Our players listed heights

[thylacine60]

The butter or fake grease they put on this popcorn is vile. Also, did you notice you can't get a ****ing Boysenberry Cornetto anymore? I hate cinema snack bars - oh no wait, candy bars. What the **** is that all about? I hope Audas and Aissassin settle this soon, I think the ghost of Russ Hinze just sat next to me.

 

[BlueYoss]

I think we all know how this one ends down at training...

...it's such a fine line...

 

[THE AISSASSIN]

The butter or fake grease they put on this popcorn is vile. Also, did you notice you can't get a ****ing Boysenberry Cornetto anymore? I hate cinema snack bars - oh no wait, candy bars. What the **** is that all about? I hope Audas and Aissassin settle this soon, I think the ghost of Russ Hinze just sat next to me.

t60.....have you any ideas way to do that other than my offer to meet down at training and let the tape speak the truth.

Perhaps in a dispute if 1 party chooses not to take the easy path of scientifically proving the argued point, he should perhaps leave and not return.

 

[Blue Dawn]

The butter or fake grease they put on this popcorn is vile. Also, did you notice you can't get a ****ing Boysenberry Cornetto anymore? I hate cinema snack bars - oh no wait, candy bars. What the **** is that all about? I hope Audas and Aissassin settle this soon, I think the ghost of Russ Hinze just sat next to me.

Thats gotta NOT be pleasant.

 

[thylacine60]

Thats gotta NOT be pleasant.

Worse for the skinny Somalian he sat on.

 

[borissey]

Wow, I missed that this was still going.

FWIW I am 185cm and stood next to Carrazzo for a photo at the family day and he was my height. He is not 181cm but he may not be 187cm

Can I have some of that popcorn?

 

[borissey]

Wow, I missed that this was still going.

FWIW I am 185cm and stood next to Carrazzo for a photo at the family day and he was my height. He is not 181cm but he may not be 187cm

Can I have some of that popcorn?

Now Hadley...is HE tall or what? He must be 191 or 192cm.

Oh...that's not the issue?

Hey, haven't we got some tall midfielders!!!!

 

[BlueYoss]

Now Hadley...is HE tall or what? He must be 191 or 192cm.

Oh...that's not the issue?

Hey, haven't we got some tall midfielders!!!!

From the Training Thread:

• Many people mention how much bigger Hadley is in person, but this does not really do justice to his size -he is a serious unit. I caught him together with Ackland and it seemed like there couldn't have been more than an inch between them in height (that was just for you audas!) but his arms, shoulders etc. made Ackland seem light framed. I am reconsidering my comments about the Gleeson article last week suggesting that Hadley could be an option at CHF being a misquote of Ratten who actually said Harts not Hads. Hadley looks every bit KP size plus some!

 

[Thrust]

As for you Thrust, placing snapshots of people with Down Syndrome on here is actually a breach of BF rules, and as an Essendon supporter coming here slagging me of like this AND using images of Down syndrome sufferers is just asking to be banned.....

However, if it is an intellectual challenge you are after, and lets face it breathing comes at top of the list for you, perhaps you could list the words I have used which which one would need a Thesaurus for.....


Failing that, we can have a Photoshop-off....you'll do about as well in that as you have so far with insults. Real genius putting up Photos of mentally disabled people.

ouch man

but

Jumping to conclusions doesn't work for you fella

haha sorry mate but you were the one who started with weak insults, seen here:

You really are borderline mate.....I can see you know messing with your mums lippy, looking for your won G-spot. Anyway heres a tip as to just how far behind you are....

But really I noticed you said this:

I'm going easy on you here champ becuase your obviously under 15, and you are making yourself look like a total spanner. But seriously, .....poor.

Ever since you said that I have just wanted you to try your best to go all out, so please do.

However, if it is an intellectual challenge you are after, and lets face it breathing comes at top of the list for you, perhaps you could list the words I have used which which one would need a Thesaurus for.....

Now as for this, didn't my post which you didn't reply to in the '9 into Carlton's midfield attack' explain it enough for you? It's not the fact that you use large words it's that when you do you seem to use a large number of them at one time (and funnily enough it doesn't always make sense).

Added to this is the way you react to someone pointing out that your word choice is overly extravagant:

Ahhh, yeah, all those tricky words ???!

If you did often speak that way you would admit that it's masturbatory instead of taking a "this idiot doesn't know what they mean" approach. your holier than thou attempt doesn't work.

But the final nail would have to be this

The reality had set in, not the entrenched mediocrity.??!! DEeerrr!!
Rhetoric ? DO you know what Rhetoric is? Seriously have ever used the word?

Claiming I don't know what rhetoric meant after using it to it's exact meaning.

