What a wonderful world tennis forum

[polished_man]

Following some bitter and controversial experiences I am coming to the conclusion that probably this forum is not the one for me.

Entrepreneurial in the spirit, as always proud myself to be, I am considering to set up a brand new tennis forum called:

"What a wonderful world tennis forum".

This is meant to be the most rigorously moderated forum ever, a true safe heaven and an ideal destination to all the people who are: naturally very ordinary, silent, shy, umbratic, gregarious and slightly submissive.

It will have some innovative cutting edge features that will make it stand out from the competition as:

-computerised “sense offence” function which will investigate "in between the line" wumming allegories or metaphoric subtle allusion with consequent obligatory psycho therapy session for those found guilty.

-the mandatory word "great” will be automatically added every time you mention a top 100 player, before his name, in case the obstinate poster will intentionally avoid to.

-"Very good" will be added for the 100 - 250 rankings

-"Still better than you” for players >250, so to avoid “easy” and undue criticism.

This will certainly incentivise even the most abject wums to contribute in a straightforward and constructive way, for god's sake.

Enjoy!!

[Josiah Maiestas]

Thanks buddy

[Guest]

Will your forum have the facility that automatically changes posts that break site rules to normal posts?
If so, can we have that technology for here please.

[mthierry]

Eurosport is a very good forum if you desire the right to spit out any vile, abusive, homophobic, racist vitriol you please. This forum though is pretty decently moderated without being overly stringent - hence certain posters getting away with subtle references to PED's and other character assasination attempts (particularly concerning one player).

OP, I still believe it's a little naive if you believe that post that got taken down was perfectly valid and provokes harmless debate.

It's the sort of post that brings out the ugly, odious side of some posters here.

[Tenez]

Who are you mthierry? You sound like one of those old rafafans who left v2 but missed the argumentative side of this forum so returned under another pseudo.

What was your old pseudo?

[noleisthebest]

Eurosport is a very good forum if you desire the right to spit out any vile, abusive, homophobic, racist vitriol you please. This forum though is pretty decently moderated without being overly stringent - hence certain posters getting away with subtle references to PED's and other character assasination attempts (particularly concerning one player).

OP, I still believe it's a little naive if you believe that post that got taken down was perfectly valid and provokes harmless debate.

It's the sort of post that brings out the ugly, odious side of some posters here.

Just listen to yourself, will you:
vile, abusive, racist vitriol, assasination attempts,ugly, odious....until you finally ran out of ugly vocabulary...and have the cheek to point the finger of blame at anybody here...

[mthierry]

Who are you mthierry? You sound like one of those old rafafans who left v2 but miseds the argumentative side of this forum.

What was your old pseudo?

Can you rephrase? I don't understand your question/ assertion. Djokovic is my favourite player but I have a soft spot for Rafa. I also appreciate the talent of other players and I don't see the need to indulge in juvenile player bashing but enjoy the spirit of competition in the sport.

I suggest you try it sometime. I've read a lot of your posts since BBC 606 and the sheer insufferable, incessant nature of your anti-Nadal vendetta would be admirable if it weren't unfortunate.

[mthierry]

Eurosport is a very good forum if you desire the right to spit out any vile, abusive, homophobic, racist vitriol you please. This forum though is pretty decently moderated without being overly stringent - hence certain posters getting away with subtle references to PED's and other character assasination attempts (particularly concerning one player).

OP, I still believe it's a little naive if you believe that post that got taken down was perfectly valid and provokes harmless debate.

It's the sort of post that brings out the ugly, odious side of some posters here.

Just listen to yourself, will you:
vile, abusive, racist vitriol, assasination attempts,ugly, odious....until you finally ran out of ugly vocabulary...and have the cheek to point the finger of blame at anybody here...

I can't say I'm surprised. I've read a lot of your posts and always thought you were a decent fellow till you let yourself down with your homophobic comments on that thread. You could retain some dignity and credibility if you quit playing the fool, oblivious to the offensive nature of your post, ridiculously casting criticism as a case of PC gone mad.

And the adjectives you quoted factually represents many posts on Eurosport. I wasn't applying it to the posters here so maybe you need to read my comment again.

[Tenez]

Who are you mthierry? You sound like one of those old rafafans who left v2 but miseds the argumentative side of this forum.

What was your old pseudo?

Can you rephrase? I don't understand your question/ assertion. Djokovic is my favourite player but I have a soft spot for Rafa. I also appreciate the talent of other players and I don't see the need to indulge in juvenile player bashing but enjoy the spirit of competition in the sport.

I suggest you try it sometime. I've read a lot of your posts since BBC 606 and the sheer insufferable, incessant nature of your anti-Nadal vendetta would be admirable if it weren't unfortunate.

