;D Just kidding, but it looks like the end of the line for Symonds.

Poor bugger will now just have to make a fortune out of being a mercenary cricketer without all of the pressures of international cricket.

Seems to be behaving himself in this shot.



***Self edited, controversial photo gone.***

symonds has been treated VERY considerately by Cricket australia.
he erred and they tried to help him, made sure he got help, waited for him.

As good as he is, cricket australia has done the right thing.

Quote:

Seems to be behaving himself in this shot.

Lol yeah, that's one for the Indian papers.



Quote:

As good as he is, cricket australia has done the right thing.

I suppose so, but I don't really know what he's done this time.
Apparently he had a couple of drinks at a function but was fine when he left. So whatever happened was on the bus or at the hotel where they were staying.
But you don't really need to do that much to be offside with the ACB anyway - just being a Victorian is sometimes enough. Years ago they denied the public the opportunity to watch the "Jones boy".

Amadd wrote on Jun 5^th, 2009 at 3:59pm:

… I suppose so, but I don't really know what he's done this time. Apparently he had a couple of drinks at a function but was fine when he left. So whatever happened was on the bus or at the hotel where they were staying. …

I understand that those couple of drinks alone sent him home, but there could be more.

locutius wrote on Jun 5^th, 2009 at 11:48am:

Seems to be behaving himself in this shot.

He would knock your block off for that Moderator.  I would help him.

Aussie wrote on Jun 5^th, 2009 at 6:08pm:

locutius wrote on Jun 5th, 2009 at 11:48am: Seems to be behaving himself in this shot. He would knock your block off for that Moderator.  I would help him.

:-*

locutius wrote on Jun 9^th, 2009 at 8:18am:

Aussie wrote on Jun 5th, 2009 at 6:08pm: locutius wrote on Jun 5th, 2009 at 11:48am: Seems to be behaving himself in this shot. He would knock your block off for that Moderator.  I would help him. :-*

I agree with Aussie..you should be @#$$%  ashamed of that..great Mod..I might send a copy to Symonds..

locutius wrote on Jun 5^th, 2009 at 11:48am:

Seems to be behaving himself in this shot.

image deleted

So terrible that you repeated it. You only have to scroll up a few inches.

I'm so glad I have given you and Aussie something to agree on. You're not DT by any chance are you Oceans?

He's crowing about being a bashing thug and you're both too precious by half at a bit of a piss take. I never understood the monkey/racial slur and am convinced that it was all a load of hyped up BS by the Aussie cricket team to throw their opponents on the back foot.

Symonds is about the only cricketer that I have any knowledge or slight admiration of. Afterall he'd rather be fishing than playing that stupid game.

---

oceanz wrote on Jun 9^th, 2009 at 2:52pm:

locutius wrote on Jun 9th, 2009 at 8:18am: Aussie wrote on Jun 5th, 2009 at 6:08pm: locutius wrote on Jun 5th, 2009 at 11:48am: Seems to be behaving himself in this shot. He would knock your block off for that Moderator.  I would help him. :-* I agree with Aussie..you should be @#$$%  ashamed of that..great Mod..I might send a copy to Symonds..

Look while your in a dobbing kind of mood maybe you could pass this on to Matty John's solicitors.

Oceans
Quote:

Aussie men rape and batter women, they are not without guilt.. Matty Johns and his pals raped this girl..there is no doubt. Matty Johns deserves what he got and more

many pple said that not just me..and it was relevant and in context...


SO what did Andrew Symonds race have to do with his woes as a cricket player for Australia..? Loc mmm?



Just a nasty cheap racist shot ..thats what it was.

oceanz wrote on Jun 9^th, 2009 at 4:52pm:

many pple said that not just me..and it was relevant and in context...

Did they..? That must have been the sensible lot then hey? Was it in context? How so? Sounds like just plan slander really.



oceanz wrote on Jun 9^th, 2009 at 4:52pm:

SO what did Andrew Symonds race have to do with his woes as a cricket player for Australia..? Loc mmm?

How is it racist? What race is he? A good percentage of my relatives have his deep olive skin. They are Italian. What race are Italians Oceanz.


oceanz wrote on Jun 9^th, 2009 at 4:52pm:

Just a nasty cheap racist shot ..thats what it was.

