P-man

Not that it really matters, but the MFC has gotten plenty of draft coverage in other media outlets, including and arguably most importantly on the AFL website.

Perhaps the author gained inspiration from the 100+ other articles that have been written about "Melbourne's drafting demons/woes/horrors/nightmare".

Just had a look. Oliver responds to user comments himself, mainly about his appearance. Clearly doesn't take himself too seriously. A good quality to have.

Great stuff tas. Good luck with the nomination. Well deserved. Great to hear JKH is attacking the pre-season with gusto. Vanders is a serious unit. What he could produce with a bigger tank is exciting indeed. Track's legs are ridiculous, almost too big, but what the hell would I know. All the boys look in very good nick. Even Roosy is looking a lot more svelte.

I don't think he was suggesting it is or should be the norm, merely that plenty of people, many in this thread, will have stupidly done what Curnow has done at some point. Granted the refusal of a test adds another layer but people make mistakes and can cement those mistakes when they panic. There are plenty of 18 year olds making mistakes as we speak. That's alot of "[censored] morons" walking around, as hh put it. Jeffy Garlett is no cleanskin. I don't recall many regrets at present about him being a Demon. It's up to the club to decide how isolated this incident is. I wouldn't be burning him at the stake until it had been looked at thoroughly.

They both arrived at the same figure I believe so you can take your pick. That 97% figure I believe has been consistently found across the relevant studies conducted. Before you provide the "gotcha", I am aware of Monckton's criticism of Cook's survey of the 12,000 abstracts. His own criticism is what should have been peer reviewed. He focuses exclusively on the papers that quantified human-caused global warming, and takes these as a percentage of all 12,000 abstracts captured in the literature search. Approximately two-thirds of abstracts did not take a position on the causes of global warming, for various reasons (e.g. the causes were simply not relevant to or a key component of their specific research paper). In order to estimate the consensus, it's necessary to focus on the abstracts that actually stated a position on human-caused global warming. When performing this calculation, the consensus position that humans are the main cause of global warming is endorsed in 87% of abstracts and 96% of full papers. I believe it is fundamentally important to respect the scientific bodies in this country. The CSIRO's latest Climate Report concluded that while further research is needed to quantify confidence levels, there is ample, well-supported evidence to provide a basis for action through mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions and for adaptation to reduce our vulnerability to climate change impacts. Claims of hoaxes and conspiracies, to me, are just white noise. It feels bizarre to be debating this in 2015 so I'm gonna bow out. Cheers.

Or films about hobbits.

It's a matter of time until a Melbourne fan somewhere decides to get a tattoo of this man's face. It might be me. Well, maybe just his initials with a love heart around them. I don't want people to think I'm crazy.

Look it up yourself.

Congrats on showing restraint up until now. To save time in future, you may as well just post the link you're grabbing this stuff from, or at least acknowledge it: http://www.iloveco2.com/2009/01/top-15-climate-myths.html My favourite two quotes would have to be either the gob smacking irony of this statement: "It is better to trust scientists than politicians. Do not let fear ruin your day." Or this: "Foreign countries are lying to us (by means of the IPCC) because they wish to throw a monkey wrench into the inner workings of western economies, which are the strongest in the world. If our economy slows down, the economic standing of other countries improves because we will no longer dominate the markets." So essentially, the two largest economies in the world are being duped. They are spending billions upon billions of dollars on research and development while making transformative changes in the way they buy, sell and generate energy, all because the foreigners are duping them via the IPCC based on some dodgy readings...in kahootz with Greenpeace. While we're playing the game of "I'm no scientist but I have access to the internet", the urban heat island effect has been demonstrated repeatedly to have no signficant influence on the surface temperature record. Here's a paper that debunks the influence of the UHI effect on global temperature trends using the case studies of London and Vienna to establish that urban areas show near identical trends as surrounding rural areas: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008JD009916/full Summarised here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Does-Urban-Heat-Island-effect-add-to-the-global-warming-trend.html Criticisms of the records were also addressed in detail through the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project: http://www.skepticalscience.com/WattsandBEST.html Ideology has no place in discussions such as this. When that is the starting point, it leads to reckless conclusions and outcomes. Same with positions generated out of fear, or arrogance. When there is a 97% scientific consensus based on a vast body of evidence that human caused global warming is occurring, that will always override any stay at home researcher's opinion on the matter. The scientific community must be respected, and they have been talking almost in total unison for some time now. You have the right as an intelligent person to remain steadfast in your skepticism. But those in positions of power are listening to those whose opinion matters. Yours, mine, and the guy who loves CO2, do not.

