Debate Mansion

   

Bhajji banned, I say call off the series (Page 97)

Post Reply New Post

Page 97 of 98

kabhi_21

IF-Rockerz

kabhi_21

Joined: 25 January 2006

Posts: 9942

Posted: 31 January 2008 at 8:12pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by Gauri_3

Originally posted by kabhi_21

I read the whole judgement of Mr. Hansen when it was published.... so i know what each witness said and what the advocates said etc....

I have also faced the comments on the cricket field.... as I play professional cricket... i never say ek gaal pe tamacha maro to doosra aage karo.... but i would not become the same person i hate.....

I hope u got the point..... i believe in taking the arms in self defence .... not for killing someone because he killed someone...... hope u understand my stand hereSmile

LOLLOLLOL trust me yaar, i really do not care what u play and how well u play.  this is not about u at all....sorry once againLOL

as far as ur stand here.....no, i do not understand it as u r totally missing the context over and over in this case.  u r so fixated on bhajji being abusive here that u r not taking it in to consideration that even if he said...and meant...MONKEY, it would still have not been termed racist or a criminal offence.  u claim u have read whole hansen judgement.  well, read below something the same Mr. Hansen pointed out....may be then u can see where we r coming from....mateSmile

................However, he also insisted that the behaviour must be looked at in context.

He pointed out: "Mr Singh had innocently, and in the tradition of the game, acknowledged the quality of Mr Lee's bowling. That interchange had nothing to do with Mr Symonds but he determined to get involved and as a result was abusive towards Mr Singh. Mr Singh was, not surprisingly, abusive back."

He added: "But in my view, even if he had used the words alleged, an ordinary person standing in the shoes of Mr Symonds who had launched an unprovoked and unnecessary invective-laden attack would not be offended or insulted or humiliated in terms of 3.3."

Thus, Hansen concluded, the charge under Level 3.3 would fail both because it had not been sufficiently proven and because in the context in which it happened it would not amount to a racial slur even if the alleged words had been used..............................................

http://cricket.indiatimes.com/India_tour_Down_Under/News/Evi dence_not_strong_enough/articleshow/2744507.cms

hope u see the picture more clearly nowSmile the point here is not whether the evidence was strong enuff or not; the main point is why it all happened ....context, buddy, try reading things in contextSmile

Bhajji himself agreed that he used abusive language and he intended to be abusive towards Symonds... where is the question of me being so fixated that he was abusiveConfused

the context you are saying here is "tum ek maroge to hum do marenge".... sorry but i dont follow that context and oppose it... you may support it its ur personal view...Smile

Dear Guest, Being an unregistered member you are missing out on participating in the lively discussions happening on the topic "Bhajji banned, I say call off the series (Page 97)" in Debate Mansion forum. In addition you lose out on the fun interactions with fellow members and other member exclusive features that India-Forums has to offer. Join India's most popular discussion portal on Indian Entertainment. It's FREE and registration is effortless so JOIN NOW!

kabhi_21

IF-Rockerz

kabhi_21

Joined: 25 January 2006

Posts: 9942

Posted: 31 January 2008 at 9:00pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by Gauri_3

Originally posted by kabhi_21

The statement that "ur views highlighted above appear to be regionalist", makes a charge on me personally so I am not sure if you did not wanna get all personal there..... Smile

nope, not on u personally.  i specifically said that's how ur views come across.  it's totally different than saying that's how YOU come across.  fark hai yaar.  dhyaan sey padhoWink

Its like saying to symonds that you are not abusive but ur words are abusive,.... if we think that way.... why do we say that australians are aggressive and abusive and all... we should say their actions come as aggressive their words come as abusive etc... rightTongue

Chalo doosra example lelo.... "that rude thai girl" is a term i use..... so does that make all thai girls rude??? Now you are misinterpreting that i brought regionalism deliberately just as symonds says he might have misinterpreted maa ki for monkey.....

LOLbut if someone jumps in and starts claiming that her rudeness is representative of entire thai population and they say that claiming that the girl does not even represents thailand and they specifically mention the exact region in thailand where she hails from........u see where all this is going...ehWink

anyways its not difference of opinion here... its difference in thinking altogether.... wont debate on this furtherSmile

I never commented on Gavaskar because i dont know what he said and when he said that.... I was clearly talking with reference to BCCI when i refer to blackmailing and that is why i told u to kindly read my other posts....

