daisycutter

hopefully what he got was just short of concussion and good sense was to take no further risks

yes bb, and you will notice no doubt that hdc is right next to limpinwood, which just goes to show what happens with excessive hopping (though i haven't noticed it being a problem in burwood and surrounds - touch wood - npi)

yes uncle bitters, i will fight my way past the hipsters of the inner suburbs and the machetes of the apex gang and make it to the 'g' in time for the first ball-up

yes, it seems earl is keen to relive his adolescent wanderlust and regain some of his fading youth. will it go ahead? as they say in the land of the pharaohs "never say nefer" which gets us back to this afternoon. dees by 15. you know it makes sense.

fyi, they are also talking of banning kenya too due to some new gov legislation being passed (or about to be?) which doesn't satisfy wada

i don't think there are many here who advocate additionally banning the whole club for season 2016 personally i think essendon are well punished and have paid a big price (in many different ways), as has the whole competition. the sad thing is it need not to have dragged on this long and at such a cost. if the club (and its stakeholders) hadn't been so obstinate and buckled in earlier it would all have been well and truly behind us, as was the case in the nrl. sadly too many at essendon (or connected to) still won't let go so it will continue to fester for some time, which really helps no-one move forward

could have sworn the ferals were going to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory......oh well

eurovision or brian taylor.....hmmmm.....think i'll kick the cat instead

thought eurovision might be attractive to hipsters. now i know.

if bt talks about left to right and right to left one more time i'm going to spew

don't call him clayton allover for nothing

it's not quite that bad, bit of rivalry is natural, but not many would travel the 200km (2.5 hrs) each way

gws having it easy after we softened up suns last week - lol

bound to, as they have all of hobart to themselves with dorks in launceston. Hobart about 3 times the size. hobartians don't like to drive to launceston for a footy game

fair bit of leather poisoning there

hawks with 27 to 12 i50's and down by 2 pts - wtf

so who does that leave as the emergency for sunday?

to be honest i was surprised when he made AA that year (but pleased anyway)

sounds like a wind game?

and to be clear, it's not so much the player who determines the tactics but the player's manager

jfyi http://archive.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/ Recently, a few political scientists have begun to discover a human tendency deeply discouraging to anyone with faith in the power of information. It’s this: Facts don’t necessarily have the power to change our minds. In fact, quite the opposite. In a series of studies in 2005 and 2006, researchers at the University of Michigan found that when misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in news stories, they rarely changed their minds. In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs. Facts, they found, were not curing misinformation. Like an underpowered antibiotic, facts could actually make misinformation even stronger. This bodes ill for a democracy, because most voters — the people making decisions about how the country runs — aren’t blank slates. They already have beliefs, and a set of facts lodged in their minds. The problem is that sometimes the things they think they know are objectively, provably false. And in the presence of the correct information, such people react very, very differently than the merely uninformed. Instead of changing their minds to reflect the correct information, they can entrench themselves even deeper. “The general idea is that it’s absolutely threatening to admit you’re wrong,” says political scientist Brendan Nyhan, the lead researcher on the Michigan study. The phenomenon — known as “backfire” — is “a natural defense mechanism to avoid that cognitive dissonance.” And rather than facts driving beliefs, our beliefs can dictate the facts we chose to accept. They can cause us to twist facts so they fit better with our preconceived notions. Worst of all, they can lead us to uncritically accept bad information just because it reinforces our beliefs. This reinforcement makes us more confident we’re right, and even less likely to listen to any new information. And then we vote In 2005, amid the strident calls for better media fact-checking in the wake of the Iraq war, Michigan’s Nyhan and a colleague devised an experiment in which participants were given mock news stories, each of which contained a provably false, though nonetheless widespread, claim made by a political figure: that there were WMDs found in Iraq (there weren’t), that the Bush tax cuts increased government revenues (revenues actually fell), and that the Bush administration imposed a total ban on stem cell research (only certain federal funding was restricted). Nyhan inserted a clear, direct correction after each piece of misinformation, and then measured the study participants to see if the correction took. For the most part, it didn’t. The participants who self-identified as conservative believed the misinformation on WMD and taxes even more strongly after being given the correction. With those two issues, the more strongly the participant cared about the topic — a factor known as salience — the stronger the backfire. The effect was slightly different on self-identified liberals: When they read corrected stories about stem cells, the corrections didn’t backfire, but the readers did still ignore the inconvenient fact that the Bush administration’s restrictions weren’t total.

more like a smorgasbord

and all things bananas, don't forget red

another thing. barras was largely credited as being the player who redefined the role of the ruck rover. previously the "ruck rover" was more like a ruckman than a rover, Of course now we just talk of a ruckman and midfielders which includes the followers and the whole centre line, but then it was much different. he really did change the game leading into the "modern" era. if anyone lived through the 50's and 60's they would know just how huge his influence and fame was

like i said ash......nice to hear. but our scepticism tells us to think "we will see" you might also have noticed that we are very sceptical (for good reasons) of the afl who have a track record of "managing" situations to "protect" the game (i.e. $s speak loudest) so this is another reason to wait and see. we'll believe what you are saying if and when it can actually be seen to have happened. as for bock there has been a bit said on here, but we haven't seen bock lawyering up, obfuscating and mounting a massive media propaganda campaign in the essendon sense.