Play Nice Eddie McGuire comments on holding Caro Wilson underwater

Remove this Banner Ad

deltablues in which part of the law does emotion play no part?

When a judge cites "policy" or has to determine emotional or psychological impact there is a bit of room for emotion to enter into it.

A jury can be swayed by emotive language.

When you have humans involved, emotions are involved.
 
deltablues said:
It's a public forum. Expect to debate the points you make, instead of making cheap personal shots.

But if you want to deal at that level then spare me the supermarket tabloid psychobabble - and I guess when it comes to dismissive superiority, you clearly win on that score.
Click to expand...

Oh please, spare me the indignation.

Telling me it is a case of focusing on the forest and less on the trees. Telling me what you suspect I wish and concluding that wishes never paid the rent.

I'm simply asking you to stop acting like this is a university debate and speak in layman's terms so your message doesn't have to be read multiple times to understand where you are coming from. I lose interest in the debate if it is hard work as like most, I have better things to do.
 
H2F said:
Cry me a river. Ask anyone over 60 what they think of Sam?
Click to expand...
I am over sixty, and Mr Newmans behaviour is the reason why I stopped watching the footy show, while Trevour Marmalade was still on it. What does that make it? Fifteen odd years ago?
Mr Newman was then, a nasty, mean spirited talentless boor. His street talk segment did nothing other than denigrate and humiliate his victims, much to the delight of his audience.
After watching his performance regarding Ms Wilson on social media, the best I can say is that he appears to have remained consistent. The post that equates him with Louis CK, is utterly ridiculous, that guy is funny. Mr Newman, ( and he may well just be playing a role for the benefit of a pay packet, I dont care either way ) is just plain mean.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Mavis Darling said:
At least we do think, and we have the benefit of hindsight, and no, that doesn't mean look up your bottom, you twerp
Click to expand...

Not very convincing... All that benefit of hindsight and contemplating a retort ...and all you come back with is a poor joke and name calling....;)
 
Mavis Darling said:
I am over sixty, and Mr Newmans behaviour is the reason why I stopped watching the footy show, while Trevour Marmalade was still on it. What does that make it? Fifteen odd years ago?
Mr Newman was then, a nasty, mean spirited talentless boor. His street talk segment did nothing other than denigrate and humiliate his victims, much to the delight of his audience.
After watching his performance regarding Ms Wilson on social media, the best I can say is that he appears to have remained consistent. The post that equates him with Louis CK, is utterly ridiculous, that guy is funny. Mr Newman, ( and he may well just be playing a role for the benefit of a pay packet, I dont care either way ) is just plain mean.
Click to expand...

Don't disagree but he has some talent; he's been paid millions over the years to be that character. I'm always amazed people take him seriously.
 
deltablues said:
It is not who decides, but how the decision is made by reference to the process I outlined.

Regrettably your responses to my posts here reveal that you are incapable of seeing the legal issues in play so it is fruitless discussing it any further with you. But I do give you some credit for being brave enough to display your ignorance in a public forum for all to see.

PS In the real world things are far from "clear cut" That is why there are lawyers.
Click to expand...

If someone breaks into my house and steals my property, that's pretty clear cut.

If someone guns another person down on the street, that's pretty clear cut.

If someone registers over 0.05 BAC, that's pretty clear cut. If they crash their car and cause injury or death to someone, that's pretty clear cut.

Everyone is entitled to a defense, that doesn't mean the law is not clear cut.

In response to your first comment, you asked "who decides" and provided a response. Of course the decision is made in the context of the law, the individual circumstances and any case law; but that is not what you asked.
 
DemonTim said:
No evidence has been provided to YOU. Please don't speak in absolutes when it's just yourself that has an issue
Click to expand...

Yes, that's right. I was having a discussion with someone and they said (as some kind of means of justifying the behaviour of McGuire, Brayshaw, Newman et al which even if proven I don't think it would) that Wilson had written articles shaming and slandering McGuire & Brayshaw. When asked for examples time and again they have failed to provide any. All I can infer from that is that they don't exist.

When I google "Caroline Wilson slander Eddie McGuire" this is the list of results that come up

https://www.google.com.au/webhp?sou...UTF-8#q=caroline wilson slander eddie mcguire

Can't see anything there.

These are the results for "Caroline Wilson slander James Brayshaw"

https://www.google.com.au/webhp?sou...TF-8#q=caroline+wilson+slander+james+brayshaw

The only thing even moderately worth considering is a Big Footy thread from 2008 where there is some dispute regarding a column she apparently wrote regarding Brayshaw opting to call a game for Triple M over attending a North game. I can't see anything slanderous in that.

