Nigel Owens

First topic message reminder :

I think he can be considered one of the Worlds best ref's.

His contribution to yesterdays wonderful game was enormous.

He gets the attention he wants. I'm not bothered that he does it about rugby when he starts to insinutate the IRB are racist and calling people fag is a term of endearment (the Shhhh comment should tell you he knows full well what he's saying) the line is crossed.

Biltong wrote:

GE wrote:Yep. Diversity of all kinds.

Imagine if he'd been excluded on the basis of being gay. Now if we can discount that and the sport can prosper doesn't it make you wonder how much better it might be if some other traditionally under represented demographics had their chance?

Why is that comment offensive? He is advocating any type of minority group not to be excluded.

It is offensive because GE is harking back to a thread he created on top referees being exclusively white men.

https://www.606v2.com/t47769-rich-referees-just-don-t-get-it

It's a good topic, and worthy of a serious discussion. However, GE quickly demonstrated he didn't give a fig about diversity and instead used it as a pretext to attack Northern Hemisphere referees and the IRB (the original title thread was aimed at the former). In contrast to failings in the rest of the rugby world, GE professed that New Zealand was doing all that he would want to see to promote diversity. When asked repeatedly to supply details, he failed to do so, finally leaving the thread dead.

I've got no problem people winding each other up over rugby matters but you had better be serious if you are going to talk race. You know this first hand in South Africa, Biltong, where quotas remain a controversial topic.

For GE to once more raise the issue of diversity, having dropped the topic like a hot brick when caught telling porkies, is extremely offensive. He has demonstrated he doesn't care about the subject. He's only using it as a means to cover his tracks after a white Northern Hemisphere referee has turned in one of the most-lauded performances of recent times.

When a poster on a rugby forum uses gender, race and sexuality so frivoulously, just to make some petty point-scoring jibes, it deserves both barrels.

Cyril wrote:

Biltong wrote:Cyril, go read that thread, then compare the two.

I've read it. What am I comparing it with? Every other thread where he has his anti-English, anti-Northern Hemisphere, xenophobic hat on?

Cyril firstly I am not really in the mood to discuss my modding with you.

But understand this, the topic I got fed up with him had to do with SA rugby, hence me being involved in that thread.

If the topic is not involving SA or I do not have a lot to say on the subject I DO NOT read every thread or post made in the rugby section.

If you feel I have double standards, then you know what, I don't care. I am not here to be judged by you.

rugbyfan wrote:I've got no problem people winding each other up over rugby matters but you had better be serious if you are going to talk race. You know this first hand in South Africa, Biltong, where quotas remain a controversial topic.

Hence me staying as far away from commenting on any race related topics.

GloriousEmpire wrote:So let's discuss this like adults.

"Fag" in NZ colloquial terms is not a homophobic derogatory term. In the same way that "w***ker" is not an insult in America. In fact it appeared in Married with Children and Friends on prime time US TV. Also the cultural difference between interpretations of what constitutes a "fanny". 

In NZ calling someone a "fag" is just a light weight insult or even term if endearment amongst mates. 

I realise in the UK it's used as a homophobic pejorative term.

Cultural differences are important to understand.

Ah, the Luis Suarez/Maneul defence. "I know nothing. I am from Uruguay/Barcelona"
Didn't work for Luis. I am stunned you managed to get away with this.

To clarify: I didn't call anyone a "fag". Ever. Not my style. 

Secondly I did want to seriously discuss diversity in relationship to refereeing. But if you read the thread the responses were overwhelmingly frivolous by other posters and consisted mainly of attacks on myself personally or bizarrely on the NZRU (I still can't work that one out). Realising I wouldn't get a sensible discussion I did the smartest thing: left the thread.

Now someone here brought up the fact that I had criticised Owens in the past. Well yes I did. But I also complimented on his handling of the game on the weekend. I don't think I'm alone in having criticised him either. As pointed out by Taylorman.

I for one am sick of being followed around from post to post by the like of Cyril who never have anything to say about rugby but just act like happy terriers criticising everything I say, accusing me of being someone else I've never heard of and trying to encourage the moderators to ban me.  Check out Cyril's posting history...he arrives on each thread 2 minutes after me and opens up wih personal insults.

Rant over. I apologise if anyone was inadvertently offended by my attempt to talk about something serious and I apologise to BT for going on a bit long about the springboks tendency to kick historically. But frankly for the love of sanity give the personal niggling poking and jibes a rest.

