you gotta get it into your head that in a number of countries personal insults are considered just as bad, if not worse, as racist insults..... Until you figure out that fact, there is juz absolutely no use arguing with you.
so wat exactly did Brad Hogg mean by calling Kumble and Dhoni and the whole Indian team "bastards"???
if Lee himself thought it was friendly, it would juz be seen as stupid on Symonds part. I know he is stupid anyway, but even he would have known that.....
Not really.. If Lee himself said it was friendly, whatever Symonds said or thought or assumed or whatever would have falled flat on its face.....
I have seen it happen a million times in the previous India Pak series and those series see tempers frayed a lot lot more than these India Australia series, esp. when it involves Afridi and Harbhajan and yet at the end of it all, they all still shook hands when someone reached a milestone and tended to walk off during drinks with arms on the others' shoulders.... Unfortunately, you seem to be watching a different game.No it isn't, we both know that. First time it happened it caused this. The second time it was a gesture. You'd be lucky to see it happen once a series.
You're reply is irrelevant. I am not saying I, nor the Aussie teammates saw it as an insult. I am saying, to dispute your stance that regardless the Judge was going to rule the same, that had Symonds argued what we're hypothetically considering, then that's more than a reasonable way to look at things.
Unfortunately, the Judge didn't look at the recent history between them or the players so he doesn't know what action would mean what.
And I made no value-judgment whether it was good or bad. Personally, I like to see hard-fought contests between two teams as if they were brothers trying to outdo each other whilst remembering they share a bond.
But I am saying that when you objectively look at the circumstances and the animosity between the players/teams then it's out of place and someone fielding from afar may actually acknowledge that.
It's like War. You would like things to never get that far, but at the same time you cannot blame a soldier for shooting an enemy who is walking upto a fellow soldier from your own side. I don't like making extreme examples but I think that helps make what I am saying vivid.
But that's if we consider Symonds had argued this point. And had he, it would have been a different outcome and not the same to which you keep wanting to imply.
Sure. Ignore what was just said.
It wasn't, it was thousands. I just gave you a news article on it.
LOL, are you serious? You just ignored what I completely said and came with the same non-sense.
I am not disputing facts, but I am giving an alternative argument Symonds could have reasonably have given. Which puts an end to this farce that racial remarks could have been foreseen by Symonds due to his own behaviour.
It's not really much of an IF at all. You think the Judge would have ruled the same had Harbhajan called Symonds the N-Word? You would be naive to think so. Hence had he, I doubt a Judge is going to come up with some lousy argument that Symonds would have provoked that too. Essentially, it seems the word "monkey' is less racist.
Dunno about the crowd stuff mate, I remember watching the game and hearing the crowd chanting. Not saying it's all the crowd, mind. Just think there were more than just a few who said it. And they were pretty loud.
U don't seem to trust the Indian witnesses around here, mate...Of course, no Australian witness can be trusted.
yeah, but not everyone was chanting monkey.. There are various ways to boo and that is what was happening. The "monkey" thing was only done by a very very small section and it was let off in Vadodara but handled in Mumbai...
Fair nuff. But if they were turfed out for saying it, does that not lend itself to a suggestion that the term is regarded as one which vilifies racially in India?
nope.. Symonds mentioned that he found it offensive and that is why action was taken... Look, even I didn't know that calling someone a "monkey" could be considered racially offensive before all this began and I had go through quite a few sites to figure out everything. Once Symonds made it clear that he felt it was racially abusive, from that point, those chants and actions were always going to become tabboo in the cricket grounds... I still think our crowd control can be better in the stadiums, esp. the smaller centres with lesser history of staging international cricket, but that is a diff. point altogether.Fair nuff. But if they were turfed out for saying it, does that not lend itself to a suggestion that the term is regarded as one which vilifies racially in India?
i guess, if the image is taken from an image search engine. it should still give the adress of the site where it's hosted [including that of image hosting site] .... but anyways .....
.... also how harmless symbols have inappropriately been associated with negative things 
That certainly changes the vibe at the local bingo night.Another good example is the number 88 .... it represents Heil Hitler
source: http://gbgm-umc.org/UMW/anti-hate/symbolsofhate.html
^ the source .... just in case, ur imagination turns wild
Two fat ladies = two fat majors = Heil Hitler
I thought 2 8's = 2 H's (letter no. 8 of the alphabet) = Heil Hitler.
No, that's not what I said at all. I said he was being figurative when he was talking about 'taking on thousands' because it would be ridiculous to assume he literally meant it. Whereas you can see thousands of people chanting and there can be a literal interpretation there.
Yeah, you can keep doing that.
What was insulting about what I said? You're trying to make it seem that it's not possible to distinguish a crowd of hundreds or thousands. It's not a tough exercise, especially when you're sitting in a stadium.
LOL, good one HB. almost took you seriously.Talk abt losing the plot...........
Yeah, like if you offend someone's family members or make some other remark on that degree, I agree. But that's not what happened.
But I am not talking about Brad Hogg, I am talking about Hayden and Harbhajan.
If I were Lee I would have told Symonds that as soon as the confrontation occurred. I don't see why that's not ever mentioned, but nevermind.
Not it wouldn't have because Symonds didn't act on Lee's word. He would have acted on his own. So whether Lee thought it was harmless or not is irrelevant. It's Symonds' understanding when approaching Harbhajan that will make him either the defensive party, or the provoker. We know now he did his fair share to provocate. But had he actually argued that he thought, after all that happened recently, it wasn't a friendly gesture and went over to Harbhajan to defend Lee, then you couldn't really see him as a provoker, he didn't have the intent.
An Indian witness who wasn't there compared to an Aussie witness who was there. Call me crazy, but I don't think it matters where you're from because the real distinction that separates them is their presence when it occured.U don't seem to trust the Indian witnesses around here, mate...
Or is it juz that only Australian witnesses can be trusted?
and I am yet to see the Indians who were there support the claim that it was thousands...