Hayden calls Harbhajan an obnoxious weed

[ret]

I think the cricketing world would be a lot more pleasant place if players and supporters adopted the stance of those below:

What??? Oh, the monkeys. Right...

a good one .... but if Symo reads this then he might get offended

 

[Ikki]

Fact is if SYmmonds and Australian hadn't made a big hue and cry about racism than it wouldn't have turned into a big incident in India. People called him Monkey because they thought he looked like one but once some ****s realised that it upset the ugly bastard so much they started calling him Monkey. It wasn't meant to be racist but yeah it did become racist in the end i give you that. If Symmonds hadn't acted like a tool in the first place non of it really would've happen.
Just like Symmonds and Australian players have objection to symmonds being called Monkey and get all upset. Indian players get upset being called fukers, bastard etc and all the rest of the colourful lanugage Australian players put on display every match. So why the double standards. They should stop with whole abuse thing in teh first place.
I'm not saying calling Symmonds a Monkey is right but calling someone a ****wit or what not calling it playing hard is just bull****.

Again, it's Symonds' fault? He shouldn't have said that he considers being called a monkey racist. Because then it made the Indian fans call him a monkey. And he should be an Angel, because he will then just cause Harbhajan to call him the very same racist insult.

Bad Symo, Bad Boy.

 

[Ikki]

Becoz they felt it will hurt him the most????????


Or maybe they actually his actions were like a monkey????


I ve said it is bad and should be punishable, but it is not difficult to see why they did what they did.

You know what will hurt him even more? Killing him. Yes, Kill him because he is a bit of a wanker. Being racist as a group, hosting that player in your country...he should be so lucky.

 

[ret]

^
if i m not wrong then the OZ crowds 'booed' Murali [i guess even called him a cheat], along with players like Ranatunga. i guess, these players liked all that .... may be for those players the feeling was the same as the monkey chants for Symo

And then OZ sledging is done to mentally upset the other guy and if the other guy disapproves of it [like most in the Ind team] then why should it be continued? using ur same logic the entire OZ team and that OZ crowd are found guilty

so why don't you practise what you preach

 

[Ikki]

^
if i m not wrong then the OZ crowds 'booed' Murali [i guess even called him a cheat], along with players like Ranatunga. i guess, these players liked all that .... may be for those players the feeling was the same as the monkey chants for Symo

And then OZ sledging is done to mentally upset the other guy and if the other guy disapproves of it [like most in the Ind team] then why should it be continued? using ur same logic the entire OZ team and that OZ crowd are found guilty

so why don't you practise what you preach

So booing = racism now?

You seem to be missing something. No one is saying being offensive is good. Or booing visitors is right. But being racist is an action above all these things which are petty in comparison. If you don't understand the difference, then that's half the problem.

 

[ret]

So booing = racism now?

You seem to be missing something. No one is saying being offensive is good. Or booing visitors is right. But being racist is an action above all these things which are petty in comparison. If you don't understand the difference, then that's half the problem.

so now it's more like whats worse

OZ sledge, the crowds boo but when ppl retialiate the Q becomes whats worse .... it's like 'hey, u can't do that' and 'you are only suppose to do it this [our] way coz your way hurts us' .... 'if you do it our way then it wont hurt us but will hurt u, coz we are used to 'our' ways .... so we will use our way [the way we hv mastered], so that it hurts only u and not us and we sit at the top of mental disintegration game

what would be the point in sledging back to OZ in OZ style when it's not going to effect them that much .... if you are going to debate on whats worse in this context and try to claim an imigianary higher moral ground w/o bothering to undertsand the Indian PoV then you are not going to get any points for ur views from me at least

just my 2 cents

 

[Ikki]

so now it's more like whats worse

OZ sledge, the crowds boo but when ppl retialiate the Q becomes whats worse .... it's like 'hey, u can't do that' and 'you are only suppose to do it this [our] way coz your way hurts us' .... 'if you do it our way then it wont hurt us but will hurt u, coz we are used to 'our' ways .... so we will use our way [the way we hv mastered], so that it hurts only u and not us and we sit at the top of mental disintegration game

what would be the point in sledging back to OZ in OZ style when it's not going to effect them that much .... if you are going to debate on whats worse in this context and try to claim an imigianary higher moral ground w/o bothering to undertsand the Indian PoV then you are not going to get any points for ur views from me at least

Are you okay? What is 'our' way? Indians sledge, English sledge, S.Africans sledge... but racism has no place in the game.

