Post a reply

Who is the greater player?

Poll ended at 23 Nov 2020

Paul Hunter
14
54%
Neil Robertson
12
46%
 
Total votes : 26

Re: ATWSC Group G: Paul Hunter v Neil Robertson

Postby Iranu » 25 Nov 2020 Read

LDS wrote:
McManusFan wrote:It's right there! Maybe I'm reading that in a particularly unsympathetic way, but what do you expect when you decide to jump down someone's throat just for agreeing with something.


Yeah, you're becoming a bit tedious now aren't you. He really didn't "Just agree with me" did he. That's not at all disingenuous of you at all is it.

You're not reading it unsympathetically, you're not reading it at all. The the two things I have referred to as hysterical are

1. The reaction at the time to his death. Now, this could well be justified, he was clearly a well loved person, but that doesn't mean the it wasn't hysterical, it just means it was understandable hysteria. But still hysteria.

2. Iranu's reaction to my post was hysterical in it's approach to the topic, a knee-jerk tirade of insults, even though, as you yourself point out, he really, deep down, wanted to agree with me, but, for whatever reason, felt the need to surround that agreement with hysterical 'aggression', as if he sensed Hunter's mother was reading the post and preparing to run a twitter campaign against him if he didn't or something.

And you can keep repeating all the nonsense you like, you can +1 all the horse manure posts you like, you are sure free to do that, but, really, all you seem to want to do is slander the crap out of me, you don't actually want to discuss the topic at all.

Once again, just shooting off on the moral outrage line, more concerned about making me look like an ass than the actual topic at hand, and by doing so, just making yourself into even more of an ass than you're trying to pretend I am.

"How dare you say the reaction to Hunter's death was a bit of a hysterical overreaction" says the first guy, while agreeing that it was a hysterical overreaction.

"How dare you say that the guy's response to your post was a hysterical overreaction" says the second guy, while not even bothering to say whether they thought the reaction to Hunter's death was a hysterical overreaction.

How about we get a third guy in to complain about how my reaction to you is hostile because all you did was say that the first guy agreed with me, that'd be great, pure trolling inception of the highest order...

Holy rubbish rofl

How was it a tirade of insults?

Ok my first post said yours was stupid. I apologise for that.

There’s not a single insult in my following explanation (which by the way you literally asked for so I’m not sure how that’s jumping on you). I say one of your phrases (not you, the phrase) is insane, call one of your views horrendous, and another thing offensive. Not one of those things is an insult.

You’d rather focus on this than actually respond to the points I raised and questions I asked.

Re: ATWSC Group G: Paul Hunter v Neil Robertson

Postby McManusFan » 25 Nov 2020 Read

I think you misunderstood what I wrote there. I meant you jumped down my throat for agreeing with Iranu's post. It's weird you're going on about agression, as until you replied to my rather innocuous and limp "cracking post Iranu" with accusations of "cultish behaviour" the thread was full of mostly polite disagreement.

I think you are also misconstruing people agreeing with some of your points, with agreeing with your conclusion - I don't think many people think the reaction to Paul Hunter's death was a 'hysterical overreaction'.

Re: ATWSC Group G: Paul Hunter v Neil Robertson

Postby chengdufan » 25 Nov 2020 Read

For what it's worth, I think in this thread LDS has made a bunch of relevant and insightful observations. His posts are intelligently composed and polite.

Interestingly, that's pretty much exactly how I would normally describe Iranu's contributions. On this occasion though, Iranu's responses come across (to me at least) as over-emotional, missing the point, and in places (plural) as rude.

Re: ATWSC Group G: Paul Hunter v Neil Robertson

Postby Iranu » 25 Nov 2020 Read

chengdufan wrote:For what it's worth, I think in this thread LDS has made a bunch of relevant and insightful observations. His posts are intelligently composed and polite.

Interestingly, that's pretty much exactly how I would normally describe Iranu's contributions. On this occasion though, Iranu's responses come across (to me at least) as over-emotional, missing the point, and in places (plural) as rude.

I’m intrigued by this.

