Blue Bolt Time: Shirley This Can't Be True
alvey
scoreboard is;
"GM Lambert replaced BT Cockley for New South Wales (Cockley call into the
Australian team in India)"
alvey
Michael Banner
Ah yes, BT Cockley, a household name. A proven and capable performer
for NSW, with a DODO record of 5 wickets in 4 matches @ 39.40 and a
economy rate of 6.87 RPO. Stellar.
alvey
Come on then you NSV non-believers. Let's hear from you.
Do you still deny that certain States get preferential treatment?
Come on. Put your hands up.
alvey
Mohan
Perhaps he was the only one who already had a valid visa to visit
India?
Mohan
Mohan
Apparently he had traveled to India for Champions League (as a
replacement there too). Given that there were only six days left in
the tour, it obviously makes sense to send someone who could travel
immediately rather than wasting a couple of days in visa processing.
Mohan
alvey
Interesting theory, however the far better credentialled Dirk Nanness
(amongst others) also played in the CL.
alvey
Mohan
But at least NSV conspiracy theory doesn't apply as all those who
played in the CL and thus ready to travel were from NSV. Maybe Nannes
had gone off on one of his adventure trips?
Mohan
Nirvanam
Can Nannes be selected for Aus anymore? I mean he already represents
the Dutch in internationals. Why should anyone be allowed to represent
two nations in 2 different formats simultaneously?
Matthew Pope
news:dxbx0pg481j$.1lse9lnizba7y$.d...@40tude.net:
How that hack Queenslander Johnson gets a run is beyond me... obviously
a favoured child. And Watson too... both Queenslanders, both "project
players".
You trolled me successfully. Wonder how well I've done in return... :-)
alvey
> On Nov 7, 12:33�am, alvey <al...@play.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 07:49:33 -0800 (PST), Mohan wrote:
>>> On Nov 6, 4:07�pm, Mohan <dpuse...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On Nov 6, 3:36�pm, alvey <alvey_embarrassingsta...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 18:18:57 +1000, alvey wrote:
>>>>> > It's nowhere on the CI news pages but footnoting the Poos v Warriors Shield
>>>>> > scoreboard is;
>>
>>>>> > "GM Lambert replaced BT Cockley for New South Wales (Cockley call into the
>>>>> > Australian team in India)"
>>
>>>>> > alvey
>>
>>>>> Come on then you NSV non-believers. Let's hear from you.
>>>>> Do you still deny that certain States get preferential treatment?
>>>>> Come on. Put your hands up.
>>
>>>> Perhaps he was the only one who already had a valid visa to visit
>>>> India?
>>
>>> Apparently he had traveled to India for Champions League (as a
>>> replacement there too). Given that there were only six days left in
>>> the tour, it obviously makes sense to send someone who could travel
>>> immediately rather than wasting a couple of days in visa processing.
>>
>> Interesting theory, however the far better credentialled Dirk Nanness
>> (amongst others) also played in the CL.
>>
>> alvey
>
> Can Nannes be selected for Aus anymore?
Yes. And has been since the Netherparts Lords triumph over Pomgolia.
> I mean he already represents
> the Dutch in internationals. Why should anyone be allowed to represent
> two nations in 2 different formats simultaneously?
http://www.cricinfo.com/engvaus2009/content/story/422600.html
alvey
Andrew Dunford
"alvey" <al...@play.com> wrote in message
news:o2k32ygd845y.12...@40tude.net...
Nannes has a hamstring injury and will be out of cricket for up to a month.
Andrew
Moby
True enough, but I think this Visa thing is a bit of a blue-herring.
There weren't any issues before about getting replacements to India
(between the time when they stopped taking a decent-sized tour party
and when CL-type stuff started).
Although I have no doubt at all the the Blews will jump on this piece
of bullshit as their excuse.
There's always an excuse. It might be (translation: nearly always is)
trumped up or irrelevant, but there's -always- an excuse.
People will justify all sorts of things to themselves.
Moby
Here's Johnny
How's this for a bite?
Yes, we Queenslanders get nothing but first-class treatment from CA.
Sincerely,
A. Symonds.
Matthew Pope
news:dLadnfBRxcNL1pzW...@westnet.com.au:
Well played.
Ricky Ponting received exactly the same treatment for being a little
slimy cunt up the bourbon and beefsteak.
No really.................
CDK
Big difference between Symonds and Ponting, is that Ponting pulled his
head in and fixed up his act. Symonds clearly didn't want to continue
his international career.
CDK
Moby
> Big difference between Symonds and Ponting, is that Ponting pulled his
> head in and fixed up his act. Symonds clearly didn't want to continue
> his international career.
>
> CDK
You are ignoring, I suggest intentionally, that a large part of the
issue with Symonds treatment is that the charges were... how do I put
it, "full of more shit than a Victorian"?
When you have Blue players hitting each other being hushed up, while
an Other gets lambasted for having the "poor taste" to be accosted by
a drunken fan, something stinks in the state of Denmark... or is that
"New South Denmark".
Moby
CDK
A response worthy of Joh.
CDK
Calvin
wrote:
As always, introduce a a few facts into a thread and Colin has nowehere to
turn.
--
cheers,
calvin
JC
"Calvin" <cal...@phlegm.com> wrote in message
news:op.u3w6c...@04233-jyhzp1s.staff.ad.bond.edu.au...
Granted they attempted to hush up the dressing room stoush. Even Warnie got
in on the act when asked by the pommy commentators about the incident, "what
incident, don't believe everything you hear in the media" and no more was
spoken of the subject.
But how does one cover up some of Symonds numerous fuckups that have occured
in public.
re: rolling up drunk for odi, drunk on live radio with roy & hg, challenging
on rugby forward at a bar?
>
> --
>
> cheers,
> calvin
CDK
A few very carefully selected facts that don't even go close to telling
the whole story.
As I said a response worthy of Joh.
CDK
CDK
Shhhhhh Moby the "journo" and his cronies prefer to use selective
details and pretend that they are the whole picture. Pretty typical of
journalism in this and most western countries.
CDK
Calvin
wrote:
Feel free to relate the whole story abut the Blues stoush and you might
gain some credibility.
--
cheers,
calvin
CDK
Typical Qlder response missing the point entirely.
Moby's feeble attamept to suggest that Symonds was a victim is
laughable. Symonds has had multiple run ins, most of his own making.
Is failing to take responsibility for your own actions taught in schools
North of the Tweed?
CDK
eusebius
> Calvin wrote:
Well, Warne of the famous mother and the errant digit was born south
of the Murray if I recall correctly.
Anyway Symonds was given a raw deal, as was Australian cricket, in the
high handed way he was treated. He is no angel, but better management
and counselling would be the approach, rather than the 'tough love'
practised by CA. And, incidentally, but the ARU.
To pretend to be lillywhite, and select players on the basis of
'handling alcohol well', seems to be a strange path to go down. All
about not putting the game in 'disrepute' or something. Strangely
Warne escaped for the most part major censure, except over the pills.
Frankly, Symonds is a much more fragile character than Warne. You can
tell him to 'take more responsibility' but that is not the answer for
many people. Symonds probably had more to give. I as a spectator, feel
robbed that I won't enjoy seeing it, at least not at an international
level. The rather amateurish CA are at least partly to blame for
this.
What, incidentally, are Sutherland's qualifications to run CA? Or
indeed Hilditch's qualifications to be a selector? Is being a
cricketer, even a failed one, a huge advantage in such matters?
Calvin
wrote:
> Symonds has had multiple run ins, most of his own making.
So have many cricketers, Col. We want the FULL story, remember.
--
cheers,
calvin
Here's Johnny
"Most" of his own making. Does this mean he's also responsible for the ones
which weren't?
And how many of them was a bigger run-in than a punch-up between teammates?
alvey
Rubbish. Both the neck and the arsehole are circular, ergo Colin can turn
any way at all. It's just that the view is poo whichever way he turns.
alvey
alvey
Oooooooh! here's a scoop! Col's going to divulge the "whole story"!!
Wait till I get me recorder set up Col. Ok. Go.
> As I said a response worthy of Joh.
Yes you did say that. I don't know why. Presumably you wanted to look even
sillier.
alvey
in Briz, wondering what the body count is in Mellybelly these days.
alvey
>>
>> Feel free to relate the whole story abut the Blues stoush and you might
>> gain some credibility.
>
> Typical Qlder response missing the point entirely.
On the lol scale that's an 11/10.
How's that inside dope on the Krap v BB stoush coming along Col? I'm
especialy keen on your revelations as to who was involved in the cover up.
You reckon that Dic Sutherland was in on it? I can't wait!
alvey
alvey
Remind yourself of who handed their number 23 odo shirt over to Twerp.
>
> But how does one cover up some of Symonds numerous fuckups that have occured
> in public.
> re: rolling up drunk for odi,
You mean like Walters and Gilmour did in the middle of a Test match?
Batting at the time even.
> drunk on live radio with roy & hg,
So?
> challenging on rugby forward at a bar?
Challenging "on" him to what? A game of darts?
Meanwhile Shane Watson has found the "overwhelming push" from the NSV to
replaced by Whoghes "definitely interesting...". Fuck knows why.
http://www.cricinfo.com/ausvwi09/content/story/436336.html
alvey
Here's Johnny
Kerry O'Keefe is a much-loved larrikin for much the same behaviour.
Here's Johnny
Who's BB? What's the story behind this one? I thought Clarke was the one
having dressing room punch ups?
CDK
I don't really care.
Symonds was stupid enough to conduct quite a number of his misdemeanors
in public.
So your comparison is invalid.
CDK
CDK
alvey has silly little names for his pet hates.
BB is his nick for Michael Clarke (Baby Buttocks IIRC)
CDK
CDK
Symonds misdemenars are well known and encompass far more than just
being accosted by a drunken fan.
Maybe you are on a Sri Lankan newsfeed and haven't caught up with them
though.
>> As I said a response worthy of Joh.
>
> Yes you did say that. I don't know why. Presumably you wanted to look even
> sillier.
Joh (who was voted in by Queenslanders for many many elections (showing
the rest of the country how stupid they were)) used to blather on about
topics with selcetive facts and carry on as if it was the wqhole story.
Good ild Moby Splinter Arse was just following in the Big Peanut's
footsteps.
CDK
My Goodness Gracious Me.
CDK
Funny that you defend the pretend journo when he chooses to be very
selective about the "facts" he chooses to attempt to make a point.
CDK
And Queenslanders wonder why they are the laughing stock of the country
Here's Johnny
I like quite a lot of these nick names. I thought Clarke was Twerp?
alvey
> alvey wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 04:47:24 GMT, CDK wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> Feel free to relate the whole story abut the Blues stoush and you might
>>>> gain some credibility.
>>> Typical Qlder response missing the point entirely.
>>
>> On the lol scale that's an 11/10.
>>
>> How's that inside dope on the Krap v BB stoush coming along Col? I'm
>> especialy keen on your revelations as to who was involved in the cover up.
