Hmmmm. I think I've touched a nerve somewhere along the line.

>>For 'atheist' above. we can insert bigot..."Bigot" a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race(Dict) In other words.. "Play by my rules or getout"... in his 'fear and loathing' comment he indicates his intolerant prejudice up front... He assumes that criticism of Islam equates to 'fear' and 'loathing'... he also engages in transference, and projects his own fear and loathing onto another person he has never met. In a mad scramble of self justification..he scurries around like a frantic chipmunk with the onset of winter..gathering every acorn of spin he can...and in each case again demonstrating his own intolerant bigotry and prejudice. He presents his own prejudicial spin as 'fact' but the only 'fact' he presents is his own intolerant prejudice.<<

I'm rather glad I've finally managed to get through to the underlying Boaz.

That outburst was probably quite cathartic for you. Bravo.

Your reaction tells me that you have absolutely no interest in defending your position - which is that you attack Muslims at any and every opportunity - but instead you turn all the accusations I have laid against you over the years, chronicled here quite neatly, back onto me.

Cute.

Sorry for the interruption, Antiseptic, now where were we?

Ah yes.

>>If it is OK to prevent Akermanis from speaking his mind through the use of a coercive threat such as that of being sacked and you approve of that, which you have done, then you approve of coercion.<<

I do not approve of the threat to sack Akermanis. I don't believe I ever said that I did.

>> Presumably you see the protection of the choice of this hypothetical gay player as a "good cause".<<

Why would you presume that? I simply pointed out that saying what he did constituted a threat. "Come out, and you'll have problems"

cf. "Ignore my advice, and there'll be consequences"

Is preventing someone from uttering threats against others a "good cause"?

I think so. You don't.

Pericles:"I do not approve of the threat to sack Akermanis. "

Aah, we're moving on nicely. So what action in support of your good cause do you approve of? Anything coercive at all?

Pericles:"Is preventing someone from uttering threats against others a "good cause"?"

Oh, indisputably, but I'm still trying to find where this threat is that you're talking about. He was warning of a danger, not threatening a consequence. In return he received a very real suspension from his writing and presumably the income therefrom. How is this justified?

Semantics, Antiseptic.

>>He was warning of a danger, not threatening a consequence.<<

The warning was explicit. The threat was implied.

As in "without our insurance, your shop looks highly combustible".

>>So what action in support of your good cause do you approve of?<<

Personally, I would have recommended counselling.

Since it is pointless trying to show him that what he said was in fact a form of threat ("but... but... but... some of my best friends are poofs"), the counselling should be conducted by the team's PR agency. They could advise him on what not to say to the press, or write in the press, or have ghost-written on his behalf for media consumption.

From his asking questions like "why the f%#k can't I say that?", he might actually learn something to his advantage as a human being.

Pericles:"Personally, I would have recommended counselling. "

We're making lots of progress, aren't we? You don't condone the actions of the club in coercing Akermanis then. See, that wasn't so hard, was it?

Now, what do you suggest this "counselling" that you propose should be about and who should conduct it? Should the "counsellor" try to influence Akermanis's choices in any way? What if Akermanis exercises his choice and rejects the offer of "counselling"?

And what of your hypothetical gay player? Should he also be counselled prior to coming out? Should the counsellor try to influence his choice in any way?

"oh what a tangled web we weave" when first we practise to ask for a special pleading, eh Pericles?

You obviously - once again - only read the bits that you want to see.

>>Now, what do you suggest this "counselling" that you propose should be about and who should conduct it?<<

"Since it is pointless trying to show him that what he said was in fact a form of threat ("but... but... but... some of my best friends are poofs"), the counselling should be conducted by the team's PR agency. They could advise him on what not to say to the press, or write in the press, or have ghost-written on his behalf for media consumption.

From his asking questions like "why the f%#k can't I say that?", he might actually learn something to his advantage as a human being."

Incidentally, sarcasm is a difficult trick to pull off effectively on this forum. It can so often be confused with sincerity.

Just a thought.

Anti... do you see it ? :) notice this and you will understand why Pericles is so 'at you'...and note also his method.

PERICLES said (of me it appears)

//1/ Your reaction tells me that you have absolutely no interest in defending your position -

2/ ...which is that you attack Muslims at any and every opportunity -

3/ but instead you turn all the accusations I have laid against you over the years, chronicled here quite neatly, back onto me.//

Wow..THAT cracked me up no end. In the days when I did 'attack Islam' directly.. u know.. full frontal headline conclusion followed up with bullet points... and a liberal dose of supporting evidence, nost of what I said WAS defending my position.

Anti.. you need to understand that if you are criticising 'Homosexual behavior' or.. attempts by them to change the law.. you ATTACKING GAYS and you are an incouragable HOMOPHOBE in Pericles dark mind.

Notice how he claims I have been "Attacking Muslims".... when in fact.. I have attacked the beliefs and teachings of Islam. but such facts are lost on Pericles. He sees a hint of criticism and launches out into a rant which is based on ONLY the 'criticism' rather than the underlying or supporting evidence.

In fact Pericles has no interest in 'underlying evidence' as he says things like "For the gazilionth time, I have no interest in comparative religion" :) Oh how glad I am that he posted his prejudice and bigotry at full mast like that.. I really don't need to do more than simply remind him occassionaly.

ANTI..but you must realize you are dealing with the same creature mate.

Don't expect the PERICLES/FOXY/CJMORGAN cabal to look at your evidence...they simply will not do it.

Their rules are "If you criticize.. ur A GONNER"

I've found that cautious discussion with those as yet uninfected by the cabal's dark orhodoxy produces impressive results.