Grr-owl

Painful to look at....

Voldemort?

Gus in boots.

Rucked, roved... Maxtion, Traction, Clacktion and Action.... imagine...........

"This means teams cannot “hand over” who is standing on the mark from one player to another. Often the man on the mark peels off to defend a player running past the player with the ball, and is replaced on the mark by a teammate. This can no longer happen. It also means a tall player such as Collingwood’s Mason Cox cannot replace a teammate on the mark when their opponent is taking a set shot at goal." So, which player is chosen to stand on the mark? The closest? That's going to cause issues. Or is it their designated opponent in terms of starting position? Other issues.

This is a good question. Any answers?

The cop station?

Coupl'a corrections from a strine pedant. "Berfday" is speld "berfd-e-e." And you can't say, "You've brought disgrace to this family," it's "You've brung disgrace to this family."

Mr bother play U19's and 2's for the D's. At Victoria Park they would station people around the boundary to abuse the opposition.

Eh.... I'm not too bothered. Imagine if we hadn't recruited Brown and it was Weid who was injured: We'd be going into another season with a dodgy forward line that'd just got dodgier. Now it ups the ante on the others to shine so they keep their place once the Brownster is back and fighting fit and pluggin' 'em....

I hear Dave Sorenson's daughter is a chip off the old block... Something' to watch out for!

Boyz, use a VPN to locate your net address outside Aus, then take an international membership at MFC which gives you access to the WatchAFL app at a minor discount and you get every game, plus Fox Footy shows, no ads during play and all the sauce.... Not exactly right, but not exactly wrong either....

Any chance the report contains evidence? Not saying it does; not saying doesn't; I haven't read it yet. But if the conclusions are validly drawn from credible evidence, they're probably legitimate. Legitimate enough. Regardless of political point of view, certainly of identity, then it should be taken seriously, and death with.

Even if the author is biased, the racism could still exist. The report should be judged by the evidence, not the identity of the author. If the conclusions are credibly drawn from the evidence, the report is right. If the conclusions are erroneously drawn from the evidence, it is bollocks.

Yeah, well said. The author's identity may bias the outcome; then again it may not. In any case, what matters is the evidence. Take identity out of it, all previous tweets and tv appearances, everything, and answer the question: What conclusions can be drawn from the evidence?

I suggest we, as in Demonlanders, do something unusual as a group these days: Not fling insults. Instead, why not have a reasonable discussion re the evidence? I'm going to read the report first, and then comment. And while I'm reading, I'm going to analyze myself for biases either for or against the author, the club (especially the club) and the personalities within it, and people in general. Given some time and little compassion I reckon I should be able to come to a reasonable conclusion about the thing, based on the evidence...

Champ. Captain next season...?

At the same age, I was comparable to Cyril, too. I was the same age.

I saw an article on BBC News in which women who'd met their partners online were asked what had prompted them to go on a second date. The most popular answer was, "He DIDN'T send me a picture of his d*ck." Boys, wake up....

Cheesy, D., this is probably the most sensible post I have ever read.

.

Engage with the argument. You said, "Ask any black person..." Well, those people are black. What, not Black enough for you? Not REALLY black??? I can't be sure, obviously, as I don't know you, but there's some evidence that you have an idea in your head of what it means to be black; possibly the same as BLM define it. Okay, fair enough; a lot of people share that definition. But I don't. It's a definition that ascribes meaning (identity) to skin color, and is therefore ignorant. Skin color doesn't indicate anything about a person except their skin color. It certainly doesn't indicate anything about political allegiance or philosophical outlook or views on abortion or religion or, well, anything. I have directed you to interesting people who have got over the whole binary thinking thing, dividing people into groups based on race or gender or sexual preference etc, but you haven't caught on. This is a shame as society could do with some healing, some uniting, and we could do a little of that here on Demonland it'd be a good thing.

Yeah, man, you're right. And every day I hate my own wife and kids for not being White, and all my students for the last twenty years and almost everyone I'm surrounded by on a daily basis, the guys I play sport with and everyone in my neighbourhood, most of my colleagues, all because they aren't White. Yeah, man, you got me pinned. Your thinking is very limited, Deiter.

Again, as I have tried to make my position clear before, the crime of one person does not cancel out the crime of another. It's the crime that matters, not the identity of the criminal. In this case, Trump is a criminal and so is Uday. From my point of view, it isn't a competition between one side and another to see which is the worst. Once again, you demonstrate the binary thinking that you otherwise rail against. So, to be clear: I absolutely agree with you that the US has done and does deplorable things. It is, indeed, a farcical nation. But that in no way means that the deplorable actions of other countries are in some way mitigated. No comment re Mahdi Obeidi's book? On re-reading my comment, I can see I wasn't quite clear: Dr Mahdi Obeidi was the guy who ran the Iraqi nuclear weapons program. He buried the critical equipment and info under a tree in his back yard. If he and the stuff under his tree had been handed to the inspectors, the situation may have been avoided. Don't take my word for it, read the book. Any black person? No problem. Here are some you might like to listen to: Thomas Chatterton Williams Coleman Hughes Ayaan Hirsi Ali Glenn Loury John McWhorter. John and Glenn appear together regularly on the Glenn Show, Glenn's podcast. Here's an example: And then, if you want to make a leap that very few are yet to make but which must eventually be made if we are to have a post-racial society, ask yourself why you and so many others think race is important. Another insult? Why not make an argument? Calling people names in place of an argument went out after primary school... There's a good reason I don't use my name, and you should be able to guess what that is, given my sensitivities to totalitarianism.

You don't post in good faith, D. Your post was insulting. If you were joking, it would have been a good idea to clarify that with an emoji. I wrote that the war was an ill-conceived fiasco. As for Uday, I can't see how it is possible for anyone to miss the point. You are at least somewhat mistaken about the lies and the propaganda. Try reading this: https://www.amazon.com/Bomb-My-Garden-Secrets-Mastermind/dp/0471741272 As the story unfolds, the author deals with why the US and allies remained convinced that WMD were still in development. It was Saddam's responsibility. For Dr Mahdi and his family, it was a matter of life and death. I remain confident that the form of government that provides the best hope for humanity is liberal democracy. You're not convinced of that. That's okay with me. Otherwise, I'm pretty much done here, Deiter.