2003 Team Poster

[Chicago1]

Hey, Chops..... like the new avatar? She's definitely better looking than the last two mugs I had! Swimsuit model..... about my age.....

 

[Captain Sensible]

Originally posted by Chicago1
Then why can't I say **** or **** or **** on BF? Hmmm..... maybe not the appropriate forum. But what about "freedom of speech all the time"?


Good! But then again, aren't your political leanings which clearly agree with the message the real reason for doing so? Now, if Player X had had "Vote One Nation" written on his arm would you still be willing to buy another membership to offset another person's non-renewal for objecting to the message which appeared on a club poster? Would that fall into the category of "all the time, not just when I agree with what is said"? Just something to think about.

Fair point on the first paragragh.

I would still support that player. Gotta go will continue this tonight ot tomorrow it is an important discussion.

 

[sigscotty]

Originally posted by Chicago1
She's definitely better looking than the last two mugs I had!

Now now chicago, the one thing you can't say about Murph is that there is anybody in the world that is better looking than him!

Special note for Murfs Chik: Bobby is really ugly, hahaha.

 

[Chicago1]

Originally posted by localyokel
Fair point on the first paragragh.

I would still support that player. Gotta go will continue this tonight ot tomorrow it is an important discussion.

Admirable, local. Catch you tomorrow.

 

[Chicago1]

Originally posted by sigscotty
Now now chicago, the one thing you can't say about Murph is that there is anybody in the world that is better looking than him!

Special note for Murfs Chik: Bobby is really ugly, hahaha.

Based on her PMs to me, I think you're going to be in VERY hot water for that remark! So she likes skinny, pimply faced kids? (I think I'd better put her on my "Ignore" list after what I just said!)

 

[OldSchool]

Originally posted by Chicago1
Because of Murphy's action and the failure of the Western Bulldogs Football Club administration to keep politics out of footy by refusing to airbrush the political message from the official team photo, there will be one less Western Bulldog member and one less Pet member this year.

My "protest" will be explained to the Western Bulldogs Football Club and has already been sent to a source that may wish to publicise just one small consequence of Murphy's actions. So I guess that something more HAS come of it..... though I doubt the club will care.

Chicago you are of course welcome to express you displeasure with Robert's action in any manner you choose however, I believe that it is almost impossible to keep sport and politics apart when major world events like wars occur even in a non international sport like Australian rules.
For your information Cricket players even protested against their own country at the recent world cup and yet most would agree that their actions were justified.
You may also recall the land of the free even boycotted the Olympics games at Russia. In Australia we had the goverment of the day pay two high profile athletes money, under the table, not to attend the games as a way of trying to coax others into not going. Thankfully Sport won out on that occasion.
We have had athletes raise their gloved hands at Olympics and we have even had footballers raising their jumpers to show that they are proud of their heritage. We have had athletes run a lap of honor with both an Australian and Aboriginal flags.
As distasteful as it is for the sport lovers, politics and sport are linked and in the whole scheme of the war against Iraq, Robert's action is fairly tame.

For the record, I do not agree with the action Robert has taken but think we are facing bigger problems than what is nothing more than just a bit of scribble on someone's hand.

 

[angi]

Well u can stand by and watch ur club die because u dont agree with Robert Murphy if u want!
Wen a player signs a contract he doesnt sign away his rite 2 free speech something alot of u obviously havent heard of all of u have a rite 2 ur opinion as ur showing on this board why cant murph

 

[sigscotty]

Originally posted by OldSchool
Chicago you are of course welcome to express you displeasure with Robert's action in any manner you choose however, I believe that it is almost impossible to keep sport and politics apart when major world events like wars occur even in a non international sport like Australian rules.
For your information Cricket players even protested against their own country at the recent world cup and yet most would agree that their actions were justified.
You may also recall the land of the free even boycotted the Olympics games at Russia. In Australia we had the goverment of the day pay two high profile athletes money, under the table, not to attend the games as a way of trying to coax others into not going. Thankfully Sport won out on that occasion.
We have had athletes raise their gloved hands at Olympics and we have even had footballers raising their jumpers to show that they are proud of their heritage. We have had athletes run a lap of honor with both an Australian and Aboriginal flags.
As distasteful as it is for the sport lovers, politics and sport are linked and in the whole scheme of the war against Iraq, Robert's action is fairly tame.