I actually agree with your first part. Until the previous page I think LDS’s posts were certainly well composed and polite. That’s partly why I apologised for calling his first post stupid.

I’m not sure where I’ve been overly emotional or rude, though. And trust me there have been several occasions in which those would be accurate descriptions of posts that I’ve made and I actually think you’re being a bit too kind to me there. So I’m interested to know where you feel that was the case, and also where I missed the point.

Re: ATWSC Group G: Paul Hunter v Neil Robertson

Postby Pink Ball » 25 Nov 2020 Read

chengdufan wrote:For what it's worth, I think in this thread LDS has made a bunch of relevant and insightful observations. His posts are intelligently composed and polite.

Interestingly, that's pretty much exactly how I would normally describe Iranu's contributions. On this occasion though, Iranu's responses come across (to me at least) as over-emotional, missing the point, and in places (plural) as rude.

He was in his buck rude, you pin end.

Re: ATWSC Group G: Paul Hunter v Neil Robertson

Postby LDS » 25 Nov 2020 Read

Iranu wrote:I never called you insane. I said referring to fans of Hunter as a Cult was insane.


You said "Referring to “the cult of the Hunter” is frankly offensive."

And then you said "But Paul Hunter was an attractive, likeable, talented person who was very popular even before his health problems and for you to dismiss that as a deranged cult is insane."

Both of which sentences do not bode well for someone who is supposedly in polite agreement with one.

Further, There is nothing offensive about referring to those who invested heavily into Hunter as a Hunter cult, that is the most absurd over-reactionary pedantry of the highest order.

Further still, I never referred to the cult as being deranged, you entirely made that up, because you wanted to make something out of nothing. You wanted to make an issue seem worse than it was, you were being 'hysterical'. And so, how can I be insane because you just made something up?

Edit: Find on page: "Deranged": result: 1/1 - YOUR POST ONLY.

Iranu wrote: At no point was I talking about your views on grief, either, considering I actually said I agreed with you on some aspects of it. So we’ll take your misappropriation of my comment, assume it was a genuine error on your part and leave it there, shall we?


I have no idea what you're referring to here.


Iranu wrote:You also literally said hysterical. You even said me suggesting it wasn’t hysterical was “as much speculation as me suggesting is [sic] was.”


This was not part of my original post but was my reply to your reply, so why are you making reference to the wrong post in a discussion about a specific post?

Iranu wrote:My point about it not being about you was that perhaps your personal opinion of the tributes wasn’t the point. Perhaps your speculation that the players giving tributes were being disingenuous (and yes, I do think this is a horrendous thing to suggest.


I did not say or imply that the players giving tributes were being disingenuous. You completely made this up yourself.

I said:

"Again, I felt a sense of second hand embarrassment as mourning seemed to go on almost indefinitely, almost hysterically, with all these players being trotted out to express their sadness and pose for the cameras with forced expressions of woe and grief, when, in reality, I've no doubt some of them would just be thinking, obviously, "I dunno mate, I never really knew him, he was ok I guess, rubbish happens.".

Where the use of the word "some" is of most import. Not "players 'were' being disingenuous" but just 'speculation' that I 'bet' 'some' of them were thinking more along the lines of how other human beings commonly react to 'mourn for the cameras' scenarios, celebrity or not celebrity. Its not some crackpot conspiracy I'm postulating, just a basic understanding of common human nature.

I've no doubt 'in my mind' (though I could well be wrong, but then we'll never know, so the point is moot), that 'some' players will have been told by their PR guru to "go and do the Hunter tribute thing" and, being young blokes, there's probably be some that would be all "Oh ok, if I must". Is that really a massive stretch of imagination and understanding of human nature that requires the "horrendous" moniker? No it certainly isn't.

Iranu wrote:If EVERY SINGLE TOUR PLAYER had given a glowing tribute you might have a point but I’m fairly sure that wasn’t the case. If you think it’s not horrendous that’s your prerogative.) isn’t the point.


I have no idea what the point of this bit is, I certainly didn't mention all tour players and I again refer you to the use of the word 'some'.

Iranu wrote:These tributes are not being given for your benefit.


No-Shit Sherlock.

