I don't 'get it' because despite you saying you don't care, you posted on this issue.

I presume that you are personally in favour of newspapers giving both sides of a story, but you don't want to appear to be backing away from your support of grapeviney for being against the 'groupthink' when he said the opposite.

This is not the first time you got asked a question which undermines your position so you take the "I'm not interested" line. Better not to reply at all.

I'm with BH. Despite the voluminous arguments here, or what Wilson says are 'unofficial' positions, or her referral to them as 'flimsy', I don't care about them, or anyone else's excuses here, or real (or feigned) indignation, or journalists barking from the sidelines to sell newspapers. They're all peripheral and fill up pages.

I only care about what is in the AFL report, Melbourne's official response, and the outcome. I just hope it's positive for the club.

I thought about this last night and I hark back to an article regarding our reply to the report . I recall that the gist of the article is we would not be addressing every issue and defending every claim in the report. If this is to be believed then the " everyone else has done it " defense may not have been officially forwarded. This is where the wicked witch of the west may be getting her unofficial defence line from whilst the official line may exclude many things that would be brought up in court. For me, I'm not sure we would have to articulate that Carlton did the same and if we go down we will try and take others with us. The afl knows it so pointing it out to them seems superfluous.

I'm with BH. Despite the voluminous arguments here, or what Wilson says are 'unofficial' positions, or her referral to them as 'flimsy', I don't care about them, or anyone else's excuses here, or real (or feigned) indignation, or journalists barking from the sidelines to sell newspapers. They're all peripheral and fill up pages.

I only care about what is in the AFL report, Melbourne's official response, and the outcome. I just hope it's positive for the club.

That may be so, and Wilson's indulging in those irrelevancies only highlights how urgently we need the official results because another round of arguing about whether Carlton or anyone else tanked would be beyond the pale. But the question Sue is raising is, basically: where is BH?

Attempting to recruit Grapeviney to his Group Against Groupthink (the acronym GAG functions as both noun and verb in this case) necessitates ignoring the fact that Grapeviney's position (post #190) supposes that we're putting forward arguments (which would include the "Carlton tanked too" line) to the AFL that BH has excoriated in the past.

I suspect that since Grapeviney's rhetorical questions look aggressive and sarcastic enough to promise another triumph over "groupthink," BH has mistaken him for a fellow traveller when, as Sue points out, he was actually saying something else.

That may be so, and Wilson's indulging in those irrelevancies only highlights how urgently we need the official results because another round of arguing about whether Carlton or anyone else tanked would be beyond the pale. But the question Sue is raising is, basically: where is BH?

Attempting to recruit Grapeviney to his Group Against Groupthink (the acronym GAG functions as both noun and verb in this case) necessitates ignoring the fact that Grapeviney's position (post #190) supposes that we're putting forward arguments (which would include the "Carlton tanked too" line) to the AFL that BH has excoriated in the past.

I suspect that since Grapeviney's rhetorical questions look aggressive and sarcastic enough to promise another triumph over "groupthink," BH has mistaken him for a fellow traveller when, as Sue points out, he was actually saying something else.

If I robustly agree with you JD, then ipso facto, does that make me a protagonist of GAG and by extension, my feet are firmly planted in the group think camp?

How do we get around the groupthink tag if we, in fact, all independently arrive at the same conclusion?

Can you have two opposing “groupthink groups” if there is a differing of opinion amongst a group of posters?

splinter groups !!!! lol

splinter groups !!!! lol

Aren't they the ones who sit on the fence?

splinter groups !!!! lol

Long Live the Judean People's Front!

BH mightn't like me saying it but the old revolutionaries were much better at splinter groups, and splinters of splinters ... they could almost manage to arrive at a group of one.

Long Live the Judean People's Front!

BH mightn't like me saying it but the old revolutionaries were much better at splinter groups, and splinters of splinters ... they could almost manage to arrive at a group of one.

Reg:

If you want to join the People's Front of Judea, you have to really hate the Romans.

Brian:

I do!

Reg:

Oh yeah, how much?

Brian:

A lot!

Reg:

Right, you're in.

splinter groups !!!! lol

Schismatics - what blasphemy

Crikey - of course I and I expect everyone think that the main thing is what the AFL does, not what some cretin writes in a newspaper whose editor seems to have gone missing.

But what that cretin writes, and the failure of the paper to report Don's statement does reflect on our club's reputation.. And is therefore worth comment and discussion and the hope that the club will take them on when appropriate

The 'bubble reputation' is important. I too don't care much what supporters of other clubs call us, but there is sadly something called sponsorship. Also, the AFL might take the public perception on board when determining things like fixtures.

This is the official/unofficial position of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Hell.

And to carry on the theme, apparently the AFL have handed down their verdict. It went something like this:

Coordinator:
Crucifixion?



Prisoner:
Yes.



Coordinator:
Good. Out of the door, line on the left, one cross each.


[Next prisoner]



Coordinator:
Crucifixion?



