News Eddie standing down at the end of next season

Remove this Banner Ad

Off Tap said:
So by that definition, the Collingwood Football Club are drug cheat then?
Click to expand...
Mate, you're a Eagles fan, i know this is hypocritical to my own point but doing a bit of Charlie is a bit different to self medicating with Psilocybin, that s**t is mind altering.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Lip Gallagher said:
Mate, you're a Eagles fan, i know this is hypocritical to my own point but doing a bit of Charlie is a bit different to self medicating with Psilocybin, that sh*t is mind altering.
Click to expand...
The club I barrack for has no relevance in this discussion as we are talking about HL and Collingwood.

Happy to talk about the Eagles guys taking drugs in another thread if you like but I'm not sure what that's going to achieve.

I'm just trying to understand why you're branding HL a drug cheat.

Psilocybin isn't (from what I saw) on the WADA Prohibited List.
 
Off Tap said:
The club I barrack for has no relevance in this discussion as we are talking about HL and Collingwood.

Happy to talk about the Eagles guys taking drugs in another thread if you like but I'm not sure what that's going to achieve.

I'm just trying to understand why you're branding HL a drug cheat.

Psilocybin isn't (from what I saw) on the WADA Prohibited List.
Click to expand...
Yeah i just looked it up, surprisingly it isn't on the WADA list, he's still a very naughty boy for breaking the AFLs illicit drug policy though, as for my "drug cheat" allegations, i was clearly wrong and am very sorry.
 
Sweet Jesus said:
Yeah that must be it. I don't understand what words mean. Let's see how that works out for you.

You keep asserting things without bothering to demonstrate anything. It's inadequate.

If racism is "inherent in the overall system", as your hand-picked definition suggests, then presumably there is more than one example? If not, how do you know it's a systemic or inherent problem, as opposed to an individual failure of governance?

Remember, according to your definition, systemic racism indicates the racism is inherent. One example seems like an unjustifiably low bar to demonstrate inherent racism. Can you demonstrate the inherent racism at Collingwood? That's what your definition demands.
Click to expand...

Well you either don't understand or you're being wilfully obtuse because it has been demonstrated throughout this thread time and again.
 
Demonic Ascent said:
Well you either don't understand or you're being wilfully obtuse because it has been demonstrated throughout this thread time and again.
Click to expand...
Inherent racism has been demonstrated? Nonsense.

Like I said, you keep asserting things without bothering to demonstrate anything. You just did it again. It's inadequate.
 
Sweet Jesus said:
Inherent racism has been demonstrated? Nonsense.

Like I said, you keep asserting things without bothering to demonstrate anything. You just did it again. It's inadequate.
Click to expand...

Systemic racism has been demonstrated. You state it's inadequate as if others have to meet some personal threshold you have set. The people conducting the report listed it in their findings. Many others in this thread have provided demonstrations of what it means and why the authors of the report came to those conclusions. Just because you don't accept it doesn't make it invalid.

A player calling out racist behaviour of the club President being ostracised and having his character publicly destroyed in an orchestrated campaign. That player having no recourse to address these concerns within the club. That in itself is a demonstration of systemic racism. You may not think so, but that is only your opinion which is contrary to the facts.
 
Demonic Ascent said:
Systemic racism has been demonstrated. You state it's inadequate as if others have to meet some personal threshold you have set.
Click to expand...
It hasn't been demonstrated according to your own definition, which requres the racism to be inherent. Your argument fails on its own terms.

Maybe you don't understand what words mean?

Demonic Ascent said:
The people conducting the report listed it in their findings.
Click to expand...
Have you read this report? You're picking out two words and saying that makes some devastating case. The report doesn't demonstrate it.

Demonic Ascent said:
Many others in this thread have provided demonstrations of what it means and why the authors of the report came to those conclusions. Just because you don't accept it doesn't make it invalid.
Click to expand...
No one has demonstrated inherent racism, which is what your definition demands. As I said, your argument fails on its own terms.

Demonic Ascent said:
A player calling out racist behaviour of the club President being ostracised and having his character publicly destroyed in an orchestrated campaign. That player having no recourse to address these concerns within the club. That in itself is a demonstration of systemic racism. You may not think so, but that is only your opinion which is contrary to the facts.
Click to expand...
But you said systemic racism means the racism is inherent. That was your definition. A single example doesn't demonstrate that.

Even if we allow that Lumumba was treated unfairly, how do you know we're talking about systemic, inherent racism, rather than an individual failure of governance? Can you demonstrate this? Can you demonstrate that racism is inherent at Collingwood?

You can't. You'll just assert it and pretend that does the trick. It's ridiculous.
 
Last edited:

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Sweet Jesus said:
It hasn't been demonstrated according to your own definition, which requres the racism to be inherent. Your argument fails on its own terms.

Have you read this report? You're picking out two words and saying that makes some devastating case. The report doesn't demonstrate it.

No one has demonstrated inherent racism, which is what your definition demands. As I said, your argument fails on its own terms.

But you said systemic racism means the racism is inherent. That was your definition. A single example doesn't demonstrate that.

Even if we allow that Lumumba was treated unfairly, how do you know we're talking about systemic, inherent racism, rather than an individual failure of governance? Can you demonstrate this?

