Vale Spanky

Brass Monkey wrote:Oh no, taips now merlin on the thread... horrie will be giving it the whole 'taips is merlin' jive when he gets here.

That's okay, I've always thought horrie was red. They are the only 2 bitter posters here.

Apparently no will has been found, which leaves the future of his orphanage in limbo.

Brass Monkey wrote:

taipan wrote:
He'll play the " I was only joking defence"

Doubtful. He'll jibber on, but I'm sure he's got a reason he thought banging a prossie in the 1960's was tantamount to caning kids.

19 year olds are now "kids"?

Henry wrote:Apparently no will has been found, which leaves the future of his orphanage in limbo.

Guess it will be up to whoever is his closest surviving relative, but it might take time. Perhaps a colleague or someone else within cricket can step in in the meantime?

Mick Sawyer wrote:

taipan wrote:
Is there such a word?

No, but it means "rampant mass hyteria personified"

Thanks Mick
Thats a pretty apt description of the lefties everytime Bolt puts pen to paper.

Do you have an answer as to WTF any of this has to do with politics?

vilkrang wrote:Do you have an answer as to WTF any of this has to do with politics?

The pinko's try to politicize everything.

vilkrang wrote:

Brass Monkey wrote:

taipan wrote:
He'll play the " I was only joking defence"

Doubtful. He'll jibber on, but I'm sure he's got a reason he thought banging a prossie in the 1960's was tantamount to caning kids.

19 year olds are now "kids"?

They were in the 60s...

Big Dog wrote:

vilkrang wrote:Do you have an answer as to WTF any of this has to do with politics?

The pinko's try to politicize everything.

Pretty sure it was you who brought politics into it, but whatevs.

Gary 111 wrote:

vilkrang wrote:

Brass Monkey wrote:

taipan wrote:
He'll play the " I was only joking defence"

Doubtful. He'll jibber on, but I'm sure he's got a reason he thought banging a prossie in the 1960's was tantamount to caning kids.

19 year olds are now "kids"?

They were in the 60s...

Another ridiculous accusation. They weren't even alive in the 60s.

Oh dear, a thread to make you despair of the right wing males who forum on here. Can you not related to the sheer despiration someone must have felt to throw them self out of a sixth floor window? He might have had some odd sexual deviations but nothing he's been accused of is paedophilia as I understand it.

I assume Bigdog is the most perfect human being whoever graced the surface of this earth......

I'm just astounded that he's managed to bring politics into it. It's AllanD-esque. Probably worse, actually.

eowyn wrote:Oh dear, a thread to make you despair of the right wing males who forum on here. Can you not related to the sheer despiration someone must have felt to throw them self out of a sixth floor window? He might have had some odd sexual deviations but nothing he's been accused of is paedophilia as I understand it.

I assume Bigdog is the most perfect human being whoever graced the surface of this earth......

Oh...get off your high horse. I was just taking a shot at the over reaction of the leftys on the Andrew Bolt article. If you don't know, Bolt is a right wing columnist who is often the target of derision from the left.....and it was'nt me that posted his article so don't accuse me of politisizing this thread....thank you.

In true right wing style, you are never wrong.

Point is regardless if it was a leftie or a rightie commentator. It was an article that was in poor taste. If Phil Adams of the Australian wrote it (a dyed in the wool leftie) it would still have been criticised by us so called pinkos.

And so anyone having a go at Bolt the person automatically is having a go at the right?

The general view of Roebuck's death is one of sadness and shock at the loss of a great cricket writing talent, but there will always be those journos who jump at the chance to pen something that caters to the small minority of people who have been thinking "Hoorah, a kiddie fiddler is dead" despite their being no evidence that Roebuck participated in such practices.

They're giving a different view because that's what their die-hard audience expects of them.

Paul Keating wrote:In true right wing style, you are never wrong.

Point is regardless if it was a leftie or a rightie commentator. It was an article that was in poor taste. If Phil Adams of the Australian wrote it (a dyed in the wool leftie) it would still have been criticised by us so called pinkos.

I did'nt comment on Bolts article one way or the other. It was just a reaction to the automatic 'get your knives out' attitude everytime Bolt goes into print.

Woody and Trev (both Oz forummers who are hardly lefties) both commented on Bolt's article in the negative.

So it was not just a leftie mob attack on Bolt.

Paul Keating wrote:Woody and Trev (both Oz forummers who are hardly lefties) both commented on Bolt's article in the negative.

So it was not just a leftie mob attack on Bolt.

I would consider myself centre-left, thank you very much.

Bolt is a farqwit

Bolt is extreme right wing

His opinion piece was factually distorted and given his own recent dealings with the courts and his unrepentant attitude to the decision extremely hypocritical

The lefty pinkos all came to the conclusion that Bolt's right wingedness caused him to write the article and got their lefty pinko knickers in a knot ...he wrote it because he's a farqwit and to push the button of the inner cabbie in all the lefties

Something he succeeded at

Well I will be damned. I never took you as of centre left persuasion.

So, Peter Roebuck's death is now a political spat between pro Murdoch quasi fascists and pinko-liberal ABC/BBC hugging dumplings?

Correct me if I'm wrong.

I've just read this article you're all talking about by this Bolt character. Whether Roebuck is guilty or not, whether the author is taking political potshots or not, whether he's left wing or right wing matters little; the main issue is that it makes absolutely no sense and has the journalistic standards of Fox News.

It's one of the stupidest and most unethical things I've ever read. It doesn't matter if it's the author's opinion in a democratic country; the entire premise of the article is illogical to the point of dementia. Vendetta laden dementia I'd imagine.

1) Comparing the relationship between the Catholic church and it's priests to that of a media company and one of it's writers is almost incomprehensibly stupid. For blindingly obvious reasons. Comparing the sexual assault issues of the Catholic church with this incident is even stupider.

2) Penning a spiteful dig based on a 10 year old incident and an accusation is as reprehensible as it gets. Innocent before proven guilty? Facts? Evidence? Investigations? It is not the job of his colleagues, friends or former employers to comment, judge, or even draw attention to his previous wrongdoings or the current accusation. Bolt says as much when he writes; "These are not accusations. We do not know the facts behind the latest allegation against Roebuck". So why not wait for them before you start your inevitable, boring, sanctimonious moralising?

I could go on as there are many more stupid things about it.

I was about to write the above (and more) in much more scathing terms on the comments section below the Herald Sun's online version of the article. However, I noticed that there is a tick box which said "email me if my comment is published" which means it won't be. The fact that there are only 2 comments on such an obviously idiotic bit of writing and that they are both positive makes a mockery of the ridiculous "free speech" and "democracy" defence of this torrent of sh*t.

It's an utterly brain dead piece of journalism, bereft of any insight, point or standards.

"It's an utterly brain dead piece of journalism, bereft of any insight, point or standards"

...and still some of Bolt's best work

Big Dog wrote:

Henry wrote:

Big Dog wrote:PMSL at the lefty pinko's self righteous indignation over Bolt's comments. Its called having an opinion and its legal in a democracy although that cqnt Bob Brown would have it differently with his call for an enquiry into the News Ltd press in an attempt to stem criticism of his appalling policies. I note he hasn't called for enquiries into the Fairfax press or the editorial staff of the ABC, surprise surprise.

People have a right to an opinion unless that opinion is seen to unreasonably damage the reputation of others. Then it's defamation.

In that case they can sue. Is anyone suing?

hahaha...certain Indigenous people just won an action against bolt the dolt