Jade
Smug lives here.
- Jul 8, 2008
- 34,604
- 53,542
- AFL Club
- Essendon
Because fu** Hawthorn. How bout that?
Cass me ousside...
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Because fu** Hawthorn. How bout that?
Huh?Cass me ousside...
it wasn't already with people defending Eddie Collingwood and HawthornWell this just got weird then...
Yikes, must've busted it good then. :\St kilda having a horror pre-season
UPDATE: Horror leg break ends Saint's season, veteran touch and go
St Kilda defender Ben Paton will miss the 2021 season after a shocking broken leg at the intraclub hitoutwww.afl.com.au
Tougher draw as well this year. Finals would be a huge achievement for them in my opinionSt kilda having a horror pre-season
UPDATE: Horror leg break ends Saint's season, veteran touch and go
St Kilda defender Ben Paton will miss the 2021 season after a shocking broken leg at the intraclub hitoutwww.afl.com.au
quite a long and detailed thread from McNamara
No current season stats available
To be fair, Sydney have three captains so their leadership group is probably 43 blokesSo not always a bad thing to knock back a trade request
Papley and Sydney back in love again
Tom Papley is back in the Sydney leadership group two years after trying to get to Carlton, reaffirming his commitment and value to the Swans.www.news.com.au
That's s**t. He should've come to Essendon.Former Collingwood player Leon Davis: 'We don't want our kids to have to go through the bullshit'
Drafted as an excited teenager, the First Nations man was stunned and isolated by racist bullying. ‘I don’t take any pleasure from Eddie stepping down,’ he says today. ‘The issues have not gone away’www.theguardian.com
2+2=4Because they're a false equivalency.
Sweetheart, you are the proverbial pigeon on the chessboard.
Why start this up again 4 days later?2+2=4
Calling it a "false equivalency" without even bothering to explain why you think that would be an incorrect argument.
Repeating over and over that it's a "false equivalency" wouldn't render it any less incorrect.
Now, are you going to explain why applying a metric to one person that you refuse to apply to another person is a valid argument? Or are you just going to stare blankly into space and say "duuuuh but *this* time it's DIFFERENT!!!"?
It's alright. You've got your fellow travellers who'll think your "chessboard" comment was witty and insightful but beyond that anybody can see that you point blank refuse to answer the key question. You've had plenty of opportunities but I'll give you another one.
If "mob on your front yard" is the *one and only* metric for the question "are you being harmed?" [which you claimed] then why isn't "mob on your front yard" the metric for "are you being harmed?" [which you also claimed].
In other words why did you claim that A=/=A?
And when this was pointed out to you, why did you just repeat "duuuh false equivalence" over and over like some fool instead of: a) admitting you're wrong; or b) at least attempting to explain why you don't believe that A=A?
My comment is not on point:Have I gone stark raving mad, or did I not literally, LITERALLY explain what a false equivalency was?
No. What you LITERALLY did was stare blankly into space and say "ummm, that's a false equivalency". At no point did you attempt to explain why you don't believe that A=A. But if you think you have and I've just missed this sparkling insight then just quote yourself doing this.Have I gone stark raving mad, or did I not literally, LITERALLY explain what a false equivalency was?