You can't. You'll just assert it and pretend that does the trick. It's ridiculous.
Click to expand...

No, again you've failed to understand because of your confusion around the definition of the word. The definition I quoted said an issue is systemic due to issues inherent in the system. It didn't say systemic racism is due to racism inherent in the system. Although providing no recourse for a player to pursue his grievances around alleged racism could certainly be seen as racism inherent in the system as the system does not allow for these grievances to be redressed.
 
Demonic Ascent said:
No, again you've failed to understand because of your confusion around the definition of the word. The definition I quoted said an issue is systemic due to issues inherent in the system. It didn't say systemic racism is due to racism inherent in the system. Although providing no recourse for a player to address his grievances around alleged racism could certainly be seen as racism inherent in the system as the system does not allow for these grievances to be redressed.
Click to expand...
What a load of rubbish. Look at you reversing away from your own definition. You thought it was clever but it ended up being a rod for your own back. Maybe you're not as savvy as you thought.

You can't demonstrate anything. You can't demonstrate systemic or inherent racism. Just admit it.

Tell me honestly, have you read the report?
 
Last edited:
Sweet Jesus said:
What a load of rubbish. Look at you reversing away from your own definition. You thought it was clever but it ended up being a rod for your own back. Maybe you're not as dexterous as you thought.

You can't demonstrate anything. You can't demonstrate systemic or inherent racism. Just admit it.

Tell me honestly, have you read the report?
Click to expand...

Pfft, again as soon as you back yourself into a corner with these incessant demands for examples which have already been provided you resort to name calling and attacking the poster.

The examples have already been provided. You don't accept them. That's your prerogative but it doesn't make it correct. Instead of attacking people because your rhetoric has been shot down perhaps brush up on basic language skills so you don't keep backing yourself into a corner because if your failure to understand basic words or concepts.
 
Demonic Ascent said:
Pfft, again as soon as you back yourself into a corner with these incessant demands for examples which have already been provided you resort to name calling and attacking the poster.
Click to expand...
Name-calling? What are you talking about?

I'm pointing out that your argument has failed according to your own definition, so now you're backing away from it.

You can't make your own argument. That's not my problem.

Demonic Ascent said:
The examples have already been provided. You don't accept them. That's your prerogative but it doesn't make it correct. Instead of attacking people because your rhetoric has been shot down perhaps brush up on basic language skills so you don't keep backing yourself into a corner because if your failure to understand basic words or concepts.
Click to expand...
Yeah, don't kid yourself. You've made no case here.

Have you read the report? Show me the parts that demonstrate systemic/inherent racism.

Do you understand what demonstrate means? It doesn't mean to simply assert.
 
Roby said:
Some people will say anything to discredit Lumumba. On the Collingwood board I saw a post of someone saying he has seen HL abuse children.
Click to expand...
It surprises me that they would make an accusation that serious. Normally for people like that, on the spot execution of black people is justified if they're simply possibly drunk (speaking about what happens in America). With that kind of logic train I'd have though pies supporters would have simply used the fact that Lumumba once gave away a free kick as proof he is lying.
 
A humble footy player, retired, has forced a powerful blubber ball, well connected, to resign and to be denied his self back slapping final year in power. Glorious retribution from HL, many brothers are well pleased, quietly celebrating, not to be seen as crass. They are anti-Eds, HL the Ed slayer. I'm having trouble controlling my joy, I'm weak, have a lot to learn.

ROAR!
 
Heritier Lumumba:

223 x Games, 199 x Collingwood, 24 x Melbourne (2005-2016)

Pick 20, 2004 Rookie Draft

HL we only met once, but if you see this post run mate you're being used to mask a hurtful off season that tore the very fabric of the Collingwood football club.

Great career from the rookie base by the way, must be in the top percentile. :thumbsu:
 
2004 Rookie Draft:

Pick 16: Port- Danyle Pearce 258 Games
Pick 42: Syd- Heath Grundy 256 Games
Pick 19: Dogs- Dale Morris 253 Games
Pick 7: Nth- Josh Gibson 225 Games
Pick 20: Coll- Heritier Lumumba 223 Games

Definitely in the top percentile of the 2004 Rookie Draft, some great names of quality for sure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PowerfulPies2023
Which Teams season ended with an anti-climax?
Replies
15
Views
940
Tarkyn_24
Tarkyn_24
juss
  • Poll
Prediction Who's poised to be the disappointment/let down team of 2024?
4 5 6 7 8
Replies
186
Views
10K
PCORF
P
E
Strategy Punting on the fourth Down
Replies
5
Views
537
PowerfulPies2023
PowerfulPies2023
sobrave
Travis Boak 350 games - what is his standing in the game?
Replies
23
Views
588
Lunchtime
L
Cmarsh
Tom Hawkins 350 games - What is his standing in the game?
7 8 9 10 11
Replies
259
Views
7K
SuperMal
SuperMal
Cursedsword02
  • Poll
Who'll be the next club to fall off their cliff?
21 22 23 24 25
Replies
620
Views
26K
CharacterFirst
CharacterFirst
outabounds
Who exactly is going to end up the best Port midfielder?
2 3
Replies
51
Views
2K
adammania9
adammania9

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top