Talking Footy

Its literally the only tweet where i mention it I believe.

Unless you have another one? I couldnt find one in a search of my feed.

Don't ask him for a link. He's scared of that.

TLPG wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 9:55 am

Don't ask him for a link. He's scared of that.

Pot meet kettle

Reports that Paramount had lowballed the AFL and offered less than even the current deal are not understood to be accurate, according to sources. But Paramount co-boss Beverley McGarvey told this masthead a reported $600 million figure was not correct.

More AFL games are likely to end up behind a paywall in the next broadcast deal, regardless of which party wins the bid for the AFL rights.

Sources familiar with discussions said that the AFL is being asked to consider some home team games behind a paywall in Western Australia and South Australia – there are none in the current deal – and potentially some in the developing markets of NSW and Queensland.

A further factor for the broadcast bidding is the potential entrance of a 19th team, in the form of Tasmania, should that be approved. Tasmania would provide a further 11 games for the broadcasters and the bidders have been asked to cover the possibility of a 19th team in their pitches.

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/mor ... 5b8ul.html

TLPG wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 9:55 am

Don't ask him for a link. He's scared of that.

people that ask for links are almost as bad. Its an internet forum, not a PHD. You disagree with something? Onus should be on you to find the proof that someone is wrong, not the other way around.

AFLcrap1 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 10:42 am

TLPG wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 9:55 am

Don't ask him for a link. He's scared of that.

Pot meet kettle

You haven't asked me for anything in that regard so you're wrong.

Gone wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 11:47 am

TLPG wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 9:55 am

Don't ask him for a link. He's scared of that.

people that ask for links are almost as bad. Its an internet forum, not a PHD. You disagree with something? Onus should be on you to find the proof that someone is wrong, not the other way around.

Sorry but you're wrong. If someone makes a claim they should have the back up ready to go, and not expect the other person to go looking for it. The onus switches only when the proof of the original claim is given.

TLPG wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 1:18 pm

Gone wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 11:47 am

TLPG wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 9:55 am

Don't ask him for a link. He's scared of that.

people that ask for links are almost as bad. Its an internet forum, not a PHD. You disagree with something? Onus should be on you to find the proof that someone is wrong, not the other way around.

Sorry but you're wrong. If someone makes a claim they should have the back up ready to go, and not expect the other person to go looking for it. The onus switches only when the proof of the original claim is given.

it can go both ways, making a statement, is always better when ya have proof..
otherwise you could be lying through ya teeth and things go around in circles.

i dont mind either way..

There is a starting point though and that's what I believe should be focused on. First claimant gives. If they don't, they are the problem. Or they can simply admit it's an opinion. THEN the onus switches.

TLPG wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 1:18 pm

Sorry but you're wrong. If someone makes a claim they should have the back up ready to go, and not expect the other person to go looking for it. The onus switches only when the proof of the original claim is given.

You're the one disputing the original claim, you disprove it. Or you're as bad as everyone else.

And in this particular instance, you are wrong.

TLPG wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 1:50 pm

There is a starting point though and that's what I believe should be focused on. First claimant gives. If they don't, they are the problem. Or they can simply admit it's an opinion. THEN the onus switches.

If someone makes a statement of what they say is fact, the onus should be on them to supply some factual support.
In the words of Julius Sumner Miller…..”why is it so”

I have no issues with that.

Gone wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 3:34 pm

TLPG wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 1:18 pm

Sorry but you're wrong. If someone makes a claim they should have the back up ready to go, and not expect the other person to go looking for it. The onus switches only when the proof of the original claim is given.

You're the one disputing the original claim, you disprove it. Or you're as bad as everyone else.

And in this particular instance, you are wrong.

I am disputing the original claim because there was no proof. I don't have to disprove it. Not my job. If they prove it with a link - THEN I have to disprove it. That is how it works. If you don't think so then you are part of the problem.

TLPG wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 5:01 pm

I am disputing the original claim because there was no proof. I don't have to disprove it. Not my job. If they prove it with a link - THEN I have to disprove it. That is how it works. If you don't think so then you are part of the problem.

lol its no one job to do shit around here. We're all just digital ships passing in the night.

That's right - don't take responsibility for what you say.

TLPG wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 5:15 pm

That's right - don't take responsibility for what you say.

I take responsibility for everything i can post. And it can usually be verified with links and data from my twitter feed, the one thats also shown on this site.

Im saying that its no ones job to answer to anyone else around here.