Elusive Tunbridge

I went to training and was going to post but I've obviously come to the wrong place.

Since there is an active training thread and you've chosen to post on this one, I'm guessing you're exactly where you want to be. For your own inscrutable reasons.

It's the attitudes and behaviours of people like this fella Everett that ultimately hamper the process.

There'd have been no process without the persistent pressure of the Aboriginal people over decades, and the critically important support of the unions at Wave Hill in the sixties. You can whitewash history, but whitewash washes off and the truth always reemerges. Without pressure there is no process.

Whispering Jack is quick to use the racism card and throw around words like intolerance.

Card trolling, Dr Lecter?

Freedom of opinion comes with responsibility and measured thought. Ignorant ranting is not Australian, but unfortunately appears to be growing in popularity.

Ignorant ranting has always been Australian - in fact, it's universal. And then came the internet.

But an AOTY he is not. He has responded to racial abuse incidents: he has not been a broad based, hard-working advocate for the broader indigenous community for long enough.

The young man with the bottled water program, or the man working with the bionic eye program seem to have been overlooked due to a lack of fame and a lack of political power in their sphere of influence. Fame and form have triumphed over substance yet again.

I admire your view on suitability for AOTY - but if you look at the list, fame and form always trump other virtues. For those who think Goodes' contribution to indigenous advancement is limited to going off at a mouthy spectator, you really have no clue. But AOTY is like an Oscar - no-one would ever believe that it goes to the most deserving.

We perpetuate more of a divide the more we focus on skin colour.

Exactly. Australian Aborigines were doing perfectly well until the left started rabbiting on about racism. I blame it all on Gough Whitlam.

"Colin Garland is ... set to miss four to six weeks after undergoing surgery on his right ankle on Thursday.

A small bone spur had been troubling Garland, who finished second in the club best and fairest last season, in recent weeks.

Melbourne decided it was best to deal with the problem now to give him every possible chance to be available for round one."

The sky is not falling.

I think after 7 yrs of very below average performances (and I am being very kind) and the some of the quality recruiting u cannot blame any Dees supporter for requiring a little "less talk more action".

Less talk and more action - on a discussion forum? Give over!

Was it Kelvin Moore who told him he'd never be a footballer so long as his arse pointed at the ground - prompting Jacko to do a handstand?

This is a terrible blow to the prospects of our club. Can I get my membership money back?

"Garland, who enjoyed his best season to date in 2013 – capped by a second-place finish in the club's best and fairest count – nominated Jack Grimes and Nathan Jones as his favoured contenders for the role.

Grimes held the captaincy alongside Jack Trengove - who has announced he was stepping down from the role - through Mark Neeld's tenure in 2012 and 2013.

Garland says both Grimes and Jones exude exceptional leadership qualities."

Close the books.

fcs, talk about premature expectation

Better to suffer from premature expectations than no expectations at all.

I've been enjoying this thread over the past month. Its been insightful and unemotional. The investigative reporting have been top class. I've learnt a lot more about this issue than the confusing info dished out in the mainstream media. Well done guys.

Amen

And you'll note that you engaged me, not the other way around. You engaged me with a derogatory aside, but then rail when I challenge you to offer something that resembled an opinion. And you call that bullying ? You don't know what bullying is.

Thanks, ben. All the fun in baiting bullies lies in the thunderbolts they hurl from their meagre dunghills. Encore, please.

Let's get this straight. You compliment Robbie's post and then proceed to state that you don't agree with its main tenet, because you don't know the facts and will therefore give Neeld the benefit of the doubt.

I don't like his post because he's inferring someone is a racist without being privy to the internal machinations of the club. I also thought his comment that Neeld's game-plan was racist to be pathetic.

Interestingly you take umbrage with me, but not with the poster who made such trite remarks.

You also mention ''bullying'' in my response to you and Robbie. It seems one can't call anyone's view into question these days without such banal retorts. More-so, it's a oft used response when one can't clarify their viewpoint. So what do they do ? Use the bullying card.

