This is why we love Wayne Barnes.

First topic message reminder :

Review of Wayne Barnes v Ireland 2015:

https://youtu.be/IEuXfewLcuY

Ireland lose again with Barnes as ref. Its getting ridiculous now. 3 wins in the last 13 games v Barnes. Really hope we don't get him for any WC games.

Joe Schmidt also has issues with Barnes:

http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/international/joe-schmidt-has-issues-with-wayne-barnes-over-scrum-calls-1.2145742

Graham Henry also suspects something isnt quite right about Barnes' lopsided officiating too

http://www.theroar.com.au/2012/07/31/graham-henrys-final-word-on-suspected-match-fixing-in-rwc-2007/

captain carrantuohil wrote:

Recent events should tell you that the internet is no protection from defamation actions. There's a world of difference between saying that Ref X shouldn't be reffing country Y and claiming that Ref X is being less than honest in the way that he discharges his duty. If you doubt me, try saying it repeatedly in public.

It's what happened with Rolland though, didn't it, captain.  I doubt he ever got much change out of the scurrilous stuff being suggested about him.  And not just by the Welsh!  Not Just By The Welsh.
Rolland often came under the radar of open suspicion because he.........................................em.............................. could speak French and was Irish - a double whammy of suspicion often aired openly and without any regard for a word called 'defamation'.

Do we here in 606 just remember yesterday????  Our collective long terms memories seem to stop on Yesterday.

OH NO we've never suggested Refs have been biased!!!!!!
OH YES you did!!!
OH NO we didn't!
OH YES you did!

It's pantomime - but it's also deja vu.

All these ref threads are always deja vu.

yappysnap wrote:I thought in rugby, only the captain should speak to the ref.

All that video shows is that SOB doesn't know this simple fact.

Neither does Brown. Perhaps they could sit together in Ref Etiquette class??

Splitting hairs can be an expensive business, Secret. On this thread, at least two posters have openly accused the poor fool of being wanting in honesty or impartiality and have suggested that it benefited him with his employer so to behave. That is asking for a legal suit and I would rather that this site, with all its imperfections, didn't get into financial trouble that it can't afford.

Sin é wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

captain carrantuohil wrote:Barnes was incompetent back in 2007 as well, by the way. Despite that, it was a bit annoying that every New Zealander and his wife chose to focus on that rather than the fact that it should not have been beyond the wit of man to manoeuvre the ball into a position where a dropped goal would have rendered 'Wayne the wanton whistle's' usual exhibition of cluelessness moot. At least that result cost Harry Findlay millions - look on it as a valuable bit of community service.

Same applies to other Barnes games - he's hopeless, but predictably so, and few sides have actually lost a game solely because he doesn't know his backside from a ukelele.

...you mean in the same way that top players like Sexton, Murray, reported on these pages as the best on the globe in their positions could have avoided the result by not playing like second raters? Why doesn't Sexton, Murray or some other player in just as good a position get their own dedicated 'post' as Mr Barnes has? Was his Failures any worse than theirs? The difference being, that they actually wanted Ireland to win and performed poorly. Logically, Barnes didn't give a stuff who won.

So point taken in a hypocritical way.

Do you understand what refereeing is?

If one player goes off his feet for one team and the ref gives a penalty, a good ref will do exactly the same thing if a player from the opposition team goes off their feet.

It was in the interests of Barnes' employers (RFU) that Wales won.

geez, so it's not just incompetence...its a conspiracy?

Man they must have been soooo interested in 07 then. Wasn't just one foot, it was an omission of 20 or so penalties and a try that 100% would not have been given today under the most biased or highly paid TMO. (But of course we should have negated aaaallll that with a droppie)

Did Barnes leave the stadium in a new Bentley? let it go...and focus on performance... only time and humour heals the Barnes-like episodes, as 8 years later, he's not changed it seems...

(easy to say when its not your side I know)...

This is why we love beating the Irish.

and come on Scotland!

I will say again. As a neutral I saw 2 team cynically trying to slow the ball down and ignoring the red. Terrible first half.

Second half. Two team rolling away. Fast. Fun game

Equally reffed and no favourism by team. (just team going foward)

captain carrantuohil wrote:Splitting hairs can be an expensive business, Secret. On this thread, at least two posters have openly accused the poor fool of being wanting in honesty or impartiality and have suggested that it benefited him with his employer so to behave. That is asking for a legal suit and I would rather that this site, with all its imperfections, didn't get into financial trouble that it can't afford.

