BWitcher

Another post that shows the problems of society today. Folk getting worked up for no reason. And he didn't, so that closes that objection.

Far from beside the point as the meaning of words change.. it can equally be turned about by saying if YOU don't understand what a word means you shouldn't get upset about it.

Agreed in most circumstances, just that in this case I just don't see how anyone could link it to being offensive to anyone but Jon Cook. Anyway, hope you have a great Christmas/New Year!

Looks like it's time everyone reported Starman! Rules are rules!

Indeed, I don't think either of us is right or wrong on the issue personally. To sum up, personally I think society in general is to hung up on 'words' rather than 'meanings' if that makes sense. I was perhaps a little OTT on my earlier post, apologies to Dave the Mic for that.

By saying its an inflammatory remark you are suggesting there is something wrong with being homosexual. Give up. You said you found nothing wrong with Middleditch using the term retarded. You've been shown up to be the utter hypocrite you are. You asked for proof, you've been presented with it. Once again you are not adult enough to admit you are wrong. YOU are the one who should be banned from the forum for your constant trolling, insults and jibes when you are caught out time and time again.

Do you think if SCB had posted Jon Cook is straight anyone would have batted an eyelid or he would have been banned?

Of course not, many many people will interpret it as you have done, many others will interpret it another way. However, in no way has SCB meant any insult towards anybody with any form of mental condition. It's my belief that it's the meaning behind someones words that matters.. not the word itself, after all that's just a sound uttered by us humans. I can understand where you are coming from however and no doubt the closer you are to such a situation the more sensitive you will be.

The said post has been quoted on another thread.

He wasn't banned for name calling. He wasn't banned for being insulting. He was banned for calling someone homo-sexual, do you class that as an insult?

I see where you are coming from, but, that is your interpretation of the word. Many folk use it with no connotations towards those with mental illnesses at all, its just a term they may use when they think someone is a fool. Modern society spends too much time getting upset over things that aren't upsetting. It is simply a word, a word as I have said that different people give different meaning too. Two young relatives of mine for example think the word is solely for someone who is an idiot, they have no idea of its relation to mentally challenged/disabled people.

There is a wider question at large here. As we know, SCB wasn't banned for his original thread title, i.e. using the word retard. It was simply altered. Nor can he have been banned for the other thread he started, that's still running. Which means he was banned for saying Jon Cook was a homosexual... Thus implying that being a homosexual is an insult...Now, Jon Cook may be, he may not be... but would SCB have been banned if he had said Jon Cook is straight? I think we all know the answer to that! So basically, the decision to ban SCB can only be termed a homophobic one!

Not crap at all. It takes a warped mind to link the two as you have... Context is everything and intelligent humans can understand that. Those with issues don't and try and turn things into something they are not. You have the problem, not others. I note you have also chosen a definition to suit your case, ignoring the fact there are other definitions of the word as well. As it happens I have lost a family member who had a mentally challenged condition and as I have said on another thread if someone had called him a retard I would have been very angry about it. However he hasn't, nobody else's family has either so getting all worked up about a word used on a forum is quite simply attention seeking.

Not to forget it has been proved in Starmans case when Neil Middleditch used the word, he said there was 'nothing wrong' with it.

The whole notion of folk being offended on behalf of others in a totally different context is ridiculous. It was quite clear SCB meant no offense to any mentally challenged people in his post and was simply calling Jon Cook a name in retaliation to being called names by him. I fully agree that if anyone's friend/relative who had such issues was mentally challenged was called that word they would quite rightly be angry. However they weren't so there is no issue.

I attend more than you do I'm not boycotting the sport because a rule I don't like was made fairer.

New Science will have been referring to the 15 heat formula. Example. Cradley or Wolves 10pts down.. Hancock/Hamill ... Ermolenko/Correy in Heat 13.. 5-1.. 6down. Double tac sub in heat 14.. same pairing comes in... 5-1.. 2 pts down Same pairing in Heat 15.. 5-1.. match won.

Nice original post. I was actually trying to help you out of the hole you have dug for yourself White Knight.

So for 50 years you attended a sport that incensed you on a weekly basis.. Only when it was changed to incense you less frequently, you decided you'd had enough. Okey doke. We've got the picture. I accept that you don't like tactical rides, but I would also suggest you simply weren't enjoying the speedway as much as you had in the past and therefore the part you disliked (tacticals) over rode any enjoyment you still had.

Excellent work! That saved me a job as was going to start looking this evening. So Starman feels there is nothing wrong with calling someone retarded.

I assume you are referring to the Elite League... however..Under strength.. but stronger than the PL....Over priced, but some PL clubs charge as much.. So perhaps I assumed wrong, must be the Premier League you are talking about as that is the only league that fits your statement. My own thoughts, I don't care which league it is, they both have their good and bad points and both can provide excellent speedway.

No it isn't your exact point because you attended for 50 years.. then when it was changed to a fairer rule, you stopped going.

Don't forget the majority of the fans had long gone before playoffs, double pts came along.

No it isn't a 'statement of fact' at all. The Lakeside forum has nothing to do with it, or are you suggesting that every Lakeside fan is on their forum? Additionally, most folk aren't drama queens, they don't log onto a forum to announce they aren't going to go anymore.. they simply stop going. Besides, the potential damage isn't just at Lakeside, its across the sport as a whole Cook was right, the majority of speedway fans are thick and biased.. however, he directed his comments at those fans with the ability to think for themselves.. of which there are an ever dwindling number left following the sport. The promoters don't like such fans. Just as when CVS abused some of his fans, they were some of the most intelligent fans that followed Wolves speedway. Net result is they are lost to the spo

Nobody is arguing against that Colin. The old tac sub rule was much more fun, seeing your lesser riders beat their top guys on a tac sub ride was great... discussing when the tac subs would be used was great etc.. it gave far more tactical options to the losing team.. That isn't why WK is upset though, he's upset because he thinks tactical rules are unfair.. he just doesn't grasp that what he watched for nigh on 50 years operated a tactical system that gave far more options to the losing team and as a result was more unfair to the winning team. Hence him boycotting the sport on the premise of 'fairness' makes absolutely no sense at all.