# Social Category > South African Politics Forum >  We are so fickle and cowardly

## ChrisNG53

Hansie admitted only that he pretended to a match fixing syndicate member that he would be able to fix cricket match(s).  At no stage did he actually fix any cricket match. Neither did he ever intend to do so. His intention was personal benefit at the expense of the crooks, not the game itself.
He was condemned, vilified, demonized and hounded as the scum of the earth. A truly wonderful man was persecuted, leaving this world prematurely as a broken man.  Even after his untimely death some continued to vilify him, despite his incredible contribution to the game of cricket and to the stature of his country. Hansie Cronje  did not cheat in the game of cricket. He committed fraud on crooks. We condemned and hounded him to his grave.

Cameron did cheat. He cheated on the most prominent stage yet devised by mankind, the Olympics. He incorporated an illegal kick in going on to win the breast stroke final swimming event.  Once he employed that kick it was no longer breast stroke. It was something else.  It was cheating. 
His action was no different to a golfer using an illegal club to win the British Open, or me claiming my PHd on plagiarised content, or an athlete using a banned substance.  It is all cheating.
Doing it because others are also doing it is simply not an excuse, and never was.  The fact that the IOC looks the other way simply implicates it in the cheating. 
Despite this he remains affirmed, lauded and applauded for being, not only an international champion, but the darling of a whole country, South Africa.  This is the same country whose populace hounded Cronje, who did not cheat, but admitted dishonesty, to an early death.

So what is the difference here?  Why is Cameron Van Der Burg a saint and Hansie Cronje a scoundrel?  It is nothing more than the fickleness of public opinion and the inherent hypocrisy of man. It abounds everywhere in huge abundance in what is known as the phenomena of "convenient untruths" and the  suppression of "inconvenient truths".
Provided the dominant entity pushes us in a particular direction, we follow unthinkingly. Usually the dominant entity is a government.  In this case it is the International Olympic Committee.  Because it has decided to turn a blind eye, look the other way and make a mockery of the breast stroke event, we are content to follow suit.

In my post "Are you a sheep" I state that -- 
Human beings are "social animals". It is by bonding, cooperation and pulling together that we have achieved dominance over all other creatures on the planet. Psychologically we need to feel loved and accepted. We love the feeling of "belonging". To disagree with others is to risk rejection. To disagree with a dominant group is to invite being marginalized, even ostracized. So we are "hot wired" to have a "herd mentality".
In his classic work Animal Farm, George Orwell quite spectacularly portrayed how the views of a dominant group become the norm for the rest. Because the rest accept and propagate these views unthinkingly, he rightly portrayed them as sheep. Sheep do not think for themselves. They simply follow whoever is leading. They are concerned only to be part of the herd. They have a herd mentality. Just one sheep dog can drive a whole herd of a hundred sheep in whatever direction it chooses.
How right George Orwell was!! Really! We see this phenomenon repeat itself amongst humans with incredible regularity. 

So, at a certain point, we are inclined to be sheep.  No question whatsoever!  We will unthinkingly follow the herd, disregarding principle and/or truth.  It is why they all shouted out "crucify Him, crucify Him", 2012 years ago. It is why only a small handful of members,such as the Black Sash, of the dominant White group,  opposed apartheid.  It is why a tyrant, like Idi Amin, used to get a standing ovation from the Afro-Asian members at the United Nations, just months before he was deposed. It is why nobody will take issue with Affirmative Action and BEE in South Africa. even though these transformational models are immoral, racist and absurd, for being an exact reverse model of apartheid culture.
It is why Usain Bolt is being lauded as the greatest Olympian even though this accolade is deserved by David Rudisha, for actually breaking a World record, and Jessica Ennis and Ashton Eaton for beating the World's best in a compedium of athletic events.

The question that arises is this -- is this good for the World?  Is the World a better place because wrong is conveniently tolerated?  Is the fabric of society of better quality because we often choose to abandon principle out of an admixture of convenience and cowardice?

I think not. I think the World is in its much troubled state because of this culture of "convenience", of a "herd mentality", of too many of us being "sheep".  
In my book I posted the following statement as the flypage. The book was published in October 2010.  It was spectacularly vindicated by the end of that year when one ordinary man Mohammed Bouazizi said "enough is enough" and started the Arab Spring.




> An ordinary life becomes extraordinary
>  when you seek truth
> setting your face against deception and lies. Find it. Defend it.
> Then your life will have meaning to others. It will make a difference; howsoever small.
> And the world will change; for the better.
> Yes we can.


When in doubt, just tell the truth.  Oscar Wilde.

----------


## Just Gone

Im sorry but I do not agree with you ................... Hansie did not pretend - he took millions for confirmed match fixing !! ......... It was not only R50 000 as some Hansie fans like to think !

It was because of him and then continuous corruption afterwards and bookies that I have lost total interest in cricket !!!

----------

Citizen X (23-Aug-12), tec0 (10-Aug-12)

----------


## Blurock

WTF? Sheep can not swim! :Confused:

----------


## tec0

There a song I think you must find from “Meatloaf” it is called “in the land of the pigs the butcher is king” Now to come back to your post, in the land of the sheep the same rule applies. The sheep is nice and safe until the butcher comes along and makes an example of a disobedient sheep.

How many people ended up in prison for doing what they believed in? How many people lost their jobs for saying something in anger? 

You tell me...

----------


## tec0

> Im sorry but I do not agree with you ................... Hansie did not pretend - he took millions for confirmed match fixing !! ......... It was not only R50 000 as some Hansie fans like to think !
> 
> It was because of him and then continuous corruption afterwards and bookies that I have lost total interest in cricket !!!


This will explain our weather lately...  :Rofl:   I agree with this statement....

----------


## Dave A

I'd be careful about teeing off on the rules of breast stroke just at the moment unless you really grasp the technical subtleties. There have been quite significant rule changes in the last few years, and I suspect the rules are far from bedded down yet to deal with the change to allow the head to be totally submerged.

----------


## adrianh

I think the most interesting word in this discussion is "truth"  there is no such thing, there are only perceptions and models, nothing more. The problem is that we all hold different models and have different perceptions. We agree at times that some models are the best representation of reality. 

Truth only exists in the mind of the one who believes his own models and perceptions.

----------


## Just Gone

> Hansie admitted only that he pretended to a match fixing syndicate member that he would be able to fix cricket match(s). At no stage did he actually fix any cricket match. Neither did he ever intend to do so. His intention was personal benefit at the expense of the crooks, not the game itself.


Talking about "truth"  Then this is so far from the truth that it is scary and people then believe what they want to believe ........... do you not remember when he admitted to "match fixing" and taking money on numerous occasions !!

----------


## bjsteyn

> .
> 
> So, at a certain point, we are inclined to be sheep.  No question whatsoever!  We will unthinkingly follow the herd, disregarding principle and/or truth.  
> 
> I think not. I think the World is in its much troubled state because of this culture of "convenience", of a "herd mentality", of too many of us being "sheep".  
> 
> When in doubt, just tell the truth.  Oscar Wilde.


I agree that most of us have herd mentality. Today i went to the Doctor and paid R300 so that my ear can be fixed the right way. My ear was hugely swolen for 2 months and I was strarting to panic, thinking maby it was a tumor or something, haha :-). Deep down I new it was just swolen from either rugby or MMA and I should go buy a syringe and drain it . I was totally against going to the doctor, but as my aunt insisted and it is the normal thing to do, i went. If I did the un-normal thing and just did it myself I could have saved R300.

It is the fact of not knowing what would happen if i did it myself, that I agreed to go to the doctor. Maby not 100% relative, but the sheep mentality comes from the fact that you don't know what would happen if you went against the herd. I have never been a herd follower and have been criticized for it allot, but luckily I was born always up for a fight.

As for Hansie, everyone has a opinion. I believe he is not to be judged any more than you would judge someone lending something from some-else, and not giving it back. That is also stealing. Hansie stole from his employers and us as paying watchers, for him to give his best. No matter what degree, stealing is stealing and only God can judge and forgive. No matter how big or small, sin is sin and Jesus paid for it. We think we have the right to judge others, by worldly standards. Well Jesus forgave him and so did I.

I am not perfect and don't expect other to be. Cameron is a hero, because to beat someone like Phelps, took hours and hours and hours of daily training, eating right and social up offerings. He worked hard for it and deserves the reception he is getting.

Cheers
BJ :-)

----------


## adrianh

When in doubt just tell the truth...absolute rubbish...

When in doubt just keep your mouth shut.

The "truth" is  not always appropriate.

----------


## Blurock

> When in doubt just tell the truth...absolute rubbish...
> 
> When in doubt just keep your mouth shut.
> 
> The "truth" is  not always appropriate.


There are times when it is better to just keep your mouth shut, but in the end only the truth prevails. A lie can never be justified.

----------


## Blurock

> Cameron did cheat. He cheated on the most prominent stage yet devised by mankind, the Olympics. He incorporated an illegal kick in going on to win the breast stroke final swimming event.  Once he employed that kick it was no longer breast stroke. It was something else.  It was cheating.


What makes you think that Cameron has cheated? Because some "suurgat" Aussies raised an objection? Do you trust the Aussies? Do you know enough about the swimming rules to say for sure that he had cheated? Why did nobody else object? 

I am sure that the other contestants would have objected if there was the slightest doubt about the outcome of the contest. I think Cameron is a great athlete and he has made us proud. He is a deserved champion! :Clap:

----------


## tec0

In the end it is really easy to judge people. Some do so because they believe that they have the right, others do so to provoke a reaction. Regardless Cricket will never be the same for me not because of one man's actions, rather the ongoing actions that continue to taint the game to this day. 

Rugby is much the same story now. After the last world cup I decided to take up fishing. There is no point in supporting a game where one corrupted individual can change the outcome. So in my eyes the sports that I enjoyed is now dead to me. 

But the Olympics did more than just fail, it simply became a pointless spectacle. It is no longer about who is the best. It is about who can afford it. If you consider the equipment that you must own just to compete you automatically rule out thousands of athletes that simply cannot afford it. 

So what is the point then? There is none.

----------


## Just Gone

Good on you Cameran you did us proud. Australia you can go xxxx xxxxxxxxxx.  You are a country of absolute winers! !!!!!!!!!!!!

----------


## adrianh

Cameron actually admitted to cheating. He defended himself by saying that he's not the only one. They are allowed to do one dolphin kick and he did three. The underwater camera footage clearly shows him doing it. Cameron wont lose the medal because swimming doesn't use video replay review (yet)

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/olympi...0535--oly.html

----------

ChrisNG53 (11-Aug-12), Dave A (11-Aug-12)

----------


## Blurock

Funny that neither Phelps or any of the other competitors made any comment or raised an objection. Any athlete will object to receiving silver or bronze rather than gold. If there was any cheating, they would have exposed it.

To compare "cheating" in swimming to what is going on in cricket is ludicrous. Cricket has become one of the most corrupt sports due to betting and the large amounts of money involved. This is ongoing and involves bookies, players and administrators. So much so, that one can not always believe the outcome of a game. More so in the shorter versions of the game. :Frown:

----------

tec0 (11-Aug-12)

----------


## ChrisNG53

Come on guys lets not try to gloss over cheating and give it a complexion of acceptability. There is no dispute whatsoever that Cameron used an illegal kick. He admits it without qualification that is was illegal.



> He told the Sydney Morning Herald that he took extra kicks, but defends himself by insisting he's not the only one.
> ''If you're not doing it, you're falling behind," he said. "It's not obviously - shall we say - the moral thing to do, but I'm not willing to sacrifice my personal performance and four years of hard work for someone that is willing to do it and get away with it."


So I call him as my witness in saying -- _"It's not obviously - shall we say - the moral thing to do"_.   If it is not the moral thing to do it means that it is "immoral", i.e, tainted with immoral turpitude, wrong, impermissible .. etc .. etc
Now please distinguish this from the examples I have given about cheating in golf, me obtaining my Ph.d or an athlete using a banned substance.  There will be differences of form, not substance.
And with respect, the attitude that "truth is elusive", "in the eye of the beholder" .. etc . .is usually a refuge of those who seek reason and justification to deny it. Fortunately, in this instance, there can be no question of what is true and what is not true. The facts are common cause. We only have to decide whether or not, on the facts, Cameron cheated. He did. He admits it. He says he did it because others also do it. Nothing could be simpler.
Had there been a timeous objection the IOC would have been forced to review the underwater camera footage and we would not have been having this conversation. He would have been disqualified.

On reconsideration, I accept that I am being too generous to Hansie on all the evidence.  Concomitantly, in our "sheep" mode we are being quite fantastically  accommodating of plain and simple cheating by Cameron because this farm needs heroes so badly it would appear.

----------


## Blurock

The "cheating" that you are referring to is taking advantage of a loophole in the rules. This is done in all competitive sport as the one who knows the rules best and play to the referee's interpretation thereof has an advantage over the ignorant. Rugby is an example of that.

Many world records were broken and medals won in full body suits, which obviously gave the swimmer and advantage over the one without one. This confirms what tec0 said about money for the right equipment. No swimmer without money for a tailor made full body suit would be able to compete against the ones that had.

