deanox

They said 60 minutes but the rule book says 30 minutes. https://twitter.com/DanielCherny/status/1424708488744247296?s=19

Because when they have lock downs they always find a bunch of cases that were infectious in the community. I think they go short so that if it is a good outcome they can open back up again.

I don't think it is about changes to our game plan as such, but about the little tactical things we'll do, like choosing to tag Libba. Those things may get tweaked.

I reckon we would go according to our standard plan we've played all year against Adelaide and backourselves to get it done. And then I'd treat Geelong like the first final and play to win. Win that and we take top spot, probably get a home final against PA and a week off.

Just to clarify: I'm not sure 2nd and 3rd world means what you think it does. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_World

Fair enough. I understand Shane was on holidays in Bali at the time of the trade. Did he suggest it was us who renegged or that the manager may have had other ideas while he was away.

I actually went to a lot of effort to try to describe the comments to you, to provide as much context as possible, without needing to repeat a racist slur. If your curiousity only piques because of the titillation of reading a slur, then that's a you problem.

Spot on. Poor umpiring makes money for their media partners, it creates clicks, sells newspapers, generates video views on social media. It keeps the media cycle going.

I haven't read/heard anything recently; my recollection was that they asked him to take less money, he said no, they organised a trade, then he called up and said "I would have taken less money if you needed!" but they considered it too late. I'd be interested to know the other story?

Watching closely, I reckon Oliver gets a lot of whack's all day long, many in the guts and ribs. In a physical contest he goes in hard. When hit off the ball cheaply and unexpectedly, I'm not concerned if he does go down.

I've told you that I read in an early article (since redacted) that he used a reasonably well known slur to describe the person. That has differentiated that what he said was a slur in casual speech rather than a diatribe spoken in vitriol to their face, nor was it a wider scope cultural attack. So gives sufficient context. Why does it matter which slur it was? If you really want to know, think of the 5 or so common slurs you've heard used for first nations people and imagine it's one of them. It doesn't really matter which one it is.

I read that he used a slur to describe him. The context of the phrasing wasn't given. It's a pretty nasty and relatively common slur specific to first nations people, as far as I'm aware. I'm not going to repeat the slur.

How could that possibly be construed as racist?

This is a topic about racism against First nations people, that might give you a clue why anti-black is the main theme.

It's not enough to be "against racism" is it? You need to be actively anti-racist. (And bring anti-racist doesn't mean that you don't do, say, think or act in a way that is racist at times. It means calling it out when you see it, and owning it and trying to improve when you get called out.)

I understood that we have manufacturing capacity of AZ far greater than demand. I assume we are shipping some of that over there? Still with a combined population of nearly 300 million in those countries alone, even sending them a spare 1 or 2 million jabs a month is ineffective help. I guess it all adds up.

If this is the case though, what I said should have put it at ease. It isn't about the age group (or generation if i want to be semantic). Boomer has become synonymous for a state of mind, regardless of age/generation. If it does apply to you because that isn't how you behave, then there was nothing to be offended about. But if you keep insisting you were offended maybe the label sticks?

Ok so if no one mentioned ageism, why did you take offence at linking racism to boomers? If you are concerned that OP was saying "all people of a certain age are racist" then there it is. If you don't think OP was relating it to age, what was your problem with their statement?

What a weird comment. Alt-right is a phrase made up by neo-nazis to describe themselves. There is no such thing as "Alt-left", it's a phrase made up by centre right "alt right" sympathisers as a way of trying to shift the Overton window further right by claiming extremists on the left are of equal threat as those in the right. They aren't, as demonstrated by the fact that no security or intelligence agency are worried about them. But that isn't relevant here. What is relevant is that when young people rag on baby boomers, they aren't ragging on an age group, they are ragging on people who emulate and embody a particular state of mind. Regardless of who wrote that article, it served as a reference for this particular point.

Did all of those people have access to vaccine and the financial support structure to self quarantine for a month prior to returning though? A purpose built quarantine centre here is what was needed.

I think anyone disparaging baby boomers isn't actually being ageist. Baby Boomer is a statement of mind. If it doesn't apply to you, it isn't aimed at you. https://www.theoccidentalnews.com/opinions/2019/11/19/ok-boomer-attacks-a-mindset-not-a-generation/2899726

I understood (thought I read it?) that he was after a reasonable sum, expecting he would have a bit of a break out year. I'm not sure he'd get the money anywhere else either though, so it comes down to where he thinks the opportunity is. It is clear Melbourne thought he was ready to step up this year, looking to trade TMac out. I can't believe they would have faith that TMac has 2 more years. They'll roll the dice, but they won't put all eggs in that basket after 2019 and 2020. So they'll want to hang on to Weid unless they can get another ready made back up. Also, I think he has been stiff in that I think he is competing with TMac and Jackson for a spot, not with Brown, who plays a different role.

I'm with you on this. The fact that it was normal for him to throw a racist slur in normal conversation is deeply worrying. It wasn't in the heat of the game. He can't claim "These types of words were ingrained in my speech but I know they cause hurt so have been trying to actively remove them from conditioning. Unfortunately in the pressure of the game I relapsed. There is no excusing my words, but I am actively trying to improve myself." I bet he would never refer to someone he knew well with those words, but he did about someone he didn't know well. As an experienced leader this is unacceptable, and he deserves to pay the consequences.

George Floyd comparisons shouldn't be made and if they are, they before a misunderstanding of the George Floyd situation. A policeman used his position of power as a way to injur, humiate and eventually kill a human for whom he had a duty of care. In addition, the particular police civilian relationship is fraught with racism and other issues related to social inequality. George Floyd was pinned for nearly 9 minutes in a clear abuse of power, and it cost him his life. Jack Viney stuffed up. It presented a risk of injury, sure. It looks terrible. I am ok with that act being banned and a suspension resulting. But he was effectively wrestling with someone who pulled him in, and applied pressure for 5 seconds in the heat of that 2-sided confrontation before moving on. There was no power distance, no imbalance, no indifference [censored] to race or social status. The only time the incidents should be compared is to point out they are not related.

Getting high rated kids cheap is good, but I think there is often a bit to be said for the mid-late draft opportunity that F/S presents. Knowing that we can take other players that we rate similar to Taj without losing access to him is great. Getting a pick 40 rated kid at pick 60 for example is a neat bonus.