Re: Zak in trouble? : Wed Jun 04, 2014 1:46 pm  

MattyLeeds wrote:

If Childs did hear it why wasn't Zak sent off then?

How many players are sent off for verbal abuse? Very, very few. That doesn't mean to say the referee hasn't heard the abuse, just that they choose not to act on it for whatever reason. Has Child ever sent anyone off? He didn't even refer Ablett's foul on the try scorer to the video ref or award a penalty try if he saw it himself, and Ablett now has a ban so clearly an offence was committed.

Re: Zak in trouble? : Wed Jun 04, 2014 1:48 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

The word used is thought of as that offensive. Ignorance to that is no defence. Faggot isnt a swear word. It is a homophobic slur.

In your world it does. It appears you are more offended than the Homosexuals in society. And I am sure they don't need you for their unofficial spokesperson.

SmokeyTA wrote:

Thankfully, the RFL agrees, thats why he is being investigated for homophobic comments and not for use of foul and abusive language.

Surely it is only right to put the true position, rather than made up position to suit your agenda here. Just a slight difference to the wording, but a massive difference to the position.

An investigation is in place to look into "alleged" homophobic comments. Nowhere have the RFL said what they think he said, and without that, there is no way you could say they agree with you.

Re: Zak in trouble? : Wed Jun 04, 2014 2:04 pm  

Gotcha wrote:

In your world it does. It appears you are more offended than the Homosexuals in society. And I am sure they don't need you for their unofficial spokesperson.

Only homosexuals should be offended by homophobia? What is this 1950? A spokesman for the homosexuals in society? You think they are one homogeneous community that get together, decide their position and put out a statement on it? What is this 1950?

Surely it is only right to put the true position, rather than made up position to suit your agenda here. Just a slight difference to the wording, but a massive difference to the position.

An investigation is in place to look into "alleged" homophobic comments. Nowhere have the RFL said what they think he said, and without that, there is no way you could say they agree with you.

do you actually understand the words you write? What would the RFL be investigating if they had already concluded he had said it? They are investigating homophobic comments, not foul and abusive language. Because those things are different things.

Re: Zak in trouble? : Wed Jun 04, 2014 2:10 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

Only homosexuals should be offended by homophobia? What is this 1950? A spokesman for the homosexuals in society? You think they are one homogeneous community that get together, decide their position and put out a statement on it? What is this 1950?
do you actually understand the words you write? What would the RFL be investigating if they had already concluded he had said it? They are investigating homophobic comments, not foul and abusive language. Because those things are different things.

I used to have this fella down as intelligent. I know he rubs people up the wrong way, but I never thought he was challenged in that way.

He has got so excited over this topic that the above, quite clearly shows I was wrong to assume intelligence.

Read again what I said, where you posted your first comment above.

To your second comment, I repeat again there is an investigation into an "alleged" homophobic comment. So yes the words are clearly understood that are written. You are just so caught up in your own hole you are digging, that you are frantically coming out with comments no relevant. So in answer an investigation is taking place to see if there was homophobic comments made, not because they have already decided, unlike you.

To be clear. I am happy enough for the RFL to deal with it as they see fit, as long as that is consistent going forward. You are judge, jury, and executioner, before anything is even proven as said.

Re: Zak in trouble? : Wed Jun 04, 2014 2:23 pm  

I always like to see a post littered with spelling mistakes and grammatical errors questioning my intelligence.

I havent in any way 'decided' Hardaker has said those words, i have been careful not to.

Its sweet to see you jumping to young Zaks defence so quickly, and being so keen to dismiss others as 'knob jockeys'. Are you aware of the term 'transference'?

Re: Zak in trouble? : Wed Jun 04, 2014 2:29 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

I always like to see a post littered with spelling mistakes and grammatical errors questioning my intelligence.

And there we have It, the sign of a lost argument. Still slipping down that hole you dug.

SmokeyTA wrote:

I havent in any way 'decided' Hardaker has said those words, i have been careful not to.

Really?

SmokeyTA wrote:

The word used is thought of as that offensive. Ignorance to that is no defence. Faggot isnt a swear word. It is a homophobic slur.

So you hadn't decided what he said?

SmokeyTA wrote:

Thankfully, the RFL agrees, thats why he is being investigated for homophobic comments and not for use of foul and abusive language.

The RFL agrees with you, yet you haven't decided what he said?

SmokeyTA wrote:

What would the RFL be investigating if they had already concluded he had said it? They are investigating homophobic comments

So they had already decided, and agreed with you? yet you now say you haven't decided. That makes perfect sense Smokey.

Why not just admit it really. You dug yourself a hole and you had to keep to it, not realising you would lose face so much.

Re: Zak in trouble? : Wed Jun 04, 2014 2:46 pm  

Gotcha wrote:

And there we have It, the sign of a lost argument. Still slipping down that hole you dug.

Do people often point out your ad hominem insults are filled with spelling mistakes and poor grammar?

Really?

So you hadn't decided what he said?

yes sweetheart,

SmokeyTA wrote:

Hardaker (allegedly) used a homophobic slur.

SmokeyTA wrote:

.......where a high profile young player (if true) can throw around homophobic slurs,.

SmokeyTA wrote:

Im not even saying Hardaker is homophobic (again if true) simply that a word he used was a homophobic slur

HTH

The RFL agrees with you, yet you haven't decided what he said?

So they had already decided, and agreed with you? yet you now say you haven't decided. That makes perfect sense Smokey.

Why not just admit it really. You dug yourself a hole and you had to keep to it, not realising you would lose face so much.

No, what i actually said was

SmokeyTA wrote:

Faggot isnt a swear word. It is a homophobic slur.

Thankfully, the RFL agrees, thats why he is being investigated for homophobic comments and not for use of foul and abusive language.

The RFL agree with me that a homophobic slur is not foul and abusive language, it is an offence in and of itself. It isnt the same as calling someone a moron, nice bloke or a c'nt or a jackass or any of the multitude of words which must be directed at you on a daily basis. I make no comment on his guilt or otherwise.

Re: Zak in trouble? : Wed Jun 04, 2014 2:51 pm  

Bloody hell, and somebody accused me of fog knitting. That post from Smokey above, is the most pathetic post every on this board.

And full of lies, to say he now said "Allegedly" after I had posted to him three times with the word, and he still insisted the RFL agreed with him. Unbelievable.

Like I said Smokey, you have lost a lot face with this.

Re: Zak in trouble? : Wed Jun 04, 2014 2:57 pm  

Gotcha wrote:

Bloody hell, and somebody accused me of fog knitting. That post from Smokey above, is the most pathetic post every on this board.

And full of lies, to say he now said "Allegedly" after I had posted to him three times with the word, and he still insisted the RFL agreed with him. Unbelievable.

Like I said Smokey, you have lost a lot face with this.

You do realise that because its written you can go back in the thread and check yeah? its all there.

Im actually astounded that even after having having it explained to you, you still dont understand the difference between what i said, and what you thought i said.

You really dont know your ar5e from your Phil Daly do you?

Re: Zak in trouble? : Wed Jun 04, 2014 3:01 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

You do realise that because its written you can go back in the thread and check yeah? its all there.

Im actually astounded that even after having having it explained to you, you still dont understand the difference between what i said, and what you thought i said.

You really dont know your ar5e from your Phil Daly do you?

Smokey, anybody only has to look at this very page of the thread, to see you are talking nonsense.