Match Thread Saints v Dogs Round 2 2020

[CURLY]

What exactly is it you suffer if someone who thinks the Umpires are against us posts their view?

That's their opinion and I struggle to understand how, if you disagree, it could be a major point of concern.

What would you think about letting a bunch of Collingwood supporters in to next week's match thread to post their views?

Well as long as they've bathed why not?

Seriously though is this an allegation? That they're infiltrators or something?

If so I think some other commenters have it right just pay them no mind.

Just pointing out that many would find that extremely annoying, and therefore it’s not allowed.

On match day if you want to talk about St Kilda go to a St Kilda forum, if you want to talk about Collingwood go to a Collingwood forum, if you want to talk about umpires go to an umpires forum.

That’s all many of us are saying.

Have you started a umpires forum?

No, as I'm not obsessed with umpires.

Then don't defend them then when they make clear errors.

[roskilde]

I don't think the Collingwood comparison is that apt Dud because Umpires are just a permanent part of the game and some people have opinions about them.

Personally I feel like Saints do complain a bit too much about the Umpires rather than demanding we have a team who is good enough to beat anyone even when the fluro bastards are ruling against us and it can become a crutch but still we're talking about opinions about parts of the game that involve things of relevance to Saints fans. I really can't see the problem even if you disagree with them.

[The_Dud]

I don't think the Collingwood comparison is that apt Dud because Umpires are just a permanent part of the game and some people have opinions about them.

Personally I feel like Saints do complain a bit too much about the Umpires rather than demanding we have a team who is good enough to beat anyone even when the fluro bastards are ruling against us and it can become a crutch but still we're talking about opinions about parts of the game that involve things of relevance to Saints fans. I really can't see the problem even if you disagree with them.

Yeah but there's a difference between saying if there happens to be a really bad decision "bloody umpires missed that one", which would be fine, and posting (spamming) multiple times EVERY match thread about EVERY decision that goes against us (most 100% correct decisions mind you) and then weaving it into some kind of grand AFL/umpire conspiracy against us, all while conveniently ignoring the multiple bad decision that go our way. And every loss isn't our clubs fault, its all on the umpires/AFL/fixture etc.

It would be like bagging out a player every single game, for every single thing they do, whether good or bad, just bagging them. People would grow tired of that quick smart.

[asiu]

she’d be quiet around here with a no whinging rule

the noddys would need to be paid

[CURLY]

I don't think the Collingwood comparison is that apt Dud because Umpires are just a permanent part of the game and some people have opinions about them.

Personally I feel like Saints do complain a bit too much about the Umpires rather than demanding we have a team who is good enough to beat anyone even when the fluro bastards are ruling against us and it can become a crutch but still we're talking about opinions about parts of the game that involve things of relevance to Saints fans. I really can't see the problem even if you disagree with them.

Yeah but there's a difference between saying if there happens to be a really bad decision "bloody umpires missed that one", which would be fine, and posting (spamming) multiple times EVERY match thread about EVERY decision that goes against us (most 100% correct decisions mind you) and then weaving it into some kind of grand AFL/umpire conspiracy against us, all while conveniently ignoring the multiple bad decision that go our way. And every loss isn't our clubs fault, its all on the umpires/AFL/fixture etc.

It would be like bagging out a player every single game, for every single thing they do, whether good or bad, just bagging them. People would grow tired of that quick smart.

Lol most 100% correct you really have no clue.

[saynta]

I don't think the Collingwood comparison is that apt Dud because Umpires are just a permanent part of the game and some people have opinions about them.

Personally I feel like Saints do complain a bit too much about the Umpires rather than demanding we have a team who is good enough to beat anyone even when the fluro bastards are ruling against us and it can become a crutch but still we're talking about opinions about parts of the game that involve things of relevance to Saints fans. I really can't see the problem even if you disagree with them.

Yeah but there's a difference between saying if there happens to be a really bad decision "bloody umpires missed that one", which would be fine, and posting (spamming) multiple times EVERY match thread about EVERY decision that goes against us (most 100% correct decisions mind you) and then weaving it into some kind of grand AFL/umpire conspiracy against us, all while conveniently ignoring the multiple bad decision that go our way. And every loss isn't our clubs fault, its all on the umpires/AFL/fixture etc.

