World Current Affairs.

[Danny C]

yeah to be fair though if you've read mobys diarys he doesnt seem to be the most tolerant of people who dont happen to hold his own particular views.

he's been downright nasty IMO. thats how these types always give themselves away and you see the undercurrant of what thier personalitys are really like.

they just dont have the power to force people to change their views so they get verbally abusive and nasty when they express their angles on people they dont like.its a form of bullying and a symptom they have what the people they hate have.

Tolerance is not the same as never criticising people.

Tolerance is merely not infringing their right to hold an opinion.

[glennjridge]

if its constructive criticism its normal. it only becomes something else if meanspirited personal attacks are involved.

which moby does all the time. you should get a load of him sometime. not sure if he's better now but I remember being on that board early on. he was something else when he got on about Bush.

[Danny C]

No, you can be as disgustingly vile and personal about someone else as you like. You can say that George W Bush screws donkeys on the White House lawn while burning black men on crosses. That's still not intolerance.

Intolerance is when you try to actively prevent that person from exercising an opinion or option - for example, George W Bush trying to amend the constitution to bar gay marriage.

[Janet Street-Porter]

Do they have a rent-a-mob who they call up when journalists need some footage of Indians burning effigies? "Jade Goody? The Australian Cricket team? Kermit the Frog? My range is vast, darling....."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/7174122.stm

which reminds me of.....

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/bert.htm

[Undertaker]

The match refferee has stood by his decision to ban Harbhajan Singh for 3 matches on what Andrew Symonds said. Unbelievable.

Something isn't right with this series. The umpires decisions were apalling. The third umpire was even getting decisions wrong after watching 10 replays and the umpires were giving the Indians out on the say so of the Aussie slip catcher.

It appears that the Aussies can dish it out but cannot take it. After all, they have been abusing players for years.

Sky Sports News had an interview with former Indian batsman, Sidhu. Funniest interview i've ever seen.

[glennjridge]

No, you can be as disgustingly vile and personal about someone else as you like. You can say that George W Bush screws donkeys on the White House lawn while burning black men on crosses. That's still not intolerance.

Intolerance is when you try to actively prevent that person from exercising an opinion or option - for example, George W Bush trying to amend the constitution to bar gay marriage.

thats fine if you think it is. if you think there are one set of rules for the internet and one set of rules for real life thats your opinion.

imagine a debate on TV by politicians or people discussing politics on a TV show.
imagine someone in the group starts getting nasty and saying the stuff you think is allowable about screwing donkeys and so on. they would be escorted off and would be shown as a lunatic in the headlines the next day and on the news shows.

the reason being is because the people who like to get nasty are of course the ones who approve of that behaviour. where they slip up is they assume everyone does.

the normal people who can discuss things rationally dont tolerate it and usually dont which is why perfectly good whole political campaigns and people who were running for office have been lost over hostile words or statements.

and thats because normal rational people see it is......a sign of bad character. which it is.nobody should be rewarded because they cant discuss rationally.

[gregf]

Hey Undertaker & JSP,

Yes, the cricket is the big topic here. Interestingly, the public are not behind the Aussie
team. We agree they play too hard to win. I dont feel qualified to comment on umpiring
even tho I followed cricket for many years.

I tend to favour more use of technology in decisions. In Rugby League (football) here,
it was opposed. But when it came in and was used extensively, it was a success.
No one got angry anymore as they trusted the official watching the replay.

But we are behind Andrew Symonds. We dont want racism on field. There is no doubt
it was used in a racist way as the crowds in India chanted it to him.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I wish our debates could be about facts. I consider them uninteresting as soon as sarcasm and
insults start. In fact there is a point of view elsewhere that personal attacks on the net used to shut down debate.

[Undertaker]

There is nothing wrong with supporting Symonds, just like there is nothing wrong with the Indians supporting Singh. Calling anyone a 'monkey' is wrong and whoever is responsible for racist chants and insults, should be dealt with accordingly. However, there is no proof that Symonds was called a monkey by anybody on the pitch. The match refferee has banned Singh on what Symonds has said. Thats wrong.

As for the crowd racially abusing Symonds, thats another matter. I cant comment on that because i don't know anything about it. Although last year, England's Monty Panesar received racist abuse from a section of Australians. Racist abuse from the terraces will never go away. There will always be a few idiots.

[Niall]

Hey Undertaker & JSP,

Yes, the cricket is the big topic here. Interestingly, the public are not behind the Aussie
team. We agree they play too hard to win. I dont feel qualified to comment on umpiring
even tho I followed cricket for many years.

I tend to favour more use of technology in decisions. In Rugby League (football) here,
it was opposed. But when it came in and was used extensively, it was a success.
No one got angry anymore as they trusted the official watching the replay.

But we are behind Andrew Symonds. We dont want racism on field. There is no doubt
it was used in a racist way as the crowds in India chanted it to him.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I wish our debates could be about facts. I consider them uninteresting as soon as sarcasm and
insults start. In fact there is a point of view elsewhere that personal attacks on the net used to shut down debate.

The problem is there is no evidence that Harbijhan said what has been reported. There is only one person's word against another's. That is what has incensed the Indians.

[gregf]

Actually on that point Undie and Niall, I agree.
The Oz people are more fair about this than some might expect.
We think Ponting (captain) should have tried to deal with it captain to captain first.

But I do think cricket is looking a bit silly with umpires being replaced at request of
one team. Can football teams veto a match referee ?