Unless someone wants to prove me wrong by actually providing evidence, I'm not going to waste my time trying to prove a negative. I didn't make the allegation, DangerSloane did and so the burden of proof is on him to provide the evidence to support his allegation. Otherwise it remains baseless and his argument doesn't hold up.
 
Demonic Ascent said:
Yes, that's right. I was having a discussion with someone and they said (as some kind of means of justifying the behaviour of McGuire, Brayshaw, Newman et al which even if proven I don't think it would) that Wilson had written articles shaming and slandering McGuire & Brayshaw. When asked for examples time and again they have failed to provide any. All I can infer from that is that they don't exist.

When I google "Caroline Wilson slander Eddie McGuire" this is the list of results that come up

https://www.google.com.au/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=caroline wilson slander eddie mcguire

Can't see anything there.

These are the results for "Caroline Wilson slander James Brayshaw"

https://www.google.com.au/webhp?sou...TF-8#q=caroline+wilson+slander+james+brayshaw

The only thing even moderately worth considering is a Big Footy thread from 2008 where there is some dispute regarding a column she apparently wrote regarding Brayshaw opting to call a game for Triple M over attending a North game. I can't see anything slanderous in that.

Unless someone wants to prove me wrong by actually providing evidence, I'm not going to waste my time trying to prove a negative. I didn't make the allegation, DangerSloane did and so the burden of proof is on him to provide the evidence to support his allegation. Otherwise it remains baseless and his argument doesn't hold up.
Click to expand...
E
ither you have never had to research things, or are just terrible at it. Your searching skills are atrocious (or were purposefully crafted to not get results)


There's no point anyone conversing with you in this thread, you expect people to provide you, with items that have already been discussed, and refuse to read the thread from prior to you joining.

You don't want evidence provided to further the discussion, and I guarantee even if you weren't lazy and actually read the background before butting your head in, you'd find some reason why the evidence provided, isn't evidence. You're not looking for "evidence" so you can thoughtfully provide to the discussion, you're looking for "evidence" (and when it's not presented to you) to tell everyone they're wrong. It's pretty obvious that nothing in this will change your mind.

Between your refusal to read, and your lack of understanding of basic principles of words/the legal system, it's becoming tiresome conversing with you.
 
DemonTim said:
E
ither you have never had to research things, or are just terrible at it. Your searching skills are atrocious (or were purposefully crafted to not get results)


There's no point anyone conversing with you in this thread, you expect people to provide you, with items that have already been discussed, and refuse to read the thread from prior to you joining.

You don't want evidence provided to further the discussion, and I guarantee even if you weren't lazy and actually read the background before butting your head in, you'd find some reason why the evidence provided, isn't evidence. You're not looking for "evidence" so you can thoughtfully provide to the discussion, you're looking for "evidence" (and when it's not presented to you) to tell everyone they're wrong. It's pretty obvious that nothing in this will change your mind.

Between your refusal to read, and your lack of understanding of basic principles of words/the legal system, it's becoming tiresome conversing with you.
Click to expand...

It's quite a simple thing, if someone wants their argument to be taken seriously then they should be prepared to provide evidence/examples when questioned. In the absence of the evidence they can't expect to be taken seriously. The burden of proof rests on the person making the allegation. DangerSloane made the allegation of "shaming and slandering" it is not up to me to just take his word for it or prove his point.

The reason I request the evidence is because I doubt it exists. What he (and others like yourself) may consider "shaming and slandering" is likely nothing of the sort, similar to the previous discussion I had with CatFan79 who refused to provide the context of the discussion on 3AW and then when he finally did it was shown that his allegation was wrong because he had failed to assess the context of the discussion. That is why I ask for the evidence, so it can be scrutinised and objectively assessed.

Of course I only did a quick google search, what else do you expect me to do? I'm not going to go on wild goose chases following up someone else's tangents so that their point may be proved; especially considering I seriously doubt the evidence even exists in the first place!

Provide evidence of Caroline Wilson "shaming and slandering" Eddie McGuire and/or James Brayshaw otherwise you are correct there is no point furthering the discussion. You cannot make wild unsupported allegations and then when requested to provide evidence/examples of those allegations throw a hissy fit because someone doesn't just accept the allegations on your say-so. It is quite tiresome, you are correct and really if "everyone knows" the evidence exists and it's "common knowledge" and the evidence is "readily available" and "easy to find" then it shouldn't be too much of a bother for you or DangerSloane to provide it. Considering this tiresome back and forth has gone for days and days and pages and pages without even one shred of evidence in support of the initial allegation, I and others reading could only infer that the simplest solution is the correct one and that is that the evidence simply doesn't exist.

