List Mgmt. Tom Wilson Signs with Collingwood

[sr36]

1small step for man kind.

 

[sirlothie]

Relieved. Heard he felt he had AFL footy "conquered" and was ready to get drafted into the Aussie World Cup cricket side... there's more statues of footy players than cricketers at the MCG though so he thought of the long term...

 

[Saintly Viewed]

1small step for man kind.

A giant leap for Collingwood.


Interesting factoid:
Neil Armstrong actually stuffed up the line he said.

• One small step for man, a giant leap for mankind

He should have included an “a” as in just him “a” man ie as one man not all of man.

• One small step for a man, a giant leap for mankind.

 

[Apex36]

28 touches 13 marks, 4 goals

So you’re tipping he’ll start off with a quiet game? Disappointing.

 

[DerekZoolander]

So you’re tipping he’ll start off with a quiet game? Disappointing.

Will only play a half , so more like an average game.

 

[barrackers]

And no number listed on the club website.

I’d make a funny about him not needing a number but we don’t want to upset apple carts.

He should be 48?

Been training in 15 using the big Dunny number.

48 confirmed on the vfl.com.au team sheet

 

[ThePheonix]

I'm tipping Wilson for the Brownlow this year.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

48 confirmed on the vfl.com.au team sheet

They do listen when Saintly talks*.




* may not actually be true

 

[MyManLynch]

A giant leap for Collingwood.


Interesting factoid:
Neil Armstrong actually stuffed up the line he said.

• One small step for man, a giant leap for mankind

He should have included an “a” as in just him “a” man ie as one man not all of man.

• One small step for a man, a giant leap for mankind.

Correct.
Although I read somewhere (?) that the ‘a’ was lost in static during the transmission back to Earth.
So I blame those dudes in Parks.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

Correct.
Although I read somewhere (?) that the ‘a’ was lost in static during the transmission back to Earth.
So I blame those dudes in Parks.

That must be it.

Those Parkes boys they didn’t dish it out.

 

[MyManLynch]

That must be it.

Those Parkes boys they didn’t dish it out.

Bunch of dish lickers.
NASA official script listed the ‘a’.
Armstrong claimed he included the ‘a’.
The ‘a’ never made it to Earth...it’s still floating around in deep dark space somewhere...commonly referred to as an a-hole.

 

[76woodenspooners]

A giant leap for Collingwood.


Interesting factoid:
Neil Armstrong actually stuffed up the line he said.

• One small step for man, a giant leap for mankind

He should have included an “a” as in just him “a” man ie as one man not all of man.

• One small step for a man, a giant leap for mankind.

I’d argue that what he said was perfectly correct for two reasons ...

(1) Consider ‘countable’ and ‘non-countable’ nouns. Countable nouns need an ‘article’ (‘a’ / ‘an’, ‘the’) as in “I ate a hot hog” and non-countable nouns don’t “I drank water”. Some may use both forms, eg “I ate fish” versus “I ate a fish” and in this particular case the two sentences have different meaning to each other.

So is “man” countable? Absolutely, that’s its conventional form - “I spoke to a man”. Can man be non-countable? I’d argue that it could “With my spray can I scrawled on the wall my message to man about the importance of climate change”. Also note that “a man” is gender specific and “man” is not.

Is the use of “man” and “mankind” a tortology that confuses the meaning of the phrase? I don’t think so, “man” refers ambiguously to one, more or many people. “Mankind” refers unambiguously to all people in a timeless manner. For example, it could happily have been rephrased as “One small step for this generation, one giant leap for all generations”.

Does “One small step for a man ...” and “one small step for man ...” have substantively different meanings? I’d argue that they do. “A man” would have unambiguously referred to Neil Armstrong. “Man” ambiguously could refer to either Neil Armstrong, or the NASA team, or the US, or all people of the day involved in the space race including the Russians - both men and women.

