Nasher

I don't doubt that your source truly believes this, but it just doesn't sound likely to me. Compared to footy, the money in photography is a pittance. And the good thing about having a passion for photography is that's an any time, any place thing - there's room in your life for a career *and* a photography addiction. He has rocks in his head if he throws away his footy career for the camera. Even if he does want to make a career out of it, he would surely prefer to earn several hundred thousand a year for a few more years to get himself further ahead financially first.

Thomas straddles the line between forthright and provocation I think. I like that he has strong opinions and isn't afraid about being blunt about it, but sometimes I'm sure he voices them in a manner designed purely to get a reaction.

I'm looking forward to seeing what Max King can do. I know he's raw and the answer is probably not much at this stage, so my expectations are low, but I still find excitement in the opportunities given to second and third string players who would otherwise be completely invisible to me. It is disappointing that neither Dawes nor Hogan could get up, but Roos seemed pretty firm on them being available for the second round. It's hard to see any potential forward line we have available kicking a winning score unless Pedersen plays out of his skin, but honestly, I'm just so excited that footy is back that I don't really care about minor details like that. More than anything I want to see if our midfield can show any signs of being functional this early.

Then you have to stop and question why.

Interesting parallel between Frawley and Roos himself at Fitzroy that I hadn't thought of before this article. If nothing else it's comforting to know that Roos will understand the delicacy of the situation through his own bitter experience. Having worked at a struggling company before, I too can relate to the "we've heard all this before" in response to promises of a brighter future and the lure of working somewhere you know is solid.

Let's not go *too* over the top...

It was Bail. Paul Wheatley remonstrated and spent the rest of the game bumping and pushing him whenever he came near.

After reading your (actual) report I think we're richer for having both. You may lack tasman's youthful enthusiasm and humour, but your report ranked right up there in informativeness (is that a word?). Thanks mate.

This thread has got me pumped - great reports, thanks. Love this time of year - last season is just a bitter memory and I'm fully recharged with optimism again.

Grimes and Jones co-captains is my bet. Grones?

Well thank goodness for that, because if our net asset position was not in the black we'd be insolvent.While the accountant is there, perhaps she could explain why being in debt isn't always a bad thing and in fact, is sometimes a necessity in business. Anyone with a mortgage is in debt - heaven knows I'm up to my eyeballs in it - it's only a problem if you can't service it or it's hindering your cash flow too much. I wouldn't be tossing myself off the bridge over the MFC debt yet until I see a bit of context about who it is owed to and what it was spent on.

Someone in one of the training said he was told by a player that Clark's foot is fine and that he'd been having hamstring issues as a consequence of his lack of conditioning. Seems plausible to me; hope that's all it is.

Is that a serious question? We've gone from a coach who will go down as one of the worst of all time, to a proven coach renowned for getting through to players. It's not much of a stretch to expect and predict change.

Yes. I consider those to be vague notions which pander to outdated views on the role of the man and the woman in the household. What are you telling me that I am unable to do that my wife can? I read my kids their bed time stories, I kiss and cuddle them good night, I hug them when they're hurt or sad, I attend them when they scream in the middle of the night, I play games with them, and so on. My wife is better at disciplining than I am. I'd argue that I do just as much of the 'nurturing' as my wife does and I doubt you'd get much disagreement from her. I don't see it as gender specific, I see it as individual specific. The world you're describing is not the one I live in. Predominantly the woman's bond is stronger with her children a) because of the hormones passed from mother to baby during birth and breast feeding during the first year or so of life, and b) because in 'traditional' families, she is simply the one home more often. Since we're talking strictly about adoption here, neither of these points have any relevance. In adopted families the child family is just as likely to bond with either parent because of the lack of natural connection. Remember, we're talking about gay adoption here. The alternative being intra-sex adoption. The girl with the step father has the same problem (of unrelated male pheromones) whether she's been adopted by two men, or a man and a woman. You now seem to be arguing against adoption altogether. There's also plenty of research that indicate that children adopted by gay couples are in no way disadvantaged in comparison to same sex couples, e.g. http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/children-in-gay-adoptions-at-no-disadvantage-8518004.html. What do you think about children being raised by single parents? Do you think these children will suffer from the same "sub-optimal" emotional balance than those raised by a man and a woman? Is that your experience with the people you know who have been raised by a single parent? It's not mine. No doubt I have observed differences that could be attributed to the lack of second parent, but to say these people have ultimately been worse off for only having the influence of one of the sexes is drawing a long bow. I can't see how this differs to being raised by two same sex parents. That said, I think if you take any two people (of any gender), you're always going to expose the child to a wider range human strengths and weaknesses. Two people of the right nature is probably better than one, but I think it's a stretch of logic to say those people must be male and female. Personally traits are random and distinct to the individual - so long as both people have the right nature, who cares what gender they are? I don't disagree that further research needs to be done, but I do disagree with your conclusion that gay adoption is "sub-optimal". Though I also note that you've drawn a conclusion ("sub-optimal") despite also saying you don't believe there's enough research. How annoying is it that the filter includes the word "gay"? Seems my admin status allows me to say it though.

This is the first post where you've offered anything of substance actually worth discussing. I'll give you a considered reply later when I have more than a fleeting minute - no doubt you're itching to hear it.

Point taken. Looking at list, other than the names bolded, there's considerable doubt over the future of the rest. Nonetheless they still fall in to the "easy signings" category - we know we want to keep them, they want to stay, both parties get the job done quickly so the club can move on to the contracts that require significant argy-bargy.

I asked you in my last post to say specifically what it is that children of same sex couples would miss out on that they would receive from a man and woman couple, and you didn't answer (because you can't). You resorted to vague notions of "how men and women are different" and the usual "I can't believe this even needs explaining" garbage you like to toss about. That seemed to be the best answer you can give, I don't see what else there is to discuss. I was happy just to drop it.

I took the opposite away - get the easy little ones out of the way so they're not getting in the way when trying to negotiate the big contracts (Frawley et al).

Additional two years each. Thought they'd probably wait and see a bit more with Jones, but no complaints here. http://mfcde.es/KAgFqc Well done lads.

I'm saying that all women and all men are different and how you can make a blanket statement about which couple is "better", I don't know. What, specifically, does a woman and man couple offer, that, say, a woman and woman couple does not offer?

The nurturing and emotional intelligence varies widely between all people. You couldn't assume that the inter-sex couple is going to have a better "balance" than the same-sex couple. You also seem to be making the assumption that the alternative to a loving same sex couple adopting a child is a loving inter-sex couple adopting the child. That's not true, in Australia, the alternative is bouncing from foster home to foster home and waiting a very long time before finding stability and permanency, if at all. The fact is that there are far more children available for adoption than there are homes; we need all the loving homes we can get. If you think that's a better option than same-sex couple adopting, then you're a blatant homophobe trying to hide it in a facade of "won't somebody please think of the children?" Even if I accepted stance that the inter-sex is somehow 'better' than the same-sex couple (which, to be clear, I completely reject), that's got little to do with the real issue.

Your unjustified one liner didn't deserve anything other type of response other than a glib one. Explain your position on how a child adopted by a same sex couple is disadvantaged and I might have something to respond to.

Agreed; it is backward and old-fashioned. The only word you forgot is "nonsensical".

How's that?

Wade is Jeremy Howe's cousin.