This suggests 3 things
1. You don't know what rhetoric actually means
2. You would pretend that you do in fact know what it means
3. You are a self important (use insult of your choice) who uses a thesaurus.

good enough for you amigo?

now either lift your game or just give up

 

[audas]

ouch man

but

Jumping to conclusions doesn't work for you fella

haha sorry mate but you were the one who started with weak insults, seen here:


But really I noticed you said this:



Ever since you said that I have just wanted you to try your best to go all out, so please do.



Now as for this, didn't my post which you didn't reply to in the '9 into Carlton's midfield attack' explain it enough for you? It's not the fact that you use large words it's that when you do you seem to use a large number of them at one time (and funnily enough it doesn't always make sense).

Added to this is the way you react to someone pointing out that your word choice is overly extravagant:


If you did often speak that way you would admit that it's masturbatory instead of taking a "this idiot doesn't know what they mean" approach. your holier than thou attempt doesn't work.

But the final nail would have to be this



Claiming I don't know what rhetoric meant after using it to it's exact meaning.

This suggests 3 things
1. You don't know what rhetoric actually means
2. You would pretend that you do in fact know what it means
3. You are a self important (use insult of your choice) who uses a thesaurus.

good enough for you amigo?

now either lift your game or just give up

You quite clearly have no idea what Rhetoric is, you clearly looked it up and used it incorrectly...good for you hey.

Your posts are pathetic, seriously, there is no desire to engage with you, you are boring, this was established on other boards, and yet I find you here harassing me about my intellect.

Please put up the words which I have used which you needed to look up in the Thesaurus of FCK OFF.

Any word you needed to look up is only due to the fact you are an idiot, this point is clearly obvious to any with a vocabulary beyond remedial.

You want to compare what you Know and I know..you knowledge against mine....well...considering knowledge is a construct of discourse, not an absolute universality, the limits of which, through exploration, provide the opportunity of greater understanding and power. The delineation of madness, for example, defines the borders of sanity, the effect of questioning these boundaries, rather than their actual identification is the empowering process of knowledge. The discourse used to question these borders and apply the subsequent Knowledge is subjective and cannot hold any absolute truth, rather multiple truths based upon any particular discourse. The breaking down of the discourse through semiotic deconstruction whether textual (as in Lacan), sociological (as does Foucault) or even visual (Paul Virillio), provides a deeper understanding and simultaneously empowers ostracised “Knowledges “ through acknowledgement. History, for example, is not a knowable and linear chronology of absolute events, rather, each act of exploration of the actors, circumstances and discourse reveals a history, the process of archaeology of Knowledge (producing what is known as the genealogy of knowledge). Others are dismissive of meta-narratives, such as Enlightenment, as it is based on a pre-existing, and permanent, set of assumptions. (Referencing the Enlightenments project, and its questioning of the given assumptions of the day, by contrasting it with the absoluteness of meta-narratives and their reliance on universal truths.) Contemporarily there is a distancing from intellectual exclusion and an acceptance of pastiche, inter-discipline reference and empowerment of the non-traditional through the questioning of the accepted. Baudrillard, simulacra and hyper-reality hold their own position as they extends beyond the questioning of the philosophical question where there are no absolutes, and tinkers with the very reality of what is considered allowable absolutes by postmodernism, the chimera of the physical world. The precession, first, second and third order of simulacra bring into question the escalation of reality through the presentation of the more real, the hyper real, and the subsequent dissolution of reality through this process.

Now seeings you can't come up with the goods on which words I have used which you don't understand (as it would implicitly prove my point that you are and idiot and destroy your purpose), I have written a little blurb about knowledge for you which challenges your comprehension and general level of intellect. If you cant tell me the words you don't understand, perhpas you can tell me what I just said.....if not...FCK OFF.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

My god, what a load of crap we are being exposed to here.

1. A certain Essendon poster can take his business elsewhere. It's not your board and you are not welcome.

2. Both combatants made some early calls, 'less than 182cm', 'believe measurements from the physical' etc. Both have retracted or softened their stance in varying degrees but continue to vehemently argue something that wasn't their original contention. The facts are there for us all to read, you both made slightly wrong calls and both are too proud to end it so we are exposed to an escalating abuse session in the schoolyard with other kids standing around cheering them on and keeping an eye out for the teacher.

Fact, Carazzo is not 181cm and you can't then go and add in disclaimers about bended knees and so forth when it wasn't in the post that was responded to, and still maintain the original argument was wrong.

Fact, the club do list wrong heights on occasion and it is apparent that the measurements taken at the physical was probably wrong.

Both of you starting arguing between the lines, with no literal application of what you actually wrote, and neither was prepared to say 'fair enough, I agree with that point, but not with the way you actually wrote it.'

Posts have already been deleted from this thread and I have no desire for it to escalate any further. We don't habitually infract our own supporters but some of the crap written so far has been well and truly worthy.

I have no confidence in anybody being the bigger man and walking away so I will save you the trouble.

3. Thread closed