Why did League Express print this?

[Dunbar]

I have nothing against publishing a letter that has a contrary opinion. 

My view is the letter shouldn't have been published because it was just rubbish. 

He was criticising something he openly admits he has no knowledge of and has no interest in.

If I started any critique with the phrase "I have no knowledge of" this subject then my position is immediately invalidated.

I would have thought it would be a sensible enough editorial decision not to publish the letter on the grounds that it was completely irrational and made no sense at all.

[Gav Wilson]

20 hours ago, gingerjon said:

Saucy.

Well this thread took a sharp left turn.

[Barley Mow]

8 minutes ago, Gav Wilson said:

Well this thread took a sharp left turn.

Or to the right. Lets not get back onto the far left/far right debate again!

[Adelaide Tiger]

Just spotted this thread and read the first page?

I cannot be ar$ed reading the next 8 pages so apologies if I go over ground already covered.

But, how do League Express check that a Geoffrey Bagley actually exists ….. or any other contributor?  On reading the article I think someone is on a wind up.

[glossop saint]

2 minutes ago, Adelaide Tiger said:

Just spotted this thread and read the first page?

I cannot be ar$ed reading the next 8 pages so apologies if I go over ground already covered.

But, how do League Express check that a Geoffrey Bagley actually exists ….. or any other contributor?  On reading the article I think someone is on a wind up.

Based on some of the defences on here I expect that he is real.

[gingerjon]

1 hour ago, Adelaide Tiger said:

Just spotted this thread and read the first page?

I cannot be ar$ed reading the next 8 pages so apologies if I go over ground already covered.

But, how do League Express check that a Geoffrey Bagley actually exists ….. or any other contributor?  On reading the article I think someone is on a wind up.

This is getting interesting.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoffrey_Bagley

[unapologetic pedant]

23 hours ago, gingerjon said:

What are you saying about my plums?

I like a couple of ginger nuts with a cup of tea.

Must be cisginger. No transgingers please. Not bigotry, just boundaries.

[gingerjon]

29 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

I like a couple of ginger nuts with a cup of tea.

Must be cisginger. No transgingers please. Not bigotry, just boundaries.

I only self ID as ginger these days. The march of time will do that to you.

[redjonn]

On 24/08/2022 at 21:05, bratman said:

Why do you compare women rugby players to men? Do you do the same for tennis, golf, athletics etc?

I like watching women's sport as well as the men's equivalent. I think highly of netball, I am always surprised how agile and athletic it is given here its not professional.

Having said that I do compare other womens sport to men's.  Only to compare how the sports are progressing as their abilities and skills improve and have improved over time.

[Martyn Sadler]

2 hours ago, gingerjon said:

This is getting interesting.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoffrey_Bagley

I was going to point out that you have a unique ability in being able to spot bigotry from afar.

If there's a bigot somewhere at the other end of the universe you will be sure to call him out.

But spotting that Mr Bagley is a bigot from beyond the grave is an outstanding piece of detective work.

Well done! 

[gingerjon]

7 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

I was going to point out that you have a unique ability in being able to spot bigotry from afar.

If there's a bigot somewhere at the other end of the universe you will be sure to call him out.

But spotting that Mr Bagley is a bigot from beyond the grave is an outstanding piece of detective work.

Well done! 

Canadian employed artists are the worst

[Martyn Sadler]

11 hours ago, Dunbar said:

I have nothing against publishing a letter that has a contrary opinion. 

You don't give that impression.

 

12 hours ago, Dunbar said:

My view is the letter shouldn't have been published because it was just rubbish. 

He was criticising something he openly admits he has no knowledge of and has no interest in.

I have no interest in or knowledge of nuclear weapons but I know that I'm against them. Does that make my opinion rubbish too?

 

12 hours ago, Dunbar said:

If I started any critique with the phrase "I have no knowledge of" this subject then my position is immediately invalidated.

If you began with the phrase "I have no knowledge of" a subject, I would think you were being commendably honest.

 

12 hours ago, Dunbar said:

I would have thought it would be a sensible enough editorial decision not to publish the letter on the grounds that it was completely irrational and made no sense at all.

The letter was perfectly rational and made perfect sense. Mr Bagley doesn't like women's Rugby League and doesn't think that a woman should be included in a series about Rugby League Heroes. He could hardly have expressed himself more clearly or rationally.

The fact that we cover women's Rugby League so extensively shows that we disagree with him. Even the heading we used betrayed that fact.

But was his letter misogynistic because he expressed his dislike of women's Rugby League?

You could certainly interpret it that way and some people have.

But the real misogyny is the idea that women are such weak, fragile creatures that any criticism of them should be censored.