(2) English (Unlike French or Spanish) is not a governed language. The can happily create words and phrases (“WTF”, “emoji”) and ain’t nobody is in any position of authority to tell us what is right or wrong (unless you have an English teacher). The moon landing was such an epic event, that whatever phrase Neil Armstrong uttered was going to enter the lexicon whether it was grammatically correct or not. (Eg: JFK’s iconic “Ich bin ein Berliner” is grammatically incorrect (in German) but the phrase has universal understanding across the world’s languages and has been adopted and even repurposed: “Je suis Charlie”)

Personally, I reckon that if Neil really did stray from the script, then he did good.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

I’d argue that what he said was perfectly correct for two reasons ...

(1) Consider ‘countable’ and ‘non-countable’ nouns. Countable nouns need an ‘article’ (‘a’ / ‘an’, ‘the’) as in “I ate a hot hog” and non-countable nouns don’t “I drank water”. Some may use both forms, eg “I ate fish” versus “I ate a fish” and in this particular case the two sentences have different meaning to each other.

So is “man” countable? Absolutely, that’s its conventional form - “I spoke to a man”. Can man be non-countable? I’d argue that it could “With my spray can I scrawled on the wall my message to man about the importance of climate change”. Also note that “a man” is gender specific and “man” is not.

Is the use of “man” and “mankind” a tortology that confuses the meaning of the phrase? I don’t think so, “man” refers ambiguously to one, more or many people. “Mankind” refers unambiguously to all people in a timeless manner. For example, it could happily have been rephrased as “One small step for this generation, one giant leap for all generations”.

Does “One small step for a man ...” and “one small step for man ...” have substantively different meanings? I’d argue that they do. “A man” would have unambiguously referred to Neil Armstrong. “Man” ambiguously could refer to either Neil Armstrong, or the NASA team, or the US, or all people of the day involved in the space race including the Russians - both men and women.

(2) English (Unlike French or Spanish) is not a governed language. The can happily create words and phrases (“WTF”, “emoji”) and ain’t nobody is in any position of authority to tell us what is right or wrong (unless you have an English teacher). The moon landing was such an epic event, that whatever phrase Neil Armstrong uttered was going to enter the lexicon whether it was grammatically correct or not. (Eg: JFK’s iconic “Ich bin ein Berliner” is grammatically incorrect (in German) but the phrase has universal understanding across the world’s languages and has been adopted and even repurposed: “Je suis Charlie”)

Personally, I reckon that if Neil really did stray from the script, then he did good.

You speak or write correctly.

That said, it might have been better

Then again, he stepped on the moon.

He wins!!!!!

 

[Copeland]

Tom is not on our list on footywire, whats the go there?

 

[Saintly Viewed]

Tom is not on our list on on footywire, whats the go there?

They have their footy wires crossed?

 

[Kirby]

He’s the one this year.

 

[MyManLynch]

Tom is not on our list on footywire, whats the go there?

He has his own list.

 

[Soups]

Tom is not on our list on footywire, whats the go there?

Tom IS footywire!

 

[jackcass]

Tom is not on our list on footywire, whats the go there?

Assume they're still going off the list provided by the club with a few known departures. Club site still has the likes of Murray, Wells, Goldsack and Aish at the club and no Wilson.

 

[35Daicos]

Tom is not on our list on footywire, whats the go there?

There's quite a few players who have been recently added to club lists (as Cat. B Rookies) who they don't seem to know about, namely Butters and Thomas (Fremantle), Murtagh (Gold Coast - signed as a Cat. B but moved to Cat. A), Pepper (Hawthorn), McGuinness (North Melb.) and O'Connor (Sydney). Obviously our man Wilson as well.

The AFL should have a page on it's website that shows exactly who is on all the lists as things stand. It would take a lot of the guesswork out of it. Not even the AFL Record Season Guide and Football Record get it right; there's always a few errors to be found there (especially in terms of who is Cat. A and who is Cat B). The AFL website gives so much coverage to the drafts and trading yet they don't finish the job by putting out totally reliable lists that everyone can use. Silly!!

I think there's another list lodgement today (before the SSP starts tomorrow) so it would be a good time for them to put something definitive out there, but I'm not holding my breath!

 

[Fratbrat]

Tom IS footywire!

He's really not, he's the invisible man, his opponent will never find him.

Collingwood Magpies Football Club Player List

Collingwood Magpies full AFL playing list and stats.

www.footywire.com