The LJC\Stallion Thread

[Stallion]

It is by definition a conspiracy theory as it is an alternative to the accepted version of events.

What evidence would you require to be convinced that Rugby didn't orchestrate the super league war?

It's all about timeliness I suggest! In a century of events around the world an incredible coincidence occurs whereby a very established and most successful rugby league competition is coincidentally compromised by a split in its best competition with one of the main financiers of the split being a company (News Ltd) whom happens to be owned by someone that dislikes rugby-league. I find a tad too cosy for this to happen by chance. The result being a retrograde step for rugby league in this country and elsewhere. A sudden increased coverage of the much less attractive but very powerful union product was realised. Despite this massive impediment /backward step, rugby league still precarioisly exists but nowhere near it's just place in the sporting world landscape (which should,in my opinion, be well above rugby union )

 

[Valheru]

It's all about timeliness I suggest! In a century of events around the world an incredible coincidence occurs whereby a very established and most successful rugby league competition is coincidentally compromised by a split in its best competition with one of the main financiers of the split being a company (News Ltd) whom happens to be owned by someone that dislikes rugby-league. I find a tad too cosy for this to happen by chance. The result being a retrograde step for rugby league in this country and elsewhere. A sudden increased coverage of the much less attractive but very powerful union product was realised. Despite this massive impediment /backward step, rugby league still precarioisly exists but nowhere near it's just place in the sporting world landscape (which should,in my opinion, be well above rugby union )

You haven't answered my question.

What evidence would you require to be convinced that Rugby was not responsible for the Super League war?

 

[Stallion]

Broadcasters aren't looking for smooth transitions and existing infrastructure, they are looking for new broadcast timeslots, new markets for viewers and new eyeballs on screens. That's what pays the bills in actual currency, not in nostalgia.

The people of the Central Coast already watch NRL in large numbers and attend games (both on the Central Coast and I would imagine by driving an hour and a bit up or down the highway once or twice a year to either Newcastle or Sydney.

So, how exactly would the bears increase the TV viewership, increase the average attendances in the NRL and provide enough new viewers to pay for themselves in the next TV deal? Please answer in actual financial terms, not in nostalgic terms.

You have underestimated the Bears supporters both in northern & greater Sydney and around Australia. Those eyeballs alone are plenty. As well as the increased spice to valid local derbies. Also think you underestimate that first he good off the code is important as well. I would suggest a decent tv partner would want to promote and see the code that it's contracted improve developmentally and in the market place. Both are achieved with Central Coast Bears with minimal infrastructure imposts. Makes good sense for prudent rugby league people and businessmen I suggest. .

 

[Stallion]

You haven't answered my question.

What evidence would you require to be convinced that Rugby was not responsible for the Super League war?

For a start I don't answer to you referring to rugby union as "Rugby " It's both disrespectful and demeaning toward the code of rugby league. (especially on a rugby league website ). I smell a rat, and rugby union with its powerful connections is the BIG RAT in what I see as a repression of rugby league from.its inception. You will be condescending and predictably scornful with my viewpoint, but I'm yet to see logic countering my belief. I do see how this repression has occured and the main benefactor being a less deserving version of rugby in union.

 

[Te Kaha]

For a start I don't answer to you referring to rugby union as "Rugby " It's both disrespectful and demeaning toward the code of rugby league. (especially on a rugby league website ). I smell a rat, and rugby union with its powerful connections is the BIG RAT in what I see as a repression of rugby league from.its inception. You will be condescending and predictably scornful with my viewpoint, but I'm yet to see logic countering my belief. I do see how this repression has occured and the main benefactor being a less deserving version of rugby in union.

You are full of shit as usual. You have made a claim based on your "feelings" with no actual evidence to back it up... as usual.

 

[Stallion]

You are full of shit as usual. You have made a claim based on your "feelings" with no actual evidence to back it up... as usual.

Te Kaha. I would like you to tell Timmah to allow me to respond to his claim that I'm the only one being rude on this site! He's not allowing me to point out that other rude people are just as much to blame for the insults . Not just myself or Batley etc.
With respects to repression of rugby league :
I have the actual evidence. People like yourself keep refuting/deflecting the examples! And the evidence is in the form of published articles and books! Go figure. Your eyes are painted on. Apathy and ignorance sits well with the bad boys on this site!

 

[Valheru]

For a start I don't answer to you referring to rugby union as "Rugby " It's both disrespectful and demeaning toward the code of rugby league. (especially on a rugby league website ). I smell a rat, and rugby union with its powerful connections is the BIG RAT in what I see as a repression of rugby league from.its inception. You will be condescending and predictably scornful with my viewpoint, but I'm yet to see logic countering my belief. I do see how this repression has occured and the main benefactor being a less deserving version of rugby in union.

It's really a simple question.

What evidence do you require to be convinced that rugby union didn't orchestrate the super league war?

 

[Te Kaha]

Te Kaha. I would like you to tell Timmah to allow me to respond to his claim that I'm the only one being rude on this site! He's not allowing me to point out that other rude people are just as much to blame for the insults . Not just myself or Batley etc.
With respects to repression of rugby league :
I have the actual evidence. People like yourself keep refuting/deflecting the examples! And the evidence is in the form of published articles and books! Go figure. Your eyes are painted on. Apathy and ignorance sits well with the bad boys on this site!

Which is all irrelevant to this question below that's has been asked for which you cant provide a simple answer ​

It's really a simple question.
What evidence do you require to be convinced that rugby union didn't orchestrate the super league war?

 

[Stallion]

It's really a simple question.

What evidence do you require to be convinced that rugby union didn't orchestrate the super league war?