Looks like I don;t need to rephrase. You understood what I meant and you also confirm that your were posting under a different pseudo.

Anyway as NITB says, it seems you only see the dark side of this world. I feel sorry for you.

[mthierry]

Who are you mthierry? You sound like one of those old rafafans who left v2 but miseds the argumentative side of this forum.

What was your old pseudo?

Can you rephrase? I don't understand your question/ assertion. Djokovic is my favourite player but I have a soft spot for Rafa. I also appreciate the talent of other players and I don't see the need to indulge in juvenile player bashing but enjoy the spirit of competition in the sport.

I suggest you try it sometime. I've read a lot of your posts since BBC 606 and the sheer insufferable, incessant nature of your anti-Nadal vendetta would be admirable if it weren't unfortunate.

Looks like I don't need to rephrase. You understood what I meant and you also confirm that your were posting under a different pseudo.

Anyway as NITB says, it seems you only see the dark side of this world. I feel sorry for you.

The overwhelming majority of my posts on BBC 606 were on the football board, particularly when your kind overran the tennis board there. And with your consistent anti-Nadal vendetta, you have a lot of nerve saying I see the bad things in the world when you never see anything good in a player your patently dislike.

As for feeling sorry for me, I can only say 'DITTO'.

[Tenez]

yeah....whatever. Stick to football cause from what I read you don't know much about tennis.

[time please]

It's the sort of post that brings out the ugly, odious side of some posters here.

You know mthierry, I didn't agree with some of the sentiments in that thread, and I regret contributing with an aside to it at all. I think Y I Man made probably the correct decision in taking it down. However, your comment above is just OTT, and so horribly sanctimonius. That is a pretty ugly thing you say there, and you think it is okay to say such things to fellow posters while you criticise them for holding views that you find unpalatable, even though forum has decided to remove a controversial thread. I think we need a little perspective here - you know one posters comments were unenlightenend and we perhaps all find that a little offensive today, but they were very far from being hateful about anyone, or at least they were the last time I looked at the thread. It is all totally irrelevant anyway because it was about one journalist's piece that was then taken up and quoted in a certain magazine. I don't agree with the view expressed in any shape or form, but as I say the forum's moderator has acted and I don't see any need for your vitriol to fellow posters quite frankly.

[mthierry]

yeah....whatever. Stick to football cause from what I read you don't know much about tennis.

Classic, predictable Tenez quote. If what you post here is indicative of your knowledge of tennis, it can be easily surmised you know diddly-squat about the sport. And I couldn't care less what you think of my knowledge of the sport.

[mthierry]

It's the sort of post that brings out the ugly, odious side of some posters here.

You know mthierry, I didn't agree with some of the sentiments in that thread, and I regret contributing with an aside to it at all. I think Y I Man made probably the correct decision in taking it down. However, your comment above is just OTT, and so horribly sanctimonius. That is a pretty ugly thing you say there, and you think it is okay to say such things to fellow posters while you criticise them for holding views that you find unpalatable, even though forum has decided to remove a controversial thread. I think we need a little perspective here - you know one posters comments were unenlightenend and we perhaps all find that a little offensive today, but they were very far from being hateful about anyone, or at least they were the last time I looked at the thread. It is all totally irrelevant anyway because it was about one journalist's piece that was then taken up and quoted in a certain magazine. I don't agree with the view expressed in any shape or form, but as I say the forum's moderator has acted and I don't see any need for your vitriol to fellow posters quite frankly.

You're seriously overreacting. I made vague references to certain posters but I never directly abused anyone. In what you quoted, I was referring to how certain threads like the one the mods deleted this evening bring out the bad side of certain posters. It's not the same as insinuating I abused a poster.

There are serious issues with semantics on here. Please, read my post again before throwing out rants like that.

[time please]

It's the sort of post that brings out the ugly, odious side of some posters here.

You know mthierry, I didn't agree with some of the sentiments in that thread, and I regret contributing with an aside to it at all. I think Y I Man made probably the correct decision in taking it down. However, your comment above is just OTT, and so horribly sanctimonius. That is a pretty ugly thing you say there, and you think it is okay to say such things to fellow posters while you criticise them for holding views that you find unpalatable, even though forum has decided to remove a controversial thread. I think we need a little perspective here - you know one posters comments were unenlightenend and we perhaps all find that a little offensive today, but they were very far from being hateful about anyone, or at least they were the last time I looked at the thread. It is all totally irrelevant anyway because it was about one journalist's piece that was then taken up and quoted in a certain magazine. I don't agree with the view expressed in any shape or form, but as I say the forum's moderator has acted and I don't see any need for your vitriol to fellow posters quite frankly.

