Pro punter Glen Pollett summoned over comments about jockey welfare

Hope they throw the book at him. Disgraceful.

They have no authority over him.

I was talking about jockeys. I hope they throw a book at him.

Which book?

War & Peace.

How do the stewards propose to Jedi mind control him and make him care?

BTW I have no doubt that's his actual opinion and the apology caused his pants to combust.

Kevin, is that you Kevin?

“I do get a bit insane at times and suffer blackouts where I don’t really know what I’ve said and this was one of those times that it just didn't come out in the right way

Called 'On Tilt'

Thursday, 30 June 2016
Stewards Report - Glenn Pollett

The Stewards today conducted an inquiry relative to comments made by Mr Glenn Pollett during the online broadcast of The Punters Show on 6 June 2016. Evidence today was taken from Mr Pollett who was assisted by Mr D Baker.

Mr Pollett pleaded guilty to the following charges.

1. Conduct prejudicial to the image &/or interests of racing –

AR 175A. Any person bound by these Rules who either within a racecourse or elsewhere in the opinion of the Committee of any Club or the Stewards has been guilty of conduct prejudicial to the image, or interests, or welfare of racing may be penalised.

2. Improper Conduct –

AR 175. The Principal Racing Authority (or the Stewards exercising powers delegated to them) may penalise;

(q) Any person who in their opinion is guilty of any misconduct, improper conduct or unseemly behaviour.

3. Making comments that were obscene, offensive and abusive on a social media channel-

AR 175. The Principal Racing Authority (or the Stewards exercising powers delegated to them) may penalise;

(qq) Any person who in their opinion, is guilty of engaging in the publishing or posting on any social media platform or channel any material, content or comment that is obscene, offensive, defamatory, racist, threatening, harassing, discriminating or abusive to any other person or entity involved in the racing industry.

The details of the charges being;

1. On the 6 June 2016 he was a presenter on The Punters Show which is a forum that discusses thoroughbred racing;
2. The Punters Show on 6 June 2016 was broadcast on the website www.puntersshow.com.au and YouTube on 6 June 2016;
3. During the said broadcast he made the following comments.

G POLLETT: …from the punter’s perspective.
M LAMBOURNE: Well punters are waiting all week for their Saturday races.
G POLLETT: Exactly.
M LAMBOURNE: They’re waiting all week!
G POLLETT: People like Tye and jockeys like that, they think we care about them, if they fall. We don’t care. We want to bet. And they should understand that.
M LAMBOURNE: We want a game to play.
G POLLETT: Absolutely. If they, do anyone thinking about Ray Silburn sitting in his wheelchair down the back of Goulburn. Not me. But it’s an awful thing what happened to him. But life goes on. We want to bet. It’s funny you know.
M LAMBOURNE: But that’s collateral damage…(in audible)… in the cross lines
G POLLETT: Harry Singh. How’s Harry, Peter V’landys “we’re going to look after Harry Singh.” Harry ****g who. Who is he? Do you know who he is?
M TAYLOR: No.
G POLLETT: He’s a jockey, used to ride all the time. He had a bad fall.
M LAMBOURNE: Yeah
G POLLETT: Indian boy, nice boy. Punters don’t care. We want to bet.
M TAYLOR: Ok.
G POLLETT: So just let the jockeys out there know. I don’t care.

4. The segment of The Punters Show – 6 June 2016 whereby he said the comments detailed particular 3 were then embedded and posted (in two parts) on the Twitter page @ryanRobertson01. Such posts being viewed approximately 50 times.

The Stewards having given consideration to the matters in respect to penalty, including Mr Pollett’s 36 years involvement in the industry without antecedence, his guilty plea entered at the first available opportunity, an apology issued by Mr Pollett on the 6 June 2016, genuine remorse displayed by Mr Pollett and his personal circumstances at the time of the offence, issued a fine totalling $10,000. Under the provisions of AR196(4) the Stewards stayed the operation of $5000 of the penalty on the provision that Mr Pollett does not breach the Rules of Racing in respect to his conduct for a period of 2 years.
Mr Pollett was advised of his rights of appeal.