I have never had so much trouble having someone provide an example of what they are talking about. It really is quite absurd, yours and DangerSloane's attempts to shift the burden of proof onto the person who didn't even make the allegation in the first place. That kind of illogical thought belongs in a Kafka novel or Carroll's Wonderland. You're not a politician are you?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Demonic Ascent said:
Yes, that's right. I was having a discussion with someone and they said (as some kind of means of justifying the behaviour of McGuire, Brayshaw, Newman et al which even if proven I don't think it would) that Wilson had written articles shaming and slandering McGuire & Brayshaw. When asked for examples time and again they have failed to provide any. All I can infer from that is that they don't exist.

When I google "Caroline Wilson slander Eddie McGuire" this is the list of results that come up

https://www.google.com.au/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=caroline wilson slander eddie mcguire

Can't see anything there.

These are the results for "Caroline Wilson slander James Brayshaw"

https://www.google.com.au/webhp?sou...TF-8#q=caroline+wilson+slander+james+brayshaw

The only thing even moderately worth considering is a Big Footy thread from 2008 where there is some dispute regarding a column she apparently wrote regarding Brayshaw opting to call a game for Triple M over attending a North game. I can't see anything slanderous in that.

Unless someone wants to prove me wrong by actually providing evidence, I'm not going to waste my time trying to prove a negative. I didn't make the allegation, DangerSloane did and so the burden of proof is on him to provide the evidence to support his allegation. Otherwise it remains baseless and his argument doesn't hold up.
Click to expand...

Oh my lord will you just shut up.
There is plenty of evidence there, Ive even told you where to find it.

OK here we go, I'm going to say that Ivan Malat killed a bunch of people. Oh wait, no because I don't have evidence on me, it cant be true.

Moron.

Its not an allegation where there is clear, publicly available proof to back it up.
If you cant be bothered finding it that's fine, that is your prerogative, but don't bring me back into a discussion when you cant be bothered actually looking. In summary I don't have to prove squat to anyone, plus its not an allegation.
 
Demonic Ascent said:
It's quite a simple thing, if someone wants their argument to be taken seriously then they should be prepared to provide evidence/examples when questioned. In the absence of the evidence they can't expect to be taken seriously. The burden of proof rests on the person making the allegation. DangerSloane made the allegation of "shaming and slandering" it is not up to me to just take his word for it or prove his point.

The reason I request the evidence is because I doubt it exists. What he (and others like yourself) may consider "shaming and slandering" is likely nothing of the sort, similar to the previous discussion I had with CatFan79 who refused to provide the context of the discussion on 3AW and then when he finally did it was shown that his allegation was wrong because he had failed to assess the context of the discussion. That is why I ask for the evidence, so it can be scrutinised and objectively assessed.

Of course I only did a quick google search, what else do you expect me to do? I'm not going to go on wild goose chases following up someone else's tangents so that their point may be proved; especially considering I seriously doubt the evidence even exists in the first place!

Provide evidence of Caroline Wilson "shaming and slandering" Eddie McGuire and/or James Brayshaw otherwise you are correct there is no point furthering the discussion. You cannot make wild unsupported allegations and then when requested to provide evidence/examples of those allegations throw a hissy fit because someone doesn't just accept the allegations on your say-so. It is quite tiresome, you are correct and really if "everyone knows" the evidence exists and it's "common knowledge" and the evidence is "readily available" and "easy to find" then it shouldn't be too much of a bother for you or DangerSloane to provide it. Considering this tiresome back and forth has gone for days and days and pages and pages without even one shred of evidence in support of the initial allegation, I and others reading could only infer that the simplest solution is the correct one and that is that the evidence simply doesn't exist.

I have never had so much trouble having someone provide an example of what they are talking about. It really is quite absurd, yours and DangerSloane's attempts to shift the burden of proof onto the person who didn't even make the allegation in the first place. That kind of illogical thought belongs in a Kafka novel or Carroll's Wonderland. You're not a politician are you?
Click to expand...
Where is that shifting the burden of proof? It's already been pointed out to you that this entire topic, has already been discussed, in the thread. Prior to you jumping in with an opinion that hasn't even taken into account previous discussion. That's not a shift of burden of proof, that's an expectation that if someone is going to join in a discussion at a mid-point in the conversation, that they would understand the prior discussion. The proof has been provided, your laziness and unwillingness to read what has already been posted has no relation to a shift in the burden of proof.

