hardtack

So was I... but I think you get my point.

I'm pretty certain more than a few were saying the same thing about Clark when we threw all of that money at him.

Excuse me? Please cite the part of any of my texts that states I consider the Fukushima meltdown to be some sort of humanitarian disaster. I have answered your unsupported comments re no sickness as a result of radiation levels with references to give them some credence... you provide nothing but nay saying. If I'm hysterical, I would say that you are illiterate. And I love the way that because I happen to refute your remarks about "not caring" for the people, you turn it around as something ingenuous. Says a lot more about you than it does me.

1st of Sept is a Saturday.

AoB... you are citing my statement: "Nuclear energy is all well and good, but it can, and has been, the cause of a lot of suffering due to major mismanagement (in the case of Chernobyl) or lack of foresight in a country prone to major earthquake activity (Fukushima)." ...and then raising Bhopal which was a perfect example of what I was saying is the problem I have with Chernobyl and Fukushima??? It was another example of a substandard operation that had numerous safety issues prior to the final disaster...I say it again (and again, and again), please point out any comment of mine that says I am against nuclear energy... why is it that citing reports that document the likely affects of radiation on those living close to such disasters, means that the person raising the issues is anti the whole concept? I understand the benefits of nuclear energy, but I am also happy to point out the negatives when, like any form of energy, is not handled well or the benefits are not weighed up against the very real possibilities. Look at Chernobyl, it has left a tract of land with a 31km radius that will be uninhabitable for thousands of years (if I recall correctly)... It doesn't look like much on paper, but effectively it means that an area the size of most of Melbourne and its suburbs has become a wasteland. Fukushima may well suffer the same fate... it's not just the risks of radiation sickness etc, this also poses the issues and expense involved in relocating entire populations.

Ding, it seems you are the one who is getting hysterical. I am merely pointing out a few facts to support my argument; and how dare you claim that I have no concern for the victims... you are clueless! I would argue that it is you who couldn't care less about the victims as you would appear to consider them to be "collateral damage" who's loss/suffering is acceptable in the name of clean energy. Just to set the record straight, we have donated via various organisations to aid the Pakistani flood relief, New Zealand earthquake victims, Queensland flood relief, and have raised through garage sales, almost $1,000 to go to the Japan Tsunami/Earthquake victims (via the NGO, JEN)... not too bad for someone who doesn't care about the victims I would have thought. It never ceases to amaze me that people like yourself will raise coal mining, or Bhopal, or the Exon Valdez etc, when someone such as myself is responding to claims regarding radiation sickness... why would I be touching on those other disasters when I am responding to you denying the affects of radiation? I am all for clean energy, I am just not for it when due care is not taken in the first place as was the case in both Chernobyl and Japan - but you would have noted that I already stated that quite clearly in another post. As I have previously said, I have not once stated that I am against nuclear energy, but please feel free to point out where I may have made such a statement.

Yes there are exaggerated reports, but do you consider 700 cases of thyroid cancer in children and 10 deaths acceptable? Do you consider the 28 deaths immediately following the Chernobyl disaster as a result of severe radiation, acceptable? Deaths or no deaths, the issue is that if proper precautions are not taken, serious issues can arise. Nuclear energy is all well and good, but it can, and has been, the cause of a lot of suffering due to major mismanagement (in the case of Chernobyl) or lack of foresight in a country prone to major earthquake activity (Fukushima).

You need to explain it because the effects of the radiation and the risk and likelihood of illness are very real in Fukushima and its immediate surrounds. I'm surprised you even asked that question. Yes, there was an initial fear of radiation being blown in the direction of Tokyo by prevailing winds, but this was not a result of fear mongering by "lefties with an agenda", it was a genuine fear borne out of the lack of information being disseminated by TEPCO and the Japanese Govt. simply put, no one knew just how bad the situation was in Fukushima and what sort of levels of radiation were being spilt. My brother-in-law lives in Kawasaki just to the south of Tokyo, and he expressed concern for that very reason. He had a friend from Sendai staying with him who had been displaced by the tsunami. But who also had very real fears about radiation. The potential for serious health problems for those living close to the reactor at the time of the events IS very real...the fact that you can simply dismiss it astounds me.

I was at the game. As I said, he made some kicking errors, but he also put some good kicks into the forward line. He is inconsistent, but then again, so is Howe with his set shots and McKenzie and Grimes and a few others with their kicking in play. I thought Spencer put in a very serviceable game and was far from being our worst player afield.