Mr. Cheeky:
Er, no, freedom actually.



Coordinator:
What?



Mr. Cheeky:
Yeah, they said I hadn't done anything and I could go and live on an island somewhere.



Coordinator:
Oh I say, that's very nice. Well, off you go then.



Mr. Cheeky:
No, I'm just pulling your leg, it's crucifixion really.



Coordinator:
[laughing] Oh yes, very good. Well...



Mr. Cheeky:
Yes I know, out of the door, one cross each, line on the left.

How do we get around the groupthink tag if we, in fact, all independently arrive at the same conclusion?

Can you have two opposing “groupthink groups” if there is a differing of opinion amongst a group of posters?

Despite the flippancies that immediately follow your question, it's an important one.

"Groupthink" is only a label bandied about by those who disagree with a convergence of opinions or consensus on some issue or other. I'm not sure it does too much harm if it only identifies particular strands of shared thinking.

What disturbs me, though, is when (a) it constitutes a "group" out of opinions that aren't much the same at all; (b) it's thrown around as an attempt to silence people (hence the gag about gags); or © it's used by those who actually belong to a different consensus, whether they can see it or not.

I think there's a few examples of all of these on DL threads. Probably the only way to deal with them is to go on talking. Arguing with any member of any GAG only serves as proof to its members that you belong to a "groupthink" (if you argue with them, of necessity you're part of whatever group they're not).

Despite the flippancies that immediately follow your question, it's an important one.

"Groupthink" is only a label bandied about by those who disagree with a convergence of opinions or consensus on some issue or other. I'm not sure it does too much harm if it only identifies particular strands of shared thinking.

What disturbs me, though, is when (a) it constitutes a "group" out of opinions that aren't much the same at all; ( B) it's thrown around as an attempt to silence people (hence the gag about gags); or © it's used by those who actually belong to a different consensus, whether they can see it or not.

I think there's a few examples of all of these on DL threads. Probably the only way to deal with them is to go on talking. Arguing with any member of any GAG only serves as proof to its members that you belong to a "groupthink" (if you argue with them, of necessity you're part of whatever group they're not).

Well put; it's used as a put down in most cases by those that have a differing view of the majority and have absolute belief that their opinion is the only one that counts.

There are some on here that love the subtle art of the "put down", it seems to give them a feeling of superiority.

Well put; it's used as a put down in most cases by those that have a differing view of the majority and have absolute belief that their opinion is the only one that counts.

There are some on here that love the subtle art of the "put down", it seems to give them a feeling of superiority.

Aint that the truth

A couple have developed it into an art form

Aint that the truth

A couple have developed it into an art form

It's so entrenched with one that if you ask him a simple question you get some spoilt brat response.

Q) How do you think we'll go to day?

A) WelI I think we'll go ok, but can't you work that out for yourself; probably not?

It's so entrenched with one that if you ask him a simple question you get some spoilt brat response.

Q) How do you think we'll go to day?

A) WelI I think we'll go ok, but can't you work that out for yourself; probably not?

I think we are on the same person Robbie.

If I am correct I seldom read anything he writes.

I dont like the term "group think".

I prefer cordial mass debate.

Like snowflakes , no two opinions are exactly the same.(which surely cannot be true)

I am always right even if most people dont agree with me yet.

I learnt ways to win friends and influence people from studying the US marines.

Cash if you say yes, torture if you say no.

Everyone in Gitmo agrees.

Andrew Demetriou on drugs -

"If you think you can run the gauntlet, wake up to yourself because you will be caught."

The AFL on tanking -

"If you think you can run the gauntlet, wake up to yourself because you will be caught - but only if the name of your club begins with the letter M."

Last night I submitted a comment for CWs tanking article "No draft penalties likely for Melbourne" questioning her integrity and asking why DM's statement has not been written up in the Age (among other things in which I discussed the issue - not abusive in any way), and it has not been published.

Last night I submitted a comment for CWs tanking article "No draft penalties likely for Melbourne" questioning her integrity and asking why DM's statement has not been written up in the Age (among other things in which I discussed the issue - not abusive in any way), and it has not been published.

I get that frequently on the Herald Sun website. They will allow any peanut to comment on an issue no matter how bigoted their opinion is but if you call out their journalists on an error it won't see the light of day.

I emailed the club and asked them to pass on my thanks to Don for sticking up for the club publicly. Garry Lyon should be given a pat on the back too.

Looking forward to our players sticking up for the club on the field in 2013

There are some on here that love the subtle art of the "put down" ...

Subtle?

Our President,along with his able board have conviction .A standard of stand up and be counted philosophy.

This is something I strongly admire.

Our President,along with his able board have conviction .A standard of stand up and be counted philosophy.

This is something I strongly admire.

Well said JCB.

I think this saga has galvanized the supporters around the board and, despite Caro's weasly attempts to suggest there is division in the ranks, we saw a united front at the AGM with the members right behind the club, as it should be.