I was right, right, right about the Footscray Failures

[joxstrap]

Re: Mega post

Mick is only human fellas




NORF lol

 

[LuvtheKangas]

Re: Mega post

Personally think Mick is the only one to get them there

Pure speculation, but I don't think Mick would do any better than Eade has done with Footscray's list. But it would be good to see him take the job and perhaps prove me wrong.


Lol, norf.

 

[The_Flying_Egg]

Funny how Norf have only won more game than the Dogs which we consider a failed year............ yet Norf flogs are wetting their panties at the prospect of making up the numbers in 8th spot!!!!!

Exactly And some of them think they're scaring the league with their huge improvement even though they're on track to win less games than last season

 

[jacko57]

Exactly And some of them think they're scaring the league with their huge improvement even though they're on track to win less games than last season

We only got to play the Faildogs once this year........helps your chances, harms ours.

 

[tazaa]

Which club is led by a short, simple man with a short man complex?

NORF lol

the same guy who put your pres out of a job on tv??

yup. as you can clearly see, the whole comp is shaking in their boots at the powerhouse that is Norf SnowBart........

you dont even have a coach?????

 

[Floyd]

Hey SLF - did you predict that Aaron Mullett was going to make his debut for Norf this round also? If so, you got that one right!

 

[Northworth]

Hey SLF - did you predict that Aaron Mullett was going to make his debut for Norf this round also? If so, you got that one right!

That's quality

 

[tomwalsh]

I cant be stuffed going through your posts but I am willing to bet you said the same stuff about Saints, WCE, Bombers etc.

Fire a shotgun you are bound to hit something.

 

[tazhawk]

SweetLeftFlog makes 23,000 predictions, then gives his willy a rub when a couple of them come true.

I made a prediction that poor old Norf would be shit again this year.

You don't see me wanting a pat on the back for nailing that one.

Oh by the way

Norf Lutz.

 

[joxstrap]

SLF, did you predict that you'd shed yet more members this year? That your average attandance would somehow fall below your already horribily low benchmark set in 2010?

NORPH loooooool

 

[SweetLeftFoot]

SLF, did you predict that you'd shed yet more members this year?

Um, our membership is above last years. I suppose, being a Collinwgood supporter, you find counting difficult after you reached into the mincer to get the heroin hit you'd dropped in there.

 

[SweetLeftFoot]

Exactly And some of them think they're scaring the league with their huge improvement even though they're on track to win less games than last season

At least we have a coach and our best young midfielder isn't running away.

 

[Kelvin31]

At least we have a coach and our best young midfielder isn't running away.

^^ gee........what a witty retort.

 

[joxstrap]

Um, our membership is above last years. I suppose, being a Collinwgood supporter, you find counting difficult after you reached into the mincer to get the heroin hit you'd dropped in there.

Last year you had 28k
this year you have 27k

Who's figures are you using?

 

[LuvtheKangas]

Last year you had 28k
this year you have 27k

Who's figures are you using?

Clearly you can't count - 2011 is this year, 2010 was last year. Not too difficult a concept to most. NMFC members:

2010 Official AFL: 26,953
2011 Official AFL: 28,761

Next, who's = who is. You also don't understand basic grammar. (The word you were looking for is "whose", you fool).

LOL at ignorant Collingwood supporter trying to be clever, but only perpetuating the stereotype of the feral supporter base by showing how truly moronic he is.


Oh, and lol norf.

 

[jacko57]

Clearly you can't count - 2011 is this year, 2010 was last year. Not too difficult a concept to most. NMFC members:

2010 Official AFL: 26,953
2011 Official AFL: 28,761

Next, who's = who is. You also don't understand basic grammar. (The word you were looking for is "whose", you fool).

LOL at ignorant Collingwood supporter trying to be clever, but only perpetuating the stereotype of the feral supporter base by showing how truly moronic he is.


Oh, and lol norf.

Game, set, match.

 

[joxstrap]

Clearly you can't count - 2011 is this year, 2010 was last year. Not too difficult a concept to most. NMFC members:

2010 Official AFL: 26,953
2011 Official AFL: 28,761

Next, who's = who is. You also don't understand basic grammar. (The word you were looking for is "whose", you fool).

