was cricket more fun in the 90's?

[Richard]

Exactly. Just because one word is used derogatorally in one country, doesn't mean it should be filtered. Heck, should all languages swear words be filtered? How about Japanese swear words? How about Spanish swear words?

EPO. Pretty simple. Use of languages other than English on CW is banned, swear-words or no swear-words.

Any word that's used derogatorally in any country where CW stretches to should be filtered as much as paki for my money.

 

[Richard]

Fortunately, everyone isn't you.

Corrected.

 

[Richard]

Were better off with your Cronje's for sure. Gotta love a good bit of match fixing with a touch of stump through umpire's door.

When Cronje wasn't fixing matches (which was the vast majority of occasions) he did an excellent job.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

True that. TBH, I don't know whether it's possible, but it'd be good if Mods could see what words had been originally posted and replaced by stars.

Have long since wondered why "******" isn't filtered BTW.

Because then we couldnt snigger!

 

[TheEpic]

Agree with Richard. The word '****' is not used in this country by anyone apart from the knuckle-dragging far right.

Not at all comfortable with it being used. I would expect this is the same view of every British member of this site.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

EPO. Pretty simple. Use of languages other than English on CW is banned, swear-words or no swear-words.

Any word that's used derogatorally in any country where CW stretches to should be filtered as much as paki for my money.

So the word "nippy" should be banned.

"It's a bit nippy isn't it"

 

[Richard]

Where's that considered a bad word then?

 

[Richard]

Because then we couldnt snigger!

Yeah, you could. Words can be filtered as exclusives or within other words. Snigger could remain while ****** goes easily.

 

[TheEpic]

So the word "nippy" should be banned.

"It's a bit nippy isn't it"

Honestly, why do you feel the need to be so pedantic?

No, the word 'nippy' should not be banned because the first meaning of the word is cold to the vast majority of everyone on this site. The word '****' is best associated with a racial epithet being uttered by narrow-minded racists by a significant proportion of those who read this site. Although it is clear the poster did not use it in this context, it is still a term with hugely negative connotations which is liable to offend.

That is why it should be banned.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

Where's that considered a bad word then?

Nippy is derogatory towards Japanese people, its an extension of the word "nip"!

The point I am trying to get at is that any word can be considered a bad word depending on where somebody is, instead of filtering out half the english language, the person reading should have enough common-sense to know when somebody is using a bad word.

If an English user was using the word "pak!", then common-sense tells you that it is being used as a bad word. If an Aussie user used the word "pak!", then common-sense tells you its not being used as a bad word.

Just like say "Oh it's a bit nippy". If you use common-sense, then you know its not insulting the Japanese, unlike "haha, look at the *****"

 

[Richard]

Reason nippy isn't a good example to compare to "paki" is because it's a noun-adjective - the latter is purely a noun.

It's not possible to interpret "it's a bit nippy" as a slur directed at someone because it's obviously not directed at anyone in this case. If you could find something that's purely a noun we might be able to make a better comparison.

Or maybe you might not be able to, as any noun that can be a racial slur is always knowingly frowned upon.

 

[roseboy64]

No idea since I thought cricket was dreadful during that period. WI were winning though so on the odd occassion I watched I'd say yes, it was more fun.

 

[Jono]

When Cronje wasn't fixing matches (which was the vast majority of occasions) he did an excellent job.

I don't really care to be honest. The idea that there are worse characters/individuals post-2000 than in the 90s is a ridiculous statement.

 

[Sanz]

I don't really care to be honest. The idea that there are worse characters/individuals post-2000 than in the 90s is a ridiculous statement.

Completely agree with the above.

 

[Langeveldt]

Completely agree with the above.

Different kinds of crooks for mine.. We don't have the match fixers (at least I hope not), but there are far more totally unpleasant people playing the game at the moment.. Which is developing a soccer like contempt for the conduct with which all sport should be played..

 

[Richard]

I don't really care to be honest. The idea that there are worse characters/individuals post-2000 than in the 90s is a ridiculous statement.

I don't really care about that. Fact is, Hansie Cronje made many positive contributions to South African cricket, as well as some awful negatives (which in terms of pure number are far, far smaller). Ergo, he made a considerable contribution to South African cricket's good health in the 1990s. Had he never been found-out, it's possible no-one would ever have known and he'd be regarded as one of the country's greatest sportsmen.

It'd also be hugely naive to suggest it's even remotely inconceivable that there are others who did exactly what Cronje did and no-one has ever known. Some of our biggest heroes could be as villainous as Cronje, the sole difference being we don't know.

 

[GGG]

I think what ever decade you grew up in is fun, for me the 90's cricket has nothing on the 80's.

 

[Jono]

Okay I'll ignore all the irrelevant stuff to my point.

It'd also be hugely naive to suggest it's even remotely inconceivable that there are others who did exactly what Cronje did and no-one has ever known. Some of our biggest heroes could be as villainous as Cronje, the sole difference being we don't know.

Yep, thanks for proving my point. So players' morals/integrity didn't start getting worse at the turn of the century. Pitches may have got flatter, bats may have gotten better, and hell, bowlers may have gotten ****ter, but there are no more players who contravene what is accepted conduct post-2000 than there were in the 90s.

 

[Richard]

So?

That doesn't affect the quality of cricket played.

 

[Jono]

Wow Richard, where the hell did I say it did? I responded to Langeveldt's post, because I disagreed with him on the specific point I addressed.

THAT SPECIFIC POINT ONLY.