My type? I challenge you to find anything that I have written that states I am against nuclear energy. This is the problem I have with the likes of you BH, you go off half cocked and make ridiculous assumptions. And it is very apparent that you do not even bother to read what others post, in much depth. If you did, you would be very aware of the fact that although there are currently no reports of major illness, the predictions are that there will be serious illness manifesting itself in years to come (or do you discount Stanford University as having some anti nuclear barrow to push?). As I said, if you think the radiation in Fukushima is not posing any threat, you must think those working on the site of the plant, and those who evacuated the area, must be deluded. You are so up with the facts that you couldn't discern between the effect of radiation on Tokyo and the effect of radiation on Fukushima quite some considerable distance north of Tokyo near Sendai - an area I have spent some time in myself and so I am aware of the geography.

If Cloke isn't a higher priced proven player, then I don't know who is. He is exactly what we need right now as has been evidenced by our recent form once a key forward goes down with a long term injury. We have recently been getting the ball inside 50 on numerous occasions, only to fall at the last hurdle. There is no reason we cannot get Cloke and a couple of proven mids... and I'm really not keen on this idea of looking for cheaper, lesser known players; we are definitely not in any position to gamble on unknown quantities any more. In the wash up, that can end up costing us just as much as if we had spent the extra getting a Cloke or a Boak.

Where's the "hate this" button when you need it? If I recall correctly, there was just a very slight difference in the hit outs and possessions, and of the two, Spencer got all of the kudos in the media. His kicks were a mixed bag, but that's no different to a number of our players.

Are you really that stupid BH? Why would anyone be concerned about radiation sickness in Tokyo...or is that the extent of your knowledge of Japan, and you consider all parts of Japan to be in spitting distance of Tokyo? I am talking about Fukushima and its environs. Fukushima is not simply a nuclear reactor...it was a city that had a reasonably sizable population until it was evacuated due to, yes, radiation levels being too dangerous for people to remain. There have been a number of people already taken away from the site because their bodies have absorbed the maximum amount of radiation one should be exposed to in a lifetime. I suppose you consider those workers at the site to be nancy boys because they wear protective clothing? I suggest you accompany Ding to show those bed wetting locals how safe it really is, and how they have been duped into believing it might actually be dangerous to their health to remain in their homes.

I think you might want to check out the "Last time they met" thread... you will find that there are only 8 of that 22 (9 if Jamar passes muster) who are likely to be playing this week.

As was I :-)

The way he is pilloried on these forums, would say a few would have him burning at the stake rather than on the field; hmmm, perhaps Cook is an appropriate name?

He is worth whatever the clubs believes it can afford to pay him. Yes, he would be ineffective in a poor side, which is precisely why we are saying that we should also be targeting a couple of good mids to compliment him... even if we don't fill all of our positional requirements this year, I would still prefer we get Cloke now while he is available because once he is gone he is gone for good and we will still be relatively impotent up forward regardless of the number of class mids we recruit.

Which is why we need to get him now, while he is available. Yes, we need the kind of delivery that he is used to getting at the Pies, but it doesn't matter how much quality delivery we are giving to the forwards, if there is no-one there capable of using it well. I'm confident that the recruiting people at the MFC are well aware of this and will be targeting a big effective forward (Cloke) as well as a couple of established and proven quality mids.

Then perhaps you should go over and spend some time in Fukushima to set all of our minds at ease that the levels are not dangerous (seems all of those bed wetting locals don't want to resettle anytime soon - perhaps you could allay their fears?). From the Wiki page dedicated to the Fukushima disaster:

Do you really think that the effects of exposure to radiation are instantaneous? The real impact will be seen in years to come and in generations to come. Maybe you also believe that the deaths in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a direct result of the bomb and not of the subsequent radiation and that the birth deformities and illness were merely a coincidence? http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/features/4185707/Hell-on-Earth.html

Is it possible this is out of deference to Murphy who is one of their panelists?

But would that stop him offering up a few opinions (to Neeld & Co) on players that might suit our needs?

No need to think up reasons as to why really... under Bailey we didn't draft him, so unless you have a time machine handy, no-one is going back to rectify that oversight/poor piece of judgement. All we can do is hope that Neeld and his team of recruiters will atone by being very aggressive in the trade period and make the best of FA, and that they will pick wisely in the draft; and by all accounts, that is exactly what they are planning to do. Fretting over the fact we didn't pick up Darling is a fruitless (and pointless) pastime.

Yes, I agree that we should amalgamate with Dahlhaus and Murphy.

Yep, spot on! To quote his profile on the GWS site: Jonathan spent four years on Port Adelaide’s senior list from 2006 until 2009 but missed selection in all four years. The other thing I would like to know is how many games Giles has played this season. Jake has a total of 15 games in his injury interrupted career with the MFC...does Giles have more?