View Full Version : Is KOK self-indulgent in his commentary?
On the off-siders this morning the panel was talking about commentators in the context of the criticism of footy callers and scribes this week. In particular they were focussing on whether or not they were in fact self-indulgent. Gideon Haigh (who I love as a cricket writer) said that he can't listen to the ABC anymore because of Kerry O'Keefe's extreme self-indulgence. He then proceeded to provide an example of it.
KOK seems to polarise people.
Personally I found him refreshing and funny when he first came on the scene but he seems to becoming a bit tiresome and certainly solipsistic. Some of his jokes are a bit hackneyed now.
Anyone else with thoughts on the matter?
Cooldude
13 Aug 2006, 18:59
Robert Walls, there's your example of self-indulgence
Kerry O'Keefe, on the other hand, a legend and hero for the nation.
Gideon looks like he just crawled out of Frankston.
KOK on the other hand is a legend.
:thumbsu:
just maybe
13 Aug 2006, 19:32
"Solipsistic"? Jesus Christ you're a pretentious prat, Romeo. You're on an internet footy forum. No one thinks you're cool for posting obscure words, especially when the word in question doesn't really fit very well for what you're trying to say.
Just say self-indulgent, because "solipsistic" does not mean the same thing and certainly is an incredibly awkward usage of the word even if accepted.
Cooldude
13 Aug 2006, 19:33
Is just maybe stalking Romeo?
He seems too worried about his activities and always seems to respond to whatever the hell he might or might not be doing.
Voyeur, eh?
just maybe
13 Aug 2006, 20:08
Is just maybe stalking Romeo?
He seems too worried about his activities and always seems to respond to whatever the hell he might or might not be doing.
Voyeur, eh?
Two problems with that:
1. Romeo's posts make up a good 80% of this board's content, so it's pretty hard to miss his posts.
2. By dint of the above, I don't respond to anywhere near the majority of Romeo's posts - hence I can't 'always seem to respond'.
Nice try, Cooldude. But way off target.
"Solipsistic"? Jesus Christ you're a pretentious prat, Romeo. You're on an internet footy forum. No one thinks you're cool for posting obscure words, especially when the word in question doesn't really fit very well for what you're trying to say.
Just say self-indulgent, because "solipsistic" does not mean the same thing and certainly is an incredibly awkward usage of the word even if accepted.
Actually I don't think my using solipsistic was out of context or the egregious error that you think it was. I find it an apt description of KOK, not just his commentary but his whole persona.
And Cooldude, Just Maybe reiterated the other day the idea that it was disturbing that you called Clarke my boy, and he said you did on no fewer than 3 occasions.
But I find it more peculiar that he concocts this ridiculous story of me stalking KP and posts a whole piece on it unsourced. Then suggests I do more than merely post articles on him to show my appreciation of him. Where the hell does he get evidence of this? I think it says more about him actually.
just maybe
13 Aug 2006, 20:35
Actually I don't think my using solipsistic was out of context or the egregious error that you think it was. I find it an apt description of KOK, not just his commentary but his whole personna.
'Egregious' now? Get over yourself. This is a football forum. That person who said you were the far-and-away most boring poster on this forum is correct.
And no, 'solipsistic' wasn't correctly used. There is no basis to say KOK is an exponent of the theory that he himself is the only thing that can be known or verified. It does not mean self-indulgent or self-interested. It has a more complex meaning than the way you've attempted to use it, and it's just another example of you using large words in an attempt to make yourself appear clever but not using them quite correctly. If you mean self-indulgent, just say it, don't try and use a complex words when you don't have a sufficient grasp of them.
And Cooldude, Just Maybe reiterated the other day the idea that it was disturbing that you called Clarke my boy, and he said you did on no fewer than 3 occasions.
But I find it more peculiar that he concocts this ridiculous story of me stalking KP and posts a whole piece on it unsourced. Then suggests I do more than merely post articles on him to show my appreciation of him. Where the hell does he get evidence of this? I think it says more about him actually.
So, you admit that you were the stalker in the article? Amazing :eek:
Cooldude
13 Aug 2006, 21:24
'Egregious' now? Get over yourself. This is a football forum. That person who said you were the far-and-away most boring poster on this forum is correct.