>> You reckon that Dic Sutherland was in on it? I can't wait!
>
>
> I don't really care.
Bit of a change in direction from; "A few very carefully selected facts
that don't even go close to telling the whole story." Col.
>
> Symonds was stupid enough to conduct quite a number of his misdemeanors
> in public.
The Aust team held their team meeting in Darwin in public? Novel.
>
> So your comparison is invalid.
Something here is invalid Colin but it ain't my comparison.
alvey
alvey
>>
>> alvey has silly little names for his pet hates.
>>
>> BB is his nick for Michael Clarke (Baby Buttocks IIRC)
>>
>> CDK
>
> I like quite a lot of these nick names. I thought Clarke was Twerp?
It varies. I'm using more of Twerp now that he's pushing 30 and not NSW's
latest wunderkind. And of course because he is a gormless twerp.
alvey
alvey
lol.
Colin bumbles on about selective "facts" and then closes with an
unsupported opinion presented as a "fact". Super effort that.
alvey
in Briz, wondering what the tally of bashed Indian students in Mellybelly
is currently.
CDK
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 12:17:20 GMT, CDK wrote:
>
>> alvey wrote:
>>> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 04:47:24 GMT, CDK wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Feel free to relate the whole story abut the Blues stoush and you might
>>>>> gain some credibility.
>>>> Typical Qlder response missing the point entirely.
>>> On the lol scale that's an 11/10.
>>>
>>> How's that inside dope on the Krap v BB stoush coming along Col? I'm
>>> especialy keen on your revelations as to who was involved in the cover up.
>>> You reckon that Dic Sutherland was in on it? I can't wait!
>>
>> I don't really care.
>
> Bit of a change in direction from; "A few very carefully selected facts
> that don't even go close to telling the whole story." Col.
Which was referring to Symonds anyone with more than two neurons would
have been able to work that out, not surprisingly you missed it.
>> Symonds was stupid enough to conduct quite a number of his misdemeanors
>> in public.
>
> The Aust team held their team meeting in Darwin in public? Novel.
A Roy and HG broadcast isn't public? Novel!!
>> So your comparison is invalid.
>
> Something here is invalid Colin but it ain't my comparison.
Yes it is, but you keep on deluding yourself old man.
CDK
Cicero
"Here's Johnny" <r...@tattat.net> wrote in message
news:s5-dnV5wRJoBk5DW...@westnet.com.au...
> Kerry O'Keefe is a much-loved larrikin for much the same behavior.
Strangely enough, attitudes and expectations do change in 40 years.
JC
"alvey" <al...@play.com> wrote in message
news:1jlfiflw661wh$.18mu8pu8uy34u$.dlg@40tude.net...
Ohhhh for fucks sake Alvey.. you have either lost your friggen marbles or
like i suggested once before.. you are on Roy's PR team!!
fair fuckin dinkum, if he'd come from anywhere down south, you'd be trashing
him at every opportunity !!!!!
alvey
>
> fair fuckin dinkum, if he'd come from anywhere down south, you'd be trashing
> him at every opportunity !!!!!
It's very helpful when people tell me what I'd be saying "if...". It's so
helpful for my newsreader scoring. Have some more minus points.
alvey
Here's Johnny
Kezza is a much-loved larrikin NOW for his behaviour back then. If he was
talking about having punched his missus or racially vilifying someone,
things which are far more unacceptable these days than 40 years ago, he
would be a pariah.
No, he's popular because he's a larrikin, and people think it's amusing that
he played hung over and bowled shithouse. This somewhat debunks you.
I don't have a problem with O'Keefe, I quite like him. But then I'm not as
inconsistent as the twats who share my enjoyment of his larrikinism while
caning Symonds for his. The latter being fined for being silly would have
been quite good enough. I don't think he brought anywhere near the same
disrepute to CA as did Mark Waugh and Shane Warne giving weather and pitch
reports, and that's all that happened to them for that little episode -
after CA's cover-up came unstuck, that is.
Ian Galbraith
You may as well killfile everyone not from Qld then. You can then engage
in your own little circle jerk without any bothersome contrary opinions
intruding on your little insular world.
--
"Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited.
Imagination encircles the world." - Einstein
Moby
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 18:59:33 +1000, alvey wrote:
> > On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 17:43:53 +1000, JC wrote:
>
> >> fair fuckin dinkum, if he'd come from anywhere down south, you'd be trashing
> >> him at every opportunity !!!!!
>
> > It's very helpful when people tell me what I'd be saying "if...". It's so
> > helpful for my newsreader scoring. Have some more minus points.
>
> You may as well killfile everyone not from Qld then. You can then engage
> in your own little circle jerk without any bothersome contrary opinions
Ian, you generally make more use of your brain than that, I'm
surprised.
I've said my bit for the thread and, since no one's bothered to
address what I wrote, there's not much point adding anything to it,
except to point out the new addition to the "do as I say, not as I do"
file.
Scroll up just a bit and you'll see Colin saying something along the
lines of 'How dare you say that sports journalists sensationalise
stories that suit their own agenda. Why, you're nothing but one of
those journalists that sensationalise stories to suit their own
agenda.'
I'm not sure if that was before or after the bit where he seems to
argue 'No, it's not possible there's been a big beat up. I would have
read in the paper if the paper was beating up the story.'
Riiight.
Not that seeing Colin come up with a self-awareness fail is all that
surprising. I'm sure he didn't actually mean that, but that's how
it's come across... perhaps he'd like to try again without the
circular arguments. Heck, even calling me names that don't undermine
his own argument would be helpful. Perhaps he might like to try for
another news piece? He's good at them.
Meanwhile, I see the good ol' fall-back is still in vogue. If you
can't argue with what someone's actually saying, tell them they think
something else.
Is there a fucking straw factory down there or something? Any time
you lot run into something that hits a bit too close to the truth bone
you blather on about something to do with 'we can't possibly be
biased. How can you possibly think we'd be biased. You must be
biased or something' OR 'You Queenslanders are so parochial. My
evidence for this is that you accuse us of being parochial. Clearly
we are not parochial, everyone knows that's just you.' OR 'We aren't
arrogant and self-centred. Clearly anyone who thinks we are arrogant
and self-centred simply isn't as good as us. Did I mention how good
we are?'
Moby
CDK
> On Nov 27, 12:48 pm, Ian Galbraith <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 18:59:33 +1000, alvey wrote:
>>> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 17:43:53 +1000, JC wrote:
>>>> fair fuckin dinkum, if he'd come from anywhere down south, you'd be trashing
>>>> him at every opportunity !!!!!
>>> It's very helpful when people tell me what I'd be saying "if...". It's so
>>> helpful for my newsreader scoring. Have some more minus points.
>> You may as well killfile everyone not from Qld then. You can then engage
>> in your own little circle jerk without any bothersome contrary opinions
>
> Ian, you generally make more use of your brain than that, I'm
> surprised.
>
> I've said my bit for the thread and, since no one's bothered to
> address what I wrote, there's not much point adding anything to it,
> except to point out the new addition to the "do as I say, not as I do"
> file.
>
> Scroll up just a bit and you'll see Colin saying something along the
> lines of 'How dare you say that sports journalists sensationalise
> stories that suit their own agenda. Why, you're nothing but one of
> those journalists that sensationalise stories to suit their own
> agenda.'
Ac tually I am saying you have been extraodinarily selective with your
facts in order to grossly skew the the situation.
> I'm not sure if that was before or after the bit where he seems to
> argue 'No, it's not possible there's been a big beat up. I would have
> read in the paper if the paper was beating up the story.'
> Riiight.
Moby you have been worse than the journos in the major papers with your
selection of what you consider the pertinent facts.
> Not that seeing Colin come up with a self-awareness fail is all that
> surprising. I'm sure he didn't actually mean that, but that's how
> it's come across... perhaps he'd like to try again without the
> circular arguments. Heck, even calling me names that don't undermine
> his own argument would be helpful. Perhaps he might like to try for
> another news piece? He's good at them.
Your suggestion that Symonds is an angel and that a coupe of NSV players
are the devil is worthy of the Fox network.
Fair and balanced it aint.
> Meanwhile, I see the good ol' fall-back is still in vogue. If you
> can't argue with what someone's actually saying, tell them they think
> something else.
When you try to compare Symonds by being selective and only choosing the
most innocuous incident you leave yourself wide open for ridicule.
> Is there a fucking straw factory down there or something? Any time
> you lot run into something that hits a bit too close to the truth bone
Your portrayal of Symonds as a victim is ridiculous. Even the example
you chose shows his complete lack of jusgement.
> you blather on about something to do with 'we can't possibly be
> biased. How can you possibly think we'd be biased. You must be
> biased or something' OR 'You Queenslanders are so parochial. My
> evidence for this is that you accuse us of being parochial. Clearly
> we are not parochial, everyone knows that's just you.' OR 'We aren't
> arrogant and self-centred. Clearly anyone who thinks we are arrogant
> and self-centred simply isn't as good as us. Did I mention how good
> we are?'
Moby your post was so parochial and biased it was hilarious.
CDK
alvey
>>
>> I've said my bit for the thread and, since no one's bothered to
>> address what I wrote,
In my case that may be because I haven't seen it. Am having quite a few
posts in different ngs not appear recently, like this one, which I've only
picked up in Col's reply. Nfi what's going on.
Anyway, a slight change of tack. Would one of you non-believers care to
explain why Roy got the boot but the far worse behaved MacDill kept getting
selected?
alvey
Moby
> Your suggestion that Symonds is an angel and that a coupe of NSV players
> are the devil is worthy of the Fox network.
Fuck me dead, Kynoch. Any chance that sometime in the next hundred
years you'll stop it with the strawmen? Are you that bereft of
anything resembling a brain that you have to constantly fill in both
sides of the conversation to suit yourself?
There remains, as there always has been, absolutely no point holding a
conversation with you about anything.
> Moby your post was so parochial and biased it was hilarious.
Ah, yes. 'How dare you accuse people of being parochial: you are
clearly only doing that because you are parochial.'
Do you have any idea at all how mind-breakingly stupid you sound? Tim
couldn't do better.
My point, from the beginning has been:
Some find the manner in which the Symonds saga was covered in the
media to be overblown, drenched in innuendo-turned-"fact" and
completely at odds with the treatment given certain other players.
Not "Symonds is an angel"
Not "I think all NSV players should be burnt at the stake"
Simply that the approach of the news media in covering the Symonds
story was tabloid garbage at its worst.
And apparently the best you can come up with to support your
contention is?? What? I haven't actually read anything remotely
resembling a coherant critique from you yet.
Moby
Moby
Now that's a bit unfair Alvey. McDilla did get the short end of many-
a-selection and it's not too much of a stretch to consider it may have
been the behaviour. Selectors certainly don't have a history of
taking actual results into account when selecting NSV spinners.
