Dr John Dee

Naive is probably too generous. Do you have any idea of the history of racism? Do you have any idea of the history of the language of racism? Words like 'monkey' used by a white person about a black person are used to degrade by suggesting that the latter is subhuman/primitive/'just down from the trees' and so on. Your description of George Bush as a monkey has got nothing to do with this, it's got nothing to do with the colour of his skin and it's got nothing to do with racism, just as a black person describing another black person as a monkey wouldn't either, although because of the specific history of the word there probably wouldn't be too many who'd choose to use it about someone else anyway. And no you're not trying to get at the fundamental question of racism at all. Trying to separate racism from the language and symbols and behaviours through which it's enacted isn't just naive, it's stupid.

I've had real problems, not just with speed but with functions as well, using a Safari browser but changed this morning to Firefox and it's a bit better, but still slow.

You probably meant 'If the answer is "yes" ...' but the statement would be just as ridiculous. There are different ways - with different histories - of using words like ape and monkey and chimpanzee etc. When they're used about black people, the meaning is clear enough and it's got nothing to do with whether anyone does or doesn't look like an ape or monkey or chimpanzee. By your logic (if that's what it is) it's perfectly ok for soccer crowds in Europe to make monkey noises at black players because anyone can have monkey noises made at them. For someone who was claiming elsewhere a higher knowledge/understanding of Aboriginal experience, you're pretty bloody naive.

I was referring to Collins' familiarity with the long history of oppression in Ireland as well as his own experience of it. And if you're suggesting in the reference to a particular group that Aborigines are somehow getting special treatment in having Goodes' objections to racist language aired, then I think you're probably further from the spirit of Michael Collins than you first appeared.

No, you'd just need a bit of knowledge about the history of the use of such terms with racist connotations, or a bit of experience of it (as Goodes pointed out he'd had in the past). I'd expect a bit more understanding of the oppressive uses of language from someone calling himself Michael Collins, but there you go.

How long for? My eyes are getting tired.

You're probably missing the point, Chook. There's a difference between judging someone for what they are (e.g. for their race, ethnicity, colour of their hair) and what they do (murder, rape, umpire football games). There's no 'characteristic' to murderers that can be prejudged.

'fledgling club'? Wonder what that makes all those other clubs that aren't 150 years old.

And blame your lecturers when you get 28.4%

What kind of cross-species perversions have been going on in this genealogy?

Point is, he wasn't speaking in the third person.

Never too early for a spot of Watts-bashing though. But the first person plural in all this isn't just a piece of trivial pedantry. Macca's point about collective responsibility is much more important.

Um, 'we': first person plural.

I'm usually left leaning on a bench after too much gherkin dip; although maybe that has something to do with the vodka.

True, but having the energy for the job is another matter: Tom appeared on the sidewalk with a bucket of whitewash and a long-handled brush. He surveyed the fence, and all gladness left him and a deep melancholy settled down upon his spirit. Thirty yards of board fence nine feet high. Life to him seemed hollow, and existence but a burden. Sighing, he dipped his brush and passed it along the topmost plank; repeated the operation; did it again; compared the insignificant whitewashed streak with the far-reaching continent of unwhitewashed fence, and sat down on a tree-box discouraged. (Mark Twain: Tom Sawyer 1876)

That headline is weasel words in action: continuing to insinuate the MFC's guilt, but allowing the lawyers to argue that the "Demons" are only Bailey and Connolly. Pathetic really.

What, so they've got Biff on CCTV?

What if it's only a weak joke? Will we be able to negotiate a reduced penalty?

Or Malcolm Tucker. LOL.

I'd love to know. All we keep getting is "it is believed that" and "reports say" so for the time being I'm assuming nothing. As to the defence issue, perhaps I was a bit too cryptic, but a lot of discussion has gone down this path already about the "they did it too" issue. There's not much of a case in that. Where there is a case is, as you say, in accepted practice and if that is established it's a different matter because it relies on what has been condoned rather than what has been done ... hence my focus on the AFL rather than us or other teams.

Didn't say it did. Didn't say it would. My point was about the competence of the AFL. Addressing that might help everyone in the long term.

It might be coincidence but it's a good thing I'm seeing an opthalmologist tomorrow. I've put the termagant's posts on block, but I keep seeing his nonsense popping up anyway in the midst of what others have to say. Hopefully new glasses might fix that.

We'll soon know the views of every man and his dog, but what about the one who started it all, Blind Freddy? Do we know what he thinks yet?

No, it's not a defence and never has been. But it's a pretty persuasive reason for extending investigations. Given the way things are going, with the drugs issue and now Brisbane, the only people who are going to need a defence soon are the AFL and showing some competence with how they go about things might actually strike them as a good idea.

You may want to constitute exchanges on these threads as looking for a fight. I dont. You may want to stoop to ignorant personal abuse to seize your victory in whatever fight you imagine is taking place. And you may want to extend your ignorance by characterising my response as over-reaction. How do you know what my circumstances are and what is or isnt an over-reaction? You made things personal because youd run out of wit (assuming sarcasm to be any form of wit in the first place). Talk about glass jaws. But dont be surprised when you get a response at the personal level if you want to summon it up. I think it's best if I deal with your perpetual unpleasantness by making the ignore button is the best option.