Newspapers need a Quick Death

Newspapers have been downsizing for months. In response to falling sales, whole departments have been pared back. Seemingly to the bare minimum. For the last month or so, the end results of this strategy have been clearly revealed. Gutter journalism. The rise & rise of the utter moron.
I would rather get my news from someone who is being paid and is therefore presumably accountable. My attitude appears to be almost irrelevant. On the whole, what I have seen from (traditional) paid journalism is irredeemably amateurish. I no longer care for it.

Death to the newspapers. The sooner the better. 2015-2020 is the estimate I agree with as to the date of death. Boycott, boycott & may the date be brought forward.

Many people, including myself, read the newspaper online. I will never pay a cent to do so. There are enough ads online that this should pay for itself. Bloggers earn their money from traffic etc. The new model will seamlessly replace the old model. There is ample room for professional journalism in this new model.

Newspapers can easily survive as a digital hub. Articles, photos etc can be accessed & backlinked. This is their present online purpose. Don't buy the broadsheet, read it online. They will be forced to give us individually tailored front page news. A massive win if you ask me. The garbage we do not consider as news can lie in My Back Pages

Previously, I was concerned about the end of traditional media. Now I await the death knell.

To protect from financial collapse, a hilarious proposal has been considered. Newspapers are non-profit organisations. This would also mean that newspapers would be unable to run political advertising (including editorials). Just gets funnier.

Good 'ole Rupert is planning to charge online user's of his newspaper. "News Corp is going to make online customers pay to access its websites some time before the end of financial year 2010."

What a dufus. Talk about an old crony out of touch with reality. The moment that happens, any links of theirs I use will be deleted. This would be representative of bloggers worldwide.

Protecting photos is stupid. My desire is to link photos, not upload them. When I find a site that does not allow me access to its photos (for free, obviously) I download the photo then upload it manually. I figure the lack of access is the dumbest move possible on the internet. It defeats the purpose. Secondly, all obvious ownership is lost the moment a photo is not properly linked (as described). The photo owner has shot themselves in the foot. Can't protect one from their own stupidity. My primary desire is not to rob people of their work - becomes meaningless very quickly. None of the photos on this site are, or ever will be 'mine'.

Read a bit of the article (I got very bored) & the talk turns to 'value-added content'. Whatever, numbskulls. Stop treating us as fools. In my puny internet experience, these blogs I write are next to useless. A way more profitable model is to display a single page of bikini pics. 5 or so. Doing so is far more sensible in the pursuit of profit. I have learnt this in a manner of weeks. One need not be a blogger to understand this most basic internet reality.

Turn the above paragraph around to News Corp's experience. They are fully aware that quality journalism (not trying to insinuate that my content is quality, but I obviously believe it anyway) doesn't sell. They would be fully aware that consumers would not pay for regular news online. So, they will try to 'tailor' it. I have no problem with this approach, it is a positive for the consumer. However, I wager that most of this tailoring will be surface. Let's say, for example's sake, that I am a paid consumer of News' websites. Knowing my age, sex & country would be sufficent. Front page article would have to be a bikini pic or something similar. How else would they target my demographic. Paris Hilton's latest sex video? They would have to do something pretty bloody special to keep me (no choice but to resort to garbage journalism). It just won't work. I don't pay for 'added' content as it stands. As much as I like internet porn, not a cent has ever, or will ever leave my wallet for it. News, well that's much lesser content - payment would never enter the equation. Treat us like idiots and watch your 'fabulous' newspaper drown quickly. I have never gone near anything requiring payment on the internet. To do so would mean one has poor searching skills. It can always be found for free elsewhere.

Still on the article, it went into TAB vs Betfair. A legitimate issue from a business sense. Betfair pays less taxes, and is therefore more competitive than TABs. The problem here is state law, as alluded to. However, from a punter's view, all the arguments outlined are crap. All a punter should care about is the payoff on their bet. TAB typically pinches 7.5%, Betfair 4%. Both of these figures are way too high. It is a product of what business would call the 'competition of choice'. All bogus. Much better for the punter would be if one of these entities bought out all the others. A lower house % could be offered. (Ideally, a 50% bet should be $1.99. Yes, I can dream.)
As an example pushing News Corp's selling of online media, it was very poor. Using the same argument I have just used, it would be better if News Corp was swallowed by a larger company. What idiots the spokesmen are.

Rupert, retire now. Or die now. You are a greedy pig. Yes, one may argue this is not necessarily to line his own pockets. It is to protect his dwindling News Corp empire. Let your son, Lachlan, take over immediately. I have no idea, but I would place another wager that he would abandon his father's foolish plans immediately. Rupert is doing a massive disservice to his son, perhaps unknowingly. The only possible exception is the Wall Street Journal, as the article says. I consider this different, as it is business news. I think people would be willing to pay bucketloads for it. (You are welcome to pick apart the obvious contradictions in this stance on 'business news' - what is it? how is it different? etc, but it still seems like plain vanilla to me after thinking about it. Paying other people in the hope money will be mysteriously made from this transaction is a long established con/reality.)