What IS of marked difference is the treatment McDill got in the
media. Far from being run out of town, McDill was constantly being
pimped as the replacement Warne, well after his actual returns went
down hill.
Moby
Moby
Despite the elephant-drowning volume of evidence of one-sided
reporting currently around the world, apparently suggesting that the
southern-owned media is biased is just being parochial.
Have you mexicans had a listen to yourselves lately? It's a damn
parody.
Moby
alvey
'Fraid I have to disagree with your last sentence. You spelt "coherent"
incorrectly.
alvey
alvey
And parroty.
Who could forget;
"Brrrrak! We want a Dic selector!"
"Brrrrak! We want a Dic selector!"
Anyway, the most irritating thing for me about the Whoghes push is the
quality of player that they're pimping. He just doesn't look like a good
player who's had a couple of low scores, he looks like a country batsman.
All eye and no technique.
alvey
in Briz, with money on RSA in odo4. ...gak! Smith out for 2.
CDK
> On Nov 29, 8:18 am, CDK <Michelang...@SistineChapel.com> wrote:
>
>> Your suggestion that Symonds is an angel and that a coupe of NSV players
>> are the devil is worthy of the Fox network.
>
> Fuck me dead, Kynoch. Any chance that sometime in the next hundred
> years you'll stop it with the strawmen? Are you that bereft of
> anything resembling a brain that you have to constantly fill in both
> sides of the conversation to suit yourself?
>
> There remains, as there always has been, absolutely no point holding a
> conversation with you about anything.
FFS Moby you are the imbecile who suggested that Symonds was only guilty
of being a victim of a drunk fan, completley ignoring his extensive
history of being an absolute pisspot with very poor self control.
>> Moby your post was so parochial and biased it was hilarious.
>
> Ah, yes. 'How dare you accuse people of being parochial: you are
> clearly only doing that because you are parochial.'
>
> Do you have any idea at all how mind-breakingly stupid you sound? Tim
> couldn't do better.
>
> My point, from the beginning has been:
>
> Some find the manner in which the Symonds saga was covered in the
> media to be overblown, drenched in innuendo-turned-"fact" and
> completely at odds with the treatment given certain other players.
So are you suggesting that Roy's brain fart on Roy and HG's program was
innuendo-turned-"fact"????
> Not "Symonds is an angel"
> Not "I think all NSV players should be burnt at the stake"
>
> Simply that the approach of the news media in covering the Symonds
> story was tabloid garbage at its worst.
Symonds bought it on himself, his personal choices were atrocious.
> And apparently the best you can come up with to support your
> contention is?? What? I haven't actually read anything remotely
> resembling a coherant critique from you yet.
I can only assume you attended uni to watch the journalism students,
because if your posting on this ng is anything to go by you make the
Newscorp "journos" seem like Pulitzer Prize winners by comparison.
CDK
CDK
About the standard you would expect from Moby
CDK
alvey
>
> I can only assume you attended uni to watch the journalism students,
> because if your posting on this ng is anything to go by you make the
> Newscorp "journos" seem like Pulitzer Prize winners by comparison.
Speaking of checking facts... there are scribblers working for Murdoch who
have won a Pulitzer. Judith Miller for one.
hth
alvey
CDK
Can you explain how often one has been a plural?
CDK
alvey
Straws That Way ------>
(take a big handful Col)
alvey
higgs
> On Nov 29, 8:18 am, CDK <Michelang...@SistineChapel.com> wrote:
>
> > Your suggestion that Symonds is an angel and that a coupe of NSV players
> > are the devil is worthy of the Fox network.
>
> Fuck me dead, Kynoch. Any chance that sometime in the next hundred
> years you'll stop it with the strawmen? Are you that bereft of
> anything resembling a brain that you have to constantly fill in both
> sides of the conversation to suit yourself?
>
> There remains, as there always has been, absolutely no point holding a
> conversation with you about anything.
>
> > Moby your post was so parochial and biased it was hilarious.
>
> Ah, yes. 'How dare you accuse people of being parochial: you are
> clearly only doing that because you are parochial.'
>
> Do you have any idea at all how mind-breakingly stupid you sound? Tim
> couldn't do better.
>
So, true to form, you're going to tell me what I would have said in
this situation?
Not that you've got the intelligence to appreciate irony.
Dave, do you realise how unbelievably arrogant you come across as (not
to mention stupid. Did I mention calling people names uneccessarily?
No, that was you. The day you practice what you preach will be a
cultural festival in qld)?
Given that you're on record as having told this group that you've
moved on, I'd just like to remind the group that attempting to cast
slurs in my direction on my intelligence on a thread that I haven't
had anything to do with at all makes you a fucking liar.
But I doubt that anyone here was unaware of that fact anyway
Higgs
Moby
<snip>
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
But no, really. Thanks for coming.
Moby
Moby
> Moby wrote:
> > On Nov 29, 8:18 am, CDK <Michelang...@SistineChapel.com> wrote:
>
> >> Your suggestion that Symonds is an angel and that a coupe of NSV players
> >> are the devil is worthy of the Fox network.
>
> > Fuck me dead, Kynoch. Any chance that sometime in the next hundred
> > years you'll stop it with the strawmen? Are you that bereft of
> > anything resembling a brain that you have to constantly fill in both
> > sides of the conversation to suit yourself?
>
> > There remains, as there always has been, absolutely no point holding a
> > conversation with you about anything.
>
> FFS Moby you are the imbecile who suggested that Symonds was only guilty
> of being a victim of a drunk fan,
No. I. Did. Not.
Stop it with the strawmen. Just. Stop. It.
> completley ignoring his extensive
> history of being an absolute pisspot with very poor self control.
You donkey.
You absolute donkey.
Has it leeched into your consiousness at all that what I'm suggesting
is that this "extensive history of being an absolute pisspot with very
poor self control" is a complete and utter exaggeration?
Is it so completely beyond you to grasp even the most basic part of my
claim here?
If so WHY?
Why is it so hard, so utterly, utterly beyond you to even comprehend
the notion that the build-up of Symonds as this drunken lout is almost
entirely the product of the media?
Yes, like many, many other sports people, he's far from the smartest
knife in the draw. Yes, like many, many other sports people, he's had
his share of moments. But no other sportsman in Australia has had
these moments so blasted out of shape and out of proportion as Andrew
Symonds.
Let's look at what's actually happened
1) Not in any shape to play against Bangladesh
Bang to rights here. Symonds was clearly in the wrong. No beat up
required here. Oh, but did we mention that this was in 2005? Did we
mention that there had been other players in similar situations who'd
been more quietly moved out of contention? Certainly got what he
deserved. No question.
Then several years of nothing
2) Swearing at Harbijan Singh
Yup, you heard it here first. Apparently swearing at a guy who you
believe has taunted you racially is a big red mark. Nevermind the
disgraceful lack of support Symonds received. This was clearly a mark
against Symonds and is raised with the rest of them. An action that
was certainly no worse and probably one heck of a lot better than was
dealt out under Waugh..
3) Shoulder charging a streaker.
Was lauded at the time. Later on, this was taken in an entirely new
light as the news media looked to heap abuse on Symonds.
4) Missed a team meeting. Had been told it was voluntary. Later on,
it was claimed that, despite it being voluntary, all the players were
expected to hang around just in case it became compulsory. Clearly
missing a team meeting is wrong, but missing a voluntary team meeting
is not. It is not up to Andrew Symonds to foresee a voluntary team
meeting turning into a compulsory one. Not taking into account that
some players may be out of contact on a day off is the mark of
extremely poor team management - especially when two in the party are
well known for their enjoyment of an activity that would do exactly
that in most large cities, let alone Darwin. This is a black mark
against team management, not Symonds. It was at this time that
numbers 2 and 3 started to be twisted from Symonds in a good or victim
light to Symonds in a bad light.
5) Brisbane pub - accosted by a drunken fan. Apparently this was
Symonds' fault. Getting accosted by a drunken fan is now the fault of
the sportsperson. Actual named witnesses say Symonds acted perfectly
and it was the fault of the durnken "fan". But the sports media ran
with unattributed quotes and lots of innuendo. 1,2,3 and 4 rehashed
again. These unattributed quotes and the innuendo would later be
reported as fact.
6) In a group at a restaurant that was asked to leave late on a Sunday
night. The fact that it wasn't him who was loud, the fact that every
single Sunday all over the country, late diners are turfed out by
staff was not reported. No, just a big beat up. We had another re-
hash of numbers 1,2,3,4 and 5.. again with the unattributed quotes,
but this time we already had some of the unattributed quotes reported
as fact.
7) Drunk on radio. Any basic level of ethics demands that, if you
call someone for "talent" on the radio and they are drunk, you don't
put them on live. For anyone else, this would have been taken as a
serious breach of ethics by the comedy team. Not with Symonds. More
re-hashing of 1 through 6. More unattributed quotes. More
unattributed quotes reported as fact. Was what Symonds said
deplorable? Of course it was. Should he have ever have gone to air?
No fucking way.
8) Late night drinking session. Definitely Symonds fault... yes... oh
hang on... he was invited by team mates, who continued to drink with
him and who had no issue with it, until Twerp comes along and feels
slighted after getting a few home truths about his State's football
side, so dobs. Now, this is Australia, so it's quite clear who's out
of line here... oh wait.. no.. it's Symonds. Do I need to mention
that by now every single unattributed quote is being reported as fact?
So what do we have.
We have 1 thing from 4 years ago where he did something wrong. And
one thing recently where he's not played along to the letter of the
law. But we have a lot of "incidents". And why are they incidents?
Because the media tells us they are incidents.
We're meant to swallow all this, because they get some quotes from
"insiders" and "unnammed sources close to the team"... well at least
at first we are, because each time a new beat up happens, we get all
the unattributed quotes shoved back at us, except presented as facts.
One incident 4 years ago and then a whole heap of little incidents,
blown out of proportion and reported in any way at all that can paint
Symonds badly.
Anyone with more than half a brain, Colin, realises that there's
something else we should be looking for. And, oh my! Who's the
character who take offence at the lack of respect for not turning up
to the team meeting he called as stand-in captain? Who's the
character who dobs him in? And who's the character who's been gifted
(some say undeservedly) a chauffered ride into a leadership role?
My.. is it the same character who was in the middle of an assault
incident that was covered up? My, I believe it was.
Look, I can perfectly understand it if you want to say "No, I do not
believe that the media has put this out of proportion" AND THEN GO ON
to provide evidence of where there were quotes from real people. But
all you're doing is saying.. well.. aside from abusing me.. exactly
what are you saying? I am STILL waiting for a real response. Lord
knows why.
Let's try another way of looking at this.
If I were to go back to a recent weekend of mine, someone of the same
mind as a sports reporter after Symonds might say that on Saturday
morning I turned up at a childrens' event smelling of wine, spent time
in a young boys dressing room without supervision, stopped a game and
yelled at children who were doing what they thought was right, then
stayed out drinking all night, was thrown out of a dingy night club
and drove home afterwards. And I'm sure we could get all sorts of
quotes from (well, you know who, I swear he's stalking me though)
saying what a terrible person I was.
