THE BRITISH THREAD II

Rangers.

If you're strong enough, you could read this

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/first-division-or-the-third-world.18063542

It is very silly Mac because they could not say that to the shriekers. Murray was grunting and so was his opponent. Bowlers do it.

You're picking on women because they have more high-frequency grunts. To ban them you would have to have instruments like Snicko and shriek faults when the needle passed a red line.

Hopeless. It would end up in court. Restraint of trade. Violation of human rights.

You have failed to address my post on the matter and you are being sexist.

You are going to have to put up with it. If you want women playing competitive games for big money, which I don't, you are stuck with it.

Have they stopped showing the serve receiver in rear view from a low camera yet?



Why is that Mac when women play best of 3 sets and men best of 5? And with that sort of money on offer you can expect grunting and shrieking.

Your fundie misogyny peeked out from underneath your shmooze.

I seem to remember Jimmy Connors was a big grunter. Grunts, I don't mind. They're okay. You can't make a big effort without a grunt of some kind. Grunts are a bit introspective, internalised.

I'm talking about erzatz, manufactured, intimidatory shrieky howls. There is a world of difference.

You can't call that sexist.

Not too much sympathy for Rangers predicament in this editorial from the ex-Glasgow Herald.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/opinion/comment-rest-of-the-spl-must-respond-to-rangers-sanction-in-correct-manner.18063548

I can call it sexist. It is sexist and I explained why. If the noise made helps the players focus more effort as it must do for them to make it then it is sexist to victimise ladies because they squeak rather than grunt. Anything ersatz or manufactured would reduce concentration on the shot and there's no chance of that with the ambitions involved which in most cases have been being stoked up by various people since the silly sods were kids.

You will be saying next that the women weightlifters do it to drown out the sound of involuntary farting which, as I have no doubt you are aware, can take a person by surprise when lifting heavy objects, and which would cause that sport to appear less dignified than it need be where they not overborne by the shrieks. Personally, I think the shriek helps lift the weight and them disguising the involuntary farting is simply a fortunate coincidence.

Your attempts to deny your misogyny with your support for the equal rights of women to play sports involving violent exertions for big money has caught up with your subconscious which has evolved to find the sound they make when they do so exceedingly trying on your nerves and, from what I hear, everybody else's.

I have no such conflicts. They should not be doing these things at all. Have you never wondered why they are not allowed to commentate on the Royal Hunt Cup as is proved by the fact that our phony feminists in the TV companies have prevented them from doing so.

Your "ersatz" excuse does not stand up to scrutiny. Women should not need to try hard. They have more important tasks.

Not guilty. Where did you get that idea from? I do not support women's professional sport. They are not very good at it, and no good to watch (well, not for sporting reasons at least.)

I'm sorry Mac. I misjudged you then. I should have remembered your fondness for the expression "'er indoors".

I presume you can see the bind the BBC is in then when two squeakers are on court and viewing figures are plummeting. And I take it you now accept that the squeak is an involuntary reflex of the glottis when maximum effort is focussed on a stroke.

That they are not very good at these sports and no good to watch are not very good reasons for recommending that they don't participate. I think it shakes up their internal organs which are very delicate and precious. They have been known to jump off chairs to procure abortions. And they jump about violently all the time in training and not just when making a public spectacle of themselves. And they do other things to prepare themselves which ladies should avoid.

I don't care for tennis although I enjoy seeing Murray get stuffed.

Sorry no, I don't. I think it's a tactic, and an egregious display of bad manners.
I've written to The Guardian about this, suggesting the authorities take some action.

I've got a feeling Murray (whom God preserve) will sneak through his semi.
The other semi, Federer/Djokovich, should be a belter. Both are playing really well.

Me too.

Everybody at the Leveson Enquiry thinks "some action" is necessary but they don't know what it is just as you don't.

If you find the female version of the vocal effort reflex unbearable and not the male form you should find ladies tennis unbearable too.



Which is an assertion and I have given reasons why it can't be. You seem to be heading towards the ladies applying less than maximum effort.

http://www.lidovintageimages.co.uk/classicsportsc007.html

The idea of ladies dress is to restrict their movements so that simply by looking at them we can see that they are incapacitated for any useful effort which, as you know, is socially unacceptable. Useful effort is traditionally the hallmark of the slave.

I saw an interview with Murray. He was asked whether the expectation of his fans bothered him. He said "no" quite emphatically and I don't blame him. He's a working man for pay.

What about Dylan's early sixties prophesy coming true yet again and so spectacularly too.

"The riot squad are restless, they need somewhere to go."

The turnout for the smoke from a personal electric nicotine delivery system was very impressive I thought.

It was another example of the extent to which al-Qaeda has distorted the application of economic progress.

THAT could change ...

It is rather ironic I must admit Walt.

But what if it was actually all for the best. I'm not having it that a straight, up-and-down-the-track Scottish gentleman like Mr Gordon Brown did anything at all that he felt was against the national interest. What he had inherited from the shysters who had gone before was exactly what he had inherited. There was nothing he could do about that.

He just wasn't very good at being dishonest with the public. That's why he often looked a bit shifty. He knew what a mess he had on his hands. He had been Chancellor of the Exchequer for a long time and is a sufficiently expert economist to see the Ponzi in it all. The Higg's Boson of the financial gravity quantum exponential universe.

And it's coming to a peak. Asymtotically. The trick is to prevent it ever peaking. (Play All I've Got Left Is My Two Front Teeth to get an idea of the characteristics of a peaking.)

So two smarmballs were brought in.

When Mr Brown got caught with the unswitched off microphone calling that woman who had confronted him in the street a bigot he got slaughtered with it. His whole team were up all night trying to find a way of minimising the damage.

And she was a bigot. Goodstyle. As are all those who agreed with her and the damage to Mr Brown was proportional to the number of those who did agree with her. He had called the lot of them bigots in actual fact. And they knew it. And didn't like it. And they are bigots.

Who knows whether fixing the LIBOR was necessary to stave off a catastrophe after the previous governments had thought it a popular thing to do to guarantee all bank deposits up to £30,000, which is serious irony. And Mr Brown knew how much the liability came to after everybody had divided their cash up between banks up to a number depending on how many £30,000 units any person had. Most other monies being located offshore. Or in circulation. But that's dead money to modern financial techniques.

Incorrect again, and a bit impertinent. My letter suggested exactly what should be done for best effect.

Interesting to note today, the best tennis player in the world playing in serene and elegant comparative silence.

What was it your letter suggested Mac?

Federer doesn't grunt, bless his heart.

To quote a snip from the Guardian blog about the match -

Fourth set: *Murray 6-4, 5-7, 3-6 3-5 Federer (*denotes next server)
Federer is always so serene, even when he is possibly a game or two away from a 17th grand slam title. While Murray grunts, there's calm at Federer's side of the net. UGGH! silence. UGGGH! silence. UGGGGGH! silence. UGGGGGH! ARRGH! silence. Federer comes through to 30. "Cameron should go now," announces Graham Dallas.

I've met a few ladies who could get him grunting.

I'm happy for you.

I was pretty chuffed myself osso.