daisycutter

of course all draftees come with a risk. The draft is like tattslotto but just saying that with respect to jackson does not in itself justify picking him at #3 I won't be upset if we do nominate jackson at #3. but in my personal opinion he's not best-available at that point and more a speculative pick of needs. I agree he has what potentially looks like good upside (over time) but picking him still looks high risk. I'd be going for green. best-available, lower risk, less development time Hey it's just an opinion and if we do take jackson i won't be fussed and will assume the club knows better

i agree, but still need clarification we certainly didn't "trade away a selection with another club for a later selection" because we traded for a player which is different and this situation doesn't seem to be the loophole that the afl is trying to stop just my interpretation

a bit more info would be helpful

this interpretation is doubtful and needs afl clarification. i think the parking rule is where the shift out then back occurs all during the draft. not sure it applies across trade and draft periods.

saw that..........later

https://www.linkedin.com/in/david-regan-8701b0111?originalSubdomain=au ??? maybe

what day is it?

i'll be happy with either green, young or jackson at #3 fwiw (probably not much) i'd rank them in order: green > young > jackson if we bid green i have no idea what gws would do. I find it hard to believe we have an agreement with gws

spot on. need a (mainstream) media blackout, at least no name mentioned (inc web alias names) and no pics or interviews. If anything reported just that some idiot (whatever) was abusive and cowardly etc. nothing better with these people than to ignore them and give them no oxygen. sadly, the mainstream media just love this stuff and saturation play it for all they can

sort of like an east-west link agreement, red?

looking forward to the International Changing Rules games.....not

6) it was mabo, the constitution and ......the vibe

od will be there asking all the tough questions and not backing down

it's an improvement on "so,"

take some spare batteries and videotape it all on your phone, od

your consult invoice is in the mail as we speak

apart from the jackson go home factor

we are talking here only of the horrific excesses of hitler and his nsdp, and there is no way that these mirrored civilised society (germany included) in the 1930s and 1940s. There wasn't so many convictions at nuremburg for crimes against humanity for nothing. Once hitler seized power (unelected) germany became a totalitarian state where people ceased to have the luxury of freedom of speech and state secrecy was paramount. certainly hitler in part mirrored some of germany's aspirations and prejudices but much of what he did or was responsible for, he did not, and it is that for what he must be ultimately judged on. If you had said he mirrored german society at the time in some aspects i might have let it go but your statement was too broad brush, because he obviously grossly exceeded what was acceptable at that time in german society.

what you actually said was "not expect others to have to limit their freedoms to allow for prejudice." oh well, so long as everybody barracks for the demons it might work out

a world without prejudice........i'd like to see that......golden

you seriously think hitler mirrored society's view at that time? you seriously think having a role in a famine mirrored society's view? my last line just indicated i didn't want to get further off topic. .. as i said i was devils advocate in relation to the excuse afforded to trudeau for the reference to society's view at the time, pointing out the inconsistency when it comes to judging history on today's moral attitudes. anyway we are drifting a bit far off topic

that's true in smith's case

yeah rjay pm'd me. was worse than i thought, quite disgusting and sick i hope he's outed, banned and shamed

devil's advocate here. so why is it ok now for those of the neo political correct to call for the removal of statues (etc) for historical figures whose behaviour mirrored society's views at that time? I don't really need an answer