Mitch McGovern 2: As The Worm Turns (read the OP)

Remove this Banner Ad

Well the best thing on the news is the Brett Kavanaugh deal to the supreme court is done....

I have a feeling the process between Reid and SOS will go the same, it will all be going good until SOS screams rape
We’ll see if your post gets removed like mine did.
 
aaa

Tex turned down bigger money to stay and even took a pay cut recently to keep players. Tex was saying he a one-club player well before Sloane mention it.
JJ turned down a very good deal to stay at the Crows he sign on for less money by the same length of the contract.
It was not about money with both Tex and JJ.

I was surprised to hear Tex was on about 800k. He hasn't been an 800k player for at least 2 years. No wonder he is happy to stay at the AFC.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

True, but its largely us blokes doing it. Man up and say its unacceptable. This pathetic defence that some women do it too, is just ridiculous.
If it’s ok with the mods it’s ok with me.
Maybe we need a quota of female mods to police the boards. Like the political parties, company boards etc are needing to employ.
Might be able to find a few Mirrabellas and Husars to right the ship. :eek:
 
How is it politically correct? o_O It’s common decency. Do you know how many references are made to boners, hard ons, lubing, bend over, bent over, reaming, the South Park sprog meme etc etc etc are used in here on a daily basis? It’s even worse around draft/trade time. Boys will be boys is not a good enough excuse. There are women on these boards too.
Maybe some here work on building sites and are Warfies and some are in daycare centers and accountant offices.
What is acceptable to one is challenging to others. Maybe.
 
Also interesting some of the comments. Alex Witherden replying “go to bed Charlie”. Mitch Grigg replying saying “Sick honest”- dunno what that means.
I think there is/was clearly a few different cliques at the afc that don't see eye to eye.

I'm pretty sure Riley Knight is in the CLM clique as well.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Yes, And I'd like to the King of England too ?

One thing that you have forgotten and a lot on here tend to forget.
Would you allow some of the comment mention on here to be spoken in front of your Wife or Adult Daughter?
We all slip up But I hope most would not use terminology or wording that they would not say in the own homes in front of people they respect.
But I am old school
 
Last edited:
One thing that you have forgotten and a lot on here tend to forget.
Would you allow some of the comment mention on here to be spoken in front of your Wife or Adult Daughter?
We all slip up But I hope most would use terminology or wording that they would not say in the own homes in front of people they respect.
But I am old school
Unfortunately what you would or wouldn’t say in front of your wife and daughter is unlikely to be the same as for many others.

I am not sure where you draw the line on social media sites like this this. The lowest common denominator certainly isn’t it, but how do you work your way down from there?
 
Yes I know this is on Social Media ....and probably a poster from here, but it's so good, I just had to post it AGAIN

Do1M__1UUAgDLoh.jpg

Yes I made it
 
Things is though, if:
[1] taking unders for one deal (Gov to Bloos) enables getting a lot more from another deal (2&3 from GC) to happen, or
[2] not taking unders for one deal but means the other deal doesn't happen

which option is better?

In the first we take less for one trade but gain much more overall with the other trade.

Right, I think this is what people forget.

Last year Adelaide did very well out of the Lever and Cameron trades, enabling the Gibbs one, even though that cost more than what was wanted by many. The overall result being positive for Adelaide, which is the objective.

Some people get hung up on payback or revenge when it's the overall picture that matters. I think Adelaide will end up with a top 5 pick, but whether or not it's partly due to the MM trade is not really relevant. It simply comes down to whether you have that pick.
 
Things is though, if:
[1] taking unders for one deal (Gov to Bloos) enables getting a lot more from another deal (2&3 from GC) to happen, or
[2] not taking unders for one deal but means the other deal doesn't happen

which option is better?

In the first we take less for one trade but gain much more overall with the other trade.
This is fine.
If your hanging out to get an extra 10K selling a house and it stops you getting a bargain @ $50K under valuation on the next. Well. It’s the end result that matters.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Mitch McGovern 2: As The Worm Turns (read the OP)

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top