Cook for an origin bench spot

[ThingFish]

It says Cook has only ran twice over 100 metres doesn't it??

Sounds weird to me so dunno what stats they're looking at.

I feel like he's ran more than 100m in like 4 games. Not 2.

Agree

 

[Rabbits20]

I just checked and it is against Penrith, Dragons, Roosters and Raiders he ran over 100m.

Ran 97, 90 and 81 against the Dogs I think is the lowest metres he's ran!

 

[Rabbits20]

Agree

Loved how it said about each individual doing a bit extra to cover Sam,

Must do that again tonight!

 

[SBD82]

He doesn't though. His passing game and game management are terrible and Mitchell Pearce has shown us what happens to one dimensional playmakers at that level.

McInness passes from the ground, isolating his forward runners and only draws the markers/runs from dummy half when his forwards are rolling over the advantage line and getting quick play the balls and even then it's mostly just when he wants to run it himself.

Does the same thing to his playmakers too, he's just lucky to have two of the best running halves in the comp.

He's a brilliant defender with a good running game, but that's literally all he offers.

Does our forward pack look to be struggling coming onto McInnes' passes? Do our halves seem to have limited time to ballplay?

You clearly don't watch dragons games. McInnes' service is elite.

 

[Rabbitoad]

Does our forward pack look to be struggling coming onto McInnes' passes? Do our halves seem to have limited time to ballplay?

You clearly don't watch dragons games. McInnes' service is elite.

Yeah, no it's not.

Can always tell someone's desperate when they have to play the "do you even watch?" card.

 

[SBD82]

Yeah, no it's not.

Can always tell someone's desperate when they have to play the "do you even watch?" card.

Which you've chosen to trump with the "yeah nah" card?

McInnes' service is excellent. you either don't watch or you're a poor judge. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Rabbitoad]

Which you've chosen to trump with the "yeah nah" card?

McInnes' service is excellent. you either don't watch or you're a poor judge. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Okay mate. I'm not going to bother trying to convince of something you don't want to believe because

A- I clearly upset you the first time to get that kind of response and I have no reason to want to further upset you

And

B- I honestly don't care about your opinion enough to try to change your mind.

Have a good night mate

 

[SBD82]

Okay mate. I'm not going to bother trying to convince of something you don't want to believe because

A- I clearly upset you the first time to get that kind of response and I have no reason to want to further upset you

And

B- I honestly don't care about your opinion enough to try to change your mind.

Have a good night mate

You understand that you're on a rugby league forum, right?

People are going to disagree with you. Doesn't make them "upset".

Happy to not discuss it with you, but no need to be a bitch about it.

 

[Rabbitoad]

You understand that you're on a rugby league forum, right?

People are going to disagree with you. Doesn't make them "upset".

Happy to not discuss it with you, but no need to be a bitch about it.

You aren't trying to discuss anything when you resort to ad hominem fallacies like "you clearly don't watch" after your only counter argument was, "Nuh uh".

You disagree with what I've said. Fine. People have different opinions. But if you can't elaborate on that any further and need to resort to that childish crap in your first response, why would I take the time to have a conversation with you?

 

[SBD82]

You aren't trying to discuss anything when you resort to ad hominem fallacies like "you clearly don't watch" after your only counter argument was, "Nuh uh".

You disagree with what I've said. Fine. People have different opinions. But if you can't elaborate on that any further and need to resort to that childish crap in your first response, why would I take the time to have a conversation with you?

Seems you'd rather have a conversation about why we can't have one?

I quite clearly said that our forwards and halves are benefiting from McInnes' service. You're welcome to respond to that if you like, or you could continue with these weird diversions. Or just stop responding. Entirely up to you.

NB. "You clearly don't watch" is not an ad hominem. I was suggesting that you were gleaning information from secondary evidence, not attacking your character. Not everyone who disagrees with you can be assumed to be using logical fallacies.

 

[Rabbitoad]

Seems you'd rather have a conversation about why we can't have one?

I quite clearly said that our forwards and halves are benefiting from McInnes' service. You're welcome to respond to that if you like, or you could continue with these weird diversions. Or just stop responding. Entirely up to you.

NB. "You clearly don't watch" is not an ad hominem. I was suggesting that you were gleaning information from secondary evidence, not attacking your character. Not everyone who disagrees with you can be assumed to be using logical fallacies.

Why would I need to respond to it?

I've already addressed those points and your only response was to say you disagreed. You can try to back track the childish insult if that makes you feel better. It was either an ad hominem fallacy or a straw man fallacy. Whichever you're more comfortable with is fine by me.

I don't feel the need to try to make you believe what I believe, so given your only argument was to say you disagree with what I said, what conversation are you expecting?

 

[SBD82]

Why would I need to respond to it?

I've already addressed those points and your only response was to say you disagreed.

But you haven't. All you've done is go on a bit of a rant about why you objected to my post, without addressing my point.

You can try to back track the childish insult if that makes you feel better. It was either an ad hominem fallacy or a straw man fallacy. Whichever you're more comfortable with is fine by me.

It certainly wasn't meant as a childish insult. The fact that you are being so defensive about it kind of suggests that I was correct, and you either don't watch dragons games, or you watch very few.

And please stop accusing me of logical fallacies. You clearly don't understand what they are. My post was not an ad hominem, nor a strawman. (the only way that it would be a strawman is if you deny believing that McInnes' service is poor, to the detriment of our forwards and halves.)

