Gator

Did you not quote me ? I wouldn't know what have or haven't posted. If I said I was unfamiliar with you it'd be an understatement.

I couldn't care less about Morris. But I like people to be accountable for their comments. Ethan has said he's gone from saying ''ample'' to ''plenty'' of beers. How would Morris know how many he'd had. And why did Morris change his language ? You see Ethan gets it. He can back up his assertion with facts, which is all I wanted. Others just make ill-considered observations and when they're held to account that get all narky, they get personal, and they fail to back their original assertions. Tip: don't make claims you can't back up. It's not hard.

Haha Sorry to hurt your feelings, kid.

Hang on. You said he'd beaten up the story. You said he exaggerated. What part was ''beaten up'' ? And how do you know he wasn't respecting May's privacy or even knew about any relationship issues ? Btw, there are 3 questions there.

Can you highlight the part where he exaggerated the extent of the crime ? This shouldn't be hard, after-all it's your accusation not mine. So, I assume you've read what's been exaggerated. It's a pretty simple request. I'm keen to know, because I may have missed it.

Great. I need specific quotes and examples. But how do I already know you won't provide these ? Wow, I'm clairvoyant ?

I'm still trying to grapple with what Morris supposedly ''beat up''. Can you shed some light ? You know, specifically what he exaggerated.

This is called deflecting. It's common when people can't address the actual assertion. It's weak, but all you've got I suppose.

What part was ''beaten up'' ?

What was this "small-minded mediocrity" that Morris portrayed ?

Unlike others, who find profundity in your comments, I don't think you're being rational. You say - Morris writing this really annoys me: "When contacted, Melbourne could not rule out either a player-led or club enforced punishment for the former Gold Coast captain". More likely: TM: Will May be sanctioned? MFC: No comment Why is your version more likely ? I find your version less likely. In the first place, a MFC representative has decided to take Morris' call. If they had no intention of making any comment why take the call ? Clearly, Melbourne knew of the incident. And just as clearly one of the first questions any reporter would ask is ''Will there be any club imposed sanctions ?"'. Reporting 101. It was likely that the leadership group would meet to discuss the situation and that that had not yet happened, so the club could not say with conviction whether there would or wouldn't be a penalty, because at that point they didn't know. And even if in the unlikely event your version is right, so what ? Morris reporting that the club wouldn't rule out a sanction is still on the mark. That's what ''no comment'' means. You know, we won't confirm or deny. You also state: And, if as noted in an earlier post, people in the media know that May is going thru a torrid personal time and not acknowledging that in the article is really low. He has dredged up all his recent past with us, made a big story out of it without regard for May's welfare. All in all, he gives 'gutter journalism' a new low. Firstly, May may not want any private information publicized in an article for the world to see. How do you know May wants his personal life splattered across the media ? Secondly, May having a few beers with friends isn't necessarily symptomatic of any personal trauma. Why do you immediately draw connections with a ''torrid personal time'' and link them with him having a beer with a few mates ? You're the one drawing conclusions here, not Morris. You also criticise Morris for dredging up previous stuff. That's good journalism. To tell this story without referencing his early condition and soft tissue injuries, which led to him being in rehab in the first place, would be inept. Once again, you seem offended by facts. Facts don't care about your feelings. And that's the end game here. Morris is doing nothing more than telling his audience the facts that are at hand. You're the one who's playing the guessing game, while at the same time stating it's ''gutter journalism''. You're guessing that May's personal life should have been included in the article. You're guessing what conversation Morris really had with a MFC representative. And you're guessing why May may have been out drinking, i.e. was it because of his ''torrid personal affair''. You're even guessing that it's torrid. Which it may or may not be. How would I know ? Or you ?

Obviously the first point isn't a concern re Morris. So that leaves the second point. Please quote the exact words, phrase, or sentence that particularly annoyed or offended you.

We've had our moments on here, but I know you're not stupid. Who Morris supports should have nothing (and I mean literally zero) to do with his work content or reporting of ''news''. If Morris was prepared to compromise his journalistic content based upon who he grew up supporting he should look for a new career. I'm staggered people think otherwise. Actually, no, I'm not.

People keep talking about rehab and recovery, but from what I understand he's recovered. He's running freely at training and looking very good. I suspect he's now just getting the k's in as he builds up the required fitness. People love being outraged, so I suppose this is good fodder for them. Btw, I fail to see what Morris has done wrong. He's a journalist trying to get a story ahead of everyone else, or at least be at the pointy end of a story. If May is going to apologise to the playing group then there is a story, however minor I may think it is. Maybe someone can explain to me what Morris has actually done wrong in this instance ?

Apparently it's not a club rule per se, but obviously discretion is advised. Roos carried on like a pork chop saying footy is ''clearly not his no.1 priority'', but for me that's way over the top. Surely a player who's now moving very well according to an interview with Lever can have a few jars on a Sunday afternoon. The carry on over nothing is extraordinary these days.

I'm outraged.

Hearsay. You're taking his word as absolute. I've seen enough of this peanut on various videos to not assume he's telling the truth.

No-one wants us to put the cue in the rack. But I also don't care about playing finals in 2019. I'm not interested in making up the numbers. I almost hope we don't play finals. We have zero chance of a flag in 2019.

Did you not read the bit where Moon says, ''I too hope he gets another game this week'' ?

I don't quite understand this reverence for Keilty's game. Is it because he was a first gamer ? Because his Brother posts here ? I'm scratching my head. He had 6 disposals, 2 marks, 3 hitouts and no goals. If Weideman puts up those numbers he's pilloried left, right and centre. Btw, I'm not knocking Keilty and I'm kind of hoping he gets a second game, but for the life of me I don't get the comments surrounding his first performance. Weideman's first 5 games of the year were all far better than Keilty's game on the weekend.

I don't know about being ''disabled''. He's sharper than plenty of Demonland posters.

Exactly. I don't mind the idea of Keilty having another game, because, like Ethan, I like first gamers getting a second opportunity. Unless they had a mare, which he didn't. But anyone thinking that Keilty's game was so good they'll retain him and drop Oscar only to put Keilty down back when he's trained all year as a defender isn't thinking clearly. That said, Keilty may have to make way for Preuss. He was a late call up for Tim Smith after-all. We're in the business of winning games of footy and picking our best team will dictate selection. They may want Preuss in or decide to recall Weideman, in which case Keilty may have to make way.

"'I'm outraged''. ''No, I'm outraged''. ''I'm more outraged than you''. ''No-one could be more outraged than me''. ''Yes I can, I win at outrage''. ''I'm outraged that you think you're more outraged than me''.

It was a very quiet game, but first games are never easy. Whatever happens he's lived a dream 99.9% of the population never achieve.

That's not possible. It's unphysical.