Samo
Well-Known Member
Are you going to answer the question Nick? You are beginning to appear a tad foolish.
No, I disagree with faux outrage. Edit, outrage is the wrong word.
Imagine if said player was Kevin Kyle.
My point is that he obviously didn't say for reason. I haven't said either is right or wrong, just that people go on about compassion while speculating about what's wrong when he has chosen not to publicly say what's wrong.
It could well be that and I hope he is ok, it's the same as any speculation isn't it? It could be bang on but it could also be wide of the mark, which if so could be just as offensive.
I am not offended by any of them, it's just the point about compassion. It's like the example of somebody dying or being arrested without knowing how or what for. The speculation could be just as hurtful as somebody saying they aren't very good at their job.
I have no idea what it is wrong with him, whatever it is would have surely been tested on his medical for Newcastle if it affects his health so badly and could prevent him from legally playing.
My point is lets not all act like angels while gossiping about something which could be quite damaging and hurtful if wrong.
Which question?Are you going to answer the question Nick? You are beginning to appear a tad foolish.
No, I disagree with faux outrage. Edit, outrage is the wrong word.
Imagine if said player was Kevin Kyle.
Which question?
No, I disagree with faux outrage. Edit, outrage is the wrong word.
Imagine if said player was Kevin Kyle.
Personally, it didn't offend me. The same as the other comments didn't. I haven't said either is right or wrong, I am just saying both could offend a person.Do you or do you not think that G's remark was in poor taste and ill timed?
Personally, it didn't offend me. The same as the other comments didn't. I haven't said either is right or wrong, I am just saying both could offend a person.
Yes it is not compassionate, the same as discussing his health that he didn't wish to reveal. Which was my point.
I have never once said it's offended me, or that either is any better than the other. Just pointing out how I didn't get how it was ok to discuss something online he obviously didn't want to reveal but not say he isn't good at football. Looking back it wasn't just me either.
But malicious speculation is diferent to speculation with empathy; Samo didn't state he had HIV he used a ? Whatever his illness is the thread acknowledged it was serious and had been impactive on his career. People had sympathy for the players circumstances. Grendel came in and dismissed the illness and stated he wasn't playing because he was crap.
I don't think people were outraged or suprised....they just felt it was unnecessary.
He's obviously kept it secret for a reason, don't think anyone suggested there was any malice from Samo or the others and most people would agree that Grendel was being unnecessarily nasty and appeared to be sticking the knife in.
However I think there is a distinct lack of acknowledgement from some on how hurtful it could possibly be towards Gael to unintentionally spread rumours about his health across the internet
He's obviously kept it secret for a reason, don't think anyone suggested there was any malice from Samo or the others and most people would agree that Grendel was being unnecessarily nasty and appeared to be sticking the knife in.
However I think there is a distinct lack of acknowledgement from some on how hurtful it could possibly be towards Gael to unintentionally spread rumours about his health across the internet
Have you took it up with the source, the newspaper? If the the player wanted privacy perhaps they should have not mentioned his health in the article? People will speculate it is human nature, but as I said there is a difference between malicious speculation and speculation with empathy for his condition whatever that may be.
If you are against speculation, this whole forum needs to close.
Yes perhaps they shouldn't, I wonder who it was who made it public to begin with. Was it Rangers, Newcastle or the player himself? Whether it was malicious or not it could have the same impact. He's already had to deny he had hepatitis c, however that was started it probably didn't have malicious intentions either.
Surely there is a difference between speculating on a players health and speculating on who the next manager is or who we will sign?
Just when I thought you couldn't get any lower with your insults.
All missing the point. This should be in the "players that were here briefly that are poorly" section
I know it's shocking.
Next time I will just say he's got HIV as he's African.
So next time I will stereotype him through prejudice of ethnic race
Strange really - when players who were here and a long time and broke their neck there was a somewhat less sympathetic reaction from some quarters
I think the risks of HIV in modern society and football, are across the board not just because he is African. There was a report in the national press not so long ago about a distressed person having discovered they were HIV. Part of their distress was having to contact six Premier League players to say they might have passed the disease on to them before they knew they had been infected.
professional football and magnificent wages does not protect your health or the pitfalls of modern life.
It could be that the medicine being used to treat his illness is on the SFA's banned drugs list and not on the FL's.
It does seem that Grendels intent was to stick the boot in and was an inconsiderate comment.
.
The rules can't be that different between the SFA and FA, if someone compared the two it probably wouldn't be that difficult to work out what it is. Would imagine the press would have done this and if it was something like HIV, which I think would be considered a big story, it would have been known by now.
Could be something as simple as Asthma. Some inhalers have steroids in them. Could be you're allowed to have traces of these steroids if it's in an inhaler prescribed by a GP. The SFA might not take the same stance as they're other approved inhalers available that don't contain certain drugs. Could then be that the banned only by the SFA drug takes time to get through his system meaning he can't play in Scotland until this happens.
I wonder how the footballing world/FA/SFA would react if he did come out and say: I have..... (Whatever he does have)
If he did have something like HIV, would he be banned from playing contact sports or...?
Hopefully it is something trivial, that he can get better from.
Could be something as simple as Asthma. Some inhalers have steroids in them. Could be you're allowed to have traces of these steroids if it's in an inhaler prescribed by a GP. The SFA might not take the same stance as they're other approved inhalers available that don't contain certain drugs. Could then be that the banned only by the SFA drug takes time to get through his system meaning he can't play in Scotland until this happens.
He's already said he can play in England so how the hell has he got HIV? Why would he have HIV?
That wasn't the point. The point was it would be my comment that caused an Internet meltdown - not the assumptions of illnesses associated with African descent.
Why are you assuming the blokes got HIV!
That's the point. I knew the outrage my comment would make - and that the assumption the illness has to be racially stereotypical will not.
It's ridiculous.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?