Russel Packer. Did we dodge a bullet?

[Dennis Papaioannou]

See I don't understand this comment. The fact is he HAS been given a chance to get his life and playing career back on track - and he has done exactly that. If you are for rehabilitation and second chances, does it matter where he does that? That should be the focus, not which club he does it at.

I personally don't watch him play at Manly and think "damn, he could have been playing for us and we didn't have a chance to rehab him etc". To me, he's just another player in the opposition, same as every other saints player that has changed clubs. As soon as they leave, they are the opposition.

In the end, like I said, irrespective of how the decision was reached, I believe the right result was achieved at the time of the ruling. However, as you say, I think the nrl need to take a more consistent and tougher stance on these players.

I respect your point of view.
The arguments have all been tabled.
I suppose we agree on the issue of consistency.

 

[muzby]

Your whole post is a bare faced misrepresentation of what I submitted.

Misrepresentation?

Here you go:

My point is if we had used the same pastoral philosophy with this guy as we did with Dugan and Packer, we would be laughing today.

Again, I ask you.. Why would we be laughing?

My point about Dugan was that he was a serial/repeat offender whereas AFB was a first timer.
That does not diminish the seriousness of AFB's offence.

Of course, let’s not forget when I presented you with Dane Nielsen who was also a first time offender, suddenly his “first time” status meant nothing:

As for your Dane Nielsen comment.
Where is the comparison?
A washed up 30 odd year old veteran versus an up and coming prospect from our junior ranks?

You call out OT for name calling but you have no problem using profanity in your post and demeaning people who challenge your myopic point of view.

I can certainly swear in frustration about your dangerous views to domestic violence. This isn’t a myopic view. The majority of society feels the same way.

It’s different from calling you something like a f**king idiot.

Finally your rationalization of your behaviour with regards to precipitously correcting posters' spelling and grammar is ridiculous.
I repeat. when you do that it is presumptuous and rude.

1. Rationalisation has an s, not a z.
2. The apostrophe goes before the s, not after
3. Sentences start with a capital letter.
4. You are sitting on the border of slurring & dribbling.

 

[Dennis Papaioannou]

Misrepresentation?

Here you go:

Again, I ask you.. Why would we be laughing?

Of course, let’s not forget when I presented you with Dane Nielsen who was also a first time offender, suddenly his “first time” status meant nothing:


I can certainly swear in frustration about your dangerous views to domestic violence. This isn’t a myopic view. The majority of society feels the same way.

It’s different from calling you something like a f**king idiot.


1. Rationalisation has an s, not a z.
2. The apostrophe goes before the s, not after
3. Sentences start with a capital letter.
4. You are sitting on the border of slurring & dribbling.

This post is an even bigger misrepresentation as you continue to regurgitate arguments that have already been explained and clarified to you.
For example DN - you cannot compare an experienced 29 year old who has played FG at various clubs and who has represented his state, to a promising 19 year old reserve grader.
You conveniently omitted this very pertinent clarification in your little rant.
Your whole post just supports what I have just outlined to you.
The last two statements are truly worthy of ridicule as is your whole demeanour and behaviour which is all about points scoring.
Are you even capable of a balanced point of view and a sensible debate?
My views on domestic violence are probably the same as yours even though you have tried hard to deflect your irrationality onto me.
As for your lesson in grammar and spelling:
1. Rationalization is actually spelt with a 'z'
2. Posters is plural therefore the apostrophe comes after the 's'
3. Thank you Mr. Walking Encyclopedia. Everyone knows that.
4. You are making things up - wipe the BS from your mouth.

Call me what you like but you insist on being deliberately obtuse when your opinions are challenged.
You like dishing out but you can't take it.
That makes you a big ZERO.

 

[muzby]

This post is an even bigger misrepresentation as you continue to regurgitate arguments that have already been explained and clarified to you.

Explain the misrepresentation please, or
alternatively just answer the question I’ve asked repeatedly: why do you say we’d be laughing now if we hadn’t sacked AFB?

Maybe I’ll try answering it for you. You believe we’d be laughing now as we need a prop forward and he’d be handy in our squad right now, despite his conviction.

So you’re putting football ahead of a genuine problem.

For example DN - you cannot compare an experienced 29 year old who has played FG at various clubs and who has represented his state, to a promising 19 year old reserve grader.
You conveniently omitted this very pertinent clarification in your little rant.

I’m not comparing their football CV’s I’m comparing them as first time offenders for assualting women.

Both the same, yet you see AFB as more valuable from a football perspective so should be receiving more favourable treatment.

So again, you put football as a priority.