On the other hand, if you were to ask another person, you might find
out that I had grape juice spilt on me as I held a baby while his
older brother was getting ready to be picked up by his coach (me) on
the way to a junior sports game where I coach as a volunteer. I then
went to the game where we had a pep talk in the locker room. During
the game, I called a time-out and berated my team who were show-
boating against a team of players who were trying hard but just
weren't up to it. After the game, I picked up three other people and
headed out, where I drank less than one standard drink every hour
until closing time, when the lights came on and I drove everyone
home. I'm sure I could get plenty of -named- people willing to back
that one up.
Now Andrew Symonds is no angel. It's certainly true that the media
didn't have to try hard to get stories to turn into juicy gossip. But
the fact remains that they took perfectly normal actions, not really
worth more than a short note and maybe a bit of a "well he's a bit
silly, what an idiot" and turned them into something they weren't.
Bad decisions? Symonds has made two bad decisions that were his to
make. He drank too much the night before a Bangladesh game and he
trusted the people who were meant to be his team mates to do the right
thing by him.
> >> Moby your post was so parochial and biased it was hilarious.
>
> > Ah, yes. 'How dare you accuse people of being parochial: you are
> > clearly only doing that because you are parochial.'
>
> > Do you have any idea at all how mind-breakingly stupid you sound? Tim
> > couldn't do better.
>
> > My point, from the beginning has been:
>
> > Some find the manner in which the Symonds saga was covered in the
> > media to be overblown, drenched in innuendo-turned-"fact" and
> > completely at odds with the treatment given certain other players.
>
> So are you suggesting that Roy's brain fart on Roy and HG's program was
> innuendo-turned-"fact"????
No, I'm suggesting that it was a disgraceful failure of media ethics
and should have been dealt with through a small fine, a good laugh and
an apology to the little shit.
> > Not "Symonds is an angel"
> > Not "I think all NSV players should be burnt at the stake"
>
> > Simply that the approach of the news media in covering the Symonds
> > story was tabloid garbage at its worst.
>
> Symonds bought it on himself, his personal choices were atrocious.
The -only- things you have to base this on are the very articles that
I am suggesting are beat ups. Do you see the problem with you
conitunally arguing this? Do you realise that you will have to come
up with something other than "I know the media isn't biased because
they would have told me if they were"?
Why is it that he made perfectly reasonable choices until Twerp came
along?
> > And apparently the best you can come up with to support your
> > contention is?? What? I haven't actually read anything remotely
> > resembling a coherant critique from you yet.
>
> I can only assume you attended uni to watch the journalism students,
> because if your posting on this ng is anything to go by you make the
> Newscorp "journos" seem like Pulitzer Prize winners by comparison.
Colin, could you stop with the stupidity for just a moment and at
least -try- to respond with something other than abuse.
Keep the abuse up, by all means. But at least make some sort of
effort to make a coherent (thank you Alvey) critique of my main point.
Symonds isn't an angel, certainly. But he's not meant to be. He's
just meant to play cricket.
Moby
Moby
<snip>
To put this in some more perspective for those from overseas who seem
to believe that there is magically no bias in media...
There are football (various codes) players from New South Wales and
Victoria who have (or have done something equally as horrific as) shat
in the lobby of a hotel and then knocked on the door of a family's
room absolutely naked who have not received the same attention from
the media that Symonds has received.
And these fucking drongos want us all to believe that some guy who
swore on radio while drunk is somehow worse?
Give me a f/ing break.
Moby
Matthew Pope
news:IOrQm.58666$ze1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au:
Whoosh...
CDK
> On Nov 30, 10:34 pm, Moby <M...@unimail.com.au> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> To put this in some more perspective for those from overseas who seem
> to believe that there is magically no bias in media...
Moby will drag a massive red herring into the argument.
CDK
CDK
> On Nov 29, 8:12 pm, CDK <Michelang...@SistineChapel.com> wrote:
>> Moby wrote:
>>> On Nov 29, 8:18 am, CDK <Michelang...@SistineChapel.com> wrote:
>>>> Your suggestion that Symonds is an angel and that a coupe of NSV players
>>>> are the devil is worthy of the Fox network.
>>> Fuck me dead, Kynoch. Any chance that sometime in the next hundred
>>> years you'll stop it with the strawmen? Are you that bereft of
>>> anything resembling a brain that you have to constantly fill in both
>>> sides of the conversation to suit yourself?
>>> There remains, as there always has been, absolutely no point holding a
>>> conversation with you about anything.
>> FFS Moby you are the imbecile who suggested that Symonds was only guilty
>> of being a victim of a drunk fan,
>
> No. I. Did. Not.
>
> Stop it with the strawmen. Just. Stop. It.
Then why were you so selcetive with your facts.?
>> completley ignoring his extensive
>> history of being an absolute pisspot with very poor self control.
>
> You donkey.
>
> You absolute donkey.
>
> Has it leeched into your consiousness at all that what I'm suggesting
> is that this "extensive history of being an absolute pisspot with very
> poor self control" is a complete and utter exaggeration?
No that is quite obvious. Which is my point!!
Symonds has multiple examples of being a pisspot with very poor self
control.
Further to this he is in a state of denial. (quite appropriate really
as he is a Queenslander).
> Is it so completely beyond you to grasp even the most basic part of my
> claim here?
>
> If so WHY?
>
> Why is it so hard, so utterly, utterly beyond you to even comprehend
> the notion that the build-up of Symonds as this drunken lout is almost
> entirely the product of the media?
Poor little Andrew. If he had self control and didn't get pissed there
would have been nothing for the media to build up.
> Yes, like many, many other sports people, he's far from the smartest
> knife in the draw. Yes, like many, many other sports people, he's had
> his share of moments. But no other sportsman in Australia has had
> these moments so blasted out of shape and out of proportion as Andrew
> Symonds.
I can think of at least one cricketer who has.
> Let's look at what's actually happened
>
> 1) Not in any shape to play against Bangladesh
> Bang to rights here. Symonds was clearly in the wrong. No beat up
> required here. Oh, but did we mention that this was in 2005? Did we
> mention that there had been other players in similar situations who'd
> been more quietly moved out of contention? Certainly got what he
> deserved. No question.
>
> Then several years of nothing
>
> 2) Swearing at Harbijan Singh
> Yup, you heard it here first. Apparently swearing at a guy who you
> believe has taunted you racially is a big red mark. Nevermind the
> disgraceful lack of support Symonds received.
Symonds received a huge amount of support in the media.
His captain made the complaint on his behalf. A number of his team
mates gave evidence on his behalf.
<snip a huge range of excuses for Roy's behaviour>
I can only assume that you have left journalism and become a social
worker.
CDK
eusebius
>
> Your suggestion that Symonds is an angel and that a coupe of NSV players
> are the devil is worthy of the Fox network.
No-one has ever said that Symonds was an angel.
Unless you can find some quote to substantiate that assertion. If you
can, insert it er here :
CDK
Read Moby's comparison.
He takes one situation regarding Symonds (out of a multitude) and then
compares it to a situation that may or may not have occurred and
happened in private.
If that is the standard of his journalism, it is probably a good thing
he has moved on to social work where his expertise in providing excuses
and suggestiung that people have no responsibility will go down fine.
CDK
higgs
>
snip
> 8) Late night drinking session. Definitely Symonds fault... yes... oh
> hang on... he was invited by team mates, who continued to drink with
> him and who had no issue with it, until Twerp comes along and feels
> slighted after getting a few home truths about his State's football
> side, so dobs. Now, this is Australia, so it's quite clear who's out
> of line here... oh wait.. no.. it's Symonds. Do I need to mention
> that by now every single unattributed quote is being reported as fact?
>
Facts.
Tealby, if you're going to start relying on facts, I suggest that you
break the habit of a lifetime and actually stick to some, rather than
presenting innuendo and scuttlebutt as fact.
I've had a look at this so-called 'fact' that Clarke got so upset over
the NSW SoO loss that he then dobbed (Dobbing. A subject close to your
heart, Dave. More on this to follow*) poor old Roy in for breaking his
curfew.
I had a look for stuff on this 'fact' and all I could find was a
reference by some guy called Moby in some chat group (rsc, in case
you're interested) who maintains that that is actually what happened.
I'd suggest that this Moby dude is more n' likely some sad old hack
with a barrow to push who is simply repeating some half remembered
slur by some bitter loser of a fan over what they perceive to be an
injustice done to Symonds.
probably goes by the name of Dave.............
*Dobbing.
Tealby, I draw your attention to your own recent comments that you
have absolutely no sympathy with anyone who breaks or abuses an
employment contract and that they deserve any punishment that their
employer chooses to pass upon them. After all, as you reminded us,
this is 'the real world' and legal action is often taken in such
cases.
I'd also remind you that you stressed that dobbing in someone who
abuses an employment contract is actually a public duty.
So, at the risk of being accused of putting words into your mouth (but
given as it's a tactic that you use so regularly yourself, I don't
really see how you can object), I'd suggest that what you really mean
is that dobbing is fine, as long as it's carried out by you or someone
you support, and is used against someone you don't like. It's only
when it's used against you or someone you support that it takes on
such an unpleasant and repugnant tone.
Ergo, Clarke was wrong to dob (assuming he did, but, hey, let's not
stick to any facts) because you like Roy, you weren't wrong to dob
because, well, you wanted to get your own way.
snip mindless justification for drunken behaviour
>
> If I were to go back to a recent weekend of mine, someone of the same
> mind as a sports reporter after Symonds might say that on Saturday
> morning I turned up at a childrens' event smelling of wine, spent time
> in a young boys dressing room without supervision, stopped a game and
> yelled at children who were doing what they thought was right, then
> stayed out drinking all night, was thrown out of a dingy night club
> and drove home afterwards. And I'm sure we could get all sorts of
> quotes from (well, you know who, I swear he's stalking me though)
> saying what a terrible person I was.
>
> On the other hand, if you were to ask another person, you might find
> out that I had grape juice spilt on me as I held a baby while his
> older brother was getting ready to be picked up by his coach (me) on
> the way to a junior sports game where I coach as a volunteer. I then
> went to the game where we had a pep talk in the locker room. During
> the game, I called a time-out and berated my team who were show-
> boating against a team of players who were trying hard but just
> weren't up to it. After the game, I picked up three other people and
> headed out, where I drank less than one standard drink every hour
> until closing time, when the lights came on and I drove everyone
> home. I'm sure I could get plenty of -named- people willing to back
> that one up.
>
Interesting.
Let me recount a real incident (as opposed to a ridiculous
hypothetical that has no chance of happening) that I myself was the
victim of.
I am involved in junior level soccer, both as a coach and an
administrator.
Because I happened to point out to a person on a cricket chat group
that they had used a number of different aliases whilst posting to the
group, the poster then used my connection with a soccer club to
intimate to the group that I was a paedophile who oughn't to be
trusted around young soccer players.
