Re: Having it all ways: the Australian double-standard that means England can never really win
- From: "ERNEST THE SHEEP" <Ernest_the_Sheep@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 19:04:55 +1200
kenhiggs8@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> ERNEST THE SHEEP wrote:
>> kenhiggs8@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>> ERNEST THE SHEEP wrote:
>>>> kenhiggs8@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>>>> ERNEST THE SHEEP wrote:
>>>>>> kenhiggs8@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>>>>>> ERNEST THE SHEEP wrote:
>>>>>>>> kenhiggs8@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>>>>>>>> ERNEST THE SHEEP wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> kenhiggs8@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> ERNEST THE SHEEP wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> kenhiggs8@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ERNEST THE SHEEP wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kenhiggs8@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ERNEST THE SHEEP wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kenhiggs8@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ERNEST THE SHEEP wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kenhiggs8@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ERNEST THE SHEEP wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kenhiggs8@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ERNEST THE SHEEP wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CiL wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ++++
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +By Martin Samuel
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> snip
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apparently, when England won the World Cup,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> beating Australia
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on their own turf, someone - maybe the hated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Clive Woodward, perhaps
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one of his backroom team - had the temerity to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mention it. Big mistake. Clearly, the correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> etiquette would have been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sneak away, wordlessly collecting the medals the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> very sporting Australian Prime Minister
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> threw at us after the match, never to speak of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it again in the manner of self-effacing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Australian sportsmen such as Mark
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bosnich
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and David Campese.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From what I recall the OKKER players were very
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> noble in defeat.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *choke*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ERNEST, now I know you're taking the piss.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There's a bit of hyperbole there, I'll grant you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lil' Johnny Howard didn't actually throw the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> medals
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at the English
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> players,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but he certainly had the demeanour of someone who
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wanted to.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Time constraints. He was being given the hurry up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The other guy doing the presentations was no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No time to crack a smile?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Righto.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Were you expecting him to have a permanent grin on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> his face?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, yes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Most celebrity cup presenters have a big smile and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> offer warm congratulations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If Howard went along as an average Aussie supporter,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he ought to have left the presentation bit to someone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> else.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do try and keep up Ken. Haven't I already told you that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there were severe time restraints on getting the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presentation over with? Hence there was no opportunity
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for Howard to smile or indulge in any idle chit-chat
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the players.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lemme see.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No time to smile?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As someone who purportedly knows a bit about science,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you'll know that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it takes many more muscles to frown than it does to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> smile, even if it takes the same amount of time to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perform the action.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But you are trying to make judgements on little Johnny's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> demeanour at the presentations from tv coverage alone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I pointed out to you before there were severe time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> restrictions. Little Johnny was clearly somewhat
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> flustered under the pressure to perform his duties at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such a rapid speed. That his fellow presenter appeared
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be similarly abrupt in making his presentations
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should be enough of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clue for you to realise
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this. How many more times am I going to have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to point this out to you Ken?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But don't think I'm trying to put undue pressure on you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken. I'm prepared to explain it to you a million times if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is what it is going to take for you to comprehend.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I could do with a laugh, so yes, please. Do go ahead and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> explain why a shortage of time made Lil' Johnny come over
>>>>>>>>>>>>> as grumpy and unsmiling,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> even though this was only really a televisual illusion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> FFS Ken, I just did, above. Read it again if you need to.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Well, rather than just telling me that Lil' Johnny came
>>>>>>>>>>> across as grumpy because time was short, can you explain
>>>>>>>>>>> why this mad ehim grumpy?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That's the point. He wasn't grumpy. You can claim he was as
>>>>>>>>>> many times as you like but it's not going to make it any more
>>>>>>>>>> true.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What makes you say he wasn't grumpy?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What makes you say he was?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He came across so.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In your opinion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Many people commented.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How many?
>>>>>
>>>>> Who knows.
>>>>>
>>>>> We do know that the article you so delightedly pointed out to us
>>>>> said the same thing.
>>>>
>>>> Written by a pommie so doesn't count.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So it isn't just me.