[GUBRATS]

On 24/08/2022 at 20:26, graveyard johnny said:

just like "love thy neighbour" eddy was the ignorant fool and the butt of the joke - bill always came out on top 

Same with ' Till death ' 

[jacksy]

7 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Same with ' Till death ' 

Butt of the jokes or not.

Eddy and Alf taught a whole lot of children and adults.

A whole vocabulary of words they could use to harass people with.

I don't miss those type of shows one bit.

Edited August 27, 2022 by jacksy

[Dunbar]

1 hour ago, Martyn Sadler said:

You don't give that impression.

 

I have no interest in or knowledge of nuclear weapons but I know that I'm against them. Does that make my opinion rubbish too?

 

If you began with the phrase "I have no knowledge of" a subject, I would think you were being commendably honest.

 

The letter was perfectly rational and made perfect sense. Mr Bagley doesn't like women's Rugby League and doesn't think that a woman should be included in a series about Rugby League Heroes. He could hardly have expressed himself more clearly or rationally.

The fact that we cover women's Rugby League so extensively shows that we disagree with him. Even the heading we used betrayed that fact.

But was his letter misogynistic because he expressed his dislike of women's Rugby League?

You could certainly interpret it that way and some people have.

But the real misogyny is the idea that women are such weak, fragile creatures that any criticism of them should be censored.

Regarding your first sentence.  Far from it, I believe that the open expression of belief and opinions are the bedrock of a free society.  You shouldn't take my response to some guys letter expressing an opinion on something that he openly admits he knows nothing about as a measure of my beliefs.  I just believe that opinions should come from understanding... I'm old fashioned like that.

As for your nuclear weapons analogy.  It makes no sense. Of course you can have an interest in them if you are against them.  You can know nothing about a subject (from a technical perspective) but still be interested.  We are all interested in something that can destroy the planet.

If you read back through the thread, I have already commented on the heading for the letter and said I suggested that it looked like you disagreed with the context of the letter.  I am glad you have confirmed this.

As I write this, I suppose that my point that it was a poor editorial decision is what has brought this response.  OK, I am more disappointed with the letter than the decision to publish it.  But I do stand by my comment that it wad a pretty easy letter to ignore based on his criticism of something he admits he knows nothing about.

As for the point on real misogyny.  My response wasn't actually defending Women's Rugby League.  Women's Rugby League stands strong in its own right and needs no defence from me.  I was actually commenting on the intellectual dishonesty of saying you don't know anything about something and yet still feel like you can demean it.  I just don't like that.

Edited August 27, 2022 by Dunbar

[LeeF]

The letter is dreadful and the contents, to most, even worse but I’m still not convinced that the writer really exists so will the real Mr Bagley please stand up

[Martyn Sadler]

6 minutes ago, LeeF said:

The letter is dreadful and the contents, to most, even worse but I’m still not convinced that the writer really exists so will the real Mr Bagley please stand up

I can confirm that he does exist and you might imagine that his ears might be burning by now.

[LeeF]

32 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

I can confirm that he does exist and you might imagine that his ears might be burning by now.

Interesting unless you are “coughing” to being Mr Bagley

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Martyn Sadler said:

 

But the real misogyny is the idea that women are such weak, fragile creatures that any criticism of them should be censored.

That is superb. 

[unapologetic pedant]

1 hour ago, Martyn Sadler said:

If there's a bigot somewhere at the other end of the universe you will be sure to call him out.

The universe is ever-expanding. There is literally no end to bigotry. Stephen Hawking says so in "A Brief History of Time". At least I think he does. To be honest, I`ve read it four times and can`t make head nor tail of it.

 

50 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

I can confirm that he does exist and you might imagine that his ears might be burning by now.

That`s disappointing. I was hoping he was Lisa McIntosh or a mate of hers.

Edited August 27, 2022 by unapologetic pedant

[Chrispmartha]

22 minutes ago, Dave T said:

That is superb. 

That’s one word, I was thinking pathetic myself.

[Dave T]

12 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

That’s one word, I was thinking pathetic myself.

Yeah,  but is it really pathetic,  or are you the pathetic one for calling it out? 

[glossop saint]

10 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Yeah,  but is it really pathetic,  or are you the pathetic one for calling it out? 

Chris should really be thanking Martyn for allowing you to point out that he is being pathetic. I think.

[Chrispmartha]

1 minute ago, glossop saint said:

Chris should really be thanking Martyn for allowing you to point out that he is being pathetic. I think.

I’m truly thankful.

[Chrispmartha]

In all seriousness, the idea that people criticising that letter are actually the real misogynists is next level daftness.