Why should he pay? Why is he bound by these rules ?

Well that's what I thought too. But I guess Racing NSW could refuse him entry to any racecourse if they wanted. It wouldn't be discrimination because he has said these comments that do bring racing into disrepute (I don't think there's any doubt about that).

While I know that many/most serious punters don't give a fk about anything but the horses they've backed or layed, I doubt any of us really want to see harm come to anybody, unless the person is an utter grub, and there are some in this industry.

On a similar note, I've no qualms at all saying that I'd like to see Fred Nile, Tony Abbott, Cory Bernardi, Eric Abetz, George Christensen all dead - and the sooner the better. But I'm not going to do it, nor am I going to encourage anyone else to cause harm to those despicable pricks.

What Glenn said may well have been his truthful opinion, but it was silly to say it via a medium that aims to promote racing and wagering.

I guess his options include not paying the fine, but who is he really penalising by doing that? Himself I think as RNSW can do without $5K, but he couldn't stand to be exiled from racecourses. And that's what they'd do to him I think.

What really pisses me off about this though is the "power" that Racing NSW think they can wield, meanwhile they knowingly payout on incorrect numbers after posting the wrong winner in a race at Tamworth recently - and there's the story that Glenn tells often about when he was a bookie, a bloke backed a horse with him for a decent amount, turned out he was an owner and his horse won, but he backed the wrong horse. Bloke complained to stewarts, stewards ordered Glenn to pay the guy even though he hadn't backed the winning horse. Both of those decisions are outrageous and proof that more people should take these power-hungry fascists on in court.

wow, that's an incredible story.... poor glenn... he must have wanted to ki..ll the p....k !!!! He should have done what M. Faulk,,r (was a rails bookie in melb.) did to a close friend of mine .... made him accept a drip feed of a substantial amount and my m8 was fully paid after 6 fkn months.

There's no doubt that Pollett is a complete braindead faarkwit but in saying that he's entitled to his opinion no matter how offensive some may consider it to be.

He should tell the stewards publicly to go fuuccck themselves and that it's a free country and forcefully remind them that it's not illegal to express such an opinion and that they do not have the power to enforce their buuullshiiit upon non licensed persons.

Typically I completely disagree with Let's Elope.

Sure - people have the right to free speech, but it comes with responsibility and it also comes with consequences, and this is what bigots and ignorant fools completely disregard in their endeavour to express hatred.

Everybody has the freedom to murder. Yet if you commit murder, the consequences will be death to another person, and most likely be jail for you, grief to a number of others, and possibly fear to a greater number of others. So, the responsibility that comes with the right to murder is - to not murder. And the reason why is because it causes all of those terrible things I've mentioned.

So, voicing an opinion that you don't care whether jockeys suffer race falls and die is certainly a right we all have. But the consequences of that right are that it will cause disappointment and upset to jockeys and those people who know them, and if you are a person that is involved in the racing game, you should expect some of those people who are disappointed with you to do all they can to stop you from expressing that opinion to others.

If you are in any way involved in racing, then you are a participant, and as a participant you have an obligation to say and do things of benefit and not harm, otherwise you should expect consequences. So, the responsibility is to not say or do anything that may cause harm to others.

As per usual nothing but total bs from you, I wouldn't make those comments myself personally but can understand where he's coming from.

As for jockeys and trainers most of whom would sell their own mother down the river and constantly intentionally defraud punters and owners if there's an earn in it for them, you have every right to voice an opinion that you couldn't give a flying faark about them and their welfare.

That's not my opinion but I can certainly understand where some people come from in that regard.

Without racing a significant percentage of them would be low paid street sweepers.

When and if racing ever gets serious about looking after the welfare of punters and their confidence in the sport then maybe they'll start caring about the participants, again not my opinion but can understand why many feel that way.

