If he made that claim, I'm pretty certain the same ones on here attacking the positive discrimination suggestions and the people who've said it.....would be the first people to attack the RFL demanding an investigation and that there's no place for negative discrimination. They wouldn't dare for a second try knocking Child saying he couldn't make that claim.

Now you can't use that argument that was in your head. We will miss out on your faux-indignation at being labelled as gay hating when you don't hate gays do you. You just think that we shod be open to the possibility the ones we don't like might have only achieved what they and because of their sexuality and you'll certainly be there to defend someone if they were to for instance use a homophobic slur in a workplace and criticise all these SJW's making a big deal about it.

I knew we'd get there eventually. Seems like you can now add me to Smokey's list of homophobic posters on RLFans.



What was it that gave me away as a "[igay hater[/i", Smokey?



Was it me saying I don't think we're seeing positive discrimination when it comes to James Child?

Or was it me calling you an SJW and calling you out for insulting anyone who has a different opinion to you?

are you saying you wouldnt expect the RFL to investigate? Or that Child should be 'knocked'? Or should be told he can't make that claim?

The previous poster who came up with the scenario said it would be ridiculous for Child to do it, not me.

This isn't the first time this allegation has been made by superted, it's not the first time you and the printer vociferously defended it. I also remember your reaction when Hardaker directed a homophobic slur at Child.



Odd isn't it how the not at all homophobic three think it more than fair to lob allegations of positive discrimination without any evidence but will diminish, obfuscate and defend actual discrimination which was proven and caught on camera.



I haven't called you homophobic, you are free to tell on yourself.



I also didn't call you a gay-hater I said that would be a label you would hide behind. Something you immediately proceeded to do. That's also why you wanted me to call you a homophobe and why you got so weirdly upset that I havent.

It would be ridiculous. It was a ridiculous scenario deliberately made ridiculous to show how ridiculous your scenario is.



I'm asking those questions on the basis of your response to that ridiculous scenario

I haven't vociferously defended anything, on this thread or any other similar threads so please stop lying. I even said I don't think we're seeing positive discrimination in this one. All i've really done is called you out for once again resorting to insults and calling people homophobic.



Your response to that is to call me a "gay hater". Nice.



What was my reaction over Hardaker? I doubt it was positive but it won't have been to call for him to be kicked out of the game and stoned to death either.







You're a very sad individual Smokey and I hope the mods of this board will finally take action as I really don't appreciate being labelled a gay hater or homophobic.



Mods, i'll report his earlier post then leave it in your hands.







.

So if Child claimed he was negatively discriminated on you'd think he was being ridiculous?

You were absolutely desperate to be called homophobic just so we could see this faux-indignation. Pathetic cry-bully tactics.





It's also hilarious to see your hypocrisy in trying to stand as a bulwark against insulting people who disagree with you.

I think we should all just agree what a great and upstanding citizen Smokey is, accept that anyone who dares to have a conversation about something he doesn't agree with is a discriminatory Luddite and lock the thread - there's no point continuing the discussion.

No I would expect the RFL to investigate. I wouldn't expect Child to be 'knocked' for making the allegation and I think he is allowed to make the allegation. These are the things you seemed to infer you wouldn t want. I'm asking you if the things you said the people attacking you would want



I[if he made that claim, I'm pretty certain the same ones on here attacking the positive discrimination suggestions and the people who've said it.....would be the first people to attack the RFL demanding an investigation and that there's no place for negative discrimination. They wouldn't dare for a second try knocking Child saying he couldn't make that claim[/i



Are different from what you would want?





I think the specific instance in that example was a deliberately ridiculous scenario.