Opinion A different perspective

[Sanders]

Do I say they’re wrong?

Yes

 

[Sanders]

I have NEVER said nothing sinister happened. EVER.

drastic exaggerations and embellishments

 

[Sanders]

Curious, have you ever told Subaru to pull her head in?

I’ve never seen that once.

Now Subi (or “Martina”) is, as everyone knows, just a very stupid person hiding behind 2 dimensional trolling - who cares.

But our 50 cent Don Quixote has never found anything concerning about anything she has posted. Not to my knowledge and my memory is pretty good

Doubt anyone else can find or recall either

 

[jenny61_99]

This is exactly what’s wrong.

Jenny asserts certain claims are drastic exaggerations and embellishments

Then claims she doesn’t know anything, but knows enough to state confidently that certain things are drastic exaggerations and embellishments

And then has the audacity to suggest she never said those things that were drastic exaggerations and embellishments were wrong

Now either there is disingenuous motivations at play, or she doesn’t know the meaning of the words drastic exaggerations and embellishments

Neither is a great look for someone pretending to want to raise standards.
No wonder people are fed up of the hypocrisy

Look at you and your little fan boi. HAHA

You've shown no evidence of Club apologist. Not a sausage. Try harder.

 

[jenny61_99]

This is exactly what’s wrong.

Jenny asserts certain claims are drastic exaggerations and embellishments

Then claims she doesn’t know anything, but knows enough to state confidently that certain things are drastic exaggerations and embellishments

And then has the audacity to suggest she never said those things that were drastic exaggerations and embellishments were wrong

Now either there is disingenuous motivations at play, or she doesn’t know the meaning of the words drastic exaggerations and embellishments

Neither is a great look for someone pretending to want to raise standards.
No wonder people are fed up of the hypocrisy

Oh and look your little fan boi is liking all your posts. Lap it up lovey. Still no evidence AT ALL of me being a club apologist. I would suggest that the "tied naked to trees" which has since been debunked, is evidence of drastic exaggerations and embellishments, wouldn't you?

 

[Sanders]

Have you discovered a taste for not telling the truth or something?

Yes. But it’s not a new thing

 

[jenny61_99]

drastic exaggerations and embellishments

No. the truth.

 

[Sanders]

I said you don’t get a personal veto over the opinions about you

To which you replied

So... despite evidence to the contrary, because YOU decide I'm a club apologist... I am? Right.

Which sits somewhere between incoherent gibberish and dishonesty

 

[Sanders]

Look at you and your little fan boi. HAHA

You've shown no evidence of Club apologist. Not a sausage. Try harder.

OK. That’s just embarrassing

 

[jenny61_99]

I said you don’t get a personal veto over the opinions about you

To which you replied



Which sits somewhere between incoherent gibberish and dishonesty

Yeah, and I'm done. Back on ignore you go. You have a good day.

 

[Sanders]

Oh and look your little fan boi is liking all your posts. Lap it up lovey. Still no evidence AT ALL of me being a club apologist. I would suggest that the "tied naked to trees" which has since been debunked, is evidence of drastic exaggerations and embellishments, wouldn't you?

I hope you’re not driving this morning.

But to be clear, you’ve changed your position to say you do know some of what went on, and presumably that you are saying that those earlier people are now wrong

Despite saying repeatedly the exact opposite to that

The problem with such hypocrisy is that it usually hides a motivation

What exactly is your motivation to change your story and positions so wildly and often?

 

[Sanders]

No. the truth.

That doesn’t even make sense

 

[Sanders]

Yeah, and I'm done. Back on ignore you go. You have a good day.

And there we are boys and girls, the charade of the fake Don Quixote exposed by her own lightweight hypocrisy

People like this are not about raising standards or engaging in debate, they are just interested in suppressing alternate views

And what might you call someone so dedicated to suppressing negative or critical viewpoints?

I wonder...

 

[Southerntakeover]

Still no evidence AT ALL of me being a club apologist.

I could be recalling things incorrectly, but you did once admit that you'd posted content of a particular character for years because of a desired goal of defending a (purportedly) personal friend in the club's officialdom didn't you?

