The Guardian is an ostensibly "liberal" newspaper that is in actuality
often extremely right wing, cowardly and craven in its attitudes---as
well as mediocre. The Grauniad has often angered serious people with
its farrago of ill-informed, lazy, slipshod and unprofessional
articles and Op-Eds posing as articles, stemming from the lurid
imaginations and poisonous pens of such literary luminaries as the
possibly insane old fool MELANIE PHILIPS, the egregious EMMA BROCKES
and the smarmy Irish git RORY CARROLL.
So it's not really a surprise to see the Grauniad's report of the
World Cup final was so useless. The culprit here is called PAUL REES,
but he might as well be Wynne "Sensible" Gray or Murray "Too Many
Darkies" Deaker, with his bloody-minded determination to gloss over
the non-refereeing of Andre Joubert and his spurious comparison of
Joubert's near-criminal refusal to do his job with Wayne Barnes's
honest refereeing of the 2007 Quarter-final between the same two
countries.
NOW READ ON (and cringe)...
Rugby World Cup: France denied by a fate that once defied New Zealand
by PAUL REES, The Guardian, Monday 24 October 2011
http://www.guardian.co.uk/
Dimitri Yachvili summed up 45 days of Rugby World Cup 2011 when asked
a few hours after the All Blacks had lifted the Webb Ellis Cup whether
he thought the better team had lost the final.
The France scrum-half had predicted after the All Blacks had
convincingly beaten France in the group stage that the two sides would
meet again in the final. "We had the luck against Wales in the semi-
final, but not tonight. The referee did not want us to win but you
have to say that the best team in the tournament won."
France had a legitimate grievance with the referee Craig Joubert and
his two assistants, just as New Zealand had with Wayne Barnes and his
two touch judges in the 2007 quarter-final in Cardiff. The decisions
went the way of the hosts. What goes around comes around, as it is
said, which is bad news for those countries that will never be able to
stage the tournament.
France were outstanding in defeat, led by the indomitable Thierry
Dusautoir and Imanol Harinordoquy, two players who unquestionably
deserved to be in the final. The All Blacks had the ideal start,
scoring a try after 12 minutes, but as Piri Weepu wasted penalty
opportunities, a combination of nerves and resolute opponents reduced
New Zealand to virtual all-out defence.
Much had been made of the All Blacks' determination to learn from
their failed campaigns of 2003 and 2007 but France also had players
who had missed out in those years, even though it passed without
comment in the build-up. Their resolve was as hard as New Zealand's,
but their quest for the World Cup had not become an obsession and the
final was an occasion to enjoy rather than endure.
Veterans like Nicolas Mas, Lionel Nallet, Yachvili and Aurélien
Rougerie all got the better of their opposite numbers and France's
loose trio was the more effective back row unit. The All Blacks had to
defend a one-point lead for 32 minutes, and if Richie McCaw's
influence as an open-side was compromised by the foot injury that has
plagued him for most of the tournament, his fighting spirit ensured
there was no choking this time.
The All Blacks will go to England (and maybe Wales) in 2015 with, as
the chief executive of the New Zealand Rugby Union Steve Tew put it,
King Kong off their backs, even if they still have to win the World
Cup on foreign soil. There was a fear that this tournament would fail
because New Zealanders, so desperate for an end to 20 years of World
Cup heartache, would be too wrapped up in their own obsession to
embrace 19 visiting teams and more than 100,000 supporters.
From the moment that Tonga arrived in Auckland and were welcomed by
some 10,000 supporters, that concern melted away. Everyone knew here
what the World Cup meant: inclusiveness. Those who were around in 1987
recalled an inaugural event that was underwhelming, shared as it was
with Australia. A crowd of some 20,000 turned up for the opening match
at Eden Park between the All Blacks and Italy, media interest was
muted and it hardly sparked a tourist boom.
The Rugby World Cup is now big business but New Zealanders also
grasped that rugby union being their best export, this was a chance to
showcase a country that is, for most of the major rugby playing
nations, on the other side of the world. And they did it superbly.
The France hooker Dimitri Szarzewski may not have been allowed to take
his young children on to the Eden Park pitch after the semi-final
against Wales and one of Graham Henry's sons had the police called
when he tried to join his father on the field after Sunday's trophy
presentation, but this has been a tournament when the officious have
taken a holiday.
An army of 6,500 volunteers, clad in aquamarine World Cup jackets, has
been on call around the two islands to help visitors at airports, in
towns and cities and in and around the stadia. Some gave up their
holiday entitlement to do the unpaid work and they all contributed
richly to the undoubted success of the tournament, something for
England to take on board in 2015.
Using choirs to lead the singing of the national anthems was another
idea that worked perfectly. New Zealand has done the little things
well, making the fears of some on the International Rugby Board that
it was not just a financial mistake to bring the tournament here
unfounded. The only question is when – not if – it will return.