Are you implying that monkey references can be directed at a race? That's just stupid. I've argued here against such things. Therein lies part of the gag.

Loc wrote-


Quote:

Are you implying that monkey references can be directed at a race? That's just stupid. I've argued here against such things. Therein lies part of the gag.

you know they can thats why you said it and posted the pic...below you then contradicted yourself.. ;D


Loc wrote-

Quote:

He's crowing about being a bashing thug and you're both too precious by half at a bit of a piss take. I never understood the monkey/racial slur and am convinced that it was all a load of hyped up BS by the Aussie cricket team to throw their opponents on the back foot

tsk tsk

Look, while I have never seen a hint of racist attitude from Locutius, and believe he had no racist intention with his post, I consider it to be a bad judgement call on his behalf, because very many would see it as racist.

That is why I moved it here, to the Drug Policy Board, where his alcohol related issues can be further debated, if people want to, but we do not want the Main Forum Boards to have any racist content, even if it is unintentional.

;D ;D ;D

Mozz you are being absolutely ridiculous.
That photo was about 1/10th as offensive as the chasers skit and about ten time more funny.

Even Symonds himself wasn't offended when the Indians did their racist stuff - as they are apt to do.
If you're going to get all prissy about a harmless joke like that photo, then I think you've been well and truly brainwashed.

I'm sure you can see that oceanz is just after some payback because she's been well and truly exposed as a man-basher, and because  Richmond are sh!t.

it would be interesting nonetheless to see Symonds eyeball Loc and then Loc explain it all away as a silly little joke to him...yeah I'd like to see that.

We see the results of racism daily, and I have a zero tolerance attitude to it.
I moved it to a member board so you can keep talking about it if you wish, as there is much more leeway here, to indulge yourselves, but we don't need it throughout the whole forum.

I already said I don't believe that Locutius intended it as a racist slur, but I maintain he erred in his judgement of the fact that it is indeed racist to stereotype any people as monkeys, even in a joke.

I do appreciate that it can be seen as a bit precious by me, but it is an issue that I just will not tolerate being seen to condone, in any way.

Amadd wrote on Jun 9^th, 2009 at 7:49pm:

;D ;D ;D I'm sure you can see that oceanz is just after some payback because she's been well and truly exposed as a man-basher, and because  Richmond are sh!t.

;D your such a sh it stirrer maddy..


Richmond will rise from the ashes  to take their rightful place at the top of the ladder.

I will then seek you out and kick your girly man butt.

mozzaok wrote on Jun 9^th, 2009 at 8:54pm:

I already said I don't believe that Locutius intended it as a racist slur,

Correct Mozz, thanks for the benefit of the doubt and paying attention to past opinions expressed by me.


mozzaok wrote on Jun 9^th, 2009 at 8:54pm:

but I maintain he erred in his judgement of the fact that it is indeed racist to stereotype any people as monkeys, even in a joke.

Fair enough. An error, but no intent to be racist. Photo's gone.

Amadd wrote on Jun 9^th, 2009 at 7:49pm:

;D ;D ;D Mozz you are being absolutely ridiculous. That photo was about 1/10th as offensive as the chasers skit and about ten time more funny. Even Symonds himself wasn't offended when the Indians did their racist stuff - as they are apt to do. If you're going to get all prissy about a harmless joke like that photo, then I think you've been well and truly brainwashed. I'm sure you can see that oceanz is just after some payback because she's been well and truly exposed as a man-basher, and because  Richmond are sh!t.

Thanks Amadd,

I thought it was funny and not racist at all because I am not racist. But there you go. If it is 1/10th as offensive then it is still offensive through misinterpetted intent.

I also still reckon that Symonds would have had a great laugh at the media beat up of a non issue. But that is my conjecture and his priviledge.

