Talking Footy

Ok, cos789, you're not going to like this but I was just stirring Para.

Fact is you challenged Parra and his interpretation and context of the the term international AFL is a match between two teams from two different countries. This is only fair and consistent with decisions so far that have considered the meaning of the claim according to the claimants context. Your responsibility before challenging the claim was to define what he meant by "international".

ParraEelsNRL wrote:

So xman, are you going to let him get away with this or are you going to do the right and proper thing and make him post the real thing, ie, figures on real international AFL games between countries?

Real . check
International. check
AFL. check
AFL games. check
Real International AFL games. check

Between countries....... oh you poor, sloopy, half assed, logic bypassed poor excuse for the definition of denial.

Boo hoo, start searching.

Good luck, you'll need it

Xman wrote:

Ok, cos789, you're not going to like this but I was just stirring Para.

Fact is you challenged Parra and his interpretation and context of the the term international AFL is a match between two teams from two different countries. This is only fair and consistent with decisions so far that have considered the meaning of the claim according to the claimants context. Your responsibility before challenging the claim was to define what he meant by "international".

Fair dinkum, I just don't get you at all.

You're stiring me up this time, and other times with the same thing, you're deadly serious

ParraEelsNRL wrote:

Xman wrote:

Ok, cos789, you're not going to like this but I was just stirring Para.

Fact is you challenged Parra and his interpretation and context of the the term international AFL is a match between two teams from two different countries. This is only fair and consistent with decisions so far that have considered the meaning of the claim according to the claimants context. Your responsibility before challenging the claim was to define what he meant by "international".

Fair dinkum, I just don't get you at all.

You're stiring me up this time, and other times with the same thing, you're deadly serious

You deserve it! I'm trying my best to apply the same rules to everybody and you're acting like a toddler!

Xman wrote:

Fact is you challenged Parra and his interpretation and context of the the term international AFL is a match between two teams from two different countries. This is only fair and consistent with decisions so far that have considered the meaning of the claim according to the claimants context. Your responsibility before challenging the claim was to define what he meant by "international".

I knew this was going to happen which is why I didn't challenge. But I did tell Debbie to clarify and I'm not sure she did when she had the chance.

So where does that fit in?

NSWAFL wrote:

Xman wrote:

Fact is you challenged Parra and his interpretation and context of the the term international AFL is a match between two teams from two different countries. This is only fair and consistent with decisions so far that have considered the meaning of the claim according to the claimants context. Your responsibility before challenging the claim was to define what he meant by "international".

I knew this was going to happen which is why I didn't challenge. But I did tell Debbie to clarify and I'm not sure she did when she had the chance.

So where does that fit in?

A challenge is a challenge, just like a claim is a claim. You cannot change the terms of the challenge after it is made. if you asked para what international means and it wasn't answered then the challenge is on the original terms which is paras definition.

NSWAFL wrote:

Xman wrote:

Fact is you challenged Parra and his interpretation and context of the the term international AFL is a match between two teams from two different countries. This is only fair and consistent with decisions so far that have considered the meaning of the claim according to the claimants context. Your responsibility before challenging the claim was to define what he meant by "international".

I knew this was going to happen which is why I didn't challenge. But I did tell Debbie to clarify and I'm not sure she did when she had the chance.

So where does that fit in?

As I stated earlier I gave parafeel the oppotunity to clarify his remark.
He chose not to.
I then challenged.
There is no context. Just sloppy work by parafeel.
Now parafeel is moving the goalposts.
Considering he made such a fuss with Newcastle AFL this suits the scenario down to the ground.

cos789 wrote:

NSWAFL wrote:

Xman wrote:

Fact is you challenged Parra and his interpretation and context of the the term international AFL is a match between two teams from two different countries. This is only fair and consistent with decisions so far that have considered the meaning of the claim according to the claimants context. Your responsibility before challenging the claim was to define what he meant by "international".

I knew this was going to happen which is why I didn't challenge. But I did tell Debbie to clarify and I'm not sure she did when she had the chance.

So where does that fit in?

As I stated earlier I gave parafeel the oppotunity to clarify his remark.
He chose not to.
I then challenged.
There is no context. Just sloppy work by parafeel.
Now parafeel is moving the goalposts.
Considering he made such a fuss with Newcastle AFL this suits the scenario down to the ground.

Sorry. Just like beaussies claim with the anzac day game, if you ask for a clarification and it's not answered it cannot be included in the challenge. This changes the terms of the claim and challenge which the claimant has not agreed to.

I'm not going to get involved with this one, Cos, because if Xman is going with Debbie's definition (as he did with mine over Newcastle) you're in trouble. Like I said, that's why I demanded clarification.

Having said that though, Xman, because Debbie refused to clarify that could be termed pressing a BS file entry in order to twist it simply to regain some ground. If you see what I'm getting at. Manipulating the BS file process.

Come on, we were talking about international footy at the time between nations and posting pictures of them, that's the whole point.

I'm not fucking around with this much longer. I don't really care for this bs bs .
The context is Cos789 " where's the crowd ?"
parafeel " any international AFL match"
So I only have to post one example of an international AFL match, which I have already done.
Doesn't "any" mean any.
So I don't waste anymore time on this bs
What is the fallback ?
A crowd >9k watching an AF football match between two countries.
Is that sufficient ?

NSWAFL wrote:

I'm not going to get involved with this one, Cos, because if Xman is going with Debbie's definition (as he did with mine over Newcastle) you're in trouble. Like I said, that's why I demanded clarification.

Having said that though, Xman, because Debbie refused to clarify that could be termed pressing a BS file entry in order to twist it simply to regain some ground. If you see what I'm getting at. Manipulating the BS file process.

No, if cos wanted to challenge with terms that included Australian AFL teams only he should have indicated this before challenging so para had a chance to agree or not. Cos pulled the trigger too early. Should have waited or not challenged at all. Seems unfair but has applied for every bs file so far.

A crowd >9k watching an AF football match between two countries.
Is that sufficient ?

cos789 wrote:

A crowd >9k watching an AF football match between two countries.
Is that sufficient ?

Yep.

Sorry cos, missed the question at the end of your last post.