>>>>
>>>> Yup, you and one pommie wanker.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You could do a Google search if you wanted to do some kind of a
>>>>> head count.
>>>>
>>>> Only finds articles that are online though.
>>>
>>> And online ones don't count either, right?
>>
>> It won't count them all.
>
> I'm sure it wont.
> But I just want to establish that online ones count.
Yes they do. But it could introduce bias if only online ones are counted.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You're the only one I've heard disputing it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> With you?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not surprised. Debate with you can be very trying at the best
>>>>>> of times.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You always seem keen to give it a go.
>>>>
>>>> I'm in a very determined mood.
>>>
>>> Obviously.
>>>
>>> Sad, really
>>
>> For you, yes. There is no way you are going to out last me so I'd
>> give up right now if I were you.
>
> why?
Because you can't win.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But go on then, point me to some others who didn't feel Howard was
>>>>> grumpy (or similar)
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What are your grounds for this?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Knowledge of the circumstances under which the presentation was
>>>>>> conducted.
>>>>>
>>>>> It was running late so he had no time to smile?
>>>>
>>>> He did but his back was to the camera.
>>>
>>> You saw this, did you?
>>
>> Yes I did.
>
> Obviously not on tv.
Yes it was.
>
> You were part of the presentation party?
No.
>
> As party psychiatrist, perhaps?
Irrelevant.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Tosh
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Got an inside line to Lil' Johnny?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And why television made him look grumpy, even though he
>>>>>>>>>>> wasn't?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Who said it did?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You did.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Did not.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Or else what did you mean by telling me I was trying to make
>>>>>>>>> judgements on little Johnny's demeanour at the presentations
>>>>>>>>> from tv coverage
>>>>>>>>> alone?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Precisely that. Things aren't always as they seem.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So what's your take on it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've already told you.
>>>>>
>>>>> No you haven't.
>>>>
>>>> Yes I have.
>>>
>>> No you haven't
>>
>> Yes I have.
>
> No you haven't
Yes I have.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That really had to be one of the most graceless
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> medal presentations I've ever seen.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And who do you blame for that?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The English, obviously.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And foxhunting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, it wasn't little Johnny's fault. Be fair.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It wasn't Johnny's fault that he was graceless?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Who's fault was it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again Ken, you don't appear to be paying close enough
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attention. The question is who is to blame for the time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pressure at the end of the presentation ceremony? And
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you cannot blame little Johnny Howard for that, can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can, and have, blamed him for not smiling and for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appearing grumpy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That you've defended his poor behaviour on 'time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> constraints' shows
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how much you're grasping at straws.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It takes no time to be civil.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> See above.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, it was simply an illusion created by the mystery of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> television.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do they still have blokes preceeding cars and waving red
>>>>>>>>>>>>> flags round your neck of the woods?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> See above.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> There's nothing by way of an explanation above
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes there is. Look again, carefully.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nope, nothing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Try again then, and read slower.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You simply assert that Lil' Johnny wasn't grumpy. That isn't an
>>>>>>> explanation, it's a statement.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have already given you the explanation.
>>>>>
>>>>> You made a statement.
>>>>> Since I've asked you to back it up, you're refusing to elaborate.
>>>>
>>>> What statement? I've lost track.
>>>
>>> I suspected as much
>>
>> It's youe fault for not snipping.