And yes I do think Oceanz was still smarting, I also noticed that the use or expressions of physical attack to correct a verbal slight didn't seem to be worthy of a peep of criticism from her. Interesting view from the moral high ground.

locutius wrote on Jun 10^th, 2009 at 11:25am:

Amadd wrote on Jun 9th, 2009 at 7:49pm: ;D ;D ;D Mozz you are being absolutely ridiculous. That photo was about 1/10th as offensive as the chasers skit and about ten time more funny. Even Symonds himself wasn't offended when the Indians did their racist stuff - as they are apt to do. If you're going to get all prissy about a harmless joke like that photo, then I think you've been well and truly brainwashed. I'm sure you can see that oceanz is just after some payback because she's been well and truly exposed as a man-basher, and because  Richmond are sh!t. Thanks Amadd, I thought it was funny and not racist at all because I am not racist. But there you go. If it is 1/10th as offensive then it is still offensive through misinterpetted intent. I also still reckon that Symonds would have had a great laugh at the media beat up of a non issue. But that is my conjecture and his priviledge. And yes I do think Oceanz was still smarting, I also noticed that the use or expressions of physical attack to correct a verbal slight didn't seem to be worthy of a peep of criticism from her. Interesting view from the moral high ground.

No sorry..not smarting..Im tougher than that .I just dont like cheap shots that attack someones humanity, Im very consistent about that..dehumanising is a dangerous practice..

But I'll accept Loc that you meant no real harm as its been stated this is your first lapse...

Quote:

;D your such a sh it stirrer maddy..

That I can't deny


Quote:

Richmond will rise from the ashes  to take their rightful place at the top of the ladder. I will then seek you out and kick your girly man butt.

You'd better bring a bum bra along too, because by that time it will be hanging down around my ankles. :D

locutius wrote on Jun 10^th, 2009 at 11:01am:

mozzaok wrote on Jun 9th, 2009 at 8:54pm: I already said I don't believe that Locutius intended it as a racist slur, Correct Mozz, thanks for the benefit of the doubt and paying attention to past opinions expressed by me. mozzaok wrote on Jun 9th, 2009 at 8:54pm: but I maintain he erred in his judgement of the fact that it is indeed racist to stereotype any people as monkeys, even in a joke. Fair enough. An error, but no intent to be racist. Photo's gone.

Rubbish.  All through page 1, you maintained your position, despite my criticisms and those of another.

It is only when your blue coated colleague comments that you hypocritically back off.

Your pants are at your ankles.

locutius wrote on Jun 10^th, 2009 at 11:25am:

Amadd wrote on Jun 9th, 2009 at 7:49pm: ;D ;D ;D Mozz you are being absolutely ridiculous. That photo was about 1/10th as offensive as the chasers skit and about ten time more funny. Even Symonds himself wasn't offended when the Indians did their racist stuff - as they are apt to do. If you're going to get all prissy about a harmless joke like that photo, then I think you've been well and truly brainwashed. I'm sure you can see that oceanz is just after some payback because she's been well and truly exposed as a man-basher, and because  Richmond are sh!t. Thanks Amadd, I thought it was funny and not racist at all because I am not racist. But there you go. If it is 1/10th as offensive then it is still offensive through misinterpetted intent. I also still reckon that Symonds would have had a great laugh at the media beat up of a non issue. But that is my conjecture and his priviledge. And yes I do think Oceanz was still smarting, I also noticed that the use or expressions of physical attack to correct a verbal slight didn't seem to be worthy of a peep of criticism from her. Interesting view from the moral high ground.

I believe the opposite to my high moral ground ( :-? ) is your low moral ground ?..

Ill take it..Lock it in Eddie. :P

Dont you mean photos are gone? there were 2..after you were rebuked for the first..you posted a 2nd racist pic..

I don't know what you are always so angry about aussie, but you certainly know how to maintain the rage.

I know it is a concept you struggle to accept, but sometimes people are just telling the truth as they see it, and just because they are not seeing it the same way that you do, does not mean they are lying, just that they are not looking at it from the same perspective.

You should try trusting what people are saying, at least sometimes.

Most people do try to be honest, and most try to be decent, but we all see things from our own perspective, and sometimes just having someone politely point out that another view exists, will do more to help them recognise new ideas than just berating them, which usually just gets them more defensively attached to their original position.

I have never had any reason to doubt the sincerity of anything Locutius has said, and I firmly believe he did not even think of the image in racist terms,  but just as a poor taste joke, that was funny, and could equally have chosen the same image if it had been a caucasian person in trouble for drinking too much, it was the drunkeness that he considered was the humorous part.
That is how I interpreted he meant it, and I don't think he even recognised the racist angle until it was pointed out to him, and if you had done so in a less confrontingly aggressive manner, he probably would have seen it then, but the aggression of your post focused his attention onto dealing with that, rather than re-assessing what he had posted, and how it could be perceived differently than how he had seen it.