Iranu wrote:I’m sure some if not all of that kid’s friends and family were glad to know he stayed in the school’s thoughts, for example.


If you call a day or two of excessive mourning ceremonies "staying in the school's thoughts" then it's no wonder you struggle so much in communication.

Iranu wrote: I doubt they were thinking about LDS in the other class not really caring.


So you agree, it's possible to be thoughtless when you convince yourself so strongly that you are being thoughtful that you force other people into your grief structure?

Iranu wrote: Likewise, I’m sure the BBC weren’t considering those who weren’t really bothered by Hunters death when airing the tributes.


I have no idea what the BBC had to do with this topic? Are you suggesting the BBC orchestrated the over-reaction? If so, that had never crossed my mind. Again, you're just making stuff up and burying it into your posts to such a degree that your posts are veritable minefields of false implication. It makes it very difficult to know exactly what it is your replying to when you make so many references that are entirely unrelated to the post you are replying to.

Iranu wrote:To clarify, I often don’t understand the level of grief over the deaths of famous people, for example. But invariably I’m not a big fan of those famous people (and in some cases think they were not very good people). So I have sympathy with your views on repetitive tributes etc. It’s the fact that you question their legitimacy and genuineness that bothers me more than anything.


Yes, I'm glad we agree on the only real point I made, this is awesome. Regarding that last sentence, the "what bothers you" bit, well, it's called 'human nature'. And yes, very bothersome I'm sure...
Last edited by LDS on 25 Nov 2020, edited 1 time in total.

Re: ATWSC Group G: Paul Hunter v Neil Robertson

Postby Iranu » 25 Nov 2020 Read

Again I don’t have the energy to split quotes so I’ll respond to your quotes in order:

1) Fair point on ‘deranged’. I did add that adjective because that’s the general perception of a cult and I believed you used the word cult with that evocation in mind particularly with the language you followed it up with and accusations of forced expressions of grief etc. If you say you didn’t intend it that way, I believe you. I’d suggest it’s a poor choice of word. And no doubt you’d disagree <laugh>

Saying something is offensive isn’t impolite and I genuinely don’t believe I was rude to you at any point from then on. I’ve apologised for my initial rude post which was unfair.

2) You were going on about your views about grief as if I’d called them ‘insane’. I said nothing at all about your views on grief at that point. ‘Insane’ as I’ve explained (and as you’ve copied above) was specifically referring to your “Cult of Paul Hunter” comment. Therefore you misattributed the word: “It's not someone's fault if they don't feel grief, it's not a crime not to feel grief for someone, and yet that is the phraseology he uses, to imply it's 'insane' to think some people wont have felt grief upon someone's death.” And as I say I’ll assume that was accidental as there are walls of text that we’re going through.

3) You said “almost-hysterical” and followed it up with “hysterical”. And have followed it up many times since. Not sure why you think we’re still discussing one specific post as it seems clear we’ve moved past just that. Even so, “almost-hysterical” is close enough to hysterical (particularly when followed up with hysterical) that my point stands.

4) It appears your stance on this is that I didn’t use the word “some” and therefore I’m accusing you of refereing to all players. I think it’s pretty clear that saying “players” I didn’t mean “all players”. If I were to say “people like coffee” I’m pretty obviously not referring to every single person.

And your further explanation in this post is still describing those players as being disingenuous as they’re doing “that Paul Hunter tribute thing” with “forced expressions of woe and grief on their faces.” I also literally said your speculation that players were being disingenuous. The word speculation accounts for the lack of certainty since it means to theorise without firm evidence, so you’re nitpicking. I never claimed it was a crackpot conspiracy.

5) My point there which in fairness probably wasn’t clear, was that you’re speculating that they got players who didn’t give a rubbish to publicly mourn Hunter, rather than asking those who did give a rubbish. I see no reason to think this unless all or most players did so (because nobody is liked by everybody so logic would dictate some of them were feigning).

Having said that, I suppose you could argue they’d want top players to pay tribute regardless of their true feelings. I still think it’s a stretch to think they’d have to force grief onto their faces.