You're seriously overreacting. I made vague references to certain posters but I never directly abused anyone. In what you quoted, I was referring to how certain threads like the one the mods deleted this evening bring out the bad side of certain posters. It's not the same as insinuating I abused a poster.

There are serious issues with semantics on here. Please, read my post again before throwing out rants like that.

I don't think you should be talking about rants to be quite honest, and you have made more than one reference to odious fed fans on several threads. And while you may not have directly abused a particular poster - the tone of your comments was pretty unpleasant. Posters like you are convincing me that I don't want to be a part of this forum - there are some wacky opinions here, ones I totally disagree with and then ones that strike a chord - you know that is what makes variety and they all can be good to read - it's part of the tapestry of the forum. But people like you and raiders who just throw nasty asides out at posters, that's not good reading for anyone.

.

[hawkeye]

time please.

"I think we need a little perspective here - you know one posters comments were unenlightenend and we perhaps all find that a little offensive today, but they were very far from being hateful about anyone, or at least they were the last time I looked at the thread."

----

I found those comment more than a "little" offensive. All the time I thought we were talking about forehands and backhands there was something far more hateful floating about underneath. If that poster was "unenlightened" from the way they stood by their bigoted views they show no signs of seeing the light.

If this sounds unpleasant its meant to. Those comments were more than just wacky opinions about who is the GOAT. I have no objections to anyone with views on tennis or players that I object to. The comments made were not just about Nadal they expressed a wider bigoted view and more unfourtunately a willingness to preach it. Its not for me to say but a tennis forum should have no place for posters who feel justified on getting on that particular sort of soapbox.

[hawkeye]

Also meant to say I didn't object to polish mans article. That barbour piece is old news

[Guest]

Guys this is getting us nowhere.
Im sure we all want this section to run well, but it wont happen unless everyone plays their part. I am trying my best to keep things running smoothly in here for you, but I need you to do your bit also.

I am asking for a fresh start. Can we put all previous disagreements/hostility to one side and start again please?

[JuliusHMarx]

Is it too late for me to offend someone?

[bogbrush]

I can't believe I've come so late to this thread. Feels like such a missed opportunity.

YI Man - I know why you took the thread down, you have to watch your ps and qs otherwise you'll end up getting into some form of trouble because of the thought police nature of society these days.

Personally I'm really sad that the days appear to have gone when people would talk about utterly disagreeing with anothers opinions, but being prepared to fight for their right to express them. The infantisisation of of the public means now that many cannot contain the twin concept of disagreement and freedom of expression, as shown by the odd poster on here.

One day it will dawn on folk that the healthiest way to address widely differeing opinions is to allow them to be aired and exposed to contrary arguments. Sadly, for now, the mostly left-inspired concept of "unacceptable opinions" reigns, and this forum didn't create that so we should show appreciation to Admins difficulties and not make life harder for them.

Meanwhile to those who espouse this hideous thought crime regime, I exercise my free will and speech to tell you now that you are complete fools and scoundrels, and you really need to get out more and show some of the tolerance that you pretend to hold dear.

[mthierry]

I don't think you should be talking about rants to be quite honest, and you have made more than one reference to odious fed fans on several threads. And while you may not have directly abused a particular poster - the tone of your comments was pretty unpleasant. Posters like you are convincing me that I don't want to be a part of this forum - there are some wacky opinions here, ones I totally disagree with and then ones that strike a chord - you know that is what makes variety and they all can be good to read - it's part of the tapestry of the forum. But people like you and raiders who just throw nasty asides out at posters, that's not good reading for anyone.

.

You just seem determined to pick a fight where there is none. I'm sure those that feel slighted by my post can fight their corner. Maybe I should explain my first post again:

- OP posts article wondering why a perfectly good post (it wasn't) was taken down.
- I make a comment trying to show OP such a post can't bring any real constructive debate but brings out the uglier side in some (note, referring to an odious side isn't the same as calling someone odious) people.
- 2 other posters react unpleasantly to my posts and I return their hostility without abusing anyone, even when one tells me how "he feels sorry for me".

The initial comments on that thread I was reacting to are also of far more consequence than you're making out. It wasn't the usual disagreeable anti-Nadal bashing but was highly objectionable due to the wider reaching prejudice expressed. For all you know, I could be a gay guy, highly offended by someone insinuating I'm abnormal or perverted in my way of life.

As I said before, please read my comments PROPERLY before going off on a tangent.

[noleisthebest]

I can't believe I've come so late to this thread. Feels like such a missed opportunity.

YI Man - I know why you took the thread down, you have to watch your ps and qs otherwise you'll end up getting into some form of trouble because of the thought police nature of society these days.