If Loc can post rubbish like that then try to weasel his way out of it and Aussie can see that he is not being honest about his intentions, why is it not ok to say so Mozz..its called debating. ??    ::)


Don't you think Loc can wipe his own behind..?

I'd be mindful of throwing stones after what you wrote about Matty Johns.
I had not seen that before, and it was most unfair of you to say what you did, mostly because it was false.

I have no admiration for his behaviour, but that doesn't mean he deserves to have it beaten up into something other than what it was, poor behaviour, not criminal behaviour.

As far as Aussie goes, his belligerence is not contained to Locutius, he accuses anyone he disagrees with of lying, and he is always in a seemingly perpetual state of rage, it would do his blood pressure, and civil debate, no harm if he wound it back a notch or two.

His accusations are often proved to be either unfounded, or based on misunderstanding, and I am suggesting he approach things less aggressively if he wants to debate, and not just berate.

I gave my interpretation of how I took Locutius' post, because I believe it to accurately reflect how he meant it, because he has never condoned racist behaviour in any way, and I believe that because he is not racist, that when he posted it, it did not even occur to him.
I already said I think that was a mistake on his behalf, but that is very different to how others would like to portray it.

He has accepted that it was poor judgement, and voluntarily removed the image which could have been considered offensive.

Can you accept that your intemperate words regarding Matty Johns was a mistake Oceanz?

Will you go back and self edit your mistake?

I'd be mindful of throwing stones after what you wrote about Matty Johns.

After what a lot of pple wrote about him, not just me..and I dont believe I made a mistake..did you? He walked a fine line , he has to expect things would get messy.

I had not seen that before, and it was most unfair of you to say what you did, mostly because it was false.

Well bully for you mozz..and your opinion is just that..your opinion..

I have no admiration for his behaviour, but that doesn't mean he deserves to have it beaten up into something other than what it was, poor behaviour, not criminal behaviour.

Ok theres that fine line I keep talking about

As far as Aussie goes, his belligerence is not contained to Locutius, he accuses anyone he disagrees with of lying, and he is always in a seemingly perpetual state of rage, it would do his blood pressure, and civil debate, no harm if he wound it back a notch or two.
 
I love how you have taken it upon yoursef appoint yourself as the keeper of pples behaviour and morals..I believe im NOT  the first to have said so either

His accusations are often proved to be either unfounded, or based on misunderstanding, and I am suggesting he approach things less aggressively if he wants to debate, and not just berate.

Like most posters in here actually.. funny that  ::).

I gave my interpretation of how I took Locutius' post

His interpretation was needed not yours.. ,

because I believe it to accurately reflect how he meant it, because he has never condoned racist behaviour in any way, and I believe that because he is not racist, that when he posted it, it did not even occur to him.

[ oohh really..your in his head now are you?  :o]

I already said I think that was a mistake on his behalf, but that is very different to how others would like to portray it.

Are you for real? is Loc standing behind you with a dummy wedged in his mouth..you overplay your hand mozz you really do..how about letting him step up ?

He has accepted that it was poor judgement, and voluntarily removed the image which could have been considered offensive.

Can you accept that your intemperate words regarding Matty Johns was a mistake Oceanz?


No..its  my interpretation and I have a right to express it just like every man who came onto that thread implied those women deserved what they got and that most women, just because of their sex were sluts and whores and spoke of them in the most vulgar and demeaning terms....Matty johns obviously thought so too..now go back thru the thread and read all the disgusting insults aimed at those women and you tell me Im out of line..!  Thats not to mention the abuse we copped simply because we were women, they make very little distinction you know...... >:(

So if its all the same to you I think Ill pass..

You disappoint me...Might be time to open your other eye

No surprise there, maybe have another look at your views in the morning,

Locutius had already explained his position, but as you obviously missed, or misunderstood it, I elaborated, in an attempt to help you understand, and I seem to stand as an optimist in that seemingly vain hope.

