Are the french more forgiving?

[L'irlandais]

If I said black was black, I am convinced that certain forum members would still contradict me.

Let’s test Simon’s theory, in a different context, shall we?

The Bovington Tank Museum's YouTube channel featured a Chat with David Fletcher recently. In which he discusses the Sherman Crab Flail tank, which was the powerful culmination of a series of mine-clearing flail tanks developed during World War II. The whole series of tanks were called the Funnies. Was that trivializing the seriousness of war. Did the British manufacturers genuinely not care for those brave souls fighting and dying on the front line? Did they not in point of fact take the whole killing game, deadly serious?

When David Fletcher (76 years of age) uses the word wheeze to describe an innovative German tactic to destroy such tanks; do countless viewers write in to complain? Or do they simply hear that as being his particular way of expressing himself?

Answer: In the context of WWII neither of those expressions are seen as inappropriate.

 

[SimonSmith]

Short version: vocabulary choice is an essential part of how your message will be interpreted. You chose to not use neutral words.

I think people are entitled to draw their own conclusions.

Also take note: I'm not commenting on your motivations or otherwise. I'm offering a look at process.

 

[L'irlandais]

Of course people can draw their own conclusions. Given how far both of you are wide of the mark, I suggest it is an inexact science at best. Your interpretation of the word «*shenanigans*» for example, could be shot down by an O-level student.

[LAWS]It can mean trickery, underhand action, intrigue or skulduggery.
Depending (of course) on the context in which it is used.[/LAWS] Source www

None of these meanings are inherently trival.

By the way, what is a neutral word?

 

[dave_clark]

By the way, what is a neutral word?

in this context, actions?

 

[SimonSmith]

Of course people can draw their own conclusions. Given how far both of you are wide of the mark, I suggest it is an inexact science at best. Your interpretation of the word «*shenanigans*» for example, could be shot down by an O-level student.

[LAWS]It can mean trickery, underhand action, intrigue or skulduggery.
Depending (of course) on the context in which it is used.[/LAWS] Source www

None of these meanings are inherently trival.

By the way, what is a neutral word?

My clue is in the the post in which I actually listed some neutral words. Did you read it?

 

[L'irlandais]

Not only are you off topic in this discussion thread, but also your accusation that I have not been neutral about both players is balderdash. No suggestion of alternative words I might have used, in either your #38 or #42. Your insistence that you are acting impartiality doesn’t wash.

We were discussing cultural differences which may, or may not, have influenced the decisions of Brive and Perpignan to employ these two Ulster players. From the CABrive-rugby website we can see that the former H-Cup winners are very determined to climb back out of France’s second-tier. 18 players have been left go at the end of this season. Currently they have only managed to sign 11 new players to the squad to replace those leaving. So, perhaps even more so than for Perpignan; this signing of Stuart Olding, tells us only of their ambition to return to top flight rugby soon. I suggest they didn’t look very closely at the media storm that was brewing when recruiting the player. In fact, it was probaly the media that brought his availability to their attention.

 

[didds]

In fact, it was probaly the media that brought his availability to their attention.

... and he may well be a bargain at the moment due ot potentially a lack of options for him...

That doesn't make it a "bad thiog" per se incidentally.

didds

 

[L'irlandais]

I agree the club probaly took full advantage of his unemployability when it came to negotiating his salary.[LAWS]Monthly salaries in the Top 14 range from €10.350 (€7.460 net) in the bottom tier clubs, thru’ €16.120 (€11.600 net) in the mid tier clubs, up to €22.560 (€16.240 net) for clubs like Toulon. However star players the likes of Dan Carter, gross €71.000 a month at Racing 92. Or Matt Giteau (€65.000) & Leigh Halpenny (€55.000) both at Toulon. Morgan Parra at Clermont being the only Frenchman in that Top 10 most paid list. With the salary cap in place clubs need to either do a lot of creative accounting, or simple pay half the squad a pittance. Brive are minnows in the Top 14, so the average salary there may fall well short of such figures.

Toulouse, despite an annual budget of €34,309,000 finished in 12th place 2016/17 season. While Brive with the smallest budget (€16,442,000) finished 8th that season.[/LAWS] Source: TV

Provale (Pro players union) announced it’s members receive a minimum salary of €42,000 a year. So he is assuredly getting at least €3500 a month. Young French hopefuls at the club get a mere €26,000 a year, or about €2,150 a month.

Paddy Jackson was reportedly on €400,000 a year with Ulster and that’s not including any Corporate commitments he may have had. I suspect Perpignan haven’t bettered than offer to entice him over. The player himself has nothing to lose, since the National side have made their position clear about selection.

 

[SimonSmith]

I can - for once - empathize with Crossref here.

You may not think that you are expressing your opinion. However, use of "shenanigans" and "have his wicked way" do carry overtone of opinion.

Words like actions and deeds are strictly neutral with no interpretation to be made about them. Shenanigans, in particular, is a word that is used to trivialize things.

Hey, L'irlandais, when Is aid I gave you some examples, this what I meant. Can I ask - are you functionally illiterate, or just a liar? Because you said, in plain English, that I didn't give examples of neutral words. I clearly did. Would you like to retract your statement?

As to my motives? I don't care about your interpretation. You seem to assume some ulterior motive that I think says more about you than it does about me, but tant pis.