By all means, set up the News Corp portal to be individually tailored. This results in better targeted ads etc - more revenue. The mere fact that they have not done so already (for free) shows how far behind the ball they really are. Literally, a bunch of amateurs in the new world of the internet. Goodbye & good riddance old fuddie duddies. The Australian (News Corp's national paper) is by far the worst online portal of all the major newspapers in Melbourne.

Never, ever pay to get sensationalist crap delivered though your web browser. The idea is disgusting in almost every point.

Paragons of Virtue they are. The mighty fine chaps from News Corp. James & Rupert. Stellar Champions of the free market. Just imagine for one moment, they conjure. You - yes, you - through sheer determination & talent could deign to enter the media jungle. Strike it Rich if the cards are played right.

Most interestingly, the debate was never framed in this manner. That would have been my spin. The backward cowboys from News Corp failed to see beyond their own interests.

Father & Son (as a minor correction, he is equally as keen) called for the dismantling of State Media to allow them to compete. More Fox News Anyone?

Furthermore, the buffoons will attempt to stop anyone using their material online. They claim to seek to remove their newspapers from public search engines. If this is not a dying man babbling, please inform me what it is.

The greatest problem with the course that News Corp has charted is this:
As they inevitably crash & burn, News Corp will devote some of it's diving assets toward dismantling State media. (This will be done at the expense of it's own survival.)

Goodbye News Corp. Your majority owners have declared your death years in advance. In the poorest act of public business management in 2009. The history books will have an absolute field day with this story.

Further reading:

Ted Turner predicts the death of newspapers. In 1981! Kind of undermines my stance.

A blog piece with much greater research.

This is not consent (Woman beds 200)

Consent - modern dictionary definition - consent is explaining to your grandmother why you ate the fruitcake. The fruitcake never said yes, but it didn't say no. Looked so delicious that the urge was irresistible. An invariably complex issue for gran. To her, the fruitcake must present itself upon the table . Tea must be set. Grace perhaps to be uttered. Only then may a delicate deflowering occur. Verbal excess should accompany.

Sex. The word sells. The morality of a woman sleeping with 200 AFL players over 10 years is not interesting for mine. News piece is no big deal. It began as a standard reporting of facts. Until this is added to the equation -

...further proof players had not shown enough respect towards women.

"It highlights again that even with apparent consent there is a need for more integrity towards women"

WTF? I don't want to hear from some member of the Women's Forum chime in with their silly comments. How is anything she says on this relevant? Clearly, if we were talking about a bloke rooting 200, the issue would still be about respect to women. Humourous that the Player's Association is footing the bill for the counselling.

I can't believe we are playing the same game about consent we have been playing since the re-opening of this crap - Four Corners on NRL. I am just going to bloody re-quote myself. I have covered this particular issue in depth already.

Now, either my decoder is way off-kilter, or perhaps my comments on (this) morality being a series of flimsy excuses has some merit.... I am hearing a woman (presumably a feminist) say - that in certain circumstances - a woman is a second class citizen whose word has no meaning. Please correct me.

Having slept on it, it is clear to me that the Women's Forum fool is still pushing a wheelbarrow against Matthew Johns. She'd probably love to see him jailed & castrated. Her comments have nothing to do with the story presented. If this is the near future (ie more predictable quotes from Johns-haters totally out of context) - those who have argued that the Christchurch event was an opportunity to move forward are idiots.

We are stuck in this mire.

Just remember - consent is not consent. Use that information to make yourself a better person.

Been doing a bit more digging into this. An article with much greater information. The 'girl' (as she is constantly referred to) is not moralising - I would say that indicates a second incredulous use of the term 'girl'. The Matthew Johns incident is directly raised. She claims to have indulged in many similar activities, freely.

Another crappy quote has been appended from another turgid member of the femo-nazis. Of course it is implied that the 'girl' could not have properly consented to these situations. The bloody issue wasn't about group sex to begin with. The black hole of recent numbskull politics cannot be ignored by these parasites. Women with free will & the ability to act upon it are out of their realm. Their logic is so monstered & bashed into shape that it suits no woman.

2009 - Official Year of the Sex Scandal

Kyle Sandilands is a Known Idiot. And?

Kyle Sandilands is an arrogant, stupid boofhead. This is hardly breaking news. These are also the most desirable qualities on commercial FM radio. It is a medium that appeals to listeners of the same calibre. The listeners to such shows deserve the crap they get. It has been created with them in mind.

To my meagre knowledge, the lie detector episode that created the recent scandal was a regular segment. Starting from that fact alone, it is ridiculous that he & his co-host, Jackie O (whatever the hell her real name is?) have had their crappy show cancelled (or 'in recess' if you prefer newspeak). It is one of the highest rating morning radio shows in Sydney. A reasonable assumption would be that the listeners have lapped up the segment in the past. Of course, in making these points, I have conveniently ignored groupthink.