Aussie wrote on Jun 10^th, 2009 at 8:30pm:

locutius wrote on Jun 10th, 2009 at 11:01am: mozzaok wrote on Jun 9th, 2009 at 8:54pm: I already said I don't believe that Locutius intended it as a racist slur, Correct Mozz, thanks for the benefit of the doubt and paying attention to past opinions expressed by me. mozzaok wrote on Jun 9th, 2009 at 8:54pm: but I maintain he erred in his judgement of the fact that it is indeed racist to stereotype any people as monkeys, even in a joke. Fair enough. An error, but no intent to be racist. Photo's gone. Rubbish.  All through page 1, you maintained your position, despite my criticisms and those of another. It is only when your blue coated colleague comments that you hypocritically back off. Your pants are at your ankles.

Then it's a damn good thing you're not behind me hey Aussie. Now go and watch your favourite redneck scene from Deliverance.

locutius wrote on Jun 11^th, 2009 at 11:21am:

Then it's a damn good thing you're not behind me hey Aussie. Now go and watch your favourite redneck scene from Deliverance.

Da-Da ding-dang ding-dang ding-dang dong

oceanz wrote on Jun 10^th, 2009 at 8:57pm:

locutius wrote on Jun 10th, 2009 at 11:25am: Amadd wrote on Jun 9th, 2009 at 7:49pm: ;D ;D ;D Mozz you are being absolutely ridiculous. That photo was about 1/10th as offensive as the chasers skit and about ten time more funny. Even Symonds himself wasn't offended when the Indians did their racist stuff - as they are apt to do. If you're going to get all prissy about a harmless joke like that photo, then I think you've been well and truly brainwashed. I'm sure you can see that oceanz is just after some payback because she's been well and truly exposed as a man-basher, and because  Richmond are sh!t. Thanks Amadd, I thought it was funny and not racist at all because I am not racist. But there you go. If it is 1/10th as offensive then it is still offensive through misinterpetted intent. I also still reckon that Symonds would have had a great laugh at the media beat up of a non issue. But that is my conjecture and his priviledge. And yes I do think Oceanz was still smarting, I also noticed that the use or expressions of physical attack to correct a verbal slight didn't seem to be worthy of a peep of criticism from her. Interesting view from the moral high ground. I believe the opposite to my high moral ground ( :-? ) is your low moral ground ?.. Ill take it..Lock it in Eddie. :P Dont you mean photos are gone? there were 2..after you were rebuked for the first..you posted a 2nd racist pic..

?? Are you speaking of the cartoon of Charles Darwin? Why on earth would you imagine that to be racial?

It is political if anything, and while meant to be offensive, I believe Darwin (one of my favourite human beings of all time) would have actually found it both amusing and complimentary.

Like I said concerning the moral high ground, your sideline approval for violence as a solution as opposed to discussion was interesting. Ever heard of the term "losing the moral high ground" I was suggesting that that is what you experienced.

I still maintain that the intent was not racist but that the perception was. At least by some of the people that viewed the image but not all.

I assume it's OK for one member to try to correct and defend the actions/opinions of another member. I assume, as previously stated that Mozza based his comments on a familarity of a good portion of the history of 1000+ posts I have made on this forum. I am at a loss as to why that needs to be a matter of attack. I don't have the time or inclination but I am sure you have regularly come to other forum member's defence when you thought they have been misunderstood or misquoted.

He agreed with you about the appropriatness of my post in the same way that he seems to have agreed with me about the appropriatness of your Matty Johns post.

I'm missing out on all these photos - they're deleted as soon as they come up. If it's any consolation Locutius - I didn't find the monkey photo offensive.

What I find offensive is when racist names are directed personally at members.

I also missed out on Helian's bald man picture and I'm just wondering why some middle ground can't be found here. We're all adults - aren't we?

mantra wrote on Jun 11^th, 2009 at 1:16pm:

I also missed out on Helian's bald man picture and I'm just wondering why some middle ground can't be found here. We're all adults - aren't we?

My comment to Mozz was tongue-in-cheek.

My post depicted Carradine as Grasshopper from Kung Fu which I titled "That was Zen" and a second picture of a hanged man facing away from the camera titled 'This is Tao".