The interpretation of the rules is technical and I am not an expert. I maintain that this was not blatant dishonesty and corruption as is the case with match fixing in soccer and cricket. If it was, the second and third placed swimmers would have objected. The Aussie press is trying to make a big thing out of nothing, because of their own poor performance and small haul of medals at the games. Ask yourself why no other reporters thought it newsworthy. :Confused:

----------


## Just Gone

Well said Blurock. .......... its a loopehole and an objection should have been made within the proper timeline......... but true to form australia always tries to f**k it up for SA.

The bottom line is we took the gold home!

----------

Blurock (11-Aug-12)

----------


## ChrisNG53

> The "cheating" that you are referring to is taking advantage of a loophole in the rules. This is done in all competitive sport .....:


With great respect there is no "loophole" here. No one has suggested it.  Cameron has not claimed it.  You need to provide support for this novel excuse. You are the first person to suggest that whether or not the kick was illegal is not covered by the rules of what is breast stroke. 

The reality is that the "loophole" was the organically induced one, adverted to be Cameron, that others were also doing it. This may explain why there was no objection. Seems probable. The fact that there is general or widespread deviance about something does not constitute a "loophole". 

This is the sort of excuse that we strongly pooh pooh and object to when advanced by our opulent lot at the top when they say "aah well the reason why I felt compelled to waste pubic funds and get myself another Merc 500SL, with bells and whistles, at enormous public expense, is because the rules are....." obfuscation .... rationalizations ... ducking diving about what is right and what is wrong.  At least, with our beloved Ministers it IS a "loophole' in that the relevant protocol does not, in fact, expressly prohibit his/her ravenous appetite.

The kick used by Cameron was impermissible/illegal. Once he used it he was no longer doing breast stroke. He was cheating. If Phelps did not also use the kick, he was cheated out of the Gold. The swimmers who came 3rd and 4th were also cheated out of medals if they did not swim illegally. It is that simple.

----------


## ChrisNG53

> What makes you think that Cameron has cheated? Because some "suurgat" Aussies raised an objection? Do you trust the Aussies? Do you know enough about the swimming rules to say for sure that he had cheated? Why did nobody else object? 
> 
> I am sure that the other contestants would have objected if there was the slightest doubt about the outcome of the contest. I think Cameron is a great athlete and he has made us proud. He is a deserved champion!


For your information I was not at all aware that the issue had been raised by Aussies.  I picked up the thing from Cameron's own statement(s).

----------


## Just Gone

He won.  why dont you just be happy for him and support him.  Its not as if he took money like the cricketers to LOSE a match!   You go Cameran :-)

----------


## ChrisNG53

> He won.  why dont you just be happy for him and support him.  Its not as if he took money like the cricketers to LOSE a match!   You go Cameran :-)


I sincerely believe that Cameron may still have won. He is an incredible swimmer at that stroke. 
Happy?  No, definitely not. I feel frustrated and disappointed that a class act like him felt he needed to cheat. I am appalled that cheating in that stroke is connived and colluded at.   I play golf, and have won a club championship. So has my son recently and he hopes to turn pro soon.  I golf it is the norm that a player will call even an unintended breach on himself.  

This was the Olympics. It is supposed to be the ultimate test of athleticism and sportsmanship.  It is very apparent that the highest standards of sportsmanship are otherwise enforced across the board. No question whatsoever, e.g, just one false start on a sprint and you are gone.
That is why it is tragic, sad and disappointing!; that in this one event there seems to have been a collective mindset that cheating is OK. 

And that is, in part, why I have raised this issue.  At a certain point it explains much of the ills of the World and our own society. We have already agreed, quite enthusiastically in another thread, that SA is a very anomic society. Anomie starts with bending rules, "finding loopholes", seeing everything as grey instead of the black and white that it actually is, excusing misconduct, rationalizing deviance in its many forms.

So, insofar as Cameron admits that he won by employing a kick that is not part of the breast stroke, but still feeling comfortable with this, he represents the anomic society of which he is part, and its culture. Insofar as we wish to justify, excuse rationalize and obfuscate his actions we reinforce our anomie.

Now we should therefore not be surprised, nor complain, when our leaders excel at this.  After all we, as the subjects, have applauded deviance.

----------


## adrianh

I fully agree with Chris, we are happy to bend rules when it suits us and we are happy to complain when other bend rules and it doesn't suit us. Cameron knows perfectly well that what he did was illegal but we feel its ok because he won. What would ee have said had he been beaten by somebody who kicked four times instead of his three.

You see , there is no such thing as truth. Some see his actions as taking advantage of a loophole, some see it as justified and some see it as illegal.

Another 'truth' problem; should Caster be allowed to compete with women on a one on one basis...is it true that she is a man and a woman....'truth' in this case is what we agree it to be, nothing more.

----------

ChrisNG53 (11-Aug-12)

----------


## ChrisNG53

> I fully agree with Chris, we are happy to bend rules when it suits us and we are happy to complain when other bend rules and it doesn't suit us. Cameron knows perfectly well that what he did was illegal but we feel its ok because he won. What would ee have said had he been beaten by somebody who kicked four times instead of his three.
> 
> You see , there is no such thing as truth. Some see his actions as taking advantage of a loophole, some see it as justified and some see it as illegal.
> 
> Another 'truth' problem; should Caster be allowed to compete with women on a one on one basis...is it true that she is a man and a woman....'truth' in this case is what we agree it to be, nothing more.


Thank you Adrianh.  Yours is the first unequivocal endorsement of support out of possibly thousands as this has been also posted on many other social media sites.
As regards "truth" I accept that philosophically truth is indeed elusive. The reality, however, is that it is  made to be so by purposeful, intentional, convenient intellectualism .. MOST of the time. No question!  
You remember the nonsense about Virodene .. later followed by Thabo Mbeki's denialism. So truth is usually elusive among honest men, honestly seeking it as with the fancy sub-atomic super nuclear collider particle stuff.  The rest of the time it is simply denied and obfuscated as a matter of dishonest, fanciful, mischievous, even diabolical minds.
As regards Caster I am informed that it is simply a matter of chromozones in her case.  She just DOES not have any male chromozones. You know the X Y stuff . ... and that is regarded as ultimate proof and definitive that she is female. 
So I accept that as the truth.  However it is obvious that she has an overabundance of male characteristics, Apparently we all have cross-gender characteristics and it is often more pronounced in some. I think that is why I just love pink shirts.  I am just bemused as to why it took so long for the scientists to settle her issue. A chromozone test can take as little as an hour. 
It is interesting (and obvious) that she has been "hiding her form".  Nobody will be more shocked than me if she is beaten.

----------


## adrianh

The notion 'loophole in the rules' is also an interesting one. We know that although the posted speed limit is 60, we won't get fined if we do 69, so we do 69. When we do get fined then we complain because the cops should not be bothering with us bending the rules a bit, they should rather be fining the taxi's who, in our view, bend the rules a lot more than we do...

...so its ok to bend some rules when it suits us and to complain when others do it....

----------


## Dave A

Chris, what is your position on the making of law that cannot be enforced?

----------


## tec0

ChrisNG53 > Are we sheep or are we critics? Did I accept that gold was won via cheating? No I did not but what can I do about it? Firstly why must I? Is there not enough media on this, is there not enough questions being ask? Is admitting guilt not good enough? What about returning the gold will that satisfy you?  :Confused: 

What exactly is the problem here? So you wish to make me a sheep you want me to admit that I am a follower with no meaning no will of my own. Your frustration is noted alongside your views. 

Tell you what, review every game every sport in the history of humanity and you will find that many mistakes was made many people cheated. But that is because we are human not perfection. 

Never forget that being human includes being flawed.  

I am a sheep just because I didnt fly to England to jump up and down on a camera man demanding someone to give his gold back!? 

Maybe I didnt act because my rationality pointed to the fact that it IS NOTED by all involved. Secondly I am not an expert so on what will I base the tantrum and demands? What exactly do you want a layman in this sport to do?   

You cannot demand something if you dont understand it, and that is not being a sheep it is called being rational.

----------


## ChrisNG53

> Chris, what is your position on the making of law that cannot be enforced?


In jurisprudential terms it is a VERY BIG NO, NO.   This is because it precipitates a culture of disrespect for the law. So the rule is that if you cannot enforce the law, don't make it.
The classic case is the historical one involving Prohibition.  Its "unenforceability" spawned organised crime and the Mafia.  The rest is history. 
It is also why Courts will not grant what is known as a "brutum fulmen", i.e useless thunderbolt -- even if you are entitled to win the case.  If the court's order cannot be enforced it will not grant it.

----------


## ChrisNG53

Sorry Teco -- I am not at all with you.   When you have clear facts, indisputable facts, you are in a position to make a judgement call  .. on those facts.  That is why you are a member of homo sapiens.  You can't just choose to see the facts as unclear because your heart starts dictating this. 

On your stance it would be quite impossible to have courts of law as, in so many cases, the facts are actually NOT clear and have to receive very rigorous and trying resolution. 
That is simply NOT the case here.   The facts are simple enough. 

As a human being it gives me NO pleasure to have to point this out.  Cameron is a decent human being.  He has family and friends.  They are all effected by what happens to him and what is said about him. 

However, the public interest outweighs his personal interests.  It is nearly always the case that someone has to dispassionately say what is wrong.  I have spent over 35 years doing this on an entirely dispassionate basis.  Only once was I reversed on appeal. 

However, I still insist that this one you can judge for yourself.  It is really that simple.

----------


## ChrisNG53

[QUOTE=tec0;73620]
Sorry Teco -- I am not at all with you. When you have clear facts, indisputable facts, you are in a position to make a judgement call .. on those facts. That is why you are a member of homo sapiens. You can't just choose to see the facts as unclear because your heart starts dictating this. 

On your stance it would be quite impossible to have courts of law as, in so many cases, the facts are actually NOT clear and have to receive very rigorous and trying resolution. 
That is simply NOT the case here. The facts are simple enough. 

As a human being it gives me NO pleasure to have to point this out. Cameron is a decent human being. He has family and friends. They are all effected by what happens to him and what is said about him. 

However, the public interest outweighs his personal interests. It is nearly always the case that someone has to dispassionately say what is wrong. I have spent over 35 years doing this on an entirely dispassionate basis. Only once was I reversed on appeal. 

However, I still insist that this one you can judge for yourself. It is really that simple.

----------


## tec0

ChrisNG53 > No, there is no choice to be made here, if you consider all the facts you will find that the people that lodge the complaint was also guilty of same transgression. I think you are just pushing for this because others are now forced to accept your point of view. 

Fact is you made sure that the argument cannot be won when you started this thread “cheating/rigging” the outcome from the start. The scenario and outcome cannot be argued thus deadlocked. So now we must accept that by your argument “that was rigged from the start” we are sheep and have a sheep mentality and you deny anyone an argument. 

So who is the real cheater here ?

You demand action where action cannot be taken...  :Confused:

----------


## Dave A

> In jurisprudential terms it is a VERY BIG NO, NO.


Good. We share the same understanding then.

Now consider this rule on the number of dolphin kicks allowed underwater - made with no means put in place to monitor and enforce it *at all*, let alone consistently across the field.

 :Oops:

----------


## ChrisNG53

> Good. We share the same understanding then.
> 
> Now consider this rule on the number of dolphin kicks allowed underwater - made with no means put in place to monitor and enforce it *at all*, let alone consistently across the field.


Lol - -we really have to differentiate between laws in terms of the social contract between the State and its citizens and rules that govern sport.  Rules are not law, not in a jurisprudential or any other sense.  So no body of learning or principle has evolved to say that, in sport, don't make a rule if you cannot enforce it. 

This does not mean, of course, that infringement does not constitute cheating. That much is plain. That is why golfers call breaches on themselves.

Now here is the point.  I will take you a bet of a bottle of wine that, at the very next championship event, there will be technology to detect this form of infringement..  Nothing in the rules will  change.  Detection will be in place.  In that way my stance will be vindicated ex post facto --- meaning that it is/ and always was cheating.

----------


## Dave A

Who's fudging issues of principle now?  :Whistling: 
Sound jurisprudence simply *has* to be a cornerstone of sound rule making. And this situation proves it.




> Now here is the point.  I will take you a bet of a bottle of wine that, at the very next championship event, there will be technology to detect this form of infringement..  Nothing in the rules will  change.  Detection will be in place.


Perhaps you're right, or perhaps the rules will change yet again*. But I expect we will move closer to a situation that reflects sound jurisprudence either way.
And perhaps what we'll have to thank is Cameron's startling frankness on the issue.

Ultimately right now you're stuck with inadmissable evidence. The rule making is flawed. Case dismissed.
And who's to blame for that?

*As I pointed out earlier, the rules in breast stroke have been in a state of flux in recent times.

ps. Golfers call a breach on themselves and take the stroke penalty because the alternative is disqualification.

----------


## Just Gone

Its illegal in rugby to jump up in the air with his knees up when catching a high ball!  Its also illegal to tackle him whilst he is in the air - both still happen and some get "away" with it! !!!!! So dont gripe about it like the Aussies

----------


## tec0

Fact is you want people to be inhuman, your argument is opportunistic, flawed and designed give you the upper hand. You ignored my previous post because you yourself became judgemental and dismissed the claim.  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic): 

That  is the point I am trying to make. This athlete work long and hard, yes the laws was not properly enforced at that stage but it is not by his doing. 