You're an idiot.

By the way this is exactly why most thinking people loathe your PC bull!

Saying you don't give a shiiit about jockeys lives is not in any way shape or form inciting hate or hate speech and while some may find it offensive, it is in no way punishable unless you're living in a police state.

To state or even imply that it is inciting hate or that it is hate speech is just too stupid for words which not surprisingly describes you to a t, you attention seeking prat.

only an imbecile would interpret what I wrote the way you have.

Thinking person? You're a fk-wit, nothing else!

pc stands for political correctness. I detest the term actually but what it is - is actually seeking to not cause harm to others. If youy believe political correctness is bull, then you are seeking to cause harm to others - which is really fkd.

What I'm saying is that GP has the right to say whatever he wants - and he has. that's freedom of speech.

And as a result of GP expressing what he has, his freedom of speech, Racing NSW has the right to ban him from entering any of their racecourses.

and the reason they have that right is because those expressed comments are not in the best interests of racing.

He is a participant in several ways, as an individual punter and as a person who gains from a weekly video program this is on the subject of racing. By expressing his freedom of speech, which he is quite entitled to do, his comments which are not in the best interests of racing have the potential to influence others.

and if all he was, was an individual punter, I would still suspect that RacingNSW would seek to ban him from entering racecourses in NSW.

And if anyone wanted to challenge that in court they would win, they have no factual or lawful basis upon which to fine him or prevent them from entering their premises.

They have no problem letting drug dealers and known criminals on their courses but hey someone who expresses an opinion we don't like, can't have them here please, you're sounding dumber and dumber by the minute.

He hasn't wished them dead, he's just said he doesn't care about them or their lives, it is an opinion, an appalling one from a total moron and a racing scam merchant who should be arrested for impersonating a tipster(not surprisingly he's your hero or was) but nevertheless it is an opinion, we're still allowed to express opinions in this country.

His comments haven't broken a single rule of racing, to think past generations of my family sacrificed themselves for this country in order to guarantee freedoms such as these for the likes of your good self only for you to then turn around and spit on those same freedoms, makes me sick.

Why don't you do the world a favour and slither back under the rock that you came from you self loathing, narcissistic, prat.

WOW...Two heavyweights going at it...and ringside seats....

FK off Henry

His comments haven't broken a single rule of racing
Let's
Judge8B quoting AR175(qq)

Must admit don't know the guy or the show but changing times brings changing attitudes
ARules get longer each year to appease the Animal protection society.
As is society's tolerance, but not my platform to canvas beliefs.
In finishing
Use to correlation of worldly comedians that state if your joke is made at the expense of anyone else...then it shows an inferior skill as a comedian
So relating that
If it's only an opinion would the person have the fortitude to voice his opinion IN FRONT of injured jockey's and/or their families ?
Think not.

WOW///just as another ear biting incident was looming...referee ate ball called time out to remind the 2 heavyweights about political correctness,,,,, changing attitudes,,animal protection,,intolerance ....different ring canvases ...comedians and voice fortitude....

8b, I am well aware of that bs rule which by the way is unconstitutional and unenforceable if someone who was a non licensed person had the balls and resources to legally challenge a charge made against them in that regard, if they tried to fine me or harass  me for stating Peter know it all is a low life scumbag whose only concern is to serve his monstrous ego and that he should have been chucked out of one of his jobs years ago for bullying and harassment of a young female employee which I witnessed I would tell them to go fucck themselves.
But that's beside the point merely admitting that he doesn't care about their welfare does not in any way shape or form constitute abuse, callous indifference but not abuse.

AR 175 qq
Any person who in their opinion, is guilty of engaging in the publishing or posting on
any  social  media  platform  or  channel  any  material,  content  or  comment  that  is  obscene,
offensive, defamatory, racist, threatening, harassing, discriminating or abusive to any other
person or entity involved in the racing industry.

