Guest Posted July 21, 2023 Share Posted July 21, 2023 23 minutes ago, RollingJ said: In which case, I wish it would concentrate on the sport and not go off in an avalanche of garbage. Which has zero to do with his sporting abilities, but that 'journalist' is clearly too thick to realise. Seems like a decent article, if you're into cricket. Bravo to that sub-editor, though, for taking a relatively minor point about how the bloke's unusual background might inspire his attitude to risk, and giving it the prominence needed to get people clicking, sharing and rending various garments . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RollingJ Posted July 21, 2023 Share Posted July 21, 2023 1 minute ago, Hecate said: Seems like a decent article, if you're into cricket. Bravo to that sub-editor, though, for taking a relatively minor point about how the bloke's unusual background might inspire his attitude to risk, and giving it the prominence needed to get people clicking, sharing and rending various garments . It's 'cricket' content was minimal, most of the game description was unintelligible, and as you say, the 'sub(human)-editor needs a big slap on the back - with a cricket bat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magilla Posted July 21, 2023 Share Posted July 21, 2023 (edited) 40 minutes ago, Al Bundy said: "Cherry Crush – a wig-wearing, elf-eared creator who barks and makes “nom nom nom” sounds – both maintain OnlyFans accounts with explicit content, but there’s nothing overtly sexual about their NPC streams" Oh, so that's ok for kids to watch then? Not at all, it is made clear the material is classed a explicit by the authors, regardless of whether anyone else thinks it is or not. As such, children wouldn't be able to access, any more than they could anything else on the internet that is explicit. Saying "there's nothing overtly sexual" in no way implies "it's fine for kids to see"... that's just you making it up... and TBH says more about you than The Guardian! Who in their right mind reads that and thinks it means it's "ok for kids"? Edited July 21, 2023 by Magilla Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 21, 2023 Share Posted July 21, 2023 3 minutes ago, RollingJ said: It's 'cricket' content was minimal, most of the game description was unintelligible, and as you say, the 'sub(human)-editor needs a big slap on the back - with a cricket bat. Looks very crickety to me, but I'm no expert. Hey @Prettytom, you know one end of a wicket from the other. What's the cricketball content like here? Full on Botham or an over short of an innings? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prettytom Posted July 21, 2023 Share Posted July 21, 2023 (edited) 44 minutes ago, Hecate said: Looks very crickety to me, but I'm no expert. Hey @Prettytom, you know one end of a wicket from the other. What's the cricketball content like here? Full on Botham or an over short of an innings? Jonathan Liew is an excellent sports journalist. Award winning. Writes for Wisden as well as the Guardian. His analysis of Crawley’s batting is spot on. That innings yesterday was simultaneously brilliant and fortunate. I had a day at the Bazball on Wednesday, but I saw England bowling, rather than batting. Shame really. Liew makes a good point about Crawley’s upbringing and it’s effect upon his attitude to risk. It’s that attitude that makes him so potentially dangerous. I thought that it was a super piece of sports writing. Edited July 21, 2023 by Prettytom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Bundy Posted July 21, 2023 Share Posted July 21, 2023 (edited) 50 minutes ago, Magilla said: Not at all, it is made clear the material is classed a explicit by the authors, regardless of whether anyone else thinks it is or not. As such, children wouldn't be able to access, any more than they could anything else on the internet that is explicit. Saying "there's nothing overtly sexual" in no way implies "it's fine for kids to see"... that's just you making it up... and TBH says more about you than The Guardian! Who in their right mind reads that and thinks it means it's "ok for kids"? I just can't get my head around folk that are so naive. Incredible. Don't forget, the author has " mad respect" for these girls" Mad respect. 20 minutes ago, Prettytom said: Jonathan Liew is an excellent sports journalist. Award winning. Writes for Wisden as well as the Guardian. His analysis of Crawley’s batting is spot on. That innings yesterday was simultaneously brilliant and fortunate. I had a day at the Bazball on Wednesday, but I saw England bowling, rather than batting. Shame really. Liew makes a good point about Crawley’s upbringing and it’s effect upon his attitude to risk. It’s that attitude that makes him so potentially dangerous. I thought that it was a super piece of sports writing. What was the point of mentioning his dad is rich, do you think it was in a positive way or a negative,the way he worded it? Edited July 21, 2023 by Al Bundy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prettytom Posted July 21, 2023 Share Posted July 21, 2023 2 minutes ago, Al Bundy said: What was the point of mentioning his dad is rich? I’m sure that you can read the text yourself and see why he mentions his dad. It’s not so much the wealth, more the manner of its accrual that he’s commenting on. Crawley bats a bit like his dad made money. Its not a difficult concept, but it’s an interesting one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Bundy Posted July 21, 2023 Share Posted July 21, 2023 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Prettytom said: I’m sure that you can read the text yourself and see why he mentions his dad. It’s not so much the wealth, more the manner of its accrual that he’s commenting on. Crawley bats a bit like his dad made money. Its not a difficult concept, but it’s an interesting one. Yes, that's a fair point. I personally think mentioning his " privilege" was completely unnecessary. Edited July 21, 2023 by Al Bundy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magilla Posted July 21, 2023 Share Posted July 21, 2023 3 minutes ago, Al Bundy said: I just can't get my head around folk that are so naive. ...as to not fall for your ill-informed BS? 7 minutes ago, Al Bundy said: Incredible. Not at all, I think you'll find that's most people with a functioning brain don't automatically assume the words "not overtly sexual" equates with "fine for kids". 8 minutes ago, Al Bundy said: Don't forget, the author has " mad respect" for these girls" Which in no way implies any connection, whatsoever, with children! That is entirely a fascination of yours, made up in your head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prettytom Posted July 21, 2023 Share Posted July 21, 2023 1 minute ago, Al Bundy said: Yes, that's a fair point. I personally think mentioning his " privilege" was completely unnecessary. Just about the whole England team are privileged. The Crawley family are pretty unique though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now