If you're in the humor to be outraged this morning, have a read of Hugh Farrelly

durkadurka

http://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/web-warriors-miss-point-on-overseas-issue-3080132.html

#likeabrokenrecord

JustinDee

"The best approach is either to ignore it completely or to highlight the abuse"

I also agree with what he said in another article. Posters should post in threads under their real names and not some anonymous moniker.

They should try commenting in the same manner as if face-to-face with subject matter. Behaviour breeds behaviour. Whoever slags off, anonymously, the likes of Pat Lam or John Muldoon from behind the safety of a firewall has obviously never met either of them and would never do so in their company.

In general, bar one or two subjects, I tend to ignore any dross myself.

lologram

Farrelly: "The best approach is either to ignore it completely or to highlight the abuse"

Blurring the lines between what you deem abuse and what the rest of the world deems non-abusive criticism is one way to avoid having to do some decent rugby journalism, I suppose.

irishbucsfan

Farrelly has been so emasculated by his argument being torn to shreds by amateur analysts that he has to equate us to those who use racism and vile insults on Twitter and Facebook, which is being continually and rightfully criminalised. It's absolutely pathetic and shows the measure of the man's ability to support his own feeble argument.

If Munster were playing Edinburgh on the 28th they'd have two NIEs playing at prop, Ireland's greatest (and tbh only) position of need. Ulster will be fielding a fully Irish front row. Thank god they made it through.

Wonder how long they'll allow comments to be seen for this time...

There wasn't anything vitriolic or abusive in any of the comments that I read. Just hard facts and people advising him that he was absolutely far and away miles off in his analysis.

thomond2006

durkadurka wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/web-warriors-miss-point-on-overseas-issue-3080132.html

Jogathon

He is right about the keyboard warrior stuff. Some comments are sick, even on sites as tightly regulated as this one.

The scrum problem is a different issue. He's silly to have tied them together in one article, just because many people disagreed with them.

JustinDee

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Farrelly has been so emasculated by his argument being torn to shreds by amateur analysts that he has to equate us to those who use racism and vile insults on Twitter and Facebook, which is being continually and rightfully criminalised. It's absolutely pathetic and shows the measure of the man's ability to support his own feeble argument

I don't agree with everything he says myself. Three provinces under new NIE succession policy will be allowed a maximum of five overseas non-Irish qualified players anyway. Just not in the same position as another team.

He calls it pretty much as it is though, regarding internet chatters.
Who says he is talking about you ("us) anyway? Last time there was a virtual blue going on about his comments on internet posters, he wasn't even referring to this forum at all but just a general case in point.

Just an opinion piece. Don't take it to heart, I'd say. I'm reading 'club coverage' from certain other pundits at the moment. If one was to take on board that they covered it all, you'd be mistaken in thinking that club rugby consisted of Division 1A plus Wanderers.
There have been so many inaccuracies, overreactive, repetitive articles in papers (as here) that it just doesn't deserve any more attention than a read then possibly a comment.

All very subjective though. Some people see what they post as fact when actually its just an opinion too.

thomond2006

JustinDee wrote: »

"The best approach is either to ignore it completely or to highlight the abuse"

I also agree with what he said in another article. Posters should post in threads under their real names and not some anonymous moniker.

They should try commenting in the same manner as if face-to-face with subject matter. Behaviour breeds behaviour. Whoever slags off, anonymously, the likes of Pat Lam or John Muldoon from behind the safety of a firewall has obviously never met either of them and would never do so in their company.

In general, bar one or two subjects, I tend to ignore any dross myself.

How about he just admits he wrote an idiotic article instead of spinning it Alastair Campbell style on the internet?

irishbucsfan

JustinDee wrote: »

"The best approach is either to ignore it completely or to highlight the abuse"

I also agree with what he said in another article. Posters should post in threads under their real names and not some anonymous moniker.

