Laffranchi charged over sexual assault

[Nathan B]

Typical. :lol: No reply whatsoever so you sidestep completely. Better get you into the side. Yes I must be a turncoat- after all I wrote the Bulldogs preview and had the nerve to write negative things about the side... heaven forbid!

You're the reason why dogs supporters are well known for being whingey arrogant pricks. Grow a brain and realise that not everything is about you.

That's a bit rich. You assumed I was talking about you, and I wasn't.

And you wrote the Bulldogs preview, did you? Did you say that our last game was arguably the biggest choke in NRL finals history?

Riiiiiight.

(2007-1998=9...he says he supported he club since 5 years of age....)

You don't happen to be 11 years old, do you? 12? 14?

 

[[furrycat]]

http://www.dictionary.com

Search "arguably".

Its a bit different from "definately"- or thats what I always thought. It was a choke and its called an opinion- don't be such a prat just because you don't agree with what everyone says or does.

Oh you're playing the age insult are you? Oh how nice... I haven't heard that one before. :sleeper: When did 5 + 9 = 11 or 12? :?

 

[Willow]

Wes who?

It would seem the NRL is of the view that the Dragons officials have acted properly in regards to Naiqama. That, and I think the two incidents are entirely different.

Doesn't make sense to me.

With respect, perhaps you need to read back.

My opinion on these things is that the NRL should stay out of these issues

The NRL is the governing body.
Although they are far from perfect, they will (in theory at least) attempt to judge each case on its merits.

Cheers.

 

[Nathan B]

http://www.dictionary.com

Search "arguably".

Its a bit different from "definately"- or thats what I always thought. It was a choke and its called an opinion- don't be such a prat just because you don't agree with what everyone says or does.

Oh you're playing the age insult are you? Oh how nice... I haven't heard that one before. :sleeper: When did 5 + 9 = 11 or 12? :?

Jeez, you make it easy...

Firstly, I didn't say you started supporting them in 98. I was implying that you missed the 98 prelim.

Get it?

If you started supporting them in '01 and you were 5 years old at the time, then you would be 11 years old now (give or take what month you were born).

Get it?


Now, I know what arguably means. Who cares. It doesn't apply.

THERE IS NO ARGUMENT!!!

It was not the biggest choke. I don't care how big it was (and it was big) - it was not the biggest.

Not sorta. Not probably. Not maybe. Not arguably.

 

[Nathan B]

Cheers.

Cheers back

 

[Danish]

Anyone else find it a triffle odd that the only evidence being mentioned is that the girl work up with her clothes "interfered with"??

There simply must be more to this than that.

If she was drugged and unconscious during it all there must be some sort of physical evidence linking Lafranchi (which you would have to think there is not, otherwise it would be reported). Failing that, this girl must have actually have been aware at the time of what was going on and remember her attacker, which again, is not mentioned in the story.

Have a feeling that unles there are facts missing from all the stories being reported that he will get the charges dropped.

Clearly this isn't some black and white "here is a picture of me driving a car" case such as Wes's, so i'll be leaving this one alone until more comes out and its gone to court. Gut tells me he'll be found innocent.

 

[[furrycat]]

Jeez, you make it easy...

Firstly, I didn't say you started supporting them in 98. I was implying that you missed the 98 prelim.

Get it?

If you started supporting them in '01 and you were 5 years old at the time, then you would be 11 years old now (give or take what month you were born).

Get it?


Now, I know what arguably means. Who cares. It doesn't apply.

THERE IS NO ARGUMENT!!!

It was not the biggest choke. I don't care how big it was (and it was big) - it was not the biggest.

Not sorta. Not probably. Not maybe. Not arguably.

Laurie Daley and Peter Fitzsimmons believed it was the biggest choke since the NRL began. Brad Clyde disagreed. Sounds like an argument to me. :crazy:

Listen carefully- people have different opinions and just because you don't believe it, doesn't make it wrong. If you knew what arguably meant, you'd know its related to the fact that some people believe it was the biggest choke as opposed to those who don't.

Dickhead.

 

[Nathan B]

Laurie Daley and Peter Fitzsimmons...

Case adjourned.

Next!

(And I was tempted to leave it at that, but to save myself from the next 'sidetep yada yada yada' rebuttal, I'll add a little more. Just because a couple of fools said something was true, doesn't make it fact. It doesn't even make it arguably true. Ever heard of someone just being WRONG? (I know it's never happened to you.) Any self-respecting Bulldogs fan wouldn't want to tarnish the masterpiece that is the 98 Prelim final with 'biggest choke' calls on other extremely less-deserving games such as last years. Leave it alone, and we can all enjoy its glory forever. I just think you're a little pissed off that someone called you out on it. And resorting to Peter Fitzsimmon's opinion on anything rugby league is as desperate as it gets. You do realise he'd probably only ever seen one other finals game when he made that comment?

Anyway, for someone who seems so chilled out and relaxed about the Coffs affair (you know, let's all just get over it), you come across as very bitter and twisted. Throwing out insults left right and centre is juvenile. Wake up to yourself.)

Sorry to all for hijacking this thread.

 

[Nathan B]

And I'll let you have the final say on all of this, furrycat.

You need it.

 

[[furrycat]]

:lol: Now you look an even bigger tool than usual... do you even read what I write? Obviously not.

I re-iterate; you are the reason why Bulldogs supporters get their whinging arrogant title. You employ the "Everyone is against us and we are always right. We are treated so unfairly because we're so good" attitude. Again, its called an opinion and just because you don't agree with it, doesn't mean its wrong. Grow the f**k up :lol: Honestly...

Do not pass go. Have a nap.

 

[Willow]

Just because a couple of fools said something was true, doesn't make it fact.

That simply supports furry's view that it was 'arguably' the case.

It doesn't even make it arguably true.

I think that qualifies as a contradiction in terms.

 

[[furrycat]]

At least someone has managed to grasp what the word "arguably" means.
:crazy:

 

[skeepe]

Anyone else find it a triffle odd that the only evidence being mentioned is that the girl work up with her clothes "interfered with"??

There simply must be more to this than that.

If she was drugged and unconscious during it all there must be some sort of physical evidence linking Lafranchi (which you would have to think there is not, otherwise it would be reported). Failing that, this girl must have actually have been aware at the time of what was going on and remember her attacker, which again, is not mentioned in the story.

Have a feeling that unles there are facts missing from all the stories being reported that he will get the charges dropped.

Clearly this isn't some black and white "here is a picture of me driving a car" case such as Wes's, so i'll be leaving this one alone until more comes out and its gone to court. Gut tells me he'll be found innocent.

Of course, the police are going to release a statement to the press with all the evidence in the case before it goes to court. Standard operating procedure. :sarcasm:

 

[Nathan B]

That simply supports furry's view that it was 'arguably' the case. I think that qualifies as a contradiction in terms.

1+1=3

So is 1+1=2 now true? Arguably true?

Just because someone thinks something is arguable, doesn't make it so.

 

[gunnamatta bay]

Of course, the police are going to release a statement to the press with all the evidence in the case before it goes to court. Standard operating procedure. :sarcasm:

They will have to serve a full brief of evidence on his legal team well before the committal hearing. Nothing can be omitted or it becomes inadmissible.

 

[Willow]

1+1=3

So is 1+1=2 now true? Arguably true?

Just because someone thinks something is arguable, doesn't make it so.

I think you're still confused by the semantics of definition.

'Arguably' essentially takes account of the realisation of opposing opinions ('argument' hence 'arguably').

So who is saying that opinions are fact?

 

[Nathan B]

I think you're still confused by the semantics of definition.

'Arguably' essentially takes account of the realisation of opposing opinions ('argument' hence 'arguably').

So who is saying that opinions are fact?

No, I'm not. (But I apologise if I was ambiguous.)

Just because there exists a person that thinks 'Statement A' is arguably true, doesn't mean that 'Statement A' cannot be considered true.

Another one...

Just because there exists a person who says that the converse of 'Statement A' is true, doesn't mean that 'Statement A' can be, at most, considered arguably true.

I bet you I can find someone who genuinely believes that the earth is flat. Does this mean that we can now only consider the statement 'the earth is not flat' arguably true?

Should school teachers now say 'Well, kids, the earth is arguably not flat. I say arguably, because there's a guy in the US who lives in a cave and only eats lettuce who thinks the earth is flat'?

No, of course not. You don't get to slap the 'arguably' tag on a statement that easy. And that's my whole point.

 

[Willow]

lol. You still don't get it.

I'll leave you to your semantics.

 

[skeepe]

They will have to serve a full brief of evidence on his legal team well before the committal hearing. Nothing can be omitted or it becomes inadmissible.

I'm aware of that, but it doesn't necessarily follow that this information will make it into the public domain before the trial.

 

[Nathan B]

lol. You still don't get it.

I'll leave you to your semantics.

So you think that's what the teachers should be teaching the kids?

You happy for the word 'arguably' to be applied so easily?