News Josh Reynolds DV accusation (charges dropped 26/2/20)

[myrrh ken]

Because the conduct in it is shithouse.

You can chew gum and walk at the same time.

Okay its shithouse and not a crime at this point. Agreed.

Is it worth an eyeballing from todd? Or shal we just let shitmerkins be shitmerkins.
.

 

[Tiger5150]

Okay its shithouse and not a crime at this point. Agreed.

Is it worth an eyeballing from todd? Or shal we just let shitmerkins be shitmerkins.
.

Hopefully irrelevant. I would like to think that barring injuries, he is nowhere near first grade.

 

[Bazal]

All this discussion raises an interesting question in this day and age.

Someone asked me this yesterday. Is it actually sexist to treat a woman differently to how you treat a male, or anyone else for that matter?
Even if it means treating them in a “nicer” way in a society that says we should all be equal

and before the usual hating trolls come along. It’s a question not my opinion

Well personally I wouldn't scream "you're a f**ken dog merkin" in my romantic partner's face regardless of their gender, so is it strictly relevant anyway?

 

[Xcalibre]

Hopefully irrelevant. I would like to think that barring injuries, he is nowhere near first grade.

He seems like a nice guy off the field when he’s not insulting his mrs, but it amazes me what sort of career he’s made for himself. I’ve watched him all the way from the NYC through the grades. He played hooker for u20s and I remember thinking he tries hard but has little talent. He won’t play NRL as many of those types of player in the u20s that vanish when they are all age.

8 years or so later he’s had several seasons of first grade and has played for NSW. Let that sink in folks.

All from giving 100%, which should be encouraged, but yeah, at the sort of money he is on, any fan of his current club would see this as an opportunity to balance the books.

 

[Timmah]

Okay its shithouse and not a crime at this point. Agreed.

Is it worth an eyeballing from todd? Or shal we just let shitmerkins be shitmerkins.
.

Not sure why you're conflating 'eyeballing from Todd' with thinking what he did being shithouse. I don't think his behaviour in the video alone warrants attention from Greenberg, so I'm not sure how that came into it.

 

[hineyrulz]

Well personally I wouldn't scream "you're a f**ken dog merkin" in my romantic partner's face regardless of their gender, so is it strictly relevant anyway?

What if it's the safe word????

 

[franklin2323]

Not sure why you're conflating 'eyeballing from Todd' with thinking what he did being shithouse. I don't think his behaviour in the video alone warrants attention from Greenberg, so I'm not sure how that came into it.

Some have said what was in the video was DV if so then Todd should be involved

 

[Bazal]

What if it's the safe word????

Then I would whimper it in a combination of fear, pain, and a bit more pleasure than I care to admit right now...

 

[hineyrulz]

Then I would whimper it in a combination of fear, pain, and a bit more pleasure than I care to admit right now...

Only if your mistress allows it.

 

[This Year?]

What if it's the safe word????

My safe word is "September"

 

[Timmah]

Some have said what was in the video was DV if so then Todd should be involved

Then take it up with those posters directly rather than making generalisations.

 

[hineyrulz]

My safe word is "September"

My safe word is spoon.

 

[franklin2323]

Then take it up with those posters directly rather than making generalisations.

A few idiots (myself included) arguing over such things is irrelevant

WT made a statement after the video was released would show it is being treated as a seperate incident or why bother?

 

[Wily Ole Dog]

Really? I see most people in this thread either attacking or defending Reynolds' actions in this video.

A very small number of people appear to be labelling one person or the other guilty but most are just talking about Reynolds' conduct in the video, and whether it was 'normal' or 'appropriate'.

Looks like some can't separate out that discussion from the larger one though.

that’s the way the world works. Just l8ke politics.

We usually have our biases and 40x40 stick to it
Its the 20% in the middle which are usually right

 

[Timmah]

A few idiots (myself included) arguing over such things is irrelevant

WT made a statement after the video was released would show it is being treated as a seperate incident or why bother?

Clubs have to in those situations. Standard practice really.

 

[Wily Ole Dog]

Well personally I wouldn't scream "you're a f**ken dog merkin" in my romantic partner's face regardless of their gender, so is it strictly relevant anyway?

I think it’s fair to say she’s not his”romantic partner”nfor what it’s worth

 

[Timmay]

Really? I see most people in this thread either attacking or defending Reynolds' actions in this video.

A very small number of people appear to be labelling one person or the other guilty but most are just talking about Reynolds' conduct in the video, and whether it was 'normal' or 'appropriate'.

Looks like some can't separate out that discussion from the larger one though.

Can you clarify and define the smaller and larger discussions please.

 

[myrrh ken]

Not sure why you're conflating 'eyeballing from Todd' with thinking what he did being shithouse. I don't think his behaviour in the video alone warrants attention from Greenberg, so I'm not sure how that came into it.

So if his conduct is unacceptable under any circumstances, but its not sufficiently serious for an eyeballin', why won't you let people argue the toss? I don't get it.

Anyway what if she called him exactly the same things before this argument? What if they have a history of calling each other terrible names. Does that change your view? I've dealt with a few matters like this.

 

[Timmah]

So if his conduct is unacceptable under any circumstances, but its not sufficiently serious for an eyeballin', why won't you let people argue the toss? I don't get it.

Anyway what if she called him exactly the same things before this argument? What if they have a history of calling each other terrible names. Does that change your view? I've dealt with a few matters like this.

"let people"? People can argue what they want.

And as has been done time and time again in this very thread, what she said or did isn't what's being discussed here. Making excuses for his behaviour = meh.

(and that doesn't mean to say she's innocent or guilty either).

 

[myrrh ken]

"let people"? People can argue what they want.

And as has been done time and time again in this very thread, what she said or did isn't what's being discussed here. Making excuses for his behaviour = meh.

(and that doesn't mean to say she's innocent or guilty either).

Well, you've asked people to "stop" several times - which comes with a degree of imprimatur being the Editor.

I'm challenging your position that there is no excuse in him talking in that manner, by asking you to think of a hypothetical. I'm saying there might be, there might not be justification - it depends on the context - which I don't know.

I'm not excusing the behaviour. But I'm also not judging him or her either at this stage. I agree the language is awful. But then again, people are awful.