Mantra, I did leave the original photo there for a few days, as after being told that the appropriate response to the photo was physical harm, I thought others should see for themselves. And if they were critical then voice their criticism sensibly.

I have always maintained that forum member's offensive or erroneous comments be kept for other members to form a picture of the people we are conversing with. I was very tempted to leave the photo on that basis alone. Racism is a stupid and discusting thing but while I can claim error of judgement for the photo I cannot apologise for any racist intent, there was none.

The cartoon of Darwin was an example of a favourite cartoon of a favourite person, and as explained, I cannot even marginally imagine that Darwin would have taken offence. As for it being racial, I am at a complete loss. More than just aimed at Darwin, that cartoon at the time was aimed at any and all that believed Darwin's Theory of Evolution. I include myself very happily as one of those Monkey-Men.

If you or any member missed the photo I posted, I would be happy, by way of only clearifying the issue PMing the photo.

Loc, that photo of the pissed chimp was not offensive in the context it was delivered. This is a small forum not a national media site.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jun 11^th, 2009 at 1:32pm:

mantra wrote on Jun 11th, 2009 at 1:16pm: I also missed out on Helian's bald man picture and I'm just wondering why some middle ground can't be found here. We're all adults - aren't we? My comment to Mozz was tongue-in-cheek. My post depicted Carradine as Grasshopper from Kung Fu which I titled "That was Zen" and a second picture of a hanged man facing away from the camera titled 'This is Tao".

Yes, funny and clever. Deserved to be a global twitter. :)

locutius wrote on Jun 11^th, 2009 at 1:40pm:

Mantra, I did leave the original photo there for a few days, as after being told that the appropriate response to the photo was physical harm, I thought others should see for themselves. And if they were critical then voice their criticism sensibly. I have always maintained that forum member's offensive or erroneous comments be kept for other members to form a picture of the people we are conversing with. I was very tempted to leave the photo on that basis alone. Racism is a stupid and discusting thing but while I can claim error of judgement for the photo I cannot apologise for any racist intent, there was none. The cartoon of Darwin was an example of a favourite cartoon of a favourite person, and as explained, I cannot even marginally imagine that Darwin would have taken offence. As for it being racial, I am at a complete loss. More than just aimed at Darwin, that cartoon at the time was aimed at any and all that believed Darwin's Theory of Evolution. I include myself very happily as one of those Monkey-Men. If you or any member missed the photo I posted, I would be happy, by way of only clearifying the issue PMing the photo.

If the photo had been up a couple of days I probably did see it. It must have been fairly innocuous if I didn't notice it. If you can PM it - that's fine although I'm not sure the PM's accept photos.


Quote:

This is a small forum not a national media site

True - and most of the stuff here is very inoffensive. My biggest whinge has always been about personal attacks and abuse - but the occasional "controversial" photo seems harmless enough. But this is a conservative forum and Mozzaok is doing what he thinks best. Unfortunately being a moderator - you can never get it right for everyone.

I do appreciate your view mantra, and I didn't remove Locutius pic, I just moved the whole thread, to the members boards, where we all get a lot of leeway.

You only need look at many of the posts in multiculturalism, and extremism boards to see that people are given plenty of scope to freely express their opinions.

So I think that these member boards give everyone enough opportunity to post views that we don't need to see in the Main Boards as well.

As far as the pic Helian posted, it was not really bad, but we have seen others post pics of torture and gruesome stuff before, and while I may have over reacted to the pic of a dead man hanging, I feared that it may have spurred others to post more graphic images, so I made a judgement call on that basis, not just that particular image, which was from behind, so you did not see any gruesome facial distortion, but I did fear that if we allow milder graphic stuff, it gets harder to draw the line at where to stop.
I'm sorry if it seemed heavy handed.

