BS file claim#19: a study showed AFL fans were the least int

[Xman]

BS file claim#19: a study demonstrated AFL fans were the least intelligent of all 4 football codes

Claimant: Raiderdave

Challenger: Beaussie

Challenged: 1500 15/2/12

yes... yes they are

there was a survey/ study done

& be buggered if I can find it ....... but AFL fans were the least intelligent of all of the 4 football codes .. by some way too scoring lower on IQ tests
I'll keep looking
I will find it

Rah Rahs were first ... but of course we know they have no practical sense ... these were the guys who were the officers at Gallipoli & while IQ smart couldn't organise a root in a brothel otherwise .. causing the deaths of a lot of people in the process .. F wits as it were

Soccer & RL were on par in 2nd spot

AR

last

[King-Eliagh]

I vouch for the studies legitimacy. I read it some time ago in the MyX paper.

[Beaussie]

Your biased word is not proof. Fuck off. Raider either provides proof of this study or another BS point will be awarded.

[Xman]

I vouch for the studies legitimacy. I read it some time ago in the MyX paper.

OK if both of you fail to provide evidence you both get a BS point!

[Beaussie]

I vouch for the studies legitimacy. I read it some time ago in the MyX paper.

OK if both of you fail to provide evidence you both get a BS point!

Good one. =D> =D> =D>

[King-Eliagh]

OK if both of you fail to provide evidence you both get a BS point!

Wow! This is a new rule! A new precedent set on a whim of Xman's rage and bias! I should know better than to support a claim that goes against AR in the future eh? Perhaps that can be added as a note in the new rules?

Good one. =D> =D> =D>

And a superb way to sniff beaussies butt, again, Xman


Love you guys and the way you work... it's like a sitcom based on shameful shady deluded, yet harmless characters =D>

[Xman]

OK if both of you fail to provide evidence you both get a BS point!

Wow! This is a new rule! A new precedent set on a whim of Xman's rage and bias! I should know better than to support a claim that goes against AR in the future eh? Perhaps that can be added as a note in the new rules?

Good one. =D> =D> =D>

And a superb way to sniff beaussies butt, again, Xman


Love you guys and the way you work... it's like a sitcom based on shameful shady deluded, yet harmless characters =D>

You made the same BS claim. You can join him in it's failure. :D Saves making a separate BS claim for you.

Xman is all for increased efficiency.

[NSWAFL]

Good!

[King-Eliagh]

2. Examples of inappropriate claims are: i. Predictions, ii. Clear personal opinions, iii. Issues that are impossible to prove, iv. Issues that are too big (eg: which is the bigger code)

Hey Xman i can foresee the impending debacle led by the shameful shady deluded yet harmless characters of this site but I'd love to just pose you a quick question all the same.

Seeming you took the challenge on this claim, can you prove I didnt read this article in the mX? As I'm always one step ahead of you i'll answer for you. No, you cant. I've already tried searching for it in the mX and you cant get old papers/articles online.

1 Dumbarse point for Xman

[Beaussie]

MX is owned by News Ltd. If the article you say you read really existed it would be available online through the News Ltd network. You're full of s.hit. End of story.

[King-Eliagh]

mX is not published online beaussie, so its impossible to prove. Not my fault this is the case buyt Xman should have been wiser in picking his challenge.

[Beaussie]

mX is not published online beaussie, so its impossible to prove. Not my fault this is the case buyt Xman should have been wiser in picking his challenge.

MX articles are from News Ltd publications you dopey fuck.

[NSWAFL]

Most likely it was an opinion article based on nothing more than a biased stuck up pile of dung and not a shred of truth to it on a slow news day.

[King-Eliagh]

I agree nsw, it was light hearted as most mX articles are as i suggested earlier. It was light reading and meant to be funny but someone conducted the research and found a few thousand people to participate. Probably online folk. and thats the result they came up with. Thing is I only vouched for the studies legitimacy, I never said it was 100% accurate.

[Xman]

I agree nsw, it was light hearted as most mX articles are as i suggested earlier. It was light reading and meant to be funny but someone conducted the research and found a few thousand people to participate. Probably online folk. and thats the result they came up with. Thing is I only vouched for the studies legitimacy, I never said it was 100% accurate.

You claimed there was a study showing.......

Find it or you get a bs point.