Personally I'm really sad that the days appear to have gone when people would talk about utterly disagreeing with anothers opinions, but being prepared to fight for their right to express them. The infantisisation of of the public means now that many cannot contain the twin concept of disagreement and freedom of expression, as shown by the odd poster on here.

One day it will dawn on folk that the healthiest way to address widely differeing opinions is to allow them to be aired and exposed to contrary arguments. Sadly, for now, the mostly left-inspired concept of "unacceptable opinions" reigns, and this forum didn't create that so we should show appreciation to Admins difficulties and not make life harder for them.

Meanwhile to those who espouse this hideous thought crime regime, I exercise my free will and speech to tell you now that you are complete fools and scoundrels, and you really need to get out more and show some of the tolerance that you pretend to hold dear.

Wow, BB, this deserves

[polished_man]

I can't believe I've come so late to this thread. Feels like such a missed opportunity.

YI Man - I know why you took the thread down, you have to watch your ps and qs otherwise you'll end up getting into some form of trouble because of the thought police nature of society these days.

Personally I'm really sad that the days appear to have gone when people would talk about utterly disagreeing with anothers opinions, but being prepared to fight for their right to express them. The infantisisation of of the public means now that many cannot contain the twin concept of disagreement and freedom of expression, as shown by the odd poster on here.

One day it will dawn on folk that the healthiest way to address widely differeing opinions is to allow them to be aired and exposed to contrary arguments. Sadly, for now, the mostly left-inspired concept of "unacceptable opinions" reigns, and this forum didn't create that so we should show appreciation to Admins difficulties and not make life harder for them.

Meanwhile to those who espouse this hideous thought crime regime, I exercise my free will and speech to tell you now that you are complete fools and scoundrels, and you really need to get out more and show some of the tolerance that you pretend to hold dear.

Wow, BB, this deserves

what a life.....one get it all and poor pm has none

[noleisthebest]

I can't believe I've come so late to this thread. Feels like such a missed opportunity.

YI Man - I know why you took the thread down, you have to watch your ps and qs otherwise you'll end up getting into some form of trouble because of the thought police nature of society these days.

Personally I'm really sad that the days appear to have gone when people would talk about utterly disagreeing with anothers opinions, but being prepared to fight for their right to express them. The infantisisation of of the public means now that many cannot contain the twin concept of disagreement and freedom of expression, as shown by the odd poster on here.

One day it will dawn on folk that the healthiest way to address widely differeing opinions is to allow them to be aired and exposed to contrary arguments. Sadly, for now, the mostly left-inspired concept of "unacceptable opinions" reigns, and this forum didn't create that so we should show appreciation to Admins difficulties and not make life harder for them.

Meanwhile to those who espouse this hideous thought crime regime, I exercise my free will and speech to tell you now that you are complete fools and scoundrels, and you really need to get out more and show some of the tolerance that you pretend to hold dear.

Wow, BB, this deserves

what a life.....one get it all and poor pm has none

http://cdn.pimpmyspace.org/media/pms/c/6m/l9/1x/5021672201.jpg

[mthierry]

I can't believe I've come so late to this thread. Feels like such a missed opportunity.

YI Man - I know why you took the thread down, you have to watch your ps and qs otherwise you'll end up getting into some form of trouble because of the thought police nature of society these days.

Personally I'm really sad that the days appear to have gone when people would talk about utterly disagreeing with anothers opinions, but being prepared to fight for their right to express them. The infantisisation of of the public means now that many cannot contain the twin concept of disagreement and freedom of expression, as shown by the odd poster on here.

One day it will dawn on folk that the healthiest way to address widely differeing opinions is to allow them to be aired and exposed to contrary arguments. Sadly, for now, the mostly left-inspired concept of "unacceptable opinions" reigns, and this forum didn't create that so we should show appreciation to Admins difficulties and not make life harder for them.

Meanwhile to those who espouse this hideous thought crime regime, I exercise my free will and speech to tell you now that you are complete fools and scoundrels, and you really need to get out more and show some of the tolerance that you pretend to hold dear.

I can only guess from your comments you must be a white, probably middle-class, heterosexual male pretty secure in his shell and rarely, if ever, having to deal with any deep-rooted prejudice.

I'm 21; can't be mistaken for a caucasian; went to Uni here in the UK on a student visa while supporting myself with odd jobs here and there. I finished a couple of months back and most of my time here was great. I can't recall any real incidents exhibiting any discrimination but naturally, I'm sure a few (or many) of the people I met may harbour deep-seated prejudice against my kind. On the notion of them freely expressing their opinion or being repressed from doing so, it's a no-brainer for me.

Sure, the repression, as with everything, may not be a perfect solution. It may give rise to a couple of incidents similar to that horror story from Norway earlier this year but history is replete with far greater consequences on the opposite scale when a voice(s) is/are given to intolerance.

