Disqus - Latest Comments for Greg

Re: Buddy off with a reprimand

Greg — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 03:23:44 -0000

Hey Molly - it's off-topic I know, but did you get one of those NAB SMS Banking comment spams? You know, free tickets to the game on Sunday etc.

Here's an example:

http://the-speccy.blogspot.com/2008/05/sam-newm...

It got a write-up on Crikey:

http://www.crikey.com.au/Business/20080616-NAB-...

-Greg.

Re: Buddy off with a reprimand

Greg — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 00:54:02 -0000

No, I'm still intact.

AFL players have been remarkably well-behaved this season. I wonder if the extra scrutiny of the past couple of years has helped quell the urge to bash, rape, drink-drive etc. In any case, it's good to see (my banner ad revenues notwithstanding!).

Re: A letter to Neil Mitchell on Buddygate

Greg — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 05:00:25 -0000

Gee, and you didn't get a response to your short, polite letter? How rude of him!

Re: Since when do we trust Jurno’s before Jeff.

Greg — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 05:11:14 -0000

Molly, I've got to say the journo is completely right on both points.

The trailing comma in a quote is a standard part of editing, especially for newspapers. Check any style guides:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=200...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_o...

Secondly, it's very clear that he Kennett perceives homosexuality to be a risk akin to paedophilia (possibly one at a lower level). Of course, Jeff is entitled to his views. But this is bigoted, wrong and he should be roundly condemned. As he was. I think it's cost him his chance of becoming Lord Mayor.

I'm no fan of Kennett, but I recall when he was the only politician with a profile prepared to speak up against Pauline Hanson and had some begrudging respect for that. Now, I'm disappointed to find out that he has a 1950s attitude towards sexuality.

Re: Since when do we trust Jurno’s before Jeff.

Greg — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 09:54:27 -0000

Yes, if what you're saying is true then it would be strange. I can only attribute that to three possibilities:

1) His reinstatement mission only came about after the gaffe.
2) You're incorrect when you assert Kennett was trying to reinstate the trainer whilst making those remarks.
3) He perceives homosexuals to be a risky proposition but, unlike paedophiles, one that is worth taking, on balance.

This last one is a little more nuanced, so I'll elaborate. Perhaps (in Kennett's mind) it's like comparing doing a sky diving tandem jump while on holiday in NZ versus BASE jumping off the Rialto. Both are clearly on the risk spectrum, but one is an acceptable level of risk and one isn't.

If this is the case, then he's still wrong and offensive. Being gay or bi does not put you on the same risk spectrum as being a paedophile. I've got no reason to think that being queer puts you at any more or less risk of being a kiddie fiddler than being straight. But, you know, I'm prepared to hear evidence against that.

If Kennett has been selectively quoted, I expect he (or, more likely, a trusted supporter) would have pointed this out by now. Your conspiracy theory would have more legs if you found the same newspaper replete with examples of comma-less quotes. I'm pretty sure you won't find that, but - again - I'm prepared to be proven wrong.

Re: Since when do we trust Jurno’s before Jeff.

Greg — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 10:44:04 -0000

Um - did something get clipped here? If not, what exactly is true? Reinstatement recommendation preceding gaffe? Well, that leaves option 3. Still a bad view and one that he must rescind.

Geez, you'd think a man who's been to private school, joined the army and worked as Arts Minister would have met a few queer people in his time and learnt to lighten up!

Re: Since when do we trust Jurno’s before Jeff.

Greg — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 11:19:14 -0000

Molly, what on Earth do you think he could be talking about when he refers to "risk" and "liability" and "duty of care"? Was the trainer mad keen on taking the boys hang gliding? Did he have an insatiable lust for tractor racing? A penchant for really, really, spicy curry?

Why would Kennett use the (ahem) "analogy" of paedophiles to illustrate this unspecific perceived risk? He could have used, oh I dunno, say sky diving, like I did.

But he didn't. He mentioned paedophiles. And talked about non-specific "risks" and "liabilities" associated with the trainer, the only relevant characteristic under examination being his bisexuality.

Come on. Get real and stop playing games, splitting hairs and concocting conspiracy theories about selective quoting.

Perhaps the most generous interpretation is that Kennett himself personally accepts the riskiness of bisexuals to be no more or less than the general community but that the bigoted hicks at the rural footy club PERCEIVE there to be an elevated risk. Well, if that's the case, he should call them on it in public and give those pitchfork-toting rednecks a damn good verbal thrashing. But he hasn't, has he?

No, I think Kennett has a view that there is an elevated risk, but that by dressing it up in legalistic language, being vague, dropping hints (ie happening to just chance upon the randomly selected example of a paedophile, wink wink) and talking to a football audience he could get away with it.

JMTC.

Re: Since when do we trust Jurno’s before Jeff.

Greg — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 12:49:10 -0000

Where's the contradiction? Option 3 is that he perceives there to be an elevated, yet still acceptable risk, akin to taking a tandem skydiving jump. I was being generous in proposing Option 4 - which is the same as 3, except it's not his personal view, but that of the footy club. I think 4 is much less likely than 3 and it's only slightly better for Kennett. Both are incorrect and unsupported and he should be criticised for maintaining either of them.