Can't the forum (or ISP) just pass on the poster(s)' details to any complainants? Not sure how the Defamation Bill works these days.


IMO users should be reponsible for their own content (with sensible moderation).


Having said that, I don't think those posters truly believe what they are alleging and would soon back down under a bit of proper scrunity

If a proper complaint arises against any branch of the media, Cyril, it's not just the writer of the offending article that goes into bat against m'learned friends. It's the host/agent/carrier as well. The short history of cyberspace shows us that users of the web should never be responsible for their own content - it's just asking for strife. That's why there are moderators.

Yeah, I realise the forum takes responsibility too.

Probably best to remove all the libellous tripe (without ruining the fun!) before it gets to that. I'm sure we'd rather jettison a couple of ne'er-do-wells than lose the forum.

wolfball wrote:

captain carrantuohil wrote:No, Barnes isn't biased but he is incompetent.

Agreed. During our 2.4million phases, there were maybe 6 incidents, that I was shocked we didn't get pinged for a penalty. Wales had 2 yellows, and a penalty try, all well deserved in my eyes, and all given by Barnes. But he makes just plain weird decisions that display his incompetentcy (Wales not getting some justified penalties throughout the second half, and the series of decisions over the last 3 mins of the match regarding the scrum and maul that some could argue cost us a draw - i say we cost ourselves alot more then that.... ) but he's not biased against us, he's just incompetent. When someone who knows as little about the technical aspects of rugby as quinsforever is singing his praises, you have a pretty big indication of his competence

what a pathetic little man you are.

the only reason the game was enjoyable to watch in the second half was that Barnes correctly punished each cynical attempt to slow down the ball in the first half, by whichever team did it.

i'm sure you'd prefer him to let everything slide, like joubert does, as that would have suited ireland's relative difficulty crossing the whitewash, but he called the whole first half technically correctly.

mcgrath twice and POC in the first 15 minutes, when "rolling away" from the ruck, did so in the direction of the welsh line in such a way that they made it difficult for Webb to step over them. That was utterly cynical and premeditated and Barnes noticed it. hence his comments. If ireland stop trying to find new ways to get an advantage at the breakdown that push the boundaries of the laws, then we wouldnt need a referee to be blowing his whistle all the time.

regarding the off the feet stuff. its fine for players to be off their feet in the clearout contest. it is not fine for the to compete for the ball if they are off their feet. it is not fine for them to seal off the ball, or make it hard for quick ball to come out, by going off their feet.

all this whining really is pathetic. barnes got most of that game spot on. the last two minutes were a bit dodge i agree, but he cant give a penalty try unless he is 100% clear a try was deliberately prevented.

captain carrantuohil wrote:Splitting hairs can be an expensive business, Secret. On this thread, at least two posters have openly accused the poor fool of being wanting in honesty or impartiality and have suggested that it benefited him with his employer so to behave. That is asking for a legal suit and I would rather that this site, with all its imperfections, didn't get into financial trouble that it can't afford.

I say Not For The First time. I say this site would become a Legal magnet for many claims if all such events are brought to the attention of the legal profession. You must travel the site before using this alone as an example of a thread that travels a thin line between accusing a ref of incompetence and accusing them of being corrupt.

SecretFly wrote:

yappysnap wrote:I thought in rugby, only the captain should speak to the ref.

All that video shows is that SOB doesn't know this simple fact.

Neither does Brown.  Perhaps they could sit together in Ref Etiquette class??

brown addressed the touch judge. not precisely the same.

Cyril wrote:Yeah, I realise the forum takes responsibility too.

Probably best to remove all the libellous tripe (without ruining the fun!) before it gets to that. I'm sure we'd rather jettison a couple of ne'er-do-wells than lose the forum.

I'd hate to see you go, Cyril. But I suppose in the interests of the Borg Collective................... I'd have to accept with a heavy heart.

I only got as far as the Lydiate off his feet example and gave up on this as a load of b*ll*cks, at no point is he actually off his feet before the ball is recycled, whereas Sexton dives clean over the top of a ruck whilst the ball is unplayable.
Sour grapes, conspiracy theorist extraordinaire!

Riskysports wrote:I will say again. As a neutral I saw 2 team cynically trying to slow the ball down and ignoring the red. Terrible first half.