What you're saying is like: "Oh, so you can lie, but we can't rape?". Trying to imply a double-standard? Do you comprehend how stupid that sounds?

Considering how warped your point of view is, I am quite sure I don't want points off you.

 

[ret]

Are you okay? What is 'our' way? Indians sledge, English sledge, S.Africans sledge... but racism has no place in the game.

What you're saying is like: "Oh, so you can lie, but we can't rape?". Trying to imply a double-standard? Do you comprehend how stupid that sounds?

Considering how warped your point of view is, I am quite sure I don't want points off you.

i woudn't want to waste my time on the topic of what constitutes 'racism' and the parameters to judge it as i hv done that already. repeating that would be a waste of server space

if OZ sledge and tell stuff other ppl don't like then they are going to get back stuff that they don't like .... they stop, everyone stops .... and yes, everyone sledges within the parameters of whats acceptable in their cultures

why don't u consider 'monkey' as an Ind way of sledging rather than trying to claim an imigianary higher moral ground. it will make things a lot easier for you .... why not google India and Monkeys and may be find that it's not racist

i guess, many hv talked what you hv already talked and replied to it as well. as i said, i wouldn't want to waste any more server space on these repetative points

just my 2 cents

 

[silentstriker]

Imitiating someone's accent in order to mock him can be considered racist.

Yeah.

 

[Ikki]

i woudn't want to waste my time on the topic of what constitutes 'racism' and the parameters to judge it as i hv done that already. repeating that would be a waste of server space

if OZ sledge and tell stuff other ppl don't like then they are going to get back stuff that they don't like .... they stop, everyone stops .... and yes, everyone sledges within the parameters of whats acceptable in their cultures

why don't u consider 'monkey' as an Ind way of sledging rather than trying to claim an imigianary higher moral ground. it will make things a lot easier for you .... why not google India and Monkeys and may be find that it's not racist

i guess, many hv talked what you hv already talked and replied to it as well. as i said, i wouldn't want to waste any more server space on these repetative points

just my 2 cents

Monkey was already used when Australia were in India and let go. It became known to all what the meaning of monkey meant to Symonds. So for Indians to use it again means they cannot use the excuse of "Oh, we didn't know". Get that? Because they did know.

If I shove you lightly and you stab me in the chest you can't use the "oh, well you shouldn't have shoved me" excuse. The two things are not equal and are not in the same parameters. Racism is, rightfully, put as a much higher crime. "You insulted me, so I said something racist" is not a dependable reason. It doesn't exonerate you. In fact, it would probably vilify you even more due to your insensitivity/ignorance about the whole issue.

 

[ret]

Monkey was already used when Australia were in India and let go. It became known to all what the meaning of monkey meant to Symonds. So for Indians to use it again means they cannot use the excuse of "Oh, we didn't know". Get that? Because they did know.

If I shove you lightly and you stab me in the chest you can't use the "oh, well you shouldn't have shoved me" excuse. The two things are not equal and are not in the same parameters. Racism is, rightfully, put as a much higher crime. "You insulted me, so I said something racist" is not a dependable reason. It doesn't exonerate you. In fact, it would probably vilify you even more due to your insensitivity/ignorance about the whole issue.

yeah, so ppl hv said things abt OZ sledging too

and I don't mind smashing someones head, if he calls me something that i don't like .... no point in saying why did you smash his head when he called you something, why not just tell him somethink back

let's say X is with his GF and someone says that she is a whore. X has the options below
1. tell him politely that the GF is not a whore
2 tell that guy his GF is a whore too
3. tell him that he is too ugly
4. kick his ass

most ppl, i know off wil go for the option 4 .... don't know abt u though as may be ur logic would be like its outrageous to kick someone's ass [with three exclaimation marks !!!] when all he said is that gal is just a whore

And still if u didn't get the point ----> I don't care if monkey is racist in OZ as long as it is not in Ind .... Just like OZ don't care if sledging and use of bad lang is very offensive in Ind .... no point in trying to take an imiginary higher ground on whats implied locally as i can do that from an Ind PoV

enough said

 

[Ikki]

yeah, so ppl hv said things abt OZ sledging too

and I don't mind smashing someones head, if he calls me something that i don't like .... no point in saying why did you smash his head when he called you something, why not just tell him somethink back

Calling someone a "bad boy" annoyingly is much different to using a well-known racial term to insult the opposition. It astounds me how you cannot put two and two together here.

