Talking Footy

TLPG wrote:

Educated statement?? Are you nuts? It was anything but! It was total BS and defamation against the Swans and the AFL to boot!! It is the worst statement on the grounds that nothing else in the previous 24 BS files could be in any way described as blatant defamation.

So again - prove that Raider tells the truth. Or shut your stupid mouth.

Yes educated. In case you've been a hermit living in the bush for the last few decades there's been loads of cases where just this kindof rubbish and unethical behaviour in sport is occurring. For the purposes of the AFL, gently encouraging the swans to 'go easy on them' would almost be seen as normal these days.

Take those rose coloured shades off TLPG and step outta dat bush bunker you've been livin in. There's a big wide world out there and you got some catchin up to do partner

Now you're doing it as well! NO ONE goes easy on ANYONE these days in the Australian Football League! For the record, the Swans were just feeling things out against a new team. North Melbourne will do the same thing in two weeks time, as well as get used to Bellerive. No education. You just made that up to look smart. You have no idea and should just butt out.

TLPG wrote:

NO ONE goes easy on ANYONE these days in the Australian Football League!

Considering the tanking issues rife in the AFL comp, I think you need to retract your statement TLPG.

TLPG wrote:

For the record, the Swans were just feeling things out against a new team

Feeling things out and ordered to run dead can be, and look like exactly the same thing.

TLPG wrote:

(Raider had) No education.

Well not in the formal sense but he clearly made his statement through an informed process. Refer back to AFL tanking issues, match fixing issues in sport and corruption in sport. Its common place TLPG and just because you follow a sport and think the sun shines out of its butt doesnt mean these things dont happen at the top level.

All in all an informed, bold and wise statement by Raiderdave. =D> Give him a bestest and smartest Xman

King-Eliagh wrote:

TLPG wrote:

NO ONE goes easy on ANYONE these days in the Australian Football League!

Considering the tanking issues rife in the AFL comp, I think you need to retract your statement TLPG.

No I won't because you just lied through your back teeth. There is no tanking in the AFL.

King-Eliagh wrote:

TLPG wrote:

For the record, the Swans were just feeling things out against a new team

Feeling things out and ordered to run dead can be, and look like exactly the same thing.

You just proved how little you know about the great game of football with that stupid uneducated remark.

King-Eliagh wrote:

TLPG wrote:

(Raider had) No education.

Well not in the formal sense but he clearly made his statement through an informed process. Refer back to AFL tanking issues, match fixing issues in sport and corruption in sport. Its common place TLPG and just because you follow a sport and think the sun shines out of its butt doesnt mean these things dont happen at the top level.

It is NOT common place in the AFL. It doesn't exist. Full stop.

Prove otherwise.

King-Eliagh wrote:

All in all an informed, bold and wise statement by Raiderdave. =D> Give him a bestest and smartest Xman

The statement was a flat out lie and there is no evidence forthcoming - so at this point the BS point goes to Raider.

TLPG wrote:

There is no tanking in the AFL.

Stoppit TLPG, just Stoppit! Tanking was proven to be a popular pasttime in the AFL comp last season.

I agree. Tanking is a myth. Even if it was true, why would the swans tank in rnd 1!

King-Eliagh wrote:

TLPG wrote:

There is no tanking in the AFL.

Stoppit TLPG, just Stoppit! Tanking was proven to be a popular pasttime in the AFL comp last season.

PROVE IT!!!

With the introduction of the expansion teams there is absolutely no reason to tank.
As usual, I am right, as I predicted that the Swans would only draw away from GWS in the second half.
Unfortunately, it's in the Swans nature not to completely demolish sides when they have the opportunity.

THe swans didnt tank Xman, they won you silly turkey. Why you dont even know what tanking means.

TLPG if you took the time to follow the AFL competition you would know about the huge furore which occurred last season with several high profile AFL figures admitting tanking was a sad part of the game. You're very wise to follow the regional comps instead TLPG where the impetus for tanking is much less.

So in conclusion were the swans ordered to run dead? Well, in a league where tanking, drugs, sexual misconduct and corruption are rife, there's every chance they were! And TLPG nor Xman can prove otherwise.

What was admitted was running rookies for experience. That is not tanking. Some called it tanking but they were wrong, because they don't know what tanking is.

The Swans did NOT run dead. Fact. Unless KE can come up with some tanglible evidence instead of opinionated rhetoric that has no value in the real world of football, he has failed to prove the case in favour of Raider.

King-Eliagh wrote:

THe swans didnt tank Xman, they won you silly turkey. Why you dont even know what tanking means.

TLPG if you took the time to follow the AFL competition you would know about the huge furore which occurred last season with several high profile AFL figures admitting tanking was a sad part of the game. You're very wise to follow the regional comps instead TLPG where the impetus for tanking is much less.

So in conclusion were the swans ordered to run dead? Well, in a league where tanking, drugs, sexual misconduct and corruption are rife, there's every chance they were! And TLPG nor Xman can prove otherwise.

I know perfectly well what tanking means. It doesnt occur in the AFL, full stop.

Running rookies for experience and being ordered to "run dead" often go hand in hand tlpg. And Xman if you knew what tanking meant you wouldnt have suggested a winning team could be guilty of it. Shocking just how little you know.

TLPG has not provided any evidence to prove or even suggest raider's statement is infactual in this bs file. A woeful display of his arrogance which should be punished with a dumbarse point imo.

King-Eliagh wrote:

Running rookies for experience and being ordered to "run dead" often go hand in hand tlpg. And Xman if you knew what tanking meant you wouldnt have suggested a winning team could be guilty of it. Shocking just how little you know.

TLPG has not provided any evidence to prove or even suggest raider's statement is infactual in this bs file. A woeful display of his arrogance which should be punished with a dumbarse point imo.

Raider made the claim. TLPG challenged it. Raider has not proven it. A BS point is coming his way unless he pulls this one out of the fire! You want one too?

oooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhh a bs point, i bet he is really scared

King-Eliagh wrote:

Running rookies for experience and being ordered to "run dead" often go hand in hand tlpg.

Gee you must live in a tip for all the rubbish you're spouting like that one, KE! Like Xman said, the challenge is that it must be proved that the Swans DID run dead against West Sydney. You're supporting Raider's BS opinion so how about YOU prove it happens! I don't have to prove it doesn't.