 

[L'irlandais]

Neither action nor deeds are suitable alternatives for my #15.
But then I doubt you spent much time considering your choice of alternatives. “bad (inappropriate or even unprofessional) behaviour off the pitch” might work, but is much more cumbersome.

And why should I change my wording? Because someone takes offense where none is intended?

 

[crossref]

You are confirming that you used the phrase 'off-field shenanigans' deliberately, because that was the exact phrase that conveyed precisely the meaning you intended.

Which is what I thought was the case -- which is why I called you out on it.

In post 43 you expand on what you mean by the phrase - you say you meant

trickery, underhand action, intrigue or skulduggery.
Depending (of course) on the context in which it is used.

none of those expressions either, (in my opinion) are appropriate ways to describe a sexual assault.

 

[L'irlandais]

Nope. I am confirming that in the context of what the French club thinks of Jackson’s behaviour, neither the word deeds nor the word action fit into my sentence. That and I am unwilling to reconstruct my sentences to fit in words for forum members, like Simon who are rude to me with ritual-like regularity.

I teach English and strongly object to grammar policing online.

 

[SimonSmith]

Nope. I am confirming that in the context of what the French club thinks of Jackson’s behaviour, neither the word deeds nor the word action fit into my sentence. That and I am unwilling to reconstruct my sentences to fit in words for forum members, like Simon who are rude to me with ritual-like regularity.

I teach English and strongly object to grammar policing online.

Ritual like regularity? Once a year? Twice a year? Hyperbole does not help your case.

You teach English? So you're deliberately aware of your word choice? Oh. OK. That says a lot.

 

[Dickie E]

By the way, what is a neutral word?

I'm probably going to live to regret joining this conversation but maybe 'misconduct' or 'misbehaviour' may be the neutral & acceptable words.

Certainly 'shenanigans' conveys (to me) highjinks or tomfoolery. You'll get in trouble, but not serious trouble.

 

[TigerCraig]

Moving away from word choices it seems it boils down to (generalising of course):

French clubs think that supporters, sponsors etc value winning championships/cups/promotion and see getting the right cattle at the right price who can contribute to this as the most important thing - if they are nice guys off field its a nice to have optional extra, while

Ulster clubs think that supporters and sponsors while wanting on field success also value good role models who will have a positive brand impact and are prepared to pass on some players who on-field wise may have been able to contribute but whose off field behaviour is seen as unacceptable, if legal.

Neither approach is intrinsicly wrong - and the clubs themselves know what plays best to their support bases

 

[Dickie E]

Moving away from word choices it seems it boils down to (generalising of course):

French clubs think that supporters, sponsors etc value winning championships/cups/promotion and see getting the right cattle at the right price who can contribute to this as the most important thing - if they are nice guys off field its a nice to have optional extra, while

Ulster clubs think that supporters and sponsors while wanting on field success also value good role models who will have a positive brand impact and are prepared to pass on some players who on-field wise may have been able to contribute but whose off field behaviour is seen as unacceptable, if legal.

Neither approach is intrinsicly wrong - and the clubs themselves know what plays best to their support bases

agree with this but there is another possible nuance.

Does it matter if the misconduct was or wasn't in your own shire? Would Ulster be more forgiving if they wanted a French player who had been guilty of the same behaviour in France?

 

[L'irlandais]

Well, given Grobler’s short stay in Munster, I would say the same mechanism that drove these two out of Ireland would come into play. He had a great season at the club, had already served his 2 year ban, yet the haters manage to wheedle away at the IRFU’s stance. That, is fans and sponsors brought pressure to bear on the IRFU.

As others have sought to point out, the meaning of words depends on context. It seems some have a narrow interpretation. Funny the same folk allow themselves a pretty free reign when it comes to word choice.

 

[VM75]

Jessica Ennis requested her name be removed from a stand when Evans was released from prison have served his sentence. Not when he was found not guilty.
He actually served the sentence (with parole) for a crime he was later found not guilty of. So the situation is a little different.

There is an issue if:

1: People can be found guilty by the press and the public. Two groups that do not have the full facts of the case. Indeed the public often rely of papers like the Scum and the Daily HEIL (Sorry Sun and Daily Mail) for the "facts" two of the mosti disgusting examples of "newspaper" in the UK.

2: The basic principle of doing your time and being rehabilitated into society being prevented by "factory doors" being slammed in an ex-con's face. OF course there are jobs that must be closed to a recently released prisoner. In some cases; you'd not allow a child sex offender to work with children or a bank robber to work in a bank etc. BUT unless the person's job played a part in the crime (eg if a sportsman used their "fame" to acess women for the purpose of rape) I think the aim should be that we allow everyone to move on and rebuild there lives.

yes, Ennis got involved unnecessarily.

She lost her liberty, and her job, and rightly so, but should she have had her sporting interest taken away for 'life' ie ..longer than her custodial sentence as well, i'm questioning that aspect of WRU's decision.

 

[thepercy]

You are confirming that you used the phrase 'off-field shenanigans' deliberately, because that was the exact phrase that conveyed precisely the meaning you intended.

Which is what I thought was the case -- which is why I called you out on it.

In post 43 you expand on what you mean by the phrase - you say you meant


none of those expressions either, (in my opinion) are appropriate ways to describe a sexual assault.

And your now accusing someone, who has been acquitted by the court, of a serious crime. Why? Do you have more facts than the jury and judge?

 

[crossref]

Looks like they have completed their rehabilitation already ?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/44531797

Now they just have to find themselves an Irish club again