They should try commenting in the same manner as if face-to-face with subject matter. Behaviour breeds behaviour. Whoever slags off, anonymously, the likes of Pat Lam or John Muldoon from behind the safety of a firewall has obviously never met either of them and would never do so in their company.

In general, bar one or two subjects, I tend to ignore any dross myself.

I think that's all fair enough. It is absolutely spot on to pull up people who do the sort of thing that these people have done.

That guy who attacked Fabrice Muamba on Twitter was locked up and hopefully the rules regarding harrassment will tighten up in that regard.


However are you really saying its fair to equate any of that with disagreeing with a clearly flawed argument?

If the best approach is to highlight it then where are Farrellys examples of the abuse he has received over this?

JustinDee

thomond2006 wrote: »

How about he just admits he wrote an idiotic article instead of spinning it Alastair Campbell style on the internet?

An opinion piece writer's main aim would be to be read and to be prominent.
Looks like he's caught another netful, Alan. As Stephen Jones said once "All too easy". Seriously. There are more pressing matters out there.

durkadurka

Perhaps he should refrain from abuse himself:


"For the underpants brigade, a computer mouse can not only be effectively used as a replacement for a proper social life but also as a savage weapon with the confidence that comes from always being able to strike from cover."

I would like to see the evidence he has for such a crass stereotyping.

I would wager that many on here have more education, better jobs, more pay and maybe even more friends than he.

durkadurka

durkadurka wrote: »

Perhaps he should refrain from abuse himself:


"For the underpants brigade, a computer mouse can not only be effectively used as a replacement for a proper social life but also as a savage weapon with the confidence that comes from always being able to strike from cover."

I would like to see the evidence he has for such a crass stereotyping.

I would wager that many on here have more education, better jobs, more pay and maybe even more friends than he.

lol, who you kidding nerd?

:pac:

thomond2006

JustinDee wrote: »

An opinion piece writer's main aim would be to be read and to be prominent.

unfortunately true

Looks like he's caught another netful, Alan. As Stephen Jones said once "All too easy". Seriously. There are more pressing matters out there.

I agree, Kidney out.

JustinDee

irishbucsfan wrote: »

However are you really saying its fair to equate any of that with disagreeing with a clearly flawed argument?

If the best approach is to highlight it then where are Farrellys examples of the abuse he has received over this?

No, I'm saying there's no real need for such a reaction.
Nothing comes of the piece except his opinion being portrayed, hits on the web page and possibly even better for the paper, comments being input.

It isn't as if his opinion piece bends union decision-making or changes facets of the game itself.

I asked Stephen Jones several years ago (before being involved in rugby union), why he had such a hard-on for knocking the Irish, the Aussies and also rugby league.
His answer was "Because you love it".

If you don't want comments, don't have a comment section.

What am I missing?

Shelflife

JustinDee wrote: »

An opinion piece writer's main aim would be to be read and to be prominent.
Looks like he's caught another netful, Alan. As Stephen Jones said once "All too easy". Seriously. There are more pressing matters out there.

Thats true Justin, but in Jones case it just becomes lazy journalism and writing crap because he cant come up with good stuff.

As a result id say that Jones has lost more readers then gained for the ST and that defeats the purpose.

Is Farrelly on about the comments on here or elsewhere.

I agree somewhat with Justins comments re using your real name, verifying that I am who I proport to be would be difficult though.

That said, you shouldnt post that that you wouldnt say directly to the person involved.

JustinDee

Deleted User wrote: »

If you don't want comments, don't have a comment section.

What am I missing?

The point with the point being job done as far as this particular pundit is concerned.

durkadurka

Deleted User wrote: »

lol, who you kidding nerd?

:pac:

I have friends. I've even kissed girls.

efb

durkadurka wrote: »

Perhaps he should refrain from abuse himself:


"For the underpants brigade, a computer mouse can not only be effectively used as a replacement for a proper social life but also as a savage weapon with the confidence that comes from always being able to strike from cover."

I would like to see the evidence he has for such a crass stereotyping.