You ask why Jeff would involve himself as mediator if he holds either view. I think it's because he a) thought he could help, b) likes playing that role and c) he likes the limelight. No further explanation warranted.

You ask why he would then try to reinstate the trainer even if he may think the risk is elevated. Well, it is perfectly reasonable to say something like "While I think Hyundais are more risky than Fords, I'd still drive a Hydundai because the risk is acceptable to me." So just because you see someone driving a Hyundai, it doesn't imply that they believe the risks are equal. It just means both risks are below some threshold. This could well be Kennet's view of queers and kids.

But, again, you keep talking about "duty of care" and the "gay/risk debate". What debate? What risk? These concepts are not just free-floating vague notions. You have to say risk of *what* happening. Eg parachute doesn't open, you crash the hang glider, the curry burns your arse off etc

This is the same problem Kennett is getting into. If he doesn't clarify what risks he had in mind when he said that then he is a coward and a fool: A coward because he lacks the guts to say what he really thinks, and a fool because he thinks that dropping hints like that will save him from criticism.

Molly, here's your opportunity to show you are neither: name the exact bad outcome of employing a bisexual footy trainer. Go on. I challenge you. Spell out in a few short simple sentences the behaviours, actions or events that would arise that are so terrible. If you just mumble something about "duty of care" or "think of the children" without specifying them, then you're no better than Kennett.

Lastly, give us a couple of examples of "context" that could possibly make Kennett's remarks reasonable and acceptable. Was it the punch line to an elaborate joke? Was he in fact quoting someone else? Was he rehearsing for a new play he's in? Was he temporarily stunned by a wayward frisbee? Was he holding up a giant "I'm just kidding" sign? What?

I don't think any such "context" could exist. Therefore, bleating on about the nature of the interview or what else was said is entirely irrelevant. He said it. He doesn't deny it. There's only one way you can take it. And that's wrong and offensive.

Re: Since when do we trust Jurno’s before Jeff.

Greg — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 00:09:45 -0000

It seems you're going with Option 4 - Kennett personally doesn't see any extra risk in having a trainer who is bi, but he respects the right of the Bonny Doon footy club to believe there is an elevated risk and that the club is therefore entirely justified in sacking him.

Well, that's a crock. If true, he should condemn the hicks publicly, and the club should be widely criticised and possibly sued for discrimination and unlawful dismissal. Sponsorship should be pulled and any government support or money removed from the club and any sponsors who fail to remove their support.

By your logic, if some racists somewhere reckon that Asians are more likely to steal, then they're acting on a "duty of care" to stop employing them. That is just wrong.

I note that you are the only person who is going "Nah, nah, that's not what Jeff really meant!" when everyone else is on the same page.

I note that you have refused to provide a plausible alternative interpretation for Kennett's remarks.

I also note that you have failed to give any possible "context" that could allow a reasonable person to re-interpret the facts.

Lastly, I see you've been spreading yourself around on the gay sites too:

http://mcv.e-p.net.au/news/no-apology-from-kenn...

When taken with your earlier defence of Buddy Franklin, it's clear you're hero worship of the Hawthorn Football Club has blinded you to common sense.

Thank god you don't barrack for Collingwood, otherwise you'd be combing the streets of Kew, day and night, looking for that possum and carrying on about whether or not the CIA has spy satellite footage of Didak getting into the car immediately after the crash.

Re: Since when do we trust Jurno’s before Jeff.

Greg — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 00:43:36 -0000

Look, I don't hate Jeff. I made that clear early on. I am disappointed.

I don't think you're helping yourself by saying "lot's of people have this position, so it must be right". A hell of a lot more people barrack for Collingwood than Hawthorn - so why don't you join up? Or become a Hindu, for that matter. See, because it's stupid to base arguments on popularity.

Forget Kennett and the media, I'm interested in what you personally think about this.

Just mark a True or False next to these statements:

"There is no more or less risk of abuse or predatory behaviour hiring a bi trainer than a straight one."

"While the risk is higher, it's still acceptable."

"The risk is higher and unacceptable."

"The Bonny Doon Football club is required to sack the trainer once they form the view the risk is unacceptable."

"The club is allowed to sack the trainer once they form that view."

"If someone feels - rightly or wrongly - that Asians are too likely to steal, they don't have to employ them."

Nail your colours to the mast.

Re: Since when do we trust Jurno’s before Jeff.

Greg — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 01:17:05 -0000

True - I would sack them.

Of course, my "feelings" would be based on reason and evidence, not just a premonition or a bad dream or ingrained bigotry.

From your responses you seem to be saying that:

1) The Bonny Doon football club has no reasonable basis for its suspicions that there's an unacceptable risk in hiring a bi trainer. It's just pure bigotry.

2) However, having formed that (erroneous) view, they are required to sack him because they have a duty of care.

3) While this is discrimination, people who advocate or express this view shouldn't be criticised.

Is that pretty much it?

Re: Since when do we trust Jurno’s before Jeff.

Greg — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 02:30:02 -0000

Perhaps we'll leave it at that.