We are not surprised that our [url=http://www.caribbeancricket.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1513]exclusive report[/url] that experts from the International Cricket Council (ICC) had rejected the architect's drawings for Guyana's World Cup stadium has stirred up a hornet's nest. The powers that be have taken to issuing wordy press releases with crafty denials, and lazy Caribbean journalists are only too happy to publish the 'official' response without even reading them. [url=http://www.caribbeancricket.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1516]Full Story[/url]

Excellent response CC.com. You know, my fellow West Indians never cease to amaze me. They say they want serious, investigative journalism, and when they get it they start cussin. Imagine a man denying the CC.com report in one sentence then in the other providing supporting evidence for CC.com's case, and some people on the board who I think should know better, lap up the PR spin withour prejudice. Come on folks, think. Do you need everything spoonfed to you? The plans were factin rejected. The fancy words of the PR machine cannot obfuscate that fact. Folks, journalism is not about reprinting press releases. It is about digging behind the fasad of the official report to get the real story. In the caribbean we have too many lazy journalist who simply repeat the official mantra instead of asking the probing questions. But considering that many of the consumers of Caribbean journalism seem to themselves be lazy thinkers perhaps we deserve what we get. If it wasn't for the straighforwardness and loathe for bullshit of the CC.com journalists, would the region have even known that the plans were REJECTED? or as they prefer to put it "not met the ICC requirements?" Puleeeze, allyuh better wake the fact up and understand who the true messengers are.

And, for the record, Dehring had *two* opportunities to address the EPIL issue. Before we went to press with this story, a complete draft was submitted to Dehring directly to give him an opportunity to comment. This was an exception to our editorial policy but because of the sensitive nature of the issue, we gave Dehring every opportunity to address everything beforehand Makes me wonder why Dehring ignored the paragraph above, could it be that Dehring is intelligent enough to recognize unsubstantiated and speculative rumor mongering contained in a draft. C.C.com can share the details of ICC statement with us on this board. Z/Man also has seen it fit to rehash C.C.com arrogance and misrepresentations. 1) Intelligent and informed members of this board have clearly stated that it is quite ususal for design and plans to be "adjusted and redesigned." If this is not done in any project, no matter how small or large then there is a lack of supervision and consensus. 2) Maybe the lack of journalistic integrity and knowledge of the language has contributed to C.C.com insistence on the word,rejected. Simply put by implication C.C.com conveyed that the stadium plans and builders have been rejected by all and sundry including ICC. 3) C.C.com with glee headlined the original piece -Trouble in Guyana Camp- and attempted to back up their unsubstantiated story with two points (1) rejection and (2) EPIL architectural and constructural inadequacy. IMF was also invoked. They have not backed off, but continue to pedal their questionable version, by attacking those who don't share their motives. 4) Here is a challenge to C.C.com, publish the details of your story, including ICC official position . We can take it and we will let the chips fall where it may. Let it be known, I will continue to take exception until C.C.com prove, that there is no ulterior motives on their part here.

Right from the get-go I wondered what peoples interpretation of "rejected" was. Perhaps the plans weren't accepted as final in the version presented. Fine, but unless they were totally thrown out - and the company responsible fired - then it is difficult to say that there was a total rejection of the proposal. It is perfectly acceptable for plans to require revision. I also have to wonder why CC found it necessary to bother with this second piece. Surely if they had conviction in their first story then a rebuttal was unnecessary. As to taking a stab at other media outlets with this statement:

CC.com is equally guilty of this, down to not having even skimmed the articles to pick up grammatical and spelling errors.

It is absurd that anyone would expect a response to a rumour that the ICC rejected the Indian engineers. Nearly every stadium in India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka was built using their own engineers. The ICC is not building stadia; it is not funding the building of stadia therefore the ICC cannot tell a single country on the planet which engineers it can or cannot use. The England and Australia dominated ICC may well prefer their brethren to cash in on the World Cup but they cannot tell a single country who should design or build their stadium. Stewwwwps!

This will the greatest stadium on Earth: http://www.wembleystadium.com/

Must agree with bootsie and gusta here, this cass cass is beginning to smell of pettiness and personal agendas. Like bootsie I also have a problem with the dig at other media houses, I know that Jamaican media is seriously lacking and from what I hear it's the same in the rest of the Caribbean, however CC.com's insistence on continually pointing this out is unjustified arrogance.

In reply to gusta:

Yuh'all finding out what narrow-thinking prostituting of an entitiy is all about. Yuh think CC.COM cares about accuracy and truth??? They just want to stir the pot and get their visitor number growing. Is like on the MB, Larr and Biggie just throw out stupid stuff to get people bent outa shape and respond in any way, shape or form to get their stats up to the max. It's called trolling. Well, CC.COm has been trolling a lot on their front page too!!!!!! How else could one explain the mood of those cute headlines and the depth to which they go defend the specious sensationalism that is a trade mark of their articles. (except those by MM, of course). A suh mi see't

Yep. You got me convinced. (That's sarcasm if you didn't get it.)

To CC.com: Please do not rush articles of this nature to publication. Here you are; accusing other regional journalists of being lazy; whilst being guilty of the same crap. It is indeed a result of laziness that you would publish an article filled with bad grammar and incomplete punctuation. That whole thing reads like an essay written by an eleven year old.....

Rastaman & colleagues: C.C.com will get their share of hits here and exposure of their poison-pen journalism and questionable editorial integrity. Christine has expressed my thoughts on ICC alleged involvement, which I believe is nil. So that's why I am challenging C.C.com to place their cards on the table. There is only one person I know who comes on this board and gives an exclusive and its substantiated within days. I don't recall any of Christine's ever being challenged. I just got back from the Jamaica and Guyana finals in Brooklyn. When I left Guyana was cruising to victory, unless some thing catastrophic happens. Clive LLoyd and Lance Gibbs were in the pavilion.

In reply to gusta:

They have!!!!!! Yuh haven't seen the jokers??? :lol: :lol:

Rastaman: You have made my day.l

Plans are usually rejected outright only because of "zoning" (e.g a factory in a residential area). That is clearly not the case here. Early versions of plans are almost always partially rejected (sometimes by the architects themselves) for lack of compliance with code sub-sections or for being unable to accomplish specific minor goals (e.g. house is fine, but is too close to fence in some places). The plans are sent back to the architects, who change the offending sections, and return them to the reviewers. This is a very common occurence and is how the plan development process usually works. What would be more appropriate in the current case of the Guyana stadium plans would be to know exactly what corrections were requested by the ICC and other reviewers, which probably include the funding agency and the Guyana authorities. The fact that changes have been requested and the plans sent back is perfectly normal and in no way a cause for alarm by itself. Of interest though, is the suspicious politics involved, both in India and Guyana. India gives the plans preparation job (which often amounts to about 20% of the total project cost) to its own government agency, which is probably packed with supporters of the ruling party. The apparent lack of relevant expertise in that agency is no problem when spending Indian taxpayer money. The Guyana government too see no problem with hiring Trinidad architects to make plan changes - something that local architects in Guyana could probably do, and better. Architects in Guyana are usually looking for work, and are usually not your typical supporter of the current Guyana government. Interesting situation indeed! Anyway, let's hope the Guyana stadium problem is nowhere nearly as bad as the lead article here would have us believe ... Norm

In reply to Norm:

Does anyone read much more believe these kinds a reporting on the front page anymore??? Yuh nuh see that dem credibility gone to the dogs long time!!!!!!!! :lol: :lol: