Dr John Dee

No, just a working memory ... and no particular need for affectations of insouciance.

"cheap and shallow" (besides, weren't you going on about someone's spelling the other day?)

Well, it might be worse than some scenario or other, but I presume you mean worst, in which case your scepticism is certainly correct.

Despite the flippancies that immediately follow your question, it's an important one. "Groupthink" is only a label bandied about by those who disagree with a convergence of opinions or consensus on some issue or other. I'm not sure it does too much harm if it only identifies particular strands of shared thinking. What disturbs me, though, is when (a) it constitutes a "group" out of opinions that aren't much the same at all; (b) it's thrown around as an attempt to silence people (hence the gag about gags); or © it's used by those who actually belong to a different consensus, whether they can see it or not. I think there's a few examples of all of these on DL threads. Probably the only way to deal with them is to go on talking. Arguing with any member of any GAG only serves as proof to its members that you belong to a "groupthink" (if you argue with them, of necessity you're part of whatever group they're not).

Long Live the Judean People's Front! BH mightn't like me saying it but the old revolutionaries were much better at splinter groups, and splinters of splinters ... they could almost manage to arrive at a group of one.

That may be so, and Wilson's indulging in those irrelevancies only highlights how urgently we need the official results because another round of arguing about whether Carlton or anyone else tanked would be beyond the pale. But the question Sue is raising is, basically: where is BH? Attempting to recruit Grapeviney to his Group Against Groupthink (the acronym GAG functions as both noun and verb in this case) necessitates ignoring the fact that Grapeviney's position (post #190) supposes that we're putting forward arguments (which would include the "Carlton tanked too" line) to the AFL that BH has excoriated in the past. I suspect that since Grapeviney's rhetorical questions look aggressive and sarcastic enough to promise another triumph over "groupthink," BH has mistaken him for a fellow traveller when, as Sue points out, he was actually saying something else.

My point was that the post doesn't say that. Those words aren't used and whatever you might want to add as an afterthought they're not even implied.

Maybe you should read post 190. You wrote it after all.

They'll be talking about the legal issues, the AFL regulations, evidence, potential charges and what sort of evidence the AFL does or doesn't have. Stuff like that. Why anyone would believe the intrepid girl reporter rather than Don is a complete mystery to me.

How tall are you, cowboy? Six feet six inches ma'am. Let's forget about the six feet and concentrate on the six inches ... That's the sort of thing Mae West would say. Totally out of order on this thread of course, so no one should mention it.

She knew you'd do that.

It was Oscar Wilde. I only raise this minor pedantry because I'd resist any mention of the intrepid girl reporter in the same breath as the magnificent Mae.

Or will they have only weed themselves?

The gospel according to BH: “1. I’m right, you’re wrong. “2. Even if I’m wrong, I’m right. “3. Even if you’re right … hang on, that’s impossible, so I’ll just refer to something else about which I’m right (even if I’m wrong). “4. You still here? Go away.”

Been discussed before. The opinion of those in the know was that the MFC can't sue, only individuals can. So it's a bit difficult to disagree.

Maybe, but it can be a s#!@load more damaging published as fact in a supposedly authoritative newspaper than as chatter on a supporters' thread.

Well, yes, no, maybe. It's not what the supposed man in the street supposedly understands by tanking though, if you believe certain claims above. But read it again with the following emphasis in mind: "A person, being a player, coach or assistant coach, must at all times perform on their merits AND must not induce, or encourage, any player, coach or assistant coach not to perform on their merits in any match - or in relation to any aspect of the match, for any reason whatsoever.'' - AFL Regulations 19(A5) It's no surprise that DB will be off to court if they try to charge him, whatever else might happen. It ain't over till it's over.

This is the bottom line. Who steals my purse steals trash; 'tis something, nothing; 
'Twas mine,'tis his, and has been slave to thousands;
 But he that filches from me my good name
 Robs me of that which not enriches him, And makes me poor indeed. Othello III.iii.157-61

An answer to that relies on reflexive thinking, but I've suspected for a while that mjt wouldn't pass a Turing test. As Sue's attempt to explain using something as difficult as analogy shows, it's best to avoid anything complicated.

Not quite an answer to your question, but worth looking at what Craig is quoted as saying here: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/more-sport/roos-chase-drug-cheats-harder/story-e6frfglf-1111114105966 The Bigfooty poster's claims aren't anything more than an attempt at guilt by association anyway.

It's called debate, Bob. I love the way you try to foreclose on debate with this 'groupthink' category, making anyone who might want to quibble with Maurie hesitate or not bother lest they be counted part of some gang. And this isn't the first time you've done so, even if it was by some other name. If half a dozen or so people politely arguing with Maurie constitutes 'groupthink' I suspect I'd prefer that to your particular demagoguery, which makes of you a perpetual majority of one.

No, your point is more that if people get information from some journalist or other they're not entitled to criticise the way in which that information is presented.

A 'lot of the thinking' is how you put it, not a lot of the posts criticising journalists. And your second sentence makes no distinctions. And where else would they get their information? The traditional media haven't quite been superseded yet.

You sure it wasn't a tortoise, Biff? Not many turtles around Mt Buller.

So is yours. There's a lot more to a lot of posts about journalists on these threads. Just because some posts are as you describe doesn't make them all like that.