And no, 'solipsistic' wasn't correctly used. There is no basis to say KOK is an exponent of the theory that he himself is the only thing that can be known or verified. It does not mean self-indulgent or self-interested. It has a more complex meaning than the way you've attempted to use it, and it's just another example of you using large words in an attempt to make yourself appear clever but not using them quite correctly. If you mean self-indulgent, just say it, don't try and use a complex words when you don't have a sufficient grasp of them.
Voyeurism exhibit A :D
just maybe
13 Aug 2006, 21:31
Voyeurism exhibit A :D
You might want to actually learn the meaning of 'voyeur' before using it.
You might want to actually learn the meaning of 'voyeur' before using it.
So we've moved on from moral guardian to the editor of the site, the veritable lexicon. In any case a valid meaning of the word solipsistic is that one considers themself the centre of the universe. I defy anyone to suggest that KOK's regard for himself and his commentary style does not equate with that description. And while I was making a case for him being self-indulgent I also used the word solipsistic to describe his persona. I did not indicate that the words were interchangeable. But since we're dealing with paragons of pedantry such as you I may have to make my case clearer in future. And BTW, I thought this was the cricket arm of a footy forum ; not a footy forum per se.
just maybe
13 Aug 2006, 21:41
So we've moved on from moral guardian to the editor of the site, the veritable lexicon.
Nice try, but I've never set myself up as either moral guardian or lexicon.
Given your half-assed attempts at veral diarrhoea, I'd say the 'lexicon' title is something you aspire to.
In any case a valid meaning of the word solipsistic is that one considers themself the centre of the universe.
No, not really. It's different again.
I defy anyone to suggest that KOK's regard for himself and his commentary style does not equate with that description. And while I was making a case for him being self-indulgent I also used the word solipsistic to describe his persona. I did not indicate that the words were interchangeable. But since we're dealing with paragons of pedantry such as you I may have to make my case clearer in future.
Wow. Your alliteration is yet another example of your utter verbal diarrhoea. You're not impressing anyone.
And since the thrust of your post was self-indulgence, and solipsism didn't fit your claims, I made the natural link that you were misunderstanding solipsism. It appears I am correct.
And BTW, I thought this was the cricket arm of a footy forum ; not a footy forum per se.
What is the address of this website?
Cooldude
13 Aug 2006, 21:49
You might want to actually learn the meaning of 'voyeur' before using it.
Voyeur
1. A person who derives sexual gratification from observing the naked bodies or sexual acts of others, especially from a secret vantage point.
2. An obsessive observer of sordid or sensational subjects.
No.2 sounds just like you and your very obsessive approach over what Romeo might or might not be posting/stalking/whatever
You've been at him for months, give it a rest, otherwise people will move from suspecting you as a mentally challenged immature kid to confirming you as one :D
You are a broken record as far as your disapproval of whatever activity Romeo might be up to is concerned, boring and long-winded, you are. Give it a rest and find a better hobby to do. :thumbsu:
just maybe
13 Aug 2006, 22:05
Voyeur
1. A person who derives sexual gratification from observing the naked bodies or sexual acts of others, especially from a secret vantage point.
2. An obsessive observer of sordid or sensational subjects.
No.2 sounds just like you and your very obsessive approach over what Romeo might or might not be posting/stalking/whatever
You've been at him for months, give it a rest, otherwise people will move from suspecting you as a mentally challenged immature kid to confirming you as one :D
You are a broken record as far as your disapproval of whatever activity Romeo might be up to is concerned, boring and long-winded, you are. Give it a rest and find a better hobby to do. :thumbsu:
Romeo is sordid or sensational? News to me! As I said, might want to learn the meaning of 'voyeur' before using it! You completely missed the proper usage of the word!
As for my views on Romeo...they are well shared by many on this board.
And as far as I'm concerned, if Romeo keeps posting KP article after KP article, I'll continue to comment on it, and his responses will continue to amuse me.
Romeo is sordid or sensational? News to me! As I said, might want to learn the meaning of 'voyeur' before using it! You completely missed the proper usage of the word!