LOL at ignorant Collingwood supporter trying to be clever, but only perpetuating the stereotype of the feral supporter base by showing how truly moronic he is.

Oh, and lol norf.

Sorry brosef, I didn't spend a great deal of time proofreading my post before I sent it.

Since you have decided in your infinite wisdom, to reduce our otherwise intelligent debate to a discussion about grammar being determinative of intelligence, I thought I'd raise a couple of interesting examples.

If you were referring to a particular decade, and you wanted to talk about the 70s, you wouldn't need an apostrophe would you? You're not talking about a contraction or possession are you? Interesting.

Tef, your Jock S won't be topped, but it did get me thinking back to the 70's and recalling a much loved player, Gary "Crazy Horse" Cowton. He initially had a standard no-frills 70's 'do, complete with mo:

While this next example doesn't relate to your favourite topic of contractions it doesn't make much sense either. Grammatically or otherwise.

My own view is probably Watts, because I rate him very highly, but not by much, as Hansen will also be very good.

lol norf!

 

[Northworth]

So many long-winded rants - all failed....

Sorry brosef, I didn't spend a great deal of time proofreading my post before I sent it.

Since you have decided in your infinite wisdom, to reduce our otherwise intelligent debate to a discussion about grammar being determinative of intelligence, I thought I'd raise a couple of interesting examples.

If you were referring to a particular decade, and you wanted to talk about the 70s, you wouldn't need an apostrophe would you? You're not talking about a contraction or possession are you? Interesting.



While this next example doesn't relate to your favourite topic of contractions it doesn't make much sense either. Grammatically or otherwise.



lol norf!

 

[joxstrap]

I actually owned someone who tried to troll me on a grammatical error by using his grammar against him for the greater good. That's expert Internet useage. Sorry mate.

norf lol

ps. I'm capitalising the Internet purely because this ********** will likely take me to task about it if I leave it uncapitalised.

 

[The_Flying_Egg]

At least we have a coach and our best young midfielder isn't running away.

We're struggling so we sacked our coach. You're 1 game ahead of us despite us getting nothing from our 2 best players and somehow seem to think your coach is a God

 

[LuvtheKangas]

Sorry brosef, I didn't spend a great deal of time proofreading my post before I sent it.

Since you have decided in your infinite wisdom, to reduce our otherwise intelligent debate to a discussion about grammar being determinative of intelligence, I thought I'd raise a couple of interesting examples.

If you were referring to a particular decade, and you wanted to talk about the 70s, you wouldn't need an apostrophe would you? You're not talking about a contraction or possession are you? Interesting.



While this next example doesn't relate to your favourite topic of contractions it doesn't make much sense either. Grammatically or otherwise.



lol norf!

Hahaha, offended much?! It took you a few hours, but you finally found one of my posts where there might be some leeway for arguing incorrect grammar*. That's so funny - it must have really hurt you to be shown up as the moron that you are.

So, this was "otherwise intelligent debate", in your opinion? Again, only a moron would think so. You.

I'm sure that if I could be f'd, I could find numerous posts of yours that show you to be an ignorant fool. But I can't be f'd. Anyway, it's unnecessary, as it's already obvious that you're a moron.

* both 70s and 70's is acceptable, as using numbers instead of words can be deemed a form of contraction.

Oh, and the last point you raised - I answered a question, you fool. My post only makes sense in the context of the question, which you obviously don't see when you've done a search of all my posts in a desperate attempt to find something to use against me because I demonstrated that you are a moron.


PS - lol norf (and genuine LOL at the moron Collingwood supporter)

 

[joxstrap]

Hahaha, offended much?! It took you a few hours, but you finally found one of my posts where there might be some leeway for arguing incorrect grammar*. That's so funny - it must have really hurt you to be shown up as the moron that you are.

So, this was "otherwise intelligent debate", in your opinion? Again, only a moron would think so. You.

I'm sure that if I could be f'd, I could find numerous posts of yours that show you to be an ignorant fool. But I can't be f'd. Anyway, it's unnecessary, as it's already obvious that you're a moron.