For the record, I do not agree with the action Robert has taken but think we are facing bigger problems than what is nothing more than just a bit of scribble on someone's hand.

I agree with everything you say. Just would add that the doggies can at least insure their own official merchandise doesn't carry poilitical messages.

I especially agree that "we are facing bigger problems than what is nothing more than just a bit of scribble on someone's hand". (That may seem strange considering i have been posting on this thread all day ... i was bored and nobody was posting about much else )

 

[OldSchool]

Originally posted by sigscotty
I agree with everything you say. Just would add that the doggies can at least insure their own official merchandise doesn't carry poilitical messages.

The simple answer is to not buy that piece of merchandice if it offends.
We had actors at the Oscars flash the peace sign, does Chicago boycott those actors movies or does he hold the Oscars accountable after all they let the footage go to air ??

In time Robert will be judged on the merits of his actions but I don't for one minute hold the club accountable. The whole issue is nothing more than just a good discussion point and I cannot fathom why anyone would get too upset about it.
The club and Chicago have had a good relationship for many years and this appears the wrong reason for them to part ways.

 

[sigscotty]

Originally posted by OldSchool
The simple answer is to not buy that piece of merchandice if it offends.
We had actors at the Oscars flash the peace sign, does Chicago boycott those actors movies or does he hold the Oscars accountable after all they let the footage go to air ??

In time Robert will be judged on the merits of his actions but I don't for one minute hold the club accountable. The whole issue is nothing more than just a good discussion point and I cannot fathom why anyone would get too upset about it.
The club and Chicago have had a good relationship for many years and this appears the wrong reason for them to part ways.

I think the club is more resposible than Murphy. It is THEIR merchandise, and by leaving it there (when presumably they would remove "kkk" or something of that nature) shows implicit support for a political opinion.

 

[OldSchool]

Originally posted by sigscotty
I think the club is more resposible than Murphy. It is THEIR merchandise, and by leaving it there (when presumably they would remove "kkk" or something of that nature) shows implicit support for a political opinion.

If he had written 'cos i'm free' or 'sorry' I doubt that that it would raise too much discussion. Both are political statements though but I wouldn't cancel my membership because of it.
Some people, not Chicago, are too quick to be offended by the actions of others and some are almost professional victims who live to argue and debate insignificant minor points just for the sake of it.
As I said before Chicago is well within his rights to protest in whatever manner he deems appropriate but for this to be the most dominate thread on this forum is nothing short of a shame given we are just about to play our first match on the season.

I am happy to discuss this with Chicago off line but I wont contribute to it any further here.

 

[Chicago1]

Originally posted by Knackers
I stand 100% behind what I previously stated.

You criticise me for being judgemental, yet you do exactly the same thing.

I am not in my 20s and I still believe that you are a hypocrit(e).

I am not anti-american and I am pro removing Hussein, however punishing the club for what you perceive to be their political stance or mixing sport with politics is WRONG !!

Come down from your high horse and smell the "proverbial".

Aren't you the same person who posted the following on the General Talk Board?

Originally posted by Knackers
Maybe those who are naive on this board and have no real idea of what this war is truly about, should read this article. It's the closest thing to the truth that "The Age" has ever printed.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/03/19/1047749824415.html

Hmmm..... seems like your opinion is not formed wholly from an altruistic concern for the club, but rather from your political convictions. I find it interesting how people frequently begin statements with "I am not.... (racist, anti-semitic, anti-Collingwood, etc.) as if to prove some point based on trust.

Did you think my statement in the previous post about being 20 referred to you? Your post is rather unclear as to what the statement "I am not in my 20s....." means. My reference was to Murphy being 20.

 

[Chicago1]

Thank you, OldSchool, for your input. I acknowledge the points you have made in your posts and will take them on board. Best wishes.

 

[sigscotty]

Originally posted by OldSchool
If he had written 'cos i'm free' or 'sorry' I doubt that that it would raise too much discussion. Both are political statements though but I wouldn't cancel my membership because of it.

The amount of controversy caused or whether it would make you cancel your membership have no relevence at all to whether or not the club should let official merchandise be used to further ANY political agenda.

Some people, not Chicago, are too quick to be offended by the actions of others and some are almost professional victims who live to argue and debate insignificant minor points just for the sake of it.