BCCI did not even let Team India walkout of the series.......they still were adamant on playing the game in its true spirit even though they did not agree with the charges and the ban...where's the blackmail hereConfused

What was that statement of BCCI one day before the trial " We will not play the one day series unless and until the charges against bhajji are dropped".... i would not have said all this if they quit the series after the trial... the statement before trial was blackmailing....Smile

Are when you say my views are coming as regionalist, i have right to appeal whether the topic is for debating that or not... Bhajji also had right to appeal.... and i appreciate the appeal.... i would also appreciate a fair trial and result.... but i would not appreciate the blackmailing by BCCI.....

go back and read all ur posts so far.  where did u appreciate the fair trial?  u r still crucifying the poor cricketer even for getting discharged.  u r contradicting urself hereTongue 

Sorry to say but its not a fair trial

1. Statement by BCCI as stated above puts pressure on economic conditions of ICC and CA

2. Judge saying that an ordinary person would not be offended by the remarks if Bhajji had said monkey or teri maaki.... I am ordinary person and i would be offended... this was his personal view as judge the view that may be skewed by ICC based on blackmailing....

3. ICC not giving all the records of Harbhajan's earlier defaults, whatever may be the reason that is noted in judgement.....

If you say that is fair trial, sorry i dont think soSmile

Now when i appeal for saying my views are regionalist.... if IF supports me and before hearing says that they will ban all evidences if the charges are proven and ban the judge and will not have any debates until the charge is dropped..... will you appreciate that LOL

sorry, don't know what u r trying to say here.  english is not making much senseConfused

Sorry for my english.... nyways you dont need to understand this

I have no disconnect.... he is a public figure... he is not representing india but people know him as an indian, just like people see me as an indian.... i said that his behaviour affects vision of people about indians and not about india.... India is much bigger than indian to be affected by act of one... people curse taliban for the terrorism not the afganistan.... but the world may consider or misunderstand an afgani to be talibani....Tongue

he plays for TEAM  I N D I A what part don't u get here...the "team" or the "India"Confused and no, he is just not any ordinary Indian like u and I....he is a well known public figure who, whethr u agree or not, represents our country out there in the cricket fieldSmile

I am neither declaring him racist nor clearing him off anything.... he did use abusive words... in case of symonds it was response..... but he has abused the umpires also before ....... so that time was it a give back????? or was it nature of Mr.Bhajji??????

oh really......LOL  for rest, read my post rt above this oneSmile

peace - gauriBig smile

i m debating peacefully only gauriji LOL

chatbuster

IF-Rockerz

chatbuster

Deactivated on request

Joined: 13 January 2006

Posts: 7780

Posted: 31 January 2008 at 9:21pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by kabhi_21

I read the whole judgement of Mr. Hansen when it was published.... so i know what each witness said and what the advocates said etc....

and yet you say that bhajji started the fracas? that u were afraid of being tagged a racist because of bhajji? if u read what hansen said, didnt he absolve bhajji on both those fronts? let us now know what u read that suggests otherwise.Wink

I have also faced the comments on the cricket field.... as I play professional cricket... i never say ek gaal pe tamacha maro to doosra aage karo.... but i would not become the same person i hate.....

sounds pretty confusing if u ask me. ok, so u too wldnt take it lying down. now, isnt that pretty much what bhajji did? how does that turn bhajji into a person u hate? or is it fine to hate someone else for doing something that u yourself just acknowledged u might do? Winklet's leave the generalities aside and get precise here if we can.Wink

I hope u got the point..... i believe in taking the arms in self defence .... not for killing someone because he killed someone...... hope u understand my stand hereSmile

nope. did not get your point.Tongue it does sound nice, but cussing on the playground aint exactly killing someone. or are u saying it is?Ouch

as for bhajji repeating the offense, big deal. some folks are subject to more ridicule than others. aint that a fact of life? what shld he be doing if he's repeatedly targetted?

u actually suggest above that u wldnt offer the other cheek. well, speaking generally, what exactly should one have done then? go running to mommy? TongueLOL 



Edited by chatbuster - 31 January 2008 at 9:28pm

raj5000

Moderator

raj5000

Joined: 01 January 2006

Posts: 11720

Posted: 31 January 2008 at 9:28pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by chatbuster

