Jade
Smug lives here.
- Jul 8, 2008
- 34,624
- 53,697
- AFL Club
- Essendon
So this is still a thing eh?
Okay.
Okay.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
AFLW 2024 - Round 3 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
KinkyI've walked him to the toilet and dropped his pants
Kinky
Jut as a heads-up for me, what does it mean when a poster links me, as you did? Do I get points or do I go to jail?deltablues in which part of the law does emotion play no part?
When a judge cites "policy" or has to determine emotional or psychological impact there is a bit of room for emotion to enter into it.
A jury can be swayed by emotive language.
When you have humans involved, emotions are involved.
It's more a matter of not bowing to arrogance for me. The discussion already took place in the thread, articles were posted by 3 or 4 people, and it was discussed from there. It's arrogant for someone to then join later, and request the exact information that's already been discussed, and refuse to go back and read the earlier discussion.Why? If it takes two minutes to find a link and post it, why not do so to prove your assertion, satisfy the person seeking clarification, and keep the discussion moving forward?
Or do you object to doing so as a matter or principle?
Those articles sound pretty interesting.It's more a matter of not bowing to arrogance for me. The discussion already took place in the thread, articles were posted by 3 or 4 people, and it was discussed from there. It's arrogant for someone to then join later, and request the exact information that's already been discussed, and refuse to go back and read the earlier discussion.
For someone who just advised someone whats best for moving on with discussion, you're sure not very good at it yourself. Maybe message one of the mods and get them to show you how to use the search function on the thread.Those articles sound pretty interesting.
Could you link to the posts please?
Rats, I almost had him eating dog foodFor someone who just advised someone whats best for moving on with discussion, you're sure not very good at it yourself. Maybe message one of the mods and get them to show you how to use the search function on the thread.
Oh my lord will you just shut up.
There is plenty of evidence there, Ive even told you where to find it.
OK here we go, I'm going to say that Ivan Malat killed a bunch of people. Oh wait, no because I don't have evidence on me, it cant be true.
Moron.
Its not an allegation where there is clear, publicly available proof to back it up.
If you cant be bothered finding it that's fine, that is your prerogative, but don't bring me back into a discussion when you cant be bothered actually looking. In summary I don't have to prove squat to anyone, plus its not an allegation.
Where is that shifting the burden of proof? It's already been pointed out to you that this entire topic, has already been discussed, in the thread. Prior to you jumping in with an opinion that hasn't even taken into account previous discussion. That's not a shift of burden of proof, that's an expectation that if someone is going to join in a discussion at a mid-point in the conversation, that they would understand the prior discussion. The proof has been provided, your laziness and unwillingness to read what has already been posted has no relation to a shift in the burden of proof.
You're a pseudo intellectual who seems to have less than a base level understanding of what he discusses, it's plainly obvious (sorry, i'm sure you'll ask for proof of this). You made incorrect claims around the legal system, and objectivity, and quickly jumped from the sinking ship when you couldn't support your assertions. Now you're back to your original point, of requesting evidence that's already been provided. Either quit being lazy and read the thread, or quit making stupid assumptions based on your laziness, simple.
You really do seem to be getting quite upset about this. I don't know what is making it so difficult, is it the fact that the evidence simply doesn't exist for you to provide?
Ivan Milat was convicted of murder, has Wilson been convicted or found guilty of anything, in particular slander? I am yet to find anything that states this is the case but please feel free to enlighten me if you have some evidence to provide for discussion.
Just because someone has called you out on your bullshit and asked you to provide examples to back up your allegations doesn't make them a "moron". Despite how much you might want the issue to go away the fact is that unless you are able to provide examples or evidence of what you have alleged, it remains unsubstantiated garbage.
Again, to make it quite simple for you because you are clearly struggling with some basic concepts, you made an allegation, I asked for evidence to support that allegation so now the burden of proof rests with you to provide the material for discussion. Without it your arguments/opinions carry no weight and remain baseless allegations.
Bud, I posted this earlier in this thread in response to your similar argument.
"This is not an academic thesis. When something is in the public domain there is no "claim" nor any onus to support a statement on the topic - it is a case of res ipsa loquitur. So check it out yourself. You may genuinely be ignorant, or just lazy, but haul your own water. Or get your own PA."
I repeat it here.
I get upset because after I've told you I've done with it, you continue to quote me and tag me in posts just to troll?
Its clearly not bullshit. All you have to do is read the thread where other people have posted links to articles and videos to prove my statement, yet you continue to blindly argue against someone who is 100% in their argument and doesn't care what you think.
I don't get what you're trying to get out of this?
Once again its not an allegation, second of all the evidence is there, in this thread and on the internet. Thirdly, its not my job to find it for you. Fourthly I'm done with you, after 7 years you'll be the first person on my ignore list. Congratulations.
I already told him.
