The Fox Report - Round 3

[rodgerfox]

It's no coincidence that no -one ever interprets your posts in a manner you deem to be accurate.

Well that's not entirely true.

Quite a few people interpret my posts precisely as they are intended.

[yipper]

And so here we go on our usual way - a few personal insults get thrown out. You are the most predictable poster on here. I can read perfectly well mate, even slowly!! And we have all read the same dribble from you over and over. Get a life you hero.

You're a bit slow.

Here we go??

'a few personal insults' have alrady been thrown out....

-Get a life you hero
-You are becoming a master at saying something and then back-pedalling your way out
-that's right, rodgerfox the master of making a statement then coming out with "Oh but I didn';t mean that at all".
-dodgy
-NOW please, if you're going to subject us all to your self absorbed drivel
-you have an undying man-crush on GT. He is your boyfriend


Please. If you get sooky over an 'insult' on the internet, can you please lodge a complaint with the mods about the above ones I've copped in the first two pages of this poast before you start grizzling.

It's no coincidence that no -one ever interprets your posts in a manner you deem to be accurate.

Because the meaning of your statement changes depending on what people say, purely for the purpose of being argumentative.

Yet it's just everybody else being simple, not your fault at all

Exactly. Hit the nail on the head. Yep, all of us - we all misinterpret Rodgerfox's posts every single time!! Just incredible how simple we all are. It is never rodger's fault - ever. Not once!! And now we are all sooks to boot!! Yep, we sure are - you're right oh great one. It is a shame this forum is not worthy of your superior intellect that so baffles us commoners time after time. There are many fine posters on here who never seem to get misinterpetted unlike our old Rodg - so he must be way above their intellect as well. Think I'll stick to reading Bigmart's posts - he seems to know what he is talking about and I never seem to misinterpret his words - ever!!

[perfectionist]

...Quite a few people interpret my posts precisely as they are intended.

Me, for instance. Given that you did not see the game, most of your comments are fairly accurate.

We did improve our skills this week, especially our field kicking. Our kicking for goal was better, at least by result if not by technique. Our tackling was almost perfect with just a couple of high ones. Our handball was OK but does need some work - especially from a couple who seem to drop it at the teammate's feet.

Get the DVD and do a PS to your report. I'd be interested to read it.

[barks4eva]

Is it just a little bit bizarre, IMHO of course, that someone who does not bother going to our games, sometimes doesn't even watch our game on TV, someone who says he no longer feels the passion for AFL footy, yet somehow finds innumerable hours to post here writing about it all at great length, as if offering pearls of saintly wisdom for all the, as he puts it uninformed "morons"!

Oh Perleeeeeeeeeeze

dodgy the game is up, back in your foxhole!

[rodgerfox]

Is it just a little bit bizarre, IMHO of course, that someone who does not bother going to our games, sometimes doesn't even watch our game on TV, someone who says he no longer feels the passion for AFL footy, yet somehow finds innumerable hours to post here writing about it all at great length, as if offering pearls of saintly wisdom for all the, as he puts it uninformed "morons"!

Oh Perleeeeeeeeeeze

dodgy the game is up, back in your foxhole!

I find it just a little bit bizarre, that you've responded twice.

[Mr Magic]

Is it just a little bit bizarre, IMHO of course, that someone who does not bother going to our games, sometimes doesn't even watch our game on TV, someone who says he no longer feels the passion for AFL footy, yet somehow finds innumerable hours to post here writing about it all at great length, as if offering pearls of saintly wisdom for all the, as he puts it uninformed "morons"!

Oh Perleeeeeeeeeeze

dodgy the game is up, back in your foxhole!

Spot on Barks, but be careful - you'll be labelled a 'bully' shortly for having the temerity to point out the inescapable truth of this situation.

I just think it is amazing that we have a 3-0 start to the season playiong great footy and somehow Rodgerfox manages to move the forum focus on to himself!
He truly is the Saintsational Master Debaiter.