This accusation attracted some support from other members of said
group who I had had previous run-ins with, notably the sad old hack
named Moby.
There wasn't, of course, any truth in the accusation, but it was a
useful tool to attempt to beat me with because I held a different view
to many of those posters.
So much for 'facts'.
Of course, it's ironic that those same posters are well known to bleat
on about truth, facts and fair play in circumstances that suit them,
yet are only too happy to lie and spread rumours if it suits their
particular agenda.
I can only assume that they've had some sort of training in journalism
Higgs
alvey
Athletics once decided that the name of the event known as the Hop, Skip &
Jump was too wordy and went and rebranded it as The Triple Jump. This seems
a good idea. I therefore propose that a Trip, Stumble & Fall be renamed the
Colin Jump.
alvey
higgs
> On Nov 30, 10:34 pm, Moby <M...@unimail.com.au> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> To put this in some more perspective for those from overseas who seem
> to believe that there is magically no bias in media...
>
> There are football (various codes) players from New South Wales and
> Victoria who have (or have done something equally as horrific as) shat
> in the lobby of a hotel and then knocked on the door of a family's
> room absolutely naked who have not received the same attention from
> the media that Symonds has received.
>
Of course,
that's, as usual, nothing more than cherry-picking certain 'facts'.
Most of the incidents involving footballers from various codes in NSV
resulted in those players having their contracts torn up.
Sometimes they got a first warning, sometimes they didn't.
Whatever, none of them got the number of warnings or the amount of
time that Symonds did.
There were a few exceptions, of couirse.
Unsurprisingy, the captain of the Brisbane Broncos Rugby League team
was involved in a number of incidents which the club successfully
swept under the carpet.
Given your stated position that breaching employment contracts
deserves no sympathy, I wonder why you think Symonds should have been
allowed to breach his employment contract on so many occasions with
impunity?
> And these fucking drongos want us all to believe that some guy who
> swore on radio while drunk is somehow worse?
>
But one has to remember that things are done differently in qld to the
rest of Australia.
Perhaps Symonds' problem was that cricket is a national sport and the
media from south of the border are unlikely to be as easily bought off
as those in Redneck Central.
Higgs
Cicero
>
> Let's look at what's actually happened
>
> 1) Not in any shape to play against Bangladesh
> Bang to rights here. Symonds was clearly in the wrong. No beat up
> required here. Oh, but did we mention that this was in 2005? Did we
> mention that there had been other players in similar situations who'd
> been more quietly moved out of contention? Certainly got what he
> deserved. No question.
Fair enough- why is Alvey (not you I know) raising Walters and Gilmour which
happened close to 40 years ago as a standard?
>
> Then several years of nothing
>
> 2) Swearing at Harbijan Singh
> Yup, you heard it here first. Apparently swearing at a guy who you
> believe has taunted you racially is a big red mark. Nevermind the
> disgraceful lack of support Symonds received. This was clearly a mark
> against Symonds and is raised with the rest of them. An action that
> was certainly no worse and probably one heck of a lot better than was
> dealt out under Waugh..
I can't follow what you are talking about here. Anyone should be commended
for swearing at Harbajahn. What happened under Waugh though, is really no
defence for what Symonds may have done.
>
> 3) Shoulder charging a streaker.
> Was lauded at the time. Later on, this was taken in an entirely new
> light as the news media looked to heap abuse on Symonds.
>
He should have hit him harder.
> 4) Missed a team meeting. Had been told it was voluntary. Later on,
> it was claimed that, despite it being voluntary, all the players were
> expected to hang around just in case it became compulsory. Clearly
> missing a team meeting is wrong, but missing a voluntary team meeting
> is not. It is not up to Andrew Symonds to foresee a voluntary team
> meeting turning into a compulsory one. Not taking into account that
> some players may be out of contact on a day off is the mark of
> extremely poor team management - especially when two in the party are
> well known for their enjoyment of an activity that would do exactly
> that in most large cities, let alone Darwin. This is a black mark
> against team management, not Symonds. It was at this time that
> numbers 2 and 3 started to be twisted from Symonds in a good or victim
> light to Symonds in a bad light.
Unsure of this. I think it is still unclear whether or not it was
"voluntary". Perhaps the player should have ascertained? Or management
should have ensured the status.
> 5) Brisbane pub - accosted by a drunken fan. Apparently this was
> Symonds' fault. Getting accosted by a drunken fan is now the fault of
> the sportsperson. Actual named witnesses say Symonds acted perfectly
> and it was the fault of the durnken "fan". But the sports media ran
> with unattributed quotes and lots of innuendo. 1,2,3 and 4 rehashed
> again. These unattributed quotes and the innuendo would later be
> reported as fact.
Symonds seems innocent.
>
> 6) In a group at a restaurant that was asked to leave late on a Sunday
> night. The fact that it wasn't him who was loud, the fact that every
> single Sunday all over the country, late diners are turfed out by
> staff was not reported. No, just a big beat up. We had another re-
> hash of numbers 1,2,3,4 and 5.. again with the unattributed quotes,
> but this time we already had some of the unattributed quotes reported
> as fact.
As above.
>
> 7) Drunk on radio. Any basic level of ethics demands that, if you
> call someone for "talent" on the radio and they are drunk, you don't
> put them on live. For anyone else, this would have been taken as a
> serious breach of ethics by the comedy team. Not with Symonds. More
> re-hashing of 1 through 6. More unattributed quotes. More
> unattributed quotes reported as fact. Was what Symonds said
> deplorable? Of course it was. Should he have ever have gone to air?
> No fucking way.
It was a dreadful breach of ethics, but not by Symonds. However, he should
not have allowed himself to be placed in the position.
>
> 8) Late night drinking session. Definitely Symonds fault... yes... oh
> hang on... he was invited by team mates, who continued to drink with
> him and who had no issue with it, until Twerp comes along and feels
> slighted after getting a few home truths about his State's football
> side, so dobs. Now, this is Australia, so it's quite clear who's out
> of line here... oh wait.. no.. it's Symonds. Do I need to mention
> that by now every single unattributed quote is being reported as fact?
>
I know nothing of this one.
JC
"Cicero" <Som...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:Ct9Rm.59294$ze1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
and you think Moby does, lol
This was the final incident,.. fed up after numerous alcohol related
incidents, CA had barred him from drinking in public, but you think he gave
a shit? Nope!!
and there's a bit more to some of those other incidents than Moby's
laughable spin!.
Apart from the above there were also other incidents..
The SA incident, which happened before the harby fiasco.
2 incidents in the WI, and
2 other incidents with the Bulls
eusebius
Not commenting on the point you've raised, since I haven't followed
the points in detail, and haven't the time atm, but I would hardly say
that that was a negative from the journalist's pov. This seems to be
what they do all the time.
eusebius
on radio while drunk is somehow worse?
>
> But one has to remember that things are done differently in qld to the
> rest of Australia.
> Higgs
Yes, we certainly wouldn't let things like you in here. We have our
standards.
eusebius
However to say that Symonds has been treated more harshly than some
others I still think is a reasonable pov. One might compare the Lote
Tuqiri case in ARU. Interesting that one other point of comparison
might be...race?
eusebius
>
> Let me recount a real incident (as opposed to a ridiculous
> hypothetical that has no chance of happening) that I myself was the
> victim of.
> I am involved in junior level soccer, both as a coach and an
> administrator.
> Because I happened to point out to a person on a cricket chat group
> that they had used a number of different aliases whilst posting to the
> group, the poster then used my connection with a soccer club to
> intimate to the group that I was a paedophile who oughn't to be
> trusted around young soccer players.
> This accusation attracted some support from other members of said
> group who I had had previous run-ins with, notably the sad old hack
> named Moby.
>
> There wasn't, of course, any truth in the accusation, but it was a
> useful tool to attempt to beat me with because I held a different view
> to many of those posters.
> So much for 'facts'.
>
> Of course, it's ironic that those same posters are well known to bleat
> on about truth, facts and fair play in circumstances that suit them,
> yet are only too happy to lie and spread rumours if it suits their
> particular agenda.
>
> I can only assume that they've had some sort of training in journalism
>
> Higgs
You lying sack of manure. No doubt the hypocritical Dubery will ride
in to your support, after several pleading emails from you.
Nobody ever called you a paedophile. Since you seem to have such
limited grasp of even the most basic matters, such as truth, I for one
wouldn't trust you with anything. I think you should be given regular
care in a facility, preferably one with bolted doors. You need to be
sectioned.
For the record, Moby distanced himself from those particular
'tactics', which were a provoked reaction to your continued mendacity
and dissembling. I would say even that Moby condemned that post.
Again, the reckless habitual liar is caught out once again.
I had the good grace to ignore your drivel. But you have to reference
me continually in your delusionary conspiracy theories. May there be a
hex on you and all your goats.
CDK
Pretty low, alvey and Moby are there.
Not to mention Pauline Hanson
CDK
YEp my grouping was quite deliberate
CDK
And what alvey and Moby are railling against.
See the hypocrisy?
CDK
CDK
Brendan Fevola?
CDK
eusebius
I thought Brendan Fevola pretty well 'got away with it'..
In the AFL and ARU standards are pretty low, we have lowlifes like
Willie Mason and Greg Bird, and several 'unproven' examples in the
AFL, of really disgusting subhuman behaviour (subhuman, but not
necessarily in the Higgs sense). Willie Mason has completely got away
with it, even though what he did with 6 or 7 other rugby league
players to a girl (who was evidently looking for sex with a
footballer, but not 7 and not to experience the pleasure of ruptured
labia) was unspeakable and disgusting. Anything that Symonds, Ponting,
Fevola, cousins, Tuqiri or Warne did (but only Symonds seems to have
been drummed out of the game for) are peanuts in comparison.
I know I've made my point at ample length but a lot of other examples
spring to mind of the exploits of past players. Of course, Wayne Carey
and Ablett snr no longer play Aussie Rules, but many of their antics
at the time seem to have been sprung under the carpet.
Recreational drug use was considered a private affair, so long as it
didn't affect performance on the field. Same with extra-curricular
sexual activity. Now its relevant apparently. Many dark rumours
circulate. Maybe they are just that, rumours.
Whomever are favoured, are favoured it seems. One particular streak
administrators cannot abide it seems, is larrikinism. Cec Pepper and
Dawn Fraser were both censured heavily for this trait.
I suppose Boonie's record for the number of cans between Sydney and
Heathrow is safe then?
CDK
He was sacked by Channel 9, He was sacked by Carlton Football Club.
Interestingly he was picked up by Brisbane.
Must be the lower standards that are considered acceptable in Queensland.
