The Roar
The Roar

Keith of WA

Roar Rookie

Joined October 2018









No one’s ever doubted his work rate… just his proximity to the ruck….

Wallabies beat All Blacks after dominant second half in Bledisloe 1

Nah.. Savea and Franks were doing high tackles on him in the first half and got away with a penalty… sooner or later you do the crime you gotta do the time….

Wallabies beat All Blacks after dominant second half in Bledisloe 1

It was noticeable how much slower Genia was in distributing from the ruck… and then box kicked for no reason!!!

Wallabies beat All Blacks after dominant second half in Bledisloe 1

If Beale had hung on then it’s a head high tackle around the neck, a red card, few weeks on the side line and a penalty try no doubt…

Kurtley Beale's poor defensive effort cannot stop the Jaguares from pouncing

interesting that you ignore the thrust of my post completely, and choose to address the who is/who isn’t saying what…
“Only a handful of people have called for Folau to be sacked” and “Who indeed says Folaus regurgitation of religious dogma has no place in society?”
Have a look at the headline alone on the roar Editors’ article…. then read the first para….
I think you’ll find it’s out there loud and proud….
Outrage mob?… that’s a straw man argument… I said they assume there MUST be a clause in the contract… and justify themselves accordingly….
Again, it follows that if there isn’t, it does indeed become a larger problem than your ‘cliche’ handbook allows….

Folau to fight Rugby Australia on sacking after meeting RUPA boss

I suspect not many people will like this, but the inescapable reality here is that this is a massive (and in many cases uninformed) pile on to someone who has expressed his religious views.

There does not appear to be any public confirmation of a clause in Folau’s contract dealing with his religious beliefs or restrictions to social media by RA so far. If there was such a clause, it would make sense that RA would be trumpeting his breach of contract as their justification.

Alternatively, and if there isn’t, Houston we have a problem.

RA have come out hard from the outset in order to appear firm to (Qantas? and) the public, and show they don’t condone his views. It’s fair enough to signal that the views expressed do not reflect the views of management. Newspapers and movies do it all of the time.

Where RA have an issue is that they’ve ignored process and contractual law and placed their position on record of their intent to sack. If there is a clause, is it legal?

If there isn’t then threatening to sack a player because of their religious views instead of simply stating that the players views do not reflect the governing bodies means Fort Fumble could be in a world of hurt. If there is no clause, then it’s going to be a drawn out fight as you can’t sack someone based on their religion, although it wouldn’t be the first time RA have lept before looking….

That hasn’t stopped the outrage mob on here assuming that there MUST be such a clause and enthusiastically taking up the sack (lynch) him cry group think because he breached it.

You cannot weaponize the threat of terminating someones employment because of their religious views. That’s authoritarianism. Whether you agree with his views or not or not doesn’t entitle you to censor them because they might be hurtful.

And who says his views have no place in society at all? The editor here? That’s an attempt to censor.

If Rugby Union wants to be inclusive, then you’ve got to include all views, not just those that match your own

Folau to fight Rugby Australia on sacking after meeting RUPA boss


“Which isn’t true, when you add” … my contention in my original post is that you did only portray one side and is summed up right there….

The fact that you then go on to do the very thing I suggested ie placing it into context does not resile from my original post that there is more to the story. Had I not done so, perhaps you might not have ever “add in the additional context”

Regarding your last comment, I actually disagree with you. Re-read your original post. Without context and background your post does read as linking the Crusaders name with millions of people dying….

Stop crusading against the Crusaders

Fionn… I’ve never said your post was contentious. I’ve merely stated that it is only portraying part of the story and therefore is out of context. I’m happy for you to point out where in your original post you portrayed the reason the Crusades started or anything to do with placing the Crusades into ‘context’…. Otherwise I think you’ll find my point stands.

“What’s the modern context of interpreting the Crusades?

Oh, that’s right, the modern context is interpreting it as a Christian holy war war from Western Europe against the Muslim Empire, resulting in millions of people dying, most being Muslims, and many being civilians…”

As an aside, if anyone takes the time to research and read a little of the history of the Crusades it will show there are plenty of atrocities from both ‘sides’ and a surprising amount of willingness to coexist in some cases.

