Talking Footy

Xman wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

Xman wrote:

And one ambiguous term used by the author does not change the context of the article. You are using this ambiguous term as ammunition when the intent of the article was clear.
You're basing these lies about the AFL on ambiguity.

You = fail

the intent of the article was clear all right
to decieve ...

I'd be asking the author about that.

.

No.... I'd be asking the AFL
as they are at best......... complicit

Xman wrote:

I'd be asking the author about that.

The intent of the article is clear in the heading. It wasn't to compare u12 players of different codes but to compare juniors overall.

The fact that you cannot see this indicates your stupidity or bias, or both.

That's my last comment on this matter. The facts are clear. Disagree if you want but I'm not changing my view.

Any disagreement at this point is nothing more than a burp.

Raiderdave wrote:

No.... I'd be asking the AFL
as they are at best......... complicit

Complicit in what? Watch what you're saying without evidence, Dave.

The AFL says "players Under 12". Get it?

NSWAFL wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

No.... I'd be asking the AFL
as they are at best......... complicit

Complicit in what? Watch what you're saying without evidence, Dave.

The AFL says "players Under 12". Get it?

complicit in deceipt obviously wombat

& as for watching out
get a wooly pup up ya

K

A burp machine will never get it, NSWAFL.

Hey Topper, sniff around my butt for a bit can ya. I'm not sure if one slipped out.

Raiderdave wrote:

NSWAFL wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

No.... I'd be asking the AFL
as they are at best......... complicit

Complicit in what? Watch what you're saying without evidence, Dave.

The AFL says "players Under 12". Get it?

complicit in deceipt obviously wombat

& as for watching out
get a wooly pup up ya

K

For which you have no proof as usual, just your word which none of us take seriously anyway.

No one can ever take a burp machine seriously.

Beaussie wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

NSWAFL wrote:

Complicit in what? Watch what you're saying without evidence, Dave.

The AFL says "players Under 12". Get it?

complicit in deceipt obviously wombat

& as for watching out
get a wooly pup up ya

K

For which you have no proof as usual, just your word which none of us take seriously anyway.

the article is proof
what else would anyone need ..... I know its the AFL's usual trick to blame everyone else for any wrong doing
but when will your sport " man up "
& take responsibilty for blatant false & misleading information written about it

my guess
never ... because they are ..... compicit .. in its release

And it never stops.

Hahaha, it upsets you that the AFL dominates the news media in this country doesn't it. LOL

Beaussie wrote:

Hahaha, it upsets you that the AFL dominates the news media in this country doesn't it. LOL

doesn't upset me .... the only ones upset here are flogball merkins... at me
for exposing the AFL for the lying scum they are

when you 're headline whores like the AFL are ..... its easy to get your story tally up & claim dominence
like I said ... dopey AFL fans lap up anything from the ministry of smoke n mirrors .. trickery & lies
like the brainwashed mushrooms they are

the nthn media can't get away with the BS the Sthn press do on behalf of bull honkey central the AFL
Nthners are far too smart .. the NRL ... far too much integrity to tell porkies

but slowly people are waking up to the game
the AFL didn't get away with this one ... they'd better get used to it

Raider Dave, I require you to provide evidence of your claims. Your opinion does not make a case for your statements. If you fail to do so, charges will be laid against you - by me.

Judge J wrote:

Raider Dave, I require you to provide evidence of your claims. Your opinion does not make a case for your statements. If you fail to do so, charges will be laid against you - by me.

judge .. I require you to get one fair up ya .........

You are in serious trouble now.