The colour was provided in the group stage. The tier two and three
nations complained, rightly, about the short turnovers they had to
endure between matches, something that will change in 2015, if only
because the broadcasters like the idea of the top countries playing in
midweek, but they all had their moments, even Namibia who showed
flashes in their opening match against Fiji.
The schedule became too much for most of them, but Russia continued
attacking to the end, becoming the first side since Wales in 1987 to
score three tries against Australia in the World Cup. They did not
have a line-out and their defence was not the tightest, but they
looked to move the ball.
Romania had one of the best scrums in the tournament, Japan were
dangerous in broken play, Canada and the United States were organised
and Georgia showed glimpses of life beyond a 10-man game.
Fiji were a disappointment, politics blighting their campaign, but
Tonga defeated France and Samoa might have made the quarter-finals.
Their Gloucester centre, Eliota Fuimaono-Sapolu, twittered against any
perceived slight, and more, but at least one of his complaints may
have been taken on board by the International Rugby Board.
He was angry that Samoa's final group match against South Africa was
refereed by a Welshman, Nigel Owens. It was a game that was likely to
have a bearing on Wales's progress to the quarter-finals and the
fuming Sapolu felt that nationality should have been taken into
account when the appointment was made. Italy had the same grievance in
their penultimate group game against the United States, which was
refereed by George Clancy of Ireland, the Azzurri's final opponents.
The International Rugby Board is considering shaking up the process of
appointing referees. The power currently lies with a committee which
is chaired by a Welshman, David Pickering, but there is a proposal to
achieve greater transparency by having an independent chairman.
The knockout stage gripped without stimulating. England were sent home
early having been fortunate to beat both Argentina and Scotland, whose
ambition to play expansive rugby was not matched by their ability to
do so; Ireland failed to take advantage of their epic victory over
Australia and fell to Wales; age caught up with South Africa and the
Pumas took it to the All Blacks.
The semi-finals and final yielded a mere four tries, but they were not
a repeat of the kicking contests of 2007. The intensity was at times
frightening and rugby union at the top level has become a place where
footballing skill shows itself infrequently. The stand-out players in
the tournament were mostly sevens and eights reflecting the way the
breakdown has come to dominate the game.
New Zealand were the rightful winners, unbeaten throughout and
overcoming the loss of their leading back, Dan Carter, in the group
stage. With McCaw limping through the knockout stage, they looked
vulnerable.
Four years ago they may have cracked, but by persevering with the
coaching team that took them to the 2007 World Cup, they had insured
themselves with experience. And that, in the final reckoning, is what
helped them in the final minutes when they were one kick away from
another World Cup inquest.
France had felt guided by destiny all tournament, a notion quickly
disabused on Sunday by some of the decisions that went against them,
but fate, in exactly the same manner it defied them in 2007, was with
the All Blacks.
Graham Henry, the redeemer redeemed.
• This is the final extract from The Breakdown email during the Rugby
World Cup. It will be back on a weekly basis soon. To subscribe for
free click here.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/
often extremely right wing, cowardly and craven in its attitudes---as
well as mediocre. The Grauniad has often angered serious people with
its farrago of ill-informed, lazy, slipshod and unprofessional
articles and Op-Eds posing as articles, stemming from the lurid
imaginations and poisonous pens of such literary luminaries as the
possibly insane old fool MELANIE PHILIPS, the egregious EMMA BROCKES
and the smarmy Irish git RORY CARROLL.
So it's not really a surprise to see the Grauniad's report of the
World Cup final was so useless. The culprit here is called PAUL REES,
but he might as well be Wynne "Sensible" Gray or Murray "Too Many
Darkies" Deaker, with his bloody-minded determination to gloss over
the non-refereeing of Andre Joubert and his spurious comparison of
Joubert's near-criminal refusal to do his job with Wayne Barnes's
honest refereeing of the 2007 Quarter-final between the same two
countries.
NOW READ ON (and cringe)...
Rugby World Cup: France denied by a fate that once defied New Zealand
by PAUL REES, The Guardian, Monday 24 October 2011
http://www.guardian.co.uk/
Dimitri Yachvili summed up 45 days of Rugby World Cup 2011 when asked
a few hours after the All Blacks had lifted the Webb Ellis Cup whether
he thought the better team had lost the final.
The France scrum-half had predicted after the All Blacks had
convincingly beaten France in the group stage that the two sides would
meet again in the final. "We had the luck against Wales in the semi-
final, but not tonight. The referee did not want us to win but you
have to say that the best team in the tournament won."
France had a legitimate grievance with the referee Craig Joubert and
his two assistants, just as New Zealand had with Wayne Barnes and his
two touch judges in the 2007 quarter-final in Cardiff. The decisions
went the way of the hosts. What goes around comes around, as it is
said, which is bad news for those countries that will never be able to
stage the tournament.