> In the AFL and ARU standards are pretty low, we have lowlifes like
> Willie Mason and Greg Bird, and several 'unproven' examples in the
> AFL, of really disgusting subhuman behaviour (subhuman, but not
> necessarily in the Higgs sense). Willie Mason has completely got away
> with it, even though what he did with 6 or 7 other rugby league
> players to a girl (who was evidently looking for sex with a
> footballer, but not 7 and not to experience the pleasure of ruptured
> labia) was unspeakable and disgusting. Anything that Symonds, Ponting,
> Fevola, cousins, Tuqiri or Warne did (but only Symonds seems to have
> been drummed out of the game for) are peanuts in comparison.
If Brisbane or another club had not picked up Fevola he would not have
played AFL next year.
Players in the football codes have teh advantage that they have more
than one team to play for at the top level. My understanding was that
Symonds was not drummed out of the game, just lost his contract with CA,
just like Brendan Fevola lost his with Carlton Football Club.
> I know I've made my point at ample length but a lot of other examples
> spring to mind of the exploits of past players. Of course, Wayne Carey
> and Ablett snr no longer play Aussie Rules, but many of their antics
> at the time seem to have been sprung under the carpet.
Most of Ablett Snr's indiscretions were after his career had finished.
Carey was sacked by North Melbourne Football Club.
> Recreational drug use was considered a private affair, so long as it
> didn't affect performance on the field. Same with extra-curricular
> sexual activity. Now its relevant apparently. Many dark rumours
> circulate. Maybe they are just that, rumours.
There is a certain Coleman Medallist who is reputed to have two strikes
and since his second strike there has been a significant drop in his on
field performance, so much so that his club failed to make the finals
the year after winning a premiership.
> Whomever are favoured, are favoured it seems. One particular streak
> administrators cannot abide it seems, is larrikinism. Cec Pepper and
> Dawn Fraser were both censured heavily for this trait.
>
>
> I suppose Boonie's record for the number of cans between Sydney and
> Heathrow is safe then?
So it should be. Were anybody to attempt to be so stupid again they
should have their contract torn up.
CDK
Moby
> On Dec 1, 5:43 pm, higgs <kenhig...@hotmail.com> wrote:
<snip garbage>
> You lying sack of manure.
<snip>
> For the record, Moby distanced himself from those particular
> 'tactics', which were a provoked reaction to your continued mendacity
> and dissembling. I would say even that Moby condemned that post.
Couldn't agree more.
Here's what Ken just said I did:
> > Because I happened to point out to a person on a cricket chat
group
> > that they had used a number of different aliases whilst posting
to the
> > group, the poster then used my connection with a soccer club to
> > intimate to the group that I was a paedophile who oughn't to be
> > trusted around young soccer players.
> > This accusation attracted some support from other members of
said
> > group who I had had previous run-ins with, notably the sad old
hack
> > named Moby.
A pretty clear accusation that I made a very, very serious allegation.
Let's see what I actually said:
http://groups.google.com.au/group/rec.sport.cricket/msg/94018c665fab4287?hl=en&dmode=source
"From what I've read and seen online, TC provides excellent support
to
the children and communities with which he is involved."
I leave it to the audience to judge a person who makes such an
accusation of a person who was, in fact, defending them.
It's almost not even worth noting that when TC says:
> > I draw your attention to your own recent comments that you
> > have absolutely no sympathy with anyone who breaks or abuses an
> > employment contract and that they deserve any punishment that their
> > employer chooses to pass upon them. After all, as you reminded us,
> > this is 'the real world' and legal action is often taken in such
> > cases.
> > I'd also remind you that you stressed that dobbing in someone who
> > abuses an employment contract is actually a public duty.
What I'd actually said was the complete and utter opposite: that I'd
actually specifically said that I did not agree with that statement.
I quote myself again (it's even in the same thread as the other one):
http://groups.google.com.au/group/rec.sport.cricket/msg/ef530756fc19e173?hl=en&dmode=source
"I think that your misunderstanding here stems from an assumption
that
I think that someone -should- dob. Or that a third party has a duty
to contact someone's employer. Or that I think it's right to
publish
someone's work details when it has no relevance to their comments?
Or
something...
I think none of these things and I have said none of these things"
No further comment. And no further participation.
Moby
eusebius
Possibly. On the other hand, perhaps his indiscretions are seen as
larrikinism, same with Symonds'. They certainly pale into
insignificance when we compare Mason's.
>
> > In the AFL and ARU standards are pretty low, we have lowlifes like
> > Willie Mason and Greg Bird, and several 'unproven' examples in the
> > AFL, of really disgusting subhuman behaviour (subhuman, but not
> > necessarily in the Higgs sense). Willie Mason has completely got away
> > with it, even though what he did with 6 or 7 other rugby league
> > players to a girl (who was evidently looking for sex with a
> > footballer, but not 7 and not to experience the pleasure of ruptured
> > labia) was unspeakable and disgusting. Anything that Symonds, Ponting,
> > Fevola, cousins, Tuqiri or Warne did (but only Symonds seems to have
> > been drummed out of the game for) are peanuts in comparison.
>
> If Brisbane or another club had not picked up Fevola he would not have
> played AFL next year.
>
> Players in the football codes have teh advantage that they have more
> than one team to play for at the top level. My understanding was that
> Symonds was not drummed out of the game, just lost his contract with CA,
> just like Brendan Fevola lost his with Carlton Football Club.
There was a strong feeling that Symonds had been 'terminated' by CA. 3
strikes and your out or something. Its a ridiculously harsh policy,
reflecting a proscriptive, holier-than-thou mentality. This is
reflective of many hypocritical sections of the media.
An example is the latest brouhaha over Tiger Woods.
>
> > I know I've made my point at ample length but a lot of other examples
> > spring to mind of the exploits of past players. Of course, Wayne Carey
> > and Ablett snr no longer play Aussie Rules, but many of their antics
> > at the time seem to have been sprung under the carpet.
>
> Most of Ablett Snr's indiscretions were after his career had finished.
He was on drugs well before that. Andrew Johns now admits that he
played many games under the influence of ecstasy. Surely he wasn't the
only one.
>
> Carey was sacked by North Melbourne Football Club.
Only after having sex with whatshisname's wife.
>
> > Recreational drug use was considered a private affair, so long as it
> > didn't affect performance on the field. Same with extra-curricular
> > sexual activity. Now its relevant apparently. Many dark rumours
> > circulate. Maybe they are just that, rumours.
>
> There is a certain Coleman Medallist who is reputed to have two strikes
> and since his second strike there has been a significant drop in his on
> field performance, so much so that his club failed to make the finals
> the year after winning a premiership.
>
> > Whomever are favoured, are favoured it seems. One particular streak
> > administrators cannot abide it seems, is larrikinism. Cec Pepper and
> > Dawn Fraser were both censured heavily for this trait.
>
> > I suppose Boonie's record for the number of cans between Sydney and
> > Heathrow is safe then?
>
> So it should be. Were anybody to attempt to be so stupid again they
> should have their contract torn up.
>
> CDK
But you see, according to the mores of the time, it was perfectly
acceptable. And even today, a good pissup after a win is considered
the thing to do. Do I consider that acceptable? Of course not. But for
Symonds to be the scapegoat for Australian cricket's drinking culture,
rankles in the craw. That he was the victim of CA's desire for a
'whiter than white' appearance vis-a-vis alcohol consumption, appears
to me to be so without any doubt.
Contract schmontract, where the hell does CA feel it has the right to
intrude on player's private lives? Players like Hill, Bradman and
Benaud told the administrators where to shove it when they demanded
such things. I am not interested in tinpot despots running (and no
doubt ruining) the game.
That the acceptability of drunkenness in sport should be delegitamized
I have no problem, in fact I welcome the idea. But their approach as
with all other things, is rather hamfisted and heavyhanded.
On an unrelated note, the wisdom of the selectors is once again
vindicated in the retirement of your boy, Hodge, who certainly was
unfairly treated by the selectors over the years. Repudiation of the
NSV idea? Possibly...or perhaps its selective. Certainly Clarke has
been given a much more extended run than Hodge. Also we needed 2
specialist openers then, now we don't...
That we should have seen Dave Hussey's international career last so
many games and Hodge's so few is a bit of a disgrace, testament to
stubborn and myopic selectors.
eusebius
snip
Ken lies as frequently as he draws breath. Why should this surprise
anyone?
higgs
I said that a poster intimated that I was a paedophile who was not to
be trusted around young soccer players.
That poster was you, so you'd be quite aware of what you said. For the
record, a number of other posters condemned your comments.
If you didn't intimate anything of the kind, why would anyone take
time out to point it out to you?
> For the record, Moby distanced himself from those particular
> 'tactics', which were a provoked reaction to your continued mendacity
> and dissembling. I would say even that Moby condemned that post.
>
Moby did indeed distance himself from your comments (which, seeing as
we're talking about regard for the truth, I fail to see how they sit
with your bleat above about 'limited grasp' of the truth), but only
after you repeated the comments and I and several others expressed our
disgust at them.
Prior to that, he had chortled over them, along with yourself and the
god-botherer.
> Again, the reckless habitual liar is caught out once again.
>
I know. Catching you out is akin to catching a bus in the city; all
too easy.
> I had the good grace to ignore your drivel. But you have to reference
> me continually in your delusionary conspiracy theories. May there be a
> hex on you and all your goats.- Hide quoted text -
>
Oh please, spare me.
You were commenting on Tubby's hypothetical private event (that may or
may not have occured!) that somehow involved me accusing him of being
drunk and in a change room with young boys and reporting him to the
authorities.
Not only did Moby's hypothetical NOT occur, it seemed to me all to
reminiscent of an event that actually DID occur, ie it was intimated
(by you) that I was a danger to any young soccer players in my orbit.
Why wouldn't I set the record straight?
Higgs
> - Show quoted text -
higgs
>
> "From what I've read and seen online, TC provides excellent support
> to
> the children and communities with which he is involved."
>
> I leave it to the audience to judge a person who makes such an
> accusation of a person who was, in fact, defending them.
>
I'd leave it to the audience to see through the transparent attempt at
cherrypicking certain posts, but I do feel duty bound to point out
that Moby has linked to the one particular post where he retracts his
support for Creevey, rather than link to the thread itself, where,
prior, we find Moby saying:
"I'd apologise, but it wouldn't make a difference and, besides, I
share
MC's feelings about TC so I don't feel the need. "
Share Creeveys feelings?
You think I'm a paedophile?
> It's almost not even worth noting that when TC says:
>
> > > I draw your attention to your own recent comments that you
> > > have absolutely no sympathy with anyone who breaks or abuses an
> > > employment contract and that they deserve any punishment that their
> > > employer chooses to pass upon them. After all, as you reminded us,
> > > this is 'the real world' and legal action is often taken in such
> > > cases.
> > > I'd also remind you that you stressed that dobbing in someone who
> > > abuses an employment contract is actually a public duty.
>
> What I'd actually said was the complete and utter opposite: that I'd
> actually specifically said that I did not agree with that statement.
> I quote myself again (it's even in the same thread as the other one):
>
> http://groups.google.com.au/group/rec.sport.cricket/msg/ef530756fc19e...