You're a pseudo intellectual who seems to have less than a base level understanding of what he discusses, it's plainly obvious (sorry, i'm sure you'll ask for proof of this). You made incorrect claims around the legal system, and objectivity, and quickly jumped from the sinking ship when you couldn't support your assertions. Now you're back to your original point, of requesting evidence that's already been provided. Either quit being lazy and read the thread, or quit making stupid assumptions based on your laziness, simple.
 
DangerSloane said:
Oh my lord will you just shut up.
There is plenty of evidence there, Ive even told you where to find it.

OK here we go, I'm going to say that Ivan Malat killed a bunch of people. Oh wait, no because I don't have evidence on me, it cant be true.

Moron.

Its not an allegation where there is clear, publicly available proof to back it up.
If you cant be bothered finding it that's fine, that is your prerogative, but don't bring me back into a discussion when you cant be bothered actually looking. In summary I don't have to prove squat to anyone, plus its not an allegation.
Click to expand...
I agree with him that proof being publicly available isn't evidence, especially in something as subjective as this. His argument falls apart when he's joined a discussion where the evidence has already been discussed though. It'd be like walking into a court, half way through a trial, and telling everyone that all evidence presented before you arrived doesn't actually exist.
 
Chief said:
deltablues in which part of the law does emotion play no part?

When a judge cites "policy" or has to determine emotional or psychological impact there is a bit of room for emotion to enter into it.

A jury can be swayed by emotive language.

When you have humans involved, emotions are involved.
Click to expand...

I entirely get where you are coming from, and I could answer you in detail, but this is not the thread for it.

But in a nutshell, at a broad-brush level, legal argument/interpretation of laws are driven by rules of logic, case law and statutory interpretation. Emotion plays no part in the law - otherwise you have no rule of law. You would have kumbaya. Similar to a doctor's diagnosis re terminal cancer ( for example). The medico can experience the emotion (especially if it involves a friend or family member), but it will not impact his diagnosis.

But I will concede that criminal law/juries can be a different ball of wax. But we are talking theater there, not law.
 
Last edited:
DangerSloane said:
OK here we go, I'm going to say that Ivan Malat killed a bunch of people. Oh wait, no because I don't have evidence on me, it cant be true.
Click to expand...
If I were to say "nah that's crap, there's no evidence Milat killed anyone" you wouldn't just respond "yes he did, everyone knows that, you're an idiot". You'd post a link to R v Milat or any of the other public sources that establish that Milat was convicted of murder in the Supreme Court of NSW.

So I think Demonic Ascent just wants links to evidence, or at the very least to discussions in this thread (or another thread) where people link to, cite or discuss evidence that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that Wilson had "shamed or slandered" McGuire or Wilson. I don't think he's asking for a link to a judgement that Wilson had committed a tort.

If it's easy enough for Demonic Ascent to chase them up by way of a search, it's easy enough for those who rely upon them to do so to facilitate the conversation moving forward.
 
Feerits Elf said:
If I were to say "nah that's crap, there's no evidence Milat killed anyone" you wouldn't just respond "yes he did, everyone knows that, you're an idiot". You'd post a link to R v Milat or any of the other public sources that establish that Milat was convicted of murder in the Supreme Court of NSW.

So I think Demonic Ascent just wants links to evidence, or at the very least to discussions in this thread (or another thread) where people link to, cite or discuss evidence that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that Wilson had "shamed or slandered" McGuire or Wilson. I don't think he's asking for a link to a judgement that Wilson had committed a tort.

If it's easy enough for Demonic Ascent to chase them up by way of a search, it's easy enough for those who rely upon them to do so to facilitate the conversation moving forward.
Click to expand...

No, I wouldn't, Id ask the person who wants clarification to do so.
Why do I care whether he agrees or disagrees, especially when its a known fact.
 
The Old Dark Navy's said:
Oh please, spare me the indignation.

Telling me it is a case of focusing on the forest and less on the trees. Telling me what you suspect I wish and concluding that wishes never paid the rent.

I'm simply asking you to stop acting like this is a university debate and speak in layman's terms so your message doesn't have to be read multiple times to understand where you are coming from. I lose interest in the debate if it is hard work as like most, I have better things to do.
Click to expand...