* both 70s and 70's is acceptable, as using numbers instead of words can be deemed a form of contraction.


PS - lol norf (and genuine LOL at the moron Collingwood supporter)

Hey, no worries mate.

It didn't take very long to find two examples of your posts that weren't grammatically accurate. Once I saw your post, maybe five minutes. I don't mind at all that I wasn't right with my use of grammar. For someone to resort to criticising another person's grammar is invariably a sign that they're a douche.

It's just funny that you're not a grammatical paragon when you're so willing to point out other people's mistakes.

Your last post also has a number of clear grammatical errors. For example:

It took you a few hours, but you finally found one of my posts where there might be some leeway for arguing incorrect grammar*.

You are missing something from this sentence. It could end, 'for arguing incorrect grammar use'. Or, 'for arguing about incorrect grammar'.

All highly amusing stuff.

Your explanation of the 70s/70's isn't right, nor does it even make sense. You can use numbers instead of words as an appropriate form of contraction? What?

The '70s doesn't possess anything as you first used it, and it's not a contraction because you haven't started out with two words which you've combined into one. You're talking about the period. As in, the 1970s, or the nineteen seventies. Not the nineteen seventy's. It might be appropriate to contract the 19 away from 1970s, by including an apostrophe at the front, hence '70s

lol norf

ps.

Why does your membership site say that NORF have 30k members when the AFL site says they only have 28k (based on your figures)?

 

[LuvtheKangas]

Hey, no worries mate.

It didn't take very long to find two examples of your posts that weren't grammatically accurate. Once I saw your post, maybe five minutes. I don't mind at all that I wasn't right with my use of grammar. For someone to resort to criticising another person's grammar is invariably a sign that they're a douche.

It's just funny that you're not a grammatical paragon when you're so willing to point out other people's mistakes.

Your last post also has a number of clear grammatical errors. For example:



You are missing something from this sentence. It could end, 'for arguing incorrect grammar use'. Or, 'for arguing about incorrect grammar'.

All highly amusing stuff.

Your explanation of the 70s/70's isn't right, nor does it even make sense. You can use numbers instead of words as an appropriate form of contraction? What?

The '70s doesn't possess anything as you first used it, and it's not a contraction because you haven't started out with two words which you've combined into one. You're talking about the period. As in, the 1970s, or the nineteen seventies. Not the nineteen seventy's. It might be appropriate to contract the 19 away from 1970s, by including an apostrophe at the front, hence '70s

lol norf

ps.

Why does your membership site say that NORF have 30k members when the AFL site says they only have 28k (based on your figures)?

I made no claim to be a grammatical paragon (s******!). I simply pointed out that in one short post that was attempting to be clever, you demonstrated that you can't count, and made the uneducated who's / whose error.

Your stuff on numbers, etc. gave me a big giggle. So much effort to say so little. Pity you missed the point about alternative acceptable forms.

On the membership stuff, you now obviously accept the previous assertion that you can't count, i.e. 2011 follows 2010, as most other people know. Therefore, you changed tack to the make a point about the source of the numbers, but this just demonstrates your ignorance on another topic - the difference between all memberships at a club and AFL official figures. Every club has non-ticketed or other forms of membership that are excluded from the final official AFL tally. That explains the difference that you note, moron.

It doesn't explain why you didn't understand the difference between 2010 and 2011, though. However, the fact that you are a moron does.


PS - lol norf.

 

[joxstrap]

I guess the point is that it wasn't an uneducated error - it was a failure to read over my post before I submitted it for consumption by the Bay. You might be right if you knew I used that form without knowing about the word 'whose' but of course you have no evidence of that.

What we do have evidence of is you using apostrophes incorrectly when you criticise other people about their misuse! That makes you a petty hypocrite.

You're also wrong about my inability to count. That could be an explanation but so could
1) intentional misuse to annoy NORF supporters and get them hot under the collar (seems to have worked)
2) using a source that was incorrect.

 

[Northworth]

We're struggling so we sacked our coach. You're 1 game ahead of us despite us getting nothing from our 2 best players and somehow seem to think your coach is a God

You played three prelims.. your president said a grand final was a pass mark

what is so hard for you to understand?