sorry Gideon love your writing but you are totally wrong about John Lyons. And you villify a reporter about a war he has no role in but no mention of John Howard's heinous role in war.
Sorry John, but Lyons is a barracker, and an ill-informed one at that. But that is secondary to my objection to his prominence in his own self-glorifying journalism, his positioning as the sole voice of reason. That's not vilification; it's simply criticism.
The fate of the entire world will depend on the final outcome of this battle between these two people representing two contrary principles.’ As true as the day it was written, save that Azouri was a Maronite Christian adrift in Paris and the Turks his chief antagonist
By giving this line more credence than it's due I feel you are over simplifying the middle east conflict and it's current place in society. The insulated and western democracies are unlikely to feel the effect of a finite result in this tragic war.
Gideon I appreciate you responding to my rather glib comment. I did however see John Lyons in the flesh for the first time at Adelaide Writer's Week and formed quite the opposite opinion. So each to our own. But John Howard, that's a whole other story!
Whatever you may think of John Howard is not really relevant to the post here, John. It was explicitly about the intersection of cricket with his life - it's not like I have to account for the entirety of his prime ministership or his character in a single paragraph. And how someone presents at a writers' festival in front of a crowd that shares his prejudices is hardly a test of anything, sorry.
WTF, I don’t think John Lyons reporting on the Genocide in Gaza is a worthwhile comparison, with the character you describe, his reporting hasn’t put the IDF in there.
sorry Gideon love your writing but you are totally wrong about John Lyons. And you villify a reporter about a war he has no role in but no mention of John Howard's heinous role in war.
Sorry John, but Lyons is a barracker, and an ill-informed one at that. But that is secondary to my objection to his prominence in his own self-glorifying journalism, his positioning as the sole voice of reason. That's not vilification; it's simply criticism.
And best of luck to the Yarras GH. Keep up the thought provoking work,, it's a true delight.
The fate of the entire world will depend on the final outcome of this battle between these two people representing two contrary principles.’ As true as the day it was written, save that Azouri was a Maronite Christian adrift in Paris and the Turks his chief antagonist
By giving this line more credence than it's due I feel you are over simplifying the middle east conflict and it's current place in society. The insulated and western democracies are unlikely to feel the effect of a finite result in this tragic war.
Cole, you're going to need to master apostrophes before I take your comments seriously.
What an honor it is to read your thoughts sir! I am unable to recuperate from point number 9. You are a legend, GH!
Gideon I appreciate you responding to my rather glib comment. I did however see John Lyons in the flesh for the first time at Adelaide Writer's Week and formed quite the opposite opinion. So each to our own. But John Howard, that's a whole other story!
Whatever you may think of John Howard is not really relevant to the post here, John. It was explicitly about the intersection of cricket with his life - it's not like I have to account for the entirety of his prime ministership or his character in a single paragraph. And how someone presents at a writers' festival in front of a crowd that shares his prejudices is hardly a test of anything, sorry.
I love how these pieces skirt around so many things, Gideon.
WTF, I don’t think John Lyons reporting on the Genocide in Gaza is a worthwhile comparison, with the character you describe, his reporting hasn’t put the IDF in there.
It was Hamas who put the IDF in there.