Will it be fair to bring all he swimmers back and try again? Remember now how many of them suffered an injury or needs to recover from the previous event? Psychologically how many of them will lose because they lack the faith in themselves and or judgment? "Case and point looked what happened in the woman's fencing?  :Slap: 

So are we sheep? Are we cowardly?  No if we where sheep we will still be living in the Stone Age. Innovators, Inventors and philosophers did not follow the statuesque and they broke the rules and discovered the future.  :Applaud: 

What you demand is a flawless perfection. Well sorry to say but we learn trough our mistakes that is our most basic human quality  :Smile:

----------


## ChrisNG53

> Who's fudging issues of principle now? 
> Sound jurisprudence simply *has* to be a cornerstone of sound rule making. And this situation proves it.
> 
> 
> Perhaps you're right, or perhaps the rules will change yet again*. But I expect we will move closer to a situation that reflects sound jurisprudence either way.
> And perhaps what we'll have to thank is Cameron's startling frankness on the issue.
> 
> Ultimately right now you're stuck with inadmissable evidence. The rule making is flawed. Case dismissed.
> And who's to blame for that?
> ...


1.  With respect it is not a fudge.  It is actually the law that entities, private bodies, sporting bodies, companies .. etc .. make their own rules and these rules bind their members NOT the general public. There IS no jurisprudence that says that for the reason they must not make rules that they cannot enforce.

2.  I am not sure if you accept that they will ensure that their rule is respected/enforced in future. 

3.  ??? There is no inadmissible evidence with respect.  We have admitted facts. Cameron admits he intentionally broke a rule for advantage. 

4. True the rule was changed.  It was changed, with some tensions involved, to state that only one dolphin kick is permitted. 

5.  There is no rule in golf that makes it a breach not to call a penalty on yourself. Disqualification accrues if you post a wrong score. A wrong score is when the sanction of added stroke(s) for breach has not been applied. Players take it upon themselves to apply the sanction. They don't say, "well since I have not been caught, and others are doing it, it is not longer a breach" even s regards UNINTENTIONAL breaches.

*To conclude on this and other posts --- the harsh reality is* -

a) the definition of cheating, whatever it is, includes "am intentional breach for advantage"; no question whatsoever. If one thinks about that definition everything falls into place.
b) the fact that you are not caught doing this changes nothing. In fact all cheating is done in the express hope of not being caught.
c) the fact that officials fail to act whether on account of i) they are involved in "match fixing"; (there is an expert who claims that this is actually rampant at the Olympics)  ii} incompetence; iii) inattention; iv) or whatever the reason other than a change to, or expressed relaxation of, the rule itself ---  does not nullify the breach.
d) the fact that others are also involved in the same breach changes nothing.

It is that simple.  Just about nobody on this planet, except Maradona himself, was confused about any of this when Argentina infamously beat England in the 1986 World Cup after Maradona scored a goal using his hand and excused his action as being the "hand of God". 
Argentinians, of course, were quite prepared to accept, condone and support Maradona in his stance .. for the same emotive irrationalism that we have as regards Cameron. *  And that is the point of my thread.  Given leadership on a matter we will then act like sheep.* 

I think is important to realize that in a speed test where milliseconds can determine the outcome what Cameron did was an inherent "game changer", even if it had been just ONE extra kick.  Those who oppose my view are simply unable to draw a line in the sand (or is it water) and say at how many extra kicks would THEY SAY cheating was now involved or disqualification accrue.

I think the following minority view on News24 in right on point: -



> pws69 - August 11, 2012 at 23:47 Report commentComments Policy
> It seems to me most are missing the point Pro is trying to make. It is a commentary on human nature, and not just a specific event. 
> 
> What I get from it is this: 
> 
> We villified Hansie because WE felt cheated. We celebrate with Cameron because WE also won. 
> 
> In essence, both Hansie and Cameron are guilty of the same crime, but the comments have completely supported Pro's position. 
> 
> ...

----------


## Dave A

Chris, please note I have not opposed your view - I have pointed to the real source of the problem (which it seems you choose to ignore).

Cameron's defence is "everyone's doing it." My point is when "everyone's doing it", who is really responsible?

Or do you only judge pions and not the kings?

----------


## ChrisNG53

> Chris, please note I have not opposed your view - I have pointed to the real source of the problem (which it seems you choose to ignore).
> 
> Cameron's defence is "everyone's doing it." My point is when "everyone's doing it", who is really responsible?
> 
> Or do you only judge pions and not the kings?


Dave A -- thank you . I understand.  As I stated the post was intended for ALL our contributors. So I was therefore more detailed. 

I think is is absolutely appalling that the IOC permitted this state of affairs to accrue.   The IOC is primarily to blame.  No question!.  It is the reality that Cameron was placed in an invidious position. As he explained, honesty on his part would have exposed him to losing.

However the harsh reality is that most of us are faced with this type of situation in our lives. Do we go with the flow .. or do we do whats right?. I have been there so many times .. and the reason why I am not a multi millionaire is because I decided against deviance.  In my book I explain that when you have been brainwashed by Roman Catholic nuns from age 4, it is perhaps easier to side against deviance even under extreme pressure.  In the end this nearly cost me my life when 2 goons were sent, in 2006,  to take me out.  Fortunately that swine Ian Douglas Smith had forcibly conscripted me into the Rhodesian army, for national service, where I learnt to shoot first and shoot straight.  That is why I am alive to-day.

The good thing is that the nonsense is now out in the open and I we can have no doubt that the IOC and gang will ensure that the rule is policed and enforced in future.

----------


## Just Gone

Chris I think you are the most "fickle" out of all of us here!

Yes Dave he chooses to ignore a lot of extremely valid comments.

----------


## ChrisNG53

> Chris I think you are the most "fickle" out of all of us here!
> 
> Yes Dave he chooses to ignore a lot of extremely valid comments.


If you would be so good as to tabulate the comments (point by point so as the avoid confusion,) that have been ignored I will be more than pleased to deal with them.

----------


## Just Gone

no thanks not eally interested anymore - he is a gold medal champ in my eyes - good enough for me 


plus u could do the tabulating rather

----------


## tec0

Well as I was ignored yet again it actually proofs the point.  :Yes:  People see what they want to see, they judge what they want to judge and will be opinionated. Fact is in this argument you have three factors one being the participant the second being the rules and the third an opinion. 

Now I cannot understand why it is so important to nitpick on each and every aspect. It is important to take into consideration the "human factor" and was the action taken "within reason".  But most important of all it is worth mentioning we "the public" had no say in anything at all. Thus my conclusion; Why force it? 

I am sure that a great deal of revision will be done and the systems and rules will change accordingly thus improving the sport. There is no need to call anyone cowardly I put this debate to rest now If others also put the argument to rest it is not a "sheep mentality" It is accepting that the outcome

----------


## Just Gone

yep tec. ....... agree. ............................ youre def not a sheep :-)

----------

tec0 (13-Aug-12)

----------


## vieome

There is a danger with the idea of calling those who dont follow a certain truth sheep. On the one hand we have the sheep that accept Cameroons win blinded by the bling of the gold, on the other hand if we are not to be sheep we have to accept Chris argument and in a sense become his sheep. So either way we become sheep. SO I think the real question is what kind of sheep are we going to be? Chris you have to see that by people dis-agreeing with your argument they are infact refusing to be sheep to your well put truth. So one thing I see from this argument, is what bling could you put into your argument to make them see your light.  I found your argument pretty clear, in that if we allow these small cheats through it is easier for us to see how we as nation allow larger cheaters to control the mob mentality to accept greater cheats. In a sense here you have said the emporer has no clothes. So why does the wool cover the sheeps eyes on that truth? Could it be because you were light handed on the previous emporer Hanse.

Why are certain facts or truths not accepted by a society? Corpernicous stated 200 years before Galileo that the Earth went round the sun, his truth was accepted because of his aligment with the church, Galileo was killed because he was not. 

I think the problem is deeper down, we all know that human society progresses by breaking rules, that is why we accept it when certain rules are broken. I see the sheep all in the field following orders obeying rules, but then one sheep breaks the rules and says hey when you remove the wool from your eyes you can see differently.

----------

Blurock (13-Aug-12), Dave A (13-Aug-12), tec0 (13-Aug-12)

----------


## Justloadit

Interestingly, had the Aussies not complained, no one would have been the wiser to the facts of that heat.
The other question, had the winner been an Aussie, would the Aussies have raised the objection?

----------


## Just Gone

The question is ............ why did the Aussies not complain in the stipulated laid down period ??? ......... But thats aussie for you .........

----------


## AndyD

I don't see it as a sheep or ethics problem, as long as there's a culture of competition and there's only winners or losers and nothing inbetween it's a culture of 'whatever it takes'. This includes constantly pushing the gray areas of the rules and exploiting any lax enforcement, if you don't you're not competing to the best of your ability.

----------

Blurock (13-Aug-12), tec0 (13-Aug-12)

----------


## Blurock

I think we may all be making much to much about a matter that did not even make the news, but was first raised in a blog. I agree with Chris that cheating and dishonesty can never be allowed, however we should see the incident in context.

Consider the following; In the era of the full body suit, Cameron or any other swimmer could have been asked whether it gave them an unfair advantage. To be honest, he had to say yes, it did give him an unfair advantage over the swimmer without the full body suit. Did he cheat? No, the rules allowed this kind of "cheating". Many world records were recorded. 

The rules have since been adapted and full body suits have been banned. I am sure that the rules regarding under water footage and the number of kicks will be changed in future, but for now, the rules still stand. We can not blame the swimmer for that.

Fortunately the rules of any game evolve and is adapted to the progress made in the sport. It changes all the time in an attempt to make it fair to the competitors. It now also considers the spectacle of an event in view of mega sponsorships and televised broadcasts.

It is expected of a competitor to find the limits. A racing driver that has not gone off the track at least once has not explored that limit yet. (See Vieome's post). Someone will always find a new way to go further, higher, faster. Imagine if the Fosbury flop had to be banned, or carbon tennis rackets or running shoes or .... :Wink:

----------

tec0 (13-Aug-12)

----------


## Nigel Hamilton

> I play golf, and have won a club championship. So has my son recently and he hopes to turn pro soon.  I golf it is the norm that a player will call even an unintended breach on himself.


Chris..... ever played rugby? Just actually trying to visualise this

Bakkies: "ref, ref,...i just gave a guy a snot klap in the ruck that you didn't see, please award a penalty against me, and give me a yellow card...I have been a naughty boy!"

Hougaard: "ref that pass i received, just before i scored that impressive try was slightly forward, please disallow it, and lets have a scrum down against us"

ROTFLMAO

----------


## Just Gone

lol .... nice one Nigel.

Or Butch saying that he did have a slight knock on before he scored that try ............ so ref dont award it - lets go for an opposition drop out rather ............

----------


## ChrisNG53

> Chris..... ever played rugby? Just actually trying to visualise this
> 
> Bakkies: "ref, ref,...i just gave a guy a snot klap in the ruck that you didn't see, please award a penalty against me, and give me a yellow card...I have been a naughty boy!"
> 
> Hougaard: "ref that pass i received, just before i scored that impressive try was slightly forward, please disallow it, and lets have a scrum down against us"
> 
> ROTFLMAO


Not sure what point you are seeking to make.
I am pointing to the culture in golf to call a penalty on oneself ... instead of cheating.
A snot klap in the ruck does not lead to disqualification. It is an infringement that attracts a sanction imposed by the ref.

----------


## ChrisNG53

> no thanks not eally interested anymore - he is a gold medal champ in my eyes - good enough for me 
> 
> 
> plus u could do the tabulating rather


Look, if you cannot back up accusations with sentient reasoning you definitely should not be participating in a social network site.

----------


## ChrisNG53

> Well as I was ignored yet again it actually proofs the point.  People see what they want to see, they judge what they want to judge and will be opinionated. Fact is in this argument you have three factors one being the participant the second being the rules and the third an opinion. 
> 
> Now I cannot understand why it is so important to nitpick on each and every aspect. It is important to take into consideration the "human factor" and was the action taken "within reason".  But most important of all it is worth mentioning we "the public" had no say in anything at all. Thus my conclusion; Why force it? 
> 
> I am sure that a great deal of revision will be done and the systems and rules will change accordingly thus improving the sport. There is no need to call anyone cowardly I put this debate to rest now If others also put the argument to rest it is not a "sheep mentality" It is accepting that the outcome


I don't think that it is a question of "nit-picking at all. 
Can I ask you and everyone else having problems in this respect these 2 questions=== 
1.  If Cameron had been caught, do you say he would not have been disqualified?
2. How many dolphin kicks would you say Cameron should have taken before YOU agree that he should be disqualified?, 4, 5. 6, 7 .... at what point DO YOU DRAW THE LINE IN THE SAND (WATER)  and say "this is disqualification/cheating?"

This exercise demonstrates that the are no degrees in cheating . . whether it is one extra kick or 10 -- it is cheating!

There will be no revision about extra kicks not being allowed. They are NOT allowed,  All that is going to happen is that they will not be policed and the rule enforced.

----------


## ChrisNG53

> I don't see it as a sheep or ethics problem, as long as there's a culture of competition and there's only winners or losers and nothing inbetween it's a culture of 'whatever it takes'. This includes constantly pushing the gray areas of the rules and exploiting any lax enforcement, if you don't you're not competing to the best of your ability.



There is NO "GREY AREA".   Only ONE dolphin kick is allowed in a turn. That is the rule.  It is not grey!   All that happened is that Cameron took advantage of the fact that it was not being policed in order to cheat.

