On the topic of strange pejoratives, such as “serial pest”, it’s interesting to see just how unoriginal the media are these days when it comes to such terms – it appears as though they latch onto a particular phrase and do it to death until they can find another, preferably more peurile and more easily consumed. “Serial pest” seems to be du jour at present – I spotted a sports article in that dubious rag, the Worst, sorry, West Australian the other day, that repeatedly referred to a sportsman as a “serial pest” for no other reason than because he had repeatedly been a thorn in the side of his opposition on the playing field.
When the term “serial pest” first gained popular usage, it was used to refer to professional gatecrashers and streakers; now it appears that the media will use it whenever they see a protagonist that they can serve up as the villain to their eager public – even in a profession that disappoints us frequently, the Conns and Saltaus of this world are quite deplorable and an insult to our intelligence…..

I just had the chance to see your posting.

Here I am.

I have know idea what you are insinuating!

Perhaps you need to open your mind.

Making assessments based on your disdain for other’s opinions is parochial and with little personal reward when you go to bed at night.

If you know Sampath Kumar as I suspect I do.

You would know his background and question yourself before him.

Go and enjoy your team’s emphatic victory. I’ll be around watching for the blind barracking that is the infection of all who cannot see both sides.

As someone else said on the other topic, it is best to ignore people like Sampath Kumar. Let sleeping dogs lie. This is a vibrant blog. Keep it that way. Dissension and debate is good. Having antagonistic and adversarial positions are also good. However, not of the vile and contemptuous sort that Sampath Kumar brings. He appears to be from the loony fringe. Let him be.