It would be like bagging out a player every single game, for every single thing they do, whether good or bad, just bagging them. People would grow tired of that quick smart.

Lol most 100% correct you really have no clue.

You are 100% there. Personally, I would ban the posters who can't ever admit that the maggots are human and therefore have their biases and prejudices.

[asiu]

... most importantly there is not a rule that states that posters must always post opinions that align perfectly with what Joffa Burns thinks.

Perhaps that's a rule you could consider implementing.

ummmmm

i can help here boys
... slight name change and that rule has promise

[Joffa Burns]

... most importantly there is not a rule that states that posters must always post opinions that align perfectly with what Joffa Burns thinks.

Perhaps that's a rule you could consider implementing.

ummmmm

i can help here boys
... slight name change and that rule has promise

Nope, name and rule will do just fine as listed thanks.

In fact it could be a watershed moment for the forum when that rule is introduced.
One only hopes it is adjudicated with unrelenting vigor and commitment.

[The_Dud]

I don't think the Collingwood comparison is that apt Dud because Umpires are just a permanent part of the game and some people have opinions about them.

Personally I feel like Saints do complain a bit too much about the Umpires rather than demanding we have a team who is good enough to beat anyone even when the fluro bastards are ruling against us and it can become a crutch but still we're talking about opinions about parts of the game that involve things of relevance to Saints fans. I really can't see the problem even if you disagree with them.

Yeah but there's a difference between saying if there happens to be a really bad decision "bloody umpires missed that one", which would be fine, and posting (spamming) multiple times EVERY match thread about EVERY decision that goes against us (most 100% correct decisions mind you) and then weaving it into some kind of grand AFL/umpire conspiracy against us, all while conveniently ignoring the multiple bad decision that go our way. And every loss isn't our clubs fault, its all on the umpires/AFL/fixture etc.

It would be like bagging out a player every single game, for every single thing they do, whether good or bad, just bagging them. People would grow tired of that quick smart.

Lol most 100% correct you really have no clue.

You are 100% there. Personally, I would ban the posters who can't ever admit that the maggots are human and therefore have their biases and prejudices.

Exactly, they are human, which means they make mistakes, for and against us, and have biases, for and against us.

It's a two way street, some lack the ability to acknowledge this.

[kosifantutti]

What exactly is it you suffer if someone who thinks the Umpires are against us posts their view?

That's their opinion and I struggle to understand how, if you disagree, it could be a major point of concern.

What would you think about letting a bunch of Collingwood supporters in to next week's match thread to post their views?

Well as long as they've bathed why not?

Seriously though is this an allegation? That they're infiltrators or something?

If so I think some other commenters have it right just pay them no mind.

Just pointing out that many would find that extremely annoying, and therefore it’s not allowed.

On match day if you want to talk about St Kilda go to a St Kilda forum, if you want to talk about Collingwood go to a Collingwood forum, if you want to talk about umpires go to an umpires forum.

That’s all many of us are saying.

So what you’re saying is posts like this should not be allowed because they refer to the opposition.

Missed two absolute sitters, still surprised we’re not a few goals down, the dogs butchered a few shots too.

Looks like we can’t move the ball unless the Dogs make a mistake, but they can run right through us and our backline has been putrid.

[The_Dud]

What exactly is it you suffer if someone who thinks the Umpires are against us posts their view?

That's their opinion and I struggle to understand how, if you disagree, it could be a major point of concern.

What would you think about letting a bunch of Collingwood supporters in to next week's match thread to post their views?

Well as long as they've bathed why not?

Seriously though is this an allegation? That they're infiltrators or something?

If so I think some other commenters have it right just pay them no mind.

Just pointing out that many would find that extremely annoying, and therefore it’s not allowed.

On match day if you want to talk about St Kilda go to a St Kilda forum, if you want to talk about Collingwood go to a Collingwood forum, if you want to talk about umpires go to an umpires forum.

That’s all many of us are saying.

So what you’re saying is posts like this should not be allowed because they refer to the opposition.

Missed two absolute sitters, still surprised we’re not a few goals down, the dogs butchered a few shots too.

Looks like we can’t move the ball unless the Dogs make a mistake, but they can run right through us and our backline has been putrid.

When did I ever say you couldn't refer to the opposition, especially when using them to make a point of how we're going?

Nice try though.

