Talking Footy

And again?

cos789 wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

cos789 wrote:

RD you've already attempted to spread your made figures to every possible thread.
and they've been refuted and proven incorrect on every instance.
Your continued inability to absord logic, facts, reason and statements from independant entities belies belief.
This thread is about the ACT being RU territory.
The argument has been presented for the affirmative.
If you want to post ratings - post ratings relevant to the thread - that would be ACT ratings .

they've been refuted by who ..... ?

The ABS, the Australian Bureau of statistics, an independant government organisation, impartial as can be has said that RU is RU is number one in the ACT. We, as you have noticed, don't follow RU so, but we are open enough to admit that is the true situation.
RD , you truelly do have a mental problem if you persist in denying the facts that Australian Football is number one in all KPIs, not only number one but clearly number one. If this lying and denial helps you sleep at night then that's OK but you are nuts (literally) if you expect other people to believe your garbage.

Nevermind Raider, he always struggles when presented with facts.

He is nothing more than a burp machine.

Beaussie

I'll ask you the question lostcos789 seems to be unable to answer
do you think this ABS report stating no one... not a soul... plays RL in the ACT is accurate ?

Raiderdave wrote:

I'll ask you the question lostcos789 seems to be unable to answer

Well that's innaccurate for a start. i don't think you have actually asked the question - just denied the fact.

Raiderdave wrote:

do you think this ABS report stating no one... not a soul... plays RL in the ACT is accurate ?

You mean as accurate as the figures you purport to be cumulative ratings .

If you go to ABS site they explain the criteria in this case 15y.o and above for participation.
They also cannot show small figures accurately ,but why worry, it clearly shows rl is not in the hunt in the ACT.
If you are worried about the accuracy of the ABS then imagine how we feel about your dodgey figures and those from the nrl.

cos789 wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

I'll ask you the question lostcos789 seems to be unable to answer

Well that's innaccurate for a start. i don't think you have actually asked the question - just denied the fact.

Raiderdave wrote:

do you think this ABS report stating no one... not a soul... plays RL in the ACT is accurate ?

You mean as accurate as the figures you purport to be cumulative ratings .

If you go to ABS site they explain the criteria in this case 15y.o and above for participation.
They also cannot show small figures accurately ,but why worry, it clearly shows rl is not in the hunt in the ACT.
If you are worried about the accuracy of the ABS then imagine how we feel about your dodgey figures and those from the nrl.

i don't think you have actually asked the question

I asked you alright .... in the thread where you put up this BS graph ... you just conveniently avoided the question

You mean as accurate as the figures you purport to be cumulative ratings

as accurate ? .... no one plays RL in the ACT V as 132 Million people watched 210 games of RL in Aust last year

RL is the territory's numb one code .. the one that commands more interest then any other ... TV ratings prove this beyond doubt
is it the most played ... no
but is RL the most played sport in NSW ... nup
is singletball the most played in Vic .. again .. nup

is soccer... what phrase did you use ... " in the hunt " .. anywhere in Australia popularity wise
again .... nup , yet it has more participants then both of our codes
so what do participation rates mean ........... absolutely ..... NOTHING

nice graph
means nada .........






hmmm .. one of those is Utter BS ... one is completely believable
good analogy wombat

I can tell you, cos789, that the only figures that person believes are the ones that favour RL. And as there aren't any, he makes them up as much as the NRL do.

Topper wrote:

I can tell you, cos789, that the only figures that person believes are the ones that favour RL. And as there aren't any, he makes them up as much as the NRL do.

LOL... hello pot ... this is kettle

Another burp.

Topper wrote:

I can tell you, cos789, that the only figures that person believes are the ones that favour RL. And as there aren't any, he makes them up as much as the NRL do.

Sums up Raider and our throwball fans nicely. =D>

Beaussie wrote:

Topper wrote:

I can tell you, cos789, that the only figures that person believes are the ones that favour RL. And as there aren't any, he makes them up as much as the NRL do.

Sums up Raider and our throwball fans nicely. =D>

yes .. we're realistic

singletball fans ... highly delusional

Beaussie wrote:

Topper wrote:

I can tell you, cos789, that the only figures that person believes are the ones that favour RL. And as there aren't any, he makes them up as much as the NRL do.

Sums up Raider and our throwball fans nicely. =D>

Thank you, Beaussie.

Raiderdave wrote:

Beaussie wrote:

Topper wrote:

I can tell you, cos789, that the only figures that person believes are the ones that favour RL. And as there aren't any, he makes them up as much as the NRL do.

Sums up Raider and our throwball fans nicely. =D>

yes .. we're realistic

Deluded morons more like it.

Deluded and untruthful.