My views on domestic violence are probably the same as yours even though you have tried hard to deflect your irrationality onto me.

I highly doubt they are. I for one do not think there is anything remotely humerous about keeping a convicted DV criminal so that we could enjoy the benefits of his footballing prowess.

I am quite happy to say that domestic violence offenders should receive the full force of the law and the NRL.

Clearly you do not.

1. Rationalization is actually spelt with a 'z'
2. Posters is plural therefore the apostrophe comes after the 's'

1. If you live in America, yes.
2. Incorrect. Again. The spelling and grammar belongs to the individual poster, it does belong not to a group of posters.

You like dishing out but you can't take it.
That makes you a big ZERO.

What’s the scale? 0-5? 0-10?

Also,it’s “dishing it out but can’t take it”.

 

[Dennis Papaioannou]

Explain the misrepresentation please, or
alternatively just answer the question I’ve asked repeatedly: why do you say we’d be laughing now if we hadn’t sacked AFB?

Maybe I’ll try answering it for you. You believe we’d be laughing now as we need a prop forward and he’d be handy in our squad right now, despite his conviction.

So you’re putting football ahead of a genuine problem.

I’m not comparing their football CV’s I’m comparing them as first time offenders for assualting women.

Both the same, yet you see AFB as more valuable from a football perspective so should be receiving more favourable treatment.

So again, you put football as a priority.

I highly doubt they are. I for one do not think there is anything remotely humerous about keeping a convicted DV criminal so that we could enjoy the benefits of his footballing prowess.

I am quite happy to say that domestic violence offenders should receive the full force of the law and the NRL.

Clearly you do not.


1. If you live in America, yes.
2. Incorrect. Again. The spelling and grammar belongs to the individual poster, it does belong not to a group of posters.


What’s the scale? 0-5? 0-10?

Also,it’s “dishing it out but can’t take it”.

You are just re-hashing the same arguments that you twist and misrepresent as factual.
You don't debate you point score.
I have explained and explained my point of view clearly and succinctly.to you.
You don't agree and you continue to purposely misinterpret what I say.
I don't put football ahead of humanity, that is just a fabrication that you have perpetrated to suit your agenda.
Finally, you are wrong on both disputed grammar and spelling issues.
I repeat it one more time so you can get off your high horse Mr. self professed English professor.
1. Realization is spelt with a 'z' as stated in the Oxford Dictionary. It is not exclusively the American spelling. In any case you insisted that I had spelt it wrongly because I used a 'z'.
2. The context of my use of the word posters' was clearly in the plural therefore the apostrophe is positioned after the 's"

Wrong on both counts which just demonstrates why correcting other peoples grammar and spelling while pretending to be flawless yourself, ultimately makes you look stupid.

 

[st penguin]

You are just re-hashing the same arguments that you twist and misrepresent as factual.
You don't debate you point score.
I have explained and explained my point of view clearly and succinctly.to you.
You don't agree and you continue to purposely misinterpret what I say.
I don't put football ahead of humanity, that is just a fabrication that you have perpetrated to suit your agenda.
Finally, you are wrong on both disputed grammar and spelling issues.
I repeat it one more time so you can get off your high horse Mr. self professed English professor.
1. Realization is spelt with a 'z' as stated in the Oxford Dictionary. It is not exclusively the American spelling. In any case you insisted that I had spelt it wrongly because I used a 'z'.
2. The context of my use of the word posters' was clearly in the plural therefore the apostrophe is positioned after the 's"

Wrong on both counts which just demonstrates why correcting other peoples grammar and spelling while pretending to be flawless yourself, ultimately makes you look stupid.

Finally an argument I can really get into.

I agree with muzby. (Or as I prefer to spell it...musby)

 

[muzby]

You are just re-hashing the same arguments that you twist and misrepresent as factual.
You don't debate you point score.
I have explained and explained my point of view clearly and succinctly.to you.
You don't agree and you continue to purposely misinterpret what I say.
I don't put football ahead of humanity, that is just a fabrication that you have perpetrated to suit your agenda.

You could save yourself a lot of frustration, and he forum a lot of time if you would just answer the question.

So again, I’ll ask you: why do you say we’d be laughing now if we hadn’t sack Fonua-Blake?

Just one question. That’s all I ask.

Finally, you are wrong on both disputed grammar and spelling issues.
I repeat it one more time so you can get off your high horse Mr. self professed English professor.
1. Realization is spelt with a 'z' as stated in the Oxford Dictionary. It is not exclusively the American spelling. In any case you insisted that I had spelt it wrongly because I used a 'z'.
2. The context of my use of the word posters' was clearly in the plural therefore the apostrophe is positioned after the 's"

Wrong on both counts which just demonstrates why correcting other peoples grammar and spelling while pretending to be flawless yourself, ultimately makes you look stupid.