I do think that your ability, perhaps gift, for eloquently shining a light into some of the less well probed areas of rugby somewhat diqueting for some. It is very strange that some, who obviously have no interest in the subject of some of your posts, nevertheless feel compelled to participate and even steer the discussions in certain directions and then get upset with you for responding in kind.

GloriousEmpire wrote:Interestingly the term derives from "faget" the powerful nazi symbolism of the power of the unity of the collective, represented by a tightly bound bundle of sticks (as revisited in Rise of The Planet of the Apes).

I think you may be wrong there GE. The tied bundle of sticks is Fascism, as from the Latin...The term fascismo is derived from the Latin word fasces. The fasces, which consisted of a bundle of rods of sticks that were tied around an axe, was an ancient Roman symbol of the authority of the civic magistrate. They were carried by his lictors and could be used for corporal and capital punishment at his command.The word fascismo also relates to political organizations in Italy known as fasci, groups similar to guilds or syndicates.
The symbolism of the fasces suggested strength through unity: a single stick is easily broken, while the bundle is difficult to break.

GloriousEmpire wrote:Secondly I did want to seriously discuss diversity in relationship to refereeing. But if you read the thread the responses were overwhelmingly frivolous by other posters and consisted mainly of attacks on myself personally or bizarrely on the NZRU (I still can't work that one out). Realising I wouldn't get a sensible discussion I did the smartest thing: left the thread.

Why were there no commas after "But" and "thread"?

Ban him!

Biltong wrote:

rugbyfan wrote:I've got no problem people winding each other up over rugby matters but you had better be serious if you are going to talk race. You know this first hand in South Africa, Biltong, where quotas remain a controversial topic.

Hence me staying as far away from commenting on any race related topics.

That's not what you did before. When GE raised the topic in this thread, you warned him immediately:

https://www.606v2.com/t47882-why-are-all-elite-referees-white-men

However, you let that thread develop despite it being obvious that GE did not intend any serious discussion of the issue. He quickly went on to misrepresent the efforts of the NZRU in promoting diversity just to have another swipe at the IRB.

In his recent comment here, he again claims serious intent when there's no evidence on this forum of him treating the subject as anything other than a means to fire off attacks.

Just because a poster says he is being serious doesn't mean we should take him at his word. After all, he started one comment in this thread with "So let's discuss this like adults", only to treat us with contempt by following it with utter rubbish, which he soon revealed he doesn't believe himself.

GE on rugby can be entertaining. GE playing with the topics of race, gender and sexuality for his own amusement, rather than contribute discussion on serious topics? That's offensive.

goneagain wrote:I do think that your ability, perhaps gift, for eloquently shining a light into some of the less well probed areas of rugby somewhat diqueting for some.  It is very strange that some, who obviously have no interest in the subject of some of your posts, nevertheless feel compelled to participate and even steer the discussions in certain directions and then get upset with you for responding in kind.

I wonder what the forum's policy is on sock puppets?

Biltong wrote:

Cyril wrote:

Biltong wrote:Cyril, go read that thread, then compare the two.

I've read it. What am I comparing it with? Every other thread where he has his anti-English, anti-Northern Hemisphere, xenophobic hat on?

Cyril firstly I am not really in the mood to discuss my modding with you.

But understand this, the topic I got fed up with him had to do with SA rugby, hence me being involved in that thread.

If the topic is not involving SA or I do not have a lot to say on the subject I DO NOT read every thread or post made in the rugby section.

If you feel I have double standards, then you know what, I don't care. I am not here to be judged  by you.

Right, I'd like to speak to your manager

GloriousEmpire wrote:To clarify: I didn't call anyone a "fag". Ever. Not my style. 

Secondly I did want to seriously discuss diversity in relationship to refereeing. But if you read the thread the responses were overwhelmingly frivolous by other posters and consisted mainly of attacks on myself personally or bizarrely on the NZRU (I still can't work that one out). Realising I wouldn't get a sensible discussion I did the smartest thing: left the thread.

Now someone here brought up the fact that I had criticised Owens in the past. Well yes I did. But I also complimented on his handling of the game on the weekend. I don't think I'm alone in having criticised him either. As pointed out by Taylorman.

