Yikes, must've busted it good then. :\St kilda having a horror pre-season
Tougher draw as well this year. Finals would be a huge achievement for them in my opinionSt kilda having a horror pre-season
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
Sydney star Tom Papley is back in the Swans leadership group two years after wanting out of the clubTom 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 sh*t. He should've come to Essendon.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?