One-Eyed Richmond Forum
General => General Discussion => Topic started by: 🏅Dooks on January 19, 2016, 12:57:34 PM
-
Mel McLaughlin slammed on social media for 'double standards' for saying she'd buy Mark Waugh a drink
Thoughts?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3404965/Chris-Gayle-smashes-four-sixes-row-match-record-fastest-half-century-Twenty20-history.html
-
WGAF
:cheers
-
Well now you know how everyone feels about your posts in the politics thread.
:cheers
-
Mark Waugh.... :bow
-
Mel McLaughlin slammed on social media for 'double standards' for saying she'd buy Mark Waugh a drink
Thoughts?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3404965/Chris-Gayle-smashes-four-sixes-row-match-record-fastest-half-century-Twenty20-history.html
I thought that's what she said but wasn't 100% sure
She was incredibly flustered after she called Mark Waugh; Damien Fleming.
So she then mumbled and fumbled her way through things apologising and then made the comment about buying him a drink but sort of stopped mid sentence and tappered off
Seemed to lose the plot completely at that point :lol
KP was great though got things back on track. MW tried too as well but he comes across as clueless too at times so he didn't really help
Though IMHO she seems to have struggled since the Gayle thing, in that she seems to be trying too hard to make sure she doesn't say something that may cause a social media meltdown and in the process she is coming across as being out of her depth
Can understand the carry on because of what happened with Gayle, was always going to happen
But who really cares
-
You care cause type heaps
-
Total crap.
Both incidents are completely different.
Gayle hit on her and asked her out - some might say he even objectified her a little.
McLaughlin just offered Waugh a drink to make up for getting his name wrong.
Both incidents are also quite garbage and poorly handled.
And if she doesn't know who Mark Waugh is why is she commentating the cricket? We know why...
-
Yet, in both situations, she exuded poor journalistic skills. Add to that the inability to
get out of the unprofessional circumstances she puts HERSELF in.
At the end of the day, she's a poohouse journo and it's awkward watching her, let alon having to deal with the fallout of what is largely due to her sub par qualifications.
How's the fake, deep, feigned authoritive voice she uses!
-
Yet, in both situations, she exuded poor journalistic skills. Add to that the inability to
get out of the unprofessional circumstances she puts HERSELF in.
At the end of the day, she's a poohouse journo and it's awkward watching her, let alon having to deal with the fallout of what is largely due to her sub par qualifications.
How's the fake, deep, feigned authoritive voice she uses!
I thought she was quite professional in the first instance, insofar as she was asking a question regarding the cricket and was given a response totally off topic (regardless of the overtly salacious responses) she was able to get the interview back on track.
2nd instance, well, wasn't great but every journo stuffs up from time to time.
The two instances are not at all comparable, people just looking for any reason to justify their dumb, antiquated points of view.
-
Yet, in both situations, she exuded poor journalistic skills. Add to that the inability to
get out of the unprofessional circumstances she puts HERSELF in.
At the end of the day, she's a poohouse journo and it's awkward watching her, let alon having to deal with the fallout of what is largely due to her sub par qualifications.
How's the fake, deep, feigned authoritive voice she uses!
The two instances are not at all comparable, people just looking for any reason to justify their dumb, antiquated points of view.
What do you mean?
-
Total crap.
Both incidents are completely different.
Gayle hit on her and asked her out - some might say he even objectified her a little.
McLaughlin just offered Waugh a drink to make up for getting his name wrong.
Both incidents are also quite garbage and poorly handled.
And if she doesn't know who Mark Waugh is why is she commentating the cricket? We know why...
Sounds more similar than completely different
-
Yet, in both situations, she exuded poor journalistic skills. Add to that the inability to
get out of the unprofessional circumstances she puts HERSELF in.
At the end of the day, she's a poohouse journo and it's awkward watching her, let alon having to deal with the fallout of what is largely due to her sub par qualifications.
How's the fake, deep, feigned authoritive voice she uses!
The two instances are not at all comparable, people just looking for any reason to justify their dumb, antiquated points of view.
What do you mean?
You honestly don't see the difference between the two?
-
Yet, in both situations, she exuded poor journalistic skills. Add to that the inability to
get out of the unprofessional circumstances she puts HERSELF in.
At the end of the day, she's a poohouse journo and it's awkward watching her, let alon having to deal with the fallout of what is largely due to her sub par qualifications.
How's the fake, deep, feigned authoritive voice she uses!
The two instances are not at all comparable, people just looking for any reason to justify their dumb, antiquated points of view.
What do you mean?
You honestly don't see the difference between the two?
It's ok.
We understand what you're trying to say.
It's just that you're wrong.
No need to project.
-
Yet, in both situations, she exuded poor journalistic skills. Add to that the inability to
get out of the unprofessional circumstances she puts HERSELF in.
At the end of the day, she's a poohouse journo and it's awkward watching her, let alon having to deal with the fallout of what is largely due to her sub par qualifications.