France were outstanding in defeat, led by the indomitable Thierry
Dusautoir and Imanol Harinordoquy, two players who unquestionably
deserved to be in the final. The All Blacks had the ideal start,
scoring a try after 12 minutes, but as Piri Weepu wasted penalty
opportunities, a combination of nerves and resolute opponents reduced
New Zealand to virtual all-out defence.
Much had been made of the All Blacks' determination to learn from
their failed campaigns of 2003 and 2007 but France also had players
who had missed out in those years, even though it passed without
comment in the build-up. Their resolve was as hard as New Zealand's,
but their quest for the World Cup had not become an obsession and the
final was an occasion to enjoy rather than endure.
Veterans like Nicolas Mas, Lionel Nallet, Yachvili and Aurélien
Rougerie all got the better of their opposite numbers and France's
loose trio was the more effective back row unit. The All Blacks had to
defend a one-point lead for 32 minutes, and if Richie McCaw's
influence as an open-side was compromised by the foot injury that has
plagued him for most of the tournament, his fighting spirit ensured
there was no choking this time.
The All Blacks will go to England (and maybe Wales) in 2015 with, as
the chief executive of the New Zealand Rugby Union Steve Tew put it,
King Kong off their backs, even if they still have to win the World
Cup on foreign soil. There was a fear that this tournament would fail
because New Zealanders, so desperate for an end to 20 years of World
Cup heartache, would be too wrapped up in their own obsession to
embrace 19 visiting teams and more than 100,000 supporters.
From the moment that Tonga arrived in Auckland and were welcomed by
some 10,000 supporters, that concern melted away. Everyone knew here
what the World Cup meant: inclusiveness. Those who were around in 1987
recalled an inaugural event that was underwhelming, shared as it was
with Australia. A crowd of some 20,000 turned up for the opening match
at Eden Park between the All Blacks and Italy, media interest was
muted and it hardly sparked a tourist boom.
The Rugby World Cup is now big business but New Zealanders also
grasped that rugby union being their best export, this was a chance to
showcase a country that is, for most of the major rugby playing
nations, on the other side of the world. And they did it superbly.
The France hooker Dimitri Szarzewski may not have been allowed to take
his young children on to the Eden Park pitch after the semi-final
against Wales and one of Graham Henry's sons had the police called
when he tried to join his father on the field after Sunday's trophy
presentation, but this has been a tournament when the officious have
taken a holiday.
An army of 6,500 volunteers, clad in aquamarine World Cup jackets, has
been on call around the two islands to help visitors at airports, in
towns and cities and in and around the stadia. Some gave up their
holiday entitlement to do the unpaid work and they all contributed
richly to the undoubted success of the tournament, something for
England to take on board in 2015.
Using choirs to lead the singing of the national anthems was another
idea that worked perfectly. New Zealand has done the little things
well, making the fears of some on the International Rugby Board that
it was not just a financial mistake to bring the tournament here
unfounded. The only question is when – not if – it will return.
The colour was provided in the group stage. The tier two and three
nations complained, rightly, about the short turnovers they had to
endure between matches, something that will change in 2015, if only
because the broadcasters like the idea of the top countries playing in
midweek, but they all had their moments, even Namibia who showed
flashes in their opening match against Fiji.
The schedule became too much for most of them, but Russia continued
attacking to the end, becoming the first side since Wales in 1987 to
score three tries against Australia in the World Cup. They did not
have a line-out and their defence was not the tightest, but they
looked to move the ball.
Romania had one of the best scrums in the tournament, Japan were
dangerous in broken play, Canada and the United States were organised
and Georgia showed glimpses of life beyond a 10-man game.
Fiji were a disappointment, politics blighting their campaign, but
Tonga defeated France and Samoa might have made the quarter-finals.
Their Gloucester centre, Eliota Fuimaono-Sapolu, twittered against any
perceived slight, and more, but at least one of his complaints may
have been taken on board by the International Rugby Board.
He was angry that Samoa's final group match against South Africa was
refereed by a Welshman, Nigel Owens. It was a game that was likely to
have a bearing on Wales's progress to the quarter-finals and the
fuming Sapolu felt that nationality should have been taken into
account when the appointment was made. Italy had the same grievance in
their penultimate group game against the United States, which was
refereed by George Clancy of Ireland, the Azzurri's final opponents.
The International Rugby Board is considering shaking up the process of
appointing referees. The power currently lies with a committee which
is chaired by a Welshman, David Pickering, but there is a proposal to
achieve greater transparency by having an independent chairman.
The knockout stage gripped without stimulating. England were sent home
early having been fortunate to beat both Argentina and Scotland, whose
ambition to play expansive rugby was not matched by their ability to
do so; Ireland failed to take advantage of their epic victory over
Australia and fell to Wales; age caught up with South Africa and the
Pumas took it to the All Blacks.
The semi-finals and final yielded a mere four tries, but they were not
a repeat of the kicking contests of 2007. The intensity was at times
frightening and rugby union at the top level has become a place where
footballing skill shows itself infrequently. The stand-out players in
the tournament were mostly sevens and eights reflecting the way the
breakdown has come to dominate the game.
