Chris Gayle. Stay Classy
-
Jeez you are contrary knob just for the sake of it....I have no idea about the times lift out, he is still a bit of a knob and unprofessional. <br><br>
As to the accountant pro-athlete, wtf are you on? They both are supposed to abide by the same laws as others, or are you one of these ones that thinks sports stars get a free pass?<br><br>
I'm not an accountant btw. -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="taniwharugby" data-cid="581717" data-time="1463946440"><p>
Jeez you are contrary knob just for the sake of it....I have no idea about the times lift out, he is still a bit of a knob and unprofessional. <br><br>
As to the accountant pro-athlete, wtf are you on? They both are supposed to abide by the same laws as others, or are you one of these ones that thinks sports stars get a free pass?<br><br>
I'm not an accountant btw.</p></blockquote>
<br>
What laws has he broken? I'm unaware of the laws of India but I will venture he has not broken any. If he wants to say these things and come off like a goof then he can.<br><br>
It is just a pet peeve when people try to compare celebrities/athletes whomever to whatever office job you choose. They are different.<br><br>
Judge them on what they say, just as you would anyone, but their is no position in your job outside of a celebrity where you would be required to answer the questions Gayle was asked here. If you were a trip to HR would be appropriate. -
<p>I m judging him on what he has said, they are pretty low brow and in any other situation could be construed as sexual harassment, we most certainly can compare him to any other persons job, they are people too, just because they are famous they shouldnt get the right to act and behave differently (although the courts and governing bodies sometimes disagree)</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Anyway, I stick with my original view, lame and unprofessional.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="barbarian" data-cid="581592" data-time="1463895761"><p>I don't doubt he has shagged plenty of women, and I don't think paternity suits have anything to do with that.<br><br>
Just that the lines he uses in that interview are a bit weird. I mean, 'do you dye your hair' while looking at her crotch... I can't see how that would be effective in any scenario.</p></blockquote>
This is missing the "for the bros" viewpoint. Its not all about getting a bit. Gayle is a aware of his audience and a good portion of this nonsense is for him to have a laugh with his boys later on. Or to appear cool to his fans. Its not all about picking up.<br><blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="booboo" data-cid="581372" data-time="1463824837"><p><a class="bbc_url" href="http://i.stuff.co.nz/sport/cricket/80244216/Chris-Gayle-involved-in-another-sexist-outburst-to-a-female-journalist">http://i.stuff.co.nz/sport/cricket/80244216/Chris-Gayle-involved-in-another-sexist-outburst-to-a-female-journalist</a><br><br></p></blockquote>
<br><br>
Sent from my SM-G925I using Tapatalk -
<br><blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="mariner4life" data-cid="581549" data-time="1463882181"><p>
I don't know, your panties sound a bit bunched</p></blockquote>
<br>
Maybe ... but I just found his comments crass and classless. As i said I'm not "offended" but I do judge him as a person as a result of his repeated sleaziness.<br><br><br><blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Razbra" data-cid="581728" data-time="1463950684"><p>
This is missing the "for the bros" viewpoint. Its not all about getting a bit. Gayle is a aware of his audience and a good portion of this nonsense is for him to have a laugh with his boys later on.<strong> Or to appear cool</strong> to his fans. Its not all about picking up.<br><br><br>
Sent from my SM-G925I using Tapatalk</p></blockquote>
<br>
My feeling there is that anyone who has to try that hard to appear cool really just isn't.<br><br>
He's damaged his image as the cool laid back totally in control dude. Screaming "look at me! I've got a big dick!" is kind of juvenile. -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="booboo" data-cid="581733" data-time="1463954926"><p>Maybe ... but I just found his comments crass and classless. As i said I'm not "offended" but I do judge him as a person as a result of his repeated sleaziness.<br><br><br><br>
My feeling there is that anyone who has to try that hard to appear cool really just isn't.<br><br>
He's damaged his image as the cool laid back totally in control dude. Screaming "look at me! I've got a big dick!" is kind of juvenile.</p></blockquote>
I agree. But you can tell so much of this is looking down the camera lens looking directly at his mates.<br><br>
Sent from my SM-G925I using Tapatalk -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Mokey" data-cid="581619" data-time="1463904310">
<div>
<p>I'm not offended at the comments, like Barbarian said, they are pretty fucking lame in the scheme of things.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>What disgusts me is the situation in which they were made. Female sports journalists shouldn't have to put up with that shit at work. End of.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Come off it. The whole thing was a set-up for sure. The magazine wanted him to make some shitty comments, so they sent across an attractive female reporter. She would have known what she was getting herself into.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I wouldn't interview a leftard as I don't have time for idiots, so why would an attractive female journalist choose to interview Gayle and talk about all the woman he's apparently slept with.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The reaction to what is clearly a contrived setup situation is equally as shitty as his responses. He looks like a dick which was clearly the entire point of the whole thing. Lets not start this shit about the "poor woman".</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MajorRage" data-cid="581754" data-time="1463961933"><p>Come off it. The whole thing was a set-up for sure. The magazine wanted him to make some shitty comments, so they sent across an attractive female reporter. She would have known what she was getting herself into.<br> <br>I wouldn't interview a leftard as I don't have time for idiots, so why would an attractive female journalist choose to interview Gayle and talk about all the woman he's apparently slept with.<br> <br>The reaction to what is clearly a contrived setup situation is equally as shitty as his responses. He looks like a dick which was clearly the entire point of the whole thing. Lets not start this shit about the "poor woman".</p></blockquote><br>I haven't read the article, nor was I an attendee at the interview, but Charlotte Edwardes is an interviewer and feature writer for the Times. It's unlikely they said Gayle's agreed to an interview so send a moderately attractive woman in an inappropriate dress in the hope that he makes a dick of himself. But having done so, of course they've amplified the awareness in order to sell copy. That's what the media does when an interviewee trods on their dick.<br><br>Or was his dickishness with Mel McLaughlin a set up too?