A steward's  or racing official's opinion is not law and would  not hold up in court, the rule of law trumps bs racing rules any day of the week and twice on Sundays and it would be nice to see someone with the resources to do so publicly expose this fact in court.

Speak for yourself Henry, that low life narcissist TQ is the lightest of light weights and doesn't even register on my radar.

A judge would laugh this out of court as  braindead faarkwit actually says it was an awful thing to happen to Silburn, saying he doesn't care is not abusive or offensive to any thinking person.

G POLLETT: Absolutely. If they, do anyone thinking about Ray Silburn sitting in his wheelchair down the back of Goulburn. Not me. But it’s an awful thing what happened to him. But life goes on. We want to bet. It’s funny you know.

I don't care if that numbnut in the Collingwood cheer squad who wears the gold jacket that he puts on when they win, dies of some horrible disease, I don't wish that upon them or anyone for that matter, I just don't care.

Last time I checked callous indifference is not a crime.

..... dont take it so hard hondo, no one hates you, just like discussing philosophy and trying to prove how right we are.... a self preserving human trait that depressed people don't have. Iti's healthy.

That sort of rational concept is way beyond their comprehension Very, because their way of thinking is in itself irrational, in their mind they're right and everyone else who expresses a logical differing opinion is incorrect.

Not surprisingly then as per usual they then have to resort to personal insults.

If you want to insult me fine but then you're going to get what my opinion is of them back in spades but I never wish anyone a speedy death, those sort of statements speak volume as to their true character.

They'll shoot themselves in the foot very soon anyway by the manner in which they're carrying on here.

My preferred pronouns are feminine ones Let's, not gender neutral.

Indeed I did stoop to personal insults with you Let's - that's because you're an intollerant, ignorant pig.

But what you and other like you fail to understand, and where people like TINS, Very and Whoopi are totally different from you (thank goodness), is that they understand, as I do, that when somebody makes a statement, everyone else has the right of reply, whether they agree or not.

Of course I think I'm right, so do you, and I accept that others have different opinions, but once they post them, they are up for critique, which means that you can attack the flaws if there are any. Attacking the flaws in somebody else's argument in not being intolerant. It is not denying that they have the right to have voiced their opinion in the first place, and it does not imply that I don't expect others to try to argue any flaws they see in my argument.

That is debate, not intolerance you foolish, intolerant, ignorant scumbag.

If you say Horse A will win the next race (before the race has started of course), and I say that I don't agree, I think Horse B will win, how is that being intolerant of you? How is that saying that I don't expect anybody else following to disagree with my selection?

Of course I think I'm right, and of course you think you're right, but neither of us by saying what horse will win is being intolerant of the other, nor denying anybody else to post what their selection is. Even if they say Horse C will will and we both try to point out Horse C's flaws.

You're an idiot of the highest order Let's, an idiot who has never learned any of these life-lessons, and you seem to think that I'm the one here who is self-absorbed?

I'm not wishing people dead pal for no reason, never have, never will and you're intolerant of anyone who doesn't subscribe to your supposedly "enlightened" views.

Intolerant, what rot you know zip about me or in reality anyone else on this forum, ignorance, intolerance try looking in the mirror. It's funny how people like your good self never practice what you preach but are all too ready to lecture others.

I have and always will treat people no matter who, what they are or where they're from as I would expect to be treated myself but you are and have repeatedly illustrated that your nothing but a tool of the highest order.

'you're'

you're

Objection overruled ....correctly used originally--

you're intolerant of anyone

weight right correct weight weight is right....placings stand...

you're is correct

Stewards inquiry into ---
that's because you're an intollerant, ignorant pig.

---intolerant not intollerant

Hold all tickets

he is a pig, but I'm amazed that he resists using feminine pronouns for me.

have repeatedly illustrated that your nothing but a tool of the highest order.

Henry I think Joel was referring to the above your ffs

Time for Spec Savers 

I had mine on ffs

Always amazes me the people preaching hard about intolerance are the most intolerant abusive people.

