neilk
Norm Smith Medallist
T r a n n y
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.

Due to a number of factors, support for the current BigFooty mobile app has been discontinued. Your BigFooty login will no longer work on the Tapatalk or the BigFooty App - which is based on Tapatalk.
Apologies for any inconvenience. We will try to find a replacement.
T r a n n y
Funny thing how the great hawthorn couldn’t with him out.He wanted to hunting, instead of playing a final. Gee one weird person.
Seriously?T r a n n y
You do realise only us older folks know what a T R A N N Y was in the old days.T r a n n y
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
I was hoping to find weekly stats per player for 2018, thanks for trying thohttps://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/th-collingwood-magpies
Can search via individual players on there too.
My Grandad was one of the first to get a trans in our districtYou do realise only us older folks know what a T R A N N Y was in the old days.
Whole new meaning in 2018.
Mind you, I thought we were over the word in it’s new meaning being a negative.
They were a marvel of their time.My Grandad was one of the first to get a trans in our district
or 1 iPhone 6 could theoretically guide 120 million Apollo rockets at the same time
It does have that. Just use the drop downsI was hoping to find weekly stats per player for 2018, thanks for trying tho
It's not a straw man at all. As I said, distinctions in terminology exist for very good reasons. If you want to conceptualize and philosophise with any substance and clarity you cannot do it using these colloquialisms. The difference between someone who accepts the reality that they don'/can't know (an agnostic) and someone who thinks they might know ( theists and atheists) is stark and must be recognised, because one is purely rational... The other is not.
I do consider someone who believes in Noah's arc and water into wine as not too dissimilar to someone who firmly believes there is no god. Both have taken a stance, made a choice based on zero evidence... I guess theists can point to the factual existence of Jesus, Mohammad etc at least.
For the record... In my rational thinking I am pure agnostic... But in my personal thinking Ihave moved from being a near pure atheist to being agnostic but with leanings that I now think there just may be a god... I have zero evidence for this and no idea what God is or wants and I acknowledge it to be an irrational personal preference in my thinking...I wish both pure atheists and theist could do the same. Then we all have some common ground here.
It apparently now suits me and my life experience to believe that there may be a god and this is based on 2 main things...1. Patterns of karma, irony etc that I have experienced personally... Things that just felt too pointed, too timely, too accurate and too necessary to happen by pure coincidence. 2. An understanding of the laws of nature, science, the mathematics of the universe. Contrary to many atheists beliefs, science in no way supplies any evidence one way or the other... It is all a matter of interpretation. For me there is an architecture and engineering in these things that points to the existence of some grand Poobah architect.
Many top mathematicians and physicists end up thinking this way too.
Stephen Hawking on the other hand interpreted his knowledge to form a belief that there probably was no god. But, and this is the crucial bit, he acknowledged that agnosticism was the true rational position on this question and that he had zero evidence either way but had made a choice based on his personal interpretation. I wish more atheists would be like him because making atheism a dogma is a pretty big and ironic mistake.
You can stand anywhere you like behind the steel barriers (even if you are the wrong place they will politely tell you where to stand)I have a bit of a problem...
Thought my grand-daughter (13) was going to be away so didn't buy a seat for her and now her plans are changed and she wants to go.
Just tried to buy a seat but none available which is a surprise - can't believe that there will 90,000 plus there.
Am going to give her my seat and I will stand. Am an AFL member so my ticket will get me in, question is do I just stand or do you need a ticket for that? I couldn't see anything on the site.
Thanks for the info.You can stand anywhere you like behind the steel barriers (even if you are the wrong place they will politely tell you where to stand)
No ticket required other than your AFL Membership Admission Ticket
I would have thought there might be a seat or two still available on Level 5 nose bleed area
You might find there aren't any seats available as they're not releasing/selling any more.Thanks for the info.
I would have thought so too but I scolled right around the map of the ground, no green areas (available seats), not one.
If I see any empty seats on Fri, I will be very angry.
Thanks, will watch out for that.You might find there aren't any seats available as they're not releasing/selling any more.
This means you can walk up and sit anywhere.
Edit: Just remembered it's their home game.
When they smell blood AND it's their home game they come from everywhere!!
yeah doesn't sell news papers apparently LolI heard that they did start with Blicavs (as he had done with Pendlebury), then another player but gave up.
I have a bit of a problem...
Thought my grand-daughter (13) was going to be away so didn't buy a seat for her and now her plans are changed and she wants to go.
Just tried to buy a seat but none available which is a surprise - can't believe that there will 90,000 plus there.
Am going to give her my seat and I will stand. Am an AFL member so my ticket will get me in, question is do I just stand or do you need a ticket for that? I couldn't see anything on the site.
ReplayCameron Wood is currently on the Chase.
You are giving yourself away.This is a philosophical discussion which is kinda ironic considering where we are. The distinctions of definition within our language are vital to any philosopical discussion. Without them it becomes impossible to properly philosophise. So Philosophically speaking....
I didnt say a belief had to be devoid of empirical evidence to back it up, just that a belief always lacks certainty... as a defining point a belief is a choice of thought/ position in matters of uncertainty. Where things are certain or factual in our language you do not corrdctly use the term 'belief'. So your example doesnt work. Because we can't predict the future with 100% certainty, you can only believe that the sun will rise tomorrow and calculate a probability to support that belief. ( Which in this case is pretty high obviously. If you were talking a factual certainty, like the sun rose yesterday, then you would say I KNOW the sun rose yesterday.
That's a bit beside the point.
There is a spectrum of belief... From no Brainers like the sun will rise tomorrow (highly evidence supported so highly rational); to believing God doesnt exist(zero evidence to support so highly irrational). You have a hell of a lot more evidence to support a belief that the sun will rise tomorrow than you do to support a belief that God doesn't exist, or probably doesn't exist. I'm guessing that anyway. Perhaps you do. Care to share the empirical evidence of gods probable non existence with me?
Atheism is a personal belief largely devoid of any empirical evidence.... The same as theism... You are making a choice to believe that because it makes sense to you personally despite a complete absence of empirical evidence to support it... By definition it is an irrational position.