AFL Round 17

[woodublieve12]

Literally went to swipe his hand away as he was being held. Nothing in it. Should be overturned

If he was some no namer or not a star he would get a game every day of the week.
The stars are judged differently which is what annoys people

If it was a no namer they shouldn't get reported for this either.

But I do agree in regard to the name

How is Heeney reported and Thatcher not even sighted??? Ridiculous

[MW]

Not that its worth the time and effort, but Crows should challenge that on the "intentional" part. The head contact was careless not intentional. Get it down to 3 games.

We all know Heeney will challenge and get off.

Been thinking about this since I replied last night, the intentional / careless isn't for where he hit the player it's whether he meant it or not and there's no way you can argue he didn't mean it.

By that theory, Heeneys should be graded intentional as he intended to hit the player behind him. In fact most if not all strikes should be graded intentional. *edit just saw he was graded intentional

And surely you cant think Rankines intention was to bump him and cause a head clash...cmon

[mots02]

I didn't know he was pissed, (which makes you disabled).

Well then.

I didn't think this take could get any worse, but the double down has proven me horribly wrong.

Based on the flow of logic on this, I'm just going to assume that Tigerpie must be pissed now. That's the only sense I can apply to justify how stupid he sounds at the moment.

On the revelation above, i'll be sure to raise that with Minister Shorten when we next catch up. No wonder the NDIS is being misused by some if being pissed now qualifies you as being disabled.

[Booney]

Not that its worth the time and effort, but Crows should challenge that on the "intentional" part. The head contact was careless not intentional. Get it down to 3 games.

We all know Heeney will challenge and get off.

Been thinking about this since I replied last night, the intentional / careless isn't for where he hit the player it's whether he meant it or not and there's no way you can argue he didn't mean it.

By that theory, Heeneys should be graded intentional as he intended to hit the player behind him. In fact most if not all strikes should be graded intentional. *edit just saw he was graded intentional

And surely you cant think Rankines intention was to bump him and cause a head clash...cmon

I meant the action was intentional, the head clash wasn't but that's irrelevant.

[MW]

reading up on it seems the interpretation changed this year and these would have been graded careless last year.
Anyway 3 or 4 weeks at the end of the day really doesnt matter for the Crows this year.

[Booney]

reading up on it seems the interpretation changed this year and these would have been graded careless last year.
Anyway 3 or 4 weeks at the end of the day really doesnt matter for the Crows this year.

I know.

[tigerpie]

I didn't know he was pissed, (which makes you disabled).

Well then.

I didn't think this take could get any worse, but the double down has proven me horribly wrong.

Based on the flow of logic on this, I'm just going to assume that Tigerpie must be pissed now. That's the only sense I can apply to justify how stupid he sounds at the moment.

On the revelation above, i'll be sure to raise that with Minister Shorten when we next catch up. No wonder the NDIS is being misused by some if being pissed now qualifies you as being disabled.

Oi mots any chance of a sense of humour regarding the pissed comment making you temporarily disabled?
Stupid hey, for trying to make sense of the whole situation? Why after all the education we still have this rubbish occuring? And from an apparently educated person.
And before you jump down my throat, being pissed is no excuse!

[Brodlach]

I’ve been on this site for nearly 20 years and you are one of the strangest posters I have encountered.


And that’s saying something

[tigerpie]

I’ve been on this site for nearly 20 years and you are one of the strangest posters I have encountered.


And that’s saying something

What's so strange, I'm assuming you're talking about me?

[Booney]

He is, yes.

[mots02]

I didn't know he was pissed, (which makes you disabled).

Well then.

I didn't think this take could get any worse, but the double down has proven me horribly wrong.

Based on the flow of logic on this, I'm just going to assume that Tigerpie must be pissed now. That's the only sense I can apply to justify how stupid he sounds at the moment.

On the revelation above, i'll be sure to raise that with Minister Shorten when we next catch up. No wonder the NDIS is being misused by some if being pissed now qualifies you as being disabled.

Oi mots any chance of a sense of humour regarding the pissed comment making you temporarily disabled?
Stupid hey, for trying to make sense of the whole situation? Why after all the education we still have this rubbish occuring? And from an apparently educated person.
And before you jump down my throat, being pissed is no excuse!

Sorry, I lack a sense of humour when it comes to disability and the notion of being temporarily disabled.

Once again, I didn't think your take could get worse, but I continue to underestimate you.

[tigerpie]

He is, yes.

Ok oracle what is so strange about trying to fathom why we still have racist idiots at the footy?

[mots02]

He is, yes.

Ok oracle what is so strange about trying to fathom why we still have racist idiots at the footy?

I'm not the Oracle and wouldn't dream to speak on his behalf but i'll have a stab at why people might think your comments are strange.

Some moron makes racist remarks on a social media account. Gets called out for it, banned etc.

Without doing any research on the subject (or the person who made the remarks), you make a baseless claim that perhaps the person has an intellectual disability, whilst citing circumstances where you've seen it at the footy yourself (sometimes apparently hilarious).

When called out on that, that might be a poor take on the situation, you double down with the notion that being pissed makes someone disabled.

When called out on that, you double down that you meant that being pissed makes you 'temporarily disabled' and that people (me) should have a sense of humour about that.

Trying to fathom why we still have racist idiots at the footy isn't strange, your baseless links to disability is strange and outright wrong.

