6 minutes ago, ManDee said:

Oh my!

http://www.dailywire.com/news/4834/trumps-101-lies-hank-berrien

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/

https://newrepublic.com/article/139025/trumps-lies-destroy-logic-well-truth

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-02/trump-supporters-will-still-vote-for-him-even-if-he-lies/8320100

https://www.theguardian.com/global/video/2017/feb/18/donald-trump-first-month-of-lies-video

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-speech-fact-check-lies-claims-joint-address-congress-jobs-immigration-pipeline-a7604861.html

Just for fun search  -Trump Lies - 104 million hits. or Pauline Hanson,

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/thefeed/article/2016/09/15/10-times-pauline-hanson-got-the-facts-wrong-her-maiden-speech

http://www.australianetworknews.com/pauline-hanson-lies-uncovered-everyday-australians-fact-check-racist-leader/

Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely - Baron Acton  - 

Politicians lie, all of them.

Now, now its a well known fact that the facts do not apply to these two.  

All that matters is that if they yell louder then they are right. Kinda like in this thread.

7 minutes ago, hardtack said:

At least he didn't see fit to start an entirely new topic in which to make his point.

A 28 page thread is testament to the fact that the thread was on point and worthy of existence.

Naturally, it was up to you to partake or not.  Most of the threads on the first page I've never opened.  We all have choicesl.

16 minutes ago, ProDee said:

A 28 page thread is testament to the fact that the thread was on point and worthy of existence.

Naturally, it was up to you to partake or not.  Most of the threads on the first page I've never opened.  We all have choicesl.

Yes, we do all have choices, and I choose to partake because the subject interests me...but that is hardly the point; the discussion would have gone on for another 28 pages in the original thread.  Blind Freddy and his dog can see why you chose to do what you did.  As I said, now that Watts is playing and has obviously met his coaches requirements, there is really no point in this thread continuing.

Edited March 9, 20178 yr by hardtack

Just now, hardtack said:

Blind Freddy and his dog know why you chose to do what you did.  

What did I do ?

40 minutes ago, ProDee said:

Took you a while to come up with that.

Wasn't worth it.

self awareness is a gift!

17 hours ago, ProDee said:

So instead of not training at the required "intensity" for a "few months" apparently he hasn't gone to a "new level" based on today's Nathan Jones interview.

The fantasy world some live in is incredible and driven by idolatry.  They'd convince themselves of anything if it suited their cognitive bias.   

PC egalitarian on display at its best.

Note that both of these claims could be correct. If the expectations for Watts were set higher than in previous years then 'lack of intensity' just is 'failing to take it to the next level'. What seems clear is that Watts' did not initially meet the standards required of him - but that he is currently doing better. How we should feel about that is less clear to me - a range of views have been expressed all of which seem reasonable ( to me at least). It would warm my heart if the end result of this is a reliably dominant Watts. But there is no doubt that I'll die with my rose colored glasses on! 

5 minutes ago, ProDee said:

What did I do ?

Stop. You just did it again.

1 minute ago, ProDee said:

What did I do ?

Really??  It's no secret that Jack has been your favourite whipping boy for some time... why did you consider it was worthy of a new thread?

2 minutes ago, hardtack said:

Really??  It's no secret that Jack has been your favourite whipping boy for some time... why did you consider it was worthy of a new thread?

I don't have "whipping boys".  I speak plainly about every player on our list.  I laud them when required or observe deficiencies as noted.  I'm not a Neal-Bullen fan, as I don't like his disposal or decision making under pressure, but I rarely get taken to task for this view (although he looks better this preseason).  

The thread was started because it was newsworthy.  There was new detail reported in the media that vindicated a poster who had been ridiculed by others for sharing information they'd received.

I note it wasn't merged, so others in authority clearly agreed.

17 hours ago, ProDee said:

PC egalitarian on display at its best.

I'm glad you rejected my request to please keep politics out of the discussion.  Keep it up - that was hilarious. Personally I view all AFL matters through Marxist dialectics even though that's not PC.  

