Messages

If it works commercially for the GAA, or if the 'Katie for Croker' group want to stump up to make it so, no problem.

If not, it's essentially a gift from the GAA to Katie Taylor.

Which in an of itself is not a bad thing, but it's not Croke Park's (read Peter McKenna's) gift to give.

Should be a congress decision.

You said "It says nothing about criticising Israel being anti-Semitic".

Given that most people's problem with the IHRA definition is EXACTLY this, could you outline which other bit of the IHRA definition you have a problem with, that causes you not to accept it?

That's because most people, such as your good self, choose to, at best, misread or misunderstand what the definition actually says. You argued that Israel is a Jewish community institution ffs. A state is not a community institution. You have f**king idiots on here tying themselves in knots to protest that burning out Jewish ambulances in Golders Green isn't antisemitic FFS. Know what a local Jewish ambulance service is? A Jewish community institution.

And not that I owe you any explanation of anything whatsoever, the particular pieces that I have issues with are the suggestion that denying Jews have the right to self determination is in and of itself antisemitic, or that one evidences this by labelling Israel as a racist state, along with the one about not comparing contemporary Israeli state policy to the Nazism.

As I suspect you well know, the definition expressly states that criticisms of Israel that are thrown at any other country are not antisemitic.

Yeah you're all over the place here.

You stated that 'It says nothing about criticising Israel being antisemitic'.

Then proceed to outline that one of your issues with the definition is that it prevents contemporary Israeli state policy being compared with that of the Nazis... as to criticise it in such a way would make one... antisemitic.

Someone with a brain the size of yours should surely be able to figure out that both of these statements cannot be true simultaneously.

Are you really that f**king thick?

It specifically states criticism of Israel is not by definition antisemitic, provided those criticisms could be and are levelled at other states. The obvious implication being that if you want to criticise Israel for something that you wouldn't or don't do with any other state, you're actively choosing to do it because of, you know, all the Jews that are there.

It then specifically claims that comparing Israeli policy to Nazism is antisemitic. Which I disagree with. Interesting that comparing Israeli policy to Nazism would be considered criticism given how many far right tramps there are on the board in this discussion.

It's not that complicated.

I'll walk you through this, without even swearing. 

You said "It says nothing about criticising Israel being antisemitic".

You then go on to explain that comparing Israeli policy to that of the Nazis IS in fact defined as antisemitic by this document.

The only way that those two statements can be true simultaneously, is if you consider comparing someone to a Nazi to NOT be a criticism.

And if that's where you're at in an argument, it's time to put down the shovel 

It really is not that complicated.

You said "It says nothing about criticising Israel being anti-Semitic".

Given that most people's problem with the IHRA definition is EXACTLY this, could you outline which other bit of the IHRA definition you have a problem with, that causes you not to accept it?

That's because most people, such as your good self, choose to, at best, misread or misunderstand what the definition actually says. You argued that Israel is a Jewish community institution ffs. A state is not a community institution. You have f**king idiots on here tying themselves in knots to protest that burning out Jewish ambulances in Golders Green isn't antisemitic FFS. Know what a local Jewish ambulance service is? A Jewish community institution.

And not that I owe you any explanation of anything whatsoever, the particular pieces that I have issues with are the suggestion that denying Jews have the right to self determination is in and of itself antisemitic, or that one evidences this by labelling Israel as a racist state, along with the one about not comparing contemporary Israeli state policy to the Nazism.

As I suspect you well know, the definition expressly states that criticisms of Israel that are thrown at any other country are not antisemitic.

Yeah you're all over the place here.

You stated that 'It says nothing about criticising Israel being antisemitic'.

Then proceed to outline that one of your issues with the definition is that it prevents contemporary Israeli state policy being compared with that of the Nazis... as to criticise it in such a way would make one... antisemitic.

Someone with a brain the size of yours should surely be able to figure out that both of these statements cannot be true simultaneously.

I could be wrong, but around the time Corbyn was being ousted by Starmer et al for being 'anti-semitic' yourself and a few others were widely accepting of this definition?

You'd absolutely be wrong. If you actually go back and look and what we exchanged, along with the gaaboard's star in-no-way an anti-Semite seafoid was a discussion of differing interpretations of the IHRA's definition. You may recall his repeated inability to actually quote the definition itself, as opposed to simply Google whatever quackery he was able to find on challenged on some of his nonsense.

But sure seeing as you reckon you've found your gotcha moment, why don't you go ahead and link my post where I say I accept the definition?

