Rogue

Hah.

Hi, I'm assuming you have a general admission membership - it gets you entry into the ground for the game and that's it. If that's the case, you can rock up and sit in the general admission areas for free. Alternatively, you can upgrade to a reserved seat by paying part of the general public cost (basically the general public cost - the membership discount). This will get you a 'better' seat - and also give you a reserved seat, so you won't have to worry about finding a seat when you get there. You will be able to purchase this at the box office on the day, subject to availability. The Ticketek website will have a map of the 'G so check that out for an idea of the ground. When you follow the link to upgrade you'll be able to choose from various sections (ie. Level M, N, Q, or a particular stand) and when you click 'find tickets' it will offer you the 'best available' in the chosen section (or the entire ground, if you haven't chosen a particular part). Look at the map to figure out exactly where they are. PS. Enjoy the game.

How were their stories not entwined?

The whole backlip on a backflip is somewhat amusing, particularly when paired with the fact that the reports on her 'admission' that she lied about having sex with Nixon have been accompanied by suggestions that she's paid six months rent up-front on a house in St Kilda and is intending to buy it. (Where's the money come from?) Also reported is the fact that, with this 'admission', Nixon may sue the AFLPA. Hrm, I wonder what the reporters are doing there... Fair enough. I didn't see the segment so I can't comment on it.

I don't know if you need your tin foil hat on for this one...it's a story that gets attention and therefore TFS wanted him on.

Okay, but it's pretty clear why others might want a change, isn't it? You'd even want a change if you thought Bartram was fit. Anyhow, go Dees.

Why wouldn't you want change if you think that someone you rate in your best 22 is fit enough to return from injury? In: Bartram Out: Evans (Please)

Predictions for the ins/outs, which will be announced on Saturday night? I'd definitely keep Gawn. That leaves three of these six: Jones, Bartram, Petterd, Jetta, Bate and Evans.

I agree. I'd be telling the young guys to focus on controlling what they can control, and assuring them that if they look after those things they'll have a good chance of staying in the side. Everyone has dirty days, but - as you suggest - there's no excuse for not chasing, tackling, etc.

I'm pretty keen to see what Howe can do. With pressure from guys like Bate, Dunn and Petterd he'll probably need to keep playing well to stay in the team. If he can hold his spot for a while it'll be a good effort.

Good player now, great player later.

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/7415/newsid/115724/default.aspx I can't wait for this guy to become a regular AFL player.

Poor guy.

What about bringing in players you gain in a trade?

I think the question has been answered as best as we'll see it. To discuss Scully, or the alleged HoA in relation to Scully, use the existing discussion:

As an aside, a guy went to jail recently for throwing a golf club that ended up cracking the skull of someone he was playing with.

I reckon they're reading too much into it. It is indeed.

Thanks for letting me know. I'll keep it in mind when I put in my prediction.

I think it's too early to be making a call on Nicholson and Strauss. However, I would also like to see what Tapscott could do further up the ground.

I didn't misquote you. In case you needed reminding, here's the post again: Singular bag, no 'generally' caveat, no 'or class' caveat. EDIT: You did refer to bags, multiple, in your next post, although in that same post you mentioned Mark le Cras, Kennedy and Riewoldt - all who have only kicked eight or more once. Furthermore, in later posts you reverted to referring to the ability to kick 'a bag' and 'an 8-goal bag'. (Surely you could have just looked at your own posts before accusing me of mis-quoting you).

Just when I think it's over... You're like a monster from a bad horror movie ...and my argument is still that you don't need Jurrah-like 'X Factor' to kick bags. That said, you've created a tautology in which 'X Factor' covers almost every player who could kick eight goals on a regular basis, so it's now a moot point. Post #79 (emphasis added): There was no caveat in this post. However - as I said in the post that you just quoted (!) - I entered the debate on the assumption that you meant that it was generally necessary, so it's a moot point anyway.

Okay. Like I think I said earlier, this makes 'X Factor' cover almost every player who will kick eight so it becomes a bit of a circular contention.

That wasn't the contention I replied to. First, you said a bag, not multiple bags. Second, you said it was necessary* to have X Factor, not that it made you more likely. *You later said 'generally', which I think is fair enough. It didn't change my view that you had it wrong, though. Once I looked at the stats and chucked up about six names of players who have kicked eight and don't have Jurrah-style 'X Factor' you added the qualifier. Since my whole point was that Jurrah-style 'X Factor' is not required, changing your contention to 'X Factor or class' is certainly modifying the contention. You're now stating the obvious and I never would have disagreed if that was your original contention.

Look at the timestamp. The post in which I referred to Schulz was at virtually the same time as you made a post adding the 'class' qualifier. Even if you didn't see the timestamp, you might have noticed that I quoted posts that were made earlier in the thread. It's pretty clear that my next post was in response to your 'class' qualifier, given that it quoted that post. The goal posts keep moving. I feel like Cameron Mooney lining up for goal. As a reminder, here's the assertion that I disagreed with: Now that you've modified your contention I don't disagree with it, as I made clear here:

Good idea.