----------


## ChrisNG53

> ChrisNG53 > No, there is no choice to be made here, if you consider all the facts you will find that the people that lodge the complaint was also guilty of same transgression. I think you are just pushing for this because others are now forced to accept your point of view. 
> 
> Fact is you made sure that the argument cannot be won when you started this thread “cheating/rigging” the outcome from the start. The scenario and outcome cannot be argued thus deadlocked. So now we must accept that by your argument “that was rigged from the start” we are sheep and have a sheep mentality and you deny anyone an argument. 
> 
> So who is the real cheater here ?
> 
> You demand action where action cannot be taken...


@Teco --- I did not demand action.   I am pointing out that, provided there is leadership, people tend to "go with the flow', stop thinking for themselves and behave like sheep. 
All that happened is that Cameron took advantage of the fact of bad/lax monitoring in order to cheat.  It is really that simple.

It really does not matter who is moaning, whining, bitching .. etc ... even if they have red eyes, cloven hooves for feet and a tail.
It does not alter the facts of the matter.

----------


## ChrisNG53

> Its illegal in rugby to jump up in the air with his knees up when catching a high ball!  Its also illegal to tackle him whilst he is in the air - both still happen and some get "away" with it! !!!!! So dont gripe about it like the Aussies


@Kevin --- lol -- you are referring to "infringements" for which there are designated penalties prescribes and which the referee imposes.   None of these will induce disqualification. 
The sanction for using extra dolphin kicks in breast stroke is disqualification. Cameron just took advantage of the fact that monitoring was bad in order to get away with it.  That is cheating.

----------


## ChrisNG53

> There is a danger with the idea of calling those who dont follow a certain truth sheep. On the one hand we have the sheep that accept Cameroons win blinded by the bling of the gold, on the other hand if we are not to be sheep we have to accept Chris argument and in a sense become his sheep. So either way we become sheep. SO I think the real question is what kind of sheep are we going to be? Chris you have to see that by people dis-agreeing with your argument they are infact refusing to be sheep to your well put truth. So one thing I see from this argument, is what bling could you put into your argument to make them see your light.  I found your argument pretty clear, in that if we allow these small cheats through it is easier for us to see how we as nation allow larger cheaters to control the mob mentality to accept greater cheats. In a sense here you have said the emporer has no clothes. So why does the wool cover the sheeps eyes on that truth? Could it be because you were light handed on the previous emporer Hanse.
> 
> Why are certain facts or truths not accepted by a society? Corpernicous stated 200 years before Galileo that the Earth went round the sun, his truth was accepted because of his aligment with the church, Galileo was killed because he was not. 
> 
> I think the problem is deeper down, we all know that human society progresses by breaking rules, that is why we accept it when certain rules are broken. I see the sheep all in the field following orders obeying rules, but then one sheep breaks the rules and says hey when you remove the wool from your eyes you can see differently.



aah - -at last a sentient, well thought our point of view. 
The simple answer is that you are definitely NOT a sheep if you have come to a stance after sound reasoning.  So if you end up siding with Chris because of sound reasoning you cannot be a sheep.  Sheep do not think for themselves.  They just go with the flow .. let others do the thinking for them.
Of course, if your thinking is badly affected by the "herd mentality" you are still a sheep or, at the very least, "very sheepish" ... lol.

----------


## AndyD

> There is NO "GREY AREA".   Only ONE dolphin kick is allowed in a turn. That is the rule.  It is not grey!   All that happened is that Cameron took advantage of the fact that it was not being policed in order to cheat.


Don't get me wrong Chris, I also think he cheated, you're right he took advantage of it not being aggressively policed but I think you missed my point. What I was saying is that given the culture of the Olympic Games he wouldn't have competed to the best of his ability if he hadn't cheated. I was pointing out that it's not about sportsmanship or camaraderie between different athletes or cultures it's only about winning, being recognised as the worlds best and making money so if there's an opportunity to cheat you should do so if you can get away with it. I don't look at what he did as any kind of negative, I see it as a great judgement call or a gambol that paid off, he did everything in his power to win (including cheating) and he now has the gold medal in his cabinet as justification that he was the best competitor.

Maybe they should remove the word 'games' from the Olympics name, it would eliminate the confusion that causes threads like this on forums because nothing in the ethos of the tournament comes even close to the definition of the word 'game'.

----------


## tec0

ChrisNG53 > As a writer you will know as well as I do that to put emotion into words is challenging. But imagine the absolute moment where you are so close in winning you can taste it. You know others will take more than one "dolphin kick" others may not but still the possibility exists 

In his mind a billion reasons mounts to one moment "Do I win or do I lose" It is intoxicating as the body produces all kinds of chemicals and the brain must handle it all. Soon one can only think of two things "breath and dont lose" Thanks to the chemicals a decision was rationalized! He does what needs to be done. 

He wins not only because of his actions but because the rule makers couldnt be bothered to review there own shortcomings. He wins because fate and a moment in time permitted it!  :Yes: 

So are we sheep? Or are we human? Right now you are demanding that this athlete must go against his own desire "and it is a very powerful chemical, more powerful than any drug this is also fact" and lose?

No this is not about sheep you expect this person to behave like a robot programmed with rules not a human with feelings passion and will! 

This is not about having a sheep mentality or anything like that. You want people to deny themselves their own will to win! If that is the case then why have sporting events?

----------

ChrisNG53 (16-Aug-12)

----------


## adrianh

Chris its very simple, it works like this; our heros don't cheat, they just tweak the rules a bit, those other bastards are the ones that cheat and they should be burned at the stake for doing so...

----------


## vieome

@Tec0 on reading Chris's article, what I got from it, is that Cameroon is  not a sheep, but that we who blinding accept even the smallest cheat are the sheep, because in allowing a small cheat, be it for glory of the nation, we are in a sense programmed humans(sheep), blinding ourselves from the truth. And in doing so we open the way for larger cheats to play the same game on us. 

If you argue that this man deserved to win because he did the normal thing and followed his desire and the chemicals in his body, where do you draw the line with something like that, is it okay to for a man to rape, if that is what he desires, I think the facts are that the line must be drawn where the line is, that they are only allowed one butterfly kick. The only question to ask is DID HE CHEAT YES OR NO? The buts or the reasons why he cheated dont matter, the fact that the medal stands dont matter. What matters is why as humans we behave sheepishly and accept a small cheat, and worse yet, do we accept it blindly because glory is ours? And it is this part of our human nature, that blindly accepts fiction as truth that makes one a sheep. 

The farm is a system of control, and in trying to free the sheep from that system of control, we find sheep that are so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect the system. If an Aussie had won and you heard that he took a few illeagal kicks and hence robbed Cameron of the GOLD, would your view be the same, that is the system of control that the article is trying to show us.

----------

ChrisNG53 (16-Aug-12)

----------


## ChrisNG53

> ChrisNG53 > As a writer you will know as well as I do that to put emotion into words is challenging. But imagine the absolute moment where you are so close in winning you can taste it. You know others will take more than one "dolphin kick" others may not but still the possibility exists… 
> 
> In his mind a billion reasons mounts to one moment "Do I win or do I lose" It is intoxicating as the body produces all kinds of chemicals and the brain must handle it all. Soon one can only think of two things "breath and don’t lose" Thanks to the chemicals a decision was rationalized! He does what needs to be done. 
> 
> He wins not only because of his actions but because the rule makers couldn’t be bothered to review there own shortcomings. He wins because fate and a moment in time permitted it! 
> 
> So are we sheep? Or are we human? Right now you are demanding that this athlete must go against his own desire "and it is a very powerful chemical, more powerful than any drug this is also fact" and lose?
> 
> No this is not about sheep you expect this person to behave like a robot programmed with rules not a human with feelings passion and will! 
> ...


tec0 -- brilliant analyses as to the real life dynamics of what actually happened. All true. No question!.  I have already said that Cameron found himself in "an invidious position", and as he said, plainly and simply, was he supposed to sacrifice 4 years of training and risk losing because others would also use the illegal extra kick?
So Yes, Cameron acted like many, if not most, other human beings would also have acted.  No question whatsoever!. 

But, and it is a very BIG BUT, .. that is the problem ... the inability to act with principle and integrity under situational pressure.  At some time or other, we all find ourselves in this situation ... peer pressure ... political pressure .... pressure at work .... the list is quite endless .. TO DO THE WRONG THING.

At that point we are under test. Sometimes it is a very tuff test.  The film "The Firm" brings this out brilliantly.  In my book I set out how I was faced with the same situation as Tom Cruise was .... and it nearly cost me my life.  It certainly cost me wealth, power and privilege. 

The fact that you fail the test, is undoubtedly MITIGATORY .... but it does not change that fact that you FAILED ... YOU CHEATED!

When we, in full knowledge of the facts, that Cameron cheated, choose to ignore this, simply on account of the convenience of "going with the popular flow", not wanting to be out of step with others, wanting to remain within the common herd ... we are acting like sheep.  That is my point!

----------


## ChrisNG53

> Chris its very simple, it works like this; our heros don't cheat, they just tweak the rules a bit, those other bastards are the ones that cheat and they should be burned at the stake for doing so...


Lol ... lol .... I hear you.

----------


## ChrisNG53

> @Tec0 on reading Chris's article, what I got from it, is that Cameroon is  not a sheep, but that we who blinding accept even the smallest cheat are the sheep, because in allowing a small cheat, be it for glory of the nation, we are in a sense programmed humans(sheep), blinding ourselves from the truth. And in doing so we open the way for larger cheats to play the same game on us. 
> 
> If you argue that this man deserved to win because he did the normal thing and followed his desire and the chemicals in his body, where do you draw the line with something like that, is it okay to for a man to rape, if that is what he desires, I think the facts are that the line must be drawn where the line is, that they are only allowed one butterfly kick. The only question to ask is DID HE CHEAT YES OR NO? The buts or the reasons why he cheated dont matter, the fact that the medal stands dont matter. What matters is why as humans we behave sheepishly and accept a small cheat, and worse yet, do we accept it blindly because glory is ours? And it is this part of our human nature, that blindly accepts fiction as truth that makes one a sheep. 
> 
> The farm is a system of control, and in trying to free the sheep from that system of control, we find sheep that are so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect the system. If an Aussie had won and you heard that he took a few illeagal kicks and hence robbed Cameron of the GOLD, would your view be the same, that is the system of control that the article is trying to show us.



@vieome -- you have hit the nail firmly and squarely right on its fat head!!! .. Eloquently put, eminent Counsel.   it is an 
inconvenient truth ... but truth all the same.

----------


## ChrisNG53

> Don't get me wrong Chris, I also think he cheated, you're right he took advantage of it not being aggressively policed but I think you missed my point. What I was saying is that given the culture of the Olympic Games he wouldn't have competed to the best of his ability if he hadn't cheated. I was pointing out that it's not about sportsmanship or camaraderie between different athletes or cultures it's only about winning, being recognised as the worlds best and making money so if there's an opportunity to cheat you should do so if you can get away with it. I don't look at what he did as any kind of negative, I see it as a great judgement call or a gambol that paid off, he did everything in his power to win (including cheating) and he now has the gold medal in his cabinet as justification that he was the best competitor.
> 
> Maybe they should remove the word 'games' from the Olympics name, it would eliminate the confusion that causes threads like this on forums because nothing in the ethos of the tournament comes even close to the definition of the word 'game'.


@AndyD - -I hear you.. i was intrigued when an international expert of the subject of cheating in sports was interviewed on Al Jazeera, I think. He has researched the thing for about 15 years and written an authoritative book on this, especially of Sep Blatter's FIFA.
He gave the blood chilling opinion that. as sure as the sun is rising, the was/is cheating and 'fixing" going on at the Olympics.  
So we might be able to conclude that Cameron was just "going with the flow".

----------


## ChrisNG53

> Interestingly, had the Aussies not complained, no one would have been the wiser to the facts of that heat.
> The other question, had the winner been an Aussie, would the Aussies have raised the objection?


It really is irrelevant who complained and who did not complain. The issue is simple - -did Cameron cheat?

----------


## ChrisNG53

> Blurock;73714]I think we may all be making much to much about a matter that did not even make the news, but was first raised in a blog. I agree with Chris that cheating and dishonesty can never be allowed, however we should see the incident in context.
> 
> Consider the following; In the era of the full body suit, Cameron or any other swimmer could have been asked whether it gave them an unfair advantage. To be honest, he had to say yes, it did give him an unfair advantage over the swimmer without the full body suit. Did he cheat? No, the rules allowed this kind of "cheating". Many world records were recorded. 
> 
> The rules have since been adapted and full body suits have been banned. I am sure that the rules regarding under water footage and the number of kicks will be changed in future, but for now, the rules still stand. We can not blame the swimmer for that.
> 
> Fortunately the rules of any%2


No, no, no my friend.  That is all obfuscation, with respect.  The rule here was set at just ONE kick on the turn.  So 3, or 5, or 10 must result in disqualification.  Had Cameron taken, say 10 kick, we would not be having this conversation.

----------


## vieome

> @vieome -- you have hit the nail firmly and squarely right on its fat head!!! .. Eloquently put, eminent Counsel.   it is an 
> inconvenient truth ... but truth all the same.


