Yeah i guess this is Goers' first offence, never had a problem with him until todays pathetic effort. Not man enough to come up and call us fire hydrants to our faces, the weak bitch!
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 9 - Indigenous Round - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Official BF Rooch (Roast) Thread
- Thread starter relapse
- Start date
- Tagged users None
RoosterLad said:
I don't have a problem with him either. Don't read him. But my North mate is spewing.
I put him in the Nicole Cornes category - they're taking up valuable space in the paper that could be dedicated to more Le Cornus ads.
passamore
Senior List
RoosterLad said:
Photo finish. But Rucci will win it.
Crow-mo said:
A typical approach of the schoolyard bully, crow-mo. Try to belittle the person, rather than pick up the argument.
Uh-huh.
When you wrote:
were you aware of one of the great truisms of our age that we usually only accuse others of faults that we know exist within ourselves?
Interesting though this debate has been, I think it's fast approaching "agree to disagree" time. Because if there's one thing the "new media" had in common with the old, it's that debates are rarely won or lost, they just go on and on... 
In closing my contribution, for the time being anyway, I'll just say (again) that I'm not claiming that it is set in stone, open and shut, predetermined or whatever that BF owners, mods and admins would be slammed for defamatory remarks posted by a BF member. Yes, it is new ground for the law; yes, it has not been thoroughly tested in Australian courts; and yes, there is the defence of "innocent dissemination".
But - and this has been the main reason for my continued involvement in this debate - it is by no means open and shut in the other direction either, as Chief and others seem to be claiming. The mere "wishing it were so" and posting forum rules accordingly, does not make it so.
Crow-Mo: You have made the valid point that it has not been thoroughly tested in court, and that for every legal opinion you can get in one direction, there's one in the other. Sure. But - that means you can get legal opinion to say that BF would have a problem in the case of a defamation action. And given two opinions, one which says "no worries, you don't have to do anything" and another, equally well reasoned, that says "you could be exposed" - which one would it be prudent to go with?
Anyway, as I said, agree to disagree. It's been a good debate guys.
In closing my contribution, for the time being anyway, I'll just say (again) that I'm not claiming that it is set in stone, open and shut, predetermined or whatever that BF owners, mods and admins would be slammed for defamatory remarks posted by a BF member. Yes, it is new ground for the law; yes, it has not been thoroughly tested in Australian courts; and yes, there is the defence of "innocent dissemination".
But - and this has been the main reason for my continued involvement in this debate - it is by no means open and shut in the other direction either, as Chief and others seem to be claiming. The mere "wishing it were so" and posting forum rules accordingly, does not make it so.
Crow-Mo: You have made the valid point that it has not been thoroughly tested in court, and that for every legal opinion you can get in one direction, there's one in the other. Sure. But - that means you can get legal opinion to say that BF would have a problem in the case of a defamation action. And given two opinions, one which says "no worries, you don't have to do anything" and another, equally well reasoned, that says "you could be exposed" - which one would it be prudent to go with?
Anyway, as I said, agree to disagree. It's been a good debate guys.
- Banned
- #1,156
arrowman said:
I'd go with the one that the entire world if the internet is using, on far bigger issues than bigfooty. you have to remember the legal framework that we'll all end up using is being discovered in the US, on far more important matters than a sh*tty australian bulletin board. Given the highly politicised environment that these things operate in over there, it takes a uniquely reduced view of the internet to get so granular on an irrelevant form. For example, hollywood is using the internet to market it's multi million dollar films, US politics is heavily influenced by internet new media, search engines control what we do or do not find. you have increased blogging etc. these are the areas that the law is exploring, establishing realms, jurisdictions and definitions over matters such as defamation. these areas matter, not the compressed view of the internet required to think a bulletin board in an irrelevant country is on the frontline.
If appleyard took his lead from anywhere else, he'd be an utter arse clown, but it sounds to me he's going with the wider and majority view on these things. and I might note that I can't see this expert opinion that says bigfooty has a problem?
- Banned
- #1,157
JohnK said:
John, the problem is you don't have an argument. full stop. I'm not talking about your right to opinion, but the view you're bringing isn't developed enough yet to even really be debated. you're making statments all over the place on things you clearly do not even begin to understand on a process level, let alone the underlying principles.
should we debate the difference between one man's truism, and anothers banal cliched platitudes?