Originally posted by raj5000

Ok Guys Chill Down, no point in beating the dead horse!!

nahin yaar. what use are dead horses unless they can be flogged? aur kis din ke liye unko itna chana khilaya jaata hai? bolo boloLOL 

waise, i am starting to think it is all paaji's fault.Angry thoda bhangda hee paa deta, kya jaata uska? poora party mood kharab kar diya.TongueLOL

@gauri- well said!!! very well said!!!Clap

Marey huey ko maarney mey kya fayda yaar.... bhawnaoo ko samjho for the sake of departed soul...agar nahi toh 90 pages pado phir dekho is it worth,,,sab kuch bayan kar rahey hai puraney panney Smile

kabhi_21

IF-Rockerz

kabhi_21

Joined: 25 January 2006

Posts: 9942

Posted: 31 January 2008 at 10:30pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by chatbuster

Originally posted by kabhi_21

I read the whole judgement of Mr. Hansen when it was published.... so i know what each witness said and what the advocates said etc....

and yet you say that bhajji started the fracas? that u were afraid of being tagged a racist because of bhajji? if u read what hansen said, didnt he absolve bhajji on both those fronts? let us now know what u read that suggests otherwise.Wink

Supposedly you did not read all my responses.... in one response i said that symonds started it and i misinterpreted based on the footage shown on TV....

For other point, if you read what hansen said that he is not convinced beyond reasonable doubt based on evidences that Harbhajan said this words and hence he is absolved from it.... and that is what i have been saying since ages

I have also faced the comments on the cricket field.... as I play professional cricket... i never say ek gaal pe tamacha maro to doosra aage karo.... but i would not become the same person i hate.....

sounds pretty confusing if u ask me. ok, so u too wldnt take it lying down. now, isnt that pretty much what bhajji did? how does that turn bhajji into a person u hate? or is it fine to hate someone else for doing something that u yourself just acknowledged u might do? Winklet's leave the generalities aside and get precise here if we can.Wink

God save me from this misinterpretations.... from the phrase "I dont want to be the person I hate" does not mean i hate bhajji.... I said if the next person abuses me and i hate him abusing me, i would not abuse him and become the same person....

When Symonds said that there is no friend of bhajji from australian side on field with cuss words, i would reply with aggression "I know so try getting me out buddy and carry your tired legs to field place".... without a cuss words.... thats what i mean by giving back but not becoming same person....

I hope u got the point..... i believe in taking the arms in self defence .... not for killing someone because he killed someone...... hope u understand my stand hereSmile

nope. did not get your point.Tongue it does sound nice, but cussing on the playground aint exactly killing someone. or are u saying it is?Ouch

as for bhajji repeating the offense, big deal. some folks are subject to more ridicule than others. aint that a fact of life? what shld he be doing if he's repeatedly targetted?

Strange that when a person supporting does analogy it fits in... but all my analogies are wrong.... Tongue.... as far as i see the analogy i said fits in perfectly... and if some people did not understand it, i can t help itTongue

u actually suggest above that u wldnt offer the other cheek. well, speaking generally, what exactly should one have done then? go running to mommy? TongueLOL 

Gauri_3

IF-Sizzlerz

Joined: 12 November 2006

Posts: 13617

Posted: 01 February 2008 at 7:59am | IP Logged
THE ACCOUNT OF THE MEMBER WHO POSTED THIS MESSAGE HAS BEEN TEMPORARILY BANNED.

If you think this is an error please Contact us.

Gauri_3

IF-Sizzlerz

Joined: 12 November 2006

Posts: 13617

Posted: 01 February 2008 at 8:26am | IP Logged
THE ACCOUNT OF THE MEMBER WHO POSTED THIS MESSAGE HAS BEEN TEMPORARILY BANNED.

If you think this is an error please Contact us.

kabhi_21

IF-Rockerz

kabhi_21

Joined: 25 January 2006

Posts: 9942

Posted: 01 February 2008 at 9:47am | IP Logged
Originally posted by Gauri_3

Originally posted by kabhi_21

Originally posted by Gauri_3

Originally posted by kabhi_21

I read the whole judgement of Mr. Hansen when it was published.... so i know what each witness said and what the advocates said etc....