As for my views on Romeo...they are well shared by many on this board.
And as far as I'm concerned, if Romeo keeps posting KP article after KP article, I'll continue to comment on it, and his responses will continue to amuse me.
Your problem with words is that you restrict them only to their literal usage whereas wordsmiths and many authors will tell you, that words can be used in the metaphorical sense quite correctly without sticking strictly to a rigid literal definition. I believe my use of solipsistic and Cooldude's use of voyeur adhere to that criterion of language. But I've often referred to you as prurient and I think your persona sits nicely alongside that particular word especially when I couple it with prude to create the alliterative effect.:D
Cooldude
13 Aug 2006, 22:25
Just maybe's boring semantic attempts in the past and present and in the future are still boring to the extreme, like the boy himself. No flexibility, no subtley, just a horribly immature kiddy blockhead trying to start a petty argument whenever and wherever he can :D
Just maybe's boring semantic attempts in the past and present and in the future are still boring to the extreme, like the boy himself. No flexibility, no subtley, just a horribly immature kiddy blockhead trying to start a petty argument whenever and wherever he can :D
I'll second that. And anyway he keeps pointing out that this is a footy forum, I thought cricket. So why is he more concerned with the words people use than what they might say about cricket, or footy or any other sport? And what's it to him how many articles go in the KP thread ? He can just ignore them.
just maybe
13 Aug 2006, 23:06
Your problem with words is that you restrict them only to their literal usage whereas wordsmiths and many authors will tell you, that words can be used in the metaphorical sense quite correctly without sticking strictly to a rigid literal definition. I believe my use of solipsistic and Cooldude's use of voyeur adhere to that criterion of language. But I've often referred to you as prurient and I think your persona sits nicely alongside that particular word especially when I couple it with prude to create the alliterative effect.:D
And the thing is, you're not a wordsmith or an author, and you don't understand how to use words correctly - solipsism was borderline, but voyeur is quite clearly wrong.
I know you like to think you're eloquent, but you just sound like a tosser.
just maybe
13 Aug 2006, 23:07
Just maybe's boring semantic attempts in the past and present and in the future are still boring to the extreme, like the boy himself. No flexibility, no subtley, just a horribly immature kiddy blockhead trying to start a petty argument whenever and wherever he can :D
Still bitter, eh? :D
just maybe
13 Aug 2006, 23:10
I'll second that. And anyway he keeps pointing out that this is a footy forum, I thought cricket. So why is he more concerned with the words people use than what they might say about cricket, or footy or any other sport? And what's it to him how many articles go in the KP thread ? He can just ignore them.
This is a subforum of a footy forum.
If you want a cricket forum, go to BigCricket. Please do.
And I don't have a problem with the words anybody uses, except you, Romeo. Mainly because of the amusement your responses give me.
This is a subforum of a footy forum.
If you want a cricket forum, go to BigCricket. Please do.
And I don't have a problem with the words anybody uses, except you, Romeo. Mainly because of the amusement your responses give me.
It's risible how easily you're amused.:)
And buddy I do know how to use words properly you nob, you're just too pedantic to understand metaphorical application. And I wouldn't mind betting you go off to your dictionary to check on its 'official' definitions of some of the words.
just maybe
13 Aug 2006, 23:36
It's risible how easily you're amused.:)
No, your antics are amusing.
And buddy I do know how to use words properly you nob, you're just too pedantic to understand metaphorical application. And I wouldn't mind betting you go off to your dictionary to check on its 'official' definitions of some of the words.
Yes of course. The resort to 'metaphorical application' when you're caught out using words in a way that misunderstands their meaning. Nice try, bucko.
Back to KP pictures for you.
The_Eagles
14 Aug 2006, 05:12
This thread has gone off track like KOKs commentating
I thought I was interested for a while but all 3 of you are disquieting and at the end of the day rubbish
This thread has gone off track like KOKs commentating
I thought I was interested for a while but all 3 of you are disquieting and at the end of the day rubbish
Well it's like this Eagles, and I totally agree, a question was asked, but Just Maybe who the other day demanded that people either start off a discussion topic or refrain from posting articles unless it provoked discussion decided he would play the man rather than the ball and went off on a tangent about words. I noticed he didn't address the issue of KOK and the worth of his commentary.