A Goliath. If you wanted to get in his way you best have a prayer ready. Clearly gone too young.

Love Viney as much as the next person, and yes he does bleed for the club, but literally everything about Brayshaw says future captain material. I suspect he's going to be very hard to overlook when the time eventually comes. With a bit of luck, Viney and Brayshaw will become our Mitchell and Hodge.

I'm talking about the plonk in the article leading the one man truth squad. I instantly thought of you hence why I posted it. The horrible taste is using a massacre of nearly 200 people to make a comparative point about "real world problems" being on the G20 agenda. It you can't see why it's in bad taste, I can't be bothered explaining it.

Talks last year had 15.000 delegates so that number sounds about right - http://www.cop21paris.org/about/cop21 I "pick" them when they are joined by over 95% of their peers. I'm not getting drawn into this idiotic time warp with you again. I'd rather invest energy into debating what we do about the issue. Not whether it exists. No retraction I take it. Colour me stunned.

Just a little humour fella. Plus you should be aware of the calibre of individual you are aligned with. Incidentally, using the incidents in Paris as an offering to continue spouting your "alarmist" dribble is in horrible taste and if you have a shred of decency you'll retract it entirely.

For a second time, I skim read the article as I was multi-tasking at the time and missed a couple of inconsequential points. I apologised. Good to see it left you with some pretty pointless ammunition though. .I'm not a scientist. Therefore I listen to overwhelming majority expert opinion. What I don't listen to are old timers who are essentially too afraid to face the reality of what's happening. Just thought I'd let you know about the position available in the truth squad. Do carry on.

Somehow you think... Just like somehow you think that without any scientific credentials, you are suited to make a judgement on the legitimacy of climate change. The two week climate talks in Paris will go ahead as scheduled on 30 November. Very disappointing news I'm sure. In good news however, the "truth squad" could always use a second member: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/inhofe-paris-climate-talks Be sure to bring a snowball.

Neal-Bullen is my surprise packet smokey. Tyson to reassert himself, provided he gets a clean run at it.

Not to mention that stupid dinky little collar.

Extra points for Hogan getting his own verse in the Stutter Rap, and Byrnes coaching the "See My Vest" Cup

Adding "Melbourne" to the song won't ignite any more passion than it already does. It's perfect as is. Leave it be.

Agree with this. I think a little tweaking could fix it. Currently it looks like an indistinguishable blob on the AFL site. They may have to just use the monogram. I like the basic elements, but the fact it isn't working well when small is something that will need addressing.

Always happens. One or two negative comments. Suddenly EVERYONE is deemed to be negative.

This remains an issue we have to contend with for now. We are essentially waiting on the next crop of leaders to mature: Viney, Brayshaw, Neal-Bullen, Hogan and Petracca. I see them as the selfless type of leaders you are alluding to, coupled with ability and football smarts. I think Viney is ready for LG elevation. I thought he was ready last season. I wouldn't be making him vice captain yet though. Trengove could also push his way back into the group in 2017 with a bit of good fortune next season.

Rivers never reached the elite level. Frawley did. Love him or hate him, he showed his true wares on the big stage this year. I'd have found room for both. Bruce is also pretty unlucky. Call me biased but that team would've beaten Fremantle's best of. Take out their top five players and you're not left with much to rave about. Melbourne's best bats a bit deeper. But again, I could just be biased.