 Thank you Sir, however I must point out that there are three sides to the coin(heads, tails, and the side in between), and if we are indeed to awake from our sheepish nature, we must ask another pertinent question? When is it alright for a sheep to break the rules? 
If we say never, then forever we are sheep. In order for a sheep to know it is a sheep it must break the rules. So I think in any revolution the sheep dressed in their red wool, will and must agree, that it is okay to break the rules, if they are set by the PIG, as long as breaking that rule, does not harm any other sheep.

----------


## ChrisNG53

> Thank you Sir, however I must point out that there are three sides to the coin(heads, tails, and the side in between), and if we are indeed to awake from our sheepish nature, we must ask another pertinent question? When is it alright for a sheep to break the rules? 
> If we say never, then forever we are sheep. In order for a sheep to know it is a sheep it must break the rules. So I think in any revolution the sheep dressed in their red wool, will and must agree, that it is okay to break the rules, if they are set by the PIG, as long as breaking that rule, does not harm any other sheep.


Fascinating comment.   Those who break the rules can never be sheep.   When Socrates said that the World was round and NOT flat, "he was breaking the rules".  So the pigs executed him.
Cameron was not being a sheep, even though he was acting "sheepishly".  he thought it out for himself .. and decided to cheat.
I think it is more correct to say, that unless there is disagreement, there will be no change, and if theere is no change, there will be no progress.
But that is quite a different conversation than the one we are having here.

----------


## Blurock

If a lawyer defends a murderer, is it his duty to see that his client gets a fair trial, or is it his duty to get him off the hook, no matter what. 

We see this so often in our legal system that a loophole will be found to get the murderer off on a technicality. Can this be considered cheating, or are lawyers above the law? What about the rights of the victim?

----------


## ChrisNG53

> If a lawyer defends a murderer, is it his duty to see that his client gets a fair trial, or is it his duty to get him off the hook, no matter what. 
> 
> We see this so often in our legal system that a loophole will be found to get the murderer off on a technicality. Can this be considered cheating, or are lawyers above the law? What about the rights of the victim?


Blurock - -you have got it just about 100% wrong!   The duty of Counsel is to 1. make sure his client gets a fair trial; 2. ensure that he is convicted ONLY on reliable evidence, if at all;. 3. put his clients case to the very best of his ability.
In particular, he his NOT permitted to manufacturer a defence for his client.  Neither is he allowed to mislead the Court in any way. 
If he goes outside these rules he IS CHEATING!
The phrase "getting someone off on a technicality" is a misleading, almost an oxymoron.  You can only get a person off in accordance with the law. ... That is not a "technicality".. It is the law!!!
Hope that helps.

----------


## Nigel Hamilton

Chris i disagree with your thinking , but I also disagree with many of the religions that are out there. However i respect that we have differing views. It all depends wether you are trying to change the others religion to yours or not?

In this case i feel that you are "bible bashing" an athiest. And although quite fun, is absolutely going nowhere. Lets just agree to disagree  :Smile:

----------


## Just Gone

> he his NOT permitted to manufacturer a defence for his client


Of course he is - he HAS to manufacture a defence for his client with the facts at hand and using the prosecutors lack of possible evidence and information to his benefit !!  It is his duty to defend his client and yes make sure his client gets a fair trial and 2. to ensure that he is not convicted based on his defence and the lack of evidence or proper proceedings from the prosecutor !




> Neither is he allowed to mislead the Court in any way


. 

If an attorney is not "misleading" the court ........ then what exactly is he doing if he is defending a guilty person - yes he is trying to prove that the prosecutor does not have enough evidence, but he is also trying to instill doubt and trying to make sure they do not have enough evidence to convict his client.

You are playing on words and you are wrong !

And do me a favour - dont tell me that I shouldnt be "participating" in a forum - you do not know it all !!




> Look, if you cannot back up accusations with sentient reasoning you definitely should not be participating in a social network site


In fact some of your comments dont deserve replies.

----------


## ChrisNG53

> Chris i disagree with your thinking , but I also disagree with many of the religions that are out there. However i respect that we have differing views. It all depends wether you are trying to change the others religion to yours or not?
> 
> In this case i feel that you are "bible bashing" an athiest. And although quite fun, is absolutely going nowhere. Lets just agree to disagree


Nigel -- I am very confused.  What exactly do you disagree with?  I have made out a very, very simple case - -that when Cameron took took extra kicks on turning in the breast stroke he was cheating, and most of us are sheep (fickle and/or cowardly)  for conveniently going along with not saying it is cheating. 
Forget about "my thinking".  
Which part of that statement do you disagree with.

----------


## ChrisNG53

> Of course he is - he HAS to manufacture a defence for his client with the facts at hand and using the prosecutors lack of possible evidence and information to his benefit !!  It is his duty to defend his client and yes make sure his client gets a fair trial and 2. to ensure that he is not convicted based on his defence and the lack of evidence or proper proceedings from the prosecutor !
> 
> . 
> 
> If an attorney is not "misleading" the court ........ then what exactly is he doing if he is defending a guilty person - yes he is trying to prove that the prosecutor does not have enough evidence, but he is also trying to instill doubt and trying to make sure they do not have enough evidence to convict his client.
> 
> You are playing on words and you are wrong !
> 
> And do me a favour - dont tell me that I shouldnt be "participating" in a forum - you do not know it all !!
> ...


KevinB - -it is obvious that you are simply looking to take and give offence.   In the process you make a fool of yourself by volunteering to tell a High Court Judge (me) what the job of Counsel is in Court. Unless, of course, you are a Supreme Court or Constitutional Court Judge.
Our conversation is now closed.  Bye and God bless.

----------


## tec0

In my opinion I am a layman when it comes to this sport thus I have no say, I cannot judge. And because of that I must accept the ruling. I accept it not because I am a sheep running with other sheep. I accept it firstly because the rules were inadequate to deal with the situation. Secondly I accept it because all of us are human. 

Thus I will remain neutral It is the fair thing to do. 

That said the rules are already under revision so in future events this will probably never happen again. 

So action was taken, opinions was noted and changes is imminent... That is good enough for me.  :Yes:  
Others may not agree and they have their reasons I am sure I will not judge them as sheep, because justification is hardly a single process.

----------

ChrisNG53 (16-Aug-12), Dave A (17-Aug-12)

----------


## Just Gone

You seem to have a lot of time for a high court judge. ................... and I know this because my daughter is an attorney and spends most of her day in high court. I must ask her if she recognises your profile pic.


yes good bye. ..... this is now the best option.

----------


## adrianh

@Kevin - Google 

Judge Chris N Greenland

You'll see that Chris is for real!

----------

ChrisNG53 (17-Aug-12), tec0 (17-Aug-12)

----------


## bjsteyn

> Chris..... ever played rugby? Just actually trying to visualise this
> 
> Bakkies: "ref, ref,...i just gave a guy a snot klap in the ruck that you didn't see, please award a penalty against me, and give me a yellow card...I have been a naughty boy!"
> 
> Hougaard: "ref that pass i received, just before i scored that impressive try was slightly forward, please disallow it, and lets have a scrum down against us"
> 
> ROTFLMAO


Haha, scored a try the other day, where I actually nocked the ball on. I did not occur to me to tell the ref that I knocked it on. I did all the hard yards to get to the ball before someone else did. And I am definitely not a cheater. I play the game hard and clean. Just imagine how your teamates would react if you are 4 points behind and you score the winning try and then go and tell the ref to disallow it. All the spectators would laugh as that is unheard of. Although swimming looks like a solo sport, Cameron is still part of a team, which he trains with daily. Maby Chris should show us a video clip what he is talking about, because the race wen't so quickly I didn't even think to check if they were doing it legally. Then again I always look for the positive. Only if you were looking for fault would you have noticed that.

----------


## adrianh

Cameron cheated knowingly. Do you consider it ok if you knock the ball on on purpose, what would you do if you got caught?

----------

ChrisNG53 (17-Aug-12)

----------


## bjsteyn

> Cameron cheated knowingly. Do you consider it ok if you knock the ball on on purpose, what would you do if you got caught?


Haha, I wouldn't knock it on on purpouse and luckily it is only a scrum :-) not a olympic medal. I still would like to see what is being referred to, as I didn't see it in the race. In my own sports nature I would not cheat intentionally. I am sure a swimmer at that level has respect for what he does and only wants to do it to the best of his ability. Cheating is not the best of your ability. I would not sell my sole to be a winner and if the ref asked me if I knocked that ball on, I would have told him YES.

----------


## adrianh

I've seen the footage from the underwater cameras. The footage actually shows him doing the cheating move. He admitted to doing it and said that everybody does it.

I think that what Chris is getting at is that we are happy to overlook "little transgressions" when it suits us. The problem is that where do you draw the line and say that a little transgression is no more little but is now a big transgression. I don't think that the discussion is about Cameron at all, it is about the principle. Why is it ok for some to cheat under certain circumstances? I feel it is ok for me to drive 69kmh in a 60 zone but I feel that the taxi who stops in the middle of the road without warning should be given a fine. You see, we are able to justify almost any action when it suits us and condemn almost any action when it suits us.

----------

ChrisNG53 (17-Aug-12), Dave A (17-Aug-12)

----------


## bjsteyn

My point of view on it is, judge yourself, and let others judge them self. Unless its your job to judge them, like a Judge.  :-)

----------


## Blurock

> Blurock - -you have got it just about 100% wrong!   The duty of Counsel is to 1. make sure his client gets a fair trial; 2. ensure that he is convicted ONLY on reliable evidence, if at all;. 3. put his clients case to the very best of his ability.
> In particular, he his NOT permitted to manufacturer a defence for his client.  Neither is he allowed to mislead the Court in any way. 
> If he goes outside these rules he IS CHEATING!
> The phrase "getting someone off on a technicality" is a misleading, almost an oxymoron.  You can only get a person off in accordance with the law. ... That is not a "technicality".. It is the law!!!
> Hope that helps.


I agree with your explanation of the duty of counsel, but is that what really happens in court? Is misleading evidence, stalling, obstruction and withholding of facts not more the norm than a straightforward defence? How often do we see the character of a witness being attacked in an attempt to discredit the witness?
Is that cheating or just playing dirty? (Or is that the same thing?) :Confused:

----------

tec0 (17-Aug-12)

----------


## Just Gone

Yep exactly as I said Blurock

----------


## Mike C

@Adrianh - very good summing up of the issue Adrian.

----------

ChrisNG53 (17-Aug-12)

----------


## Nigel Hamilton

> Nigel -- I am very confused.  What exactly do you disagree with?  I have made out a very, very simple case - -that when Cameron took took extra kicks on turning in the breast stroke he was cheating, and most of us are sheep (fickle and/or cowardly)  for conveniently going along with not saying it is cheating. 
> Forget about "my thinking".  
> Which part of that statement do you disagree with.


Chris i am guessing as a judge, you need to stick to the rule book in your daily life, and sort through the grey areas to ensure that the rule of law is enforced. Your hands are tied, and unless a law is changed you cannot deviate. ie your job i guess would be to sort the grey area's into black and white...using the law and your experience to achieve this.

However i cannot judge you in your personal life, and i guess if you have ever speeded, then i guess what you have to look at is the circumstances of that speeding

it could have been intentional
subconscious(ooops went a bit over there)
or an emergency

whatever the reason, the rule of law (in the absence of a judge) will result in the prescribed fine of whatever the calculation might be.

It could be noted that 2 different judges if given the opportunity might come up with 2 different rulings for this transgression, and although there are laws and specific fines, there are extenuating circumstances...this is where the black and white becomes somewhat grey.

So back to the point, if the law stated you cannot do more than 1 dolphin kick, then you are 100% correct, and we all have to agree with you!

Should the law be changed? Well thats not up to us....  and until it is changed, it is against the law...simple

This debate is going array, because we are all acting like judges, we are sifting through the grey! The first question "if" there is an opinion to be had would be (and assuming we have made ourselves as rule makers and judges)

1. should the rule be changed
2. In the absence of previous coinvictions, might be plausable that Cameron has a case
3. Would i have done the same thing?

Chris so you are correct, he cheated, would i have done the same..yes

So lets pose another analogy

there is a stretch of highway of 2km that for some odd reason has a 60km/h speed limit. 
You as a law abiding citizen stick to this
There are no speed traps, and there have never been.
Most people then decide over time, to push the boundaries 70km/h, 80km/h, 120km/h they are clearly breaking the law
there are no repercussions
you stick to 60km/h, but even start questioning this limit yourself
eventually you are the only guy slowing up the flow
Today you are late for a very important(life changing meeting) what do you do?....

Cameron went 120km/h...he was wrong, should he give back his gold? 

Maybe the reason for no timeous objections was because they have all at some point travelled at 120km/h.

----------


## Blurock

> Maybe the reason for no timeous objections was because they have all at some point travelled at 120km/h.


Maybe the law gets broken because there is no law enforcement? When people think that a rule or law is not important, they will start ignoring that rule, because everyone else does (herd mentality). If enforced, we would think twice about breaking the rule, because of the possible consequences. :Confused:

----------

ChrisNG53 (17-Aug-12)

----------


## Nigel Hamilton

> Maybe the law gets broken because there is no law enforcement? When people think that a rule or law is not important, they will start ignoring that rule, because everyone else does (herd mentality). If enforced, we would think twice about breaking the rule, because of the possible consequences.


My point exactly, take the speeding analogy, if there were speed camera's dotted along the 2km route, there would be very little speeding.