>
> "I think that your misunderstanding here stems from an assumption
> that
> I think that someone -should- dob. Or that a third party has a duty
> to contact someone's employer. Or that I think it's right to
> publish
> someone's work details when it has no relevance to their comments?
> Or
> something...
> I think none of these things and I have said none of these things"
>
But closer examination, rather than the usual cherryy-picking tells us
that Moby said:
"I'll try to make it a bit simpler
1) If you do something wrong, you should not be surprised if you get
caught.
2) If you do something wrong, you only have yourself to blame if you
do get caught.
3) If you post to usenet from work when you are not allowed to post
to
usenet from work, you should lose your job.
4) If you are doing something wrong and goad someone else, you can't
complain about the consequences."
and:
" If someone says something about you, you have a right to ask "Who
said
that?" That's the "Real World."
Publishing the answer is a form of public service.
Moby"
> No further comment. And no further participation.
>
> Moby
That would be the wisest course.
Apart from having to justify or provide proof of the SoO dobbing
incident by Clarke, it also saves you making a bigger tit of yourself
than you already have.
Of course, Creevey will continue on his own merry way, but his
stupidity really knows no bounds
Higgs
higgs
That's rich, Creevey.
I've just proved you and Tealby lied over the allegations you made
about me vis my involvement with young soccer players.
I'd await either you or Moby making some sort of attempt to prove that
Clarke was the one who dobbed Symonds in, except that I'd be waiting a
long time.
The two of you lie as frequently as you post to rsc
Higgs
CDK
What has Mason done?
I assume he is NRL so maybe he grew a neck?
>>> In the AFL and ARU standards are pretty low, we have lowlifes like
>>> Willie Mason and Greg Bird, and several 'unproven' examples in the
>>> AFL, of really disgusting subhuman behaviour (subhuman, but not
>>> necessarily in the Higgs sense). Willie Mason has completely got away
>>> with it, even though what he did with 6 or 7 other rugby league
>>> players to a girl (who was evidently looking for sex with a
>>> footballer, but not 7 and not to experience the pleasure of ruptured
>>> labia) was unspeakable and disgusting. Anything that Symonds, Ponting,
>>> Fevola, cousins, Tuqiri or Warne did (but only Symonds seems to have
>>> been drummed out of the game for) are peanuts in comparison.
>> If Brisbane or another club had not picked up Fevola he would not have
>> played AFL next year.
>>
>> Players in the football codes have teh advantage that they have more
>> than one team to play for at the top level. My understanding was that
>> Symonds was not drummed out of the game, just lost his contract with CA,
>> just like Brendan Fevola lost his with Carlton Football Club.
>
> There was a strong feeling that Symonds had been 'terminated' by CA.
They tore up his contract after Symonds breached it. I don't see the
problem with that.
> 3 strikes and your out or something. Its a ridiculously harsh policy,
> reflecting a proscriptive, holier-than-thou mentality. This is
> reflective of many hypocritical sections of the media.
It wasn't as if Symonds hadn't been given fair warning and a number of
chances.
> An example is the latest brouhaha over Tiger Woods.
Can't be sacked.
>>> I know I've made my point at ample length but a lot of other examples
>>> spring to mind of the exploits of past players. Of course, Wayne Carey
>>> and Ablett snr no longer play Aussie Rules, but many of their antics
>>> at the time seem to have been sprung under the carpet.
>> Most of Ablett Snr's indiscretions were after his career had finished.
>
> He was on drugs well before that. Andrew Johns now admits that he
> played many games under the influence of ecstasy. Surely he wasn't the
> only one.
In an era in which the AFL did very little if any drug testing.
>> Carey was sacked by North Melbourne Football Club.
>
> Only after having sex with whatshisname's wife.
Stevens, yep he was. Doesn't alter the fact he was sacked. I am sure
if it had only been his affair with a team mates wife that would not
have been sufficient for his sacking.
>>> Recreational drug use was considered a private affair, so long as it
>>> didn't affect performance on the field. Same with extra-curricular
>>> sexual activity. Now its relevant apparently. Many dark rumours
>>> circulate. Maybe they are just that, rumours.
>> There is a certain Coleman Medallist who is reputed to have two strikes
>> and since his second strike there has been a significant drop in his on
>> field performance, so much so that his club failed to make the finals
>> the year after winning a premiership.
>>
>>> Whomever are favoured, are favoured it seems. One particular streak
>>> administrators cannot abide it seems, is larrikinism. Cec Pepper and
>>> Dawn Fraser were both censured heavily for this trait.
>>> I suppose Boonie's record for the number of cans between Sydney and
>>> Heathrow is safe then?
>> So it should be. Were anybody to attempt to be so stupid again they
>> should have their contract torn up.
>>
>> CDK
>
> But you see, according to the mores of the time, it was perfectly
> acceptable.
Given the push by CA and the AFL ( I don't know what other codes are
doing) to discourage the drinking culture that is severely entrenched in
sport in Australia it would be even more grossly stupid than it was when
Boon and Marsh did it.
> And even today, a good pissup after a win is considered
> the thing to do. Do I consider that acceptable? Of course not. But for
> Symonds to be the scapegoat for Australian cricket's drinking culture,
> rankles in the craw.
There may be a drinking culture, but clearly some can deal with that
better than others, and Symonds did not deal with it very well. He was
given help by CA, and given additional chances, yet had so little self
control that he breached his contract.
> That he was the victim of CA's desire for a
> 'whiter than white' appearance vis-a-vis alcohol consumption, appears
> to me to be so without any doubt.
He only has himself to blame.
> Contract schmontract, where the hell does CA feel it has the right to
> intrude on player's private lives? Players like Hill, Bradman and
> Benaud told the administrators where to shove it when they demanded
> such things. I am not interested in tinpot despots running (and no
> doubt ruining) the game.
Given you have made it clear you consider a piss up after a victory to
be unacceptable your outrage about Symonds being sacked for breaching
his contract seems somewhat inconsistent.
Symonds chose to sign that contract, then he chose to breach it. He
only has himself to blame.
> That the acceptability of drunkenness in sport should be delegitamized
> I have no problem, in fact I welcome the idea. But their approach as
> with all other things, is rather hamfisted and heavyhanded.
How many opportunities should a player have top stuff up? 10? 15?
> On an unrelated note, the wisdom of the selectors is once again
> vindicated in the retirement of your boy, Hodge, who certainly was
> unfairly treated by the selectors over the years. Repudiation of the
> NSV idea? Possibly...or perhaps its selective. Certainly Clarke has
> been given a much more extended run than Hodge. Also we needed 2
> specialist openers then, now we don't...
> That we should have seen Dave Hussey's international career last so
> many games and Hodge's so few is a bit of a disgrace, testament to
> stubborn and myopic selectors.
Made your mate alvey happy though.
CDK
>
Moby
> You think I'm a paedophile?
No. And I never have.
And this will be the last time you ever, ever suggest that I have.
Is that clear?
Moby
Dipak Jones
> On Nov 29, 3:56 pm, Moby <M...@unimail.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 29, 8:18 am, CDK <Michelang...@SistineChapel.com> wrote:
>
> > > Your suggestion that Symonds is an angel and that a coupe of NSV players
> > > are the devil is worthy of the Fox network.
>
> > years you'll stop it with the strawmen? Are you that bereft of
> > anything resembling a brain that you have to constantly fill in both
> > sides of the conversation to suit yourself?
>
> > There remains, as there always has been, absolutely no point holding a
> > conversation with you about anything.
>
>
> > Ah, yes. 'How dare you accuse people of being parochial: you are
> > clearly only doing that because you are parochial.'
>
> > Do you have any idea at all how mind-breakingly stupid you sound? Tim
> > couldn't do better.
>
> So, true to form, you're going to tell me what I would have said in
> this situation?
I am confused Mr Higgs. Moby replied to Colin Kynoch and referred to a
person called 'Tim' yet you have responded in the first person. What
does this mean?
DJ
higgs
OK Tealby, let's get a couple of things clear.
Next time you take it upon yourself to posit a hypothetical about
yourself smelling of wine, being alone in a change room with young
boys and being reported by some vindictive rsc poster, you wont use me
as the example.
Got that?
Much more credible to use Creevey as the the person likely to report
you, given the history of the allegations he makes as a matter of
course here, doncha think?
Also, if you're going to talk about truth, facts and fair play, you
might help your cause if you didn't rely on posting scuttlebutt and
innuendo about players that you don't like and passing it off as a
fact.
If you had any proof of your allegations about Clarke dobbing in
Symonds, providing it about 30 posts ago would have been appropriate.
All you've done by this is make yourself look like a dishonest bigot.
Then again, perhaps that's all you are
Higgs
higgs
>
> - Show quoted text -
I'm not sure myself.
I suggest you consult someone else.
Marionette de Chaussette, for example
Higgs
Here's Johnny
> Moby wrote:
>> On Nov 29, 8:12 pm, CDK <Michelang...@SistineChapel.com> wrote:
>>> Moby wrote:
>>>> On Nov 29, 8:18 am, CDK <Michelang...@SistineChapel.com> wrote:
>>>>> Your suggestion that Symonds is an angel and that a coupe of NSV
>>>>> players are the devil is worthy of the Fox network.
>>>> Fuck me dead, Kynoch. Any chance that sometime in the next hundred
>>>> years you'll stop it with the strawmen? Are you that bereft of
>>>> anything resembling a brain that you have to constantly fill in
>>>> both sides of the conversation to suit yourself?
>>>> There remains, as there always has been, absolutely no point
>>>> holding a conversation with you about anything.
>>> guilty of being a victim of a drunk fan,
>>
>> No. I. Did. Not.
>>
>> Stop it with the strawmen. Just. Stop. It.
>
> Then why were you so selcetive with your facts.?
>
>
>>> completley ignoring his extensive
>>> history of being an absolute pisspot with very poor self control.
>>
>> You donkey.
>>
>> You absolute donkey.
>>
>> Has it leeched into your consiousness at all that what I'm suggesting
>> is that this "extensive history of being an absolute pisspot with
>> very poor self control" is a complete and utter exaggeration?
>
> No that is quite obvious. Which is my point!!
>
> Symonds has multiple examples of being a pisspot with very poor self
> control.
>
> Further to this he is in a state of denial. (quite appropriate really
> as he is a Queenslander).
>
>> Is it so completely beyond you to grasp even the most basic part of
>> my claim here?
>>
>> If so WHY?
>>
>> Why is it so hard, so utterly, utterly beyond you to even comprehend
>> the notion that the build-up of Symonds as this drunken lout is
>> almost entirely the product of the media?
>
> Poor little Andrew. If he had self control and didn't get pissed
> there would have been nothing for the media to build up.
>
>> Yes, like many, many other sports people, he's far from the smartest
>> knife in the draw. Yes, like many, many other sports people, he's
>> had his share of moments. But no other sportsman in Australia has
>> had these moments so blasted out of shape and out of proportion as
>> Andrew Symonds.
