Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Link Back -> Andrew Murray message board -> British women discussion section -> Week 35 & 36 - US Open New York, USA - Hard
Post Info TOPIC: Week 35 & 36 - US Open New York, USA - Hard
AliBlahBlah


All-time great

Status: Offline
Posts: 5568
Date:
RE: Week 35 & 36 - US Open New York, USA - Hard
Permalink  

How have I sitfled discussion? Forced my personal agenda on you? I don't believe I have. I have responded to every comment directed at me. I have argued a contrary poiint of view. General disagreement resold as forcing an agenda! That's a very low bar.
As for the tripe: There are laws against hate speech.
The BBC have to abide by those laws. As covered above, the BBC get it from both directions; everyone complains about them and claims the BBC are biased against their views; that's a pretty unarguable fact isn't it? They can't simply leave those things unmoderated in the way that organisations that aren't funded by the licence fee can, they have to make the show of being even-handed, even though nobody will agree that they are being even-handed, and the BBC even knows as they are doing it that it's a thankless task, still they have to make the show!

So, for HYS they have a clear terms of service which lays out what will be routinely removed. They have to manage it somehow.
Running countless HYS on highly provocative topics just wastes money on an unproductive exercise. We disagree on that. I want the money spent elsewhere. If you consider that some pernicious agenda, then, so be it.

If you didn't want to discuss BBC HYS, I wonder why you repeatedly brought it up. I thought engaging the point you had made was sort of what the repetition was seeking.
But, very well, in respect of your request, I will no longer HMS on HYS.



__________________
hoots


Intermediate Club Player

Status: Offline
Posts: 339
Date:
Permalink  

The BBC have stifled discussion by not allowing any comments for or against.

With your pontifications,you sound more and more like an employee or 'moderator' following the party line or agenda with every post.

Most posts are NOT remotely hate speech despite your incorrect assertions that they are[tarring all with the same brush again]

End of.

__________________
AliBlahBlah


All-time great

Status: Offline
Posts: 5568
Date:
Permalink  

In memoriam: the post I'm not writing, that is being suppressed and stifled, because I am no longer HMS, as promised. IRONY!

__________________
AliBlahBlah


All-time great

Status: Offline
Posts: 5568
Date:
Permalink  

indiana wrote:

Inhibited ? Why ?

Say what you think, especially if it's often different.

Yeah, that is why.



__________________
The Realist


Junior player

Status: Offline
Posts: 84
Date:
Permalink  

For goodness sake!

It does not matter if she was aware of him coaching her.

He did it; he admitted it

That means that she gets penalised - anyone who knows the rules of tennis knows that. Unfair but that is the rule which applies to EVERYONE..a junior playing a grade 4 tournament , a grand slam champion.. EVERYONE

She is not bigger than the game

Trying to compare what happened to her with what happens in other sports is totally pointless - the tennis rules were broken, she was rightly punished

She completely overshadowed Osaka's most glorious moment in tennis so far and gave an example of appalling behaviour for other players

I am tired of hearing people trying to justify her behaviour

If there is to be any more comment on this subject then PLEASE can it be about Osaka and her fantastic achievement



__________________
christ


Futures level

Status: Offline
Posts: 1835
Date:
Permalink  

AliBlahBlah wrote:
christ wrote:
AliBlahBlah wrote:

Fault is Patrick's, and he of course gets off entirely scot-free.

 He is her employee. She is, therefore, responsible for his actions. "I'm sorry, I'll fire him" is the appropriate response, not the nonsense that she came out with.

Funny how this works though. Alex Ferguson routinely refused point blank to reprimand his players in public, even after they assaulted fans, or deliberately went on the pitch with the intent of ending an opponents career - and carried out that intent. He was praised for keeping the employee releations side of affairs behind closed doors and never showing any disharmony in public even in face of reprehensible actions - far worse than Patrick's here. They were the clubs employees, he was their direct manager. No apology ever, for anything, nno summary dismissals - and his refusal to do so made him be seen as strong leader, a great manager, fawned over by all, for evermore.
Similar parallels come to mind with Bellichek at the Patriots, or Tiger Woods and Steve Williams - the reputations only enhanced by not apologising, standing their ground - seen as decisive, uncowed, strong men taht knew their own minds.

But, for Serena, she needs to come out and fire her employee and apologise profusely for his actions and is speaking nonsense when she stands her ground. Interesting.

 Point well made. I should have said "discipline", not "fire".

-- and we are conflating two things: Serena's behaviour, and the "offence" that seemed to cause it. Serena's behaviour was entirely her fault, and she gets off scot-free (well, a tuppeny-ha'penny fine) for that. Patrick's offence is not her fault, but is her responsibility.

The difference between Serena and (most of) the others you quote is that in tennis the manager is the player, and the backroom staff (including the coach) are the employees: as such Ferguson, Belicheck etc. aren't the ones breaking the rules on the pitch. The nearest I could see to a similar position is Tiger Woods if his caddy tried to coach him illegally (is that even possible? - maybe moved his ball or something), and when Tiger got reprimanded he went on a rant up and down the eighteenth green whilst his opponents were trying to putt out for the championship. I don't recall anything like this ever happening, and if it did I don't imagine that Tiger would be praised for being a strong leader.



__________________
JonH


All-time great

Status: Offline
Posts: 6109
Date:
Permalink  

I think when I started this debate I meant something different. My issue here was that Patrick had clearly said he did coach, but in the link I posted Serena was clearly pushing and pushing that he didnt. and she couldnt understand still why he would say that he did.

My issue was that if I was Patrick I would feel completely undermined. And if I was both of them i would feel it hard to see where the relationship goes from here, particularly if there was once a personal relationship in this whole thing. It feels like a coaching relationship that might end up closing rather than moving forwards.

I have lots of other views but all have been debated so I wont say more but that was the angle I was raising.!

__________________
JonH
«First  <  1 … 13 14 15 | Page of 15  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.
Link Back -> Andrew Murray message board -> British women discussion section -> Week 35 & 36 - US Open New York, USA - Hard
Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse 		Powered by ActiveBoard