New Zealand were the rightful winners, unbeaten throughout and
overcoming the loss of their leading back, Dan Carter, in the group
stage. With McCaw limping through the knockout stage, they looked
vulnerable.
Four years ago they may have cracked, but by persevering with the
coaching team that took them to the 2007 World Cup, they had insured
themselves with experience. And that, in the final reckoning, is what
helped them in the final minutes when they were one kick away from
another World Cup inquest.
France had felt guided by destiny all tournament, a notion quickly
disabused on Sunday by some of the decisions that went against them,
but fate, in exactly the same manner it defied them in 2007, was with
the All Blacks.
Graham Henry, the redeemer redeemed.
• This is the final extract from The Breakdown email during the Rugby
World Cup. It will be back on a weekly basis soon. To subscribe for
free click here.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/
Click here to Reply
 |
And in other news.....
On Nov 9, 7:04 pm, Mo <morrisseybr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
...poor old Richard Bridgman has come down with a bad case of what he
describes as "bad arse", also known in New York as "Angry Ass" and in
some parts of New Zealand as "Corned Beef arse". We all wish Richard a
great big "Good luck" with his arse.
This ends the news.
Two Dogs
...poor old Richard Bridgman has come down with a bad case of what he
describes as "bad arse", also known in New York as "Angry Ass" and in
some parts of New Zealand as "Corned Beef arse". We all wish Richard a
great big "Good luck" with his arse.
This ends the news.
Two Dogs
|
Re: Guardian "reporter" bends over backward to exonerate Joubert
On Nov 10, 1:04 pm, Mo <morrisseybr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The Guardian is an ostensibly "liberal" newspaper that is in actuality
> often extremely right wing, cowardly and craven in its attitudes---as
> well as mediocre. The Grauniad has often angered serious people with
> its farrago of ill-informed, lazy, slipshod and unprofessional
> articles and Op-Eds posing as articles, stemming from the lurid
> imaginations and poisonous pens of such literary luminaries as the
> possibly insane old fool MELANIE PHILIPS, the egregious EMMA BROCKES
> and the smarmy Irish git RORY CARROLL.
>
> So it's not really a surprise to see the Grauniad's report of the
> World Cup final was so useless. The culprit here is called PAUL REES,
> but he might as well be Wynne "Sensible" Gray or Murray "Too Many
> Darkies" Deaker, with his bloody-minded determination to gloss over
> the non-refereeing of Andre Joubert and his spurious comparison of
> Joubert's near-criminal refusal to do his job with Wayne Barnes's
> honest refereeing of the 2007 Quarter-final between the same two
> countries.
>
> NOW READ ON (and cringe)...
>
> Rugby World Cup: France denied by a fate that once defied New Zealand
> by PAUL REES, The Guardian, Monday 24 October 2011http://www.guardian.co.uk/> The Guardian is an ostensibly "liberal" newspaper that is in actuality
> often extremely right wing, cowardly and craven in its attitudes---as
> well as mediocre. The Grauniad has often angered serious people with
> its farrago of ill-informed, lazy, slipshod and unprofessional
> articles and Op-Eds posing as articles, stemming from the lurid
> imaginations and poisonous pens of such literary luminaries as the
> possibly insane old fool MELANIE PHILIPS, the egregious EMMA BROCKES
> and the smarmy Irish git RORY CARROLL.
>
> So it's not really a surprise to see the Grauniad's report of the
> World Cup final was so useless. The culprit here is called PAUL REES,
> but he might as well be Wynne "Sensible" Gray or Murray "Too Many
> Darkies" Deaker, with his bloody-minded determination to gloss over
> the non-refereeing of Andre Joubert and his spurious comparison of
> Joubert's near-criminal refusal to do his job with Wayne Barnes's
> honest refereeing of the 2007 Quarter-final between the same two
> countries.
>
> NOW READ ON (and cringe)...
>
> Rugby World Cup: France denied by a fate that once defied New Zealand
- show quoted text -
I was not at all surprised to see such a substandard report in the
Guardian. Barnes made two errors in the 2007 QF match, each one
leading to a try---one by McAlister, the other by Jauzion. The worst
that can be said is that the errors balanced each other out.
Joubert's performance was entirely more sinister. He was clearly
determined to allow the All Blacks to do almost anything. I wonder if
there will be an investigation into this. Not by the IRB, but by the
criminal authorities.
|
Re: Guardian "reporter" bends over backward to exonerate Joubert
On 10/11/2011 6:05 PM, empedocles economopolis wrote:
> On Nov 10, 1:04 pm, Mo<morrisseybr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> On Nov 10, 1:04 pm, Mo<morrisseybr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I was not at all surprised to see such a substandard report in the
> Guardian. Barnes made two errors in the 2007 QF match, each one
> leading to a try---one by McAlister, the other by Jauzion. The worst
> that can be said is that the errors balanced each other out.