>
> I can think of at least one cricketer who has.
>
>> Let's look at what's actually happened
>>
>> 1) Not in any shape to play against Bangladesh
>> Bang to rights here. Symonds was clearly in the wrong. No beat up
>> required here. Oh, but did we mention that this was in 2005? Did we
>> mention that there had been other players in similar situations who'd
>> been more quietly moved out of contention? Certainly got what he
>> deserved. No question.
>>
>>
>> 2) Swearing at Harbijan Singh
>> Yup, you heard it here first. Apparently swearing at a guy who you
>> believe has taunted you racially is a big red mark. Nevermind the
>> disgraceful lack of support Symonds received.
>
>
> His captain made the complaint on his behalf. A number of his team
> mates gave evidence on his behalf.
>
>
> <snip a huge range of excuses for Roy's behaviour>
>
> I can only assume that you have left journalism and become a social
> worker.
>
> CDK
Pig's arse. Symonds was hung out to dry by CA wrt Singh's racist shit.
Here's Johnny
> eusebius wrote:
>> On Dec 2, 5:58 pm, CDK <Michelang...@SistineChapel.com> wrote:
>>> eusebius wrote:
>>>> On Dec 2, 1:15 pm, eusebius <eusebiu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Dec 1, 11:09 am, CDK <Michelang...@SistineChapel.com> wrote:
>>>>>> eusebius wrote:
>>>>>>> On Nov 29, 8:18 am, CDK <Michelang...@SistineChapel.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> CDK
>>
>> I thought Brendan Fevola pretty well 'got away with it'..
>
> He was sacked by Channel 9, He was sacked by Carlton Football Club.
>
> Interestingly he was picked up by Brisbane.
>
> Must be the lower standards that are considered acceptable in
> Queensland.
Just goes to show football administrators are idiots. Here's hoping the
tight-shorts fairy pastime is dragged into utter disprepute in Queensland
and we can get back to real contact sport in winter. Oh, wait - Greg fucking
Bird signed with the Gold Coast. Well, there are fuckwits administering in
all codes, apparently.
>> In the AFL and ARU standards are pretty low, we have lowlifes like
>> Willie Mason and Greg Bird, and several 'unproven' examples in the
>> AFL, of really disgusting subhuman behaviour (subhuman, but not
>> necessarily in the Higgs sense). Willie Mason has completely got away
>> with it, even though what he did with 6 or 7 other rugby league
>> players to a girl (who was evidently looking for sex with a
>> footballer, but not 7 and not to experience the pleasure of ruptured
>> labia) was unspeakable and disgusting. Anything that Symonds,
>> Ponting, Fevola, cousins, Tuqiri or Warne did (but only Symonds
>> seems to have been drummed out of the game for) are peanuts in
>> comparison.
>
> If Brisbane or another club had not picked up Fevola he would not have
> played AFL next year.
Well, duh.
> Players in the football codes have teh advantage that they have more
> than one team to play for at the top level. My understanding was that
> Symonds was not drummed out of the game, just lost his contract with
> CA, just like Brendan Fevola lost his with Carlton Football Club.
Translation: Symonds was drummed out of the game. When the boss is a cunt,
you walk. Sounds very Chappell vs Bradman.
<snip shit about shite metrosexual "footie lite">
>> I suppose Boonie's record for the number of cans between Sydney and
>> Heathrow is safe then?
>
> So it should be. Were anybody to attempt to be so stupid again they
> should have their contract torn up.
>
> CDK
What a stupid comment.
Here's Johnny
> Willie Mason has completely got away
> with it, even though what he did with 6 or 7 other rugby league
> players
Then why the fuck are you singling out one player?
FYI, the matter was investigated and it was all bullshit. The girl you're
being so, so wrong about was on a mission to fuck as many of the Bulldogs
team as she could during their time at the Coffs resort, and she had already
succeeded with a few in the previous few days. It was when she got pissed
and tried to root another one and got the cold shoulder that things turned
bad. Security staff reported that she was rebuffed on the dance floor and
followed the player back to his room when he retired, along with one of his
mates. She had the door slammed in her face, and presumably a great deal of
politeness was not wasted in telling her she ought to leave him alone.
For fuck's sake, do some reading, and not the sensational bullshit that came
out in the weeks before the police investigation finished. Hazem el Masri
was widely vilified at the time - he was in bed asleep!
Here's an excerpt from Wikipedia:
in 2006 Detective Senior Sergeant Gary McEvoy, the investigative manager of
Strike Force McGuigon, made serious criticisms of the investigation. He said
that within 48 hours of the investigation commencing, it became clear that
charges would not be laid. He argued that the woman's account of the
evening's events was inaccurate, saying that he "would go so far as to say
that on Sunday the 22nd of February 2004 there was no woman raped in the
pool area of the Pacific Bay Resort". He also implied that higher-ranked
police officers had pushed for the investigation to continue despite a lack
of evidence, saying that "the evidence just wasn't there, it didn't support
the rape allegations and as investigators we had very serious concerns; yet
despite that, the aggressive police strategy continued ... Everyone in the
investigation saw the signs but the people above us were not listening"
So, dislike Willie Mason all you like, but kindly disengage your head from
your arse if you're going to continue on with this particular discussion.
to a girl (who was evidently looking for sex with a
> footballer, but not 7 and not to experience the pleasure of ruptured
> labia) was unspeakable and disgusting.
It would be if it happened. You owe Mr Mason an apology.
Here's Johnny
In March 2004, a 20-year-old woman in Coffs Harbour, New South Wales,
Australia filed a complaint to the police, alleging she was gang raped by
six men from Sydney's Bulldogs rugby league team. Subsequent investigations
found the evidences were inconclusive, but this incident has drawn
considerable media interest, and subjected the sport of Rugby League to
unprecedented scrutiny.
There was speculation after some Bulldog players admitted to engaging in
consensual group sex a few days earlier with the woman that this is a trend
throughout football generally as well as a social trend among youths. This
is described as "gang banging".
Despite what was reported in the media, it was only two players who were
accused of 'gang rape', while another four were implicated for allegedly
withholding information from police. It is also worth mentioning that
several witnesses rejected the alleged victim's two different versions of
events, and that since then two detectives have come forward and publicly
stated it was clear very early in the investigation that the claims were
"nonsense". Detective Senior Sergeant Gary McEvoy said "The evidence just
wasn't there, it didn't support the rape allegations and as investigators we
had very serious concerns; yet despite that, the aggressive police strategy
continued week after week. There were warning bells that we would look
silly. Everyone in the investigation saw the signs but the people above us
were not listening - or if they were, they were ignoring them." Sydney
Morning Herald, 06/05/06
In a police incident report, the 20-year-old woman claimed to have been
thrown fully-clothed into a hotel swimming pool in the early hours of Sunday
morning, stripped naked, and repeatedly raped vaginally, orally and anally.
When she was later found slumped in the hotel car park she was grazed,
bruised and hysterical, and had to be taken to hospital by ambulance.
The Bulldogs' management has rejected this version of events. They say that
the woman had consensual group sex with eight players on the previous
Wednesday, but only slept with one of them on the Saturday night in
question. She had climbed naked into the pool and tried to entice players to
join her around 7am on the Sunday morning, but none took her up on the
offer. "They really did not want anything to do with her because they
thought she was a scrag," one player told the Sydney Sun-Herald.
Here's Johnny
Still more on this:
The woman gave her phone number to one of the 8 she fucked on the Wednesday,
and told him to pass the number around and bring the whole team around next
time.
Your rose petals and lollipops impression of this sweet, young angel is
bullshit. Looking for sex with one player? Pig's arse. She'd already had an
8 on 1 session.
Raped by 8 players in a pool at a resort? Pig's arse. If there was excessive
noise by the pool there would have been complaints. A woman being
"vaginally, anally and orally raped" would presumably have had time enough
to draw breath and call for help. This is bullshit, it did not happen, and
that anyone could even believe it is incredible IMO.
CDK
> CDK wrote:
>> eusebius wrote:
>>> On Dec 2, 5:58 pm, CDK <Michelang...@SistineChapel.com> wrote:
>>>> eusebius wrote:
>>>>> On Dec 2, 1:15 pm, eusebius <eusebiu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Dec 1, 11:09 am, CDK <Michelang...@SistineChapel.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> eusebius wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Nov 29, 8:18 am, CDK <Michelang...@SistineChapel.com> wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>> CDK
>>>
>>> I thought Brendan Fevola pretty well 'got away with it'..
>>
>> He was sacked by Channel 9, He was sacked by Carlton Football Club.
>>
>> Interestingly he was picked up by Brisbane.
>>
>> Must be the lower standards that are considered acceptable in
>> Queensland.
>
> Just goes to show football administrators are idiots. Here's hoping the
> tight-shorts fairy pastime is dragged into utter disprepute in
> Queensland and we can get back to real contact sport in winter.
Gang Bangs?
> Oh, wait
> - Greg fucking Bird signed with the Gold Coast. Well, there are fuckwits
> administering in all codes, apparently.
>
>>> In the AFL and ARU standards are pretty low, we have lowlifes like
>>> Willie Mason and Greg Bird, and several 'unproven' examples in the
>>> AFL, of really disgusting subhuman behaviour (subhuman, but not
>>> necessarily in the Higgs sense). Willie Mason has completely got away
>>> with it, even though what he did with 6 or 7 other rugby league
>>> players to a girl (who was evidently looking for sex with a
>>> footballer, but not 7 and not to experience the pleasure of ruptured
>>> labia) was unspeakable and disgusting. Anything that Symonds,
>>> Ponting, Fevola, cousins, Tuqiri or Warne did (but only Symonds
>>> seems to have been drummed out of the game for) are peanuts in
>>> comparison.
>>
>> If Brisbane or another club had not picked up Fevola he would not have
>> played AFL next year.
>
> Well, duh.
Carlton would not have played him had he not ben picked up.
>> Players in the football codes have teh advantage that they have more
>> than one team to play for at the top level. My understanding was that
>> Symonds was not drummed out of the game, just lost his contract with
>> CA, just like Brendan Fevola lost his with Carlton Football Club.
>
> Translation: Symonds was drummed out of the game. When the boss is a
> cunt, you walk. Sounds very Chappell vs Bradman.
When you don't get a contract because you pissed all over the last one
you get what you deserve.
> <snip shit about shite metrosexual "footie lite">
>
>>> I suppose Boonie's record for the number of cans between Sydney and
>>> Heathrow is safe then?
>>
>> So it should be. Were anybody to attempt to be so stupid again they
>> should have their contract torn up.
> What a stupid comment.
Can see that you are a true Leeg supporter. Probably think that the
sexual excapades of the Leeg players is something they should be proud of.
CDK
CDK
If by hung out to dry you mean, CA allowed the appropriate process to
occur rather than threaten to call off the tour then I guess so.
CDK