Dr John Dee

Technically it's estivation, Wb. Hibernation is what we all should have done last winter.

From the Oxford English Dictionary: † aˈgreeance Obs. [a. OFr. agréance, n. of action f. agréer: see agree and -ance.] The act of agreeing; = agreement in several of its meanings. 1536 Bellendene Cron. Scotl. (1821) II. 333 King Johne‥to eschew the present dangeir, maid aggreance with his prelatis. 1549 Coverdale Erasm. Paraphr. Hebr. iii. 6 If we dooe styll abyde in the concorde and agreaunce of the house. 1559 in Strype Ann. I. i. App. xvi, The diversity of our fasting setteth forth the more the agreeance of our faith. 1599 Jas. I Basil. Dor. (1682) To Reader, What aggreance and conformitie he ought to keep betwixt his outward behaviour‥and the vertuous qualities of his minde. 1714 Milbourne Traitor's Reward 19 In agreeance with God's laws. Some clown from the sixteenth century, then.

This is interesting:- Watson responsible for AOD-9604 use, says WADA boss Fahey John Fahey saying WADA can intervene if they don't like the results of the investigation. Meanwhile, Timmy has apparently been at it on the radio this morning. I didn't hear him but according to the ABC he says he's got 'confidential information' that the players have done nothing wrong. Whatever Essendon think they're doing, they're certainly ramping it up.

This is obviously strategic. Take their highest profile player, captain, Brownlow winner, almost as teflon-coated as their coach and have him cough up a half-guilty plea: ‘I done it but I’m innocent cos I was told it was legal.’ Poor Jobe, what a tragedy it would be etc etc. It looks like they’re hoping to run a case based on either (a) someone else at the club taking a massive fall for ‘misleading’ the players or (b) a concerted campaign against Dank and his emails and supposed distortions of WADA advice. Maybe they’re too used to the AFL’s ways, where a half-guilty verdict can seem entirely logical (one club half-guilty of tanking, for example ... or was it not guilty of half-tanking?) Whether this sort of thing will wash with ASADA is another matter, but perhaps it will. Having the players sign waivers and insisting they submit themselves to injections might be taken as sufficiently coercive to get them off. I wouldn’t like to be in the way if Watson et al do get rubbed out and they can prove that they only took banned substances on the insistence of someone else. The loss of income/reputations would take some compensating, whether by the club or Dank or anyone else involved. Could get very costly. Essendon might also be trying to line up a legal case against ASADA’s findings if they are adverse (well, they will be now), arguing that it’s oppressive to ban players who took stuff on the basis of wrong advice, coercion etc. There’s a long way to go but Essendon are clearly happy to indulge in a propaganda war in the comfortable (smug) belief that nobody can do anything to them. Yet. (Edit: I give up trying to fix the smoking demon. It's obviously a 'b') - fixed it for you - Andy

Weren't you just going on about 'basic English'? Maybe silence would be a better option than this sort of rebarbative usage. And btw, on what people are and aren't fans of, I suspect you'll find they're not really fans of tossers who have to 'like' their own posts just to get the numbers up.

Be careful with your Greek gods and goddesses. They take insults very personally.

Actually, since we're saying actually, you said 'they spout all the usual university agit pop sound bites'. University? Nothing to do with Billy Bragg, Tom Robinson, etc. Obviously, though, superior people like yourself are never wrong, even when you're wrong.

agit pop ... or is it agitpop? Is that the kind of stuff played by those overblown sententious Scandinavian bands you like? Actually, the word is agitprop. Not that such niceties matter much to the superior, of course.

You mean the elision marks? We could go on forever.

It's not an ellipsis, it's an aposiopesis. Pedantry!

A point well made. It's interesting in this context that soccer, at least at the elite levels, has developed the role of manager. Maybe we're hanging onto the old word when we actually expect the head coach to be doing much the same job as a manager. Managers are seen as having more or less complete control over the destiny of the team, which makes them easy to sack when things go wrong. The grey area between the old idea of coach and the evolving responsibilities the head coach has as a manager of an AFL team might have something to do with confusion about how logical it seems to sack or to retain Neeld. I know that I remain entirely confused about it.

There is one, at least a phrase: yellow journalism. Unfortunately it still includes the word journalism, which is probably not all that relevant to the people you might have in mind. And there I go, attributing them with some humanity by calling them people.

Your interests include coffee, not tea.

Roman Abramovic says hi.

You see, that's exactly what I mean by distortion. I didn't imply any such thing. I pointed to the need for consistency in your position by telling you to tell it to Adam Goodes since it was his perception about the language used. But you're so far up your own rectitude that you have no idea what I've said at any stage. Oh, and telling someone to get off their high horse isn't insulting? Oh, and patronising me with invitations to stop living in the past isn't insulting? Oh, and telling me that I'm part of the problem of racism when you don't even know what the word means isn't insulting? Oh, and presuming to tell me what I do and don't know isn't insulting? You upped the ante on this stuff, don't start whining when you get a bit in return. And if you think meaning convention is the same as generalisation, you really need a new dictionary although I suspect your Humpty Dumptying has persuaded you that you're above all that. I don't intend responding to anything further you have to say. Although I need to point out that the word is hypocrisy. Since it's one of your few skills it's best to know how to spell it.