So, yeah, I've heard the segment multiple times now. Who to blame? Kyle? Mother? Jackie? Radio management? The blame appears to have been apportioned in that order. Kyle's follow up to the girl's revelation was extremely poor: "So, is that the only experience you've had?" I genuinely believe he is stupid. I reckon he actually had no idea what else to say. All he could muster was his pre-determined line of interrogation.

The mother definitely appeared to know of the events her daughter was talking about. 2 tickets to a Pink concert was the payoff. The mother essentially sold her daughter for a bargain price. Maybe back stage passes were thrown into the deal.

Jackie is a pathetic wallflower in general. She has no personality & is a Paula Abdul clone in the American Idol mould. At least she is attractive. Plaudits (quite seriously) to whoever teamed the two of them up. Alone, they would be as bland as stale bread. Together, they are (by ratings) massive.

Anyway, I didn't want to bother entering into any great detail on this. It is a convenient opportunity for me to highlight a few key points that I have been making over several pieces. Removing a person from their job is a very poor response to controversy. It constantly disappoints me. That is the key point of interest for me.

Kyle Sandilands is a shock jock. His job is to offend some people in order to make a larger bunch of people laugh. (Many call this system the greatest form of politics.) As far as I can tell, he does his job very well on a seemingly regular basis. Jackie O's job is to go along with Kyle & perhaps feign a note of caution or resistance. (Sounds like the recipe for a teenage soap.) Neither of the two have failed their job description. The relevant advertisers must withdraw their backing, temporarily. A childish game must be played with the public at large. The offence is noted, and has been responded to. All the while, the bean counters know their product is ready to burst when it hits the sheves again. Ho hum.

I will happily don 2 of the 3 mantles I have crowned upon Kyle in the first paragraph. (KingKyle is his self-formed management company. Also the record label for his wife.) I am a mere arrogant boofhead.

Most Explosive Piece of News Rubbish This Year

The little news story that rocked an entire nation. The greatest display of overt puritanism since the impeachment of Bill Clinton. The point that marked the height (& therefore decline) of Wowser Power. The saga that exposed the cretins whose strength had been growing steadily.


I am yet to see a decent, logical argument from a moralist yet. Anywhere. My two cents says I have destroyed their arguments already, point by point, above. I'll make up some more.

'An expose such as this is a good thing because it moves the debate about women in NRL forward.' Wrong. 'Clare' has suffered innumerable personal attacks since this story aired. There is way too much target space with this girl. She is not a credible witness, and her allegations would not even be considered in a court of law. We are left with a crying girl being evidence of wrongdoing. Christ, girls learn when they are 5 or 6 that crying can solve all of their logical problems. It is an outward attempt to remove logic from the equation and replace it with sappy emotion. ie 'Emotionally I feel I have been wronged, so therefore I have been wronged.' Give me a break. Genuine victims will be torn to shreds in the aftermath of this tawdry media affair. If you can argue that is progressing the debate, I am the Pope.

'It is in the public's interest to know the frugal details of what a player does in his spare time.' Utter rubbish, this one. Anyone who agrees with this tripe is actually a totalitarian. They have a prescription for the world that is digusting. They hide behind their crappy morals as an excuse to force their will upon others. They obviously are not interested in the brand of cereal the player buys. They just want to selectively use information to promote their base agenda.

'Most of the money paid to a major sports player comes from advertising etc. An advertiser effectively represents the majority. Therefore minor indiscretions should be brought to light, as the player is receivng his pay packet, effectively, from the public.' The same message as above, with a little more spin. Every major sponsor has withdrawn from the Cronulla Sharks. The club is potentially facing financial ruin. ('Oh, good, it is deserved' chirp the brainless moralists) If the above statement with all it's deficiency is accepted, the reverse must also be true - "Now that Cronulla sharks are not being paid the majority of their funds by advertising, we are no longer interested in their private affairs." Complete illogical crap. Nothing else. 'Oh, but most of the revenue comes from the TV rights package. Therefore the argument is still valid'. I'll just follow up - if rugby league was not shown on TV, would we no longer care? Of course not, people would still go to games etc and talk about 'issues'. This is just an excuse by small minded people to give them validity for their idle gossip.

'A rugby league player is in the media spotlight. If he is uncomfortable with this spotlight, he should find another job.' This is a statement demonstrating the height of neo-liberal decadence. Firstly, a presumption of choice exists at every turn for these morons. How does Ms 'Clare' fall under this presumption? Oh, she didn't choose you say, ok then. Inconsistencies abound. Once again, totalitarians under a thin disguise. Secondly, every job has its downside, so how do these fools believe one should pick a job? 'On the lesser of two evils' they might say. It can easily be demonstrated that this is bogus. I have previously used the example of doctors working in the emergency department. Six months plus ago, it was big news that doctors were being attacked by freaked out people on ice in emergency. Should a doctor not perform emergencies because he/she is afraid of having a knife held to their neck? An utterly ridiculous question designed to highlight the idiocy of the above statement. Needless to say, there is not one person on the planet who enjoys having their life threatened. (I await a daft response to that one). Following the garbage neo-liberal logic, not one person on the planet should be a doctor in emergency. Or any of other countless jobs one could bother dredging up. If the neo-liberalists wish to confine the argument to media attention, not one job with media attention is worthwhile under this childish scheme.