mantra wrote on Jun 11^th, 2009 at 3:43pm:

locutius wrote on Jun 11th, 2009 at 1:40pm: Mantra, I did leave the original photo there for a few days, as after being told that the appropriate response to the photo was physical harm, I thought others should see for themselves. And if they were critical then voice their criticism sensibly. I have always maintained that forum member's offensive or erroneous comments be kept for other members to form a picture of the people we are conversing with. I was very tempted to leave the photo on that basis alone. Racism is a stupid and discusting thing but while I can claim error of judgement for the photo I cannot apologise for any racist intent, there was none. The cartoon of Darwin was an example of a favourite cartoon of a favourite person, and as explained, I cannot even marginally imagine that Darwin would have taken offence. As for it being racial, I am at a complete loss. More than just aimed at Darwin, that cartoon at the time was aimed at any and all that believed Darwin's Theory of Evolution. I include myself very happily as one of those Monkey-Men. If you or any member missed the photo I posted, I would be happy, by way of only clearifying the issue PMing the photo. If the photo had been up a couple of days I probably did see it. It must have been fairly innocuous if I didn't notice it. If you can PM it - that's fine although I'm not sure the PM's accept photos. Quote: This is a small forum not a national media site True - and most of the stuff here is very inoffensive. My biggest whinge has always been about personal attacks and abuse - but the occasional "controversial" photo seems harmless enough. But this is a conservative forum and Mozzaok is doing what he thinks best. Unfortunately being a moderator - you can never get it right for everyone.

Sorry Mantra, you are correct. PM will not accept photo's. It was of a chimpanzee wearing a little suit asleep at a bar room table with a bottle of spirits on the table. Just in case you are thinking of the still visible cartoon of Darwin.

....and you thought (quite deliberately, as your later posts about cricket politics/strategy confirm) to picture Symonds as a monkey because.........??

I don't see what the big kuffuffle is about Aussie. I think you're just stirring the pot.
I found the photo funny because it's a topical reminder that an entire nation can be seen as being racist because the media wants a story that will cause some reaction ...and therefore sell adverts.
The truth is that Symonds wasn't insulted anymore than any other cricketer that gives and takes a bit of mud slinging, it's just gamesmanship and it means absolutely nothing when they're having a beer after the game.

The aussies have been masters at throwing their opponents off their game over the years, and the monkey comments by the Indians were more funny because they were so pathetic.
Symonds took it so hard that he smashed them all over the park, but now he'll leave the politically correct aussies behind and take his great talent elsewhere...that's the real disappointment.

And where will he earn his freedom to have a few drinks as well as having time to go fishing and do all the things he likes to do in the peak of his health and vitality? He'll be so insulted that he'll snub all of those with cellophane skin and he'll earn big money from the Indians.
I say good on him. If you want the greatness, then you need to accept a few warts.

I'd much prefer to watch Symonds' greatness in short burts than the constant flow of mediocraity that will become the left over, sodden and politically correct cricketing world.
Keeping in mind that Boony was revered for breaking the Australia to England record of 48 cans set by Rod Marsh with a staggering 52 cans of VB!!  Now that's a feat worth making some talking dolls out of him.

But as those those dolls were being traded on Ebay, the cricketing world suddenly said "NOW YOU HAVE TO BE THIS". You cannot associate drinking with cricket anymore....even though our major sponsor is none other then VB.

So to me, that photo highlighted the intricate hypocrisy of it all and what we are letting ourselves become, which therefore made it much more funny than the initial Indian take on it. And if you need to explain a joke, then it ain't funny.


But in typical ACA style, this is what we should not display:

DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME.

---

Quote:

And where will he earn his freedom to have a few drinks as well as having time to go fishing and do all the things he likes to do in the peak of his health and vitality? He'll be so insulted that he'll snub all of those with cellophane skin and he'll earn big money from the Indians. I say good on him. If you want the greatness, then you need to accept a few warts.

very true..Symonds is first and foremost a great cricketer and like most very skilled sportsmen has  an element of arrogance about him...he wont be too upset that he cant play ball with a few jumped up poms..and he can still command decent dosh from those less concerned with how he conducts his social life and more concerned with his skills and how he plays the game...



http://www.freshnews.in/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/andrew-symonds2.jpg

We'll see how we go in the ashes series without him. It's going to be that much more boring.

so did we win the Ashes ?

One test to go after this one and we're one nil down.

We should've won the first test, lost the second, drew the third, but we're in the box seat to win this test.
Australia only needs to level the series to keep the ashes (which are always kept in England anyway).

go us..I dont like cricket very much ( I used to ), but a win is a win and thats got to be good .

This Topic was moved here from Drug Policy by freediver.