Symonds this time crosses the line

[Swervy]

The monkey chants were arround too,somebody explained that these chants were in celebration of a monkey god.
Where does the term a_______hole come from.Who explained to him that those terms were celebrating a god?

It is deliberately assocaited in a sarcastic and sensationalist way as i have already explained.He could have said that in a different way as i said in my previous post if you could comprehend preoperly.

Symonds implies that elements of the crowd were calling the Aussies arse holes ("Whether it was Aussies suck or Aussies are a---holes, it was clear who the villains were in this stadium (Wankhede),")

 

[Richard]

Why are people bothering to argue this?

 

[Cevno]

Symonds implies that elements of the crowd were calling the Aussies arse holes ("Whether it was Aussies suck or Aussies are a---holes, it was clear who the villains were in this stadium (Wankhede),")

1)A element of crowd was calling the whoel aussie team a_______-hole.

2)There were monkey chants too.

3)Somebody allegedly explained that these monkey chants were meant as a celebration of god incorrectly.


Now ,from where does he imply that the a____hole chants were a celebration of god?

I have also explained other points as to how this could have been avoided and how this is deliberately sarcastic ,sensationalsit and ignorant in previous posts.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Why did cricinfo censor that one line from their report?

 

[Richard]

Particularly odd as respectable newspapers would barely hesistate to print the word "arse". You could even change it to donkey (ass) if you want, as some people do do dumb it down.

 

[zaremba]

1)A element of crowd was calling the whoel aussie team a_______-hole.

2)There were monkey chants too.

3)Somebody allegedly explained that these monkey chants were meant as a celebration of god incorrectly.


Now ,from where does he imply that the a____hole chants were a celebration of god?

I have also explained other points as to how this could have been avoided and how this is deliberately sarcastic ,sensationalsit and ignorant in previous posts.

He's not implying that the a-hole chants were in celebration of a god! He's making a sarcastic point about the idiocy of the explanation that the monkey chants were a celebration of a god (your point (3)). And imo there's nothing wrong with a bit of healthy sarcasm.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Why are people bothering to argue this?

Same reason people argue with you...

Anyway, I'm now going to use the bullet points method that gets most things across to most maths sets...

1) Symonds is on the end of monkey chants by the crowd
2) Symonds is called an asshole by the crowd

3) The crowd behaviour is apologised for with reference to the Monkey God

4) Symonds disagrees with this, as there is no way that "assholes" can have any reference to any God

 

[zaremba]

Why are people bothering to argue this?

You're right. I've no idea. And I'm off

 

[krkode]

Same reason people argue with you...

Anyway, I'm now going to use the bullet points method that gets most things across to most maths sets...

1) Symonds is on the end of monkey chants by the crowd
2) Symonds is called an asshole by the crowd

3) The crowd behaviour is apologised for with reference to the Monkey God

4) Symonds disagrees with this, as there is no way that "assholes" can have any reference to any God

This wins.

Regardless, banning or trying Symonds for something like this (which, in and of itself, is a non-issue) is kind of silly. As has been mentioned, we're from the 21st century, not the 1st.

That said, I don't know whether Symonds' comments were sensationalist or not, but this topic sure is.

 

[Cevno]

Same reason people argue with you...

Anyway, I'm now going to use the bullet points method that gets most things across to most maths sets...

1) Symonds is on the end of monkey chants by the crowd.

Correct.

2) Symonds is called an asshole by the crowd

Incorrect.
The chants allegedly in his own words were australia suck and aussies are a____hole

3) The crowd behaviour is apologised for with reference to the Monkey God

In his own words the monkey chants were explained as celebration of god,and were apologised for allegedly with a explanation of celebration of god.
I doubt any one
a)apologised for the chanting such as "aussies suck" as they are pretty common in sport.
b)Even if they did i do not think ianyone would explain these deregatory terms with reference of god.It is symonds who establsihses a link deliberately to poke fun at the god or the people of a country in a sarcastic way.

the whole team may have allegedly been called a___holes ,but It is not as if somebody would have explained to him that those terms were meant as a celebration of god,If somebody did then he should show some balls and name him/her.

