I think what should be banned is "bump".

Personally hate it when people bump an old thread. I have had some brilliant work since I started posting in 2009, and I've also had some terrible stuff. I've been intoxicated at times when posting, where I'm sure there I have posted stuff that I don't want rearing its ugly head. If, in a drunken state, I've admitted to having a feeling of lust toward BBO, I don't want that brought back to haunt me.

Not even alcohol could induce such an unbelievable horror as that. i suspect you must have been on some very serious drugs for such a total loss of reality

Bump

I think Billy needs to banned after that...

Just saw one of those cliches that really get my back up and which I thought I had finally been expunged from my memory banks, in the Welcome Petracca thread...

"I would/wouldn't want blah blah blah, next to me in the trenches."

Unless you and "blah blah blah" work for the Water Board or you are a soldier in possession of a reliable fully functioning time machine, it's never likely to happen.

I think Billy needs to banned after that...

I have taken appropriate steps in banning the substances I used to put in to my body.

At your approval, I'd appreciate it if we can give this some time to see if my posting becomes more consistent.

Just another one, with your indulgence. "The proof is in the pudding."

And the proof is not in the pudding. The proof (i.e. the test) of the pudding is in the eating.

I think what should be banned is "bump".

Personally hate it when people bump an old thread. I have had some brilliant work since I started posting in 2009, and I've also had some terrible stuff. I've been intoxicated at times when posting, where I'm sure there I have posted stuff that I don't want rearing its ugly head. If, in a drunken state, I've admitted to having a feeling of lust toward BBO, I don't want that brought back to haunt me.

It is cathartic to express one's darkest desires billy.

Just another one, with your indulgence. "The proof is in the pudding."

And the proof is not in the pudding. The proof (i.e. the test) of the pudding is in the eating.

Don't get me started

(apologies if it's already gotten a guernsey )

Where the hell did you get that definition?

Good god.

A troll, when used on an internet forum, is someone who is only trying to say things and direct conversation designed to get a rise out of people for their own enjoyment.

We have had a few of those other the journey.

Check today's Age page 26.

Just another one, with your indulgence. "The proof is in the pudding."

And the proof is not in the pudding. The proof (i.e. the test) of the pudding is in the eating.

Time and memorial...

Time and memorial...

For all intensive purposes.

Sorry if it's already been said but not a fan of "so and so say's hi"!!!

Just another one, with your indulgence. "The proof is in the pudding."

And the proof is not in the pudding. The proof (i.e. the test) of the pudding is in the eating.

For all intensive purposes.

Bordering on mixed metaphor territory.

Just another one, with your indulgence. "The proof is in the pudding."

And the proof is not in the pudding. The proof (i.e. the test) of the pudding is in the eating.

Well if a pudding were to pass an eating test, wouldn't the proof be in the eating, and the pudding ?

No, the proof would be in the eater, surely.

I think it's in both. If a pudding passes an eating test there is proof there that the pudding making process was sound and had proof in it. Can't have one without the other. Yang and yang stuff.

Just another one, with your indulgence. "The proof is in the pudding."

And the proof is not in the pudding. The proof (i.e. the test) of the pudding is in the eating.

I saw the picture of Mitch Clark at Geelong training and i think the proof is in the pudding.

Check today's Age page 26.

Well, just like the definition of a mythical creature living under a bridge was hijacked to define an internet troll, so it has been again...

Language is interesting like that - the same word completely different meanings in different scenarios. Take 'hijacked' for example; "The training thread was hijacked by emotion and self-righteousness" is troublesome, but if I was on a plane and said "the plane was hijacked by Ishmael and Queequeg," then that would be cause for more alarm (and surprise)...

If you are on a forum and you are trying to get a rise out of people purely for your Ss and Gs - you are a troll.

This isn't something to continue to argue about - it's just a fact.

The Coodabeen's love this stuff. Write very funny songs about it and see it as an expression of the essence of inclusive participation

Well, just like the definition of a mythical creature living under a bridge was hijacked to define an internet troll, so it has been again...

Language is interesting like that - the same word completely different meanings in different scenarios. Take 'hijacked' for example; "The training thread was hijacked by emotion and self-righteousness" is troublesome, but if I was on a plane and said "the plane was hijacked by Ishmael and Queequeg," then that would be cause for more alarm (and surprise)...

If you are on a forum and you are trying to get a rise out of people purely for your Ss and Gs - you are a troll.

This isn't something to continue to argue about - it's just a fact.

Merely pointing out my understanding of the term and, therefore, my objection to being referred to as such given that was in no way my intent.

All done and thanks for your input.

"it all goes well for the future" . This was a magnificent linguistic [censored] up. It came from augurs well ( like the future looks good) not augers well (which is like drilling a hole). Illiterate footballer after illiterate footballer would confidently claim "it all goes well for the future". The coodabeens got years out of this.

Edited December 7, 201410 yr by Bitter but optimistic

Well, just like the definition of a mythical creature living under a bridge was hijacked to define an internet troll, so it has been again...

Language is interesting like that - the same word completely different meanings in different scenarios. Take 'hijacked' for example; "The training thread was hijacked by emotion and self-righteousness" is troublesome, but if I was on a plane and said "the plane was hijacked by Ishmael and Queequeg," then that would be cause for more alarm (and surprise)...

If you are on a forum and you are trying to get a rise out of people purely for your Ss and Gs - you are a troll.

This isn't something to continue to argue about - it's just a fact.

Ishmael and Queequeg? Characters from Moby Dick on a plane yes I would be very alarmed! Don't tell me Captain Ahab is up the front end and in charge.

When i spoke to him at training............

Ishmael and Queequeg? Characters from Moby [censored] on a plane yes I would be very alarmed! Don't tell me Captain Ahab is up the front end and in charge.

Queequeg would have been a serious "get your own ball" mid!

Ishmael and Queequeg? Characters from Moby [censored] on a plane yes I would be very alarmed! Don't tell me Captain Ahab is up the front end and in charge.

you should have said "Moby (colloquialism for) Penis"... it might have passed the test

you should have said "Moby (colloquialism for) Penis"... it might have passed the test

I've often wondered what made a Moby Di ck special..