Second half. Two team rolling away. Fast. Fun game

Equally reffed and no favourism by team. (just team going foward)

hear hear. although obviously you must be as technically incompetent as wolfball claims i am if you come to that conclusion...

SecretFly wrote:

Cyril wrote:Yeah, I realise the forum takes responsibility too.

Probably best to remove all the libellous tripe (without ruining the fun!) before it gets to that. I'm sure we'd rather jettison a couple of ne'er-do-wells than lose the forum.

I'd hate to see you go, Cyril.  But I suppose in the interests of the Borg Collective................... I'd have to accept with a heavy heart.

Careful, or you'll find yourself posting on JA606 (remember that!?) before bedtime.

quinsforever wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

yappysnap wrote:I thought in rugby, only the captain should speak to the ref.

All that video shows is that SOB doesn't know this simple fact.

Neither does Brown.  Perhaps they could sit together in Ref Etiquette class??

brown addressed the touch judge. not precisely the same.

He acted like a footballer.  Nasty stuff.  Isn't that one of the topics of this season - that we discourage players that are beginning to act like footballers???

Now, he's less a health hazard than moaning SOB?

You see if some of you were more rounded in your criticisms, I'd be much more interested in the debates.  Rounded means you see where the offence has occurred in your own side, in your own statements (past or present), in your own opinions (past or present) as much as you see it all over the opposition.

I thought "rounded criticism" was having a go at Ben Morgan's waistline...

Cyril wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Cyril wrote:Yeah, I realise the forum takes responsibility too.

Probably best to remove all the libellous tripe (without ruining the fun!) before it gets to that. I'm sure we'd rather jettison a couple of ne'er-do-wells than lose the forum.

I'd hate to see you go, Cyril.  But I suppose in the interests of the Borg Collective................... I'd have to accept with a heavy heart.

Careful, or you'll find yourself posting on JA606 (remember that!?) before bedtime.

That's where the bad boys posted to themselves in their isolated Penal Colony? I always wanted to get in...

In isolation or not, Secret, it's irrelevant.

Let's posit a different example - in my line of work, I couldn't afford the suggestion to be made on the internet that professionally, I was not capable of conducting mysef with honesty at all times, regardless of the accompanying circumstances. If someone were to suggest otherwise, you bet your life that I would be consulting a brief. The fact that a competitor of mine may have chosen to act differently in a case where the words chosen were less blatantly defamatory is neither here nor there.

You may find that this site WILL become a magnet for that kind of reaction if it is judged that the site is sufficiently popular that it affects someone's line of work. The line can be thin at times, I agree. In this case, it is blatantly obvious that it has been transgressed.

captain carrantuohil wrote:In isolation or not, Secret, it's irrelevant.

Let's posit a different example - in my line of work, I couldn't afford the suggestion to be made on the internet that professionally, I was not capable of conducting mysef with honesty at all times, regardless of the accompanying circumstances. If someone were to suggest otherwise, you bet your life that I would be consulting a brief. The fact that a competitor of mine may have chosen to act differently in a case where the words chosen were less blatantly defamatory is neither here nor there.

You may find that this site WILL become a magnet for that kind of reaction if it is judged that the site is sufficiently popular that it affects someone's line of work. The line can be thin at times, I agree. In this case, it is blatantly obvious that it has been transgressed.

I repeat Captain.  You overvalue this particular thread as an example of 'Obvious'.  You would need to do a more thorough hoover of the site and threads to unearth 'obvious' and see no moderator control attached to it.

The site is already dabbling in places where 'transgression' might be an appropriate word before today and before a discussion on this particular referee.  So continue to advance the warnings but perhaps the policy should be that you'd ask the moderators/administrators to better scan the pages for all such incidents and drop red ink warnings onto all such threads?

SecretFly wrote:

Cyril wrote:Yeah, I realise the forum takes responsibility too.

Probably best to remove all the libellous tripe (without ruining the fun!) before it gets to that. I'm sure we'd rather jettison a couple of ne'er-do-wells than lose the forum.

I'd hate to see you go, Cyril. But I suppose in the interests of the Borg Collective................... I'd have to accept with a heavy heart.

The forum only has responsibility if Barnes asks for it to be removed and the forum does not do so.

SecretFly wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

yappysnap wrote:I thought in rugby, only the captain should speak to the ref.

