how about we call it a nil all draw ! and for good measures we give up the player that we got with that priority pick to the AFL love child

LOL what was it called "Ox Fellatio"?

Or Schwarzecock?

If you haven't been on Demonland for 6 months or so and maybe wondering if the demise of Demonology impacted Demonland in any fashion, then good sir, I would direct you to this thread.

who's the good sir?

who's the good sir?

I think it's a mountain range in California that Jack Kerouac wrote about

Edited January 15, 201312 yr by binman

Have eaten at a restaurant in Beijing that specialised in all different types of penis' (penii?). But by far the least eadable thing I ate there was preserved jellyfish. No taste, inedible texture, nothing to recommend it really.

Speaking of Demonology, I wonder what Knackers is up to??

Back to arguing please.

LOL what was it called "Ox Fellatio"?

thats a really bad gag DC.

What i didn't like was saying hello to the same goat at breakfast hours before!!!

But that's Asia.

Just one goat eh?

thats a really bad gag DC.

actually given that it was an ox's it probably should have been called "Deep Throat"

enough of this culinary talk, some natives are getting restless

And ill !!

And ill !!

and some jealous, some nervous

This is rather ironic really. Sue suggesting the article be read carefully and then talking about 60 witnesses at a meeting attended by 12.

If you read it carefully it says "60 witness statements". A witness can of course make more than one statement.

Yes they can, but there would be something very strange about 60 statements from 11 people (presumably CC's isnt't included) that refer to the one event. 11 people who had 6 statemements each taken in 2012 covering a meeting in 2009, all saying he said "...." with any level of similarity would be incredible.

People by and large do not remember specific sentences from 1 month ago, never mind 3 years ago unless they have kept contemporary records.

And ill !!

and maybe a few nostalgic?

Yes they can, but there would be something very strange about 60 statements from 11 people (presumably CC's isnt't included) that refer to the one event. 11 people who had 6 statemements each taken in 2012 covering a meeting in 2009, all saying he said "...." with any level of similarity would be incredible.

People by and large do not remember specific sentences from 1 month ago, never mind 3 years ago unless they have kept contemporary records.

Which gets me thinking about the process. Could it be at interview #2 the interviewee is told, you said x when we interviewed you before, but Y said xxx when we interviewed him. Is he right? "ummm, Y's a good bloke, I guess he's right." Put that though 5 iterations and you could probably get people swearing to almost anything.

Edited January 15, 201312 yr by sue

Fair Dinkim....I am just so sick of the political bullsh1t on these threads.....Not having a political bone in my body....I don't care who runs the club as long as we don't go broke and I have a team that I can love, support, for the rest of my life and my kids and grandkids ...

All this crap about previous boards, agendas, who has their nose out of joint,what mistakes were made and who's fault it was, is immaterial

The club is under seige from without,at this time we are under threat from all quarters and all you people want to do is squbble and whinge about who's fault and who SHOULD have done this and WHO should have done that.

Some people even want to offer the heads of our football club as a peace offering......

If we don't fight now as a united club then all you people will have no club to support..and you can then argue who's fault it was......

I will take it a step further and say I will not vote for anyone other than current board members unless or until those who make political statements on this board identify themselves.

but "Key Melbourne coterie supporters" aren't employed by the club wyl

thats the interesting point.

what is it their trying to say today?

& is this where the leaks & media speculations including the couch, are originating from,, within?

Or is it as we've believed, its from the AFL? or are they in alignment, the club & AFL?

too many missing dots.

Just one goat eh?

yes. One and the same.

I will take it a step further and say I will not vote for anyone other than current board members unless or until those who make political statements on this board identify themselves.

exactly what i was thinking this morning.

Which gets me thinking about the process. Could it be at interview #2 the interviewee is told, you said x when we interviewed you before, but Y said xxx when we interviewed him. Is he right? "ummm, Y's a good bloke, I guess he's right." Put that though 5 iterations and you could probably get people swearing to almost anything.

60 statements that include reference to the one meeting. Well that is at least 60 pages of the 800, probably, probably more like 300 pages once you get through the usual header stuff like date and time of interview etc. Statements I have seen are typically double spaced etc.

800 pages is going to be eaten up very quickly.

Unlikely there is to much in the 800 pages either given that Jon Pierik seems to have been able to read (but not necessarily comprehend) the hard copy (1st sentence of 2nd para in this morning article).

60 statements that include reference to the one meeting. Well that is at least 60 pages of the 800, probably, probably more like 300 pages once you get through the usual header stuff like date and time of interview etc. Statements I have seen are typically double spaced etc.

800 pages is going to be eaten up very quickly.

Unlikely there is to much in the 800 pages either given that Jon Pierik seems to have been able to read (but not necessarily comprehend) the hard copy (1st sentence of 2nd para in this morning article).

enough in it to be pulled apart beautifully if our legal team have done there homework properly and know it all.

exactly what i was thinking this morning.

exactly what i was thinking this morning.

You actually thought of something before you read it?

you obviously though weren't thinking when you double quoted?

You actually thought of something before you read it?

yes, i don't harbour your inherent bitterness toward everything.

I don't know about destroying the club but Daniher was nowhere near a flag and in reality never would be. We had a team of front running softies, and if the did bring their A game or if they came to play they could do quite well during the H&A season, but as soon as the pressure was applied they folded.

....

Not that any of this is really relevant to this tanking thread, but actually in 2000 our team did very well in three pressure finals, (do you forget the stirring fightback against the soon to be perfectionists of tanking?) only to crumble (as did by the way Northey's 1988 team) in the big ones against what were widely acknowledged as the hardest teams of their eras and by far the hottest GF favourites in memory.

Am so glad I don't read that paper anymore (well just sneaked a peek)!.

According to Jon Pierik, the number of witness statements grew from 57 to 60 from Jan 13 to Jan 15.