- Moderator
- #10,151
Are you saying she has a beard?Haha, very possible given the "implications" around Moore
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.
Weekly Prize - Join Any Time - Tip Finals Wk 1
The Golden Ticket - MCG and Marvel Medallion Club tickets and Corporate Box tickets at the Gabba, MCG and Marvel.
AFLW 2024 - Round 1 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Are you saying she has a beard?Haha, very possible given the "implications" around Moore
He looks like he is going to a rodeo. All he is missing is the cowboy boots and hat.
It's like awful and great all at the same time.
I don't think it does anything to stop concussion.Instead of this ongoing fiasco around tackling I'm not sure why the AFL doesn't just mandate headgear for players. I'm sure some of them will hate not being as easily recognised in public but I can't really see a valid reason how it is a worse option than the AFL destroying the game in front of our eyes.
Instead of this ongoing fiasco around tackling I'm not sure why the AFL doesn't just mandate headgear for players. I'm sure some of them will hate not being as easily recognised in public but I can't really see a valid reason how it is a worse option than the AFL destroying the game in front of our eyes.
Instead of this ongoing fiasco around tackling I'm not sure why the AFL doesn't just mandate headgear for players. I'm sure some of them will hate not being as easily recognised in public but I can't really see a valid reason how it is a worse option than the AFL destroying the game in front of our eyes.
Probably likes to decongest in bed. I mean, who doesn't?hogs the doona
The fashion equivalent of thisIt's like awful and great all at the same time.
It's a good point. It seems like a high number of concussions are from contact with the ground these days.Thinking about it, maybe the old VFL mud pit ovals actually had some benefit.
We’ve made our playing surfaces to be near perfect / rock hard (Optus a good example).
Not all concussions are from heads hitting the ground but quite a few are, maybe we soften up the grounds a little
Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
Plenty of players from the pig sty grounds have carried concussion problems since their playing days.Thinking about it, maybe the old VFL mud pit ovals actually had some benefit.
We’ve made our playing surfaces to be near perfect / rock hard (Optus a good example).
Not all concussions are from heads hitting the ground but quite a few are, maybe we soften up the grounds a little
Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
It's very in fashion to be an edgy woke non-conformist these days.To be clear, you want to sleep in different beds, I understand, no judgement here. Tieing it in with progressive buzzwords for the sake of it is eyeroll worthy at best and directly harmful to progessive agendas at worst. Ugghh.
Sorry to everyone else, little too much politics
Plenty of players from the pig sty grounds have carried concussion problems since their playing days.
It's very in fashion to be an edgy woke non-conformist these days.
The famously progressive Silent Alarm, yes.Silent Alarm
The famously progressive Silent Alarm, yes.
I accept that many are likely to ridicule or reject it, and any endorsement I give it would only ever be heavily qualified, but the argument might go something like this: historically speaking, marriage (and by extension, forms of cohabitation modeled on that arrangement) is a patriarchal and heteronormative institution. Gendered division or labour, patriarchal rule over the household, etc., etc. As just one example among many others that could be cited, the "marital bed" has until only quite recently, historically speaking, been an unregulated site of potential patriarchal violence — as in "it is a wife's duty...." — in that women could not rely upon the law for protection from that violence.To be clear, you want to sleep in different beds, I understand, no judgement here. Tieing it in with progressive buzzwords for the sake of it is eyeroll worthy at best and directly harmful to progessive agendas at worst. Ugghh.
Sorry to everyone else, little too much politics
Post to username does not computeI accept that many are likely to ridicule or reject it, and any endorsement I give it would only ever be heavily qualified, but the argument might go something like this: historically speaking, marriage (and by extension, forms of cohabitation modeled on that arrangement) is a patriarchal and heteronormative institution. Gendered division or labour, patriarchal rule over the household, etc., etc. As just one example among many others that could be cited, the "marital bed" has until only quite recently, historically speaking, been an unregulated site of potential patriarchal violence — as in "it is a wife's duty...." — in that women could not rely upon the law for protection from that violence.
Of course, today we like to think of ourselves as autonomous individuals, well-informed and freely capable of making our own choices, able to reject prejudice and treat others as complete equals, and so far removed from such barbaric practices, such that only the grandstanding "woke" would depict the shared bed of today in those same terms. In doing so, we conveniently ignore the fact that, for larger sections of "free society" than we care to acknowledge, patriarchal living arrangements (e.g. arranged marriages), remain standard and that a residue of that patriarchal violence potentially lives on in any number of the minor rituals of marital relations (whether de jure or de facto), which we currently think of as being purely a matter of free will and informed choice.
I offer that purely as an answer to your question. Not interested in getting into futile "debates" over it.
I don't know much about football.Post to username does not compute
Very good attempt to make sense out of non-senseI accept that many are likely to ridicule or reject it, and any endorsement I give it would only ever be heavily qualified, but the argument might go something like this: historically speaking, marriage (and by extension, forms of cohabitation modeled on that arrangement) is a patriarchal and heteronormative institution. Gendered division or labour, patriarchal rule over the household, etc., etc. As just one example among many others that could be cited, the "marital bed" has until only quite recently, historically speaking, been an unregulated site of potential patriarchal violence — as in "it is a wife's duty...." — in that women could not rely upon the law for protection from that violence.
Of course, today we like to think of ourselves as autonomous individuals, well-informed and freely capable of making our own choices, able to reject prejudice and treat others as complete equals, and so far removed from such barbaric practices, such that only the grandstanding "woke" would depict the shared bed of today in those same terms. In doing so, we conveniently ignore the fact that, for larger sections of "free society" than we care to acknowledge, patriarchal living arrangements (e.g. arranged marriages), remain standard and that a residue of that patriarchal violence potentially lives on in any number of the minor rituals of marital relations (whether de jure or de facto), which we currently think of as being purely a matter of free will and informed choice.
I offer that purely as an answer to your question. Not interested in getting into futile "debates" over it.