Pathetic.

Let's get this straight. You compliment Robbie's post and then proceed to state that you don't agree with its main tenet, because you don't know the facts and will therefore give Neeld the benefit of the doubt.

I don't like his post because he's inferring someone is a racist without being privy to the internal machinations of the club. I also thought his comment that Neeld's game-plan was racist to be pathetic.

You're conflating two points here, possibly because you don't understand the nature of structural racism, although robbie explains it clearly enough. I give him credit for making an interesting argument, although it doesn't convince me. Note that I didn't reject it.

On the issue of his treatment of the indigenous players, robbie has already pointed out the impossibility of establishing the "truth" there, and though he may not be inclined to give Neeld the benefit of the doubt, I am. May no-one comment on club issues without being "privy to the internal machinations of the club"? Give over.

Interestingly you take umbrage with me, but not with the poster who made such trite remarks.

You also mention ''bullying'' in my response to you and Robbie. It seems one can't call anyone's view into question these days without such banal retorts. More-so, it's a oft used response when one can't clarify their viewpoint. So what do they do ? Use the bullying card.

Pathetic.

You cherry-pick robbie's post for points you can characterise as trite, while ignoring (misunderstanding? not even reading?) the bulk of his post.

Who refers to playing the feminist card, the racism card, the bullying card? Misogynists, racists, bullies, that's who.

You don't "call views into question" - you aggressively dismiss them.

When someone ends a post with "pathetic", I'm never sure whether it's a final judgement or a signature.

I believe Neeld's game plan was unsuited to our players and inflexible, and this was obvious to me from the beginning. I'm not convinced that it was racist, but I understand robbiefrom13's argument and I don't dismiss it. I don't know the facts about Neeld's dealings with our indigenous players, and so i am inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. So I regret that I can't enlighten you.

I note the bullying tone of your response to robbiefrom13. Your response to me is in the same vein. This is my well-considered response. I don't propose to argue for something that is self-evident.

Most here know that I thought Neeld was a bit of a nut-job, but you make broad assumptions of his treatment of indigenous players even down to his game-plan. It was originally stated that he met with the indigenous players in a different format to others on the list, but this was later refuted.

It's an annoying post full of self-indulgent generalisations when it appears you're not in a position to know. Far too much guess work and assumptions.

You are cursorily dismissive of a lengthy, well-argued and thoughtful post. Unsurprisingly.

Exactly, every post and every thread should read like a Brothers Grimm fairytale and then we'll all live happy ever after.

You obviously don't know your Grimm's Fairytales. Happyish endings come at a hellish price.

Two players have said they'd like to be captain now, and both have been reported on the club website. I don't believe we'll see any more hats in the ring between now and February. Co-captains Grimes and Jones is my tip.

Agreed, sue. He's moving backwards, has already knocked the ball to advantage, and knows there's a player behind he's likely to collide with. If he did intentionally duck his head, that seems like a pretty good idea to me.

A menacing pair of eyes tattooed on the back of NJ's head - scare off the Magpie tacklers.

So, master, take them off a few, maybe 3, minutes later, as the adrenaline starts to drop, but leave them for enough time for that same adrenaline to perhaps be used to advantage, should the cards fall right and the ball come forward from the bounce, not metabolized / excreted without a chance of it contributing.

If certain players - e.g. mids - know that they must come off immediately after a goal, no message has to be sent to them, and their replacement will be standing at the boundary without any further message from the box. No surprises for anyone, no uncertainty.

If they are left on for three minutes, who's keeping time? Who decides to make the switch? Who tells the player? Clearly coaches prefer to automate the decision, rather than add tasks to game-time player management.

Holing up between here and New Year with saké and the Studio Ghibli collection. Happy Holidays, fellow secularists.

Not sure I would go that far but I do prefer Highland brews.

Actually I'm not so keen on lighter fluid - but liquid peat doesn't do it for me, either. With you in the Highlands.

Islay malts - I'd sooner drink lighter fluid.