4) Symonds disagrees with this, as there is no way that "assholes" can have any reference to any God

Even if he wants to express disbelief he could easily put it as you have or i did in my prevous post,but-

But his quote that-
"Our team couldn't hide this disbelief at this - 'What particular God is called a---hole in this country?'

Is deliberately sensationalistic and ignorant.It is almost deliberately sarcastic as to insinuate in a ignorant sort of way "that what kind of country is this,or what kind of god is this" which is really disgusting.

 

[zaremba]

But his quote that-
"Our team couldn't hide this disbelief at this - 'What particular God is called a---hole in this country?'

Is deliberately sensationalistic and ignorant.It is almost deliberately sarcastic as to insinuate in a ignorant sort of way "that what kind of country is this,or what kind of god is this" which is really disgusting.

He's not saying anything of the sort

 

[Richard]

Same reason people argue with you...

Not really, though I was sure it wasn't long before someone - very possibly you - came-out with that.

 

[Cevno]

He's not implying that the a-hole chants were in celebration of a god! He's making a sarcastic point about the idiocy of the explanation that the monkey chants were a celebration of a god (your point (3)). And imo there's nothing wrong with a bit of healthy sarcasm.

He is saying "what kind of god is referred to as a_________hole?"

And you are saying that he is not connecting the a-hole chants with the god.
This type of sarcasm may be fine in australia but not in india to a large extent.

Similarly monkey is not a dergogatory term in india but it may be in australia .Does that mean harbhajan can poke fun at that in a sarcastic way?
If he wants someone to respect his feelings then he should learn to respect others too.

 

[Richard]

You're right. I've no idea. And I'm off

I think all that remains to be said is:
"Erhmun! Schwavv nav jiiij nivish jjju!"

(Which, BTW, is "ITV Digital box Munkeh!" in best Johnny Vegas style, reversed.)

 

[krkode]

And you are saying that he is not connecting the a-hole chants with the god.
This type of sarcasm may be fine in australia but not in india to a large extent.

Regardless, you need to separate what is socially unacceptable from what is legally unacceptable.

 

[Richard]

He is saying "what kind of god is referred to as a_________hole?"

And you are saying that he is not connecting the a-hole chants with the god.

Yes.

The comment is not a sarcastic one, but an ironic, rhetorical one.

This whole stupid issue would not have arisen had Symonds, instead of using rhetorical question style, used direct style. IE:
NOT: "What kind of god is referred to as aesshole?"
but: "Gods aren't referred to as aessholes."

 

[Cevno]

Regardless, you need to separate what is socially unacceptable from what is legally unacceptable.

I do not think calling someone a monkey will lead to too much trouble in india.(I have called my sister monkey so many times. )Even if in a teasing sort of way.

Calling a god such deregatory terms is likely too.

 

[zaremba]

He is saying "what kind of god is referred to as a_________hole?"

And you are saying that he is not connecting the a-hole chants with the god.
This type of sarcasm may be fine in australia but not in india to a large extent.

Similarly monkey is not a dergogatory term in india but it may be in australia .Does that mean harbhajan can poke fun at that in a sarcastic way?
If he wants someone to respect his feelings then he should learn to respect others too.

With great respect, Cevno, it's only unacceptable to you, and hurting your feelings, because you're continuing to misunderstand what he's saying.

I'm not going to try to answer each point in your post because I have to admit I don't understand them. All I can say is that others have explained, in my view accurately, what Symonds meant, and I'd suggest you re-read those posts.

 

[Cevno]

Yes.

The comment is not a sarcastic one, but an ironic, rhetorical one.

This whole stupid issue would not have arisen had Symonds, instead of using rhetorical question style, used direct style. IE:
NOT: "What kind of god is referred to as aesshole?"
but: "Gods aren't referred to as aessholes."

But then he would not make his book famous ,by playing on other people's faith ,would he?

 

[Richard]

Much as Symonds may be a fairly nasty piece of work and a fair dimwit, I highly doubt that was his intention. It's much more likely it's simply something that will never have remotely occurred to him that he was doing.