Browney2006
14 Aug 2006, 15:37
Its funny how this thread is about self-indulgentcy....that is all.
spell_check
14 Aug 2006, 19:02
I'll come clean and state that I have never heard the word 'solipsistic' before. ;) :)
davey_magik
14 Aug 2006, 20:58
I reckon he's quite good actually. He used to get on my nerves but he's better than anyone at Channel 9 barring Taylor, Slater (Who is on ABC at times anyway) and Greig (I know he is hated but he provides a bit of spark unlike boring old Richie).
just maybe
17 Aug 2006, 14:56
Well it's like this Eagles, and I totally agree, a question was asked, but Just Maybe who the other day demanded that people either start off a discussion topic or refrain from posting articles unless it provoked discussion decided he would play the man rather than the ball and went off on a tangent about words. I noticed he didn't address the issue of KOK and the worth of his commentary.
Of course I addressed KOK. I took issue with you describing him as 'solipsistic' and said that's not what he was.
I focused on the very issue at hand.
"Solipsistic"? Jesus Christ you're a pretentious prat, Romeo. You're on an internet footy forum. No one thinks you're cool for posting obscure words, especially when the word in question doesn't really fit very well for what you're trying to say.
Just say self-indulgent, because "solipsistic" does not mean the same thing and certainly is an incredibly awkward usage of the word even if accepted.
No, JM, this was your response, you're addressing the use and accuracy of the word, not the commentator!
just maybe
17 Aug 2006, 19:24
No, JM, this was your response, you're addressing the use and accuracy of the word, not the commentator!
Hmmm...note you missed the fact that I expanded on it in the second answer and explained how KOK could in no way be described as such, just to stop you getting your panties in a knot.
Hmmm...note you missed the fact that I expanded on it in the second answer and explained how KOK could in no way be described as such, just to stop you getting your panties in a knot.
Yes but you didn't in your initial response. You only expanded on it when I took issue with your taking issue with my usage of solipsistic.
just maybe
17 Aug 2006, 20:15
Yes but you didn't in your initial response. You only expanded on it when I took issue with your taking issue with my usage of solipsistic.
Because that was the intention of my first point but you didn't get it.
Sorry, you're wrong kiddo. Untwist your panties and get back to webcrawling for KP.
RoosterLad
17 Aug 2006, 20:20
KOK is an absolute legend.
Because that was the intention of my first point but you didn't get it.
Sorry, you're wrong kiddo. Untwist your panties and get back to webcrawling for KP.
So I'm supposed to be a mindreader now. You're intention wasn't implicit or explicit. And btw, it's not rocket science or a web crawling occupation to find info on KP - it's everywhere.
just maybe
17 Aug 2006, 20:40
So I'm supposed to be a mindreader now. You're intention wasn't implicit or explicit. And btw, it's not rocket science or a web crawling occupation to find info on KP - it's everywhere.
I answered your thread about KOK and disputed your use of the word to describe him. Quite clear.
And obviously it is a web crawling occupation to be finding info on KP - this thread shows that perfectly, as well as your knowledge of the rumours and locker-room innuendo...and finding articles about his car being sold.
Your obsession is long-established, no need to deny it.
Hmmm i thought a Romeo thread had too many replies, so i had to investigate. Turns out there is only a few real replies to the topic that started it all...
Now Romeo, poor pathetic Romeo. Bigfooty is not the place to be testing out your new thesaurus, nobody cares. Nobody should have to look up the word 'Solipsistic' just so they can understand what the hell you are going on about. We have enough trouble understanding you already. As it turns out, you are not just a moron, but a pretentious one at that..
I admit i did not know the word, but i didn't need to know it, it's not a word you should really be using unless you are trying to win a game of scrabble....
So please, Romeo, run! Run for your life, because if i ever see you using words that should not be used on a cricket forum, i am going to hunt and kill you. Not because you are using these words, but it's the fact you get off by using these "words" to try and conceal your 'KP stalking moron' image.
I answered your thread about KOK and disputed your use of the word to describe him. Quite clear.