Wow, what a great paragraph. You make assumptions about peoples justifcations when being offended(who are you to decide if someone has felt offense too quickly?), and follow it up with judging them becuase YOU think they debate 'insignificant' issues(who are you to decide what issues are insignificant), and not only that, you claim to have a deep understanding about these so called 'professional victims' because not only do you know they argue about insignificant points, but you know that is what they 'live' for. To top it off you assume they only debate 'for the sake of it'(how do you know why people debate certain issues).

How do you think i would have gone in the POI CAT Chicago?

 

[Chops]

Originally posted by sigscotty
They are both legal, and they are both political.

KKK and no war
One promotes violence and the other is against it

 

[Chops]

Originally posted by Chicago1
Hey, Chops..... like the new avatar? She's definitely better looking than the last two mugs I had! Swimsuit model..... about my age.....

That one is the most offensive one yet C1! I don't watch that rubbish. How dare you!

 

[Chicago1]

Originally posted by Chops
That one is the most offensive one yet C1! I don't watch that rubbish. How dare you!

And I am offended by your comment, kind sir. However, I will not demand that it be deleted from this forum!

 

[Knackers]

In reply to Chicago.

Your previous avatar also shows your political views and bias, but I unlike you, refrained from clouding the issue with personal political beliefs.

My point remains the same, for you to not renew your membership based on Murphy's protest is shallow.

My point has been made and I will no longer contribute to this thread, as attention seeking is obviously your game.

 

[Westy_Boy]

Originally posted by Chicago1
"We haven't seen the photograph yet," the spokesman said. "People have their own opinions and they are entitled to those opinions. If Robert has chosen to voice his opinion, he is entitled to it." Seems the club condoned what he did according to a "Bulldogs spokesman".

It's one (anonymous) person giving his, and only his, opinion on what he thinks. Nothing in the article actually suggests that it was an official stance, nor that anyone with enough authority to get the photo airbrushed even had the option/opportunity to do it.

What if something like this had happened at Parade - a picture of a student with "no war" written on his hand slips through to the official yearbook without anyone spotting it. One teacher says he doesn't have a problem with it. The student is officially representing the College, it's in an official school document, it's a political message. I take it that you'll never work at Parade again and boycott their functions? Would that be right? Or would that be foolish, even though it's essentially the same to what you're doing here?

Originally posted by Chicago1
People can make up their own minds as to what to do.

You didn’t answer the question about what you’d like to see come of it. Given that you’re trying your best to make your 'protest' public, chances are that you’d love to see a major issue made out of it in the media, have your stance given heaps of exposure, and you’d probably love to see others follow suit and not buy a membership as a ‘protest’.... getting a couple of hundred members to drop off would be a 'win' and would truly justify your stance, wouldn’t it? Maybe things are a little different in America with 'franchises' and the like, but here, real supporters don’t intentionally try to damage their own clubs.

Origininally posted by Chicago1
So MY protest is "petty"?

I think the majority of people would see it that way. 95% of the football world see the incident as a side issue with no major significance in the overall scheme of things, and something that'll be forgotten come round 1- you've gone and written 4 emails, tried to get it published in the Herald Sun and cancelled your membership renewal, all in an effort to get your viewpoint across that one of the club's actions wasn't to your satisfaction. There's a lot of people who disagree with some things the club does, but they deal with it - but with you it's more of a case of "bow to my demands or no money and bad publicity for you".

Originally posted by Chicago1
A month before my visit I wrote to the columnist to explain about my trip and "sold" my story to her because of the footy club's plight. I was hoping that my story might help the club out a bit.

This is a cracker. How many times have you told 'your story' on the web - 50, 100 times? Are you seriously trying to suggest that if we were in a stronger financial position, you wouldn't have tried to get your story published?

Originally posted by Chicago1
For example, don't you think the club was using me when I was asked by Smorgo to say a few words at the President's Club luncheon?

Yes Chicago, anyone who ever gets asked to say a few words at a lunchoen is being used. No, not used. Exploited! Exploited like a Taiwanese factory worker on $2 a day!

Originally posted by Chicago1
Your comment "the club gives you better treatment than it affords its own past players" is indeed interesting to note. I guess many things can be read into that.

FMD. The only thing to be read into it is that you were treated like a king. Irrespective of the reasoning behind it, you were given an opportunity that 99% of football supporters in Australia can only ever dream about. Given the fact that you're not even renewing, I reckon there's people out there who'd be a hell of a lot more appreciative and deserving, who'd accept the fact that they won't agree with every single action the club takes, but more importantly, won't spit in the club's face when it's on its knees less than a year later.

