Dear Leo,

I read your description of me and my posts, as well as
your description of yourself and your posts.

You've used words such as "Tedious,"
"Waste of Your time," "Mirroring nonsense" "making a fool
of myself," and so on, to describe me and my posts.
Whereas you describe yourself as a careful presenter
of "reason," and "facts." And, it's - your links
that are statements of "fact."

I've taken everything you've stated on board.
And very, very much to heart.

I guess difficult as it may be - it's something I shall
have to learn to live with.

Regarding the accusations you make about Adam Goodes and
the thirteen-year old girl?

What Adam Goodes said was:

ADAM GOODES: "Racism has a face last night and, you know,
it was a 13-year-old girl but it's not her fault. She's 13,
she's still so innocent. I don't put any blame on her.
Unfortunately it's what she hears, the environment that
she's grown up in, that has made her think it's okay to
call people names...the person that needs the moral support
right now is the little girl..."

(Adam Goodes Press Conference. 25th May 2013).

So the bottom line is - are the accusations you and
others made about
Adam Goodes really true?

Of course they are.
After all -
you are all the presenters of statements of fact.
People such as yourself and Andrew Bolt et al,
do not make factual errors.

As for me?
Well I shall now go away.
I don't want to continue being tedious and upset you
any further - with my ridiculous statements
nor waste your time any longer. I shall leave you with
your careful presentation of reason.

I'm sure you'll continue to impress many people on this
forum.

It's obviously something I'm unable to do -
much to my shame.

Leo,
Thanks to Foxy for putting 'the face of racism' comment into context. My understanding was that the two in question, Goodes and the young fan, spoke to each other shortly after the incident. The girl apologised for an errant remark claiming she didn't realise it could be offensive. Goodes explained how and why the remark is offensive, and then asked that she be left alone. It seemed that they both acted in a reasonable and mature manner, and the episode could have been left in the past.

Is it acceptable that there should be 'ape' calls coming over the fence? I don't think so. If someone was going to protest against such an inflammatory remark, then Indigenous Round would be an appropriate time to do so.

In the history of the game, the AFL had been successful in recent decades in eradicating on field race based vilification in what is the professional players' work environment. In the last few years, the AFL have taken a stand against racism amongst the fans, ejecting people from stadia for verbal abuse against Goodes' teammate Buddy Franklin and others. As a responsible community leader, the AFL must take the initiative and help move the situation forward. (If the AFL sits on its hands and does nothing, things will inevitably degenerate.) Having done so, the game is now more inclusive, with higher participation rates amongst aboriginal players than ever before.

The 'ape' slur, though perhaps innocently intentioned on behalf of the Collingwood fan in question, is an offensive race based remark. It implies that the recipient is a lower life form and not worthy of the same level of participation. All things considered, Goodes has nothing to apologise for, except being a great player.

I think some of the crowd noise during the Perth match was intended to put the Swans off their game, as the Eagles and Swans are huge rivals. Yet in the wash up, it was an ugly scenario, and the AFL community are now saying, 'Enough!'

"My understanding was that the two in question, Goodes and the young fan, spoke to each other shortly after the incident"

What a huge power imbalance, utterly devoid of sensitivity and a shocking continuance of the denial of the rights of this minor.

How was that arranged and what arrangements were made for the child and her carer to receive professional support and advice prior?

Who in the hell imagined htat she should be put through that? The names of those responsible should be made public.

This is after the schoolgirl was humiliated in front of thousands, summarily marched off the field, held and subjected to police interrogation for hours without an adult carer or a legal representative present and encouraged to complete an admission of guilt.

Then you opine that, "It seemed that they both acted in a reasonable and mature manner, and the episode could have been left in the past".

How very magnanimous of you.

The handling of the whole sorry incident gave scant or NO consideration for the fact that she was a vulnerable child, a schoolgirl. Shameful!

Thanks, Foxy for acknowledging that there are two sides at least, to every situation.
Dan, your account is reasonable, and shows that the AFL caused much of the damage for which I was blaming Goodes.
I have tried to find what Goodes said about invasion day, particularly how often it was referenced by him.. Apparently , although he mentioned invasion day, he made positive remarks, based on the survival of indigenous culture. He said that it has survived for 40,000 years, which is debateable, and he said that all Australians should celebrate Australia Day.
He said” There are people out there thinking that today is a great day for Australia — well, it is.”
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/opinion/those-who-boo-adam-goodes-have-the-courage-to-admit-youre-racist/story-e6frg7uo-1227463882737

Nevertheless, “racism” is a politically correct epithet for use against white people. Goodes is not backward in using it, and "ape" is not racist, so he is not completely in the clear. He could easily rectify his situation

Dear Leo,

Thank You also for the acknowledgements that you
have made

Foxy, I think in one of your posts, which I could not locate, so I may be mistaken, you said that we should be grateful that we all have such different opinions. It reminded me of an observation made by Jung, after he pointed out that Freud was in error in his concept of the unconscious mind (which Freud called the subconscious). He said that although Freud was in error, his work could be valuable in regard to the topic, for someone who could relate to it.
Jung then said that in human progress, error is as important as truth.
So in his view, as I understand it, whoever was in error in an interaction, such as ours, was as important to the progress of the participants, as the one propounding the truth.
This is one of the various reasons for which I do not take these interchanges seriously