I would wager that many on here have more education, better jobs, more pay and maybe even more friends than he.

You had me up until the more friends piece

JustinDee

Shelflife wrote: »

Thats true Justin, but in Jones case it just becomes lazy journalism and writing crap because he cant come up with good stuff.

As a result id say that Jones has lost more readers then gained for the ST and that defeats the purpose

One word as to why Stephen Jones would have experienced a lower readership: Paywall. Times publications charge for their online access now.
People get thin-skinned particularly in tribal issues such as sport, so you can bet your keyster that he would still ruffle feathers were the masses able to view his columns.

irishbucsfan

JustinDee wrote: »

irishbucsfan wrote: »

However are you really saying its fair to equate any of that with disagreeing with a clearly flawed argument?

If the best approach is to highlight it then where are Farrellys examples of the abuse he has received over this?

No, I'm saying there's no real need for such a reaction.
Nothing comes of the piece except his opinion being portrayed, hits on the web page and possibly even better for the paper, comments being input.

It isn't as if his opinion piece bends union decision-making or changes facets of the game itself.

I asked Stephen Jones several years ago (before being involved in rugby union), why he had such a hard-on for knocking the Irish, the Aussies and also rugby league.
His answer was "Because you love it".

Last time out they deleted all the comments though..

You're right that it isn't really important. It's frustrating however to see him write a terrible argument and then refuse to continue the discussion. His paper blocked responses to it, some of which were extremely well put and not at all insulting towards him or the paper. Then he turns around and equates those people to borderline criminals. It's extremely frustrating.

I wish there was a right to response beyond having comments deleted or letters unprinted.

If only Seán Sherlock had banned the Independent

JustinDee

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Last time out they deleted all the comments though..

You're right that it isn't really important. It's frustrating however to see him write a terrible argument and then refuse to continue the discussion. His paper blocked responses to it, some of which were extremely well put and not at all insulting towards him or the paper. Then he turns around and equates those people to borderline criminals. It's extremely frustrating

No need to be though. Its just an article.
I'm a pedantic soul myself. The internet bugs me for many reasons such as spelling. I bloody well hate Americanisms ("humor"), people saying "could of" instead of "could have" or others not being able to distinguish between "there", "their" or "they're". I abhor the use of "meh" or posters saying "Aye" when they're not mariners, Yorkshiremen or Scots!

Thats just me though. If it bit, I'd get nothing else done!

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I wish there was a right to response beyond having comments deleted or letters unprinted.

Write to him yourself. His email address is listed in his columns. Thats a right of reply.

Teferi

Let's be honest here lads. "hurrr internetz peoples are not nice" is the lowest form of journalism, it is something that journalists have been writing since the dawn of the internet and it's ground that has been covered so many times that there can be nothing new said. The only reason a journo covers something like that now is when he writes something particularly stupid, people react to it and he gets instant feedback of being an awful eejit. This annoys him so he writes about how the internet is mean.

TL;DR: Hugh Farrelly Y U NO stop being a newfag who can't triforce?

mikedragon32

We're all just jealous. Instead of being banned for trolling, he's paid.

Maybe we need to add discussing this "journalist" to the list of topics that get you banned?

totallegend

Lads, like any troll, the reaction Hugh got to his first piece and will get to this one is manna from heaven for him.

Hugh is like that bird in the Daily Mail last week who said "oh, it's so hard being beautiful", despite being ugly as sin, then when people pointed that out to her, it was "well, you're all just jealous and you've proved my point".

Writing an article slating internet posters and then being slated on the internet is going to make Hugh very happy indeed. He must know at this stage that he's waaay out of his depth as a serious rugby journalist, so all he can do is try to re-brand himself as a shock-jock.

Equating the people who reacted to his nonsense article last week with people racially abusing Pat Lam or saying whatever they said about that German woman is absolutely despicable, btw.

