Cultural Notes

This is another thread from the old forums which was used quite a lot so I’m starting it here too :smile:

Okay, so a bit of background.
The Australian rugby team had an international test coming up on the Saturday and a few of them went out drinking quite late on Wednesday night/Thursday morning.
Team management found out about this and after they worked out what had happened, stood some of the players down for the next international the following weekend. The punishments meted out differed in severity depending on how late they were out, how much they drank, and their seniority within the team.

As far as I’m concerned that’s absolutely fair enough. The players obviously aren’t mature enough to decide what is acceptable behaviour, so team management is sending a very clear message as to what is not acceptable.
However, given the obvious lack of maturity, I expected a bit of backlash from the players - and so it appears to be.

From this article it appears that the players association is getting up in arms about the issue and preparing to protest it. In particular I liked the starting line "The reputations of several Test stars have been unfairly and irreparably damaged in the wake of the Wallabies’ “Guinnessgate” affair"
And another line later on “It is hard to hand down penalties when there have not been any guidelines set in the first place”

Okay, if you have a big international test match coming up, it doesn’t take a genius to work out that going out late a couple of days beforehand is a really bad idea. You certainly shouldn’t need “guidelines” to know that.
If reputations have been damaged, then I’d be looking at the players’ behaviour, not the management who called them on it.

Gah, is personal responsibility completely gone now?

1 Like

Personal responsibility? You mean, like it’s my fault if I screw up?!

I can’t find an emoji for eye roll…


The funny thing is that a few years ago there was a young New Zealand rugby player called Tana Umaga (pronounced Tarnuh Oohmunguh) who did something very similar, and who also got sanctioned for it.
His response was not to go whining to his mummy about how his reputation had been unfairly tarnished.
He fronted up and said he had messed up. He apologised, saying it wouldn’t happen again. And you know what? It didn’t ever happen again and Tana went on to become one of the most respected people in world rugby.

I’m sure there’s a message in there somewhere if the current crop of Australian rugby players would care to look.

Definitely a shortcoming in the emoji creation process!

Here’s one I found today that is blowing my mind:

Do you think someone from Somalia CARES that a peanut butter and jelly sandwich was used in an example? Truly? I think the Somali and Hispanic children should be more offended by the fact that this woman claimed through her “culturally aware” statement that they were not Americans, because of what they eat.

Err… Really? Wasn’t it used to illustrate a point? To illustrate something, you need to refer to something that the people you’re communicating with can visualize. Even if there were people in the class who for whatever reason don’t eat peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, they would know what one looked like.

Insert eye roll here

1 Like

Okay, the world truly has gone mad. Spend $500k on “cultural awareness” programmes and then lay teachers off because they haven’t got enough money? Are they insane?
I just cannot comprehend the mindset there at all.

As for the notion that wealth/poverty play no part in educational success, it’s all down to racism … words fail me. All I can think of there is “Gravy train”.

I sat there and read that article unsure whether it was an April fools joke - I’m still shaking my head in complete disbelief.

Oh, and I forgot to add this before. If someone comes to live in my house, I expect them to live by my rules, not theirs. That isn’t racism, it’s common sense and common courtesy. If they expect me to change my rules to suit them then they are most welcome to leave.

1 Like

It seems that there is a bit of egg on faces at Nelson Mandela’s memorial service. Apparently the person employed to translate for the deaf didn’t actually know sign language. Check it out here

Ummm… did this moron not realise that deaf people might actually notice?
Perhaps a bit of reference checking might also be in order for the people who employed him?

I do feel sorry for the deaf people who got shafted by this incompetency though :frowning:

[size=4]Adding this bit because I have to - I can’t edit it to just add a paragraph mark otherwise.[/size]

It’s not the first time he’s provided his service either. Apparently he’s done quite a bit of sign language interpretation.

Not accurately apparently, but he’ll waive his hands around enough for the sighted to think he’s talking well enough.

[quote=“Woodman, post:8, topic:528”]
It’s not the first time he’s provided his service either.
[/quote]How could that not be noticed? There was a huge uproar about this - lots of deaf people justifiably complaining. How did he get through any other times without someone saying that he is completely ignorant of actual sign language?

The mind boggles :confused:

Tells you how much those other events were watched. He apparently did it for the rulling political party meetings, as a volunteer.

Apparently now he’s saying he’s not incompetent, he’s schizophrenic and was having an “episode”. He saw angels flying into the stadium. Yup, that’s so much better…

Oh, and he admit’s he’s been violent when past episodes have occurred, but not this time. How did this guy pass any sort of security check?

I read something about someone going back and watching other broadcasts with him in them and he’s never been comprehensible.

I think it says two things, 1) the demand for sign language interpretation in South Africa has been sorely overstated, 2) If you volunteer for something no one wants to do eventually you are considered an expert, even if you suck.

He should have been doing the signing for Baghdad Bob.

