What annoys me most about Clark is that Nathan Jones is still his friend

What annoys me most about Clark is that Nathan Jones is still his friend

Ok

What annoys me most about Clark is that Nathan Jones is still his friend

Yes, how dare they have lives outside of football.

Nah just reckon jones is a better judge of character or could have talked mitch into staying. There is more to the story I am certain.

What annoys me most about Clark is that Nathan Jones is still his friend

Along with Jones, Clark was our best player. I am more annoyed that he kicked 6 goals for a dynasty.

While MFC continues to struggle.

I'd like to see our supporters get more vocal about the inequality of the competition - than whinge that our captain is still mates with another former leader at the club.

Not that they were a big deal in the first place but these NAB matches have been devalued substantially since they became a "challenge" rather than a cup and there's no prize for the winner.

Even then, Paul Roos was never really interested in the results of games (I think he won only one pre season competition match in all those years at the Swans). And yet, some people are treating these games seriously. I didn't see much vision of last night's game but in quite a few of the highlights Mitch Clark was running around unattended and, at other occasions, he appeared to have Kyle Cheney on him. When they get to the real stuff and Hawkins is playing at full forward and opposition coaches really concentrate on stopping him with a bit of real pressure, we'll see how he really goes then.

Meanwhile, this is how the selection of the squads for Melbourne's game tomorrow is being looked at in the media:-

Johann Wagner who won The Recruit, in line for first NAB Challenge game

Jack Viney and Jack Watts return for Melbourne in their practice match at Ballarat on Saturday against a weakened Western Bulldogs side that will be missing captain Robert Murphy, Luke Dahlhaus, Jack Macrae, Koby Stevens and Lachie Hunter.

Not that they were a big deal in the first place but these NAB matches have been devalued substantially since they became a "challenge" rather than a cup and there's no prize for the winner.

Even then, Paul Roos was never really interested in the results of games (I think he won only one pre season competition match in all those years at the Swans). And yet, some people are treating these games seriously. I didn't see much vision of last night's game but in quite a few of the highlights Mitch Clark was running around unattended and, at other occasions, he appeared to have Kyle Cheney on him. When they get to the real stuff and Hawkins is playing at full forward and opposition coaches really concentrate on stopping him with a bit of real pressure, we'll see how he really goes then.

Interesting stat about Roos pre season comp form at Sydney. Goes to show these games are nothing much to him and his support coaches beyond using them as a opportunity to trial and fine tune.

Mitch Clark is 13cm taller and 13kg heavier than Kyle Cheney.

The idea that Clark would sue this website is excessively silly

The idea that Clark would sue this website is excessively silly

Since you're not the one who'd face any action or its consequences, what you think is silly isn't particularly relevant.

Since you're not the one who'd face any action or its consequences, what you think is silly isn't particularly relevant.

I'm still allowed to point out how silly it is though

Any grown adult who thinks it through for a few seconds would have to reach the same conclusion

I'm still allowed to point out how silly it is though

Any grown adult who thinks it through for a few seconds would have to reach the same conclusion

Nobody said you weren't. And I'm still allowed to point out that your 'all care no responsibility' attitude won't wash with those who actually have responsibilities.

What's an ungrown adult, by the way?

Edit"typo

Nobody said you weren't. And I'm still allowed to point out that your 'all care no responsibility' attitude won't wash with those who actually have responsibilities.

What's an ungrown adult, by the way?

Edit"typo

that's just fantastic, I'm glad we could have this chat. You should post more often.

ffs. slow time of year

that's just fantastic, I'm glad we could have this chat. You should post more often.

ffs. slow time of year

What coruscating wit. I'm undone.

And the old 'my posts are bigger than your posts'. Haven't seen that sort of inadequacy for a while.

What coruscating wit. I'm undone.

And the old 'my posts are bigger than your posts'. Haven't seen that sort of inadequacy for a while.

'Ladies and Gentlemen of the court - I submit to you that Mitchell Clark has had his character defamed'... just working on my opener for this landmark case :I

'Ladies and Gentlemen of the court - I submit to you that Mitchell Clark has had his character defamed'... just working on my opener for this landmark case :I

There's no need to try to press your advantage. I've already deferred to your superior ignorance. Perhaps you can just leave it at that and spare me further humiliation.

Do you know the differences, by the way, between defamation law in Victoria and, say, the ACT? Choosing the hypothetical venue for displaying your actual stupidity matters, I think.

Interesting stat about Roos pre season comp form at Sydney. Goes to show these games are nothing much to him and his support coaches beyond using them as a opportunity to trial and fine tune.

were they really anything else ?

There's no need to try to press your advantage. I've already deferred to your superior ignorance. Perhaps you can just leave it at that and spare me further humiliation.

Do you know the differences, by the way, between defamation law in Victoria and, say, the ACT? Choosing the hypothetical venue for displaying your actual stupidity matters, I think.

That's OK, just go ahead and link me to the article where a rich/famous person in the public eye has sued a small non-professional discussion forum because of anonymous comments of its posters

I just want to see the precedent on which your concerns are justified

That's OK, just go ahead and link me to the article where a rich/famous person in the public eye has sued a small non-professional discussion forum because of anonymous comments of its posters

I just want to see the precedent on which your concerns are justified

Tht is hardly the point... they may not sue as such, but they certainly could get the site closed down.

Tht is hardly the point... they may not sue as such, but they certainly could get the site closed down.

There's no point arguing with him 'Tack, he has no grasp of the difference between possibility and likelihood, and even less grasp of the concept of responsibility.

That's OK, just go ahead and link me to the article where a rich/famous person in the public eye has sued a small non-professional discussion forum because of anonymous comments of its posters

I just want to see the precedent on which your concerns are justified

What makes you think a precedent is required for prudent action? Fortunately businesses, government departments, websites and so on aren't being run by fools like you.

Edit: And here, try this one - https://www.efa.org.au/Issues/Censor/defamation.html

It makes the point in passing, and contrary to your uninformed opinionation, that defamation action is largely the preserve of the rich and famous.

even joe hockey is taking defamation action

Edited March 13, 201510 yr by daisycutter

even joe hockey is taking defamation action

And he insists it's to protect his reputation.

That's OK, just go ahead and link me to the article where a rich/famous person in the public eye has sued a small non-professional discussion forum because of anonymous comments of its posters

I just want to see the precedent on which your concerns are justified

Sounds like you need to start your own blog where you can say whatever you like about anyone you want.

Call it curry and beer land and register it under your personal "real life" name. See how long you last..

Sounds like you need to start your own blog where you can say whatever you like about anyone you want.

Call it curry and beer land and register it under your personal "real life" name. See how long you last..

This.

What makes you think a precedent is required for prudent action? Fortunately businesses, government departments, websites and so on aren't being run by fools like you.

Edit: And here, try this one - https://www.efa.org.au/Issues/Censor/defamation.html

It makes the point in passing, and contrary to your uninformed opinionation, that defamation action is largely the preserve of the rich and famous.

Ouch! They certainly breed them tough out in Hopping Dicks Creek. Well done sir.