No I don't but unlike you I don't mistake my ignorance for wisdom. It's not a generalisation, btw, it's a reference to meaning and context in language use (it's called convention). And it's not something I just made up, it's what Goodes was relying on in making his complaint in the first place. Why don't you tell him to get off his high horse? You've already demonstrated severally that you don't understand what you're saying and you understand even less anything I've said. Believe what you like in your humpty dumpty view of things, I can't be bothered trying to explain anything else. But here's a word for you: polysemy. Look it up some time and think about its consequences to what you think you're saying. If you can think.

Guess what. When it doesn't take place between groups of different races it's not called racism, it's called ethnocentrism. There are rivalries in many countries and regions based (usually) on the proximity of territories/different ways of doing things/beliefs and so on. Some of these are friendly, some aren't; some are as oppressive as racism and others aren't. And if you haven't lived all over the world, it might be a good idea to avoid sweeping generalisations about 'what is experienced there'. Find some other way to excuse Australian racism. Better still, accept that whether it's as bad as some other places it still needs to be worked on.

I’d noticed, P_Man. I’ve tended to keep my counsel on threads like this because I live too far away to have formed anything like a useful knowledge of the coach/players/football department issues and problems. I think it’s important, though, to get a perspective on what others from all sorts of different backgrounds have to say. If nothing else there’s a small sense of solidarity in knowing we all feel the pain, even when or perhaps especially when that leads to disputes about causes and outcomes and solutions. Mr Home does a very good version of contempt, but that’s all he seems to offer, particularly as it’s contempt directed at other supporters. I haven’t needed to take much notice of it but I couldn’t help myself yesterday. Not because of one more abusive and offensive contribution from Mr Home but because he’s now got a fawning imitator in Dees2014. It’s interesting that you raise the schoolyard analogy. The scenario that struck me with the nonsensical post from 2014 that I replied to was of a too enthusiastic tyro running around the schoolyard after School Bully and pleading to be allowed to join his gang. The idea of having to sift through a doubling in pointless and ignorant and unpleasant abuse was just too much for me. I apologise for providing another target but will get out of the way now.

Jeez, thanks for the information, would never have realised. There is, of course, a difference between being well-read and reading well, which you amply demonstrate.

As for attentive reading of posts, see above. And as far as self-satisfaction were you talking to Satyriconhome or about him? His prosecution of a smug she'll-be-right version of things seems to be producing most of the ballast on many threads nowadays.

Wasn't referring to his status as Foundation Hero, blockhead, but the content of his posting on the Foundation Heroes thread.

I'm glad you could work out what he meant Iv'a. I had no idea who this person gracing us with 'reasoned argument' was supposed to be. Didn't occur to me for a moment that he was referring to S'home. As for people 'of your sort' maybe 2014 could have a look at your post on the Foundation Heroes thread. Personally, I dips me lid to people 'of your sort'.

With Telstra as well. On G3 wireless, which reduces to around what dialup speeds used to be as soon as there are half a dozen mobile users connected, so I didn't notice the problem initially ... or at least until pages stopped loading altogether. Last night no connection at all. Now seems ok.

There's not much point saying anything to you when it comes back distorted beyond any recognition. But one last time here are a few points: Referring to the past is not living in it. The N word is exactly what I was talking about but you're so determined to prosecute some idiosyncratic version of racism that excuses pretty much everything that you can't see the forest for the trees (just like your earlier statement meaning precisely the opposite of what you thought you were saying). The capacity for rappers and so on (Note: NOT ALL African Americans, many of whom object to the usage) to appropriate and use the N word defused (among themselves) of its racism does not evacuate the word of its racism when used by white people. Your claim that it does is just bull$#!t. Besides, the appropriation of the word ONLY HAS FORCE AND MEANING because of its continuing racist potential in the mouths of others. The meaning of words changes over time, but mostly it multiplies and uses don't just disappear, especially with the rapidity that you seem to think happens. As for the supposed 'dark time in human history' there are more than enough ridiculous and problematic assumptions in that to keep me busy for an afternoon but I'm not going to bother because you'll just twist anything else around into some other bizarre statement. I'm perfectly happy living in the present because I understand a few things about how we got to be where we are. I have no idea of what the future looks like but I'm really impressed that you're already living there. Unfortunately I suspect, from your distorted version of things, it's probably not much more than another fool's paradise.

It's like talking to a brick wall. Racism in its European/American practices can and has been traced to the beginnings of the slave trade. Racist language was a tool used to dehumanise Africans, thereby functioning to legitimise slavery. That's not an argument it's a history. I wasn't in fact making any argument, I was referring to that history. And to refer to that history has nothing to do with guilt about it either. By defining racism as 'caring about' skin colour - a pointless and misguided definition at most - you completely miss the full and complex reality of the problem, but that's your choice. Don't impose that inadequacy on me. BTW other forms of racism have had nothing to do with skin colour. Check out the word 'barbarian' some time. It derives from the word the Ancient Greeks used for people who weren't Greek and it was supposed to describe the way they talked, nothing to do with how they looked.