Re: Attn English Posters

phil_kiwi@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Oct 28, 10:18 pm, BrritSki <Brrit...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
phil_k...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Oct 28, 12:54 am, BrritSki <Brrit...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
phil_k...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Oct 26, 12:47 am, BrritSki <Brrit...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
phil_k...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
Yeah right mate just keep defending your stupid media whatever BS they
churn out, maybe one day you'll wake up and see reality.
But they haven't churned it out. Jeez you're thick.
You've got nothing to back your assertion. Put up or shut up.
Ooops, I meant to sign off rom here ! :)
Here's some more for you mate, from your fine media, seen as I'm
obviously full of it, and you want more,
"England robbed by the Aussie video ref"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/sport/rugbyworldcup.ht...
"Mark Cueto's touchdown was controversially ruled out by the video
referee"
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/sport/article-23417444-details/England%...
"ROBBED BY A BLOODY AUSSIE"
http://www.people.co.uk/sport/rugby/tm_headline=robbed-by-a-bloody-au...
"England Raging Over Disallowed Try"
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/rugby-news/2007/10/22/england-ragi...
Finally you come up with something 7 days later. Our media must have
been "full of it" for you to take so long to come up with some quotes,
however tenuous.
Well done, you must be very proud !- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I already had other ones that mentioned Dickinson was being criticised
by the media anyway, although some not direct quotes I don't see why
there was reason at all to not believe them, and also other direct
quotes that mentioned it was controversial.
Errm, they are newspapers, trying to sell copies.... it was
controversial, esp at the time, but that doesn't make it wrong.





It's pretty ridiculous that after he made such a clearly correct
decision, he should be criticised for it.
Although maybe it shouldn't be surprising with what the rugby media
have been coming out with lately.
I'm not proud, and I wouldn't be of that media..
Here's some other shockers just for good measure
http://www.people.co.uk/sport/rugby/tm_headline=england-6-15-south-af...
"We were due the rough end of the stick on one of sport's grandest
stages and we got it from Stuart Dickinson, the blunderer from Down
Under, who disallowed a Mark Cueto try just after half-time and robbed
England of the momentum"
http://www.sportinglife.com/rugbyunion/news/story_get.cgi?STORY_NAME=...
"CONTROVERSIAL SPORTING DECISIONS, much of the post-match talk was
dominated by Australian television match official Stuart Dickinson's
decision not to award a try to Mark Cueto"
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/22661/Agony-for-England
"ENGLAND'S brave bid to become the first team ever to retain the World
Cup was brought to a controversial end last night by Australian video
referee Stuart Dickinson."
http://www.people.co.uk/sport/rugby/tm_headline=one-foot-in-the-grave...
"England were robbed of their place in the history books by an
Australian and an Irishman last night."
So what have you got:
= 3 quotes from the People, which is not exactly a paper for
intellectual heavyweights, and 1 from the Mail (ditto according to
many), all written within hours of the game finishing
= ThisIsLondon, Sporting Life and Express saying it was controversial,
but not saying it was wrong
= A Scottish paper saying we are saying we wuz robbed (untrue)

and it took you a week to come up with all these ? Let's face it,
nobody in England with any sense is claiming that it was a try and you
obviously can't find a single paper that was claiming that once they'd
all calmed down despite bviously spending all week with Google.

Get a life. The crybabies are in NZ not England.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Now your saying it's ok because the papers were just trying to make

Find somewhere I said it was OK. I was explaining to you why the papers were saying it was controversial.

money, or that because it was written soon after the game it's ok,
they showed the replay enough times during the game that anyone
watching it should have known there and then.

The hacks at the game watching on the big screen would not have seen it as clearly as we would have done on our big screens at home

Why argue about it in the first place then if you are going to come
back to that.

Because you hadn't come back with any evidence - it took you almost a week !

Yeah I would agree those papers can't be for intellectuals, the ones
that are saying it is controversial are questioning the decision.

No they fucking are not !

Much more coverage was given to Dickinson disallowing the try than you
would expect, given that the decision was correct.

It was a turning point of the match. There were millimetres in it (not centimetres as Dickheadson is quoted as saying). Of course there's going to be discussion.

Typical when proven wrong you just revert back to your usual abusive
self, and start kiwi bashing again.

I bash idiots. If most of them are from NZ that's hardly my fault.

Lucky I was only talking about
the media there and not some of the fans, some of the blogs I've seen
are pathetic.

What would you have been like if Dickinson had actually got it wrong?

We'd have got over it by now. Look, your first statement implied that all the UK media was whining. You took days to find any real examples.
You've now found a few. OK you win, but if you'd have said SOME of the UK media are whinging we would have had this fascinating conversation.
.