I for one am sick of being followed around from post to post by the like of Cyril who never have anything to say about rugby but just act like happy terriers criticising everything I say, accusing me of being someone else I've never heard of and trying to encourage the moderators to ban me.  Check out Cyril's posting history...he arrives on each thread 2 minutes after me and opens up wih personal insults.

Rant over. I apologise if anyone was inadvertently offended by my attempt to talk about something serious and I apologise to BT for going on a bit long about the springboks tendency to kick historically. But frankly for the love of sanity give the personal niggling poking and jibes a rest.

Absolute tosh. You were challenged, you couldn't back up your views or even spell them out, instead relying on subtle digs towards the IRB.

And to be fair, when BT told me to fornicate in the off direction when I went on too long about the Boks style, he did it in poster pen and not moderator red pen. It was personal exasperation and like the classy fellow he is, BT didn't pull rank.

Yes I did get warned on the diversity thread, but I kept it real and honest and ignored those attempting to provoke an outrage. We do need to discuss these things and I'm a little disappointed we can't touch contentious topics without the accusations of racism and homophobia.

Cyril wrote:I wonder what the forum's policy is on sock puppets?

What's a sock puppet, poppet?

No 7&1/2 wrote: You were challenged, you couldn't back up your views or even spell them out,

Like that doesn't happen from other posters?

OzT wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:Interestingly the term derives from "faget" the powerful nazi symbolism of the power of the unity of the collective, represented by a tightly bound bundle of sticks (as revisited in Rise of The Planet of the Apes).

I think you may be wrong there GE. The tied bundle of sticks is Fascism, as from the Latin...The term fascismo is derived from the Latin word fasces. The fasces, which consisted of a bundle of rods of sticks that were tied around an axe, was an ancient Roman symbol of the authority of the civic magistrate. They were carried by his lictors and could be used for corporal and capital punishment at his command.The word fascismo also relates to political organizations in Italy known as fasci, groups similar to guilds or syndicates.
The symbolism of the fasces suggested strength through unity: a single stick is easily broken, while the bundle is difficult to break.

Good call Oz, it's possible I may have been misinformed on that one.

goneagain wrote:

Cyril wrote:I wonder what the forum's policy is on sock puppets?

What's a sock puppet, poppet?

Google is your friend.

Rugby Fan wrote:

Biltong wrote:

rugbyfan wrote:I've got no problem people winding each other up over rugby matters but you had better be serious if you are going to talk race. You know this first hand in South Africa, Biltong, where quotas remain a controversial topic.

Hence me staying as far away from commenting on any race related topics.

That's not what you did before. When GE raised the topic in this thread, you warned him immediately:

https://www.606v2.com/t47882-why-are-all-elite-referees-white-men

However, you let that thread develop despite it being obvious that GE did not intend any serious discussion of the issue. He quickly went on to misrepresent the efforts of the NZRU in promoting diversity just to have another swipe at the IRB.

In his recent comment here, he again claims serious intent when there's no evidence on this forum of him treating the subject as anything other than a means to fire off attacks.

Just because a poster says he is being serious doesn't mean we should take him at his word. After all, he started one comment in this thread with "So let's discuss this like adults", only to treat us with contempt by following it with utter rubbish, which he soon revealed he doesn't believe himself.

GE on rugby can be entertaining. GE playing with the topics of race, gender and sexuality for his own amusement, rather than contribute discussion on serious topics? That's offensive.

I meant commenting on race issues.  

Cyril wrote:

goneagain wrote:

Cyril wrote:I wonder what the forum's policy is on sock puppets?

What's a sock puppet, poppet?

Google is your friend.

So what is the relevance to this discussion?

It's Cyril...bless him. There's no relevance to this forum, thread or rugby in general. That's par for the course.

Something that gets the attention of children and those of a childlike disposition?

Aye, that's the one.

GE stop being a sock puppet.  

Why don't we have any referees who are sock puppets?

I like the humour Nigel Owens brings to reffing. It's one reason he's so effective.
About 3 seasons ago he was in charge of a Cardiff Blues game and gave a penalty against Gethin Jenkins for being offside.
Jenkins queried the decision and Owens, instead of standing on his dignity and making a big issue out of it, pointed up at the replay with the words, "if you don't believe me, Gethin, have a look at the big screen". Remember, this was before the official use of replays by refs that' started this season.
Fans could see that most players thought this was funny, including Jenkins, who moved off with a big grin on his face. At the same time, Owens was still firmly in charge.