So mob mentality becomes the "new rule"

No-one can say Chris is wrong, "it is the rule"

----------


## Justloadit

It must also be noted that there is different ways in applying an action for a rule, as in the case of a rule applied to a sport (swimming - you may be disqualified if you do more than one dolphin kick),and an action for a law as applied in a speed limit (Traffic Offence - you will be fined for transgression).

Rule, and I stand to be corrected here, is a process you follow, and may be deviated
Law, is an absolute and has no room to deviate.

----------


## tec0

Right all analogies aside, clearly by drawing a comparison  between sports and so on will not solve this. Let's call a duck a duck and leave it at that for the time being.  I still maintain ignorance as I am really not involved with the sport nor do I care enough to spend the time to research the rules.

Fact is all arguments have multiple aspects and each will conclude accordingly. My view is that you cannot label people base ruling and strategy; there is always a hidden hand at work. As for the ruling to be simple and easy to make. I agree that "if" it was the case than why not ask questions. 

But in my opinion, keep those who are accountable, accountable for their actions first. Then move on to the next and investigate why so many athletes did what they did. Why wasn't it picked up before this event? Why were the rules so lax? Explore the history and then the truth will reveal itself.

Now I personally am not committed to this as it is not as important then let's say getting your tax done on time. Getting your washing machine fixed and so on. I say this not as a sheep. I say this because regardless of what the outcome will be, it will have no effect on my life. Unless one feels otherwise and if that is the case I wish you the best of luck.

But always remember that we are human and with it comes many flaws and many more half truths. Accepting this fact doesnt make you a sheep just a very ordinary human-being.  :Yes:

----------


## ChrisNG53

> I agree with your explanation of the duty of counsel, but is that what really happens in court? Is misleading evidence, stalling, obstruction and withholding of facts not more the norm than a straightforward defence? How often do we see the character of a witness being attacked in an attempt to discredit the witness?
> Is that cheating or just playing dirty? (Or is that the same thing?)


I hear you.  It can get very messy and even I am not happy with some goings on in Courts.  And yes, we do have unprincipled lawyers who DO "manufacture" stories fot their clients, particularly under the USA system.
So the reality si that we also have "Cheats" in the legal profession.

----------


## ChrisNG53

> Haha, I wouldn't knock it on on purpouse and luckily it is only a scrum :-) not a olympic medal. I still would like to see what is being referred to, as I didn't see it in the race. In my own sports nature I would not cheat intentionally. I am sure a swimmer at that level has respect for what he does and only wants to do it to the best of his ability. Cheating is not the best of your ability. I would not sell my sole to be a winner and if the ref asked me if I knocked that ball on, I would have told him YES.


bjsteyn - -you need to distinguish transgressions on the field which most sports have.  There are stipulated penalties applied by the refs.  Disqualification is not usually such a penalty. 
Cheating is quite a different matter. It is when I seek to win by deceptively breaching a fundamental rule.   Just think it through  -- using an illegal ball in golf ... pumpinmg myself up with steroids for weightlifting ... taking 10 extra kicks when i turn in the breast stroke .....

----------


## ChrisNG53

> Chris i am guessing as a judge, you need to stick to the rule book in your daily life, and sort through the grey areas to ensure that the rule of law is enforced. Your hands are tied, and unless a law is changed you cannot deviate. ie your job i guess would be to sort the grey area's into black and white...using the law and your experience to achieve this.
> 
> However i cannot judge you in your personal life, and i guess if you have ever speeded, then i guess what you have to look at is the circumstances of that speeding
> 
> it could have been intentional
> subconscious(ooops went a bit over there)
> or an emergency
> 
> whatever the reason, the rule of law (in the absence of a judge) will result in the prescribed fine of whatever the calculation might be.
> ...


Lol -- you certainly are NOT a sheep because you have been thinking it all through quite sapientially I must say. Wonderful!  
I think you have worked it out for yourself . .and have answered the questions raised.

My point is that most do not do what you have done, but just "go with the flow"  and adopt the view of the common herd. That is why I say they are sheep.  Others "conveniently" skew their thinking.  That is why I say they are "fickle".   Others absolutely know that something is wrong, but will go with the herd .. out of a "cowardly" disposition.

Cameron did cheat, as be broke an established rule, hoping to get away with it, and he did.   Yes, he was in an invidious situation because others were also doing this and policing was not being done.  This mitigates his moral blameworthiness ... but does not change the fact that he cheated.   We all, at one time or another, have to make a decision as to whether we do the wrong thing because of situational pressure.

----------


## Mike C

I thought this poem was rather relevant to the discussion.


When you get what you want in your struggle for self
and the world makes you king for a day,
just go to a mirror and look at yourself
and see what that man has to say.

For it isn't your father or mother or wife
who judgement upon you must pass.
The fellow whose verdict counts most in your life,
is the one staring back from the glass.

Some people may think you a straight-shooting chum
and call you a wonderful guy.
But the man in the glass says you're only a bum
if you can't look him straight in the eye.

He's the  fellow to please never mind all the rest.
For he's with you right up to the end,
and you've passed your most dangerous difficult test
if the man in the glass is your friend.

You may fool the whole world down the pathway of life,
and get pats on your back as you pass.
But your final reward will be heartaches and tears
if you've cheated the man in the glass.

Mark Harris

----------

Blurock (17-Aug-12), ChrisNG53 (17-Aug-12), Dave A (17-Aug-12), vieome (17-Aug-12)

----------


## adrianh

hmmm...and if the fellow in the glass is Showerkop Zuumba then you have a zero sum equation....

----------

ChrisNG53 (17-Aug-12)

----------


## ChrisNG53

> Maybe the law gets broken because there is no law enforcement? When people think that a rule or law is not important, they will start ignoring that rule, because everyone else does (herd mentality). If enforced, we would think twice about breaking the rule, because of the possible consequences.


True!

----------


## ChrisNG53

> I thought this poem was rather relevant to the discussion.
> 
> 
> When you get what you want in your struggle for self
> and the world makes you king for a day,
> just go to a mirror and look at yourself
> and see what that man has to say.
> 
> For it isn't your father or mother or wife
> ...



Wonderful!  have copied it for maximum plagiarization.

----------


## bjsteyn

> bjsteyn - -you need to distinguish transgressions on the field which most sports have.  There are stipulated penalties applied by the refs.  Disqualification is not usually such a penalty. 
> Cheating is quite a different matter. It is when I seek to win by deceptively breaching a fundamental rule.   Just think it through  -- using an illegal ball in golf ... pumpinmg myself up with steroids for weightlifting ... taking 10 extra kicks when i turn in the breast stroke .....


Point noted and agreed with. :-)

----------


## Just Gone

> copied it for maximum plagiarization


But isnt that wrong ........... and just a bit unethical ................but maybe not as bad as giving an extra kick here or there .....

----------


## ChrisNG53

Guys, just to close this conversation.

I think it was useful.  Regrettably the World is full of convenient untruths being propagated and inconvenient truth being suppressed. This does cause all of us all kinds of problems in one way or the other. It follows that if we have a culture of accepting, condoning, conniving and colluding at what is not true, what is wrong ... we are supporting, giving life and sustenance to this culture. 

A child will start by stealing just one sweet. If you condone it, don't be surprised when later on you find that he becomes a hoodlum. As Dave has said, there are no degrees of wrongness. As regards Cameron you need only imagine him being questioned by his grandchild about his medal. The child will ask if he cheated. If he denies this it will start asking how many kicks would have been cheating in that annoying way that children have,  going from 3 -4-5-6-7 ....?  Check mate! 

I did not post this thread because it gives me any pleasure.  It actually makes me extremely sad that a brilliant athlete will now have to live with this.  My hope and prayer is that he is there at the next Olympics and does it right this time.  He certainly deserves it.  That would be just fantastic. 

I have posted the thread because in the afternoon years of my life I seek ways to contribute the the betterment of society based on my own long life.  That is why I have written a book.  A central theme of the book is the issue of inconvenient truths being suppressed .... etc.  I have concluded that it a major reason why the World is so buggered up.  And it is not the first time I have taken society to task on this issue.  For instance see --- http://coginito.blogspot.com/2011/05...-even-bad.html

South Africa is a terribly anomic society.  On that much we have agreed in a previous thread.  Anomie is fueled by a culture of playing fast and lose with what is right and what is wrong. 

Thank you for your contributions.  Whatever our differences, I am sure everyone did learn something from the conversation.

----------

Blurock (17-Aug-12), Dave A (17-Aug-12), Justloadit (17-Aug-12), vieome (17-Aug-12)

----------


## ChrisNG53

> It must also be noted that there is different ways in applying an action for a rule, as in the case of a rule applied to a sport (swimming - you may be disqualified if you do more than one dolphin kick),and an action for a law as applied in a speed limit (Traffic Offence - you will be fined for transgression).
> 
> Rule, and I stand to be corrected here, is a process you follow, and may be deviated
> Law, is an absolute and has no room to deviate.


True.

----------


## Blurock

Thanks Chris and everyone who contributed. I enjoyed the sparring. This was a good debate. :Thumbup:

----------

ChrisNG53 (18-Aug-12)

----------


## ChrisNG53

> Right all analogies aside, clearly by drawing a comparison  between sports and so on will not solve this. Let's call a duck a duck and leave it at that for the time being.  I still maintain ignorance as I am really not involved with the sport nor do I care enough to spend the time to research the rules.
> 
> Fact is all arguments have multiple aspects and each will conclude accordingly. My view is that you cannot label people base ruling and strategy; there is always a hidden hand at work. As for the ruling to be simple and easy to make. I agree that "if" it was the case than why not ask questions. 
> 
> But in my opinion, keep those who are accountable, accountable for their actions first. Then move on to the next and investigate why so many athletes did what they did. Why wasn't it picked up before this event? Why were the rules so lax? Explore the history and then the truth will reveal itself.
> 
> Now I personally am not committed to this as it is not as important then let's say getting your tax done on time. Getting your washing machine fixed and so on. I say this not as a sheep. I say this because regardless of what the outcome will be, it will have no effect on my life. Unless one feels otherwise and if that is the case I wish you the best of luck.
> 
> But always remember that we are human and with it comes many flaws and many more half truths. Accepting this fact doesnt make you a sheep just a very ordinary human-being.


teco -- I have to insist, with respect, that you are indulging in a cop out.  Remember what Edmund Burke said that 'for evil to triumph it requires only that good men say/do nothing".  When we have ALL THE FACT and are able to make a judgement call on what is wrong it is a cop out to choose to say "well, you know what, I am only human".

----------


## ChrisNG53

> @Kevin - Google 
> 
> Judge Chris N Greenland
> 
> You'll see that Chris is for real!


I have just looked in the mirrore, checked my ID and am able to confirm that .... lol.

----------


## ChrisNG53

> Thanks Chris and everyone who contributed. I enjoyed the sparring. This was a good debate.


Ditto ...

----------


## tec0

Cop out? 

Honestly? I expected a bit more…  The argument was engineered. I mean no disrespect but you knew that your case and point was easily defendable. I have seen this strategy before in many conspiracies thus it is hardly new. 

It is always masked as the greater good against an infantine evil. However you disarmed every opinion with your "FACTS" knowing that any argument against them would be lost. 

Sadly a second truth eluded you… Because you took it upon yourself to dismiss any and all arguments against your claim you stopped people for thinking for themselves and you robbed them of hope. A hero can come from almost any walk of life, all of them made their mistakes. 

If you are only interested in the mistakes then you will find them. Because that is all that matter to you. Thus you enabled evil to take away hope…

sorry for the harshness…

----------

ChrisNG53 (18-Aug-12)

----------


## ChrisNG53

> Cop out? 
> 
> Honestly? I expected a bit more…  The argument was engineered. I mean no disrespect but you knew that your case and point was easily defendable. I have seen this strategy before in many conspiracies thus it is hardly new. 
> 
> It is always masked as the greater good against an infantine evil. However you disarmed every opinion with your "FACTS" knowing that any argument against them would be lost. 
> 
> Sadly a second truth eluded you… Because you took it upon yourself to dismiss any and all arguments against your claim you stopped people for thinking for themselves and you robbed them of hope. A hero can come from almost any walk of life, all of them made their mistakes. 
> 
> If you are only interested in the mistakes then you will find them. Because that is all that matter to you. Thus you enabled evil to take away hope…
> ...


Whatever else, you certainly have "bottle" as the English say.  Full marks, in my book, for that robust reposte.  I unashamedly confess to be very interested in the "evil" of the pandemic tolerance of convenient lies.  If it is an obsession I will expect a "Gold Medal' when my time comes.

----------


## Just Gone

Yes you are clearly interested in the "evil" and only your opinion really counts to you. ......... but I suppose that is to be expected.

Yes tec I fully agree with your last posting.

----------


## adrianh

Hmmm...

"Great people talk about ideas. Average people talk about things. Small people talk about other people."

...and to add my own piece to the quotation...

Microscopic people attack and insult other people.

----------

ChrisNG53 (18-Aug-12)

----------


## tec0

Again I never intended to attack anyone, but I do feel that this thread was provocative by design. Honestly just look at the title? Fact is in order to do something you need to be enabled to do so. 

This was my point all along. You need to understand multiple aspects of a situation first. Yes the facts of this argument were easy and simple enough as such easy to defend. That said what happened before this moment? What happened in other competitions? 