[SainterK]

I find it pleasing that you are slowly being won over

[barks4eva]

I find it pleasing that you are slowly being won over

To whom are you referring to?

[SainterK]

Rogerfox, the disinterested one

[markp]

It's just like Lucy pulling the ball away from Charlie Brown over and over, but people keep falling for it.

An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.

And of course most people would interpret not playing very well as meaning playing poorly.... how fatuous can you get drawing out a clarification over 3 pages.

[Dis Believer]

Barks - the sound of one man's applause is generated by me in support of you - well played old chap.

So that there may be no confusion about my post content - I think Dodgy is a first class wanker.

Please note that it is however, purely my opinion. It is not a statement by me directly at dodgy as an insult, and I therefore expect no messages from any mods.

Are we all clear on my opinion?

Ooohh these games are fun aren't they dodge???

[iwantmeseats]

Jesus, at least bother watching some highlights at least , numnuts.

If your going to persist with this self ego stroking anyway...

[rodgerfox]

Surely it's safe to assume that you are aware there is no obligation to anyone to reply, or even read my posts?

[iwantmeseats]

Surely it's safe to assume that you are aware there is no obligation to anyone to reply, or even read my posts?

Grandstanding, pontification, opinionating, SHOULD BE AT LEAST BASED ON SEEING THE ACTUAL BLOODY GAME FFS!! Or at LEAST some highlights. Prefrably you should be there. But its not really about the "boring" ole saints is it? hmm

[rodgerfox]

Is it just a little bit bizarre, IMHO of course, that someone who does not bother going to our games, sometimes doesn't even watch our game on TV, someone who says he no longer feels the passion for AFL footy, yet somehow finds innumerable hours to post here writing about it all at great length, as if offering pearls of saintly wisdom for all the, as he puts it uninformed "morons"!

Oh Perleeeeeeeeeeze

dodgy the game is up, back in your foxhole!

Spot on Barks, but be careful - you'll be labelled a 'bully' shortly for having the temerity to point out the inescapable truth of this situation.

I just think it is amazing that we have a 3-0 start to the season playiong great footy and somehow Rodgerfox manages to move the forum focus on to himself!
He truly is the Saintsational Master Debaiter.

Oh dear. And here they come.

[vacuous space]

I simply said that I don't think it's possible to play 'very well' as a backman if you make 10 errors and give away 3 frees.

What's so hard to understand about that??

'...[H]e can't have played very well...' is a vague statement. It is quite reasonable to surmise, if he didn't play well, that you thought he played badly. You seem perplexed when people arrive at that logical conclusion. Your reasoning seems to be based on phantom statistics. It's no wonder you're being challenged on that opinion.

Misunderstandings are more commonly a result of poor communication than a lack of intelligence. You need to open yourself up to the possibility that you may not be the wordsmith you fancy yourself to be. If somebody asks you your position after you've already stated it, then you've probably done a bad job of explaining youself in the first place and should try again. Referring back to the original misundertood statement doesn't seem like an intelligent way to resolve the problem.

[Mr Magic]

Is it just a little bit bizarre, IMHO of course, that someone who does not bother going to our games, sometimes doesn't even watch our game on TV, someone who says he no longer feels the passion for AFL footy, yet somehow finds innumerable hours to post here writing about it all at great length, as if offering pearls of saintly wisdom for all the, as he puts it uninformed "morons"!

Oh Perleeeeeeeeeeze

dodgy the game is up, back in your foxhole!

Spot on Barks, but be careful - you'll be labelled a 'bully' shortly for having the temerity to point out the inescapable truth of this situation.

I just think it is amazing that we have a 3-0 start to the season playiong great footy and somehow Rodgerfox manages to move the forum focus on to himself!
He truly is the Saintsational Master Debaiter.

Oh dear. And here they come.

As you so clearly hoped for.

[rodgerfox]

I simply said that I don't think it's possible to play 'very well' as a backman if you make 10 errors and give away 3 frees.

What's so hard to understand about that??