And obviously it is a web crawling occupation to be finding info on KP - this thread shows that perfectly, as well as your knowledge of the rumours and locker-room innuendo...and finding articles about his car being sold.
Your obsession is long-established, no need to deny it.
For your info JM, just every article on KP comes from the one source, no skill in web trawling required.
AND YOTC I asked for comments on something and the only reason why the thread got off topic is because someone was more interested in a word than the issue at hand.
For your info JM, just every article on KP comes from the one source, no skill in web trawling required.
AND YOTC I asked for comments on something and the only reason why the thread got off topic is because someone was more interested in a word than the issue at hand.
I never blames you for it going off topic, it just offered a good explination as to why your thread had so many posts...
And as for KP being everywhere on the internet, it's funny, he's never anywhere i look. He's only in the places you want to find him in, Romeo.
Think about it.....
I never blames you for it going off topic, it just offered a good explination as to why your thread had so many posts...
And as for KP being everywhere on the internet, it's funny, he's never anywhere i look. He's only in the places you want to find him in, Romeo.
Think about it.....
Yeah like one site - his website. Funny about that. But he's certainly ubiquitous compared with other players, the media loves him. And he seems to be involved with a lot of press conferences unlike most of the cricketers who aren't captains.
Yeah like one site - his website. Funny about that. But he's certainly ubiquitous compared with other players, the media loves him. And he seems to be involved with a lot of press conferences unlike most of the cricketers who aren't captains.
Oh thats it, you're dead.
Ubiquitous? what the hell, i don't even care what that means. I can generally figure it out...
Yes he is in alot of press conferences, but so is Shane Warne, but i don't see you posting up Shane Warne articles, pictures of Shane Warne, etc..
Oh thats it, you're dead.
Ubiquitous? what the hell, i don't even care what that means. I can generally figure it out...
Yes he is in alot of press conferences, but so is Shane Warne, but i don't see you posting up Shane Warne articles, pictures of Shane Warne, etc..
Because Warney is not my favourite - KP is. And I see him as an exciting cricketer who's great for the game. BTW ubiquitous is a relatively commonly used word. I would be surprised if any remotely educated person was unaware of its meaning, and that's not being demeaning in any way.
Because Warney is not my favourite - KP is. And I see him as an exciting cricketer who's great for the game. BTW ubiquitous is a relatively commonly used word. I would be surprised if any remotely educated person was unaware of its meaning, and that's not being demeaning in any way.
We don't care what you think of KP, but we don't want you cramming your obsession down our throats...
Ubiquitous commonly used word? I thought Everywhere would have been a bit more commonly used in a sentance "like" that.
I am fairly aware of it's meaning, its just not a word you use on cricket forums, or in general conversation. I have never heard it used, but i can gather what it means by reading the rest of the sentance.
We don't care what you think of KP, but we don't want you cramming your obsession down our throats...
Ubiquitous commonly used word? I thought Everywhere would have been a bit more commonly used in a sentance "like" that.
I am fairly aware of it's meaning, its just not a word you use on cricket forums, or in general conversation. I have never heard it used, but i can gather what it means by reading the rest of the sentance.
Why shouldn't it be used in cricket forums? Why does everything have to be dragged down to the lowest possible denominator? Why do we have to use a finite number of words? We can talk cricket and be articulate at the same time.:)
Why shouldn't it be used in cricket forums? Why does everything have to be dragged down to the lowest possible denominator? Why do we have to use a finite number of words? We can talk cricket and be articulate at the same time.:)
because I don't want to have to decipher your crap. Whilst being Articulate might get you off, might give you this sense of knowledge, it really means nothing.
http://www.google.com.au/search?hs=QpL&hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=scrabble+online&btnG=Search&meta=
Here are a bunch of sites for you to test out your word knowledge, go impress people that care!
just maybe
18 Aug 2006, 09:08
For your info JM, just every article on KP comes from the one source, no skill in web trawling required.
Yeh, ok. Right. I believe that.
AND YOTC I asked for comments on something and the only reason why the thread got off topic is because someone was more interested in a word than the issue at hand.
No, you brought it off topic.