>
> Joubert's performance was entirely more sinister. He was clearly
> determined to allow the All Blacks to do almost anything. I wonder if
> there will be an investigation into this. Not by the IRB, but by the
> criminal authorities.
You really try too hard for such little effect. > Guardian. Barnes made two errors in the 2007 QF match, each one
> leading to a try---one by McAlister, the other by Jauzion. The worst
> that can be said is that the errors balanced each other out.
>
> Joubert's performance was entirely more sinister. He was clearly
> determined to allow the All Blacks to do almost anything. I wonder if
> there will be an investigation into this. Not by the IRB, but by the
> criminal authorities.
|
Re: Guardian "reporter" bends over backward to exonerate Joubert
- show quoted text -
it's nothing more than we would expect.
Now do something useful with your time and give us your take on
Joubert's possibly corrupt non-performance.
|
Re: Guardian "reporter" bends over backward to exonerate Joubert
- show quoted text -
necessarily corrupt.
|
Re: Guardian "reporter" bends over backward to exonerate Joubert
- show quoted text -
|
Re: Guardian "reporter" bends over backward to exonerate Joubert
- show quoted text -
thread as well as progressing to using your signature at the end of your
post instead of the beginning. Are you taking your meds?
|
Re: Guardian "reporter" bends over backward to exonerate Joubert
- show quoted text -
|
Re: Guardian "reporter" bends over backward to exonerate Joubert
- show quoted text -
sure know crazy when I see it.
|
Re: Guardian "reporter" bends over backward to exonerate Joubert
- show quoted text -
|
Re: Guardian "reporter" bends over backward to exonerate Joubert
- show quoted text -
on fire.
Just a word in your ear, mate: don't try to mix it with Breen. He's
much smarter than you.
|
Re: Guardian "reporter" bends over backward to exonerate Joubert
- show quoted text -
|
On 10/11/2011 00:04, Mo wrote:
> The Guardian is an ostensibly "liberal" newspaper that is in actuality
> often extremely right wing, cowardly and craven in its attitudes---as
> well as mediocre. The Grauniad has often angered serious people
No, it often angers tossers of whatever political persuasion who don't> The Guardian is an ostensibly "liberal" newspaper that is in actuality
> often extremely right wing, cowardly and craven in its attitudes---as
> well as mediocre. The Grauniad has often angered serious people
like the truth. Reading the Guardian for rugby is like trying to find
news in the Daily Mail - mostly pointless.
Of all the UK papers, the Guardian is the worst for sport. Even the
Daily Sport has more sport than the Guardian, which used to have some of
the best sports columnists years ago but nowadays it's a token thing.
UD
|
Re: And in other news.....
- show quoted text -
can find one - will stop Bween for the forseeable future.
UD
|
Re: And in other news.....
- show quoted text -
you evidently feel compelled to make an unkind crack like that.
I am very disappointed, Uncle.
|
On Nov 11, 1:04 am, Uncle Dave <davidco...@t-online.de> wrote:
> On 10/11/2011 00:04, Mo wrote:
>
> > The Guardian is an ostensibly "liberal" newspaper that is in actuality
> > often extremely right wing, cowardly and craven in its attitudes---as
> > well as mediocre. The Grauniad has often angered serious people
>
> No, it often angers tossers of whatever political persuasion who don't
> like the truth.
The truth is the last thing you'll ever get from Melanie Philips, Emma> On 10/11/2011 00:04, Mo wrote:
>
> > The Guardian is an ostensibly "liberal" newspaper that is in actuality
> > often extremely right wing, cowardly and craven in its attitudes---as
> > well as mediocre. The Grauniad has often angered serious people
>
> No, it often angers tossers of whatever political persuasion who don't
> like the truth.
Brockes or Rory Carroll. They're crude and shameless propagandists and
liars, as I'm sure you're aware. You don't have to be a "tosser" to
see that.
>
> Reading the Guardian for rugby is like trying to find
> news in the Daily Mail - mostly pointless.
speech --- one hundred per cent pointless.
>
> Of all the UK papers, the Guardian is the worst for sport. Even the
> Daily Sport has more sport than the Guardian, which used to have some of
> the best sports columnists years ago but nowadays it's a token thing.
thing now...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
|
Re: And in other news.....
- show quoted text -
> I am very disappointed, Uncle.
UD
|
Re: And in other news.....
On 10/11/2011 14:33, Uncle Dave wrote:
<snip>
Which, funnily enough IS what your Mum said. <boom boom>
UD
<snip>
>
>> I am very disappointed, Uncle.
>
> Not as much as your Mum was.
Now you see, that's come out wrong.>> I am very disappointed, Uncle.
>
> Not as much as your Mum was.
Which, funnily enough IS what your Mum said. <boom boom>
UD
|
Re: And in other news.....