'...[H]e can't have played very well...' is a vague statement. It is quite reasonable to surmise, if he didn't play well, that you thought he played badly. You seem perplexed when people arrive at that logical conclusion. Your reasoning seems to be based on phantom statistics. It's no wonder you're being challenged on that opinion.

Misunderstandings are more commonly a result of poor communication than a lack of intelligence. You need to open yourself up to the possibility that you may not be the wordsmith you fancy yourself to be. If somebody asks you your position after you've already stated it, then you've probably done a bad job of explaining youself in the first place and should try again. Referring back to the original misundertood statement doesn't seem like an intelligent way to resolve the problem.

Under normal circumstances, you'd be correct.

However, this is Saintsational. A breeding ground of bullying, abusive and intolerant posters who seem to take the stance of 'with us or against us' at every chance.

Because I don't see the club through rose coloured glasses and dare to question the performance of it's staff - 'I'm against them'!!

Therefore these cretins see my name as the poster, and jump to conclusions. Don't read what I write, but assume what I meant.


It's no coincidence than many of the posters who now stalk my every post with abuse and venom, were once sending me PMs of support in all sorts of discussions.

Why? Because they are obviously quite sad and lonely people who need to PM people to 'buddy up' and bully other posters, and secondly because I was perceived to be 'with them'.

They never had any issues with my style or views back then. But suddenly now, I'm the anti-Christ.

Odd that, isn't it.

[vacuous space]

Therefore these cretins see my name as the poster, and jump to conclusions. Don't read what I write, but assume what I meant.

I can only comment on what I've seen. In this instance, I misunderstood you and I don't think it was due to any inability on my part to read. I think, given what you wrote and what you refused to elaborate upon, it was perfectly understandable that everyone thought you were saying Blake played badly.

I don't think you're the anti-Christ either. Grant Thomas has held that position for a while. At best, you're one of his minions.

[Mr Magic]

I admit I was wrong.
I really thought that Rodgerfox was just playing 'Rexy the Fisherman' and having a good laugh at how many he could catch with his 'bait' threads and posts.

His last reesponse to VaccuousSpace shows me how wrong I was.

He truly is a narcissitic, egomaniac of a fictional internet character.

He's so full of it he even states, in a previous reply, that he doesn't find being asked if he's a 'wanker' an insult!

He comes on here and calls footy fans 'morons' and/or 'dickheads' and then claims, with mock outrage, at any opportunity that he is being 'bullied' by others.

Poor pwecious wittle possum that he is.

How long before he resorts to 'Your'e a liar' to somebody on this thread? It should be coming soon if he resorts to pattern.

Too many see through the crocodile tears, the modus operandi, and the fake concern in his posts. This 'boy has cried wolf' too many times to be taken seriously on this, IMHO.

Unfortunately he has already achieved what I believe to be his main motives - 'look at moi, and take the forum focus off the great start to the year by the Saints.


I must admit to 1 curiosity though - is he laughing his head off when he types his tripe (should that be tripes his type)?

[bergholt]

What a waste of a thread.

It started with my assertion that Blake was in our bottom few players. Punter replied:

Blake would just about be the first picked at the moment. His game was faultless on Saturday, and his kicking was superb. He never missed a target. He is twice the player he was two years ago.

Rodger said in reply to this that the stats showed he'd made errors. Cue downward spiral.

What's the substance of this shitstorm? I don't reckon Blake was that amazing on Saturday. The three free kicks he gave away were all silly hands-in-the-back type indiscretions. I'm pretty sure he made at least a couple of errors by foot (though I don't remember a specific instance). Three frees and a couple of disposal errors adds up to an error count of at least 5. Still, he didn't look at all bad, but playing in the backline of a team which is winning by 90-odd points isn't the toughest ask in footy.