I have also faced the comments on the cricket field.... as I play professional cricket... i never say ek gaal pe tamacha maro to doosra aage karo.... but i would not become the same person i hate.....

I hope u got the point..... i believe in taking the arms in self defence .... not for killing someone because he killed someone...... hope u understand my stand hereSmile

LOLLOLLOL trust me yaar, i really do not care what u play and how well u play.  this is not about u at all....sorry once againLOL

as far as ur stand here.....no, i do not understand it as u r totally missing the context over and over in this case.  u r so fixated on bhajji being abusive here that u r not taking it in to consideration that even if he said...and meant...MONKEY, it would still have not been termed racist or a criminal offence.  u claim u have read whole hansen judgement.  well, read below something the same Mr. Hansen pointed out....may be then u can see where we r coming from....mateSmile

................However, he also insisted that the behaviour must be looked at in context.

He pointed out: "Mr Singh had innocently, and in the tradition of the game, acknowledged the quality of Mr Lee's bowling. That interchange had nothing to do with Mr Symonds but he determined to get involved and as a result was abusive towards Mr Singh. Mr Singh was, not surprisingly, abusive back."

He added: "But in my view, even if he had used the words alleged, an ordinary person standing in the shoes of Mr Symonds who had launched an unprovoked and unnecessary invective-laden attack would not be offended or insulted or humiliated in terms of 3.3."

Thus, Hansen concluded, the charge under Level 3.3 would fail both because it had not been sufficiently proven and because in the context in which it happened it would not amount to a racial slur even if the alleged words had been used..............................................

http://cricket.indiatimes.com/India_tour_Down_Under/News/Evi dence_not_strong_enough/articleshow/2744507.cms

hope u see the picture more clearly nowSmile the point here is not whether the evidence was strong enuff or not; the main point is why it all happened ....context, buddy, try reading things in contextSmile

Bhajji himself agreed that he used abusive language and he intended to be abusive towards Symonds... where is the question of me being so fixated that he was abusiveConfused

he never said "he intended to be abusive towards symonds".  wonder where that's coming from.  u being so fixated on how he was 'wrongfully" abusive towards symonds...get it nowWink

the context you are saying here is "tum ek maroge to hum do marenge".... sorry but i dont follow that context and oppose it... you may support it its ur personal view...Smile

forget my context here.  pay attention to the context hansen is describing aboveWink...or is it too much to expectTongue 

btw, in chak de...the dialogue goes something like this....woh ek maarey toh tum doh maro.  woh do marey toh tum chaar maro.  woh char marey toh tum aath maro aur tab tak maartey raho jab tak ya toh woh mer na jaye ya phir tum thak kar choor choor na ho jao......waisey maarna as in goal maarna...nothing else...kinda like how we beat'em up in PerthLOL

For your query about if harbhajan intended to be offensive...... check this part of the decision by judge.....

[55]      I have set out above the agreed statement of facts.  There it was accepted by Mr Singh that he intended to be offensive towards Mr Symonds and Messrs Symonds, Hayden and Clarke were of the view that in the circumstances that language was offensive.

Before telling me to read all the judgement, it would be nice if the same people can know the facts

Post Reply New Post

Go to top

Related Topics

  Topics Topic Starter Replies Views Last Post
Guns should be banned permanently

2 3

Summer3 17 1437 29 July 2009 at 6:13am
By .bohemian.
Should ekta's k-sagas be banned?

2 3 4 5 6

instantkhichdi 45 3095 15 November 2008 at 8:56am
By rogna
Sex Changes: should be banned?

2 3 4 5 6

usachick821 40 3737 09 July 2008 at 8:51am
By Bhaskar.T
Should radio phone-ins be banned? WillSmith456 0 404 24 January 2008 at 10:07pm
By WillSmith456
Netwest Series

2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 10 11

JayKish 87 2753 13 September 2007 at 1:25am
By JayKish

Forum Quick Jump

Forum Category

Active Forums

Debate Mansion Topic Index

Limit search to this Forum only.

 

Disclaimer: All Logos and Pictures of various Channels, Shows, Artistes, Media Houses, Companies, Brands etc. belong to their respective owners, and are used to merely visually identify the Channels, Shows, Companies, Brands, etc. to the viewer. Incase of any issue please contact the webmaster.