[Undertaker]

They can but it very rarely happens. If a manager starts demanding who is to referee and who isnt and the replacement ref gives them some contentious decisions, there will be uproar. In England, referee's are scrutinised like some sort of scientific experiment. A Premier League game will have up to 20 camera's at the game and every decision is replayed over and over again for muppets like Andy Gray and Jamie Redknapp to examine and then slag off the ref.

This is where India are way out of order. It seems the Asian cricket teams seem to throw tantrums when decisions go against them. India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka are all guilty of acting like this. Steve Bucknor is one of the best Umpires about. Of course he will make mistakes. What is inexcusable is someone sitting in the stand (third umpire) looking at an incident half a dozen times and still getting it wrong. He's either too stupid to do the job, taken a bribe or has had a bet on the match.

[Vince]

Calling someone a b@stard is equally offensive then.. then why didnt Hogg/Symonds get a ban?
And when did calling someone a "monkey" become racist??
FYI, in India, Hindus worship a monkey god.

And NO one heard Bhajan call Symonds a monkey. Not Ricky, not Sachin(his batting partner at that time), not the Umpires. Then how can they give him a ban??

I guess there was a column by Peter Roebuck in a newspaper. Now, he summarised the test match beautifully.

Sky Sports News had an interview with former Indian batsman, Sidhu. Funniest interview i've ever seen.

Funny man, funny interview


@Undertaker: A mistake by an umpire is acceptable. People expect mistakes and hope that overall, the mistakes on both sides cancel each other out.
In this match, the mistakes made by the umpires were appalling, and India had every right to be angry as they had almost all the bad decisions against them (Symonds and Clarke being given not out, Dravid and Ganguly being given out under clear not-out situations)
You have no right to go after Asian teams in this regard.

And if you notice, Australia's sportsmaship/integrity is being questioned.
Micheal Clarke did not "walk"
Gilchrist could easily see Dravid not touching the ball
Clarke grounded the catch off Ganguly and Ponting raised his finger.(this really got me mad)

You dont see any Indian player's integrity being questioned.

[Undertaker]

Calling someone a b@stard is equally offensive then.. then why didnt Hogg/Symonds get a ban?

It looks like Hogg will be banned. Don't know if there is any evidence of what he said though. If there isn't, it's just a ridiculous decision as Singh's.

And when did calling someone a "monkey" become racist??
FYI, in India, Hindus worship a monkey god.

That doesn't matter what it means in India. It's pretty obvious why he was called a monkey (if he was called that) You could argue that the word nigg** isn't racist because that is a colour. i.e - Nigg** Brown.

And NO one heard Bhajan call Symonds a monkey. Not Ricky, not Sachin(his batting partner at that time), not the Umpires. Then how can they give him a ban??

I don't know whats going on. It's an appalling decision. Even if he did say it, his team mates wouldn't say they heard it anyway.

@Undertaker: A mistake by an umpire is acceptable. People expect mistakes and hope that overall, the mistakes on both sides cancel each other out.
In this match, the mistakes made by the umpires were appalling, and India had every right to be angry as they had almost all the bad decisions against them (Symonds and Clarke being given not out, Dravid and Ganguly being given out under clear not-out situations)

The decisions were very poor but it doesnt happen very often. The only way a lot of bad decisions are seen is due to all the technology cricket has. The decision by the third umpire was the decision that was a disgrace. Like i said, he's either stupid, taken a bung, or had a bet.If India had held out for another 10 minutes, none of this would have happened.There is definatly an element of India being bad losers. They should have easily seen this game out for a draw.

You have no right to go after Asian teams in this regard.

I don't agree. You cannot have teams like India behaving like this because they had bad decisions by human beings, who get one look at it. Pakistan, who have an history of cheating, did the same when Umpire Daryl Hare accused them of cheating and Sri Lanka also did the same when the spinner got accused of chucking.

And if you notice, Australia's sportsmaship/integrity is being questioned.
Micheal Clarke did not "walk"
Gilchrist could easily see Dravid not touching the ball
Clarke grounded the catch off Ganguly and Ponting raised his finger.(this really got me mad)

Totally agree. They have always been like it and now it's gone too far. I don't know why they do it because their team is fantastic anyway.

[Fugitive1979]

While we are on the subject of sport, here's a message for Tottenham Hotspur:

f*** off, you're not getting Alan Hutton!

But money will eventually talk, though.

[Vince]

And when did calling someone a "monkey" become racist??
FYI, in India, Hindus worship a monkey god.

That doesn't matter what it means in India. It's pretty obvious why he was called a monkey (if he was called that) You could argue that the word nigg** isn't racist because that is a colour. i.e - Nigg** Brown.

Well, if Ricky was to jump around, Bhajan would've called him a monkey too.. and that would not have been racist??

@Undertaker: A mistake by an umpire is acceptable. People expect mistakes and hope that overall, the mistakes on both sides cancel each other out.
In this match, the mistakes made by the umpires were appalling, and India had every right to be angry as they had almost all the bad decisions against them (Symonds and Clarke being given not out, Dravid and Ganguly being given out under clear not-out situations)

The decisions were very poor but it doesnt happen very often. The only way a lot of bad decisions are seen is due to all the technology cricket has. The decision by the third umpire was the decision that was a disgrace. Like i said, he's either stupid, taken a bung, or had a bet.If India had held out for another 10 minutes, none of this would have happened.There is definatly an element of India being bad losers. They should have easily seen this game out for a draw.

Got to agree with you on that one. The Indians were bad losers. And they didnt show much fight-back either. They could've easily gone for a draw and prove that bad decisions by umpires can be overcome.