Always amazes me too BJT, such an intolerant prick is out Let's.

our

Stewards enquiry;

Lets.....not Let's


Lets Elope
Date Joined:    05 May 06
Blogger: Lets Elope's blog
Add contact | Send message
09 Jul 16 05:59 Joined: 05 May 06 | Topic/replies: 11,475 | Blogger: Lets Elope's blog

Steward's objection upheld.

The placings are now in order of relevancy and accuracy based on the forumite's own spelling of name title and abbreviations thereto ;

Lets Elope
Lets
Letsy

I'll put an apostrophe wherever I fkn well like.

For me, Pollett was just one more pest at the track for whom I had to develop coping mechanisms.

But what he said happened to be true.

It was essentially paraphrasing Keating's version:

In every horse race I always back Self Interest.
At least I know it's a trier.

There was no pressing need for Pollett to say it.

But it is true, and fining him shows V'landys is lieing.

In a similar vein no one cares about Teen Queen.

We all have our own personal problems to contend with.

So TQ, tell someone who cares.

May bet it isn't Packer.

Why did you stop the 9 pieces for $9.95 on Tuesday deal ?

Monica Monica

Maybe you have me confused with JFK?

I don't understand the last four lines of what you wrote jfc. Why bring me into it - you made your point very well and I agree with everything you said bar the last four lines which need further explanation please ...

I believe that deal is still available whoopi.

Oh boy, TQ.

I wouldn't wish the troubles you must have copped on anyone.

But most of us have our own issues to deal with.

For example I'm at a distance from my family. But they have sickening issues I have no idea about dealing with.

If someone has a go at you simply because of your gender bad cut of the deck. I'll stand up for you.

But when you comport yourself like a pest of Polletesque proportions, as you do do, I'll cope by writing what you may not like.

I thought JFC replaced it with a 12 for $12.95 deal.

I'm led to believe that deal is only available in certain stores in NSW, Vicotira and the ACT. But I could b e wrong.

JFC, I've no doubt everyone has their own issues to deal with, no matter what they are - we're all human and the issues are all real and often complex.

But if somebody has a go at me because of who I am, I'm not going to sit back and take it - that's giving in to the bully and I don't do that anymore. I don't think anybody should do that otherwise bullies get away with it and nothing ever changes.

I realise that most of the people on this forum are probably more right-wing aligned in their thinking, more conservative, and so that tends to underlay their thoughts and perceptions on things that they type - like the ban on greyhound racing, like the legalities of what has happened in the Glenn Pollett case, people tend to form opinions and comment according to where they roughly are on the conservative - progressive continuum. But what I find utterly irritating is, and for some reason it's the more conservative in society that seem to exhibit this trait - these people think they can make a comment or statement and have it go uncontested. Then they claim that anybody who writes an opposing piece is intolerant of allowing others to voice their opinion and have their freedom of speech.

That's just plain bullshỉt. Anybody who makes comment, whether written or oral should expect it to be scrutinised by others whether they agree or disagree, and that's all I've ever done. The notion that I'm endlessly complaining about some personal prediucament is also utter bullshỉt. Apart from one or two things which could've occured better, I wouldn't change a thing about me. I wouldn't know half the life-lessons that I do if I hadn't been lucky enough to be who I am - it may make existing in a world that knows way less about certain things difficult, but it's been a very, very rewarding experience.

As for how I comport myself - I'll be the judge of that.

Look TQ,

I hate bigotry and believe in tolerance. And not attacking people because they are different.

Particularly since I consider myself different.

But consider that Goodes incident with that child.

I've studied that and it was blatant child abuse. By him and the AFL. and illegal.

I commend mum.

She chose to protect her kid, rather than enlist shysters for a fancy settlement.

On a fundamental level Goodes and the AFL were dead wrong.

But then we have to suffer so many from the PM down turning this away from what a blunder Goodes made.

The relevance here?

If Betfair had banned you for being different I'd side with you.

But you were simply being a pest.

