Why the letter from Punts and Tendy?

Hogg should have been charges under 2.8 ....abusive comments not racial ..."I'm looking forward to running through you bastards" ...(Should also have got done for making fraudulent claims) ....but India needed a tit for tat charge ...

"false claims abt racism" .... FFS ...Calling A.Symonds a big monkey is racist ...What Harby gets charged with and found guilty of is a plea bargain ...WAKE UP

tac wrote:Who are "you guys"? Us whiteys?

You guys who can not take what u dish out.

But where have I dished anyhting out to you, prasad? Yesterday and today we have debated the situation most civilly, I thought? And where have I not taken it?

I don't understand your point . . .

prasad14 wrote:

Come on taipan, don't need to start calling names.

You guys start it and then cry foul when we stoop to u'r level.

Don't want to agrue, just ignore my posts man.

I didn't start anything. Read my posts. I said a compromise had been reached.

What I really object to is the inability of most of the Indian forummers to even consider the possibility that Harbhajan could be racist.

tac wrote:But where have I dished anyhting out to you, prasad? Yesterday and today we have debated the situation most civilly, I thought? And where have I not taken it?

I don't understand your point . . .

That post was aimed at Taipan not u tac.

I was just explaining my position when u asked for clarification.

prasad14 wrote:

tac wrote:But where have I dished anyhting out to you, prasad? Yesterday and today we have debated the situation most civilly, I thought? And where have I not taken it?

I don't understand your point . . .

That post was aimed at Taipan not u tac.

I was just explaining my position when u asked for clarification.

You said guys?

There is this forummer called Zat, who likes to dish out.

But when I started dishing out, he complains abt it in various forms for eternity. I do not want that to repeat with any other forummer.

Lets debate our posts and not abt each other.

prasad14 wrote:If Bhajji indeed say those things and was proven , it would have been a big slap in the face for Indian team. On the otehr hand if it was not proved that Bhajji said those things, then it would have made Aussie team look vindictive.

'Not proven' is not the same as 'innocent'.

freddled gruntbuggly wrote:

prasad14 wrote:If Bhajji indeed say those things and was proven , it would have been a big slap in the face for Indian team. On the otehr hand if it was not proved that Bhajji said those things, then it would have made Aussie team look vindictive.

'Not proven' is not the same as 'innocent'.

Actually it is.

doremi wrote:

freddled gruntbuggly wrote:

prasad14 wrote:If Bhajji indeed say those things and was proven , it would have been a big slap in the face for Indian team. On the otehr hand if it was not proved that Bhajji said those things, then it would have made Aussie team look vindictive.

'Not proven' is not the same as 'innocent'.

Actually it is.

No, it's not.

tac wrote:

doremi wrote:

freddled gruntbuggly wrote:

prasad14 wrote:If Bhajji indeed say those things and was proven , it would have been a big slap in the face for Indian team. On the otehr hand if it was not proved that Bhajji said those things, then it would have made Aussie team look vindictive.

'Not proven' is not the same as 'innocent'.

Actually it is.

No, it's not.

Actually it definitely isn't.

Ask any Scotsman.

tac wrote:

doremi wrote:

freddled gruntbuggly wrote:

prasad14 wrote:If Bhajji indeed say those things and was proven , it would have been a big slap in the face for Indian team. On the otehr hand if it was not proved that Bhajji said those things, then it would have made Aussie team look vindictive.

'Not proven' is not the same as 'innocent'.

Actually it is.

No, it's not.

Innocent until proven otherwise.

doremi:
I don't mean in a legal sense, I mean in logic and in fact. Just because you cannot prove something happened doesn't mean that it did not happen, it only means that there isn't evidence.

freddled gruntbuggly wrote:doremi:
I don't mean in a legal sense, I mean in logic and in fact. Just because you cannot prove something happened doesn't mean that it did not happen, it only means that there isn't evidence.

Actually 'not proven" can be used in a legal sense.

furriner wrote:On the topic, all round circle jerk. You can go round and round and round.

Possibly the sagest post on this thread.

I know that. The Scots have more sense than the rest of us. But I was making a very different point.

I'm jack of all this 'if the tapes don't show Harby saying 'monkey' it was all a set-up' bullshit. Lack of evidence is not innocence.

freddled gruntbuggly wrote:I know that. The Scots have more sense than the rest of us. But I was making a very different point.

I'm jack of all this 'if the tapes don't show Harby saying 'monkey' it was all a set-up' bullshit. Lack of evidence is not innocence.

Well all except the Indian posters know that.

FFS, surely I'm allowed to let off a bit of steam on this shithole of a day, without everyone jumping on my bloody back?

taipan wrote:

freddled gruntbuggly wrote:I know that. The Scots have more sense than the rest of us. But I was making a very different point.

I'm jack of all this 'if the tapes don't show Harby saying 'monkey' it was all a set-up' bullshit. Lack of evidence is not innocence.

Well all except the Indian posters know that.

Hehehe. Testify!!

freddled gruntbuggly wrote:FFS, surely I'm allowed to let off a bit of steam on this shithole of a day, without everyone jumping on my bloody back?

I wasn't