All that video shows is that SOB doesn't know this simple fact.

Neither does Brown.  Perhaps they could sit together in Ref Etiquette class??

brown addressed the touch judge. not precisely the same.

He acted like a footballer.  Nasty stuff.  Isn't that one of the topics of this season - that we discourage players that are beginning to act like footballers???

Now, he's less a health hazard than moaning SOB?

You see if some of you were more rounded in your criticisms, I'd be much more interested in the debates.  Rounded means you see where the offence has occurred in your own side, in your own statements (past or present), in your own opinions (past or present) as much as you see it all over the opposition.

whatever.

if the scoreline was determined by number of words spoken by players other than the captain to the entire officiating team, ireland would win every match hands down.

there is no prohibition on players talking to the touch judge by the way. wingers and people on the other side of scrums from referees all do it as they are trying to query or draw attention to things, and it doesnt interfere with the game as the ref isnt distracted.

so what you actually mean is that you just dont like brown's passion? yet it's admirable when it's POM's? gotcha. double standards day today.

TJ wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Cyril wrote:Yeah, I realise the forum takes responsibility too.

Probably best to remove all the libellous tripe (without ruining the fun!) before it gets to that. I'm sure we'd rather jettison a couple of ne'er-do-wells than lose the forum.

I'd hate to see you go, Cyril.  But I suppose in the interests of the Borg Collective................... I'd have to accept with a heavy heart.

The forum only has responsibility if Barnes asks for it to be removed and the forum does not do so.

the RFU might ask for it to be removed too given some of the comments implicating them too!

There is also defense on libel in various forms and its almost always bad for the libelled person to sue as the libel gets spread more widely. If it was the BBC then maybe but an obscure sports forum - I doubt there is any issue

It wouldn't be a bad idea if they did, Secret. The boxing board, my other frequent place of lodging on this site, tends to be a bit more proactive in such matters.

I don't really have the time or inclination to go trawling through every example of clear defamation to appear on these pages over the past five years. Nor do I have the time to ascertain which moderators are playing out today. It so happened that I was looking at this thread, which contained more than one egregious example of defamation. I don't doubt that this may have been typical over the years. As I say, if I were the bloke being spoken of in such terms, I would be doing more than dropping red ink warnings over the site.

As to the powers that be, they have eyes to see and will do what they want about it.

quinsforever wrote:

if the scoreline was determined by number of words spoken by players other than the captain to the entire officiating team, ireland would win every match hands down.

there is no prohibition on players talking to the touch judge by the way. wingers and people on the other side of scrums from referees all do it as they are trying to query or draw attention to things, and it doesnt interfere with the game as the ref isnt distracted.

so what you actually mean is that you just dont like brown's passion? yet it's admirable when it's POM's? gotcha. double standards day today.

Christ quins.  Do you ever stop.  Ireland this, Ireland that.  Ireland fascinates you.

Keep to the topic though.  You can't bring yourself to say it, can you?  SOB's moans are moans, Brown's are exposed snarled teeth at an official.  

SOB's is worse because he's a bloody big moaner, he's part of a moaning sect called Ireland, and he has an Irish passport?

Fine.  Carry on, quins.  That PRL/IRFU/McCaff year really left a big scar.

This is the google generation, TJ. You wouldn't need to search too hard to find this site and what it thinks of Barnes. That's thousands of people for a start. At what point does it become an issue?

neither is better or worse. you randomly brought brown into the discussion when someone made a comment about SOB. yet now you get all huffy when i return the lens back onto the irish team, part of the subject of the thread?

england werent refereed by wayne barnes you know

captain carrantuohil wrote:It wouldn't be a bad idea if they did, Secret. The boxing board, my other frequent place of lodging on this site, tends to be a bit more proactive in such matters.

I don't really have the time or inclination to go trawling through every example of clear defamation to appear on these pages over the past five years. Nor do I have the time to ascertain which moderators are playing out today. It so happened that I was looking at this thread, which contained more than one egregious example of defamation. I don't doubt that this may have been typical over the years. As I say, if I were the bloke being spoken of in such terms, I would be doing more than dropping red ink warnings over the site.

As to the powers that be, they have eyes to see and will do what they want about it.

oh you wouldn't have to trawl through years or months, captain.  Weeks would do.  You wouldn't even have to leave the rugby section.