JustinDee

totallegend wrote: »

He must know at this stage that he's waaay out of his depth as a serious rugby journalist, so all he can do is try to re-brand himself as a shock-jock

He would be out of his depth as a top level rugby coach, player or referee as would the near-full majority of posters here.
He isn't out of his depth though. He is a rugby columnist in what I'd guess is the top selling broadsheet in Ireland if not second highest selling, has been for some time and will continue to be so for some time yet. People still read him. You still read him.

Look at the title of the thread. "If you're in the humour to be outraged this morning . . .".
People love a good moan and most can't help but bite every time a morsel is put out there. Its almost hobby-like. Thats what opinion writers cater for and is also what sustains them.

Zzippy

Jaysus lads, it's Hugh Farrelly, what did you expect? Praise for your more enlightened opinions? :pac:

Podge_irl

JustinDee wrote: »

He calls it pretty much as it is though, regarding internet chatters.
Who says he is talking about you ("us) anyway? Last time there was a virtual blue going on about his comments on internet posters, he wasn't even referring to this forum at all but just a general case in point.

'Some' rugby journalists appear bitter and defensive. More to the point they write error laden articles and then lash out at those who correct them. They decide upon their little vendetta, be it keyboard warriors or Ulster's foreigners, then pursue their agenda relentlessly and dismiss any and all valid criticism of it. They write for a rag and yet still aren't good enough for it.

Who says I'm talking about Hugh Farrelly?

leftleg

JustinDee wrote: »

He calls it pretty much as it is though, regarding internet chatters.
Who says he is talking about you ("us) anyway? Last time there was a virtual blue going on about his comments on internet posters, he wasn't even referring to this forum at all but just a general case in point.

Surprise surprise poster on boards who happens to be paid by the irfu agrees with article written by fervant Declan Kidney supporting Indo journalist;

Is that you Hugh??

totallegend

JustinDee wrote: »

He would be out of his depth as a top level rugby coach, player or referee as would the near-full majority of posters here.
He isn't out of his depth though. He is a rugby columnist in what I'd guess is the top selling broadsheet in Ireland if not second highest selling, has been for some time and will continue to be so for some time yet. People still read him. You still read him.

Look at the title of the thread. "If you're in the humour to be outraged this morning . . .".
People love a good moan and most can't help but bite every time a morsel is put out there. Its almost hobby-like. Thats what opinion writers cater for and is also what sustains them.

Hmmm, see, it looks like you're disagreeing with me, but then your last sentence is 100% in agreement with my post. So thanks for the support.

As I said, Farrelly is way out of his depth as a journalist; there is an important distinction between being a journalist and being a columnist.

All you need to be a columnist is an opinion, but that does not make you a good journalist.

JustinDee

leftleg wrote: »

Surprise surprise poster on boards who happens to be paid by the irfu agrees with article written by fervant Declan Kidney supporting Indo journalist;

Is that you Hugh??

Did I say I agreed with everything he wrote?
Lets recap: "I don't agree with everything he says myself. Three provinces under new NIE succession policy will be allowed a maximum of five overseas non-Irish qualified players anyway. Just not in the same position as another team"

I do agree however with certain aspects of what he wrote about anonymous folk on the web and how they post comments.

I worked at an editorial office of a prominent news magazine before. I can take or leave an article I read in the media for what it is.
As I mentioned earlier, job done Hugh Farrelly. Next . . .

leftleg

JustinDee wrote: »

Did I say I agreed with everything he wrote?

"poster on boards who happens to be paid by the irfu agrees with article written by fervant Declan Kidney supporting Indo journalist"

I didnt say you agreed with everything but you do agree with what he wrote; whether that be everything ar some "subjective" parts; what i posted is true; like it or lump it

Robbo

The best approach is either to ignore it completely or to highlight the abuse, as Connacht flanker John Muldoon did this week when he re-tweeted a comment he had received from a random punter who wondered, "So how far down the pecking order for the Irish squad are you now?", with the accompanying hash-tag -- "#howTheF*ckDidYou EverGetAnIrishCapSh*tBox". Nice.

