Talking Footy

It is at least 100 times maybe more imo.

ParraEelsNRL wrote:

It is at least 100 times maybe more imo.

Well a RL supporter also thought you failed, not just me.

So what are these other cases of goal post shifting?

Beaussies goin DoooOOOOoooowwn!

Good work here Xman. I notice you tried to open many doors for Beaussie to exit but they were all locked so you had to give in! And what about Beaussie goin for the weasel out option straight away again! :D He sure is a funny fellow.

And clearly I'm not biased as discussed in the last page. I believe RL is atleast 50 times bigger also but unfortunately it was not proven. Again in this example I stuck to my objective guns in my adjudication, looking only at the facts and the argument displayed in front of me. Unlike Xman, particularly in the international AFL 9000 thread here where he has swerved and wavered the process like the corrupting biased adjudicator he is Clear as day Xman, clear as day.

Lets not forget folks. Newcastle do NOT play Australian Football League

Xman, I know you understand so whenever you're ready I'll take back my adjudicator position Perhaps next week though as I have a busy week this week? Thanks

KE, TF's Number 1 adjudicator

*off topic

And you'll never be an adjudicator. You're way too biased, especially against me and Cos.

ParraEelsNRL wrote:

It is at least 100 times maybe more imo.

You're an idiot, Debbie! You can have that opinion in your little fantasy world if you want. We all know it's bushwah!

*off topic

ParraEelsNRL wrote:

It is at least 100 times maybe more imo.

I would like to call BS on this. Considering Parra couldn't prove it was more than 50 times clearly 100 times is BS.

BS file asap please.

Beaussie wrote:

ParraEelsNRL wrote:

It is at least 100 times maybe more imo.

I would like to call BS on this. Considering Parra couldn't prove it was more than 50 times clearly 100 times is BS.

BS file asap please.

Small problem, the letters "IMO"

ParraEelsNRL wrote:

It's easily 50 times bigger.

Ok Xman. I'm calling BS again over this.

He couldn't prove it before and states it again as fact not his opinion. Time for a BS point to be awarded this time round.

Ok I'm calling a decision on this BS file early. The evidence is clear. But instead of awarding Beaussie an BS point I'm going to award paraEelsNRL a Best and smartest point. This will set a precedent for all future claims of this type:

- if a member makes a claim which is based entirely on the claims of an official or recognised source from within the industry, and the source itself is proven to be wrong, a BS point will not be awarded to the claimant. Rather, a Best and Smartest point will be awarded to the challenger for demonstrating the error.

Why have I made this decision? Well it's not really the claimant's fault that the original source was incorrect. Practically speaking it will be too difficult for each member to scan every word in every article to look for factual errors. In these cases the member who Proves the articles mistake is awarded the prize which is a best and smartest point.

I'm aware some will say this favors the site administrator and in this instance it does. However I think it is fair for all Including future cases, and it will be applied forthwith.

Xman

Beaussie wrote:

ParraEelsNRL wrote:

It's easily 50 times bigger.

Ok Xman. I'm calling BS again over this.

He couldn't prove it before and states it again as fact not his opinion. Time for a BS point to be awarded this time round.

Remember the original claim resulted in an undecided verdict. Do you new evidence that may change this decision?

I think Xman's decision in this is correct. It should also be noted for future reference what a BS artist John O'Neill is.

Xman wrote:

Ok I'm calling a decision on this BS file early. The evidence is clear. But instead of awarding Beaussie an BS point I'm going to award paraEelsNRL a Best and smartest point. This will set a precedent for all future claims of this type:

- if a member makes a claim which is based entirely on the claims of an official or recognised source from within the industry, and the source itself is proven to be wrong, a BS point will not be awarded to the claimant. Rather, a Best and Smartest point will be awarded to the challenger for demonstrating the error.

Why have I made this decision? Well it's not really the claimant's fault that the original source was incorrect. Practically speaking it will be too difficult for each member to scan every word in every article to look for factual errors. In these cases the member who Proves the articles mistake is awarded the prize which is a best and smartest point.

I'm aware some will say this favors the site administrator and in this instance it does. However I think it is fair for all Including future cases, and it will be applied forthwith.

Xman

I can live with that. Fair and reasonable as always is our Xman. =D>

Xman wrote:

Beaussie wrote:

ParraEelsNRL wrote:

It's easily 50 times bigger.

Ok Xman. I'm calling BS again over this.

He couldn't prove it before and states it again as fact not his opinion. Time for a BS point to be awarded this time round.

Remember the original claim resulted in an undecided verdict. Do you new evidence that may change this decision?

Ok forgot about that. Sorry and no new evidence at this point in time, I just hate how he gets away with making outrageous statements like he has that can't be proven to be accurate.

ParraEelsNRL wrote:

It is at least 100 times maybe more imo.

IMO you are a complete and utter pathetica moron who hides behind these bs bs rules
and lives in constant state of denial simply because he cannot accpet the fact that AF
is moving forward.

All we can do, Cos, is keep Debbie off line with facts and let her dig her own grave. I can see a suspension in her future.