Chook

Yep. The fact is that we've fired our last two coaches for simply doing what they were told. Disgraceful!

Can it be called a clean-out when all you're doing is getting rid of the shite you shoveled on all by yourself?

In Soviet Russia...ruckman rests you. ................................man with ball lays tackle. ................................Morton chases Lade. ................................ball kicks foot. ................................coach sacks club.

Was going to read it, but stopped at "snog, marry, avoid." No thanks.

I was about a hair's breadth away from tipping St Kilda. I'm glad I didn't., so I'm 5 from 5 also.

Why do I even open threads like this?

From the very beginning I've said that Neeld should be given until next year, and I still stick by that.

I guess Satan put in a good (evil?) word with Death to change his tip. You know how he likes his Demons!

Forget the captaincy. This guy is future senior coach material.

Oh yeah, and Gary Ablett too.

I think this is a very good example of how quickly things can escalate into outright hostility when it comes to issues like this. All of your criticisms of me a probably valid to one extent or another, and I can assure you that the opposite is also true. I won't presume to tell you that I haven't insulted you, nor (I hope) would you. I could try to defend my arguments ad nauseum, but what good would that really do? Neither of us is going to change our opinion, because both of us think we are right. Furthermore, I think this is a perfect example of how our uptight attitudes towards problems like racism does more harm than good; it stops us from engaging in reasonable debate because we are unable to put aside our emotional baggage and just talk to each other as people. Here two strangers have taken up verbal arms against one another based on nothing but a difference of opinion. I'm happy to take on board some of your criticism of me if you're willing to do the same. Peace, man.

It's not my right to tell people not to be offended. Adam Goodes was offended, as is his right. That's good enough for me. But if you don't think conventions are generalisations, then I'm afraid it's you who cannot think. You're not as bright as you wish you were, and all your moral crusading and veiled insults are extraordinarily good proof to that effect. In fact, it's mind boggling that someone as rude as you could have the gall to take the moral high-ground on anything. You said the other day that everything you wrote came back "distorted beyond recognition," and yet you go on to imply that I would want to tell someone who has been racially abused to "get of their high horse." That is a level of hypocracy that is frankly quite hard to come across. Moreover, you accused me of missing the forest for the trees earlier, but I think it's you who has that problem. You're so intent on combating the media by which racism is transmitted (namely, language and symbols) that you fail to understand the psychological root of the problem; that people are encouraged to place others into groups in the first place. You call my view of things "Humpty Dumpty," yet you don't seem to have the foresight to understand that we will never be free of racism until we can see race as irrelevant. Note that I don't suggest that we should view racism as irrelevant; but simply that we should view it in the broader social context in which it operates. If a person insults another person, that should be dealt with. The nature of the insult should not play a role in the repurcussions for the individual. But clearly you disagree with this simplistic view, as your continual need for petty insults demonstrates. Once again, just how you are able to reconcile your views on racism with the petty manner in which you engage in conversation / debate is beyond me. P.S. I await your next witty insult as you attempt to rid me of my simplistic (or was that "naive" or "stupid"? It's hard to keep track of the insults) and misinformed ideas.

The bloke makes that many predictions that he'd have to get a few of them right.

How do we define "race" anyway? Surely there's a heavy ethnic component. And seriously, was he "excusing" Australian racism anyway? And as for making sweeping generalisations, how does this take your fancy? Words like 'monkey' used by a white person about a black person are used to degrade by suggesting that the latter is subhuman/primitive/'just down from the trees' and so on. You said that, and you can be pretty certain that's a sweeping generalisation. Get over yourself mate and get down off that high horse, because you don't know everything

Jetta and Magner out? Jesus H!

That would solve the problem of getting the club to agree, but in order to get the player to agree we'd need to increase the poor-performed club's salary cap. This should be the system they use instead of the flawed priority draft pick system.

lololol "acting in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the AFL" What's more prejudicial to the interest of the AFL than a comically uncompetitive club? And the idea that Melbourne should not be given draft picks because it didn't get its draft picks right is just insane logic. Perhaps stealing senior players from other clubs would be a more effective initiative, but good luck getting that one past the AFLPA.

PHASE 1: SACK NEELD PHASE 2: ??? PHASE 3: PROFIT

I believe in Mark Neeld.

The more we single out racism as something that requires extra punishment and attention, the more we proliferate the relevancy of race in general. Do we really want that?

What a shitty joke.

Finally! About GD time!

I know what barbarian used to mean and where it came from. In fact, it's a perfect example of the world moving on from a dark time in human history. If I'm called a barbarian, I don't get offended on a racial basis but rather on a more intellectual basis. A once racist word is no longer racist because its associated meaning has been altered. The same thing has happened to the words [censored], [censored], [censored], dyke, heathen, Yankee, redneck, etc? Even that most heinous of N-Words has been reappropriated by African Americans (and even some white people heavily entrenched in so-called "black culture"). Those are all once derogatory words that were robbed of their power by people who refused to pay respect to the "complex reality" of history. Live in the past if you like. I invite you to join the rest of us here in the future. EDIT: Looks like Demonland agrees with you. Apparently "g a y", and "q u e e r" are not in common enough usage for the Political Correctometer to let them through. Oh well.

He's only said that because the alternative would be to completely disenfranchise his players. Can you imagine the outrage that would ensue if Neeld said "This is not my team. I didn't pick them, and there's no way that most of them will be able to take this club forward." He'd lose his job before the sentence left his lips.

It seems to me that you're part of the problem. Your argument is that since people have historically cared about skin colour, we need to continue caring about it in perpetuity. Why must that be the case? My criticism of George Bush was supposed to denote all the things you mentioned, but because I'm white and he's white I'm somehow excused? Why? How does that make sense, unless your only argument is from historical guilt? I'm perfectly aware of the history of racism, but just because I've decided it might be a good idea to leave it in the stone age where it belongs, you want to label me naive and stupid? Talk about offensive!