None of us want or need to have every topic damaged through your impertinent issues.

Betfair did not ban me for being a pest. They banned me because I was complaining about the bigotry. Unbelievably they took the side of the bully(ies), but I've been back for ages now, whether they know it or not, and mostly that issue is ion the past and forgotten - except when some pricks still on here decide to be bigots again.

Every topic is not damaged because of the points I raise in support of the arguments that I make. For instance, and a really good example is that you've just made mention of the Goodes case in making a point on another issue. That's fine and while I disagree with your overall assessment and support what Goodes did whole-heartedly, I'm glad that you raise an unrelated issue to make a point on another issue - it's what I do all the time. I find that analogies are good in getting one's message across. Many of the analogies that I use may indeed have their origins in LGBTIQ+ issues, I can't help that, it's how I learned the many life-lessons that I've learned. If somebody else uses analogies from football all the time to get their point across are they going to cop the criticism that I do? I doubt it very much because you guys are used to football as a topic and are unused to hearing about LGBTIQ+ things. That's not my fault. It's not shoving anything down anybody's throat anymore that you mentioning bigotry against indigenous footballers would be if you were called upon to use that analogy more often.

The problem here is that you guys know my background, and thus whenever I write anything - you are reminded (by your own minds) of my background - thus I can hardly say a diverse word without being accused of shoving it down people's throat.

The treatment that I received at the hands of Betfair moderators for standing up for myself (read - not for being considered a pest), was appalling and almost went further on the back of some very significant other online bullying claims by others around the same time, only to not proceed because of ill-health and a lack of available time at the time.

Look I'm being crucified simply for my jfc handle, so there's no need to tell me some regulars are off the mark.

Agree or not, I was trying to be pertinent with the Goodes angle.

The mum nailed it by suggesting he should not be carrying on like a pork chop.

And neither should you.

If some bigot here takes cheap shot at you situation, then fine. Stand up for yourself.

But the way I read it was you'd launch into a tirade every time you thought one of your feathers were ruffled.

Not much fun for everyone else.

Ask a simple question and get accused of performing a crucifixion.

I'm complaining to your Corporate head office sir.


Kevin, is that you Kevin?

I have to bear this cross.

Maybe you should get over it too.

And while you're at it how about a dyslexia course.

'less you're a fried chicken.

Points taken. More than any of this I love horse racing and punting/trading. I also like being silly and I don't care if I'm 51 and still act 12. I love it that Whoopi, Joel and Kamikazee and Glenn Pollett see life that way too. And what I love even more is Spy v Spy, Village Kid and Lets Elope wading in when they think I might be under attack, like vultures feeding on a rotting carcass, they hover, reading everything, waiting because they think what they've got to offer is in some way going to hurt me. How wrong they are.

And thank you for allowing me the time to explain myself further.

Seriously what a narcissistic self obsessed clown you are mate, if you think I give two hoots about you, you're very sadly mistaken, hovering around waiting for you to stuff up that's the funniest thing I've heard in a very long time, and highlights exactly how out of whack your thinking is, why don't you go back to looking in the mirror, it's clearly what you do best.

ffs - see!

You are such a predictable idiot Lets. hovering above like a vulture, waiting to dive in, right on cue, only a few minutes after I posted it - that's fantastic! Made my day. Thanks.

Again self obsessed much, first time I've been on here all day but the deluded will believe whatever they want to believe so no surprise, unlike your good self I have far better things to do with my time.

Too funny Einstein.

I'm going now, leave you with it for the night.

Regular Chips are back at KFC for just $1.00.

Chip packet sizes are shrinking

So is the price at KFC.

not at the same quantum as the hungry jacks whopper though ... and it's price has risen . Like andy warhol, i used to like a whopper, but that bite size tiddler is so bad.... i think i'd prefer andy !!

Have you tried the new Hungry Jacks thick cut fries yet?

nope... hj's is banned after vltu wasn't satisfied with his last purchase. Red Rooters much better for the jumbuck.