- show quoted text -
...... too far?
|
On 10/11/2011 12:16, Mo wrote:
> On Nov 11, 1:04 am, Uncle Dave<davidco...@t-online.de> wrote:
>> On 10/11/2011 00:04, Mo wrote:
>>
>>> The Guardian is an ostensibly "liberal" newspaper that is in actuality
>>> often extremely right wing, cowardly and craven in its attitudes---as
>>> well as mediocre. The Grauniad has often angered serious people
>>
>> No, it often angers tossers of whatever political persuasion who don't
>> like the truth.
>
> The truth is the last thing you'll ever get from Melanie Philips, Emma
> Brockes or Rory Carroll. They're crude and shameless propagandists and
> liars, as I'm sure you're aware. You don't have to be a "tosser" to
> see that.
>
>>
>> Reading the Guardian for rugby is like trying to find
>> news in the Daily Mail - mostly pointless.
>
> Or trying to find a breath of decency or integrity in a David Cameron
> speech --- one hundred per cent pointless.
>
As opposed to the fruitful endeavour it was when Blair spoke you mean? > On Nov 11, 1:04 am, Uncle Dave<davidco...@t-online.de> wrote:
>> On 10/11/2011 00:04, Mo wrote:
>>
>>> The Guardian is an ostensibly "liberal" newspaper that is in actuality
>>> often extremely right wing, cowardly and craven in its attitudes---as
>>> well as mediocre. The Grauniad has often angered serious people
>>
>> No, it often angers tossers of whatever political persuasion who don't
>> like the truth.
>
> The truth is the last thing you'll ever get from Melanie Philips, Emma
> Brockes or Rory Carroll. They're crude and shameless propagandists and
> liars, as I'm sure you're aware. You don't have to be a "tosser" to
> see that.
>
>>
>> Reading the Guardian for rugby is like trying to find
>> news in the Daily Mail - mostly pointless.
>
> Or trying to find a breath of decency or integrity in a David Cameron
> speech --- one hundred per cent pointless.
>
|
Re: Guardian "reporter" bends over backward to exonerate Joubert
- show quoted text -
Stex
|
- show quoted text -
thinks, or ever thought, that Blair or any of his disgusting camp?
You're familiar with the Breen oeuvre, surely...
But in case you've forgotten, please type the following into your
search engine:
"morrissey breen" + blair
|
Re: And in other news.....
Comedy gold on Nov 11, 4:13 am from dear old Uncle Dave <davidco...@t-
Buwahahahahahahaaaa! Whoah, Uncle Dave, STOP it! You're killin' us!
- show quoted text -
|
ERRATUM! On Nov 11, 9:24 am, Mo <morrisseybr...@yahoo.com> showed the
kind of carelessness and inattention to detail that was responsible
for his being expelled from this organization nearly six years ago:
Since Mr. Breen is evidently too drunk to attend to this, we'll tidy
it up for him. We presume that sentence SHOULD read as follows...
kind of carelessness and inattention to detail that was responsible
for his being expelled from this organization nearly six years ago:
> On Nov 11, 4:28 am, Simon S-B <baitt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 10/11/2011 12:16, Mo wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 11, 1:04 am, Uncle Dave<davidco...@t-online.de> wrote:
> > >> On 10/11/2011 00:04, Mo wrote:
>
> > >>> The Guardian is an ostensibly "liberal" newspaper that is in actuality
> > >>> often extremely right wing, cowardly and craven in its attitudes---as
> > >>> well as mediocre. The Grauniad has often angered serious people
>
> > >> No, it often angers tossers of whatever political persuasion who don't
> > >> like the truth.
>
> > > The truth is the last thing you'll ever get from Melanie Philips, Emma
> > > Brockes or Rory Carroll. They're crude and shameless propagandists and
> > > liars, as I'm sure you're aware. You don't have to be a "tosser" to
> > > see that.
>
> > >> Reading the Guardian for rugby is like trying to find
> > >> news in the Daily Mail - mostly pointless.
>
> > > Or trying to find a breath of decency or integrity in a David Cameron
> > > speech --- one hundred per cent pointless.
>
> > As opposed to the fruitful endeavour it was when Blair spoke you mean?
>
> Good Lord! What gives you the idea that this writer (i.e., moi)
> thinks, or ever thought, that Blair or any of his disgusting camp?
[sic!]>
>
>
>
>
> > On 10/11/2011 12:16, Mo wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 11, 1:04 am, Uncle Dave<davidco...@t-online.de> wrote:
> > >> On 10/11/2011 00:04, Mo wrote:
>
> > >>> The Guardian is an ostensibly "liberal" newspaper that is in actuality
> > >>> often extremely right wing, cowardly and craven in its attitudes---as
> > >>> well as mediocre. The Grauniad has often angered serious people
>
> > >> No, it often angers tossers of whatever political persuasion who don't
> > >> like the truth.