1. Firstly, underlining and bolding in written text equates to shouting. Yelling louder doesn’t make you correct. Secondly, glad to see you were a primary school debater, but you should probably go check the Macquarie dictionary for Australian specific references. They say realisation.

2. Again, I point out to you that the possessive apostrophe for a plural only applies when the possession belongs to all in the group. Which in the case of spelling and grammar, it doesn’t - as the individual text being critiqued was developed by a singular person. If you and OT decided to collaborate on a joint peice of writing about why we should have kept AFB and the posted it up under both your names, then yes, in that instance you could put the apostrophe at the end of the plural.

3. If you are addressing me as a “Mister, Somethng” that would make the proceeding words my name. Which is a proper noun, so the words should have started with a capital.

4. You missed another apostrophe.

5. Please answer the question.

 

[Dennis Papaioannou]

You could save yourself a lot of frustration, and he forum a lot of time if you would just answer the question.

So again, I’ll ask you: why do you say we’d be laughing now if we hadn’t sack Fonua-Blake?

Just one question. That’s all I ask.



1. Firstly, underlining and bolding in written text equates to shouting. Yelling louder doesn’t make you correct. Secondly, glad to see you were a primary school debater, but you should probably go check the Macquarie dictionary for Australian specific references. They say realisation.

2. Again, I point out to you that the possessive apostrophe for a plural only applies when the possession belongs to all in the group. Which in the case of spelling and grammar, it doesn’t - as the individual text being critiqued was developed by a singular person. If you and OT decided to collaborate on a joint peice of writing about why we should have kept AFB and the posted it up under both your names, then yes, in that instance you could put the apostrophe at the end of the plural.

3. If you are addressing me as a “Mister, Somethng” that would make the proceeding words my name. Which is a proper noun, so the words should have started with a capital.

4. You missed another apostrophe.

5. Please answer the question.

Musby
I am definitely not frustrated.
I think you display many more symptoms of a frustrated personality than I do.
I am just engaging you and showing you up to be a pedantic fraudster.
So, to continue....
My use of the apostrophe was absolutely correct.
Regardless of what the dictionaries say, your presumption was that I misspelt "rationalization" - you were wrong about that. Why can't you admit it?.
BTW underlining has nothing to do with shouting. Another one of your little fabrications. Here is the supporting information for your benefit.
When to Underline
In reality, the rules of underlining words and phrases are very few. Similar to italicization and bolding, underscoring text is used primarily to:

• Set proper titles apart from regular text
• Bring importance to names of vehicles
• Clarify an unfamiliar word
• Draw emphasis
• Reference letters and numerals out of context

There was no collaboration between me and OT - another one of your fabrications.
I just happen to agree with many of his assertions and disagree with yours.
OK I have no problem answering your question about AFB which I have already addressed in previous posts.
Simply put, if we had used the same pastoral discretion with AFB that we have done with other players, he could have continued to develop with St. George instead of another club.
If that had happened, we would be benefitting from this fellow's football talents instead of Manly.
I am sure you will try and misconstrue this to suit your agenda but I don't want you to think that I am avoiding your hard hitting question.
You go ahead and continue to promote yourself as the grammar and spelling expert on this forum if that gives you a thrill.
I repeat, your behaviour and attitude when debating is deplorable.

 

[muzby]

Musby
I am definitely not frustrated.
I think you display many more symptoms of a frustrated personality than I do.
I am just engaging you and showing you up to be a pedantic fraudster.
So, to continue....
My use of the apostrophe was absolutely correct.
Regardless of what the dictionaries say, your presumption was that I misspelt "rationalization" - you were wrong about that. Why can't you admit it?.
BTW underlining has nothing to do with shouting. Another one of your little fabrications. Here is the supporting information for your benefit.
When to Underline
In reality, the rules of underlining words and phrases are very few. Similar to italicization and bolding, underscoring text is used primarily to:

• Set proper titles apart from regular text
• Bring importance to names of vehicles
• Clarify an unfamiliar word
• Draw emphasis
• Reference letters and numerals out of context

There was no collaboration between me and OT - another one of your fabrications.
I just happen to agree with many of his assertions and disagree with yours.
OK I have no problem answering your question about AFB which I have already addressed in previous posts.
Simply put, if we had used the same pastoral discretion with AFB that we have done with other players, he could have continued to develop with St. George instead of another club.
If that had happened, we would be benefitting from this fellow's football talents instead of Manly.
I am sure you will try and misconstrue this to suit your agenda but I don't want you to think that I am avoiding your hard hitting question.
You go ahead and continue to promote yourself as the grammar and spelling expert on this forum if that gives you a thrill.
I repeat, your behaviour and attitude when debating is deplorable.