There are a lot of impressionable adults out there ever willing to stand with figure heads that incite hate. In a free speech society, there will inevitably be people who have no inhibitions inciting hate and intolerance among impressionable people.

That would have far more wide reaching consequences than denying some people the "right to offend".

[legendkillar]

Did I miss something?

[polished_man]

I can't believe I've come so late to this thread. Feels like such a missed opportunity.

YI Man - I know why you took the thread down, you have to watch your ps and qs otherwise you'll end up getting into some form of trouble because of the thought police nature of society these days.

Personally I'm really sad that the days appear to have gone when people would talk about utterly disagreeing with anothers opinions, but being prepared to fight for their right to express them. The infantisisation of of the public means now that many cannot contain the twin concept of disagreement and freedom of expression, as shown by the odd poster on here.

One day it will dawn on folk that the healthiest way to address widely differeing opinions is to allow them to be aired and exposed to contrary arguments. Sadly, for now, the mostly left-inspired concept of "unacceptable opinions" reigns, and this forum didn't create that so we should show appreciation to Admins difficulties and not make life harder for them.

Meanwhile to those who espouse this hideous thought crime regime, I exercise my free will and speech to tell you now that you are complete fools and scoundrels, and you really need to get out more and show some of the tolerance that you pretend to hold dear.

Wow, BB, this deserves

what a life.....one get it all and poor pm has none

http://cdn.pimpmyspace.org/media/pms/c/6m/l9/1x/5021672201.jpg

Spoiler:

[barrystar]

I can only guess from your comments you must be a white, probably middle-class, heterosexual male pretty secure in his shell and rarely, if ever, having to deal with any deep-rooted prejudice.

I'm 21; can't be mistaken for a caucasian; went to Uni here in the UK on a student visa while supporting myself with odd jobs here and there. I finished a couple of months back and most of my time here was great. I can't recall any real incidents exhibiting any discrimination but naturally, I'm sure a few (or many) of the people I met may harbour deep-seated prejudice against my kind. On the notion of them freely expressing their opinion or being repressed from doing so, it's a no-brainer for me.

Sure, the repression, as with everything, may not be a perfect solution. It may give rise to a couple of incidents similar to that horror story from Norway earlier this year but history is replete with far greater consequences on the opposite scale when a voice(s) is/are given to intolerance.

There are a lot of impressionable adults out there ever willing to stand with figure heads that incite hate. In a free speech society, there will inevitably be people who have no inhibitions inciting hate and intolerance among impressionable people.

That would have far more wide reaching consequences than denying some people the "right to offend".

It's about where you draw lines - you don't say so.

One line I have is that you don't go after someone for something he/she can't change, usually (but not always) something that they are borne with - sex, skin colour, height, race, hair colour, sexual orientation, many serious illnesses.

If someone can change something, even with difficulty, then they are usually fair game for criticism on that basis - examples include religion, weight (save for the rare cases when caused by an illness), party political allegiance, team you support

There are some things you don't acquire as a matter of biology (although you may be borne with) and could in theory change, but I'd still say that it's unethical to go for - like poverty unless it's obviously self induced in a stupid fashion (i.e. that fellow who made a fortune and then went bust buying Crystal Palace - what a clown)

Then there's how you do it - inciting violence is obviously a non-starter, but (for example) I think you can give someone's religious beliefs a very aggressive shake down (but you've got to play the ball, not the man - there's a distinction between debate in which you describe relgious beliefs as wicked and a threat to society, and pure unreasoning sectarian hatred like for some fans at Celtic vs. Rangers)

A very difficult area can be if someone projects an untrue image of him/her self for gain - i.e. puts forward a heterosexual image when they are gay. The hypocracy is worthy of criticism, but much criticism such a person would attract is likely to be the prejudice from which they were seeking to escape hiding under the shield of an attack on hypocracy so that the critic can't put his/her hand on heart and say that the truth would not have made any difference (they are themselves being unfair, and probably hypocritical).

Even this limited analysis shows that there needs to be nuance with where one draws the line (regardless of whether or not you agree with my every word). The fact that someone might be offended does not assist me one jot with where the line should be (many fundamentalist christians or muslims are hugely offended by the practice of homosexuality).

Legislation is not capable of much nuance and is better applied to acts or breaches of duty and incitement to commit them. Away from legislation public excoriation is pretty powerful - most of us would say that they act according to social rules than with a view to avoid committing a criminal offence. I don't know where you draw your line, but your instincts sound too illiberal for me.

I read the Lyn Barber interview of Rafa, I did not see the thread which spawned this one. The weakness of the interview was that whilst the interview made a valid point about how stars cocoon themselves behind an army of image consultants, it did not acknowledge that this is in no small part a response to the destructiveness of the press.