There is one punter that cares about jockeys .....**** u all that don't

To glen Pollet : Stay strong : It is a hard thing to offer a opionion in face of controversy

Cheers AP

Hope the jockey you mentioned is doing ok and tell him to say a few prayers

Cheers AP

yeh im with u aussie..... i reckon the rv boys should act and give danny a new job as a pin up boy for all the wonderful personal attributes of jockeys and the great services to the community that they provide... imo
i've heard people saying bad things about some jockeys and i don't like it.

Praying = what a useless exercise. There is no god of any type, so why waste your time thinking that there is and talking to it. If you guys think that praying shows that you care about jockeys then think again - it shows how intellectually stupid you are.

you guys=sexism

Discriminatory remark that alienates females and/or reinforces male dominance.

Just sayin

Jul 19, 2016 -- 8:43PM, HondoLomboHanoverLobell wrote:

Praying = what a useless exercise. There is no god of any type, so why waste your time thinking that there is and talking to it. If you guys think that praying shows that you care about jockeys then think again - it shows how intellectually stupid you are.

you're referring to christians not muslims, right?

all religions

Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2][3][4] Less broadly, atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist.[5][6] In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[1][2][7] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[8][9] which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists.[9][10][11]

The term atheism originated from the Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning "without god(s)", used as a pejorative term applied to those thought to reject the gods worshiped by the larger society.[12] With the spread of freethought, skeptical inquiry, and subsequent increase in criticism of religion, application of the term narrowed in scope. The first individuals to identify themselves using the word atheist lived in the 18th century during the Age of Enlightenment.[13] The French Revolution, noted for its "unprecedented atheism," witnessed the first major political movement in history to advocate for the supremacy of human reason.[14]

Arguments for atheism range from the philosophical to social and historical approaches. Rationales for not believing in deities include arguments that there is a lack of empirical evidence;[15][16] the problem of evil; the argument from inconsistent revelations; the rejection of concepts that cannot be falsified; and the argument from nonbelief.[15][17] Although some atheists have adopted secular philosophies (eg. humanism and skepticism),[18][19] there is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere.[20] Many atheists hold that atheism is a more parsimonious worldview than theism and therefore that the burden of proof lies not on the atheist to disprove the existence of God but on the theist to provide a rationale for theism.[21]


Wiki

Jockeys are so concerned about safety that the Melbourne jockeys just voted to abandon a meeting because they couldn't trust their fellow jockeys to not put their safety at risk by skirting wide onto dangerous ground to obtain better going.

It's in their DNA to be sneaky and they all know it.


Monica Monica

it shows how intellectually stupid you are.

A thought provoking comment as it raises the discussion of;

faith v reason.... and one that has been the subject of many many debates and text -writings.

In a very broad view- there is no reason without faith....

Sandown track manager---asleep

skirting wide onto dangerous ground

Stewards enquiry

HondoLomboHanoverLobell • July 20, 2016 4:44 AM BST

all religions


So you want to be a champion for the cause of the downtrodden islamic followers in this country but you really think they're stupid idiots?

I'm not particularly religious myself, I'm just as skeptical of people who think they can prove the existence of an intelligent designer through logic as I am of the staunchly atheist people who think the burden of proof is solely with the theists.

Atheists want to convert you via the state(secular), Muslims will try to convert(/conquer) you via the sword and Christians will try to convert you via the word.  I know which group(s) I'd prefer to be in control of our governance.  Secular governments do seem to have worked well in western cultures, (possibly due to underlying christian/western principles/values) however the same can't be said for secular governments in predominantly muslim cultures, why is that? (probably why the smart ones emigrated)

Jul 20, 2016 -- 1:15AM, nugget wrote:

HondoLomboHanoverLobell • July 20, 2016 4:44 AM BSTall religions So you want to be a champion for the cause of the downtrodden islamic followers in this country but you really think they're stupid idiots?

What?