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="antipodean" data-cid="581816" data-time="1463971322">
<div>
<p>I haven't read the article, nor was I an attendee at the interview, but Charlotte Edwardes is an interviewer and feature writer for the Times<strong>. It's unlikely they said Gayle's agreed to an interview so send a moderately attractive woman in an inappropriate dress in the hope that he makes a dick of himself</strong>. But having done so, of course they've amplified the awareness in order to sell copy. That's what the media does when an interviewee trods on their dick.<br><br>
Or was his dickishness with Mel McLaughlin a set up too?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>I disagree with the bolded part. I think that was the whole point.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I'm suggesting the Edwards thing was on the back of the McLaughlin thing. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>If you are insinuating what I think you are, then the point I was making is about 2 miles in front of me and your about 2 miles behind.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MajorRage" data-cid="581822" data-time="1463971674"><p>If you are insinuating what I think you are, then the point I was making is about 2 miles in front of me and your about 2 miles behind.</p></blockquote><br>I wouldn't go inferring anything - I meant what I wrote explicitly.
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="antipodean" data-cid="581832" data-time="1463973211">
<div>
<p>I wouldn't go inferring anything - I meant what I wrote explicitly.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Ok, so just plain old not making any sense then. Got it.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MajorRage" data-cid="581835" data-time="1463973574"><p>Ok, so just plain old not making any sense then. Got it.</p></blockquote><br>Your comprehension difficulties are your fault, not mine.
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="antipodean" data-cid="581837" data-time="1463973704">
<div>
<p>Your comprehension difficulties are your fault, not mine.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Ok then, so exactly what did you mean by this?</p>
<p> </p>
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="antipodean" data-cid="581816" data-time="1463971322">
<div>
<p>Or was his dickishness with Mel McLaughlin a set up too?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Which was something at no point did I say, or even infer.</p> -
I guess the bigger question is why is Gayle the subject of the interview to begin with? He isn't the best Windies player. He isn't a generational player. Perhaps he is the best quote for a media outlet?<br><br>
Given the nature of the publication it is quite clear as MajorRage says. -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="rotated" data-cid="581848" data-time="1463975049">
<div>
<p>I guess the bigger question is why is Gayle the subject of the interview to begin with? <strong>He isn't the best Windies player. He isn't a generational player</strong>. Perhaps he is the best quote for a media outlet?<br><br>
Given the nature of the publication it is quite clear as MajorRage says.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>How's that relevant ? are the media not going to bother interviewing Kieran Read after a test cos he's not as good as Richie McCaw was ?</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MN5" data-cid="581850" data-time="1463975475"><p>
How's that relevant ? are the media not going to bother interviewing Kieran Read after a test cos he's not as good as Richie McCaw was ?</p></blockquote>
It was speaking to my point that Gayle (and his comments) would be of the most value to the media outlet rather than his talent as a cricketer. Despite being a former circketer herself the journo seems to be more interested in Gayles sexual history.<br><br>
It was a totally stich up based on trying to get him to reprise his big bash comments. -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MajorRage" data-cid="581841" data-time="1463974306"><p>Ok then, so exactly what did you mean by this?<br> <br> <br>Which was something at no point did I say, or even infer.</p></blockquote><br>It was written in plain fucking English: He has form for being a sexist twat with female interviewers. So your argument, which rests on a logical fallacy, has a hard time suggesting he was set up.<br><br><blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="rotated" data-cid="581848" data-time="1463975049"><p>Given the nature of the publication it is quite clear as MajorRage says.</p></blockquote><br>How often do you read The Times magazine supplement?
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="antipodean" data-cid="581857" data-time="1463976032">
<div>
<p>It was written in plain fucking English: He has form for being a sexist twat with female interviewers. So your argument, which rests on a logical fallacy, has a hard time suggesting he was set up.<br>
</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>What horseshit. My argument, which rests on a logical conclusion, is that he was setup based on his previous form. A very large and significant part of that previous form, being the interview with Mel McLaughlin.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>If I have missed the part in that this interview was prior to the MelMcLaughlin saga, then you have a point. If I haven't, then you don't.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I think anybody that thinks a female reporter wasn't chucked in front of him, in the hope that he would say something to make a dickhead of himself, is being naive.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MajorRage" data-cid="581859" data-time="1463976337"><p>What horseshit. My argument, which rests on a logical conclusion, is that he was setup based on his previous form.</p></blockquote><br>There's your fallacy. Your premise relies on your conclusion, without any evidence I might add.
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="antipodean" data-cid="581860" data-time="1463976459">
<div>
<p>There's your fallacy. Your premise relies on your conclusion, without any evidence I might add.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Once again, I have absolutely no grasp of what point you are trying to make. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>I concede, you are clearly smarter than me when it comes to use of the English language.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The way I see it is:</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Historically, a guy has made a dickhead of himself in front a female reporter. It wouldn't have happened if the reporter was male.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Subsequently, a magazine has sent a female reporter to interview him again. In my view, they did this on purpose in the hope that he would make a dickhead of himself again. Which he clearly did.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>So, given the above, please take the time to explain the fallacy, how my premise relies on my conclusion, and I have no evidence? I've already conceded that you are much smarter than me, so please try and take it down to my level.</p>
