Bhajji 'slaps' Sreesanth, leaves him crying

*Buckaroo* wrote:It is upon the subject in each case to discern the neutrality of the speaker.

If the subject does not take offence, then there is no case.

So only true neutrals can comment on specific issues?

Not neutrals, the subjects in each case.

For instance I call a Pakistani as a Paki.

But a Pakster should take offence at that .. and not a neutral South African or Australian or Briton or anyone else who is sniping in the shadows.

*Buckaroo* wrote:It is upon the subject in each case to discern the neutrality of the speaker.

If the subject does not take offence, then there is no case.

So , for example , if someone from the West Indies objected to being called some sort of jungle animal then that would be racist ?

embee wrote:

*Buckaroo* wrote:It is upon the subject in each case to discern the neutrality of the speaker.

If the subject does not take offence, then there is no case.

So , for example , if someone from the West Indies objected to being called some sort of jungle animal then that would be racist ?

by whom ?

embee wrote:

*Buckaroo* wrote:It is upon the subject in each case to discern the neutrality of the speaker.

If the subject does not take offence, then there is no case.

So , for example , if someone from the West Indies objected to being called some sort of jungle animal then that would be racist ?

A neutral Indian sniping from the shadows cannot comment on that.

taipan wrote:

embee wrote:

*Buckaroo* wrote:It is upon the subject in each case to discern the neutrality of the speaker.

If the subject does not take offence, then there is no case.

So , for example , if someone from the West Indies objected to being called some sort of jungle animal then that would be racist ?

A neutral Indian sniping from the shadows cannot comment on that.

Ideally not .. but both West Indians and Indians have been exposed to the same colonial brutality from the similar source.

So there is a common cause.

My two cents worth on the topic of this thread which seems to have been forgotten:

Both Sree and Bhajji are hot-headed pricks. So one prick abusing another and another hitting out at the first is funny and hilarious. The irony of the players involved [pardon the pun] in this little drame is also not lost. Both are great drag queens who love show boating on stage. Except that this is sport and this is not funny and has serious ramifications. Both players represent India in cricket and shows the national dressing room that they are a part of, the game and the fans backing them in bad light and pain. They are representatives of public and country and this is inexcusible. Bhajji no matter what provocation had no business hitting any player. There are other established forums for taking action if he found Sree's behaviour unacceptable. While both are dimwits, Bhajji deserves the harshest punishment for his transgressions. Just like Akhter batting Asif on his knee is not acceptable. Bhajji should be banned for the whole tournament. This is not ICC regonized series and is meant only for corporate pockets so I am afraid BCCI can't penalize Bhajji on ICC rules and yardsticks. It won't stand up in legalality should Bhajjid ecide to challenge it. Action unfortunately only within IPL specific framework is only possible.....

*Buckaroo* wrote:

embee wrote:

*Buckaroo* wrote:It is upon the subject in each case to discern the neutrality of the speaker.

If the subject does not take offence, then there is no case.

So , for example , if someone from the West Indies objected to being called some sort of jungle animal then that would be racist ?

by whom ?

by someone not from the West Indies

by an idiot who does not know his front-end from his back one if his very life depended on it

But on second thoughts he could have well called Symonds with racial intent.

I do not trust bhajji anymore. He has lost my confidence

. . to improve IPL:

1) Sack the Kolkata groundsman. Even though the pitch did make for a more interesting game, it was dire. Beyond substandard. Totally unacceptable at any level of cricket. (I look forward to seeing an identical pitch being defended by the Indian posters during our Test series over there.)

2) Get the umpires to agree on a standard interpretation for wides.

3) Get some camera operators who know cricket and can thus follow the ball more consistently.

4) Put Boof on a diet.

Any other suggestions?

Oh, and I almost forgot:
5) Put Sreesanth over someone's knee and give him a good spanking. What an annoying, jumped-up little brat he is.

I never thought I'd be thanking Bhajji for doing my bidding. Does he read this forum?

The Harbhajan Zidane and Sreesanth Materazzi episode just shows how big the players have gotten in Indian cricket and how unaccountable thay have become to their ownselves and to the game as well.....

So, in summary, Bhajji is an obnoxious weed & Sree a sook?

sounds a decent summation to me Mick

Mick Sawyer wrote:So, in summary, Bhajji is an obnoxious weed & Sree a sook?

The word 'annoying' seems to be missing, but otherwise, spot on.

freddled gruntbuggly wrote:

Mick Sawyer wrote:So, in summary, Bhajji is an obnoxious weed & Sree an immature, petulant, annoying blubbering sook?

The word 'annoying' seems to be missing, but otherwise, spot on.

Couple of gratuitous adjectives on top for the lady.

How many times do I have to tell you that I ain't no lady?

But thanks for the adjectives, they're very pretty.

Lee, stop getting your knickers in a knot about people using ordinary everyday politeness towards you or tell us how you'd like to be addressed in future.

I've told everyone countless times - almost any name will suffice, but 'lady' is simply not acceptable. Not even from Mick, the little sweetie.

ladyboy would be appropriate . . .

i didn't realise taily came from NSW

horace wrote:i didn't realise taily came from NSW

That wasn't the cyber hard man's cheap shot artist's intent.

horace wrote:i didn't realise taily came from NSW

I never thought I'd say this, but: ****** off, horrie.

Sure you didn't.