 

[Chicago1]

Originally posted by Westy_Boy
It's one (anonymous) person giving his, and only his, opinion on what he thinks. Nothing in the article actually suggests that it was an official stance, nor that anyone with enough authority to get the photo airbrushed even had the option/opportunity to do it.

That's what a "spokesman" is. ": a person who speaks as the representative of another or others often in a professional capacity". Was this "anonymous" person an "official" spokesman? I can't tell either by the article, but I wouldn't dismiss his words as "his, and only his, opinion".

Originally posted by Westy_Boy
What if something like this had happened at Parade - a picture of a student with "no war" written on his hand slips through to the official yearbook without anyone spotting it. One teacher says he doesn't have a problem with it. The student is officially representing the College, it's in an official school document, it's a political message. I take it that you'll never work at Parade again and boycott their functions? Would that be right? Or would that be foolish, even though it's essentially the same to what you're doing here?

The school would have disciplined the student in some manner and it would have been made public as to the discipline. That would have satisfied any concerns I might have had regarding such an incident. My initial e-mail to the club 23 days ago requested information from the club regarding the matter. I was very angry at the time and wanted some form of explanation from the club. As I stated in a previous post, I have limited access to information, unlike you, and wanted some clarification. I am still waiting for a reply. Most likely if the club would have contacted me in some manner, I would not be taking the action I have. I guess I'll have to concede the fact that the club has a problem with PR and relationships with members. You only have to reread some threads in this very forum that confirm this. Was Murphy even talked to by the club? Was an explanation regarding the incident "officially" made? How am I to know? I guess that since the club isn't a franchise and is owned by its members, that I have a right to query what happens at the club. Maybe you disagree.

Originally posted by Westy_Boy
You didn’t answer the question about what you’d like to see come of it. Given that you’re trying your best to make your 'protest' public, chances are that you’d love to see a major issue made out of it in the media, have your stance given heaps of exposure, and you’d probably love to see others follow suit and not buy a membership as a ‘protest’.... getting a couple of hundred members to drop off would be a 'win' and would truly justify your stance, wouldn’t it? Maybe things are a little different in America with 'franchises' and the like, but here, real supporters don’t intentionally try to damage their own clubs.

I would like an explanation from the club as to what was done about the incident, if anything at all. Maybe they chose not to "officially" comment. How do I know? I'm still waiting for a reply from them. Did they just dismiss my e-mail and put it into the "too hard basket" or "who cares" basket?
So you have a problem with MY freedom to express MY opinion in an forum of MY choice? Fine. You have the right to be selective regarding public protests that are acceptable or not acceptable to you. I guess you also have the right to believe you are omnipotent in deciding who a "real" supporter is. Do you honestly think my protest would "damage the club" if it would have been publicised in other forums? Gosh, I didn't know I had such power from 10,000 miles away!

Originally posted by Westy_Boy
I think the majority of people would see it that way. 95% of the football world see the incident as a side issue with no major significance in the overall scheme of things, and something that'll be forgotten come round 1- you've gone and written 4 emails, tried to get it published in the Herald Sun and cancelled your membership renewal, all in an effort to get your viewpoint across that one of the club's actions wasn't to your satisfaction. There's a lot of people who disagree with some things the club does, but they deal with it - but with you it's more of a case of "bow to my demands or no money and bad publicity for you".

So I presume that you believe that the other 5% don't have the right to express a strong public view regarding the incident? You certainly seem to have spent a fair bit of time discussing the incident and my reaction to it in this thread! And YOU certainly have made quite an effort to get the point across that MY action isn't to YOUR satisfaction.

Originally posted by Westy_Boy
This is a cracker. How many times have you told 'your story' on the web - 50, 100 times?

LOL Sorry to have bored you. I wonder if anyone else sees the underlying reason for your posts on this matter and the comment regarding past players in the previous post! The connotation of this statement is just soooo obvious! And sorry to disappoint you, but people who read about my story in the newspaper were interested. Not everyone has access to a computer and reads footy threads. And Westy, your sarcastic hyperbole is appreciated! I might even use it as an example in one of my English classes with your permission.

