daisycutter

if they haven't got 22 fit (un sanctioned ) players they can't field a team,full-stop whether the afl would have to pay some compo would depend on the tv rights contract details. it might mean the afl get a lesser amount in their tv payments or maybe not, that's business

i suppose essendon could just claim they can't field a fully fit team and concede the game

when slave owners says "but i treat them just like family" it reminds me of footy boards who say "we have ful confidence in the coach"

have a look at the stand iws (in particular the letters)

was that a freudian slip, iws? fu2

could hardly call slaves, pets, rnb

so machsy found a car park and made it there after all

well keep trying.................we're counting on you

nothing snide about it bbo. i was just being protective of local culture. would hate to see it get blatantly commercialised by the like of the afl not just burwood old chap but you would probably need to travel to the nearest spot of civilisation in order to purchase said beverages

or niknat

warming up nicely....................again.......................ffs

might i suggest some XXXX Summer Cloudy Ginger Beer and some Bundaberg Sarsparilla, bbo

would D's be any better, hemmers?

well i always thought the holy trinity were related, but i'm not religous, dr john

think the afl make the rules up on the run, wyl

nah, we don't want to turn it into another romsey show day. moonie

another loaded question, nut? i'll let wrecker respond [you know, sometimes you can be too close to something to see the forest, and too incentivised to support a conclusion] [lol - just stirring the pot, nut]

don't think there would be a car park spot big enough for you, machsy

7. employ a charismatic, golden haired, relative of god as a coach

when i started on post #103 my opening statement was "just to be a little bit picky (or anal) " so, yes you could say i'm reaching you and i might know(or presume) that neurochemists (whatever they are) and labrats are not included but the great unwashed probably don't make that distinction "all scientists" sounds much more powerful and convincing than "all climate scientists" or "all published climate scientists" ..... marketing 101

the term 'all scientists" being unqualified and undefined is the main issue for me. it is hyperbolic and unnecessary btw i'm quite satisfied that the vast majority of scientists who work in the climate related sciences endorse AGW (for whatever reasons) (I still think the 97% bit includes a bit of window dressing, but this was a secondary issue)

not me pd.......grandson duties

getting closer but no cigar

yes, i do understand all that dr john and i hope that you understand that the constant quoting by people of "97% of all scientists" is misleading and a corruption of the original findings that's all i am pointing out. there is enough sloppy and exaggerated reporting on both sides

so, as i suspected it was not "97% of all scientists"......thanks from the 2 surveys of peer reviewed literature 32% and 64% endorsed AGW