And you would smash someone's head for calling you something you don't like? That's exactly why you're coming off as an absolute nutter here.

let's say X is with his GF and someone says that she is a whore. X has the options below
1. tell him politely that the GF is not a whore
2 tell that guy his GF is a whore too
3. tell him that he is too ugly
4. kick his ass

most ppl, i know off wil go for the option 4 .... don't know abt u though as may be ur logic would be like its outrageous to kick someone's ass [with three exclaimation marks !!!] when all he said is that gal is just a whore

enough said

Here's the difference: it is Aussie team policy not to say something about people's spouse/gf/family. Sledging is usually inane cursing, annoying chirping and often just witty banter.

And again, your choice of reaction gives a good explanation at the gap of understanding here.

 

[ret]

^ so i hope that you got the point that one should not mess with others, hoping that, at best, they will be messed up in the same way they mess up others .... when you try to mess up w/ others, you probably get messed up depending upon how the other guy wants to mess you up .... the best thing is to not mess around in first place and explore uncomfortable waters, if you don't expect the unexpected

 

[sirdj]

Kaz & Ret...............before you two go on and on, here are the words of Judge Hansen-
"But in my view even if he had used the words “alleged” an “ordinary person” standing in the shoes of Mr Symonds who had launched an unprovoked and unnecessary invective laden attack would not be offended or insulted or humiliated in terms of 3.3."

Which basically is that once you launch an unprovoked attack you cant object to what is thrown back to you and say whoa....that's over the line.

 

[Ikki]

^ so i hope that you got the point that one should not mess with others, hoping that, at best, they will be messed up in the same way they mess up others .... when you try to mess up w/ others, you probably get messed up depending upon how the other guy wants to mess you up .... the best thing is to not mess around in first place and explore uncomfortable waters, if you don't expect the unexpected

 

[Ikki]

Kaz & Ret...............before you two go on and on, here are the words of Judge Hansen-
"But in my view even if he had used the words “alleged” an “ordinary person” standing in the shoes of Mr Symonds who had launched an unprovoked and unnecessary invective laden attack would not be offended or insulted or humiliated in terms of 3.3."

Which basically is that once you launch an unprovoked attack you cant object to what is thrown back to you and say whoa....that's over the line.

Which is why he was still charged to a lesser extent?

 

[sirdj]

Which is why he was still charged to a lesser extent?

Yes.......and even if he had used the words it would still have been the lesser charge..........but had the judge known Harbhajan's previous crimes the punishment would have been a bit more......but not the ban that Proctor had handed him.

 

[Ikki]

Yes.......and even if he had used the words it would still have been the lesser charge..........but had the judge known Harbhajan's previous crimes the punishment would have been a bit more......but not the ban that Proctor had handed him.

Maybe so. What did Symonds in was his stupid statement that a test match is not a place to be friendly with an opposition player. Had he said he thought Harbhajan was abusing Lee the whole thing would have been different. Indeed, it would have mattered.

To say that it's predictable to assume someone would lash back is something. But to take that and turn it into racial abuse is indeed another matter. That is simply why insulting someone is a lesser crime. The only thing that held back a bigger sanction was a) not enough proof and b) the Judge thought there was a mitigating factor. One that Symonds pretty much handed to him on a plate.

 

[sirdj]

Maybe so. What did Symonds in was his stupid statement that a test match is not a place to be friendly with an opposition player. Had he said he thought Harbhajan was abusing Lee the whole thing would have been different. Indeed, it would have mattered.

Everybody present had agreed that the pat was friendly. So there was no way that Symonds could have claimed that.

To say that it's predictable to assume someone would lash back is something. But to take that and turn it into racial abuse is indeed another matter. That is simply why insulting someone is a lesser crime. The only thing that held back a bigger sanction was a) not enough proof and b) the Judge thought there was a mitigating factor. One that Symonds pretty much handed to him on a plate.

Nope..........judge was pretty clear on that.......even if he had said the alleged words

 

[Ikki]

Everybody present had agreed that the pat was friendly. So there was no way that Symonds could have claimed that.

Which is why everyone didn't go start the fight, Symonds did. It's more than plausible IF Symonds really wanted to argue it. How often do you see batsmen pat bowlers with their bats?

Nope..........judge was pretty clear on that.......even if he had said the alleged words

Uh yes, because Harbhajan would be the one provoked - that is the mitigating factor. If Symonds had argued that he thought Harbhajan was the provoker - mentioning Harbhajan's record wouldn't go astray - it wouldn't have been the same verdict. Different facts = different verdict.