*PAF
Brownlow Medallist
10k Posts
Port Adelaide - Nathan Krakouer Player Sponsor 2015
Port Adelaide - Brendon Ah Chee Player Sponsor 2014
Port Adelaide - Jarrad Redden Player Sponsor 2014
Port Adelaide - Matthew Broadbent Player Sponsor 2013
Port Adelaide - Foundation Sponsor
Port Adelaide - Captains Club 2012 Sponsor
Port Adelaide - John Butcher 2012 Player Sponsor
- Feb 17, 2005
- 22,024
- 10,285
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
Do you mean cubicly dull?Crow-mo said:
- Banned
- #1,160
JohnK said:
there is nothing to disagree on, I am not making a position beyond it is not yet clear. for you to disagree with that, which you do, is to take the position that the matter is clear. which is just foolish.
enjoy:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/2002/56.html
- Banned
- #1,162
JohnK said:
jesus, let me spell it out for you - this is the official FULL transcript of the ruling. word for ****ing word. no additives or preservatives, no colourings, and plenty of E numbers.
Sorry but I am going to add my little two cents to this arguement
I have finally found something that accurately portrays how I feel when reading the Tiser and Rucci's articles
I have finally found something that accurately portrays how I feel when reading the Tiser and Rucci's articles
Blind Fred
Debutant
- Jun 21, 2005
- 98
- 1
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Crows
Brilliant, Capitalist. That's how I felt this morning when Rucci managed to get the word lazy into a back page Crows story and headline. Another fabrication by a lazy reporter.
Enough of the amateur hour on legalaise. I'm out of my depth there anyway.
Back to the topic of Rucci.
His Roast today in the 'tiser was interesting, particularly in these 2 areas.
1) He gave the van Berlo-ism cult and its use in the census a bit of a plug
2) He posed the question as to who is the Crows player who was so frustrated with the delays in his contract negotiations that he was considering giving John James a ring.
Has anybody heard anything on the second point?
Back to the topic of Rucci.
His Roast today in the 'tiser was interesting, particularly in these 2 areas.
1) He gave the van Berlo-ism cult and its use in the census a bit of a plug
2) He posed the question as to who is the Crows player who was so frustrated with the delays in his contract negotiations that he was considering giving John James a ring.
Has anybody heard anything on the second point?
I can't think of a Crows player who would tell Rucci (or anyone) that. Rooch isn't exactly the AFC's most popular journalist, after all. Perhaps JJ told Rooch there was a Crows player they'd like at Port Adelaide ... Johncock maybe?macca23 said:2) He posed the question as to who is the Crows player who was so frustrated with the delays in his contract negotiations that he was considering giving John James a ring. Has anybody heard anything on the second point?
RogerRabbit69 said:
Johncocks signed till 07-08 ?
Yeah, I know. He just signed for three years, didn't he? But Rooch's article was in past tense .... "was so frustrated", "was considering" ... which suggests the player he was referring to has sorted out their contract problems.Capitalist said:
That, or Rooch just made it up.
I've got no idea if it was Johncock he was referring to ... really just guessing.
I'd say there's a fair chance the whole things just total bull****.
I'd say there's a fair chance the whole things just total bull****.
WhyAlwaysMe
Former PAFC Member
- Oct 4, 2005
- 18,281
- 10,988
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- New England Patriots M.C.F.C
I'm just taking a stab in the dark but whats the situation with Ivan Marics contract.
He's contracted until the end of 2007
macca23 said:2) He posed the question as to who is the Crows player who was so frustrated with the delays in his contract negotiations that he was considering giving John James a ring.
Has anybody heard anything on the second point?
When we announced about 10 or so player who had resigned with the club (about 6 weeks ago) Scott Thompson’s name was surprisingly missing?
Would he be looking at jumping ship the Power and could he be the player in the Roast?
MadDog said:
Ford Fairlane
Moderator
- Feb 21, 2002
- 81,785
- 201,785
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Port Adelaide Magpies
- Moderator
- #1,175
My immediate thought was McLeod, because his protracted contract negotiations had been publicised in the media.
Similar threads
- Poll