But no, I wouldn't put you to the task of doing the mods and admins work for them - not but you're threatening you might do Barnes' work for him -

But a fair few of us here would be of the same opinion as you.  Examples of "Egregious examples of defamation" plot the landscape at times.  But I've decided instead to leave the referees to marshall their own reputations and I get on with my own biz.

quinsforever wrote:neither is better or worse. you randomly brought brown into the discussion when someone made a comment about SOB. yet now you get all huffy when i return the lens back onto the irish team, part of the subject of the thread?

england werent refereed by wayne barnes you know

Someone randomly brought SOB into the conversation for a little harmless stabby banter point. I added Brown for banter balance. I do it all the time. Add stuff for balance.

Like I always remind you, it's you who seem to have lost your funny bone through last year and into this one. It's a pity too. You were once quite light and fun. Now, it's heavy 24 hours a day - usually in our direction.

Fly, i'm not bitter about the HC stuff. Worked out the way i said it would. And newsflash - PRL just renegotiated a great TV deal with BT....

https://www.606v2.com/t58190-prl-announces-new-bt-sport-tv-deal-which-will-increase-revenues-80#2965006

Politely put, Secret and I take on board your wish that I should cultivate my own garden. I just find it annoying after a while that a thread that started with a libel and has now gone through three pages hasn't received the slightest attention from those whose task it is to adjudicate on such things.

Looks like a death wish to me but I shall quite properly keep these things to myself from now on.

SecretFly wrote:

quinsforever wrote:neither is better or worse. you randomly brought brown into the discussion when someone made a comment about SOB. yet now you get all huffy when i return the lens back onto the irish team, part of the subject of the thread?

england werent refereed by wayne barnes you know

Someone randomly brought SOB into the conversation for a little harmless stabby banter point.  I added Brown for banter balance.  I do it all the time.  Add stuff for balance.  

Like I always remind you, it's you who seem to have lost your funny bone through last year and into this one.  It's a pity too.  You were once quite light and fun.  Now, it's heavy 24 hours a day - usually in our direction.

when one of the first posts i read on the thread is from that witless tube wolfball being personally offensive towards me when i havent been anywhere near the thread (what a chickensh1t to post about someone and hope they dont read it or reply), it's unlikely my "light touch" is going to be the one i choose to employ.

quinsforever wrote:Fly, i'm not bitter about the HC stuff. Worked out the way i said it would. And newsflash - PRL just renegotiated a great TV deal with BT....

https://www.606v2.com/t58190-prl-announces-new-bt-sport-tv-deal-which-will-increase-revenues-80#2965006

Okay...you're not still bitter.  I'd like it to be true.

Another thing the PRL are thinking about is ending that old-fashioned Promotion/Relegation??  Didn't we have our conversation when you rubbished that idea as something that will strictly belong to the bog-trot Pro12 league?
And another thing the PRL are thinking about is the cap ending of course.  Didn't we have some conversations about that too when I said it would happen and I was again called a fool for even bringing it up?

You see?  I can't help myself - I add counter banter stuff for balance.  Can't have an unbalanced ship.  We'd all sink....   Some of us would love if some of us did, that's why there is never enough life belts!!!!  I smell another conspiracy!

quinsforever wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

quinsforever wrote:neither is better or worse. you randomly brought brown into the discussion when someone made a comment about SOB. yet now you get all huffy when i return the lens back onto the irish team, part of the subject of the thread?

england werent refereed by wayne barnes you know

Someone randomly brought SOB into the conversation for a little harmless stabby banter point.  I added Brown for banter balance.  I do it all the time.  Add stuff for balance.  

Like I always remind you, it's you who seem to have lost your funny bone through last year and into this one.  It's a pity too.  You were once quite light and fun.  Now, it's heavy 24 hours a day - usually in our direction.

when one of the first posts i read on the thread is from that witless tube wolfball being personally offensive towards me when i havent been anywhere near the thread (what a chickensh1t to post about someone and hope they dont read it or reply), it's unlikely my "light touch" is going to be the one i choose to employ.

