It's got nothing to do with yes men or offence, it's the fact that you're not responding to my arguments, instead you are responding to arguments that you think I must hold because I hold other ideas that you consider connected.
It's like when far right religious creationists assume that because people believe in evolution that they must be Atheist or vise versa, these two ideas are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
I'm not sure what you mean by this?
If you're saying that I in some way suggested to you were less passionate about the game then me, then that wasn't my intention.
Since you don't seem to have a clue what it means I've got the definition for you from Google.
Straw man
noun
- 1.
an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.
"her familiar procedure of creating a straw man by exaggerating their approach"
I have never presented mergers or killing off clubs as tenable rationalisation strategies, I have stated multiple times in the discussion that I do not support mergers, relocation, or folding as a rationalisation strategy.
I have explained multiple times why I think the Bears removal hasn't yet converted into more fans for other clubs such as the Eagles and Roosters, the Swans may have pretty good crowds (pretty easy to do when you share the city with only one other club in your chosen sport, you've been around in the city for about 30 years longer then that other club, and your chosen sport has a tradition of attending games over watching games on TV) but their TV numbers in Sydney are frankly abysmal and if you added the average attendance of every Sydney RL club together I'd imagine that RL is still out drawing the Swans and the Giants for that matter.
So since this has nothing to do with what we've been arguing, and we bloody agree that the way that rationalisation was done in the late 90's was a sh!t show and caused more problems then it fixed, what does any of this have to do with me?
Nothing at all is the answer, it's just easier to bring this then it is to respond to my points I assume.
Yet another straw man.
You said-
I responded with-
I wasn't suggesting P&R be used as an expansion method in the NRL today, simply providing it as another option for expansion and rationalisation.
However I did suggest relegation and replacement as a method that the NRL should be using for expansion and rationalisation,I guess you've got no interested in talking about that though because it's easier for you to point out the problems with P&R being implemented in this country.
The only reason I keep bring it up is because you keep bring up the North Shore and the Bears, I'm just suggesting to you that I'm pretty familiar with the trials and tribulations of the Bears and the North Shore being as I supported the Bears and that I don't need you spelling it out to me.
I also don't need anecdote after anecdote about the North Shore either, they're insignificant and useless pieces of information because they can't be verified or studied.
Firstly, if we hadn't joined SL we would've been financially stuffed too (would've gone tits up either just before 2000 or just after), the difference between us and the Sharks is that instead of pissing the money we got from SL up against a wall we invested it into assets to sustain the club into the future.
Secondly, the only debacle is that the Sharks got away from ASADA Scott free, frankly you guys were bloody lucky that Dave Smith handled the situation so well, that Sandor Earl was there to be the fall guy, and that WADA considers the NRL small fry because if your players were Olympians or playing in a bigger competition globally then their careers would be over and Shane Flanagan might have even got jail time for failing in his duty of care to them.
And don't give me the "ASADA never got positive drug tests" spiel, they don't need positive drug tests only to prove that the players had access to the drugs and witnesses to confirm that the players took the drugs and they had both of those things, and many an athlete's career has been ruined on much, much less evidence then what was presented about the Sharks and for much less egregious crimes to boot. Also whether or not the players knew that they were ingesting the drugs doesn't matter either.
Finally, I'm not playing the victim Olympics with you anymore.
Firstly I'm not surprised that you hear politicians use the straw man fallacy against their opposition in this country because pretty much every time that politicians in this country respond to one anothers' arguments they straw man them and hope that their constituencies don't look into the policies deeper to find out that they are in fact straw manning them, the sad thing is that it works almost every time.
Secondly, this paragraph shows that you didn't in fact know what a straw man fallacy was, which is fine, and now you know.
And here we go again, I'm not ignoring the AFL, I've never suggested that we ignore the AFL (I said literally the exact opposite at one point in our discussion) I simply said that what we do as a sport and a business shouldn't be dictated by what the AFL does (if we allow the AFL to dictate to us we'll always be playing catch up), and that you attribute to them more power over the market (especially a maket like Sydney) then they actually have.
That's nice, do you remember the bit where I suggest different strategies on how to handle rationalisation so that void can be filled by RL, I do, I also remember how you ignored those ideas, didn't even address them, then proceeded to assert that it's impossible to rationalise a competition without creating wastelands for you're sport, and all this despite the fact that multiple sports leagues have successfully rationalised competition all across the world (the NFL, EPL, NHL, etc, etc, even the NRL (NSWRL at the time) it's self, they've all done it successfully before).