"The girl was clearly traumatised. That in itself is evidence of wrongdoing." This is just the Tracy Grimshaw argument re-spouted. Done & dusted.

"The issue is not about consent, it is about duty of care." Anyone who says this with any intended meaning is a puritanical idiot. They are saying that their personal judgement is what matters between consenting adults. This line can easily be extended to target anyone who engages in acts one may find unsavoury.

"Group sex, or more accurately, gang-bangs are a shameful abuse of power by many men over one woman." Sure, nothing to disagree with in the general sense. Exception, when the girl wants it - the statement may still be true, but it is now meaningless. Same thing can be said about bondage etc. The 'victim' is willingly putting themselves there. In effect, they enjoy the 'abuse'. Personally, I would substitute the word 'use' for 'abuse'. (ie 'Clare' would not gang-bang them if they weren't semi-famous). Also, I choose to ignore the word 'shameful'.

"The homo-erotic nature of the players is revealed when they partake in activities such as this." Ok, so not an argument at all. Yet another attempt to attack behaviour seen as immoral. To the morons who give this line stake - have you ever watched pornos? Are you more excited by the sight of a woman having 'sex' with herself? Pornos without men are boring. (See, I'm secretly gay). I really can't be bothered with this one, it's stupid. I add that this line comes from people who supposedly defend minorities. Wow, attacking one unliked group by likening them to another attacked group. Stroke of genius.

"Matthew Johns has apologised. Therefore he has admitted that what he did was wrong." Ok, I'll assume that upholders of this line have only dealt with infantile dilemmas. He has been told he is wrong over & over, most vociferously. As highlighted above, apology is a weak area. He never apologised to 'Clare' until the ACA interview. Previously, he apologised only to his family. My opinion is that David Gyngell, head of Channel 9, basically told him to apologise to keep his job. This he did. To the dullards who believe this shows 'wrongdoing' - I repeat - you are equipped only to deal with issues of children to age 8. Even then, you would be pathetic educators. An 8 year old can easily learn the apology complex that wiffy moralists have.

I question whether anyone who is on the opposite side of the debate actually has any brains. Their's has been the most emotional, reactive, logic-ridden display I have seen for some time. That other, more level-headed media figures have been too scared to voice their moderate opinions is a major worry. Whenever moderates speak, a PC computer is chiming away in their head, forcing statements of little meaning to arise. So boring. If this is called education, the taxpayers have wasted a severe amount of money for negative gain. The educated female 'elite' have the most to answer for in this debate. Pru Goward - venomous drivel, she was so angry and so illogical, it was scary. She has been a Sex Discrimination advisor to the Federal Government in the past. Tracy Grimshaw - as above. Rebecca Wilson - an instant believer in victim mentality. A gullible fool. Sarah Ferguson - mass peddler of one-sided rubbish.

My conclusion is that 'media feminists' have little connection with the real lives of women. They use their positions to grandstand on issues they falsely believe are relevant. The majority should turn in their feminist cards. In a perfect world, I would replace them with more level-headed (& therefore better educated in life - not some crappy gender studies university degree) women whose comments can actually contribute to a debate.

Goodbye & good riddance to typical feminist comment. It will not be listened to for many months to come.


Reading the newspaper. Further (unproven) allegations have come out.

The father & brother (of Christchurch girl) had no knowledge of the 'assault' until it was aired on 4 Corners on Monday night.

The Christchurch girl changed her story 5 days later because her boyfriend of the time found out.

'Clare' had a contract with the Racecourse Hotel that specifically forbade sexual conduct with hotel guests. (just a point of interest, I don't care that she ignored it - I would too)


The media appear to have completely given up on this issue. As they should. There is nothing to run. Finally. Blown out of proportion and now the balloon has popped. Party's over.

Expect to see Matthew Johns back on TV in .... 3 weeks.


Issue still pretty much dead in Melbourne. Have been reading a bit of Sydney papers. Issue still paddling along, though much less intense. The articles, for mine, are all bogus PC frontpieces, male or female. The comments are the only point of interest.

There are still issues that the Sydney journos seem to not want to touch. The public appear to be saying it enough, but usually brought down with a 'that's disgusting' comment.

One issue is young girls throwing themselves at famous people - in this case NRL players. Talk to any male who is in a situation of some (minor, whatever) fame. It is almost impossible for these guys to have any respect for a woman who throws herself at his sexual whim. By extension, almost all sex under this circumstance lacks respect from the very beginning. The assumption many make is that she must be 'young, naive' to not understand the situation. I would put it to you that it matters not. It is irrelevant whether or not the girl is aware of this. If she chooses to proceed, the consequences are extremely obvious - guilt, disgust, regret.