Any investigator will tell you nothing is without cause… And to my mind no effort was made to highlight the immediate past thus a half truth.  And the debate/argument is based on a half truth. Not to mention that many are not familiar with the actual rules and or history. A very important aspect that has been overlooked. 

We accepted the ruling knowing that changes will be made to the rules in the future so we hardly let it slide to begin with? 

Are we without action? No, if we where the rules would remain the same. [Case and point] 

I will leave this at that.

----------


## adrianh

It works like this:

Case 1.

1. There is a rule.
2. The rule is broken by our team.
3. Our team wins.
4. We are happy and accept that rules are sometimes broken.

Case 2.

1. There is a rule.
2. The rule is broken by another team.
3. Our team loses.
4. We are not happy because the rule was broken.

There is nothing more to it than that....Nothing, zip, zero....

The discussion centres on how we feel about it when rules are broken.

----------

ChrisNG53 (20-Aug-12), tec0 (18-Aug-12)

----------


## gac

You've got me worried adrianh and I'm not sure I can believe you. 

Your view on truth has been posted before, I didn't understand you then and I still don't understand you now.

The Chiefs won the Super 15 Rugby Tournament. Thats a trutful fact. If anyone were to claim they didn't would be a non-truth or untruthful.

The USA won the most Gold Medals at the 2012 Olympics. Thats the truth If anyone were to claim they didn't, would be a non-truth/lie whatever one wants to call it. 

Snow fell across many parts of South Africa last week. Thats the truth. To claim there was no snow that fell would not be the truth.

At the time of posting this message today is Saturday the 18th August 2012. Thats the truth. If I said it was Sunday would not be the truth.

How can there be no such thing?

----------


## adrianh

Think about it this way; When we observe what goes on around us we do not observe all that is reality. Lets look at our eyes for starters.

Our eyes have blindspots. There are areas in our visual field that we cannot physically see yet our mental machinery fills in the gaps. We are unable to clearly see our entire visual field, we are only able to focus on a very small part. Our eyes dance around all the time and our mental machinery the builds a picture of the world in our minds. Now, that picture is not perfectly up to date, it is made up of a series of snapshots over time that are pieced together in our minds. So now we have a mental picture but that is only a small fraction of the manipulation that our mental machinery is required to do. How do you know where the screen in front of you end and the wall begins, how are you able to tracks a fast moving object crossing your visual field etc. Your mental machinery has many parallel processes that interperet the incoming information and analyzes it. The analysis not only includes color, brightness, movement etc, it also includes recognition and depth perception. Now, there are hundereds of visual illusions that trick our minds into believing all sorts of things. i.e. a common TV screen. The entire screen surface is not drawn at once, the screen draws at a speed higher than what our minds can perceive so we think that the movement is fluid. A 7 segment led clock display. Each number in the display is multiplexed into a circuit that lights them one at a time fast enough for the mind to see a solid pattern where all the numbers are lit. Ok, so as you can see, our visual machinery make a lot of assumptions and make a lot of compromises so that we are able to see the world. The problem is that the machinery differs from person to person. I do not trust my own eyes because I know that I automatically make visual assumptions and that those visual assumptions may be incorrect. This is why different people have different accounts of the same event. The question now is this: is what you see TRUE reality. Can one ever say that you see true reality. What about an animal that sees infra red light or uses sonar to see, do they see true reality. The only thing we can say for sure is that we can account as accurately as possible for our own interperetation of reality at the time we saw it and that the interpretation is now further clouded by our recounting what we saw. 

The same goes for all our senses...

Now, lets take the discussion further. Is it true that an atom is made up of protons, nuetrons and electrons...Well no..the only thing we can say is that we have a theory that fits most of the time and where the theory doesn't fit we then revert to other theories such as quantum physics.

Is it true that 1 = 1  yes you say, ok, prove it. This is not such a stupid question as you may think. Lets say you are writing a computer program and you have 2 variables, one is an integer and another a float. You do lots of math and you now get to a point where you compare iX and fX. you've done all the calculations and you know empirically that iX = 1 and that fX = 1....but the computer is adamant that they are not equal...why?  Junior programmers find it difficult to resolve because they see that 1 should equal 1 and it doesn't. The problem is that the floating point math module has to round off at some point and you may find that the damn thing had rounded the 64'th digit behind the zero to one...Yes, I actually spent many hours figuring this lot out when one of our systems failed and was adamant that 1 does not equal 1.


You see, we live in a world of convenient models, I am not saying that it is wrong, what I am saying is that we need to keep it in mind. Another example; how far is it from Johannesburg to Cape Town. You will never be able to give a perfectly accurate answer because the measurement becomes infinitely small, you have to cut your measurement off at some point (accuracy & precision) and say that the measurement is simply good enough.

Truth becomes very problematic when it forms part of belief systems. Are you going to heaven?   ok, prove it...you see the problem... 

I am very weary of the word "truth" because we mentally automatically manipulate our experiences and we are not aware of it. This is exactly why marketing and advertising is so powerful, our mental machinery is very clever in certain ways but extremely dumb in others and marketers know how to manipulate the dumb machinery.

As a final question: Is it true that Osama Bin Laden orchestrated 9/11? Again...define truth...the American goverments official version of events. Now, if the goverment says it is true and 51% of the population says that it is true, then is it true or not, in the minds of 51% of the population it is true and in the minds of 49% of the population it is not true, so what now....Maybe Schrödinger's was correct, the cat is both dead and alive at the same time...

So, with regards to the discussion at hand. If we choose to accept that a rule is defined in a certain way, and the rule is broken, then is ok for the rule to be broken to a certain degree. At what point do we say the rule is totally broken. Think about it, ask any woman what it means to be unfaithful....each woman has her own degree at which she feels the line has been crossed. You may see a kiss on the cheek as nothing and she may see it as being unfaithful. It is the same problem, at what point is the rule broken, when you add one kick, two, three, four....

----------

ChrisNG53 (20-Aug-12), tec0 (18-Aug-12)

----------


## Nigel Hamilton

> Lol -- you certainly are NOT a sheep because you have been thinking it all through quite sapientially I must say. Wonderful!  
> I think you have worked it out for yourself . .and have answered the questions raised.


Ha ha.... whew, was wondering if i was going to "baa" anytime soon  :Smile:

----------


## vieome

> Maybe Schrödinger's was correct, the cat is both dead and alive at the same time...


 Great insight adrianh, because while I agree 100% with the argument chris put forward, I also in a sense took the time to ponder, if Cameron acted on impulse in the race, or if he pre-meditated on matter, if he and his coach had decided the only way he could win was the extra kick, and the reason to risk it, was simple because they noticed that past medalist were getting away with it.  They opened the box and found the cat alive. What color is a chameleon on a mirror?

----------

ChrisNG53 (20-Aug-12)

----------


## ChrisNG53

> You've got me worried adrianh and I'm not sure I can believe you. 
> 
> Your view on truth has been posted before, I didn't understand you then and I still don't understand you now.
> 
> The Chiefs won the Super 15 Rugby Tournament. Thats a trutful fact. If anyone were to claim they didn't would be a non-truth or untruthful.
> 
> The USA won the most Gold Medals at the 2012 Olympics. Thats the truth If anyone were to claim they didn't, would be a non-truth/lie whatever one wants to call it. 
> 
> Snow fell across many parts of South Africa last week. Thats the truth. To claim there was no snow that fell would not be the truth.
> ...


With respect, you seem to missing the whole point.  So I will give a VERY SIMPLE example.
I win the British Open. It is announced and I get the Claret Jug.  On your approach, as long as that it the "official position", that is the end of the matter. 
Problem - -the Whole World has see that my ball moved after I had addressed it before two shots into the 17th and 18th greens. They have seen and now know that-
1. I did not call  penalty strokes on myself;
2. I then signed for a wrong score;
3. a correct score would have put me one shot behind you;
4. you would have been the winner, instead of me.

The fact that I have been declared the winner AND that everyone else accepts this, because it is "official" DOES NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT I CHEATED.
All those who are prepared to just overlook this are either fickle or cowardly --  sheep.  That is my point.

----------


## ChrisNG53

> Great insight adrianh, because while I agree 100% with the argument chris put forward, I also in a sense took the time to ponder, if Cameron acted on impulse in the race, or if he pre-meditated on matter, if he and his coach had decided the only way he could win was the extra kick, and the reason to risk it, was simple because they noticed that past medalist were getting away with it.  They opened the box and found the cat alive. What color is a chameleon on a mirror?


Excellent take.

----------


## ChrisNG53

> It works like this:
> 
> Case 1.
> 
> 1. There is a rule.
> 2. The rule is broken by our team.
> 3. Our team wins.
> 4. We are happy and accept that rules are sometimes broken.
> 
> ...


... that out of "convenient" fickleness and/or cowardice we act like sheep .....

----------


## Just Gone

And I still do not agree. ................ but thank God we are entitled to our own opinions. ........

----------


## adrianh

@KevinB - What will you do if you lose a huge tender and you find out that the winner outbid you by a R 1000 because your secretary wispered your quote to him one night and  she got a nice diamond ring out of the deal. 

She thought that that she was just being a teeny weeny bit naughty telling that one number.

Ok, what do you do now?

Do you forgive her and say ag shame man, you just cheated a little bit but it is ok because you got a diamond ring?

You see, it is not the particular circumstance that is important, it is the principle, why does one get to cheat a little bit but not the other....does it come down to degree of cheating or more importantly how the cheating affects us.

----------


## bjsteyn

Wow is this topic still going, new TFSA record coming up. @Dave A, what is the most pages a topic has reached? Maby here is a new topic to start,
"why are we so argumentative by nature and why do we always believe we are right"

----------


## adrianh

It is not a matter of being argumentative, it is simply open debate. Some of us simply like to thrash ideas around. Do you play chess, its much the same. The problem is that while some see it as a simple chess game others see it as a fight to the death. The trick is to play the game in such a way that your opponent wants to come back for another friendly round.

----------


## Just Gone

@ adrian - yes it was a debate, but ceases to be a debate when one arrogant member (Chris) makes postings like:




> So I will give a VERY SIMPLE example.


or



> What exactly do you disagree with? I have made out a very,very simple case --


or



> Our conversation is now closed


or



> you seem to missing the whole point


 - one persons "point" is not neccessary the same as yours .......... therefore YOU might be missing the point according to them !
or



> When you have clear facts, indusputable facts, you are in a position to make a judgement call


Now I wonder to myself - you (chris) have been doing EXACTLY that these last 13 pages !!!  YOU are not in a position to make a "call", because YOU do not have indusputable facts !! ........ unless of course if you know Cameron personally ........ which I doubt.

It also amazes me that this whole one sided "debate" - the same person (chris) says that "Hansie Cronje did not cheat" - Now once again I wonder how you are in a position to make this "call", because YOU do have indusputable facts ......... especially after he was found guilty ....... by one of your peers by the way !!!! In my eyes cheating in sport is EXACTLY what Hansie did !!! If you take money (on more than one occasion) to change the outcome of anything in sport - it is cheating !

So in this whole "debate" some of us need to remember that this is not a courtroom where you have the last say - it is also not a courtroom where YOU have to make out a "simple case" - this is a debate about someone who is a a member of our community - someone who we are proud of (unlike Hansie) and someone who we want to make us proud.  Everyone here has a right to their opinion - it is not up to one person to tell the rest of us here that we are wrong with our opinions , because it is exactly that - our opinions.

----------


## bjsteyn

> It is not a matter of being argumentative, it is simply open debate. Some of us simply like to thrash ideas around. Do you play chess, its much the same. The problem is that while some see it as a simple chess game others see it as a fight to the death. The trick is to play the game in such a way that your opponent wants to come back for another friendly round.


When it comes to chess, the game is so tight that you can't give your opponent a chance to come back. It is what makes the difference between being a social player and a Kasparov. Yes, you might want the other person to think that you are giving him a chance to come back, just so that you can nail him when he does exactly what you wanted him to do. I was in the top 7 in Border chess in primary school :-)  after 3 tournaments but missed to many tournaments with rugby to make Border.

As far as arguments/debating go, I am all up for it, but don't like the "attacking" method some people use before thinking it threw in topics.

In chess a strong defensive setup, is also a foundation for a strong attack. 

So hold back on your argument, don't just let it all out! Draw your opposing debater in, and if he/she attacks you / your argument, you will be ready for checkmate.

BJ :-)

----------


## vieome

I guess the game of chess simply sums up this thread with a nice check mate. *NEW YORK, May 11 -- In a stunning showdown between man and machine, the IBM supercomputer Deep Blue decisively beat world chess champion Garry Kasparov, the first time a computer has been able to defeat the best human player in a match.* Kasparov, in a postgame news conference, accused International Business Machines Corp. of building a machine specifically to defeat him. "It was nothing to do about science. . . . It was zeal to beat Garry Kasparov," he said. "And when a big corporation with unlimited resources would like to do so, there are many ways to achieve the result. And the result was achieved."

----------


## Dave A

> Cop out? 
> 
> Honestly? I expected a bit more…  The argument was engineered. I mean no disrespect but you knew that your case and point was easily defendable. I have seen this strategy before in many conspiracies thus it is hardly new. 
> 
> It is always masked as the greater good against an infantine evil. However you disarmed every opinion with your "FACTS" knowing that any argument against them would be lost.