How's the fake, deep, feigned authoritive voice she uses!
The two instances are not at all comparable, people just looking for any reason to justify their dumb, antiquated points of view.
What do you mean?
You honestly don't see the difference between the two?
I just found your last sentence confusing in the context of the first few. But now I get what you are trying to say
-
Yet, in both situations, she exuded poor journalistic skills. Add to that the inability to
get out of the unprofessional circumstances she puts HERSELF in.
At the end of the day, she's a poohouse journo and it's awkward watching her, let alon having to deal with the fallout of what is largely due to her sub par qualifications.
How's the fake, deep, feigned authoritive voice she uses!
The two instances are not at all comparable, people just looking for any reason to justify their dumb, antiquated points of view.
What do you mean?
You honestly don't see the difference between the two?
I just found your last sentence confusing in the context of the first few. But now I get what you are trying to say
:thumbsup
-
For all you Gayle-hating, feminist-loving, weak-as-pee, politically correct, lemming apologists - go suck on the biggest hypocrisy-pole you can find. And I won't even start on my opinions of 2 prize f*^%wits - Wilkinson and Stefanovic (formed well before this latest true-to-nature, holier-than-thou display):
Chris Isaak hit on Lisa Wilkinson on the Today show during his 2008 interview. She asked him what he loved about Australia, he replied "your complexion and your eyes", he was directly speaking to Lisa. What happens next is shockingly UNPROFESSIONAL by the entire Today show cast. Karl immediately jumps up to allow Chris to move closer to Lisa. In fact, Lisa, who is a married woman, ends up sitting on Chris's lap. Chris says "I think we can go to break right now". Richard comments "He gets the ladies the old fashioned way, he grabs them on national television." Lisa wants mints, Chris snuggles into Lisa, Karl makes reference to Chris being in a candy store, AND, the studio play Marvin Gaye's "Lets get it on".
Any comments from the media? No. If anything, it was ENCOURAGED by Lisa's male counterparts while it was aired live on national television.
Chris Gayle comments to Mel McLaughlin about her eyes as well. The media label it offensive, unprofessional, grossly inappropriate, he was fined and is threatened to be banned from playing cricket. Where was the story regarding Chris Isaak picking up a married woman on National TV?
Updated comment:
Interestingly enough, Lisa's husband, journalist Peter FitzSimons also wrote an article on Chris Gayle's actions. He stated "we simply don't have the tiniest conception of what it's like to put up with constant sexual innuendo in the course of our professional life. It is belittling rubbish, and women have had to put up with it for way too long. Talk to your wife or daughter on it. Ask them. They get it."
Very very hypocritical.
From a FB post so I won't post the link but here is the link to the vision included in that post:
https://www.facebook.com/pauline.lampton/videos/10205318688227332/ (https://www.facebook.com/pauline.lampton/videos/10205318688227332/) and the link to the base of the updated comment:
http://www.smh.com.au/sport/the-fitz-files/supporting-chris-gayles-actions-is-turning-your-back-on-respect-for-women-20160108-gm1sfm.html (http://www.smh.com.au/sport/the-fitz-files/supporting-chris-gayles-actions-is-turning-your-back-on-respect-for-women-20160108-gm1sfm.html)
-
Why does Feminism rile you up so much smokey? Some sloppy example of neo sexism under the guise of an entertainment program got you all bent out of joint.
I honestly have no idea why blokes get so angry and upset when simple points of sexism get pointed out. I thought the Gayle thing was blown out of proportion, but it stank nonetheless. What do I give a poo if women want to make some noise? Doesn't affect me in the slightest, nor does is 99% of the population.
-
Feminism in it's raw, angry, blindly hypocritical form does, and it just so happens that one of the single biggest group of hypocrits in this world are feminists and their media apologists. Simple points of sexism get pointed out? Only sexist one-way - male to female, despite the huge number of examples that it's a 2-way street. If the Gayle thing "stank" then what is your opinion of the Wilkinson "thing"? I give a poo because these same "women" (and I use that term loosely and derogatory to the pieces of crap who hide behind the vast umbrella of good and real women) lay claim to a significantly disproportionate amount of media time and air to peddle their violent and vicious single gender views of the future of mankind. You can bend over and say you don't care and it doesn't affect you but I don't and won't - I want my grandchildren to live their lives in a world where men and women are recognized, loved and respected for their differences, not hate each other because they fall short of being decent human beings.
-
you are a smart man Smokey and possibly one of the best posts you will ever read on this site.
-
Why does Feminism rile you up so much smokey? Some sloppy example of neo sexism under the guise of an entertainment program got you all bent out of joint.
I honestly have no idea why blokes get so angry and upset when simple points of sexism get pointed out. I thought the Gayle thing was blown out of proportion, but it stank nonetheless. What do I give a poo if women want to make some noise? Doesn't affect me in the slightest, nor does is 99% of the population.
It all about the bigger picture me lad