It is about time we stopped pretending about absolute equality between the sexes. Needless to say, a one male & many female incident would garner no public outcry. This is an admission by pathetic defenders that this is so. It is a brainless approach. All defenders have to say now is that group sex (of this nature) is disgusting. So what? It does not change the fact that this is a regular occurence, with many 'Clares' being created each day. Solution - educate the players? What a joke. Education in this sense only leads to more believable lies (eg saying "I am sorry for the shame I have caused you" while thinking "you are a dumb slut") Educate the groupies? - an even bigger joke.

Feminists need to accept that not all women live by their garbage moral code. Wake up & smell the roses. The actions of 'Clare' are a natural response to her social position. Many young girls in the same situation would do just as she did. Would they whinge 7 years later? Most likely, but it changes nothing. Harshly put, she is in search of a star sperm packet. (To deny this, and claim we are not animals - get off your high moral chair for once). She got it. 'Clare' is now married to a rugby union player. Once again, she is just following her natural instincts. Comparing the baseness of instincts is a stupid activity (eg is she better/worse than Johns?).

Humans are just a bunch of animals who can talk. Most of this talk is manipulative, serving our own agendas. To pretend that we are higher than animals is a major furphy, that feminists (for one) have been perpetuating for many years.

From all available evidence, 'Clare' was not drunk. She went to the hotel room immediately after work. She was the players' waitress in the dining hall earlier in the day. It is reasonable to assume that the scenario was planned then and there. Legally, it was premeditated by both sides. An easy explanation for Tom, Dick & Harry to be in the room. Her story about players breaking in through the bathroom window appear to be nothing but lies. Another camera crew went to the exact hotel room. An adult of any size would not fit through. It casts enormous doubt on the 'innocent, naive' girl and her telling of events.

I finally watched the atrocious ACA interview. All boring & predictable. Tracy Grimshaw doing her best to ask daft questions in a seemingly intelligent manner (hint : doesn't work that way). Overdone looks of concern & horror. She should apply for a spot on Play School. Anyway, the one point that interested me was this - 'Clare' allegedly called up people to have sex with her. One guy she did actually say no to !!! However, she then (allegedly) pointed at Johns and asked him to have seconds. The simpletons out there who saw this issue as brutal male assault are as gullible as the idiot media.

Caught a few minutes of 4 Corners the other night. Reporter: Sally Sara. My verdict: sensationalist junk. Hmmm, me sees a pattern. Anything, in future, I happen to watch on this self-serving 'best of investigative journalism' TV show will be treated with utmost suspicion.

Over & out.

2009 - Official Year of the Sex Scandal

Sex Scandal - NRL - Matthew Johns

Alrighty. We have a piping hot issue delivered right from the furnace. This kind of stuff gets me rubbing my hands with glee. An extremely high profile ex-NRL player had group sex 7 years ago. Shock! Horror! Tune in, roll up for the fun. Can't wait to see the insults fly. I'll be recording it & watching the actual footy.

Having not seen the program I'll offer some pre-emptive blows. This is clearly a 'BBQ stopper' issue. Everyone & their dog has an opinion. I am extremely glad this is an ABC production. It is painfully obvious where the debate (if any) would lead on a commercial station.

It is still, however, difficult to believe debate will be presented. I am led to believe we may see a leading groupie speak (in favour of her 'profession', ie not whingeing). This could easily destroy the wowsers ' argument. I am certainly hoping so.

The media spin-offs I have read are a joke. As to be expected, female NRL journalists are jumping on the demon bandwagon. The major comment in response is mine also - this was a consensual act. The NZ police made a few routine enquiries and dropped the issue. A whole seven years ago. A familiar chorus of 'sack him, sack him' starts in earnest. Again though, to be expected.

My two cents says that the girl/woman is an absolute idiot. Her fraternising with the players comes from a major insecurity. Try this question out. If I have no respect for the woman in question, how can the guys she is debasing herself to have a higher level of respect than I? Seems like a no-brainer to me.

She will be appearing with visual and/or voice obscurity. A word that aptly describes her.

Oh yeah, bring it on.

P.S. I find that alot of people have a very interesting double standard. Firstly, the idea that one is free to indulge in any number of consensual acts in the bedroom. Secondly, jumping on public disclosure of said activity (often making up flimsy excuses on the spot). Endlessly fascinating.


"Even though no charges were ever laid, [the woman's] experience should rightly redefine the notion of consent and whether a star-struck 19-year-old could even be deemed capable of consenting to the scenario she ultimately endured," Tracy Grimshaw

Okay, this is one crazy statement. This is saying two significant things a) consent can be altered retrospectively b) a 'star-struck 19 year old' is not capable of making such decisions anyway.

To attempt a favourable translation of Tracy's words into law ->

a) a person may be charged with rape at any time after the event, if a party decides that consent wasn't given. A party may decide at any time and without any evidence that consent was not given. -> Jesus Christ, it's time to stop all and any sex ppl!

b) 19 year olds should be treated as minors? Is that what she is saying? That is the closest (non-offensive) translation of b) that I can give. -> Well, considering that 19 year olds can vote, this one won't even get off the carpet.