Does one ‘side’ have any more right to grievance than the other? Does that mean the Crusaders should change their name?

There were plenty of (non european) examples of Muslims and Crusaders (Christians) co-existing between wars and I don’t see why that cannot happen now.

If the Crusaders decide to change their name as a further act of empathy and co-existence then bravo and I applaud their spirit. On the other hand, I don’t believe that they should be shamed/pushed into doing so.

Stop crusading against the Crusaders

Personally, not having been there during the crusades or the events prior I can no more vouch for the truth of historical records than you can, but getting into an argument about historical fact doesn’t change the basis of my point.

When you only portray one part of an event without the whole it is a selective context.

Stop crusading against the Crusaders

Well the simple answer is that the Crusades were the response to millions of people dying at the hands of the Muslims (as opposed to ‘aggression’) and to a request for help.

State it like that, then you have one context.

State it like a Christian holy war war from Western Europe against the Muslim Empire, resulting in millions of people dying, most being Muslims then you have another context.

Mentioning one without the other is simply taking it out of context.

Stop crusading against the Crusaders

Anything can be taken out of context….

You might like to dig a little deeper into WHY the Crusades happened and what they were in response to.

Stop crusading against the Crusaders

1. lol (yeah I’m having a chuckle at you) what… you think you can run around having a crack at someone then you’re genuinely bewildered when they come straight back at you?
2. frazzled? clearly reading isn’t your strong point. I get alerts that some numpty has commented… I told you that…
3. Keithy isn’t offensive to me… it just shows the extent and the intelligence of your repartee
4. really? oh you’re very very good….
5. No, I simply summed you up as a hanky wringer with a limited world view. I can only do this based on the drivel you keep producing
6. Playing YOUR game… and giving it straight back to you

Sunwolves reportedly axed from Super Rugby

errr…. no, just pointing out that you played the man and not the ball…. couldn’t be any clearer… or should I use smaller words for you?

Sunwolves reportedly axed from Super Rugby

lol (yes, that’s old timey still laughing at you)…. no, there isn’t any law against commenting on the politics of a decision… even self appointed moral police like you can’t stop that…

I don’t claim to have any moral superiority. I’m really amused that you’ve had it spelt out but still don’t get it/baffled….

I gave you 3 options sunshine…. and I’m gonna enjoy this….

Sunwolves reportedly axed from Super Rugby

John, I’m going to take time out and spell out a few things for you… … I’ve come onto The Roar and made a comment about an issue. I’ve not attacked any poster here yet you’ve seen fit to have a crack at me. You’ve clearly played the man and not the ball with no justification whatsoever. You’ve not made a constructive observation at any point about the issue and have simply engaged in low brow insults for no reason whatsoever. Now, not knowing if you’re young and dumb, or just dumb, I’ve initially given you the benefit of the doubt and asked what issue you have with my commenting. Being inexperienced, you’ve ignored the caution and plunged on with a seriously inane justification and further insults in response. So I’ve pegged you as just dumb. Your whole stated reason for having a crack at me in your response is that you’re annoyed and you think I’m seeking attention, because I claimed to have no interest. Well, I didn’t claim that, you know that and I pointed that out to you. I also pointed out that I was quite within my rights to come on here and make a comment.

Your problem now is that you’ve started something you don’t know how to finish because you’ve played the man and are getting it straight back.

Now here I’m going to go out on a limb. You’ve mentioned I haunt the pages like a miserable ghost, so I’m betting you’re quoting Malcolm Turnbull (or Krudd?) and think it’s a cool insult. It shows a limited world view. Your whole reason for having a crack at me is because you’re annoyed I’ve expressed an opinion. That tells me you’re someone with an inflated sense of entitlement and loves to express his outrage at someone who doesn’t conform to your views. Then you’ve called me pathetic for checking responses when we both know that I, like you get alerts when someone has responded on The Roar. Wrong again.