Let's close the thread and open a new one when he either kicks 10 goals tonight or drops a sitter.

10 minutes ago, yelworcs said:

Note that both of these claims could be correct. If the expectations for Watts were set higher than in previous years then 'lack of intensity' just is 'failing to take it to the next level'. What seems clear is that Watts' did not initially meet the standards required of him - but that he is currently doing better. How we should feel about that is less clear to me - a range of views have been expressed all of which seem reasonable ( to me at least). It would warm my heart if the end result of this is a reliably dominant Watts. But there is no doubt that I'll die with my rose colored glasses on! 

In most things in life one can come up with all sorts of possibilities and every now and then an unlikely one turns out to be correct.

I'm a little unusual in that I tend to default to the bleeding obvious.

Well now that Jack is back in the side I'm looking forward to seeing this 'seriously good player' run around later today.

5 minutes ago, FireInTheBelly said:

Well now that Jack is back in the side I'm looking forward to seeing this 'seriously good player' run around later today.

I hope to see him play like your username. 

I wouldn't mind if he didn't get a kick if he went out there and nailed a few tackles and flew for some marks with conviction. Keen to see high intensity Jack Watts.

55 minutes ago, ProDee said:

In most things in life one can come up with all sorts of possibilities and every now and then an unlikely one turns out to be correct.

I'm a little unusual in that I tend to default to the bleeding obvious.

You had me at "I'm a little unusual.."

( anticipate a brick coming my way..)

Whatever happens tonight, he's been picked and we can all make up our minds what difference, if any, there is from when he last played.

Hopefully we will see him lay a few more tackles and contest a few more marks, if that's what the coach wants.

 

3 hours ago, yelworcs said:

Note that both of these claims could be correct. If the expectations for Watts were set higher than in previous years then 'lack of intensity' just is 'failing to take it to the next level'. What seems clear is that Watts' did not initially meet the standards required of him - but that he is currently doing better. How we should feel about that is less clear to me - a range of views have been expressed all of which seem reasonable ( to me at least). It would warm my heart if the end result of this is a reliably dominant Watts. But there is no doubt that I'll die with my rose colored glasses on! 

That all sounds quite reasonable, crowls. Can't you fly off the handle a bit so we can all feel more at home?

I thought Jack did some nice things at times but looked underdone! Not playing him when he should have played can do that.

Lets hope he recaptures some form for the Aints game. We definately need him for this game!

41 minutes ago, picket fence said:

I thought Jack did some nice things at times but looked underdone! Not playing him when he should have played can do that.

Lets hope he recaptures some form for the Aints game. We definately need him for this game!

I think Goodwin's summation was pretty spot on. Had a good first half, did some nice things. Was good defensively. Got burnt a few times by his team mates running into open space. Looked a little rusty I thought though.

Not enough evidence to suggest he's going to build upon 2016 or regress.

Going the early crow and tipping Jack for the Bluey this year! 

2 hours ago, Rusty Nails said:

Going the early crow and tipping Jack for the Bluey this year! 

Well ... if that happens there's every chance the mods will allow the opening up of yet another Jack Watts thread.

1 minute ago, Spirit of the Demon said:

Well ... if that happens there's every chance the mods will allow the opening up of yet another Jack Watts thread.

Sure will, if there's not a current one running. I don't think 2000 page threads that run for 10 years are generally practical.

Different story if there's already one active.

I thought that Jack was ok but he looked a bit hesitant at times, I think he needed the run and after all the talk about intensity, I didn't see a huge improvement there.

 

57 minutes ago, Dante said:

I thought that Jack was ok but he looked a bit hesitant at times, I think he needed the run and after all the talk about intensity, I didn't see a huge improvement there.

 

Yes and no...

Three times he got burnt by teammates when he was by himself - could have kicked two or three.

He'll be in the team round one.

I think his leads have been overlooked for quite a few years.