deanox

And Rivers.

Brown was very good in those conditions and perhaps I've underrated him too. 7 marks, 6 score involvements including 3 goals and an assist, in those weather conditions was outstanding.

I expect ANB and Jackson to get votes, it more about the order of votes I'm interested in. Until the lightning break I would maybe have had my best 6 on ground as Petracca, Oliver, ANB, Jackson, Yeo and Cripps (in no particular order but with an emphasis on the MFC players). The surge after the break could shake things up a bit: we defended well (does Bowey/May come into it) do the Eagles go higher?

I came here to say this. Also interesting to see whether the coaches rate the games of the big names (Oliver, Petracca) ahead of the ANB's and Jackson's.

6 Petracca 5 Neal-Bullen 4 Jackson 3 Oliver 2 Bowey 1 Harmes Apologies to Petty, May, Gawn, Salem and Brown (7 marks and 2 goals in those conditions). (Edit: thought some more and dropped Oliver from 5 to 3. Not that he wasn't good but ANB and Jackson were outstanding tonight so deserved to be bumped).

Absolutely over officiated rubbish tonight.

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.