>
> > > The truth is the last thing you'll ever get from Melanie Philips, Emma
> > > Brockes or Rory Carroll. They're crude and shameless propagandists and
> > > liars, as I'm sure you're aware. You don't have to be a "tosser" to
> > > see that.
>
> > >> Reading the Guardian for rugby is like trying to find
> > >> news in the Daily Mail - mostly pointless.
>
> > > Or trying to find a breath of decency or integrity in a David Cameron
> > > speech --- one hundred per cent pointless.
>
> > As opposed to the fruitful endeavour it was when Blair spoke you mean?
>
> Good Lord! What gives you the idea that this writer (i.e., moi)
> thinks, or ever thought, that Blair or any of his disgusting camp?
Since Mr. Breen is evidently too drunk to attend to this, we'll tidy
it up for him. We presume that sentence SHOULD read as follows...
"What gives you the idea that this writer (i.e., moi) thinks, or ever
thought, that I would be moronic enough or ignorant enough to support
Blair or any of his disgusting camp?"
[Error corrected by HECTOR STOOP.]
- show quoted text -
|
Re: And in other news.....
On Nov 11, 4:25 am, Simon S-B <baitt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/11/2011 15:13, Uncle Dave wrote:
>
> > On 10/11/2011 14:33, Uncle Dave wrote:
>
> > <snip>
>
> >>> I am very disappointed, Uncle.
>
> >> Not as much as your Mum was.
>
> > Now you see, that's come out wrong.
>
> > Which, funnily enough IS what your Mum said. <boom boom>
>
> > UD
>
> But she lapped it all up anyway.
>
> ...... too far?
<wipes tears of mirth>
No, you and UD are comic geniuses and should cease talking about rugby
and concentrate on comedy.
> On 10/11/2011 15:13, Uncle Dave wrote:
>
> > On 10/11/2011 14:33, Uncle Dave wrote:
>
> > <snip>
>
> >>> I am very disappointed, Uncle.
>
> >> Not as much as your Mum was.
>
> > Now you see, that's come out wrong.
>
> > Which, funnily enough IS what your Mum said. <boom boom>
>
> > UD
>
> But she lapped it all up anyway.
>
> ...... too far?
<wipes tears of mirth>
No, you and UD are comic geniuses and should cease talking about rugby
and concentrate on comedy.
|
Re: Guardian "reporter" bends over backward to exonerate Joubert
On Nov 11, 8:39 am, Stex <stex2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 11, 12:20 am, Tony Vietch <tonycolinvei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 11, 12:03 am, JD <_antipode...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 10/11/2011 8:10 PM, Radio Transcripts Ltd wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 10, 10:01 pm, JD<_antipode...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> > > >> On 10/11/2011 7:43 PM, empedocles economopolis wrote:
>
> > > >>> On Nov 10, 9:41 pm, JD<_antipode...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> > > >>>> On 10/11/2011 7:32 PM, empedocles economopolis wrote:
> > > >>>>> On Nov 10, 8:41 pm, JD<_antipode...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> > > >>>>>> On 10/11/2011 6:05 PM, empedocles economopolis wrote:
> > > >>>>>>> On Nov 10, 1:04 pm, Mo<morrisseybr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > >>>>>>> I was not at all surprised to see such a substandard report in the
> > > >>>>>>> Guardian. Barnes made two errors in the 2007 QF match, each one
> > > >>>>>>> leading to a try---one by McAlister, the other by Jauzion. The worst
> > > >>>>>>> that can be said is that the errors balanced each other out.
>
> > > >>>>>>> Joubert's performance was entirely more sinister. He was clearly
> > > >>>>>>> determined to allow the All Blacks to do almost anything. I wonder if
> > > >>>>>>> there will be an investigation into this. Not by the IRB, but by the
> > > >>>>>>> criminal authorities.
>
> > > >>>>>> You really try too hard for such little effect.
>
> > > >>>>> Idiot. That comment would be specious coming from anyone, but from you
> > > >>>>> it's nothing more than we would expect.
>
> > > >>>>> Now do something useful with your time and give us your take on
> > > >>>>> Joubert's possibly corrupt non-performance.
>
> > > >>>> I wouldn't consider Joubert helping the French be competitive as
> > > >>>> necessarily corrupt.
>
> > > >>> Humour this time, is it? Idiot.
>
> > > >> You've managed to use the same account three times in a row in this
> > > >> thread as well as progressing to using your signature at the end of your
> > > >> post instead of the beginning. Are you taking your meds?
>
> > > > Three words, my friend: OUT OF DEPTH.
>
> > > When it comes to mental illness, I'm not qualified to treat it, but I
> > > sure know crazy when I see it.
>
> > With respect, me old mate, I don't think you'd know if your arse was
> > on fire.
>
> Ask Bridgman, he's evidently qualified on this
>
> Stex
Who set Brigman's ass on fire?
