet.
I got carried away with Ulster hammering Dragons.
The word is that the northern hemisphere teams will struggle in SA
conditions.

max.it

[rodney...@gmail.com]

On Friday, 22 September 2017 23:13:02 UTC+2, max.it wrote:
> The word is that the northern hemisphere teams will struggle in SA
> conditions.

Yeah, it's glib and cliched to talk about altitude, but it really does make a difference.

Rodney

[Vidcapper]

But ISTM that in your SA selection policy thread, you complain about
politics getting involved in selection?

Surely it's either wrong everywhere, or nowhere? You can't pick & choose
which countries are allowed to select on racial grounds.


--

Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

[RH156RH]

You completely misunderstand what I am about. I raise the SA anti-white regime simply because of the hypocrisy of the white members of the ng who attempt to excuse what they condemn as racism elsewhere. SrH

[grabber]

On 9/22/2017 7:27 AM, Vidcapper wrote:
> On 21/09/2017 19:42, RH156RH wrote:
>> On Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 6:53:12 PM UTC+1, grabber wrote:
>>>
>>> But you are incapable of proposing practical selection rules
>>> defining RH-Englishness, so you don't even have a position, let
>>> alone a position worth a millisecond of anyone's time.
>>
>>
>> SIGH. I have posted such a definition a number of times. Here is is
>> again
>>
>>
>> Qualifications based on legal definitions of nationality, birth or
>> residence are practically irrelevant in the context of national
>> sporting teams, for the instinctive emotional commitment and sense of
>> oneness, which are an essential part of a successful national side,
>> cannot be gained so mechanically.
>
> But so subjective a criteria would be impossible to utilise. After all,
> how can you possibly tell how 'English' someone feels, let alone how
> that might affect their play? Don't forget that even many native Brits
> who've been 'brainwashed' by political correctness, actively resent
> their own country.

Since healthy disagreement seems all the rage in the ng just now, I'd
like to challenge you on this last statement, Paul. Specifically:

Exactly what do you mean by "political correctness"? Certainly not the
dictionary definition, and we have seen there is little consistency in
what people use this phrase to mean. So what is your definition?

What are some examples of people who actively resent their own country?
How do you know they have been "brainwashed", and how have you
identified the source of the "brainwashing"? And why is "brainwashed" in
scare quotes? If you aren't using it in its normal sense, what *are* you
using it to mean?

[grabber]

It is you who appears to be a hypocrite here. If you were genuinely
interested in analysing the sustainability of such a position you would,
for example, either accept the distinction that Rodney cited or else
respond to it with debate. Instead, you withdrew from the discussion.

[grabber]

Ongoing inability or RH to put forward practical proposal for
RH-qualification criteria remains evident.

[Vidcapper]

On 23/09/2017 09:52, grabber wrote:
> On 9/22/2017 7:27 AM, Vidcapper wrote:

Don't forget that even many native
>> Brits who've been 'brainwashed' by political correctness, actively
>> resent their own country.
>
> Since healthy disagreement seems all the rage in the ng just now, I'd
> like to challenge you on this last statement, Paul. Specifically:
>
> Exactly what do you mean by "political correctness"? Certainly not the
> dictionary definition, and we have seen there is little consistency in
> what people use this phrase to mean. So what is your definition?

In this context I was thinking of the sort of iconoclasts who want to
tear down statues of historical British figures.

>
> What are some examples of people who actively resent their own country?
> How do you know they have been "brainwashed", and how have you
> identified the source of the "brainwashing"? And why is "brainwashed" in
> scare quotes? If you aren't using it in its normal sense, what *are* you
> using it to mean?

I'm referring to the soft of leftism that seems to be prevalent in many
unis nowadays, creating 'snowflakes' who want safe spaces from anything
that might offend them.


--

Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

[rodney...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, 23 September 2017 11:49:17 UTC+2, Paul Hyett wrote:
> On 23/09/2017 09:52, grabber wrote:
> > Exactly what do you mean by "political correctness"? Certainly not the
> > dictionary definition, and we have seen there is little consistency in
> > what people use this phrase to mean. So what is your definition?
> In this context I was thinking of the sort of iconoclasts who want to
> tear down statues of historical British figures.

The museum is the place for graven images of mass murderers, racists, rapists and imperialists. They don't deserve glorification, which is what their erection in public places is intended to grant them. Nor is this a case of wanting to "rewrite history." It's always seemed to me that the statues themselves do that.

> > What are some examples of people who actively resent their own country?
> > How do you know they have been "brainwashed", and how have you
> > identified the source of the "brainwashing"? And why is "brainwashed" in
> > scare quotes? If you aren't using it in its normal sense, what *are* you
> > using it to mean?
> I'm referring to the soft of leftism that seems to be prevalent in many
> unis nowadays, creating 'snowflakes' who want safe spaces from anything
> that might offend them.

This, as anyone who's actually visited one of these universities, isn't nearly so prevalent as it suits your reactionary media to pretend. I'd be astonished if even ten per cent of students subscribe to that bunk.

Rodney