Originally posted by Westy_Boy
Are you seriously trying to suggest that if we were in a stronger financial position, you wouldn't have tried to get your story published?

Another statement to cause mirth! You certainly seem to be rather judgemental about someone you really know nothing about. I think that the BF posters who met me last year, would tell you that I'm a rather quiet person. I rarely drink or swear, have never smoked nor taken illegal drugs, am a church goer,have never even had a driver's licence and am very controlled at the footy most of the time. My initial contact with the columnist last year was to let her know how much I enjoyed an article she wrote regarding footy supporters travelling around the country to support their teams. I told her of my history with the club and she e-mailed me back asking if she could write an article about me. My response to her taken from my reply e-mail:
"I never intended my e-mail to you to be a stepping stone to fame and fortune for me! (I'm not worthy! I'm not worthy!) I'm really a rather shy and reserved character -- the Internet does wonders for people like me! I'd be happy to have something written about me in your column, not really to bignote myself, but rather to help my Doggies get some positive publicity!"
Sorry to cut down your argument there, Westy. Of course you probably believe I made the whole thing up. That was written on April 11 last year. Remember April last year, Westy? Remember the club had no major sponsor? Remember the doom and gloom regarding the club? Sorry I was so concerned with trying to help the club out. If you only knew how astounded I was that anyone would consider anything I have to say as newsworthy! Believe what you want.

Originally posted by Westy_Boy
The only thing to be read into it is that you were treated like a king.

Oh, I see where you're coming from now..... LOL

Originally posted by Westy_Boy
Irrespective of the reasoning behind it, you were given an opportunity that 99% of football supporters in Australia can only ever dream about. Given the fact that you're not even renewing, I reckon there's people out there who'd be a hell of a lot more appreciative and deserving, who'd accept the fact that they won't agree with every single action the club takes, but more importantly, won't spit in the club's face when it's on its knees less than a year later.

You win, Westy. I'll send the club my A$200 and no longer question anything they do (or not do). I think you've been reading too many Caro columns. Isn't the Western Bulldogs Football Club "on its knees" a copyrighted phrase owned exclusively by her?

Thanks for expressing your point of view. I disagree with most of it, but at least you made my boring life here a bit interesting for a couple of days.

My responses are now concluded except for one last post for Knackers to follow.

 

[Chicago1]

Originally posted by Knackers
In reply to Chicago.

Your previous avatar also shows your political views and bias, but I unlike you, refrained from clouding the issue with personal political beliefs.

Your political views were expressed in the Age article you linked to in the General Talk thread and I decided to share them with others reading my reply post to you. I just wanted others not to think you were apolitical regarding the underlying basis of your argument. My avatar was just a more convenient way for others to see my views.

Thanks, at least, for expressing your point of view.

Now THIS is my last post regarding the issue...... really, it is!

 

[Westy_Boy]

Originally posted by Chicago1
So you have a problem with MY freedom to express MY opinion in an forum of MY choice? So I presume that you believe that the other 5% don't have the right to express a strong public view regarding the incident?

Where have I said "you're not allowed to do this!" ? The underlying theme of my posts has been that I believe your actions are petty, selfish and stupid - that's my opinion, in my forum of choice ... I wouldn't care if it was any of my best mates acting in the same way, I'd tell them exactly the same thing.

The club is in serious, serious trouble, and if you're not helping it survive, you're helping it die, and at the moment, you're doing the latter - you won't change your actions, and I won't change my opinion on them, so we'll leave it at that.

 

[mels]

Ok Ok Ok!!!

Maybe he shouldnt have done it but he did. Get over it!!

For whats its worth apparently he got in to a hell of a lot of trouble over it.

As for Chicago not signing up for 'political' reasons thats the biggest load of crap I have ever heard....you obviously do not realise how much politics is involved in sport.

 

[The Doctor]

Originally posted by Chicago1
I was very angry at the time and wanted some form of explanation from the club.

My humble question is, How could anyone be so angry at someone who advocates peace?

 

[Curly5]

Can someone tell me if the objection is for the view as expressed by Murphy, or is it for ANY view at all being written on someone's arm? Would the same objection/reaction be made by the same people to 'Boot Saddam' or 'Vote Green'?

Like people of all countries around the world, many AFL players and supporters share Murph's opinion, many don't. Most of us posters have not expressed a view either way, this being a footy forum. If we happen to hold an opposing view are friendships on the line here?