Originally posted by Ragnorak
Suspending reality for a moment like you and saffa... in what way is comparing one group of black people with another group of black people racist? For example, if I said that Irish whites have unhealthier livers than Australian whites, please explain to me exactly how my comment is racist.

Didn't your comment also compare black South Africans with Zi ...[text shortened]... ght want to read the forum posting guidelines if ye want to continue attacking Crowley.

D

same old, same old 😴

Originally posted by Red Night
I am truly beginning to understand why so many on this site find you so annoying.

I in no way made a racist statement.

Someone posted suggesting that SA blacks were ill-equipped to play rugby.

I responded that the US winger who made the electric run was from Zimbabwe and added in a sarcastic retort, "I guess Zim Blacks are different from SA blacks ...[text shortened]... line even for you.

I shall now follow the lead of most posters and return to ignoring you.

Originally posted by Red Night
I think it was a racist comment.

Originally posted by boarman
Even my post that was taken away wasnt made out to be racist,it was just a remark that was taken wrongly,

Originally posted by Crowley
I know it wasn't meant to be racist, but the actual derogatory terms can't be allowed to be posted here.

That word has more negative connotations than the 'N word' has in America...

Originally posted by Red Night

The statistics say that Black SA's don't get to play for the national team. The statistics are alarming. An argument that they are ill-equipped for reasons other than race seems intentionally disingenuous to me.

Originally posted by Crowley
Why should I have to walk on the proverbial eggs around idiots like you, who apparently doesn't even understand the definition of racism - a word you've been throwing around indiscriminately in this thread, when I've paid my subscription to use this service, just like you?
I volunteer some time to keep the forums running smoothly, that's all. I try my utmo ...[text shortened]... oo much into my post and are over-reacting?


Anyway, good luck with your feedback.

Recapping briefly ignoring recent arguments:

After the Cup it was reported widely (at least here in NZ) that SA Rugby was to have a Black quota imposed on future National rugby teams of up to ten players to squad or team.

That future teams would not be allowed to bear the name Springbok because of previous racist connotations associated with the name.

The press claim that there is a massive following for the game amongst black SA's but they are held back and aren't allowed to play with the white teams at top level.

We most often hear that the claim is not true from white journalists a white rugby supporters. We have heard a claim that the Blacks do follow at Amateur level but the private schools have better facilities and training and turn out players at a possibly higher level. The inference is that the private schools are mostly white schools.

What ever the situation most seem to be opposed to the quota system based on colour.

I do recall Chester Williams playing as part of the 1981 Touring side to NZ many saying it was in breech of Glen Eagles agreement to halt racist tours from SA. Williams came out after the tour and slammed the team management as racist towards him.

Most players from SA have been white. Blacks say they are capable of better and deserve better representation but we haven't seen evidence that black player numbers are there at top level.

Perhaps the IRB need to send a panel into SA to find an answer as to whether or not Black and coloured rugby players are being suppressed in a white run game.. or perhaps to clear the name of Springbok rugby so we can get back to playing the game we love against the teams we love to rival.

If SA do go ahead with the quota system are we expected to play against racially selected teams. This is a critical issue that needs resolution well before the next world cup and preferably before the next Tri Nations.

Originally posted by saffa73
I'd say you just called me an indiot in a public forum, or at least insinuated that I was. THough I can't comment on my previous allegation as I am awaiting feedback, I feel I have to tackle you on this one.

According to the TOS you may not - Post, email or otherwise make available any Content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, to ...[text shortened]... ess I have an apology from you in this forum shortly, I will send feedback over this as well.

Originally posted by boarman
If you think Crowleys post was racist,then yours was too,
Plain and simple,you cant say one is and yours not when they are pretty much identical.

This topic is generating more posts than the actual cup.
Even my post that was taken away wasnt made out to be racist,it was just a remark that was taken wrongly,

Originally posted by Tirau Dan
Recapping briefly ignoring recent arguments:

After the Cup it was reported widely (at least here in NZ) that SA Rugby was to have a Black quota imposed on future National rugby teams of up to ten players to squad or team.

That future teams would not be allowed to bear the name Springbok because of previous racist connotations associated with the nam ...[text shortened]... t needs resolution well before the next world cup and preferably before the next Tri Nations.

Originally posted by Ragnorak
Of course Crowley calling you an idiot is much worse than you repeatedly calling him a racist. 🙄 Or do you think that falsely calling somebody a racist isn't harmful, abusive, harassing, defamatory and libelous?

Care to answer my previous question..
in what way is comparing one group of black people with another group of black people racist? For examp ...[text shortened]... omment is racist.

Let us know how you get on with your feedback. I need a good laugh.

D

Originally posted by spurs73
boarman... you dont like blackpeople..you have made many posts with dodgy comments about blackpeople in the past😀

Originally posted by boarman
Ah if you only knew 😛