La Dee-vina Comedia

Thanks, that's helpful. While media often "beat up" (or sometimes even "make up") a story like this, you'd have to assume Tim Watson knows more than most given he was part of the 1993 premiership team.

That little bit of data is completely meaningless without context. For example, what's the usual number who might turn up for any other club's 25 year reunion? What were the reasons behind why the seven didn't go (illness? travel? work commitments?, etc) Frankly, without additional information the point that 7 didn't go is a fact in search of a meaning.

You're quite right. I should have said that the evidence before it was contaminated might have helped clear or damn the defendants.

I don't disagree with your concern about the flawed process, but it's equally possible from where we stand that without the contamination, the evidence could have damned or cleared the defendant.

That's where we differ. I don't think poker machines are evil. I don't play them but have no problem that other people who wish to do so can have that choice. Note: I find it ironic that it's someone called Beelzebub that is concerned about the facilitation of evil.

I find it strange that when this site discusses drugs, it's the users who are generally criticised yet when the discussion is about poker machines, it's the machines that are the problem.

I agree, but for the avoidance of any doubt let's also make clear that the runner up doesn't get the premiership by default. I couldn't bear the thought of Collingwood being rewarded for giving me so much enjoyment every time they came second.

At least he's wearing some protection on his head.

He didn't just learn a trade, he also learned some business strategy. In the business world they would call that vertical integration.

I'll just leave this here. Personally, I don't think there should be any further comment given the seriousness of the matter.

Yes, but only because they didn't think of "Charlie out of the spa - go time!"

The problem with this theory is that Essendon played finals last year. It's hard to see how that fits your narrative. It's just possible that they're struggling this year for other reasons, not the least being that three of their losses have been against potentially good teams (Freo, Collingwood and Melbourne). Add to that, their two wins are, somewhat ironically, probably against teams better than the ones they've lost to.

Irrespective of who's who, that's a lot of people in the coach's box. I'm not sure if I was senior coach I'd want that many people all trying to advise me. If, however, half or even two-thirds of them are just there to watch and can keep their mouths shut, I could live with that.

Not sure what this post is doing here. It's far too sensible.

Interesting approach. I'm not sure how old you are now, but if you've already reached adulthood, did you argue that once you'd turned 17 you should be allowed into pubs because you were into your 18th year? If so, how did that work out for you?

This is the most interesting post on this thread. It's the first time I've seen any reference to Weideman doing some ruck training. (Perhaps he's been doing this training for some time and maybe it has previously been reported, but it is certainly the first time I have become aware of it.) Unless he can pinch hit in the ruck, he's never going to fill in for Tom McDonald. Broadening his skill set gives him the best chance to get picked. His second best chance is if Hogan is unavailable.

There's a lot to unpack in this sentence. Possibly the most original piece of writing on Demonland ever.

But for what purpose? I can't imagine the Court can be used to satisfy curiosity. Doesn't the plaintiff have to show how he/she/it has suffered something for which the Court is the only remedy? In other words...so what if there was a conspiracy? How has the plaintiff been wronged because of it (if there was one)?

Can someone summarise the cause of action that Julian Burnside is engaged for? I'm paywalled out of all News Ltd sites so I haven't been able to read the article. Without access to the article, I'm struggling to work out what the plaintiff is seeking and why. Using the usual logic doesn't generate any believable options.

I know it's not on the topic de jour, but in one sentence you've identified the AFL's two greatest fears with the northern expansion.

Meanwhile, the equivalent discussion on the Collingwood supporters' discussion board is whether Centrelink payments have kept pace with the price of ready to drink Southern Comfort and Coke.

I thought the GFC was the Geelong Football Club. (Just trying to bring this thread back to football. Arguing over past international economic events doesn't seem to belong here.)

Petracca has more powerful arms.

I don't know how good these seats were...but I gulped when I saw the price.

Here's a start. Call it e-sliced bread. Sure fire winner.