 

[Elite Crow]

I could be recalling things incorrectly, but you did once admit that you'd posted content of a particular character for years because of a desired goal of defending a (purportedly) personal friend in the club's officialdom didn't you?

That’s different, it makes her an incompetent CEO apologist

 

[Sanders]

I could be recalling things incorrectly, but you did once admit that you'd posted content of a particular character for years because of a desired goal of defending a (purportedly) personal friend in the club's officialdom didn't you?

That’s correct.

She admits she was an apologist but isn’t any more. Though she can’t pinpoint when the change was and nor can anyone else.

Further when she was an apologist, she denied it with equal levels of fervour as she does now

Myself, I think calling Jenny an apologist might be giving her too much credit

 

[OzSparrow]

I have no issue with the power stance. It was an attempt to bond players together, and get the players even more psyched up through trying to increase testosterone.

It well and truly worked as our first quarters were our strongest in all three games. However, it cops blame because it looked tacky, and really, it's a soft target. The risk of innovation at times, we'd be mocking Richmond for not going in with a second ruck had they lost that match.

Blaming that however really glosses over all of the issues that arose that game, and since.

Seemed to work quite fine in the 2 finals before the GF.

The Vic media beatup on the stance is sickening.

 

[John Who]

Seemed to work quite fine in the 2 finals before the GF.

The Vic media beatup on the stance is sickening.

To me it’s a blessing, because it highlights how much media attack we were getting since that loss. The amount of media nonsense since then has been nothing but a disgrace.

Every self-proclaimed Crows fan know the hammies messed up our season in 2018, and yet, how many articles from the Vic media talked about our injuries relative to issues on “power stance”, “CM” and “camp”?

Flip it to Tigers in 2019, every footy loving fan can see they have an injury issue similar to ours last year, and this has been talked about ad infinitum by the same bloody Vic media!

 

[skam85]

To me it’s a blessing, because it highlights how much media attack we were getting since that loss. The amount of media nonsense since then has been nothing but a disgrace.

Every self-proclaimed Crows fan know the hammies messed up our season in 2018, and yet, how many articles from the Vic media talked about our injuries relative to issues on “power stance”, “CM” and “camp”?

Flip it to Tigers in 2019, every footy loving fan can see they have an injury issue similar to ours last year, and this has been talked about ad infinitum by the same bloody Vic media!

You've once again typed a whole lot of fluff and disproved your point.

The Tigers have similar injury issues to ours last year - they are in a Grand Final. GWS have had a long injury list - Grand Final.

Adelaide had injury issues last year - nowhere. Not many injuries this year - nowhere.

Collingwood and West Coast ...guess what. Injuries. The two grand finalists in 2018.


But hey, sure, hammies ruined 2018 and absolutely nothing else. Damn that media bias.

 

[Slippery Pete]

That’s correct.

She admits she was an apologist but isn’t any more. Though she can’t pinpoint when the change was and nor can anyone else.

Further when she was an apologist, she denied it with equal levels of fervour as she does now

Myself, I think calling Jenny an apologist might be giving her too much credit

Jen is the footy forum version of the chick in this video

 

[skam85]

Jen is the footy forum version of the chick in this video

Also Jenny when she tells us off for being naughty little posters:

 

[John Who]

You've once again typed a whole lot of fluff and disproved your point.

The Tigers have similar injury issues to ours last year - they are in a Grand Final. GWS have had a long injury list - Grand Final.

Adelaide had injury issues last year - nowhere. Not many injuries this year - nowhere.

Collingwood and West Coast ...guess what. Injuries. The two grand finalists in 2018.


But hey, sure, hammies ruined 2018 and absolutely nothing else. Damn that media bias.

If you want to troll all my responses then go ahead.
But if you’re trying to make a point there isn’t media bias then you got to stop inhaling the toxic fumes.

 

[skam85]

If you want to troll all my responses then go ahead.
But if you’re trying to make a point there isn’t media bias then you got to stop inhaling the toxic fumes.

My point is that your attempted point is once again completely missed

 

[Sanders]

If you want to troll all my responses then go ahead.
But if you’re trying to make a point there isn’t media bias then you got to stop inhaling the toxic fumes.

Just once could you try to stem your descent into parody?

 

[skam85]

Just once could you try to stem your descent into parody?

How does one descend from a starting point?