Don't blame me for Wolf - and I won't blame you for the trouble maker Cyril

PRL are trying to end a situation where London welsh concede 1,000 points in a season and score only a single measly bonus point.

they are talking about ring-fencing it temporarily at 14 clubs i believe. not sure for how long. i think they could avoid a LW situation personally by getting rid of the Championship playoffs. If a team were as dominant as Bristol were last season they should have gotten promoted, rather than risk LW sneaking it on the basis of a playoff. after all, even England beat NZ in 2012, which to my mind was a similarly unlikely outcome as LW beating Bristol last year.

no-one is talking about ending the cap. if you read the article it says the cap will likely be increased in line with the increase in central revenues.

Fly, give Quinns a break. He is just really peed off that his club had to hire an Irishman to clean up their image

quinsforever wrote:

no-one is talking about ending the cap. if you read the article it says the cap will likely be increased in line with the increase in central revenues.

It'll end in all but name, quins. In time, it'll end. Gotta 'compete' with those dastardly French.

But that's a conversation I'm well and truly exhausted by and have lost total interest in. I talked myself out on it. We'll leave it there.

Sin é wrote:Fly, give Quinns a break. He is just really peed off that his club had to hire an Irishman to clean up their image

a tissue could have done that.

SecretFly wrote:

Gwlad wrote:And if Barnes was 'cheating' i.e. he had an agenda to pro due a welsh result, then why give a penalty try?

If you're controlling a game, you can give whatever you want to keep the hounds of suspicion off your doorstep, Gwlad.  Had he been consistent, he'd have given the other one too.  But whatever, the only fact that remains is that he didn't quite manage to offload the hounds of suspicion.

Even you would have to admit that's some personal record he has with Irish sides in the win/loss ratio.

Yes like in 2009 when he conspired to prevent Ireland winning in Cardiff for a Grand Slam by giving SJ a last ditch pen on half way, damn him for not seeing Heaslip move his left testicle and therefore preventing a 2nd attempt.

You nailed it again cacti.

Now you're getting it, Gwlad - you took your sweet time though.

You found the gas station and are on your way to the more remote areas of the sphere of influence.

Enjoy the journey.

SecretFly wrote:Now you're getting it, Gwlad - you took your sweet time though.  

You found the gas station and are on your way to the more remote areas of the sphere of influence.

Enjoy the journey.

Congratulations on your lamest reply yet, the grand Slam of lameness

Who said vegetables don't have brains.

Oh Dear............. still sword fighting with your own shadow?

Careful with the blade. I know it's blunt but I'm sure someone like you could still suffer a serious self inflicted wound.

captain carrantuohil wrote:This is the google generation, TJ. You wouldn't need to search too hard to find this site and what it thinks of Barnes. That's thousands of people for a start. At what point does it become an issue?

When Barnes complains to the owners of the board. then they have to take it down. Plenty of case law on this

SecretFly wrote:

 

Oh Dear............. still sword fighting with your own shadow?

Careful with the blade.  I know it's blunt but I'm sure someone like you could still suffer a serious self inflicted wound.

no my reply was directed to you and because you are clearly some sort of intellectual narcissist you think coming back with lame off message retort about self harm has any effect whatsoever

Like i said, cacti and pricks go hand in hand

You are one of the finest examples of the species i have had the misfortune to meet, but nevertheless a perfect example of a knob cacti.

And you're a guy who got a shock that someone wouldn't take a step back but rather hunt you down.  The intended Prey became the Hunter and it makes you uncomfortable because you like your mouth to shine in the old slimy, sneering put-downs.

I eat people like you for breakfast, Gwlad.  So if you want a quite life in future, keep your smart tongue behind your teeth, because I'm better at the show you tried to play.

You've been tapping around for a good few days looking for bites. You got it.

Are we all done here?

Yeah, we're done.

fly, you used to have such a light touch. recently however you cant seem to see anything but the worst in everyone's posts.

maybe you still havent recovered from the heineken cup rearrangements?

Some Irish covering themselves in glory again, reminds me of BODgate . Not going to comment on the video, as what I would say has already been said by numerous posters. But I do ask why it was posted here? On this forum we get some posters (like myself for example) that talk a lot of sense. There is absolutely none of that in the video clip, so that pretty much puts you on the authors low lever Guns...unless you are the author, even worse. This Irish anti-Barnes tirade has gotten ridiculous, let it go guys. Accept for Woody and Quinlan, eat your fat slice of humble pie and then let it go . There's two guys who have been pretty quiet since Saturday .

Fly...sometimes I think you're trying to bore posters to death. Gotta be honest, I tend to switch off when I get half way through your posts , quit waffling.