Thanks…that may well be keystone information for identification of my next career. :paw_prints:

PETA are showing their ignorance and arrogance yet again. I read an article about a zoo that killed a giraffe and fed it to their lions. While that may be a headline grabber, the article actually explains why - basically because of genetic diversity and space issues. The process of feeding the giraffe to the lions was also used as an educational tool for giraffe anatomy & lion feeding.
That’s probably not something I’d want to see myself, but I can understand why a lot of people would and I can certainly see the zoo’s point of view.

Here’s where People Espousing Twattish Activities comes in.

the organisation Animal Rights Sweden said the case highlights what it believes zoos do to animals regularly.

Um… so what? This is life - things live, things die. Get over it.

“It is no secret that animals are killed when there is no longer space, or if the animals don’t have genes that are interesting enough,” it said in a statement. “The only way to stop this is to not visit zoos.”

It’s not that the genes are not interesting enough, and if this idiot didn’t come from inbred parents they might understand that.

“When the cute animal babies that attract visitors grow up, they are not as interesting anymore,” said the organisation.

Baby animals may be cute, but I’d much rather go and see an adult lion than a baby one.

Elisa Allen, spokeswoman for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals in the UK, said Marius’ case should serve as a wake-up call for anyone who “still harbours the illusion that zoos serve any purpose beyond incarcerating intelligent animals for profit.”

Actually, this should serve as a wake-up call for anyone who believes PETA serves any useful purpose. Zoos most certainly do serve a purpose beyond profit - but that profit is necessary for them to achieve that purpose.

She said in a statement, “Giraffes rarely die of old age in captivity, and had Marius not been euthanised today, he would have lived out his short life as a living exhibit, stranded in a cold climate, thousands of miles away from his true home.”

I’m not sure where to start on this statement. How often does this moron think that giraffes die of old age in the wild? Zoo animals have a far longer life expectancy than when they are in the wild.
Admittedly, zoos used to be horrible places for animals. Even the best zoos now are still not ideal - that would be for the animals to be roaming free. But that isn’t always possible these days with human population as huge as it is now.
If I had a choice between animals being extinct and being raised in zoos I know which choice I’d make.

I always read PETA as People Eat Tasty Animals.

1 Like

PETA, the largest single kill shelter in the US. I can’t stand people who equate animals with people. Yes, I think animal cruelty is bad, no I don’t think butchers are Stalin and Ranchers are Hitler.

When it all comes down to it, they are just animals. I’m sure I’ll feel the same way after Skynet takes over and our new robot overlords harvest us for lubricant.

I ate a PETA member once. It was awful.


Another from the halls of stupidity - from this article

Apparently the guy (Paul Ceglia) who sued Mark Zuckerberg for a billion dollar slice of Facebook is going to have to face his fraud charges. I think he and his lawyer are living in cloud cuckoo land.
From the judge at the original trial:

Last year, a magistrate judge in Buffalo recommended that Ceglia’s lawsuit be dismissed, finding that it was “highly probable and reasonably certain” that the contract was fabricated in order to pursue the lawsuit.

New York prosecutors subsequently filed charges against him for fraud. As far as I can see that’s fair enough.
Not according to Paul.
He is suing the New York prosecutors for prosecuting him.

He also said the government’s allegations do not constitute criminal fraud under federal law.

“They’re alleging that it’s simply a phony, sham litigation,” he said. “That’s not fraud.”

Sorry, but that looks like fraud to me. Faking legal documents to use in legal proceedings (even civil ones) has got to be fraud, what else is it?

On Friday, Ceglia’s defence attorney, David Patton, argued that the government should be barred from prosecuting him for allegations he made in the context of a civil lawsuit, warning that it could discourage litigants from filing claims.

I’m not seeing a down side here. Prosecuting fraudsters for bringing vexatious false litigation might discourage other fraudsters from doing the same thing? How is that a bad thing?

I can only see this ending badly for Paul Ceglia. I just wish his lawyer would suffer the same fate [size=9](only partly there though),[/size]

Wow. Ceglia should consider consulting another attorney for a “second opinion” on the definition of fraud, or at the very least, read up on the subject a little.

FBI warns driverless cars could be used as ‘lethal weapons’
Umm… what are they smoking at FBI headquarters these days? How is a driverless car any different (other than possibly being safer)?

From that article:

bad actors will be able to conduct tasks that require use of both hands or taking one’s eyes off the road which would be impossible today

What, sort of like passengers can these days? Perhaps we should outlaw multi-person and autonomous vehicles - that would certainly cut down the crime rate :roller_coaster: (there wasn’t an eye roll smiley so picked the roller coaster because it looked fun).

The original article even had the following quote:

One nightmare scenario could be suspects shooting at pursuers from getaway cars that are driving themselves

Somebody obviously saw the lunacy in that and removed it (without any notification that it had been edited of course).

You’ve got to wonder what sort of idiot writes these reports, and then what sort of idiot reporter just accepts the nonsense without questioning it.

1 Like