Meh. Chris's "cheat" (if there was one) to ensure victory was to limit the scope of introduced context. Probably would have gone a bit smoother if we'd differentiated between _verdict_ and _arguments in mitigation/aggravation_.

In the broadest context though Chris's argument does pose quite a dilemma. 
If you break a rule, you're a cheat. If you blindly follow rules, you're a sheep.
If you blindly accept Chris's argument you're a sheep too, but at least you've got the moral high ground this time.
If you don't accept Chris's argument, he's going to challenge your morality implying you condone cheating.

And so it goes on...

The good news is everyone's been thinking, challenging, and in so doing being challenged themselves.
Therefor I can only conclude most of the folk here are not sheep  :Wink: 

I also suggest it's unfair to single out Cameron when it comes to breaking this rule...
(Let's see if we can get another 10 pages going here  :Devil2:  )




> Maby here is a new topic to start, "why are we so argumentative by nature and why do we always believe we are right"


So start it already  :Wink:

----------

Blurock (22-Aug-12)

----------


## gac

Can't disagree with your views and opinions on the specific instances but to say there is no such thing as the truth cannot be correct nor true of many clear cut situations.

----------


## Blurock

> Maby here is a new topic to start,
> "why are we so argumentative by nature and why do we always believe we are right"


I was once told by a lecturer on advanced negotiation skills at Gibbs Business School that South Africans are the worst negotiators in the world. Discussions about the reasons for this perception was inconclusive. Some of the points raised was that our background made us feel inferior and we would give too much away in an attempt to please. The other side of the coin was that we are too stubborn, do not communicate well, do not want to share information and play the man, not the problem.

Although not negotiations, I see a resemblance in the way that we debate. We often take a position and then vigorously and emotionally defend that position without being objective as we do not want to lose face by admitting that we are wrong or that the other guy may have a valid point. 

That is also when the name calling starts. :Whistling:

----------

tec0 (22-Aug-12)

----------


## tec0

Since we are firing up the boiler eh why not 

In the original argument it was said that taking an extra kick is cheating as the rules are clear on that aspect. Now morally you cannot argue against the rules or can you? 




> In 1336 it was against the law for men to have more than 2 courses at a meal to safeguard against obesity. This law was laid down by Edward III


Now considering how bad obesity has gotten one can argue that this was actually not such a bad law to begin with. Consider the effects it would have on a modern world today. Yes people will be healthy and fast food restaurants would be half as successful as it is now since you are only allowed to have two meals.   

Still the law was changed and latter dismissed because someone felt it was unreasonable at some stage. So the outcome is clear today obesity is a real problem for many of us.

The point however is this; rules must be challenged from time to time so that people can find fair boundaries and so on. As this law have shown us it would have been a good thing if it remained in power. Obesity would have been eradicated but none the less a seemingly good law was abolished for good reasons "At that time"

In this scenario you can see the cause and effect and a bit of history. 

Here however we dont know enough For example, 

We dont know if the extra kick was allowed in other competitions. If so why? What changed and why? All these questions needs answers before you can go out and scream "cheater". I say this because everything has a beginning so where did the athletes started to use the extra kick and why wasnt there any action taken at those competitions?

----------


## wynn

"Cogito ergo sheep" "I think therefore I am (a sheep)  :Wink: 

With apologies to Descartes

----------


## vieome

While words offer a means to meanings, and insults maybe used in lieu of any sound truth, I suppose a picture can say it better.

----------


## Citizen X

> Im sorry but I do not agree with you ................... Hansie did not pretend - he took millions for confirmed match fixing !! ......... It was not only R50 000 as some Hansie fans like to think !
> 
> It was because of him and then continuous corruption afterwards and bookies that I have lost total interest in cricket !!!


I'm with Kevin on this one! Our role models, those we look up to, admire and aspire to be, should be beyond reproach. I was a Hansie fan, but after what he did, I could never see him in the same light...

----------


## adrianh

> I'm with Kevin on this one! Our role models, those we look up to, admire and aspire to be, should be beyond reproach. I was a Hansie fan, but after what he did, I could never see him in the same light...



...but its ok for swimmers to cheat...

----------


## gac

> With respect, you seem to missing the whole point.  So I will give a VERY SIMPLE example.
> I win the British Open. It is announced and I get the Claret Jug.  On your approach, as long as that it the "official position", that is the end of the matter. 
> Problem - -the Whole World has see that my ball moved after I had addressed it before two shots into the 17th and 18th greens. They have seen and now know that-
> 1. I did not call  penalty strokes on myself;
> 2. I then signed for a wrong score;
> 3. a correct score would have put me one shot behind you;
> 4. you would have been the winner, instead of me.
> 
> The fact that I have been declared the winner AND that everyone else accepts this, because it is "official" DOES NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT I CHEATED.
> All those who are prepared to just overlook this are either fickle or cowardly --  sheep.  That is my point.


I do get your point Chris, my post was not in response to your topic but rather in response to adrianh's claim that there is no such thing as the truth.

----------


## Just Gone

And talking about cheating ................... Lance Armstrong is as guilty as hell - he is so shit scared that the real truth will emerge so he supposedly decides to "fight the charges no longer" .  As far as I am concerned they should expose everything. They have positive proof from his ex team mates that he trafficked drugs and used blood drugs.  And this is not only from one team - it is from various different team members he raced with over that period of time.  The proof also shows that they used drugs ...... so come clean Armstrong and admit you cheated the world !!

----------


## adrianh

I read a thing on CNN last night about para-olympians who break their toes and crush their own nuts to raise their blood pressure (it's called boosting) According to the article its common knowledge that they do it....

Here is another story about it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/oly...rformance.html

----------


## tec0

In our quest for perfection in sport the ultimate weakness was created. Fact is winning and satisfying the sponsors became more important than anything else. How many people have died in sports? People push themselves so hard that they actually die! And yet we complain about cheating…  :Slap:  

In my opinion sport is just another business that I would not support. Because this business push people beyond human limitations thus the need for steroids, bending of the rules and so on. If you lose you lose your livelihood that is a massive price to pay for being second best? 

No if you want to complain about cheating then look at the sport… Study the history, rules and the behaviour of both the athletes and their respective sponsors and you will see a history of devastation and dead dreams. Doing your very best just isn't good enough anymore and now we have people with enlarged and or failing organs suffering painful medical conditions… 

The fact is we can't afford to be "second best anymore" it is all or nothing, do or die and it is this fanatical drive that is killing fair competition.

I say again "everything has a cause" and everything "has an effect" What we are seeing here is an effect so what was the cause?

----------


## vieome

That is the social contract that we have as humans, that we must cheat, we must hack the laws, to be faster, stronger. You see a beautiful women in a club, she is cheating, wearing make up is a form of cheating. This happens in business too, every computer comes with windows $160 dollar OS, when linux is available free, that is cheating. The largest problem here is not that Cameron Cheated the problem was that he admited to it, he may be fast, but he was not too bright here, always deny. IT WAS NOT ME! It mearly looked like I took a few extra kicks because I was going so fast. We have to agree that it is a social contract, but we must never acknowledge a cheat, we as humans want to believe in castles in the sky that doing well is the super human thing, never a cheating thing.

----------


## adrianh

@tec0 - Each person is responsible for the choices they make, not the sponsors, not the government and not even God.

In my life everything does have a cause: $h1t happens or I cause it to happen - it seems that in other lives $h1t just happens and some or other outside force is always to blame.

----------


## wynn

"Live fast, die young, leave a good looking corpse!"

Ala Rock 'n Roll?

----------


## adrianh

> The largest problem here is not that Cameron Cheated the problem was that he admited to it.


Stunning...

You know, I had to take my hat off to my 13 year old daughter this morning on the way to school. I asked her "What color is a chameleon in a mirror?" and she came right back without hesitation and said "Whatever color it is at the time"....

----------


## tec0

> @tec0 - Each person is responsible for the choices they make, not the sponsors, not the government and not even God.
> 
> In my life everything does have a cause: $h1t happens or I cause it to happen - it seems that in other lives $h1t just happens and some or other outside force is always to blame.


Nah you dont get it yet Let's try again adrianh  :Wink:

----------


## adrianh

If getting it means having an invisible friend to blame for all my woes, then yes, I suppose I'll never get it...

----------


## Blurock

Round and round the mulberry bush...

If we don't agree with the other guy's view its ok, we don't have to labour the point. When a dead horse is dead it is dead. If you can not revive it, let it be.  :Helpsmilie:

----------

Citizen X (25-Aug-12), tec0 (24-Aug-12)

----------


## tec0

> If getting it means having an invisible friend to blame for all my woes, then yes, I suppose I'll never get it...


No it doesn’t have to be an invisible friend or stuff like that… In all walks of life you get to make choices and the effect they will have will be your doing. That said sometimes you do something because you are pushed and not because you wanted too. 

Fact is in almost every sport you get someone that pushes the athlete too far? I am not looking to play the blame game rather I am trying to understand the dynamics that caused rash action. Now yes obviously an athlete can to something wrong because they want to do it but sometimes it may not be the case. 

That is why it is so important to study the history of an event. For example I am qualified to do incident/accident investigations. Now when something happens we can easily assume the person involved is in the wrong and that is the end of it?? 

However time after time case after case I found that people where pushed into a bad situation. Yes you do get someone that tried to "bend the rules" from time to time but for the most part there is always someone that tried to push too hard. "for production and or to proof a point and the list just goes on and on actually" 

That is why it is important to study past events, look where the problems started and find out why the problems persisted and then only can you work towards finding an answer. Yes it is a long and boring process but for the most part worth doing right.




> Round and round the mulberry bush...
> 
> If we don't agree with the other guy's view its ok, we don't have to labour the point. When a dead horse is dead it is dead. If you can not revive it, let it be.


I agree but it was fun…  :Smile:

----------


## adrianh

Ja well no fine...

----------


## Citizen X

> No it doesn’t have to be an invisible friend or stuff like that… In all walks of life you get to make choices and the effect they will have will be your doing. That said sometimes you do something because you are pushed and not because you wanted too. 
> 
> Fact is in almost every sport you get someone that pushes the athlete too far? I am not looking to play the blame game rather I am trying to understand the dynamics that caused rash action. Now yes obviously an athlete can to something wrong because they want to do it but sometimes it may not be the case. 
> 
> That is why it is so important to study the history of an event. For example I am qualified to do incident/accident investigations. Now when something happens we can easily assume the person involved is in the wrong and that is the end of it?? 
> 
> However time after time case after case I found that people where pushed into a bad situation. Yes you do get someone that tried to "bend the rules" from time to time but for the most part there is always someone that tried to push too hard. "for production and or to proof a point and the list just goes on and on actually" 
> 
> That is why it is important to study past events, look where the problems started and find out why the problems persisted and then only can you work towards finding an answer. Yes it is a long and boring process but for the most part worth doing right.
> ...


Marley put it this way 'for every little action there is a reaction,'

----------

tec0 (25-Aug-12)

----------


## tec0

> Marley put it this way 'for every little action there is a reaction,'


And for every action or lack of action there is cause and effect. For the most part it can go both ways mind you. Sometimes people just take rash action and it ended up badly. Other times they get away with it. It is just when their luck runs out you see bad situation unfolding "Especially in the work place" 

The same is true when someone is pushed into a bad situation, it is just you need to take the time to identify the cause be it someone else be it their own doing.

----------


## adrianh

When it come to glasses being half full...there are those who fill there own glasses and there are those who blame or praise an exterior force for the state of the glass...(before getting upset let me point out that I do not classify the exterior force as being anything specific)

Noboby pushes anybody to do anything - it is your mind and it it your choice - if a bad decision is made then the one making the decision is responsible for making the decision - nothing more and nothing less. We claim to be the greatest, cleverest most intelligent lifeforms, yet we happily hide behind our own inability to take responsibility for our own actions. 

There is no excuse, it is your mind, it is your choice, it is your responsibility. I have zip, zero, nadda, no compassion for people who blame others for their own bad decisions, but I have the utmost respect for people who are able to admit to making mistakes and who learn from those mistakes.

----------


## tec0

> When it come to glasses being half full...there are those who fill there own glasses and there are those who blame or praise an exterior force for the state of the glass...(before getting upset let me point out that I do not classify the exterior force as being anything specific)
> 
> Noboby pushes anybody to do anything - it is your mind and it it your choice - if a bad decision is made then the one making the decision is responsible for making the decision - nothing more and nothing less. We claim to be the greatest, cleverest most intelligent lifeforms, yet we happily hide behind our own inability to take responsibility for our own actions. 
> 
> There is no excuse, it is your mind, it is your choice, it is your responsibility. I have zip, zero, nadda, no compassion for people who blame others for their own bad decisions, but I have the utmost respect for people who are able to admit to making mistakes and who learn from those mistakes.


Look for the most part you are right. However 2 years ago a group of men locked out a control board for a pump that need to be replaced. Now the pump or rather the pump motor is about 1.5 ton. As big as a car. 

Then when they where working the foreman was losing his production bonus and walked over the the control board cut the lock and fired up the pump. Now the people that worked under the pump fitting the last pipes and floor mounts ended up with injuries. 

Now how guilty where the people fitting the new motor? They did everything by the book how did they end up in that situation? Simple answer someone else created the situation. It happens.

----------


## adrianh

eish...okey dokey...

----------