To call the interview borderline libellous is fatuous - but if we can't have a sensible debate about it that's equally fatuous.

[hawkeye]

Bogbrush. Good grief its one thing to fight for people to say what they want. I would be the first to join you on your crusade. But here on a tennis forum? I come here to escape from all that depressing stuff. The last thing I want from a site such as this is to feel the need to provide contrary arguments to bigoted views... and If posters are allowed to express them it would be imorral not to challenge them otherwise they might be deluded enough to think their views are acceptable.

Moderators please address this. This is supposed to be a fun place!

As I said before have no problem with discussion about the Barbour article just certain posters expressing their homophobic views in general.

[noleisthebest]

Bogbrush. Good grief its one thing to fight for people to say what they want. I would be the first to join you on your crusade. But here on a tennis forum? I come here to escape from all that depressing stuff. The last thing I want from a site such as this is to feel the need to provide contrary arguments to bigoted views... and If posters are allowed to express them it would be imorral not to challenge them otherwise they might be deluded enough to think their views are acceptable.

Moderators please address this. This is supposed to be a fun place!

As I said before have no problem with discussion about the Barbour article just certain posters expressing their homophobic views in general.

Why don't you just grow up and stop moaning.

[legendkillar]

I keep seeing the word 'Bigot' used alot on this thread.

Did we not learn from Gordon Brown and what it done for him!

[Guest]

I prefer to hear peoples viewpoints than not to hear them. Often it is the manner in which the viewpoint is expressed that causes offence to others. As in all forms of communication one should try to engage in a "civil manner".

That said, it is often unnecessary for an individual to repeat their viewpoint on the same thread if it already has been given in an earlier post. For this it would be useful if 606v2 were able to "number" the various posts in a thread - so that one can say - "I already answered that query in my earlier post - see post No. 22".

[hawkeye]

barrystar.

You must have posted at the same time as me. What you say made me realise that many looking through the comments here would think that objections were about discussing the Barbour article or Nadal. Personally I had no problem about any of that. In fact it could have been interesting. My objection was about one poster who used it as an opportunity to express homophobic views in general. IMO the article shouldn't have been removed just the offending comments. Not because I don't believe in free speech but because I don't expect to see this sort of stuff on a tennis site!

[bogbrush]

I can only guess from your comments you must be a white, probably middle-class, heterosexual male pretty secure in his shell and rarely, if ever, having to deal with any deep-rooted prejudice.

I'm 21; can't be mistaken for a caucasian; went to Uni here in the UK on a student visa while supporting myself with odd jobs here and there. I finished a couple of months back and most of my time here was great. I can't recall any real incidents exhibiting any discrimination but naturally, I'm sure a few (or many) of the people I met may harbour deep-seated prejudice against my kind. On the notion of them freely expressing their opinion or being repressed from doing so, it's a no-brainer for me.

Sure, the repression, as with everything, may not be a perfect solution. It may give rise to a couple of incidents similar to that horror story from Norway earlier this year but history is replete with far greater consequences on the opposite scale when a voice(s) is/are given to intolerance.

There are a lot of impressionable adults out there ever willing to stand with figure heads that incite hate. In a free speech society, there will inevitably be people who have no inhibitions inciting hate and intolerance among impressionable people.

That would have far more wide reaching consequences than denying some people the "right to offend".

See, you're just as ready to be prejudiced as anyone else - you make all those assumptions about me based on nothing more than my opinions. Ain't it interesting to see how ready to pre-judge many are? But that's cool, I don't mind you expressing your views even if I think it's wrong of you to be so judgemental.

If you can point me to any violence initiated by the voicing of an opinion I'd be interested. So far as I can tell, every instance of violence in relation to opinions is created by the people who want to stop others from expressing their views. For instance, if you call me an ignorant sod and I punch you in the face, who did the violence?

[JuliusHMarx]

I love you all! (Even the ones who post about tennis)

[mthierry]

If you can point me to any violence initiated by the voicing of an opinion I'd be interested. So far as I can tell, every instance of violence in relation to opinions is created by the people who want to stop others from expressing their views. For instance, if you call me an ignorant sod and I punch you in the face, who did the violence?

Are you serious? Maybe you should read up the rise of a certain Austrian, barely educated sergeant and his effect on sophisticated German society in the 1930's. Maybe a brief history of Pol Pot, the Rwandan genocide and Bosnian ethnic cleansing in former Yugoslavia should suffice.

Words are very powerful tools in the modern world. Uninhibited freedom of expression is akin to uninhibited licensing of guns to all-comers. A little repression of free speech would always be necessary for certain elements in society.

