rpfc

What are you talking about? I have been pretty consistent. Nathan has written a nice piece. He can be criticised as he has his own website. A poster shouldn't have to apologise for saying it is self serving - it literally is. Take my advice and let it go. You won't win.

There is nothing wrong with that post C&B. Let it go.

Them there is fighting words... Have at it!

Utterly revolting stuff. I'll call it football. I'll call it whatever Craig Foster's orange face wants me to call it... But having 14 sleazy, corrupted, soulless, wastes of human skin deciding where they play one of the greatest celebrations of humanity is abhorrent and sickening and throws me back into AFL Football like a child back to their mother. We all lost something more precious than 64 games of football on Australian soil.

I'm with DA. I was having a go at people who were having a go at RK who think he shouldn't have had a go at Nathan Jones. He's got a freakin website for christs sake... He can be criticised. What else do we do in this forum other than critique matters related to the Demons?

Not convincing me. RK mentioned he liked the piece before saying the site was a bit self-involved. It is a good piece, and it is self involved. Hardly nasty thoughts... It's that time of year again...

Ha. What? Oh you're serious... Ha.

Yes, we are all passionate WJ. But the blood coursing through our veins doesn't entitle us to crash through people we disagree with. I see your point though. DC - There's no doubting it...

The old Ology meme of Land being for the children may have been right years ago but the place has attracted some very intelligent older posters - and the kids have grown up. There really is some good discussion on here and the 'it must be school holidays' moments are few and far between too. Frankly, I hope Ology sticks around so Land isn't inundated with some of the egos. Plenty of egos here, already...

Now there we go. No confusion there. I say go for it! Nice work, DA.

You're welcome, folks. Whenever in doubt - listen to rpfc... Nah, the jumpers look good. Buying one!

Cam mentioned the Invincible Whites... Throw some love this way, peeps...

So it isn't as big as the Olympics and we shouldn't even have felt entitled to win the Olympics in 96 but then we won it 4 years later. Ok.

I wasn't taking credit for it. I was accusing you of trying to copy me in an attempt to 'Single, White, Female' me. And confuse and steal my legion of followers...

A few had some red V with blue trim styles. If we can get navy shorts and red socks that would be great. But white socks might the goer.

The jumper needs to be tucked in. That is the whole jumper you're seeing.

Cam Schwab is going off that advice. We need a third jumper if we have predominantly red and predominantly blue jumpers. Post 378 is repost of a Cam Schwab post.

A red jumper still clashes with some clubs, which requires us to have three jumpers. In 2009 year we wore our traditional jumper, a red jumper and a white jumper. In 2010, we had the traditional strip, and the white jumper. Red is therefore not an option. As far as I’m concerned, a predominately red jumper is still not a Melbourne jumper. That isn't rpfc talking either. Although rpfc can be just as elegant and pithy.

Not to rain on anyone's parade - but that's funny. Well done, CB.

I'll judge them for you guys if you want me to. Or I can be on a high council of elders?

I might look silly today but go for it!

As I said - I think you are being a little inconsistent. But the importance of numbers shouldn't be denied - for players there is significance in certain numbers, for supporters there is significance in certain numbers. I appluad us making Watts, Scully, and Trengove apart of our future and our history by giving them a connection to Smith, Barassi, and Neitz/Dixon. You may say to players that you should be stuck with the number you are given but if the club picks and chooses numbers for some then isn't that notion dead in the water? If a player wants a particular number then that is fine aswell. I think LJ wanted 15 from memory and we wanted to give him 24 for obvious reasons. Bail wanted 44. Blease wants a lower number. Bennell is going to get 7. I really don't see an issue with it.

Of course it works both ways. But you can't say 'numbers aren't important' and 'no-one should change' in the same sentence. You are giving them importance by players being held to them.

You do understand there is no resolution in that time? I mean it's 'yay, I'm making a team' and then the next feeling is 'what the hell was the point of doing that so early?!' I'll check out that ultimate footy thing - i'll be in for a DLand one (we might have to have a couple).

But if every player gets a high number when they arrive then who will populate the lower numbers? If those kids must stick with 51 for their career does that not mean that we will be giving lower and lower numbers to recruits in about a decades time? And will you then abhor the players for seeking higher numbers and that they should keep their lower numbers because they are the ones they are given. I guess what I am trying to say is that this is a silly argument and that if players want to lobby for numbers they can do that. A number does not a player make. Why make a big deal out of it?