There is a pretty substantial difference between having the right to say something, and having the right to say things unchallenged.

I haven't called for any type of censorship or banning or anything of that ilk.

In which case, seeing as no new points have been made by either side of this "debate" in the last 30 pages, You have made your position clear as have Printer et al. So job done, no need for continuation? Please don't give me the bs about fearlessly refuting "homophobia", your rebuttals merely elicit a further defence of his position and visa versa.Too much heat not enough light generated. So avoid doing the same things and expecting different results Walk away, you have eloquently made your points, democracy and the rule of law are saved, you can stop now.

PS Printer et al the above applies to you too

No you giant wazzock they are comfortable that it is your opinion. I.e nobody is stating it isn't your opinion. That doesn't mean they are comfortable with your opinion being ok.

No it isn't. You aren't stating James Child is getting special treatment because of he is James Child you are claiming he gets special treatment because of his sexuality.

focusing on James Child's sexuality. You're not smart enough to try these verbal gymnastics.

it is only in your opinion that it happens in he way you describe and the way you have alledged it has happened. If it isn't only in your opinion perhaps you can provide us some proof? Oh no you have already told us you have none.

No amount of fog knitting nor pathetic attempts at verbal gymnastics will alter the fact that you have alledged James Child has received preferential treatment based on his sexuality based on nothing but your preconceptions of positive discrimination. The word the English language uses to describe such an allegation is prejudiced.

And how's the battle going? 37 pages in, victory must be just around the corner?



You're not the Messiah you're a very naughty boy.

But to avoid falling into the same trap as you I will offer no further contribution to this thread

He's like an irritable little child in the school yard is young Smokey. Having his little tantrum in the yard, others ask why, he responds Coz, they ask again, he says coz. Never get an answer just his way coz he says so.

People ask him to leave, he still wants the last word. You don't usually see child Bigots, but one for all here.

You think if you try hard enough people. Will forget what you said? That to protect your special friend you made some pretty ridiculous evidence less accusations based on Child's Sexuality.

They won't forget Gotcha.

bigotry, you wouldn't recognise it if it hit you in the face with Phil Daly

So was it agreed that Child is a e ref????

That's never been in doubt. What wasn't agreed is why he gets away with it, as only three people have offered a suggestion, anybody else just wants to believe that can't be the case rather than offer another option. At least they have had the decency though to declare that as their opinion, rather than shout incoherent wild accusations like one individual.

You could alternatively just go on the RFL website. But of course that mean you accepting your foolishness.

How does any of this have anything to do with Hardaker Is Printer or SuperTed an alias for Hardaker?

No, what's being quite clearly implied by at least one person on this thread is that he gets big games purely to suit the RFL's inclusivity agenda, but not ones that are so big they will be too obvious to the fans.

Would you agree with that sentiment, or not?