Chris Gayle. Stay Classy
-
<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> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MajorRage" data-cid="581862" data-time="1463976766"><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.<br> <br>So, given the above, please take the time to explain the fallacy, how my premise relies on my conclusion</p></blockquote><br>You just did it yourself.<br><br>Premise: Magazine sends female interviewer hoping Gayle will be a classless, sexist fuckwit. This is the point of the interview.<br><br>Gayle makes classless, sexist comments.<br><br>Conclusion: Gayle makes classless, sexist comments because the paper sent female interviewer which is what the paper was after.<br><br><br>Occam's razor suggests the simple explanation is Gayle is just a classless, sexist fuckwit.
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="antipodean" data-cid="581864" data-time="1463977271">
<div>
<p>You just did it yourself.<br><br>
Premise: Magazine sends female interviewer hoping Gayle will be a classless, sexist fuckwit. This is the point of the interview.<br><br>
Gayle makes classless, sexist comments.<br><br>
Conclusion: Gayle makes classless, sexist comments because the paper sent female interviewer which is what the paper was after.<br><br><br>
Occam's razor suggests the simple explanation is Gayle is just a classless, sexist fuckwit.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>So you agree with me on what the point of the interview was?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Well...., ok then.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> :idiot2:</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MajorRage" data-cid="581868" data-time="1463977740"><p>So you agree with me on what the point of the interview was?<br> <br>Well...., ok then.<br> <br> :idiot2:</p></blockquote> <br>Ahh no, that's me explaining your fallacy to you, as you asked me to. One could be reasonably expected to understand the context given what I quoted from you.<br> <br><blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="rotated" data-cid="581869" data-time="1463977758"><p>As often as I watch Fox News.</p></blockquote><br>I don't know what that means, but I'll presume not much which kind of makes my point for me.