>
> I snipped, you didn't
I did so.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's a mistake to make judgements on a country
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the nature
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of their people by reading their media alone. If
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I were to make assumptions of the English based
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> solely on reading their media
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would have to conclude that they were a race of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ARROGANT, CONCEITED, POMPOUS OAFS who like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing better to do than indulge
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ritual torture poor hapless little foxes, but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that would be wrong of course.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Especially, of course, if you read tabloid trash,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which you do seem
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to have a penchant for.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The MIRROR is the ENGLISH NEWSPAPER OF THE YEAR.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Says who?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Mirror?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I dunno. The British media awards or whatever.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The what?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The British media awards, or equivalent. Perhaps some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> internet poll
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or survey. Who knows?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Indeed, who knows.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Certainly not you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps you made it all up?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It says so on their website. Although they could be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lying I suppose.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Seeing as you've visited their website, you ought to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> able to tell me
>>>>>>>>>>>>> who gave them that accolade.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or is it unsubstantiated?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm sure it's true.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But you can't be bothered to verify it?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Why would they lie?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> OK, from the front page of today's Mirror:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Mr InFredible! (colour cartoon of Flintoff in Mr Incredible
>>>>>>>>> outfit) Flintoff hailed as new Botham as England win greatest
>>>>>>>>> Test ever.....by two runs.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Gazza: I've disowned the kids (B&W picture of Paul Gascoigne)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why Flip Flops and thongs are BAD for your health (colour
>>>>>>>>> picture of a thong and a pair of thongs)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So, which one of these stories was penned by a respected
>>>>>>>>> journo?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Let's take this one step at a time.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Higgs
>>>>>>>>> shakes head. Respected journos! Newspaper of the year!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Also the best Newspaper on the web.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Rubbish.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It says so on the website.
>>>>>
>>>>> So it must be true?
>>>>
>>>> I believe it. Why would they lie?
>>>
>>> Self promotion.
>>>
>>> It's their website.
>>
>> Doesn't mean it's not true.
>>
>
> doesn't mean it is either.
Doesn't mean it's not either.
>
> And given their content, it would seem rather hard to believe
It's called variety.
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Colour piccys of semi nude women and sensationalist stories of
>>>>>>> who some so-called star has been bonking is not my idea of
>>>>>>> quality.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sounds good to me.
>>>>>
>>>>> So it would seem
>>>>
>>>> Anything wrong with that?
>>>
>>> No, but it hardly denotes quality
>>
>> Why not?
>
> quality newspapers don't publish pictures of semi naked women and run
> competitions on whether thongs are bad for your health.
That's practically the definition of quality.
>
> Trash papers do
Not all do. The NZ herald for example.
>
>>
>> Don't you like looking at pictures of semi naked women?
>>
>> I hope you are not a poof.
>>
>
> Mowwissey would be appalled at that statement....
He's a poof too.
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But if you want to read that sort of crap, I can't stop you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Higgs
>>>>>>> wondering if having Clive James hosting The Footy Show makes it
>>>>>>> a show for intellectuals
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I thought The Chief was a bit patronising towards him at one
>>>>>> stage. tee-hee
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Probably because The Chief isn't an intellectual, eh?
>>>>
>>>> The Chief is a lot smarter than given credit for.
>>>
>>> So if The Chief is an intellectual, was he patronising James becase
>>> he (James) isn't?
>>
>> No because James is a bit of a smarmy git at times. It may not have
>> been deliberate though.
>>
>
> Ah. A high level exchange between like minds, exhibiting irony,
> erudition and understatement?
Yeah, a bit like this thread you could say.
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> DO NOT REPLY TO THIS POST KEN OR I'LL HAVE TO COME OVER THERE AND
>>>>>> BEAT YOU TO A PULP.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oooops.
>>>>> Too late, I've already sent it
>>>>
>>>> Try and cancel it if you can.
>>>
>>> I'll see what I can do
>>
>> How about not replying to this one instead. It's not as if anyone
>> else if going to be still reading this thread by now, so it's not a
>> question of you saving face or anything. I'll just do a quick
>> victory lap then and then we can both go back to our normal lives.
>> What do you reckon honey buns?
>
> No deal
Okay then cream pie, I've removed the cross posting to usc so all the poms
will think that you have had the last say. Now I think it's only fair that
you do likewise and remove rsc from your next post. What do you say, my
handsome prince?
.
- Prev by Date: Re: News: Ian Chappell says Australia is a team of two great bowlers
- Next by Date: Re: News: Ian Chappell says Australia is a team of two great bowlers
- Previous by thread: NZ win $20 million!
- Next by thread: Re: Having it all ways: the Australian double-standard that means England can never really win
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