You said "It says nothing about criticising Israel being anti-Semitic".

Given that most people's problem with the IHRA definition is EXACTLY this, could you outline which other bit of the IHRA definition you have a problem with, that causes you not to accept it?

you have to be persecuting Semites before you can be called an anti-semite.

Ashkenazi's aren't semites but you knew that anyway.

Is there any particular reason to be this f**king pedantic?

Antisemitism is widely understood (dare I say largely accepted, even on this board) to refer to discrimination against/persecution of Jews. Jews are not a homogenously ethnic group.

Nobody, unless they are deliberately going out of their way to be obtuse, considers antisemitism to be an attack on, say, Levantine Christians. You have to resort to your good old-fashioned racism for that.

do you accept the ihra definition?

Whether I do or I don't (I don't) is completely irrelevant to whether anyone with half a functioning brain cell (a high bar on the board, I know) understands that antisemitism = anti-Jew.

The problem with the IHRA definition (as you well know) is that it clearly tries to label actions or beliefs that aren't necessarily anti-Jew as such.

Do you understand the difference?

I could be wrong, but around the time Corbyn was being ousted by Starmer et al for being 'anti-semitic' yourself and a few others were widely accepting of this definition?

Antrim revolting?

 

A simple adaptation of the hand pass would be to shift it to the other hand to pass, it does happen in the game.

I think it's needed though so wouldn't be looking it taken away..

But it's being taught obviously by coaches from under age

Or... we could just ref it by the (perfectly adequate) rules that currently exist.

There is no supply issue

Yet

[Everything he's done since suggests he doesn't know how or why he ran. He just ran and ran, and good things happened.]

Pat Spillane must of written his 100th article on why the split season is wrong. Then again he must written for 20 years that the blanket defence was dung.

Long and the short of it is that Pat's a wee daftie.

He was mildly entertaining as a pundit, but never for insight.

The man - it seems - just happened to have a remarkable engine and never stopped running for his footballing career. At a time when nobody else could run like him.

Everything he's done since suggests he doesn't know how or why he ran. He just ran and ran, and good things happened.

Because there's as little as no evidence at all that he understands the game, or the association.

  excellent

So yer oul hurling isn't perfect after all!!

Lol, rent free

I've dipped in to this 3 times in 12 months😉

   we believe you

So yer oul hurling isn't perfect after all!!

Lol, rent free

Firmly believe that the source of this is twofold.

1. The illegal handpass and 2. the consistent allowing of 6-7 steps in possession

Because the ball carrier can now so easily offload the ball out of a tackle, or carry it through said tackle, the tackling player has very few legitimate means of dispossessing him.  The only way that offers any hope of success is to surround the player and hope that you can force him to overcarry the ball.  The consequence is that the game descends into these situations regularly.

Apply these rules properly and the possession game becomes more risky and teams will evolve into a more territorial approach.

Corbyn was taken out by a combination of Zionistsvand neoliberals.

In a nutshell.  Anyone with half a brain knew the antisemitism thing was nonsense.  Refusing to adopt the IHRA definition was the correct decision - and a decision proven to be correct now

Ironically, the landscape now means they'd have to go with another approach to take down a Corbyn-esque figure, as overuse of the antisemite label has rendered it totally meaningless

53k is ludicrously low, given the levels of shite and scrutiny

I still wouldn't do it for the 67

[face the consequences accordingly]

Kilkenny refused to play on a 4G pitch even after the referee deemed it fit to play on.

I really don't like 3/4G pitches especially for competitive games and can sympathise with Lyng and Kilkenny but the referees decision should be final.

 Westmeath won the toss so probably fair but the GAA needs to make a call on the use of these pitches

Its a hard enough pitch to play on but with the cold snap that 4G could have been worse? It's always a difficult call by the ref either way

But he made a call.

He did, and Kilkenny felt that the surface was unsafe. Are you saying they have to play? The ref puts in his report and that is it.. Down to CCC to decide what comes from that

I am absolutely saying they have to play. Unsafe my Swiss.

You were there?

They don't 'have' to play.  In the same way as I don't have to pay tax or obey a speed limit

But that's just a silly argument

The call as to whether the pitch is unsafe or not is not theirs to make.  It is entirely down to the ref

BB2 has it right here - the ref made his call, Kilkenny made theirs - and should face the consequences accordingly

And I said they don't have to play and ccc will deal with it!

Not sure what bollox else you are adding to what I said?

Ah FFS

You don't 'play' silly buggers - you just are one