Smith is leaps and bounds ahead of the rest. But Wilson is still so far ahead of the Sun's Chief Football Writer.

She has the benefit of not being drunk while she writes, I guess.

I don't necessarily accept all of the arguments put here but the gist of the article is right on the button. Wilson's article wasn't what some people think it's cooked up to be and the fact that her attack was scathing doesn't make it original, clever or even close to the mark ~ FOR CAROLINE WILSON, THIS TIME IT’S VERY PERSONAL

I was only half listening to be honest. It started off as a serve re Goose of the week but he launched into "Denham has nothing of note to say about anything at all".

If he wasn't serious he certainly delivered it dead pan.

I confess to not listening to KB's show because my ears vomit when I hear him - is this a running joke between Smith and Denham to slag off at each other ?

Denham got the gist of one of Smith's articles a...about. Smith nominated him for goose of the week, all in good fun I think but who knows. As an old mate of mine says, many a true thing said in jest.

I don't necessarily accept all of the arguments put here but the gist of the article is right on the button. Wilson's article wasn't what some people think it's cooked up to be and the fact that her attack was scathing doesn't make it original, clever or even close to the mark ~ FOR CAROLINE WILSON, THIS TIME IT’S VERY PERSONAL

He came across as another Windy Apologist to be honest

He came across as another Windy Apologist to be honest

an anonymous one at that

Caro is spot on in regards to Essendon.

Just shine that spotlight Caro - and don't let these cheats distract us from the issue.

Finally Caro is useful for something.

Drugs in sport are not to be tolerated on ANY level. Sadly the AFL has enabled such behavior.

Now the AFL can concentrate on more financial streams of income - like encouraging gambling.

I don't necessarily accept all of the arguments put here but the gist of the article is right on the button. Wilson's article wasn't what some people think it's cooked up to be and the fact that her attack was scathing doesn't make it original, clever or even close to the mark ~ FOR CAROLINE WILSON, THIS TIME IT’S VERY PERSONAL

Ill bet anything that guy is a deluded Essendon supporting sheep

Ill bet anything that guy is a deluded Essendon supporting sheep

He is, as discussed here: http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/for-caroline-wilson-this-time-its-very-personal.1069480/

The guy's name is Paul Cousins, who is just an Essendon fanboi (http://twitter.com/PaulSCousins). The website is just a front (with no news on anything but this specific issue).

I don't necessarily accept all of the arguments put here but the gist of the article is right on the button. Wilson's article wasn't what some people think it's cooked up to be and the fact that her attack was scathing doesn't make it original, clever or even close to the mark ~ FOR CAROLINE WILSON, THIS TIME IT’S VERY PERSONAL

You seem to miss my point, which is a common theme in our conversations.

I wasn't saying it was original or contained anything new, just that it was a good article that summarized where the situation is now and who is doing what. It's an editorial Jack - an opinion piece, it's not trying to present "new" stuff. And I was offering my opinion on it.

I can't be bothered reading all the link you've left but as Axis has said it's an Essendon fanatic. That taints his contribution and renders it meaningless to me but if you want to rely on it that's your prerogative.

Anyway I like Caro. If you don't why do you keep reading her? Your continual reference to her and the debate and discussion you cause by your comments are exactly what she's after.

It's ironic that while you have a very low opinion of her I reckon she loves you!!

He is, as discussed here: http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/for-caroline-wilson-this-time-its-very-personal.1069480/

The guy's name is Paul Cousins, who is just an Essendon fanboi (http://twitter.com/PaulSCousins). The website is just a front (with no news on anything but this specific issue).

haha nice

Was pretty obvious, such a terrible website and such an unprofessional piece of writing laced with the usual denials and misplaced anger

I thought Mark Robinson may have written it

BB - your stock standard line whenever you respond to someone with who you disagree seems to be that they've missed the point.

Now, I'm pretty sure that the point you were making was that Wilson wrote "another sensational article" and that "she is in a class of her own with this sort of stuff" (your words).

For someone to be in a class of their own as an op ed writer, they have to be original, clever and accurate and IMO this article demonstrates none of those attributes.

She's very good at writing in rapier-like style and at trashing people (rightly or wrongly) when she has an agenda which she did against Cameron Schwab where it was very personal as I believe it happens to be with Essendon and Hird. That was why I cited the Cheap Seats article (AOB rightly pointed out the author's an Essendon sop) which I prefaced by stating "I don't necessarily accept all of the arguments put here ...", the point being that on the Essendon doping scandal there are propagandists operating on all sides being fed all manner of different information and misinformation and that Wilson is no less a media whore than is Mark Robinson or Chip Le Grand (granted she has a bit more class than that duo).

The final thing is the point (at least I think you're trying to make a point) where you ask why I read her articles. The fact is I like being informed and reading different viewpoints and I think people who only read that with which they agree are narrow-minded idiots. In the case of the article you cited as being "sensational" I was looking for something new and original on a subject that's of interest to me. I got none of that from Wilson who was simply expressing in a slightly different way the views I had heard and read elsewhere on a number of occasions. And quite frankly if, as you say, the debate and discussion I cause by my comments are "exactly what she's after" then she's certainly not in the ball park of good journalism. Rather, she's no better than the Robinson's and the Whateley's who, on this issue have completely sold out on their profession.