I noted with that lad, he wasn't too clever in that he'd left all the location info on in his tweets. Rural Ireland being what it is, it wouldn't be too hard for Muldoon, Toner, Humphries et al to rock up at his front door in County REDACTED, like the end of Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back.

But yes, there is quite a large element of Samantha Brick to his article and the whole thing smacks of a snake eating it's tail, given his fondness for basing articles on stuff lifted directly from fora and the Twitmachine.

cgpg5

Let me get something right, people read his article and simply disagreed with his opinion via an online discussion forum, which is exactly that- a discussion forum.

Yet he equates this with idiots who racially abuse players and abuse them in other ways personally, through the medium of internet.

Need to get over yourself Hugh

Clearlier

This is getting personal rather than focusing on the issue in question. I rarely read the Indo and thus don't really know about this particular journalist. I did read this article though courtesy of the link so if the journalist was trying to increase his readership that he has succeeded to the tune of at least one:).

The article seems to be saying something along the lines of:
- There are lots of people making nasty comments on the web some of which are racist and abusive
- There were lots of nasty/abusive comments about an assertion I made in an article last week
- I'm still right though
- Ireland is more important than the provinces
- Ulster have too many NIQ players getting in the way of Irish players
- SANZAR do it differently (and by implication we should copy them)
- Look at our problems at prop and you'll see how right I am

Now as I said already I don't generally read this journalists work so he could be building on from a body of analysis of the implications of the new rules about NIQ's in which case I guess this article might make sense. On it's own though it smacks of somebody who was a bit upset by something(s) somebody (ies) said on the web and is basically shouting "I'm right, you're wrong". It's not so much the conclusions he asserts which may or may not be valid - it's the quality of his analysis that bothers me. It's reasoning is highly inductive and I wouldn't grant him many of the leaps in reasoning he makes but then that's what I expect of the Indo and it's why I don't read it.

I like Liam Toland though - he's not always right but he has a real go at analysing a situation and trying to work out what the implications are.

N.B. I can't emphasis enough that I'm only commenting on this particular article.

buck65

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Farrelly has been so emasculated by his argument being torn to shreds by amateur analysts that he has to equate us to those who use racism and vile insults on Twitter and Facebook, which is being continually and rightfully criminalised. It's absolutely pathetic and shows the measure of the man's ability to support his own feeble argument.

If Munster were playing Edinburgh on the 28th they'd have two NIEs playing at prop, Ireland's greatest (and tbh only) position of need. Ulster will be fielding a fully Irish front row. Thank god they made it through.

If BJ Botha had been cited for a shameful tackle and we made it through then we would have 2 Irish front rows starting with a third to come on.

Your argument is a joke, and you thanking God that they won proves what I always thought about your attitude to Munster, a province who have given far more to their country in the Pro era than Ulster ever have.

irishbucsfan

buck65 wrote: »

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Farrelly has been so emasculated by his argument being torn to shreds by amateur analysts that he has to equate us to those who use racism and vile insults on Twitter and Facebook, which is being continually and rightfully criminalised. It's absolutely pathetic and shows the measure of the man's ability to support his own feeble argument.

If Munster were playing Edinburgh on the 28th they'd have two NIEs playing at prop, Ireland's greatest (and tbh only) position of need. Ulster will be fielding a fully Irish front row. Thank god they made it through.

If BJ Botha had been cited for a shameful tackle and we made it through then we would have 2 Irish front rows starting with a third to come on.

Your argument is a joke, and you thanking God that they won proves what I always thought about your attitude to Munster, a province who have given far more to their country in the Pro era than Ulster ever have.

And if Howlett hadn't been injured then they would have one less Irish man on the pitch. If Chambers or Tokula had been a revelation even less. Swings and roundabouts.