> On Nov 11, 12:20 am, Tony Vietch <tonycolinvei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 11, 12:03 am, JD <_antipode...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 10/11/2011 8:10 PM, Radio Transcripts Ltd wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 10, 10:01 pm, JD<_antipode...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> > > >> On 10/11/2011 7:43 PM, empedocles economopolis wrote:
>
> > > >>> On Nov 10, 9:41 pm, JD<_antipode...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> > > >>>> On 10/11/2011 7:32 PM, empedocles economopolis wrote:
> > > >>>>> On Nov 10, 8:41 pm, JD<_antipode...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> > > >>>>>> On 10/11/2011 6:05 PM, empedocles economopolis wrote:
> > > >>>>>>> On Nov 10, 1:04 pm, Mo<morrisseybr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > >>>>>>> I was not at all surprised to see such a substandard report in the
> > > >>>>>>> Guardian. Barnes made two errors in the 2007 QF match, each one
> > > >>>>>>> leading to a try---one by McAlister, the other by Jauzion. The worst
> > > >>>>>>> that can be said is that the errors balanced each other out.
>
> > > >>>>>>> Joubert's performance was entirely more sinister. He was clearly
> > > >>>>>>> determined to allow the All Blacks to do almost anything. I wonder if
> > > >>>>>>> there will be an investigation into this. Not by the IRB, but by the
> > > >>>>>>> criminal authorities.
>
> > > >>>>>> You really try too hard for such little effect.
>
> > > >>>>> Idiot. That comment would be specious coming from anyone, but from you
> > > >>>>> it's nothing more than we would expect.
>
> > > >>>>> Now do something useful with your time and give us your take on
> > > >>>>> Joubert's possibly corrupt non-performance.
>
> > > >>>> I wouldn't consider Joubert helping the French be competitive as
> > > >>>> necessarily corrupt.
>
> > > >>> Humour this time, is it? Idiot.
>
> > > >> You've managed to use the same account three times in a row in this
> > > >> thread as well as progressing to using your signature at the end of your
> > > >> post instead of the beginning. Are you taking your meds?
>
> > > > Three words, my friend: OUT OF DEPTH.
>
> > > When it comes to mental illness, I'm not qualified to treat it, but I
> > > sure know crazy when I see it.
>
> > With respect, me old mate, I don't think you'd know if your arse was
> > on fire.
>
> Ask Bridgman, he's evidently qualified on this
>
> Stex
Who set Brigman's ass on fire?
|
Re: And in other news.....
- show quoted text -
|
Re: And in other news.....
On 10/11/2011 20:29, Radio Transcripts Ltd wrote:
> Comedy gold on Nov 11, 4:13 am from dear old Uncle Dave<davidco...@t-
I wish.
UD
> Comedy gold on Nov 11, 4:13 am from dear old Uncle Dave<davidco...@t-
> online.de> when he wittily wrote:
>> On 10/11/2011 14:33, Uncle Dave wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> I am very disappointed, Uncle.
>>
>>> Not as much as your Mum was.
>>
>> Now you see, that's come out wrong.
>>
>> Which, funnily enough IS what your Mum said.<boom boom>
>>
>> UD
>
> Buwahahahahahahaaaa! Whoah, Uncle Dave, STOP it! You're killin' us!>> On 10/11/2011 14:33, Uncle Dave wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> I am very disappointed, Uncle.
>>
>>> Not as much as your Mum was.
>>
>> Now you see, that's come out wrong.
>>
>> Which, funnily enough IS what your Mum said.<boom boom>
>>
>> UD
>
I wish.
UD
|
In 3507177e-771f-4484-a9e5-
Wed, 09 Nov 2011 16:04:14 -0800, Mo scribbled:
A bit unfair, singling out the ref like that...
Wed, 09 Nov 2011 16:04:14 -0800, Mo scribbled:
A bit unfair, singling out the ref like that...
|
On Nov 18, 2:47 am, Hognoxious <hognoxi...@hognoxiouskosher.
wrote:
> In 3507177e-771f-4484-a9e5-
victory to the All Blacks.
It wasn't the touch judges (AKA referees' assistants) or the TMO or
anyone else who was responsible for letting one side cheat flagrantly.
It was the non-referee.
wrote:
> In 3507177e-771f-4484-a9e5-
> Wed, 09 Nov 2011 16:04:14 -0800, Mo scribbled:
>
> A bit unfair, singling out the ref like that...
It was the ref (or more accurately, the NON-ref) who delivered this>
> A bit unfair, singling out the ref like that...
victory to the All Blacks.
It wasn't the touch judges (AKA referees' assistants) or the TMO or
anyone else who was responsible for letting one side cheat flagrantly.
It was the non-referee.
|
On Nov 18, 9:16 am, empedocles economopolis <empedocles...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Rubbish, if it wasn't for Joubert, the French wouldn't have even been
in the match.
wrote:
- show quoted text -
in the match.
No comments:
Post a Comment