Honey, I'm not at all "indignant" nor am I "telling" you anything. I'm just shooting the breeze. And if you could actually respond to my comments (which I have made in plain English) instead of playing the man, then we might be able to have a dialogue.

But if you are more comfortable just sitting back there and soaking up the vibe in your bubble - that's cool. I fully understand.
 
deltablues said:
Honey, I'm not at all "indignant" nor am I "telling" you anything. I'm just shooting the breeze. And if you could actually respond to my comments (which I have made in plain English) instead of playing the man, then we might be able to have a dialogue.

But if you are more comfortable just sitting back there and soaking up the vibe in your bubble - that's cool. I fully understand.
Click to expand...

Sweetie, you are starting to sound like a bore and a hypocrite. Just being objective of course, no legal interpretation needed.
 
Demonic Ascent said:
It's quite a simple thing, if someone wants their argument to be taken seriously then they should be prepared to provide evidence/examples when questioned. In the absence of the evidence they can't expect to be taken seriously. The burden of proof rests on the person making the allegation. DangerSloane made the allegation of "shaming and slandering" it is not up to me to just take his word for it or prove his point.

The reason I request the evidence is because I doubt it exists. What he (and others like yourself) may consider "shaming and slandering" is likely nothing of the sort, similar to the previous discussion I had with CatFan79 who refused to provide the context of the discussion on 3AW and then when he finally did it was shown that his allegation was wrong because he had failed to assess the context of the discussion. That is why I ask for the evidence, so it can be scrutinised and objectively assessed.

Of course I only did a quick google search, what else do you expect me to do? I'm not going to go on wild goose chases following up someone else's tangents so that their point may be proved; especially considering I seriously doubt the evidence even exists in the first place!

Provide evidence of Caroline Wilson "shaming and slandering" Eddie McGuire and/or James Brayshaw otherwise you are correct there is no point furthering the discussion. You cannot make wild unsupported allegations and then when requested to provide evidence/examples of those allegations throw a hissy fit because someone doesn't just accept the allegations on your say-so. It is quite tiresome, you are correct and really if "everyone knows" the evidence exists and it's "common knowledge" and the evidence is "readily available" and "easy to find" then it shouldn't be too much of a bother for you or DangerSloane to provide it. Considering this tiresome back and forth has gone for days and days and pages and pages without even one shred of evidence in support of the initial allegation, I and others reading could only infer that the simplest solution is the correct one and that is that the evidence simply doesn't exist.

I have never had so much trouble having someone provide an example of what they are talking about. It really is quite absurd, yours and DangerSloane's attempts to shift the burden of proof onto the person who didn't even make the allegation in the first place. That kind of illogical thought belongs in a Kafka novel or Carroll's Wonderland. You're not a politician are you?
Click to expand...
Bud, I posted this earlier in this thread in response to your similar argument.
"This is not an academic thesis. When something is in the public domain there is no "claim" nor any onus to support a statement on the topic - it is a case of res ipsa loquitur. So check it out yourself. You may genuinely be ignorant, or just lazy, but haul your own water. Or get your own PA."

I repeat it here.
 
Feerits Elf said:
Why? If it takes two minutes to find a link and post it, why not do so to prove your assertion, satisfy the person seeking clarification, and keep the discussion moving forward?

Or do you object to doing so as a matter or principle?
Click to expand...

I already told him.
Watch the footy classified episode with Brayshaw on it.
the other hosts on the show talk about her obsession/vendetta with brayshaw.

I'm not finding it for him, I've walked him to the toilet and dropped his pants. I'm not going to prise the s**t out of his ass for him.

If he really wants to find it he can.
If he doesn't, then he won't.

THe only thing that remains the same is that I couldn't give two shits.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Toump Ass
Rumour Girls on Coke
2 3 4
Replies
86
Views
7K
matthew_s
matthew_s
nut
Rumour Scott Morrison now keen on Essendon CEO position.
2
Replies
27
Views
6K
SugarHealey
SugarHealey
windyhill
Rumour Do an Open Mike on this one son
2
Replies
41
Views
15K
Shane Heard
Shane Heard
Chief
Admin Announcement Drug talk: No thanks. It's always been that way on BigFooty
Replies
0
Views
2K
Chief
Chief
dmc333
Scandal Dees Punch on: May vs Melksham
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
147
Views
19K
theyellowsash
theyellowsash
PerthBoy86
Why does the media keep giving random haters/trolls etc on social media attention?
2
Replies
40
Views
5K
Corn Cobbers
Corn Cobbers

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top