".. when you actually hear from a person who was 19 at the time and who was backed up by a police officer in terms of her innocence, in terms of her lack of worldliness, she was someone who was subjected to something that was just beyond horrific." Rebecca Wilson

NEVILLE JENKINS, DETECTIVE SGT CHRISTCHURCH POLICE: "Um she was a nice girl. She was young, um naïve, not worldly, just a growing up teenager. But even for 19 she was quite young I felt."

I heard that as the police officer admitting defeat. He stressed the last sentence greatly. For the police officer to issue a reverse statement eg "Oh, she knew what she was doing, she's old enough" would be a terrible slur on her character. I felt he was doing his best to not say so, but at the same time confirming the consensual nature of the act.

Aftermath -> Matthew Johns has been stood down from his coaching & media jobs. The jackals are out. Rebecca Wilson was even discussing whether or not he should be paid during his 'time off'. All this morality crap goes far beyond common sense.


I still can't get over the amount of times an apology has been demanded. It was repeatedly pointed out on 4 Corners that no one talked to her (at any time it seemed) - "Did they talk to you when ...?" (again and again). The subsequent media hacks have been demanding an apology at every opportunity. It seems bizarre to me. I am constantly receiving the message that the conduct was OK, so long as an apology/normal social talk was offered. Surely this is not what the moral side of the debate wish to convey. This is an area that will always be dubious for the moral side.

CLARE: "They never spoke to me, they spoke just to themselves, amongst themselves, laughing and thinking it was really funny."

The constant emphasis on the verbal aspect is plain weird. It is more degrading to be subjected to this treatment than a leisurely chat, I agree. Needless to say, not all verbal communication is positive. An intelligent predator can do more damage by their talk than by its absence (Silence of the Lambs anyone? "It puts the lotion on its skin"). This point has been completely missed. Also, believable fake communication is a skill many people are equipped with. To me, focusing on the verbal aspect is incredibly childish and a stupid diversion.

A Newcastle U20 player was openly derided, and signalled as a prehistoric dinosaur for this comment during an imposed education class.

"It's not during the act, it's the way you treat them after it. Most of them could have been avoided, if they had put them in a cab and said thanks or that sort of thing not just kicked her out and called her a dirty whatever. It's how you treat them afterwards that can cover a lot of that stuff up."

The way the moral side are conducting the debate in the media, they should agree with this player. A fatal flaw in the argument. Again, I cannot see how this can be rectified. If anyone can, I would be most grateful. Obviously I am extremely doubtful.


I've gotta get this in:

"Four Corners doesn't say that what took place in room 21 of the Racecourse hotel was sexual assault.
But a woman involved in degrading group sex can still be traumatised whether she consents or not."

This is murky stuff indeed. Hell, I totally agree. I've never seen a porno involving (this kind of) group sex that I ever believed she was enjoying it. And she is getting paid to pretend. Go figure. Does that reduce my enjoyment? Absolutely not.

Now, either my decoder is way off-kilter, or perhaps my comments on (this) morality being a series of flimsy excuses has some merit. The word degrading may be argued upon. Is it specific? etc. I say it would be a false argument. To play the initial game about consent only to rip it away at the last moment is ludicrous. I am hearing a woman (presumably a feminist) say - that in certain circumstances - a woman is a second class citizen whose word has no meaning. Please correct me.


Taken out of context, this one is brilliant:

DAVID GALLOP, CEO NATIONAL RUGBY LEAGUE: "We're in the business of attracting people to our game and the younger we can get them the better."


This is one big excerpt:

Mr Johns's wife Trish joined her husband during the interview and described her shock when first told of the incident seven years ago.

"It was completely out of character for Matt. I was horrified and disgusted and just shocked that he would even be involved in such a thing," she said.

"Knowing all the information that I do, his greatest crime is actually being unfaithful to me as his wife."

Mrs Johns described the current media attention about the incident as a living hell.

"I feel that it is only for me to judge him on that," she said.

"Whether that is someone in football ... a businessman or someone working for Channel Nine, anyone committing adultery to their wife, that is between a man and his wife."


I watched the NRL Footy Show last night. The first half hour or so was occupied spinning mainly tripe PC garbage to the viewing audience. They talked to a SMH reporter. He said he had been in contact with a senior player who admits that group sex is a regular reality. The senior player claimed that in no other job in the world could the private lives of players be so rigidly controlled. He said that the NRL would be unable to pass the rules/laws it wanted to on the matter. He challenged the reporter to accompany him to the pub. In the first 15 minutes, multiple offers of group sex (and others of sex) were thrown in the player's direction. The reporter was astonished. The panel spent their time saying that the player should be named & shamed. The club CEO's spent their time saying that this guy would never play at their club. All predictable, grandstanding rubbish replies to me.

