Listening to nothing in particular.

This is just a quick post, in response to the tag by JustSaying. I thought i should give an adequate response to her tag.

First off, in OUR particular case on cheering, we only cheered for the team AFTER they scored a goal (which is logical, anyway. If you THINK about it, that is). Now how is that interrupting the game in any way? Isn't the game stopped after each goal? How could we be making life hard for the players, when the game isn't even played yet? As for the cheering making it hard for the players to hear the whistle of the referee, us on the upper balcony could hear the whistle just fine, loud and clear. Now how is it possible that the players who are on the same floor as the referee cannot hear the whistle? And how is it possible, that on the video recording of all of the netball games which had us 'guys' screaming so loud, the sound of the referee's whistle is actually very much still audible, even amidst all the noise we were making?

I don't know if you, JustSaying, know anything about sound waves and patterns, but the pitch of a whistle is very distinct, it vibrates the eardrums of a listener a specific way so that only the ABSOLUTELY DEAF can't hear it. That's why whistles are used as a tool to attract attention by lifeguards in a noisy and busy environment, such as beaches and swimming pools, and also as a form of self-defence by women to attract attention to themselves if they were attacked by an assailant. The use of whistles are encouraged by the governments of the US and the UK just for this purpose.

Perhaps they didn't know what they were talking about, JustSaying? All those researchers and scientists working in the employ of two of the most powerful and advanced governments in the world?

Oh, JustSaying, there is also such a thing as 'blowing a whistle harder', you know. Just in case if the referee thinks the players around him/her are all deaf. In a game of football, with nearly 60,000 rambunctious, most often drunk supporters attempting to make as much noise as possible, what does the referee use to call the game to a halt? A good ol' whistle.

So as you can see, i have thought about it a little, perhaps even more than you have. So, there is no way a player of netball in that particular tournament would not be able to hear the whistle of the referee, especially in an acoustically enclosed atmosphere (i.e. where sound bounces off the walls in all directions, with very small amounts of sound energy released to the surrounding atmosphere due to the enclosure of the walls all around, resulting in sounds staying longer) such as the sports building at Nottingham.

And on the supporters being 'unaccountably rude', the 'rudeness' as you put it is very much ACCOUNTABLE. The referee that we're discussing right here started it, by BEING rude to the supporters. There is such a thing as asking NICELY, as opposed to stamping your authority. I do however question your definition of 'rudeness' as you put it. What was rude? I have a video recording of most of the netball games, and after reviewing it there wasn't anything rude at all about our cheers, towards the teams and the other referees.

Of course, if you count the 'Shhh' cheer as being rude, then you're most probably right, it was rude. It was MEANT to be rude. It was MEANT to annoy the referee in question, not 'players' such as yourself (which i highly doubt, by the way). You see, 'rudeness' as you say depends on the context of the utterance. I didn't get a single complaint from any of the other players, except for yourself, JustSaying.

So are we rude, or are YOU being a prude? Honestly, now.

You know what i think? You're probably a friend of the referee in question (or perhaps you're her, who knows. I'll check my Ip logs later) and you are trying to defend your friend. But you have made a grievious error, JustSaying, by NOT DOING the same thing YOU asked ME to do before posting.

And i quote 'So think before you say things'.

As you can very well see from the composition and length of this post, i did think about it, and i have countered all of your comments with some comments of my own. Ergo, i also proved that YOU didn't think very much before tagging my site by virtue of me roasting every single comment you left, which were all obviously in the condition of being uninformed and not well thought of.

And another thing, if you were planning on leaving 'scathing' remarks on my tagboard (though for the life of me i actually laughed out loud when i read your tags), next time don't use the pseudonym 'JustSaying'. 'Cause it is very much obvious from the tone of your tags that you were not 'Just Saying', you were being a bit patronising and confrontational, attempting to point out my 'not thinking before posting' to the other readers. Did you think you were being clever and subtle now, JustSaying?

One last thing before i close this post; you've forgotten another thing. Perhaps you don't understand the concept of blogging, but a blog is where a person talks about anything that they want to (according to the limits of legality, of course), and just as long as they do not name anybody in particular(in which case it will be slander, a highly punishable offence) a blogger can criticise anybody whom s/he thinks ought to be criticised. Did you read any names from my previous post? I don't think so.

So go be all subtle and devious somewhere else, yes? If the posts on my site hurts the 'prim-and-proper' side of your psyche, then please do NOT come again.

SeVenStaRs, out.

/edit : PasserBy : My observations exactly, i agree. A question of favoritism, perhaps? Or perhaps the official in question being too 'chicken' to vent her laughable 'wrath' onto her own community circles? See how, with corroborating evidence from another observer, your comments are looking weaker and weaker by the second, JustSaying?

How's that foot tasting?