Watch the footy classified episode with Brayshaw on it.
the other hosts on the show talk about her obsession/vendetta with brayshaw.
I'm not finding it for him, I've walked him to the toilet and dropped his pants. I'm not going to prise the shit out of his ass for him.
If he really wants to find it he can.
If he doesn't, then he won't.
THe only thing that remains the same is that I couldn't give two shits.
I think Demonic Ascent just wants links to evidence, or at the very least to discussions in this thread (or another thread) where people link to, cite or discuss evidence that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that Wilson had "shamed or slandered" McGuire or Wilson. I don't think he's asking for a link to a judgement that Wilson had committed a tort.
AW GOD DAMMIT DUDEhas Wilson been convicted or found guilty of anything, in particular slander? I am yet to find anything that states this is the case but please feel free to enlighten me if you have some evidence to provide for discussion.
As I already pointed out. It's simply your arrogance that you refuse to read the discussion that occurred prior to you joining, then telling others to go and find things, from said discussion, and show you them. That has nothing to do with your misuse of "burden of proof", or your condescending attitude that until people summarise previous posts for you, evidence doesn't exist.No, we had an off-topic discussion which resulted in a disagreement of opinions. That doesn't make it "jumping from a sinking ship", it just means we have a difference in opinion.
Doesn't matter how much you think throwing around insults will help your argument the fact remains no one, not once in the multitude of posts taken to respond to me and launch insults has anyone even come up with ONE example of Caroline Wilson having shamed or slandered Eddie McGuire or James Brayshaw. You say it occurred earlier in the thread, however I have not seen any evidence of this. Again, if you or anyone else is willing to provide the evidence for discussion I will be happy to review it however what the responses from you and others tell me is that it doesn't exist, there is no basis to allege that Wilson has "shamed or slandered" McGuire, Brayshaw or anyone else and your arguments hold no weight.
It's not lazy to request evidence or examples of something from the person making the allegations. The burden of proof rests with the person making the allegation. In the absence of that evidence it can only be surmised that it doesn't actually exist. If it has already been discussed in this very thread (something I can find no evidence of) then it really shouldn't be too difficult for you or someone else to find it and raise it for discussion. I won't hold my breath waiting for it though.
I promise you I will be a complete gentlemanomg you're so proper, I love it
You must run away with me, you simply must
I thought it was a good joke. It used to get a laugh in the music halls back in the day....ahh good times.Not very convincing... All that benefit of hindsight and contemplating a retort ...and all you come back with is a poor joke and name calling....
I don't take him seriously at all. I don't watch that show. But I think it is sad that such a character is still on television. Mr Newman, "as seen on TV", has no wit, no style, no class.Don't disagree but he has some talent; he's been paid millions over the years to be that character. I'm always amazed people take him seriously.
I don't take him seriously at all. I don't watch that show. But I think it is sad that such a character is still on television. Mr Newman, "as seen on TV", has no wit, no style, no class.
He is a vituperous relic and he panders to the lowest common denominator. At least he did fifteen years ago when I last watched that show.
As I already pointed out. It's simply your arrogance that you refuse to read the discussion that occurred prior to you joining, then telling others to go and find things, from said discussion, and show you them. That has nothing to do with your misuse of "burden of proof", or your condescending attitude that until people summarise previous posts for you, evidence doesn't exist.
Will no longer be responding to you. I'd say you know what articles people have referenced judging by some of your points, you just want them posted, so you can slam them and say "HA! That's not slander/shaming" (would be a strange line to take, but fits in with you arguing that shaming is objective)
Yes, I agree with one point - 'this back and forth really is tiresome'.Well yeah, if the articles in question (assuming they exist) don't amount to slander and shaming and it is only someone's warped perception that sees it that way then I would argue the case. Unfortunately until the person in question provides the evidence so that it can be held up to objective scrutiny we are unable to have that discussion and their allegations based on the supposed evidence remain baseless.
If the articles were previously referred to (something which I doubt considering the complete inability of anyone to reference them) then it shouldn't be too hard to refer back to them. I'm not looking through 160 pages of drivel for something which may not exist, again the burden of proof is not on me to prove someone else's argument. It's time to put up or shut up because this back and forth really is tiresome.
nobbyiscool said:in part, i don't respect her as a journo because she's a woman. well, not because she's a woman, but because of the qualities that come with her being a woman.
hutchy (who i also don't have a lot of time for) summed it up last week on footy classified when he asked her "why do you have to get so personal all the time."
when i want soap opera for men, i watch wrestling. i hate the way that caro personalises everything and makes it a soap drama. i don't think men necessarily care about her womens magazine style of reporting that she so often uses.
my loathing of her has certainly increased with her constant bashing of the eagles. most journos have given up on bashing selwood because the tribunal accepted his version of events. for her to continue saying and acting as though he's lying is tantamount to slander.
if she burned in the fiery pits of hell, i would be a happy man.