However, I'm not being serious! I'm referring to Farrellys ridiculous article last week which said an Ulster win would be bad for Irish rugby. Obviously its not the case.

buck65

Ok I over reacted but I'm genuinely pissed at some of the anti Munster comments on the Indedendent website and it's been a tough week on Boards too after last weekend.
BTW we were only a soft try away from beating (a superior) Ulster last week and with a more favourable ref we might have won anyway.

jacothelad

buck65 wrote: »

Ok I over reacted but I'm genuinely pissed at some of the anti Munster comments on the Indedendent website and it's been a tough week on Boards too after last weekend.
BTW we were only a soft try away from beating (a superior) Ulster last week and with a more favourable ref we might have won anyway.

Ulster were only a soft try away from an even bigger winning margin. A more favourable ref would have had them out of sight by half time... Do you see how this type of argument flounders. If your Aunt had testicles etc. Try reading through the hatred and vitriol on Munsterfans.

buck65

Wow you're very smart aren't you.

Afoa should have been sent off, game over.

molloyjh

Despite stupidly adding a comment to the article I would have to agree with what (I think) Justin is saying. Hugh is looking for a reaction. And lo and behold here we all are giving him just that.

At the Cardiff match on Saturday we were behind 3 idiots who, in the second half, decided to start chanting "You should just go home" to the Cardiff lot. They wanted us all to join in. One of our crew decided to have a go at them for it, while the rest of us ignored them. That gave them all the ammo they needed and they duly continued winding her up for the rest of the game. I told her after that she just should not have bothered giving them a reaction. It's a pity I can't take my own advice!!!

totallegend

buck65 wrote: »

Wow you're very smart aren't you.

Afoa should have been sent off, game over.

Not to be back-seat modding, but there is a thread for the game already.

Clegg

Some Munster fans have been very graceless in defeat.

Its sad to see.

They were beaten by the better team. They need to move on.

JustinDee

leftleg wrote: »

I didnt say you agreed with everything but you do agree with what he wrote; whether that be everything ar some "subjective" parts; what i posted is true; like it or lump it

That actually makes no sense.
I can't agree with the article per se if the second half of it is pertaining to the overseas players and I have already outlined why.
If somebody agrees the article they agree with everything he says.

Just saying*








* sigh . . . oh whats the bloody point . . . seriously . . .

leftleg

JustinDee wrote: »

That actually makes no sense.
I can't agree with the article per se if the second half of it is pertaining to the overseas players and I have already outlined why.
If somebody agrees the article they agree with everything he says.

Just saying*








* sigh . . . oh whats the bloody point . . . seriously . . .

ditto

Skid

molloyjh wrote: »

Despite stupidly adding a comment to the article I would have to agree with what (I think) Justin is saying. Hugh is looking for a reaction. And lo and behold here we all are giving him just that.

True. If you look at his (first and only) twitter post today, the language he uses is so pompous he can only be trying to wind people up.

Hugh Farrelly ‏ @HughFarrellyIRL Reply Retweet Favorite · Open
Irish journalist takes stand against racism and online bullying, also suicide http://j.mp/IdERWp #yourewelcome

https://twitter.com/HughFarrellyIRL

wp_rathead

I don't understand his point.. Started off with him giving out about the disgusting racial abuse Pat Lam got, the horrible suicide of the German model and the knob that tweeted Muldoon...

..theeeeeeeeeeen...

..he goes on to use that as a type of defence, as if he is a victim like these people..

Hugh Farrelly wrote:

Internet outrage is a fact of life and last week's assertion in these pages that an Ulster quarter-final win would not necessarily be the best result for Ireland ahead of their summer tour produced a predictably vitriolic response.

beggers belief

yosser hughes

Skid wrote: »

True. If you look at his (first and only) twitter post today, the language he uses is so pompous he can only be trying to wind people up.



https://twitter.com/HughFarrellyIRL

Is Hugh threatening to kill himself unless people stop disagreeing with him?
Is this Hugh striking a blow for all who have been bullied? Hugh as saviour?
Get a grip Hugh:rolleyes: