Oops!!

Started by stpauls, February 27, 2009, 01:41:24 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Fear ón Srath Bán

Quote from: Maguire01 on February 27, 2009, 11:09:41 PM
But surely if there wasn't intent, he wouldn't have went near him(?)
How hard he hit him really is neither here nor there.

Don't you start. Maybe I led a much more unsheltered life, but how hard is absolutely critical - it's the difference between malice aforethought and the absence thereof. An absolutely key criterion in the apportionment of guilt, and the extent of that guilt.

Look, it hasn't happened much in my sporting life, and sometimes not even in my sporting life, but mates would perhaps have gestured down towards that area to put you on the back foot more than anything, generally when we were arsing about. OK, I never collapsed in a heap like Galvin, and he wasn't expecting it, but you get my drift, Ricey was only attempting to unsettle Galvin, with a cup, a fecking cup, of the nether region! And those aren't memories that occupy my current days, but they are now revived.

*Prepares for the barrage of homosexual jibes*
Carlsberg don't do Gombeenocracies, but by jaysus if they did...


longrunsthefox

Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on February 27, 2009, 10:28:06 PM
Quote from: longrunsthefox on February 27, 2009, 10:25:58 PM
You are talking some Sh8te tonight. Ward shouldered fellow on way past -did McMenamin accidently have a dig at Galvins testicles...looked intentional to me. 

Wise up FFS! If you put your hand down there with malicious intent you'll need to be retarded to fail to leave a lad in a heap, at least for a few minutes. Galvin got up and trotted away instantaneously. Cop on.


And, Ward ran half a field length to get involved, get with the fecking programme!

mmm....

Doire abú

Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on February 27, 2009, 11:17:35 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 27, 2009, 11:09:41 PM
But surely if there wasn't intent, he wouldn't have went near him(?)
How hard he hit him really is neither here nor there.

Don't you start. Maybe I led a much more unsheltered life, but how hard is absolutely critical - it's the difference between malice aforethought and the absence thereof. An absolutely key criterion in the apportionment of guilt, and the extent of that guilt.

Look, it hasn't happened much in my sporting life, and sometimes not even in my sporting life, but mates would perhaps have gestured down towards that area to put you on the back foot more than anything, generally when we were arsing about. OK, I never collapsed in a heap like Galvin, and he wasn't expecting it, but you get my drift, Ricey was only attempting to unsettle Galvin, with a cup, a fecking cup, of the nether region! And those aren't memories that occupy my current days, but they are now revived.

*Prepares for the barrage of homosexual jibes*

So you're saying Doherty should not have been banned either?

Fear ón Srath Bán

#49
Quote from: Doire abú on February 27, 2009, 11:58:20 PM
So you're saying Doherty should not have been banned either?

I don't care about Doherty, that's for you lads to work out. Let's just stick to the specific offence.
Carlsberg don't do Gombeenocracies, but by jaysus if they did...

Fear ón Srath Bán

Carlsberg don't do Gombeenocracies, but by jaysus if they did...

Fear ón Srath Bán

Quote from: longrunsthefox on February 28, 2009, 12:12:53 AM
no-just wondering was the 'retarded' theory a subtle explaination why Ricey didn't leave Galvin in a heap   

Straight question for you (and I'm going to ask it of anyone else that can't discern the difference): have you ever been grabbed down below in a sporting or playful manner, by a pal or acquaintance, just to put you on the back foot, but with no malice and no chance of doing you harm?
Carlsberg don't do Gombeenocracies, but by jaysus if they did...

longrunsthefox

Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on February 28, 2009, 12:24:50 AM
Quote from: longrunsthefox on February 28, 2009, 12:12:53 AM
no-just wondering was the 'retarded' theory a subtle explaination why Ricey didn't leave Galvin in a heap   

Straight question for you (and I'm going to ask it of anyone else that can't discern the difference): have you ever been grabbed down below in a sporting or playful manner, by a pal or acquaintance, just to put you on the back foot, but with no malice and no chance of doing you harm?

Nope-but hey! if that is what constitutes 'playful' in Strabane who am I to argue?

Fear ón Srath Bán

It ain't just Strabane, but maybe times they are a changing. What was playful or sporting yesteryear just might be construed as abusive today (though not on the sporting field). Innocence departed.

And I understand now why you don't understand what Ricey was at.
Carlsberg don't do Gombeenocracies, but by jaysus if they did...

longrunsthefox

Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on February 28, 2009, 12:33:05 AM
It ain't just Strabane, but maybe times they are a changing. What was playful or sporting yesteryear just might be construed as abusive today (though not on the sporting field). Innocence departed.

And I understand now why you don't understand what Ricey was at.

Me and many many others... thanks for enlightening us!

Fear ón Srath Bán

Apparently, but it is possible to effect such without malice. Young lads, huh!
Carlsberg don't do Gombeenocracies, but by jaysus if they did...

Doogie Browser

#56
Apparently this is a test case and a Mr Paul Gascoigne is taking a Mr Vincent Jones to the CAS in Lausanne, charging him with grabbing his nuts over 20 years ago (must have delayed the pain), but we all know it was sexual assault and never once laughed about it.  This is a serious matter now, never mind the bollocks.

longrunsthefox

Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on February 28, 2009, 12:39:56 AM
Apparently, but it is possible to effect such without malice. Young lads, huh!

You're some craic Strabane man-  that aside as a hero member what does the thing on this board at the bottom mean where it says, 40 guests,  27 users  7 hidden..  do you know? seriously

Fear ón Srath Bán

Quote from: longrunsthefox on February 28, 2009, 12:46:05 AM
what does the thing on this board at the bottom mean where it says, 40 guests,  27 users  7 hidden..  do you know? seriously

Not 100% sure, but hidden users may be admin users (mods, etc.), guests are those who are just lurking without a gaaboard account, and the rest are like us, i.e., sort of normal.
Carlsberg don't do Gombeenocracies, but by jaysus if they did...

longrunsthefox

Thanks-seems to be some spectators on this alright. Anyway your wrong about Ricey  :P nite