Chook

It's exactly the same situation as 50 others today, and yet the umpire plucks that one out. I don't get it.

Jack Grimes' kicking has really come up a notch recently. Very nice to see.

Absolutely no idea why that was play-on for Toumpas there. Glad it came off for us though.

VandenBerg's kicking is Terlich-like.

I personally think Nathan Buckley would be a great fit for Carlton. I know he's got a few things on his plate at the moment, but I'm sure the AFL could just step in and assign him to the Carlton role without too much destabilisation or trouble to his existing club...

Forget Dustin Fletcher. This week should be all about the big pedobear.

At this moment I prefer a "sack" of Blues.

"Who are you and please stop talking to me."

That's where you're wrong. He'd be out there with all the other players that Demonland posters have suggested should go back to Casey this week. It'll be quite a gathering.

What about Alice Springs?

The klink is what happens when we're toasting our Grand Final victory.

Or what about mutants? A race of atomic monsters, atomic supermen with octagonal shaped bodies that suck blood...

TO the OP, yes. Apparently we can bottle heart.

I think the Daniel Cross signing was very important to help fill the cultural void left by the James McDonald debacle.

Toumpas has really showed a lot today. Lots to work on, but easily his best game in the Red and Blue.

...replay.

Tough luck for North Melbourne then.

I think it's pretty much a gven that any thread in which SIR WYL's posts take up about a quarter of the discussion is not worth reading. I'd much prefer Toumpas over Morton. Why? Because he's on our list. You support players who are on your list. That's your job as a Melbourne supporter.

Any lawyers want to chime in on the use of terms like "escaped conviction" for someone who was essentially found not guilty. The headline kind of makes it seem like the accused is guilty but was found "innocent" as a result of some kind of technicality or shady dealings. It kind of defeats the purpose of being found not guilty if you ask me. Maybe I'm wrong though.

Let me guess - you apply for benefits from people with government jobs.

Flanked 'em, more like.

Evidence is conflicted about which diets make which populations healthy. I don't want to open that can of worms. All I'm saying here is that there is very little evolutionary selective pressure on things that don't damage your health enough to affect your ability to rear offspring. For example, heart disease typically occurs after childbearing age. If someone dies of heart disease from a poor diet at the age of 55 surrounded by their ten kids they had at the age of between 20-40, the genes that made that person susceptible to heart disease in the first place haven't been selected against because that person's kids all have the same genes. I am a paleo backer; it's helped me lose 12% of my body weight in the past four months. I think the science behind it is sound.; but that's irrelevant to what you said. Civilization is built on the grain, because the grain is reliable, can be stored easily, and provides a vast amount of energy compared to what goes into making it. That doesn't mean it's the ideal food for an individual human's health.

Neolithic diets are great at keeping you alive long enough to have lots of babies. It's not great at making you the healthiest you can be.

Wealth doesn't always correlate with hard work. Good fortune plays a part, and by definition any attempt at equalisation must take from someone and give to someone else. Either you let anything unskilful enough or unlucky enough die, or you accept that there's more to being wealthy than protecting what you have from everyone else. If I have ten dollars and only need five, I'm okay with giving some of what I don't really need to someone else so that they can get back on their feet.

That statement embodies why the world is in such a bad state right now.