As far as the Mods deleting my response about you being miserable, well I accept that calling you miserable was possibly confronting and might have hurt your feelings.. perhaps the Mods could look at your whole approach… but I digress..

I keep (and will continue to) responding because I’m very entertained by your predicament and I continue to laugh at you…. You’ve got nowhere to go other than continue to look like an idi@t or apologize.

In the absence of ANY reasoned argument about the issue, you’ve resorted to calling me ‘Keithy’. Now while I’m out on that bet, I’m going to assume that you really have very little life experience and beyond (Uni?) group hugs and love ins, haven’t had the exposure to anything harder than school ground taunts because you work in an ‘inclusive’ environment…. and anything else is ‘old timey’…

Well sunshine, out in the big bad world we call people like you hanky wringers. Hanky wringers don’t get it. They pontificate, insult and moralize but don’t realize that (in your case) their original reason for getting annoyed/outraged and the whole thread of insults is neither appropriate or correct. I didn’t claim to have “no interest” and I’m entitled to have a say.

So, you have three choices. 1. you can man up and apologize for playing the man and not the ball with your insults and move on, 2. you can quietly disappear from this thread without further response, or 3. you can continue entertaining me with the responses and I will continue to mock you .

Over to you….

Sunwolves reportedly axed from Super Rugby

well I thought lol was ok because I’m still having a laugh at you and your banal manner (you can look that one up if you like)

aaah evolution… is that what you are? evolved? from what?

Sunwolves reportedly axed from Super Rugby

lol… ok… is calling you a hanky wringer better?

Sunwolves reportedly axed from Super Rugby

lol, I’m glad you saw it then… sums you up
and hey sunshine… you really ought to come up with some better stuff than “keithy” if you’re gonna call other people pathetic

Sunwolves reportedly axed from Super Rugby

lol… I’m quite entitled to come on here, and if that annoys you well then you need to get out more… never claimed to have no interest, just don’t watch it…. read it again sunshine…

Sunwolves reportedly axed from Super Rugby

Yes, I only read about it occasionally and comment even less. Don’t go to matches any more. And your problem with that is?

Sunwolves reportedly axed from Super Rugby

Yeah now that’s just taking the p$ss.

Sanzaar chose the Sunwolves over the Force because of perceived opportunities in the Asian market, (was always going to be a long term investment), yet they walked away from the investment already made in the Force and now doing this because the Saffa’s are cranky about time zones?

This, and Cheika is why I don’t watch this cr@p anymore

Sunwolves reportedly axed from Super Rugby

mate look I don’t usually get down to being pedantic, but as you’ve pulled me on I’ll play…

There are other agencies out there who run match fixing and/or drugs investigations besides the individual sports own governing bodies, and they don’t necessarily involve those bodies in their investigations.

They can be part of eg ICAC, various state Police forces or AFP etc… depends on how the incidents came to light… eg VicPol with Premier league

The article OR the headline doesn’t state where the official is from… you’re assuming it’s RA but the opening sentence clearly states they are high ranking officials who will contact RA.

My reading is that the same official outside of RA thinks it should be re-opened, and other officials within the game have concerns….

As I said from the outset… RA WILL be contacted. Their press release denying any investigations sidesteps the fact that it appears the investigation was outside of RA…

Time will tell

UPDATE: Rugby Australia deny match-fixing probe, Michael Hooper "shocked" by claims

really? where does it say that? the version I’ve read talks about high ranking officials outside of RA, will be contacting RA. Then that rugby officials have had concerns about links between players and a colorful horse racing identity. No where in the version I’m reading does it say RA were contacted or that the investigation was done by RA….

UPDATE: Rugby Australia deny match-fixing probe, Michael Hooper "shocked" by claims

The article states that RA.. WILL be contacted and not had been….

Time will tell I guess…

UPDATE: Rugby Australia deny match-fixing probe, Michael Hooper "shocked" by claims

“the way he wants to play and then finding the players that fit into that framework”
His statements about Cheika having the team he wants seems to be a diabolical misread of the entire reason he’s been brought in…..

Michael O'Connor is a brilliant choice as the third Wallabies selector