On the news last night, a 'friend' or more accurately, ex-friend of the Christchurch girl made an interesting statement. She appeared without censorship, and her name was clearly displayed. She said that the girl was initially bragging about having sex with mulitiple Cronulla players. Her comment (I will have to dig it up) was along the lines of 'I can't believe that a woman can change her story like that. You can't go & do something, say it is fun & then later claim assault.' Defenders of the girl may say this is typical character-bashing that goes on in assault cases. I say wait for more of it to come out.

Pru Goward was also on the news last night. She was demanding that all players/staff involved should come forward & identify themsleves. She went further & claimed that criminal charges were on the line. Well, the criminal charges are complete bull, it was just her talking in outrage. As stated above, police dropped the matter after enquiries seven years ago. What Pru should have said is that the moral court is now having it's say. That is beyond doubt, and she would love to be the judge/executioner. I expect more verbal diorrhea to flow from her mouth in the coming days. No player will ever step forward into this messy moral morass. They would have to be complete idiots to do so (many hold that opinion already)


Well, well. The publican of the Racecourse Hotel in Christchurch has just appeared on the late news. The boss of the Christchurch girl, 'Clare'. He confirmed the bragging story. He said she was bragging that she had the whole team in the hotel room. Furthermore, she had bragged about sleeping with 2 league players the night before. It is safe to say that these two players were also from the Cronulla Sharks. In all likelihood, they were present the next night.

Game, Set & Match.

How could this girl, 'Clare', be so moronic as to expect these details would not see the light of day? I am unable to express myself other than to say she was a dumb slut who got the treatment she deserved. I detest the manipulation of a 'young, innocent girl' in tears to the camera, jerking the heart strings of the media attack dogs. She was already far from innocent. Good riddance. May you melt away from the public eye permanently. I wish you the shitty life that you have already delivered yourself.

I also question why Sarah Ferguson, the 4 Corners reporter & narrator, did not bother chasing this up. She did not ask Matthew Johns any substantial questions either. She refused to appear on the NRL Footy Show last night when she was invited. Based on the information I have, Sarah Ferguson is a tabloid reporter after 'shock & awe'. A singular focus with the masquerade of balance. It certainly worked and credit to her for that. This sub-standard journalism has no place on the ABC. Get rid of her.

I've had enough of the crappy debate we have been witnessing in the media. It has sickened me and I feel like I have been living in the land of the lowest common denominator. Perhaps, as usual, public opinion has not been represented by the reactive dross we have in the media. A bunch of dullards carping on does not necessarily show the general perspective.

This feels like the Ben Cousins affair over again. The elements are very similar. Overwhelming initial criticism, resulting in a forced sacking. When Ben finally played again, some 16 months later, the public were behind him. Their voices had been drowned out for that entire time.

Stuff you, the gullible media personalities who jumped on this and the pitifully small minded ideas thus peddled.

Ben Cousins - In the beginning

The Ben Cousins saga has followed an entirely familiar path. I hope he stays out of the country, at his choosing, until the Moral Hounding Unit has ceased operations. MHU is one of the most highly resourced national bodies in this otherwise fine land. Chances are slim that Ben Cousin’s choice will enter the equation for most. His ability to choose has already been derided publicly. Solid work, MHU.

The Perth police intervention – entirely dodgy if you ask me. I reckon the cops saw it was Cousins, followed him and stopped him. He spent two hours on a Perth street being frisked etc, while his companions were free to leave. Clearly targeted. It was also clear that a conviction for valium would never hold. Daniel Kerr was convicted for forgery and theft of a doctor’s pad, not the possession of valium. If this is not tall poppy syndrome, please tell me what it is. I will publicly say that the cops were acting exactly like a bunch of neighbourhood thugs. Cousins, a peacock, entered their territory. They were threatened and plotted his downfall. It is the most typical Beta activity on the planet (note Clockwork Orange). A Beta is entirely incapable of bringing down an Alpha alone. (I will accept no argument that Cousins is (was) not an Alpha). Betas must scheme like little schoolboys to achieve their aim. The justifications used are invariably disgusting. The logic is moulded to fit the situation. This is what religion is all about.

The outpouring of morality is also disgusting. I see a bunch of Betas sharpening the knives. Only in the last few days, after weeks of blanket coverage, is a decent portion of the feedback becoming sensible. People are finally saying, en masse, they do not care about his daily life. A secondary issue, Pratt vs Cousins, is vaguely interesting. The issue itself is dull, however, some people need to have it to see the hypocrisy.

The police charges against Cousins have been dropped. The exception was his refusal to test for drugs (I applaud his action). The AFL, and West Coast used the incident a few weeks ago as petty justification for their weak Beta ways. Stuff the AFL. It has become one of the most piss weak sports in the world. I am not talking about the onfield action. That would be clearly rubbish. The politics are the most disgusting in any sport, save Cricket. Notice the connection. Yes, it is Australia.