It may look to you, that uninhibited free speech on this forum is harmless and you may have a point but this is an extension of the real world and where do you draw the line? Whatever is taboo in wider society has to be on here as well.

And my assumptions about you reflects my doubt that a member of British minority groups can advocate uninhibited free speech.

[bogbrush]

No, he DID violence. He didn't just state his opinions, he put them into hideous action.

That's the problem that I touched on earlier when I talked about the infantisisation of people, leading to the inability to distinguise between expression of opinion and action. If someone tells me how they hate certain races or religions, and I go out and kill someone then who is at fault? I say that I can't go to Court and blame the other guy for my actions.

I draw the line of expressing opinions nowhere. I would allow people to say anything. I would also, by the way, uphold everyone else's right to tell them to get screwed.

EDIT to add: That's a staggering statement (another pre-judgement, I should point out by the way) to say about a member of an ethnic minority. I have far more faith in peoples common sense than that.

[mthierry]

And contrary to the opinion of those saying there was nothing wrong with the Barber article, there was a lot wrong with it.

The logic behind the theme is rather fatuous and summarised thus:
-player has a tight-knit PR group.
-player loves to keep private life, well.........private (big shocker there)
-player's working, media-shy girlfriend doesn't see him as often as in most relationships (another shocker).
Conclusion: player must be g*y.

It's a rather spurious article with no real premise for what it infers making it borderline libellous (borderline cos it leaves wiggle room for the author).

In summary, a vacuous piece of "journalism" I wouldn't expect from my 15 year old sister.

[Guest]

Please dont turn this into a debate about the article that was removed.
Thanks

[mthierry]

No, he DID violence. He didn't just state his opinions, he put them into hideous action.

That's the problem that I touched on earlier when I talked about the infantisisation of people, leading to the inability to distinguise between expression of opinion and action. If someone tells me how they hate certain races or religions, and I go out and kill someone then who is at fault? I say that I can't go to Court and blame the other guy for my actions.

I draw the line of expressing opinions nowhere. I would allow people to say anything. I would also, by the way, uphold everyone else's right to tell them to get screwed.

EDIT to add: That's a staggering statement (another pre-judgement, I should point out by the way) to say about a member of an ethnic minority. I have far more faith in peoples common sense than that.

Firstly, I stand by comments on the demography to which you belong. It takes no genius to figure it out.

Secondly, a huge population of Germans were complicit in the horrors of the war (heading into dangerous territory here). One single man lent a voice to his bigotry and many followed. The belief of the people in his widely publicised beliefs is the reason he rose to Chancellorship in the first place.

And you WOULD be prosecuted if you publicly incite hate or intolerance. The naked truth is you can't know where the shoe pinches if you've never worn it.

If you've ever been subjected to ostracism, your opinions might be different.

[bogbrush]

Why would you care about the opinion of fools? I don't.

And suppressing their voices only makes them hate you more, if that matters to you. Real clever.

And your opinion on my demography, and reasons thereof, only show you to be prejudiced and to suffer from the same ailments you complain about in others. Fortunately I don't worry about it because other peoples deranged opinions don't matter to me.

[Jeremy_Kyle]

No, he DID violence. He didn't just state his opinions, he put them into hideous action.

That's the problem that I touched on earlier when I talked about the infantisisation of people, leading to the inability to distinguise between expression of opinion and action. If someone tells me how they hate certain races or religions, and I go out and kill someone then who is at fault? I say that I can't go to Court and blame the other guy for my actions.

I draw the line of expressing opinions nowhere. I would allow people to say anything. I would also, by the way, uphold everyone else's right to tell them to get screwed.

EDIT to add: That's a staggering statement (another pre-judgement, I should point out by the way) to say about a member of an ethnic minority. I have far more faith in peoples common sense than that.

Firstly, I stand by comments on the demography to which you belong. It takes no genius to figure it out.

Secondly, a huge population of Germans were complicit in the horrors of the war (heading into dangerous territory here). One single man lent a voice to his bigotry and many followed. The belief of the people in his widely publicised beliefs is the reason he rose to Chancellorship in the first place.

And you WOULD be prosecuted if you publicly incite hate or intolerance. The naked truth is you can't know where the shoe pinches if you've never worn it.

If you've ever been subjected to ostracism, your opinions might be different.

Barber is an intelligent, original, creative and hugely succesful journalist who won in five occasions the British Press awards. As for you Thierry ------------

Glad if you could get back to football

[barrystar]

Are you serious? Maybe you should read up the rise of a certain Austrian, barely educated sergeant and his effect on sophisticated German society in the 1930's.

Words are very powerful tools in the modern world. Uninhibited freedom of expression is akin to uninhibited licensing of guns to all-comers. A little repression of free speech would always be necessary for certain elements in society.

