nutbean

My Dad had cancer and the doctors gave him 1 year to live. They were totally wrong - he lasted a year and half.

Whilst it hasn't happened yet (to my recollection) - if he walks into the draft it is not a lock that we will get him. The likes of Collingwood and Bulldogs will get first crack at him. No-one needs to trade for him - the clubs lower than us just have to convince him that their club is a good fit and they can meet his financial demands.

I sometimes wonder from which planet stats are pulled from. I think there are qualities that Watts has that are obvious to all. Elite pressuring isn't one of them.

I would hope your reasoning is not the case. I don't expect a player to be the best at the club, the hardest trainer at the club, What I do expect is a player to endeavour to be the best he can be and train as hard as he can. Have the best attitude he can have. There will obviously be different levels for different players and they should not be compared. My love for Nathan Jones is not because he is the best player. People call Jones elite but I don't believe he is. What I do see with Jones is we pretty much get the same from him week in and week out. The difference between his best and his worst in both effort and output is very consistent and I believe he is always playing close to the best of his ability . I don't think Jones whole career will be within cooee of say Oliver but that's not the point. Jones gets the most out of himself - Jetta to me is the same. I cannot say the same for Watts.

I am a notorious fence sitter but probably the most important question is - Is anyone truly surprised it has come to this with Watts ? If the answer is no ( which is the answer you would arrive at if you were looking at this detached and unemotionally) then the next question is who needs to take responsibility for it coming to this ? It can be fraught with danger trying to compare one player to another, but a player should definitely be judged on whether they are getting the best out of themselves and doing everything possible to get the best out of themselves. After 9 years I would question Watts on him getting the best out of himself.

you silly...he played for Carlton !

I call bulldust. It was nice in the morning but it clouded over and rained in the afternoon.

my bad... xx

Could not disagree more with your thought of what is the "Crux of the issue". Whilst there is merit in the points made do you believe this really is the "crux of the issue" ? You used the term red herring and all i am seeing is another red herring . The crux of the issue is not that Labor had their chance before and badly baulked ( which is damning of the Labor party in my eyes). The crux of the issue is not the hate by Labor that the Libs have brought about a mechanism for social change ( and Labor are playing politics on this issue as hard as the libs and they both should be damned) - I don't give a rats what has gone on previously or which party brings about the change. I don't care much for a simple issue that should have been decided like every other issue - a vote in parliament but again, this is not the crux of the issue. The crux of issue is not freedom of speech, freedom of religion practice or safe schools program. The crux of the issue is not that legislation has not been provided for public scrutiny as we elect politicians on policy with no insight as to what legislation they will enact looks like. The crux of the issue is whether same sex marriage should be legalised. Everything else - as you put it - is a red herring.

Now we agree on something. Just can't understand why we needed a public non binding survey that costs millions of tax payers dollars that will almost , as you succinctly put it, "affect a small % of homosexuals" and "will almost certainly win".

Pre 1956 in Western Australia. 1957 in South Australia and 1942 in Tasmania, girls could get legally married at age 12. I have no understanding of why that law was changed. (sarcasm intended).

Spot on ! ( well...maybe infuriate and irritate but certainly not an influencing factor on my decision)

Sorry but again logic is escaping you - Your argument has zero bearing on same sex marriage argument. We are not voting on whether same sex couples can have children. Same sex couples can have children by surrogacy, or adoption or in the case two women by natural means. I believe that debate has already been decided. And just to dilute the argument even more - we are approaching 40% of children in Australia being born to unmarried parents. To dilute it even further ( figures from 2011 ABS) - 33,700 same sex couples in Australia - with 6300 children in these families. How about this little stat "Children in same-sex couple families make up only one in a thousand of all children in couple families (0.1%). And just so you are clear - children born to married couples has been rapidly decreasing. "But to repeat - this vote is not about children having a mother and father because as you can see - the ability for same sex couples to raise children is already legal and happening. Every argument offered up by the no campaign has been peripheral nonsense. Lets make it simple. Tell me exactly how you believe SSM will affect you. (edit - it is not peripheral nonsense - as some of the issues are important and are worthy of debate and discussion - however the arguments are peripheral and irrelevant to the SSM debate)

RIP Tom, I saw him playing with Bob Dylan's band at Kooyong many moons ago. His music was not to my taste but his contribution to the music landscape should not be underestimated. Another great gone. As i approach 60, I don't think about my age or morbidly, how long i may be around but nothing jolts you into recognising your own mortality quite as much as when musical greats that one grew up with pass away and sadly, over the last 2-3 years there have been way too many.

Couldn't agree more. On issues like climate change and refugees, whilst I have a stance, I can make a logical argument against my stance. I can argue both sides of the coin. On SSM - I am yet to hear an argument for the no case that makes any logical sense whatsoever.

The only three thing in life that are certain 1/ death 2/ taxes 3/ Jack Watts being the most polarising footballer every to play for the MFC.

A big storm fan. Go to quite a few games. They have a serious "no nonsense" approach. And they are fortunate to have sensational leadership. Cameron Smith - probably the best captain in any code in Australia.

being of the Jewish persuasion i can tell you that every Jewish kid had parents who probably weren't particularly funny but borrowed (read stole) material from this album to keep us laughing. Jackie Mason has carried on the tradition of this album.

Went to old school Elton John last night ( some artists I can' t move on from) - First time i saw him was 1971 at South Melbourne footy ground - he dressed up like a chicken. His voice is passed its prime - he doesn't hit the high notes anymore. Boy oh boy does he still give good concert - he went a tick over two hours - played a couple from his new album and then went through his hits ( which some were missing as you cant fit everything in). He has slowed but is still the showman and gives everything. A really great gig.

I do find it intrusive - door knocking, phone calls and text messages and both sides of the debate have done it. However a guy I know said he was going to vote no purely based on being so angered that he received an unsolicited text message from get-up. I did ask him that if he banged his shin on a curb crossing the road would he then vote against all major freeway infrastructure programs ? As intrusive as the campaigning might be - the voting is not about intrusive campaigning - it's about same sex marriage.

whooley dooley... Any sense of authority went down the gurgler when you decried people "making up stories" and then mentioned the word "truth". Most biblical scholars (except those at the very conservative end) prefer to think of the bible as a book of teaching rather than a book of facts. But maybe this is a debate for a different day.....

I can answer on New Zealand - it was introduced into parliament without a survery/plebescite/referendum/hand countby Labour and passed 77 to 44.

So you have (rightly) highlighted the importance of these issues, although you do seem to have departed from looking at things simplistically as "statistical majority" . I will ask you - if as you (rightly) point out, these issues of immigration, housing crisis and wage stagnation are so important, and you pointed out the non importance of the SSM issue why do you believe that we don't get say on important issues other than to vote for a party/politician that we believe shares our views and will hopefully be successful in legislating as opposed to the unimportant SSM issue where the whole nation gets to put pen to paper ( albeit , the result is non binding) ?