Yes I'm lying through my teeth obviously.
Maybe they should change the description of the word. Maybe it should now read.

Fag

noun

North American • informal, • offensive (Unless the person is VERY sorry in which case it should just be ignored)

A male homosexual.

I'll get onto the The Oxford English Dictionary publishers right this minute.

I'm sure you get the point, you're just avoiding answering it.

Doesn't your outrage at this whole debacle and your vehement position upon the use of this particular word identify that said word is in your vocabulary whether you would use the word choicely or not?

Have you never said anything you aren't ashamed of?

You mate is searching for straw men, that's a great one, can you pass it on? But it is quite ironic reading claims of moral virtue from the VT's answer to Richard Keys.

Seriously?

13 pages, we're still doing this?

Whatever happened to sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me?

I think words are cheap. Things like homophobia is an attitude, not simply the utterance of a word. Of course Zak shouldn't have said it and he'll rightly be punished. But the faux outrage and holier than thou bullsh*t on here over a word is cringeworthy.

Don't ever watch South Park or family guy. You'll be crying down the phone to mummy.

This is sort of just going round in circles now...

ZH said something stupid, whilst he was frustrated at a point in a match. He was caught, he has apologised and he will most likely be punished. I don't see how any posters on here who don't know the man can comment on his personality off the pitch. He may be homophobic, he probably is not. I don't care, the only important thing is people realise what the can and can't say in public. I'm sure Zac does now.

I have said things in the heat of the moment that I shouldn't have and I regret. That is the position Zac finds himself in now. He has said he will accept whatever punishment the disciplinary deem appropriate and will move on. We should do 5he same.

The interesting (for want of a better word) thing moving forward is whether the disciplinary believe him when he said it was aimed at MM rather then the Ref. If they don't , as they didn't in the Weyman case, the ban could be very severe.

Jesus wept! I've answered it pal. More than once.

Some people spend too much time on here, and need a life!

Er, no, you said you didn't bother reading it. Call me picky, but that's not quite the same.

The post you quoted asked what Hardaker was meant to do if he wasn't allowed to explain. Since the issue I have is with specific comments in his statement which I feel undermine his apology I obviously think he should have apologised without those comments. Sorry if that doesn't conform to the argument you wanted to have where I've supposedly called him a rampant homophobe. Keep going though, you aren't looking like an argumentative nob at all.

Exactly. You think he shouldn't have put forward his explanation. Unless, presumably, it had been one you approved of as not "undermining" his (undoubted) apology.

I've explained, with examples, why I disagree. You can simply repeat your initial remark - as you have - but that isn't addressing my point. It isn't taking any debate any further. It is simply restating your position and refusing to consider arguments against. That's fine. Just don't pretend you did.

For one thing Southpark isn't direct abuse so your comparison is just so far removed as to show you have no comprehnesion over such.
And secondly, you must have such strong mental fortitude nothing that has ever being said to you ever will affect you ever...meanwhile in the real world things said to someone that ARE offensive, that are said/shouted with vehemence and nastiness DO affect people all the time. You don't have to be weak to be effected by what people say, you just happen to be human and have emotions..seems you're eiither not human or you have no emotions whatsoever..I'm gambling on the former

For me, it's not about the swearing itself - we all say stupid things in the heat of the moment. It's about the double standards at Red Hall where our player got shown a red card, fined and a 2 match ban, yet two players from Leeds (one who has nobly appologised) get nothing. Maybe if the RFL were based in Hull.....

What is it with Hull KR? Why would you want 3 very different situations punished in exactly the same way? Especially one that is still under investigation. It's bizarre.

So because I'm someone who would be more inclined to ignore verbal abuse and let it fly over my head, I'm not human.

Good argument.

They all screamed verbal abuse at the ref so they're all the same.

In the end you're either in the 'refs should man up' camp or the 'refs need to be respected' camp. Regardless of which, parity in judgement and punishment should be applied.

Erm, they all seem the same to me. It's just one player plays for Hull Kr, and the other two play for Leeds.....Get my drift??
Jeez, what is it with Leeds?

So every high tackle is the same and deserves the punishment?

Have a read of what you wrote and my actual response because clearly you either haven't or just don't want o accept you're wrong..which is it?
Because according to you people are going to be personally offended by comments made in a make believe cartoon on TV in exactly the same way as personal insults/verbal attacks such as the one Hardaker has done here..

And on top of that no-one ever should be affected by name calling..




So I unfounded your ridiculous statement by asking if you are a) Human, and/or (take your pic) b) emotionally hardened never to be effected by verbal abuse. I plumbed for a on the basis of your earlier comparison between the likes of Hardakers Homophobic rant directed at another person and a cartoon...Is that a good enough arguement because if you can't grasp it then a is deffo the answer, you aren't a human being (in the normal sense of the phrase) because other human being's of adult age grasp basic understandings..unlike you it would appear.

www.nohomophobes.com/#!/today/

www.nohomophobes.com/#!/today/

Well that was pretty grim reading, good link.

Knowing you, this will be a loaded question. In theory, yes. So we'll now have the argument that some high tackles are worse than others, some are deliberate and also how a ref interprets whether it WAS a high tackle. That in turn will come back to a refs interpretation of abuse thrown at him. If that's the case I will have just backed myself into a corner. Touche.

Depressing stuff.

Personally, I don't buy the 'heat of the moment' argument; either that stuff is in your vocabulary, or it isn't.

You have backed yourself into a corner, you're right.

Verbal abuse is different in most cases, just like physical abuse. For some to say that the incidents are the same is just plain wrong.

Saying that, the Hardaker incident is actually worse, and yet no conclusion has been come to yet over a consequence!