It may look to you, that uninhibited free speech on this forum is harmless and you may have a point but this is an extension of the real world and where do you draw the line? Whatever is taboo in wider society has to be on here as well.

Hitler is not a particularly brilliant example to prove your point - in fact he is a pisspoor example.

He grew to political power in an authoritarian society with a history of militaristic rulers smarting from a defeat which the military establishment put about was not a military defeat but a political capitulation. The first thing he did once he had a critical mass was to set up a quasi-miltary organisation with militaristic uniforms and start suppressing opposing views with violence, his thugs were fighting with and beating up communists and publishers of 'awkward' leaflets even before he got into power and they were inadequatley protected by the authorities. He only ever won 34% of the vote at the highest and manoeuvred a dictatorship by nefarious means. He was a brilliant propagandist in a society which did not have a long history of dissent and ridicule and is a better example of what happens when freedom of speech is limited and attacked than of the dangers of untrammelled freedom (which nobody is arguing for anyway). If German people had been used to criticising and poking charlie at authoritarian militaristic types he would never have got anywhere. There was more freedom of speech in the UK in the 1930's and we had Moseley, but too many people thought him laughable (Roderick Spode in PG Wodehouse) or detestable and said so and protested whilst they had the right.

[mthierry]

Why would you care about the opinion of fools? I don't.

And suppressing their voices only makes them hate you more, if that matters to you. Real clever.

And your opinion on my demography, and reasons thereof, only show you to be prejudiced and to suffer from the same ailments you complain about in others. Fortunately I don't worry about it because other peoples deranged opinions don't matter to me.

The 'opinion of fools' are a potential threat to my life and livelihood particularly when I'm 'unique' (hence my comment about minorities and demography which you seem out of touch with). Even if I'm personally oblivious to the opinion of fools, I won't be when it affects my family and others close to me.

And it's untrue that suppressing the voices of those 'haters' makes them hate you more. Time is a great healer and even if they don't come around, it would get better with subsequent generations.

Without government policies recognizing their rights and equality, what do you honestly think would be the fate of the Carribean/ African/ Sikh/ Polynesian communities in the UK today. Do you honestly believe it'd be better or worse?

[bogbrush]

By the way, it's always great to see Goldwins law wheeled out. It really is the end of the road for a bad argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

[hawkeye]

I love you all! (Even the ones who post about tennis)

I love you too Julius...

[Jeremy_Kyle]

By the way, it's always great to see Goldwins law wheeled out. It really is the end of the road for a bad argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

This guy Thierry is preatty amazing. It seems he wants to make a point by saying that the problem of totalitarism was what.......excessive freedom of speach! that's a good one, that's a real good one!

[mthierry]

Hitler is not a particularly brilliant example to prove your point - in fact he is a pisspoor example.

He grew to political power in an authoritarian society with a history of militaristic rulers smarting from a defeat which the military establishment put about was not a military defeat but a political capitulation. The first thing he did once he had a critical mass was to set up a quasi-miltary organisation with militaristic uniforms and start suppressing opposing views with violence, his thugs were fighting with and beating up communists and publishers of 'awkward' leaflets even before he got into power and they were inadequatley protected by the authorities. He only ever won 34% of the vote at the highest and manoeuvred a dictatorship by nefarious means. He was a brilliant propagandist in a society which did not have a long history of dissent and ridicule and is a better example of what happens when freedom of speech is limited and attacked than of the dangers of untrammelled freedom (which nobody is arguing for anyway). If German people had been used to criticising and poking charlie at authoritarian militaristic types he would never have got anywhere. There was more freedom of speech in the UK in the 1930's and we had Moseley, but too many people thought him laughable (Roderick Spode in PG Wodehouse) or detestable and said so and protested whilst they had the right.

You obviously well schooled on the subject and make good points. I have no pretensions to knowing more than you do on the subject. What can't be ignored though is that while Hitler isn't the best example delineating the dangers of free speech, his brilliance as a great propagandist makes him a great example showing the power of words. It also doesn't rebut the pervading anti-semitism in 1930's Germany.

A lot of the populace were willing tools in the holocaust.

[Jeremy_Kyle]

I got it! He is Simple Analyst in his latest appalling camouflage.....

[mthierry]

By the way, it's always great to see Goldwins law wheeled out. It really is the end of the road for a bad argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

This guy Thierry is preatty amazing. It seems he wants to make a point by saying that the problem of totalitarism was what.......excessive freedom of speach! that's a good one, that's a real good one!

Like I said above, I was trying to show the power of words in that reference rather than free speech. This argument can then consequently be applied to the dangers of free speech. I wasn't comparing the Nazi Germany situation to the consequences of free speech though I can see why it can be miscontrued as such.

[Sponsored content]