I don't feel the need to try to make you believe what I believe, so given your only argument was to say you disagree with what I said, what conversation are you expecting?

My expectations of debate on this forum are generally pretty low. So far you're meeting my expectation.

 

[Rabbitoad]

But you haven't. All you've done is go on a bit of a rant about why you objected to my post, without addressing my point.


It certainly wasn't meant as a childish insult. The fact that you are being so defensive about it kind of suggests that I was correct, and you either don't watch dragons games, or you watch very few.

And please stop accusing me of logical fallacies. You clearly don't understand what they are. My post was not an ad hominem, nor a strawman. (the only way that it would be a strawman is if you deny believing that McInnes' service is poor, to the detriment of our forwards and halves.)


My expectations of debate on this forum are generally pretty low. So far you're meeting my expectation.

The answers to both of your questions were in the first post you quoted.

All you've done is disagree with them (which is fine) and resort to a logical fallacy to try to lend weight to your opinion.

I have no interest in getting in a childish pissing contest and I'm not going to keep repeating things you already have answers to.

If you have anything else to add or want to form a logical argument, be my guest, but i'm not going to keep repeating myself.

 

[SBD82]

The answers to both of your questions were in the first post you quoted.

All you've done is disagree with them (which is fine) and resort to a logical fallacy to try to lend weight to your opinion.

I have no interest in getting in a childish pissing contest and I'm not going to keep repeating things you already have answers to.

If you have anything else to add or want to form a logical argument, be my guest, but i'm not going to keep repeating myself.

So now it's an unspecified logical fallacy? Ok.

Your post that I initially responded to said that mcinnes' passing game is terrible, he isolates his forwards runners, and does the same to his halves. I was merely pointing out that if this were the case, our forwards and halves don't seem to be suffering. (which suggests that your statements are incorrect).

This is the part that you haven't addressed. if McInnes is providing such terrible service, how are our forwards and halves doing so well?

 

[Rabbitoad]

So now it's an unspecified logical fallacy? Ok.

Your post that I initially responded to said that mcinnes' passing game is terrible, he isolates his forwards runners, and does the same to his halves. I was merely pointing out that if this were the case, our forwards and halves don't seem to be suffering. (which suggests that your statements are incorrect).

This is the part that you haven't addressed. if McInnes is providing such terrible service, how are our forwards and halves doing so well?

You were pointing out that you disagreed. Okay. I'm not going to spend time trying to force you to believe otherwise. Just like I'm not going to spend time trying to force you admit to your straw man/ad hominem shit.

I don't really care if you believe it or not.

Your forwards and halves are doing well. I clearly think they'd be doing better if they got better service or I wouldn't have said it.

If you've got nothing else to add beyond saying you disagree with the points I made, where are you expecting this conversation to go?

 

[SBD82]

You were pointing out that you disagreed. Okay. I'm not going to spend time trying to force you to believe otherwise.

Ok. You've made that quite clear.

Have you considered that there are reasons to engage in debate that don't involve convincing the other party? I find that even when it doesn't change my view, it allows me to discover why I hold my views, and to give rationale and logic to my gut feelings.

Just like I'm not going to spend time trying to force you admit to your straw man/ad hominem shit.

I think I've been quite reasonable pointing out why my statement was neither an ad hominem nor a strawman. If you want to continue to make yourself look stupid when you clearly have no idea of the logical fallacies that you accuse me of, go right ahead.

I don't really care if you believe it or not.

Ok. Let's stop talking about it then eh?

Your forwards and halves are doing well. I clearly think they'd be doing better if they got better service or I wouldn't have said it.

Their form would be impossible if the service they were getting was, in your words, terrible.

If you've got nothing else to add beyond saying you disagree with the points I made, where are you expecting this conversation to go?

I honestly have no idea. Were i forced to guess, i'd say that you will accuse me of another logical fallacy that you don't understand.

 

[Rabbitoad]

Ok. You've made that quite clear.

Have you considered that there are reasons to engage in debate that don't involve convincing the other party? I find that even when it doesn't change my view, it allows me to discover why I hold my views, and to give rationale and logic to my gut feelings.


I think I've been quite reasonable pointing out why my statement was neither an ad hominem nor a strawman. If you want to continue to make yourself look stupid when you clearly have no idea of the logical fallacies that you accuse me of, go right ahead.


Ok. Let's stop talking about it then eh?


Their form would be impossible if the service they were getting was, in your words, terrible.


I honestly have no idea. Were i forced to guess, i'd say that you will accuse me of another logical fallacy that you don't understand.

I'd be happy to debate it if you could offer an argument beyond the fact that you disagree.

I've given you multiple opportunities to and you've failed to do so.

Until you can, we're done here.

 

[SBD82]

I'd be happy to debate it if you could offer an argument beyond the fact that you disagree.

I've given you multiple opportunities to and you've failed to do so.

Until you can, we're done here.

Ha. Ok. Continue to evade the question.

 

[southsport]

My perception is that McCheetah has now taken a large step in front of Cookie for origin selection.

 

[doyen]

My perception is that McCheetah has now taken a large step in front of Cookie for origin selection.

Reliability in defence is a huge priority for SOO--to me the No 1.
McInnes is more than adequate in all other areas.

Cook has revealed good improvement so far this year but the SOO selectors would be sticking their necks out bigtime if they started him!

They could pick him on the bench but they have plenty of other options for those posses who have already played SOO!!