Look, I love the bloke for his efforts. I reckon I've seen just about every AFL game he's ever played, and there's no doubt he's improved slowly over his career, and he's more than serviceable now. But the fact remains he's a GOP at best. His best role is key defence (or tagging Goodes), but I reckon he's 6th in line back there, behind Hudghton, Fisher S, Gilbert, Dempster, Maguire, ahead of Dawson. He's probably in a group of players 20th to 30th on our list, which means he makes the team regularly, but could often be replaced by someone better. There's no way he's "just about first picked" as Punter asserted. We can all name 15 players picked before him.

So if you have to have a go at Rodger, do it for the substance of his argument, not the form (which I admit is sometimes lacking).

[saint66au]

Oh c'mon Rodg...lets review a few things..

You pass comment on players performances after admitting you didnt attend the game or see it on TV....

..then when your stats data is questioned you decide that your stats source is the only reliable one..that Champion Data ..(who supply stats to 99 of the media) only worry about the player when he has the ball? How do they have shepherd or tackle stats then?? When asked for your stats source you neatly change the subject.

then..as the piece de resisitance, when others take you to task, you employ your tried and true "lets mock and belittle people who disagree with me" by intimating that they are illiterate. Well my wife suffers from dyslexia so Id ask you not to be a total smartass when talking about such things..Thanks

You know whats ironic? The only other poster who matches you for their tone of superior, born to rule "if you dont agree with me you obviously are stupid" tone is your arch-enemy Teflon lol

Oh and PLENTY of people have questioned this clubs on and off-field performance over the summer months....you're not the lone "keep the bastards honest" voice you know.

Maybe you need to read what others say about your opinions, rather than just insisting that noone understands you cos they have kindergarten reading skills.

Shame, cos I enjoy reading your report. Its generally pretty balanced and surprisingly upbeat for someone weho had the AFL dead and buried as a spectacle all through summer. Just take differing opinions on board rather than treating them like something smelly stuck to your shoe

[BAM! (shhhh)]

the bottom line is you cannot judger a person's performance purely by a stat sheet.

Otherwise it well tell you Daniel Kerr had 27 touches and won 18 of them contested.
The reality is he had no impact on the game.

Blake may have in your oppinion played poorly, but I don't see how you can simply look at a stat sheet to conclude someone didn't play well.

Watch the game then decide. Surely that's reasonable?

Well, you can judge a person's performance purely on stats... you're just very, very likely to miss the context.

e.g. Daniel Kerr, 27 touches, 18 contested... we can probably assume he's a bit of a gun then. By the total lack of inside 50s, rebound 50s, assists, goals and behinds while posting an in-and-under k:h in a losing side, we can infer that those 18 CP really didn't get the job done.

With the context of seeing Jones play on him, we can genuinely start to get a picture: -2 possessions, with 9 CP of his own, to go along with 14 tackles, 2 inside 50s, 2 assists, and 1 goal 2... to go along with a 50:50 k:h at better efficiency, we can say that head to head that as much ball as Kerr found, his opponent probably had more impact.

It helps to use the correct stats, and helps to see the game... I'd maintain that if Rodger's 10 errors including 3 FA had been correct, you'd have to have agreed with his conclusion, and said Blake had played a poor game. Barring a quantifiable measure for error other than clanger, it does become difficult to discuss.

With further information, I'm happy to reconsider - I thought Blake was serviceable and unremarkable in context of his team's domination (i.e. he was good in a very good side), but I'll back my reading skills if they get the chance.

[saintsRrising]

So if you have to have a go at Rodger, do it for the substance of his argument, not the form (which I admit is sometimes lacking).

I think we are waiting for the source of his stated 10 errors. Others have quoted sources which had a much lower number.

[joffaboy]

If you dont like the posts by RF dont respond.

Really it gets tiresome. The Fox Report is usually pretty well balanced.

The first sentance stated he hadn't even seen a replay.

3 pages trying to catch him out on a possible incorrect error count however makes it look like a witchhunt.

FWIW - I could see exactly where RF came from - in the context that he hadn't seen the game. He didn't state Blake had a poor game at all.

Oh well none of my business and I'm not going to defend another poster on here.