How did I go Oracle?

[Booney]

Pretty well I reckon.

[Bum Crack]

Now now folks.

[Brodlach]

He is, yes.

Ok oracle what is so strange about trying to fathom why we still have racist idiots at the footy?

I'm not the Oracle and wouldn't dream to speak on his behalf but i'll have a stab at why people might think your comments are strange.

Some moron makes racist remarks on a social media account. Gets called out for it, banned etc.

Without doing any research on the subject (or the person who made the remarks), you make a baseless claim that perhaps the person has an intellectual disability, whilst citing circumstances where you've seen it at the footy yourself (sometimes apparently hilarious).

When called out on that, that might be a poor take on the situation, you double down with the notion that being pissed makes someone disabled.

When called out on that, you double down that you meant that being pissed makes you 'temporarily disabled' and that people (me) should have a sense of humour about that.

Trying to fathom why we still have racist idiots at the footy isn't strange, your baseless links to disability is strange and outright wrong.

How did I go Oracle?

Yes, I was referring to you.

For me that was just the end point, countless other posts have made me chortle with a quizzical expression

[tigerpie]

He is, yes.

Ok oracle what is so strange about trying to fathom why we still have racist idiots at the footy?

I'm not the Oracle and wouldn't dream to speak on his behalf but i'll have a stab at why people might think your comments are strange.

Some moron makes racist remarks on a social media account. Gets called out for it, banned etc.

Without doing any research on the subject (or the person who made the remarks), you make a baseless claim that perhaps the person has an intellectual disability, whilst citing circumstances where you've seen it at the footy yourself (sometimes apparently hilarious).

When called out on that, that might be a poor take on the situation, you double down with the notion that being pissed makes someone disabled.

When called out on that, you double down that you meant that being pissed makes you 'temporarily disabled' and that people (me) should have a sense of humour about that.

Trying to fathom why we still have racist idiots at the footy isn't strange, your baseless links to disability is strange and outright wrong.

How did I go Oracle?

I was referring to Booney being the Oracle not you.
Read my original post mots.
Sounds to me like you have an agenda.
I didn't claim he was disabled! I was trying to find a reason people still resort to this idiocy.
My example was lived and although i felt sorry for the guy in my example he still needed to be told to calm his language.

In closing, in this day and age, my original post gave a lived example of what may have been the case.
I never said this was THE case.
Even his being pissed excuse doesn't wash with me. He'd have to be almost comatose to come out with that......or he has some form of disability.
If it wasn't mentioned he wanted to be a journo I would've just gone with the racist idiot line.

[mots02]

He is, yes.

Ok oracle what is so strange about trying to fathom why we still have racist idiots at the footy?

I'm not the Oracle and wouldn't dream to speak on his behalf but i'll have a stab at why people might think your comments are strange.

Some moron makes racist remarks on a social media account. Gets called out for it, banned etc.

Without doing any research on the subject (or the person who made the remarks), you make a baseless claim that perhaps the person has an intellectual disability, whilst citing circumstances where you've seen it at the footy yourself (sometimes apparently hilarious).

When called out on that, that might be a poor take on the situation, you double down with the notion that being pissed makes someone disabled.

When called out on that, you double down that you meant that being pissed makes you 'temporarily disabled' and that people (me) should have a sense of humour about that.

Trying to fathom why we still have racist idiots at the footy isn't strange, your baseless links to disability is strange and outright wrong.

How did I go Oracle?

I was referring to Booney being the Oracle not you.
Read my original post mots.
Sounds to me like you have an agenda.
I didn't claim he was disabled! I was trying to find a reason people still resort to this idiocy.
My example was lived and although i felt sorry for the guy in my example he still needed to be told to calm his language.

In closing, in this day and age, my original post gave a lived example of what may have been the case.
I never said this was THE case.
Even his being pissed excuse doesn't wash with me. He'd have to be almost comatose to come out with that......or he has some form of disability.
If it wasn't mentioned he wanted to be a journo I would've just gone with the racist idiot line.

Ok last comment on this - I promise.

I know who you meant as the Oracle.

I've read your original post and all of the subsequent ones - they didn't get any better, and neither does your last one imho.

I might have an Agenda on this, you might be right.

As someone who's Dad sustained an injury that left him significantly disabled 38 years ago, I didn't find it humorous then and still don't. Neither does he.

Having a cousin with significant and multiple disabilities (including intellectual disabilities), I don't find her condition funny, nor do I blanketly excuse her when she says or does things that might, to some, be inappropriate from time to time. She gets called out too.

As the lead of a National Organisation supporting people with a disability, I am confident that none of the 7500 people or their families supported by the organization would find the notion of someone being pissed as 'temporarily disabled' funny.

Part of my role is to advocate and educate, your original and subsequent comments are completely misguided, people with a disability don't need or want you to feel sorry for them and don't want you to blanketly apply your perception on them that they don't or can't know any better.

Discrimination and bias when applied to race is wrong, its also wrong when its applied to people with a disability.

You're right, I probably have an agenda. My examples are also lived - daily.

End of.

[Lightning McQueen]

I’ve been on this site for nearly 20 years and you are one of the strangest posters I have encountered.


And that’s saying something

I take offence to that.

[mots02]

I’ve been on this site for nearly 20 years and you are one of the strangest posters I have encountered.


And that’s saying something

I take offence to that.

He said ‘one of’.