Curry & Beer

quoted for stuie's acolyte

why have you made this post? I have already acknowledged that unlike stuie, your position is valid and adequately reasoned. I don't want him to have that chance. He is Essendon scum who has been caught cheating. This is the point we disagree on as I've already made clear.

it is not an indicator of what stuie said it was. That's what I was replying to. you didnt answer this 'ah so you agree with stuie's absurd position that a 4 year contract is proof we knew he would be rubbed out for a year and we didnt care ?' i assume you dont agree with that which means you are arguing with me about nothing Can you stop talking to me now, stuie doesn't doesn't need some follower missing the point

hmm funny, you've avoided answering the question again, how strange

ah so you agree with stuie's absurd position that a 4 year contract is proof we knew he would be rubbed out for a year and we didnt care

is that all youve got? weak personal attack and no argument even attempted. explain to me what you 'liked' about mandee's ridiculously poor reading of a conversation and how it backs up your melksham argument. this'll be good. in fact, don't do it.

= you're 'cool with cheating'. That's OK for you to have that position. You don't have to just be contrary for the sake of it, to the extent you are actually contradicting yourself. you didn't say those exact words, but everyone on this site understands that is OK to claim that that summarises your position. You don't have to quote someone exactly, it's called 'paraphrasing'. See how Wiseblood shares your general POV, but he was able to articulate his argument in a way that makes a conversation function properly, and doesn't make a thread full of ridiculous circular pedantry? and as a result, he doesn't have a bunch of posters wanting to pull their hair out?

answer the question it's very straightforward you just don't do that when don't have an answer though huh i cant believe I am doing this again

my god. wtf. First of all, I thought most people understand that you don't have to be an AFL footballer yourself in order to comment on AFL footy. Otherwise the whole site should be closed now. Secondly, can you read? Stuie is claiming that a 4-year contract is some sort of 'proof' that Roos and Co knew he was going to get rubbed out. That is obviously complete bullpoo. How does that match your comment? At what stage has anyone questioned Melksham as a player? Seriously you should re-read the posts and apologise, you've completely misfired. oh and of course stuie likes it. Another poster completely misses the point and he scores it as somebody supporting him. Weak and desperate and typical.

insane. if you are NOT OK with cheating, how is it that you are OK with Melksham being at the club? don't you see how those two two things are mutually exclusive?

i'm saying i want him gone because he's a cheat you're saying you want him to say how much room is there for misinterpretation again you need to make up your mind about your own opinion

you already said that exact thing to me and then ignored my obvious reponse

well obviously the point we'll never agree on is that cheating is not cool, even if it's by one of your own players (who has never gone into battle for the red and blue BTW) you and stuie are apparently cool with it, each to his own

lol pick a side mate you're arguing with yourself did they get blindsided here or did they know this was going to happen you can only select one of those options, not flip back and forth depending on if you are looking stupid or not

it's not an indicator of a goddam thing

ARE YOU SERIOUS? I quoted that bit and addressed it specifically in the post before yours. You've responded again and done a stuie, not even acknowledging there is a difference between being injured and being rubbed out for cheating. Come on mate you're better than him

See, this is a perfect example straight off the bat - I'm being serious here, you have a problem. Show me where I implied in any way whatsoever that I SAW IT COMING. You just MADE THAT UP. That's what you do. I absolutely did NOT see this coming, but I am not the highly paid professional with inside knowledge that makes these decisions. Those people have failed here. now, that's 2 from 2. Again, examine the conversation carefully. We are not TALKING ABOUT whether any player missing a year is a cause to delist them. OBVIOUSLY we are not talking about that, that would be crazy. So WHY are you pretending that is what is in discussion. The KEY WORD you continue to miss/ignore is CHEATING. I made this abundantly clear in the last post but again you just discuss it as if that part wasn't mentioned. It's as if chunks of your screen are filled with dead pixels so you literally cannot see some of the text. so, I just want to clarify - you're sticking to your guns. Paul Roos knew Melksham would miss the 2016 season but he wanted him anyway. No dodging, no talking about something completely different, Yes or no to that statement? ps it IS possible to construct a sentence without using sarcasm, you should aim to make one in your next post - but I won't be responding, arguing with an insane person makes my head hurt

oh boy. every argument is the exact same with you. you just say things that aren't connected to what the other person has said. i just don't know if it's a deliberate ploy or if you are literally insane. im not even going to address the difference between melksham and those other players. I mean, are you paying attention at all? I am talking about CHEATING. Why would you bring those other players into the mix who have been INJURED. Don't you see that makes no sense, and is not how people argue things? bolded bit...i mean really.. have you never experienced a person making a statement after the fact to save face.. pretty bloody basic human behaviour right there.. i know you are not quite that stupid so you are obviously just pretending to take his word for it, as pretending allows you to keep arguing do not embarass yourself trying to pretend they saw a 1yr ban coming, I don't know how it could be any more obvious that they didnt

Fair call, I can't make that assumption. BUT you and I know both know that your average footy fan would forgive a mass murderer if he happens to be wearing their colours - it's basic partisanship.. or blatant hypocrisy depending on your outlook. I was prepared to overlook it originally, but now that's officially in the book that he's guilty I am not happy with his name on our list.

You just wouldn't say this if he was on any other club's list which demonstrates that bias is affecting your judgement. What's right is right.

ah no, baffling comprehension, how is that having it and eating it...it's neither having nor eating it. it was a horrible trade because we clearly didn't do our homework going after a tainted player and it's backfired hard. There was 16 other clubs to trade with. i want to delist him because I don't want a convicted cheat on the list, simple as that. I don't care if he wins the BnF in 2017, it isn't worth tarnishing our club with a dirty Essendon brush. How could we have been so bloody stupid. Cut our losses, it won't be the first time we've completely torched a second round pick with our ineptitude.

Yeah I tend to be anti-cheat. You can go ahead and cram it with your petty insult you peasant

I'm with you. I'd love to chalk this one up to an idiotic trade decision and wash our hands of it completely

I don't follow your logic in that because 2 clubs have it worse there is no need to be aggreived I would rather be one of the 13 clubs not involved at all

that doesn't go anywhere near backing up your contention and you know it