In years to come, the majority of Australians will finally accept the wowsers had come back to roost. The most disturbing thing is how we let the moronic idiots ever dominate the dialogue. Expect the judge in this case to say something very similar. Ben Cousins has been sacked and charged for bringing the game into disrepute. The AFL will try and stop him from playing again. Nothing can be sustained legally. Perception has dominated reality, as always, for the wowsers.

Cheating on the Sisterhood : Infidelity and Feminism

As a purely logical system, feminism is actually quite brilliant. It can explain just about anything in it's domain very quickly and precisely. This is not something I wish to undermine. I appreciate the strengths. My objections have nothing to do with the actual logic. It is in the application.

Any system run by logic reaches a dead-end at similar points. A most simple example is feminism of the self vs feminism of the group. The contradictions are staggering. A point acknowledged by the author, Lauren Rosewarne. Hence the title.

Lauren is an intelligent, feminist. Perhaps surprisingly, most feminists are also. Emotionally, I have some sympathy for her situation. From a distance (a large distance), I believe I can identify. I have no objections to the emotional output that being in a situation, such as Lauren was, would provide. I object to the connection of emotion & feminism. It is clearly irrelevant.

I haven't explained the basic themes. Lauren is in love with a married man. Simple fact, the book could have ended there. No morality need be entered into. An entire layer of needless junk has been piled on top of this simple fact.

Further self acknowledged points: would rather 'have him' than have written the book; would still 'be with him' if she could; tried to own him via sex "otherwise, what's the point?"; tried her own affairs while 'with him', "didn't work, was pretending".

The terms I have tagged, 'have him' & 'with him'. At the end of the day, these are schoolgirl terms. Emotionally, they have some meaning. A certain amount of trust (often blindly believed to be total trust) is often extracted from this situation. In that sense, the terms are valid. Objectively, the terms clearly indicate the act of sex is an act of ownership. There appears to be no moral worth in pursuing this particular point further.

I was amused by the complete lack of attention on possible female motives. It was instantly assumed that both females, the author and the wife, were intent on dictatorial possession. I find the point at which one chooses to abandon a system enthralling. It is usual to play the 'his desire/outcome is the same as my desire/outcome' game. If his desire is sex 'on the side' (another indicator of ownership, nudge nudge), so it follows. If his desire is to control via sex, so it follows. blah blah. A passive observer may do best by acknowledging the reactionary nature of feminine desire. The logic, otherwise, drops off a cliff. It was dumped by the author within one assumption.

'Cheating' on the married man with other men - "Didn't work, I was pretending". A giveaway that, in hindsight, sex for the author was only about possession. This, however, is a poor reading of the situation. Hindsight is a very ugly beast. Lauren's view is a complete cheapening of her own needs at the time. It is all too common to believe that if one feels emotionally less - that it was valueless. She would need to further acknowledge that she was trying to lever pleasure, jealousy, power etc. The feminist mind endlessly complicates matters of sex far and beyond what is necessary. The passage of time rips opens this already sizeable rift. Whatever happened to the feminist logic of sex for sex's sake? Has been conveniently forgotten, or alternatively disproved (credo: in relation to author). Take your pick. A severe retrograde step.

A noble attempt by Lauren Rosewarne to tackle a tricky subject. The honesty of the approach is to be commended. She is an expert in an archaic language - 'contemporary' feminism. The best possible attempt has been made to work within this frame. She has taken the approach as far as
anyone could - the long road to nowhere.

Sex is, as always, the singularity upon which feminism flounders. It literally disintegrates before one's eyes and becomes meaningless. Feminism is in dire need of better theories. This book does not provide any hints of such. It is trapped in time and can only offer an expert view 'of the day', to be eventually superceded.

To accept the stupid logic being peddled herein, I would have to accept the counter-logic. The author's picture of a woman is a pathetic creature who clearly trades sex for love. In this paradigm, it must be accepted that a man should cheat, lie & steal his way to sex. Lest he be stuck with this whiny parasite for the rest of his life. The inevitable dawning moment on the woman ( & we are talking about a fully grown woman, the word 'girl' is very divisive ), that she was used for sex - is a necessary evil under this method. IT IS A SELF-FULFILLING PROPHECY. The proponents are dumb, and out of touch with reality. They live in a land of make-believe. In this sense, Lauren Rosewarne is clearly a 'girl'.

Contemporary feminism is garbage. It's conversation is jaded & stagnant. The language is trapped in a victim/offender mentality. When this is not valid, the system runs off the tracks. Pointless morality is it's constant companion. It is a poor bedfellow. Smelly, fat & demanding. It shows no sign of leaving the house. Ugh.

Read this book if you enjoy examining your own faeces.

Thankyou to the wonderful community radio program, Wax Lyrical, for bringing this to my attention.
Donate your now worthless crypto to Igroki

ETH 0x31e0da9a8f3083ecbcba7d941d0a6e394ccf657b

LTC M85Q9RxzRZcDjYk8U72rnqhHyCVG3yZVdz

XRP rPvKH3CoiKnne5wAYphhsWgqAEMf1tRAE7?dt=5407

Big Deal