At least you have addressed the codes correctly. I am absolutely certain that union had a vested interest in dividing rugby-league in Australia . Given their(RUs) record in other countries around the world in repressing rugby league it's a logical claim. I'm not expecting anything to. convimce me otherwise. Just like so-called rugby-league fans think nothing of no rugby league in elite private schools. Challenging the 'norm' particularly when things are unfair and apathetically disregarded iscsonethongvthar should be addressed. DON'T SHOOT THE MESSENGER! Logic supports the repression claim I am sticking by. Union has the resources and power to exert such repression and they are doing so in various facets of society around the world. (schooling,government funding and legislation, established sports recognition bodies,high powered business favours (News Ltd etc),Cultural bullying by implying/establishing (especially in NZ) that the name 'rugby' is solely for their use and rugby league gets the scraps etc. It goes on. But the litany of examples can be further required if requested.

 

[Timmah]

iscsonethongvthar

New heights in literacy achieved!

 

[Valheru]

At least you have addressed the codes correctly. I am absolutely certain that union had a vested interest in dividing rugby-league in Australia . Given their(RUs) record in other countries around the world in repressing rugby league it's a logical claim. I'm not expecting anything to. convimce me otherwise. Just like so-called rugby-league fans think nothing of no rugby league in elite private schools. Challenging the 'norm' particularly when things are unfair and apathetically disregarded iscsonethongvthar should be addressed. DON'T SHOOT THE MESSENGER! Logic supports the repression claim I am sticking by. Union has the resources and power to exert such repression and they are doing so in various facets of society around the world. (schooling,government funding and legislation, established sports recognition bodies,high powered business favours (News Ltd etc),Cultural bullying by implying/establishing (especially in NZ) that the name 'rugby' is solely for their use and rugby league gets the scraps etc. It goes on. But the litany of examples can be further required if requested.

So you prattle on and on about 'genuine discourse' yet you are clearly the one not willing to engage in reasonable discourse.

You admit that nothing will ever convince you of an alternative to your conspiracy theory based position even if the overwhelming evidence, documentation, testimony etc. doesn't support you. Given that fact, what point is there in engaging with you?

As for the rest of your response, I asked you what evidence you would require to believe the accepted version of events, not what evidence you think you have to support your position. I think the 'evidence' you posted to support your position can be summarised in 2 words, absolute rubbish.

 

[Stallion]

New heights in literacy achieved!

Lol. Bloody preemptive text!

 

[Stallion]

So you prattle on and on about 'genuine discourse' yet you are clearly the one not willing to engage in reasonable discourse.

You admit that nothing will ever convince you of an alternative to your conspiracy theory based position even if the overwhelming evidence, documentation, testimony etc. doesn't support you. Given that fact, what point is there in engaging with you?

As for the rest of your response, I asked you what evidence you would require to believe the accepted version of events, not what evidence you think you have to support your position. I think the 'evidence' you posted to support your position can be summarised in 2 words, absolute rubbish.

You certainly know your garbage. Ignoring evidence supporting the repression logic that is being ridiculed. But you are laying your spoiling role very well. My pursuit is honorable. Yours is deflection for the sake of deceitfulness.
Btw. I've heard the versions of deflection and they don't convince me at all. The repression of rugby league follows logical steps for those whom are able to do so. These people (rugby union) have a motive and the means. Prove me wrong without scurrilous intent!

 

[Te Kaha]

You certainly know your garbage. Ignoring evidence supporting the repression logic that is being ridiculed. But you are laying your spoiling role very well. My pursuit is honorable. Yours is deflection for the sake of deceitfulness.

You really are a classic case of confirmation bias.

How can he ignore evidence when you haven't supplied any. You have thrown a whole bunch of unrelated waffle together and extrapolated incorrectly based on the aforementioned bias. There is zero logic in anything you have posted that in ANY way shows that Rugby was behind the Super League war.

 

[Timmah]

Lol. Bloody preemptive text!

It would add barely a few seconds to the time it takes to post to review before submitting. Maybe try it.

 

[Stallion]

You really are a classic case of confirmation bias.

How can he ignore evidence when you haven't supplied any. You have thrown a whole bunch of unrelated waffle together and extrapolated incorrectly based on the aforementioned bias. There is zero logic in anything you have posted that in ANY way shows that Rugby was behind the Super League war.

And you are not!??Lol

 

[Stallion]

It would add barely a few seconds to the time it takes to post to review before submitting. Maybe try it.

Yes. Appreciate the advice. Thanks Timmah.

 

[Stallion]

So you prattle on and on about 'genuine discourse' yet you are clearly the one not willing to engage in reasonable discourse.

You admit that nothing will ever convince you of an alternative to your conspiracy theory based position even if the overwhelming evidence, documentation, testimony etc. doesn't support you. Given that fact, what point is there in engaging with you?

As for the rest of your response, I asked you what evidence you would require to believe the accepted version of events, not what evidence you think you have to support your position. I think the 'evidence' you posted to support your position can be summarised in 2 words, absolute rubbish.

Lol. On the note of evidence. OK. The uninhibited growth of rugby league worldwide to a level way above the presence of ugly big brother union. If that happens my beliefs are I'll found. If not you will continue to deflect and deny the repression of rugby league courtesy of union power and manouverings.

 

[Te Kaha]

And you are not!??Lol

I don't make claims that I cant back up with evidence.. so no, unlike you, I don't suffer form confirmation bias.

 

[Stallion]

And you are not!??Lol

And their is absolute logic to the superleague fiasco. The dots do join and I'm yet to see any valid alternative to the continued repression of a code that has not got the establishment friends it's ugly big brother uses to great extent to repress it's younger sibling code.