[kosifantutti]

What exactly is it you suffer if someone who thinks the Umpires are against us posts their view?

That's their opinion and I struggle to understand how, if you disagree, it could be a major point of concern.

What would you think about letting a bunch of Collingwood supporters in to next week's match thread to post their views?

Well as long as they've bathed why not?

Seriously though is this an allegation? That they're infiltrators or something?

If so I think some other commenters have it right just pay them no mind.

Just pointing out that many would find that extremely annoying, and therefore it’s not allowed.

On match day if you want to talk about St Kilda go to a St Kilda forum, if you want to talk about Collingwood go to a Collingwood forum, if you want to talk about umpires go to an umpires forum.

That’s all many of us are saying.

So what you’re saying is posts like this should not be allowed because they refer to the opposition.

Missed two absolute sitters, still surprised we’re not a few goals down, the dogs butchered a few shots too.

Looks like we can’t move the ball unless the Dogs make a mistake, but they can run right through us and our backline has been putrid.

When did I ever say you couldn't refer to the opposition, especially when using them to make a point of how we're going?

Nice try though.

“On match day if you want to talk about St Kilda go to a St Kilda forum, if you want to talk about Collingwood go to a Collingwood forum, if you want to talk about umpires go to an umpires forum. “

The umpires and decisions they make are part of the game. Why wouldn’t they be in the match day thread?

[asiu]

how funny it all is

ahhhh
go us.

[ace]

Can I borrow this?

I would like to send it to Bulldog President Peter Gordon

Be my guest. What did he say against the Saints?

https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-20 ... fdbeb4f231

Let us know his reply.

[Devilhead]

When did I ever say you couldn't refer to the opposition, especially when using them to make a point of how we're going?

Nice try though.

So you are allowed to make reference to the opposition when using them to make a point of how we're going

BUT

Umpires are a no go area??

Sorry Dud but if Curly or anyone as a ST KILDA supporter on this ST KILDA forum for that matter want to rail against the refs when they make borderline decisions that gift the opposition shots at goal then I and many others don't see a problem.

Not that anyone doesn't appreciate your PoV but IMO you are getting all hot under the collar about a poster and posts most of us can relate to and laugh about - just like many dyed in the wool Saints supporters yelling out at a game about the umpires - you may not want not be sitting next to them but you sure can relate to their pain

If you want fair commentary about umpiring go to the generic BF gameday thread and hang out with all of the other neutral opposition supporters who look for a chance to bag out the Saints at any given opportunity

[Devilhead]

Can I borrow this?

I would like to send it to Bulldog President Peter Gordon

Be my guest. What did he say against the Saints?

https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-20 ... fdbeb4f231

Let us know his reply.

Nothing as yet but I can only assume he is too busy crapping his overfilled ego pants about how his insipid Doggies are currently going

[samuraisaint]

To be honest I thought the umps were fine on Sunday - perfectly fair.
And I thought we got the rub of the green from them against North in Round 1 as well.
Just sayin'.

[ace]

Can I borrow this?

I would like to send it to Bulldog President Peter Gordon

Be my guest. What did he say against the Saints?

https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-20 ... fdbeb4f231

Peter Gordon is a blood-sucking parasite!
The original "Ambulance Chaser".
A"Bottom Dweller".

Let's hope the Dogs nearly go bankrupt like Slater and Gordon almost did due to their big headedness!

Is that the same law firm called Slimey and Grimey.
Slimey and Grimey share price fell to 6.8cents.
Then a scheme of arrangement increased the number of shares 20 fold and gave then to the lenders.
Shareholders then owned only 5% of the company.

The shares that were once worth $2.8 billion fell to $24.2 million.
The rescue plan valued Slater and Gordon's shares at between 0.3 cents or 1.1 cents each, meaning the shares were worth between $1.05 million and $3.87 million.
Shareholders market cap of $2.8 bill became $24.2 mill then became $1.05 to 3.87 mill
This compares to the $15.5 million in fees Slater and Gordon's legal and financial advisers received for completing the deal.
That means shareholders lost 99.9% of their money.
But the lawyers got to keep their jobs.
And the partners that sold out early made a killing.
Don't be fooled by today's share price.
They had a 100 to 1 share consolidation.
100 shares suddenly become 1 shares worth 100 times as much.