6) I took “a series of mourning events and assemblies” to have taken place over more than a day or two. Seemed like you meant over a longer period. Apologies if I misunderstood. You certainly didn’t specify a day or two that I can see so perhaps we’ve both had communication issues?

7) I’d suggest it’s an inappropriately aggressive way of framing it but yes, I suppose they could have given the option for students not to attend such events. I think this is something society is getting better at - understanding the individuality of grief. I don’t think it’s the worst thing to prioritise those who were affected by the kid’s death, however.

8) I’m not sure what you’re referring to by “mourning seemed to go on almost indefinitely, almost hysterically, with all these players being trotted out to express their sadness and pose for the cameras with forced expressions of woe and grief” if not for the BBC and other snooker broadcasters (which I think at the time was just Eurosport?) Who else would be “trotting” these players out?

8) I mean this is just snark.

Re: ATWSC Group G: Paul Hunter v Neil Robertson

Postby Prop » 25 Nov 2020 Read

LDS wrote:
McManusFan wrote:I think you need to reread that post it isn't half as aggressive as you seem to be making out.


I just did. It's absolutely full of false insinuation, over-exaggerated insults and horrendous misunderstanding that biases itself entirely in the camp of assuming everyone should be expected to have the exact same reaction to his life and death, and that expectation is entirely governed by himself.

The sheer irony of concluding that I supposedly "THINK IT'S ALL ABOUT ME" when the key factor here is that the death of others very rarely is even remotely connected to me and that forcing other people into a grief structure is entirely "ALL ABOUT YOU" and is nothing whatsoever to do with the innocent bystanders thinking it's all about them.

Incredulous in the extreme.

It's well known that some people have difficulty with grief. There's no denying that at all. The insinuation that those who don't have a problem with grief should pretend to have grief because of those people is an awful proposition. It's not someone's fault if they don't feel grief, it's not a crime not to feel grief for someone, and yet that is the phraseology he uses, to imply it's 'insane' to think some people wont have felt grief upon someone's death. That people who don't feel grief for others are 'horrendous'.

When, in a normal situation, grief only effects "loved ones". A lot of people obviously loved the guy. No debate there and I've never said otherwise. But to imply everyone has to act as if they were a loved one is a hideous proposition.

And, yes, obviously, one does not tend to end up in debates like this in the week or two after someone's death, that's just a different thing called common courtesy and respect. But when looking back at an event 13 years ago with the benefit of hindsight and the detachment of objectivity, I feel sure it's not offensive to suggest that there could have been a over-reaction to his death as a 'normal' talking point. That 'hysteria' shouldn't be a factor 13 years later.


*affects

Remember, effect is the noun, affect is the verb. <ok>

Re: ATWSC Group G: Paul Hunter v Neil Robertson

Postby Acé » 25 Nov 2020 Read

If Robertson reached another WC final or won a 2nd WC then I would've said him but he's looking like a fluke champion out here with just 1 run in 2010 where he really didn't face any noteable players to win it, Fergal Obrien, Gould and a 2010 Steve Davis to reach the semis? really? while Hunter without a question of a doubt would've eventually been a WC champ given his credentials and who he beat to win his 3x Masters tournaments, name me one player who could do what he did vs Ronnie in 2004 final in that specific manner, I'll wait and Robertson sure as hell isn't capable of doing that vs a prime Ronnie imo

Re: ATWSC Group G: Paul Hunter v Neil Robertson

Postby Holden Chinaski » 25 Nov 2020 Read

Acé wrote:If Robertson reached another WC final or won a 2nd WC then I would've said him but he's looking like a fluke champion out here with just 1 run in 2010 where he really didn't face any noteable players to win it, Fergal Obrien, Gould and a 2010 Steve Davis to reach the semis? really? while Hunter without a question of a doubt would've eventually been a WC champ given his credentials and who he beat to win his 3x Masters tournaments, name me one player who could do what he did vs Ronnie in 2004 final in that specific manner, I'll wait and Robertson sure as hell isn't capable of doing that vs a prime Ronnie imo

Not only did Hunter beat Ronnie in that 2004 final, he also beat MJW and John Higgins to get to the final!
Post a reply