Definitely frustrated..

But thank you, your spelling attempts are a very humerous read.. I recommend next time you pass a primary school to pop in and ask a teacher to help you clarify.. Just don’t shout at them..


Of course I’m glad you’ve finally admitted that you value results on the football field ahead of trying to send a message about domestic violence.

That attidude needs to change.

 

[Old Timer]

Good old muzby

• Loves accusing people of things that are not true. (Simply bad form.)
• Says others play the man whilst he always plays the ball. (LMFAO.)
• Demands answers of others whilst dodging, ducking & weaving questions of him. (Avoidance personified.)
• When he runs out of argument he tries to belittle people by becoming the forum English professor and is continually passing critique on people's use of English in their posts. (Piss poor pedantry.)
• Relentlessly defends the club (especially the Illawarra side of things) and creates subterfuge as to what he thinks the club did as against what the club actually did. (Probably has a job with them is their legal consultant.)
• Instead of simply disagreeing with people and allowing them some slack re interpretation he insists on him being correct and them being wrong. Belligerent & bombastic. When he is getting caught out he tries to introduce sarcasm and other poor forms of humour in an effort to deflect criticism away from himself or he tries to solicit support by people that read more into him then there actually is. (A sham of the 1st order.)
• Hanging his hat on the clubs supposed moral backbone when the club actually said "AFB breached his contract" and said nothing further when it actually had its chance to make a big statement in respect of not tolerating DV or violence in general. (Trying hard to make a purse out of a sow's ear.)
• Loves dishing it out but hates copping it back and runs for cover when he cops a couple of shots and again tries to take the moral high ground with dismissive statements trying to end it. (Can't go the distance).

Now please show me the definitive statement from the club about not condoning DV or assault and that AFB actions were against the moral fabric of society and not condonable and he was sacked directly as a result of that and also and what the club will do to any other player in the future who is involved in such incidents. You keep rabbiting on about it but I see nothing other than the words that when they found out about the common assault charge they saw it as a breach of contract (really standing up for women by calling it a breach of contract) and stood him down and then tore up his contract. You make far more noise about it then the very people you are defending and for the record they are the people being questioned not you.
By the way your notion that the club didn’t know he was guilty until June is incorrect as he had already made a guilty plea to the charge at Waverley court on April 15.
So the club knew the facts. did as little as possible and said even less.
Muzby loves rob make it personal as to his feelings in an effort to defend the club.
Nice try but not the issue.
If the club wanted to make a stand and a difference in respect if DV do you really think “breached his contract” and no further comment is the appropriate answer?

 

[muzby]

Good old muzby

• Loves accusing people of things that are not true. (Simply bad form.)
• Says others play the man whilst he always plays the ball. (LMFAO.)
• Demands answers of others whilst dodging, ducking & weaving questions of him. (Avoidance personified.)
• When he runs out of argument he tries to belittle people by becoming the forum English professor and is continually passing critique on people's use of English in their posts. (Piss poor pedantry.)
• Relentlessly defends the club (especially the Illawarra side of things) and creates subterfuge as to what he thinks the club did as against what the club actually did. (Probably has a job with them is their legal consultant.)
• Instead of simply disagreeing with people and allowing them some slack re interpretation he insists on him being correct and them being wrong. Belligerent & bombastic. When he is getting caught out he tries to introduce sarcasm and other poor forms of humour in an effort to deflect criticism away from himself or he tries to solicit support by people that read more into him then there actually is. (A sham of the 1st order.)
• Hanging his hat on the clubs supposed moral backbone when the club actually said "AFB breached his contract" and said nothing further when it actually had its chance to make a big statement in respect of not tolerating DV or violence in general. (Trying hard to make a purse out of a sow's ear.)
• Loves dishing it out but hates copping it back and runs for cover when he cops a couple of shots and again tries to take the moral high ground with dismissive statements trying to end it. (Can't go the distance).

Now please show me the definitive statement from the club about not condoning DV or assault and that AFB actions were against the moral fabric of society and not condonable and he was sacked directly as a result of that and also and what the club will do to any other player in the future who is involved in such incidents. You keep rabbiting on about it but I see nothing other than the words that when they found out about the common assault charge they saw it as a breach of contract (really standing up for women by calling it a breach of contract) and stood him down and then tore up his contract. You make far more noise about it then the very people you are defending and for the record they are the people being questioned not you.
By the way your notion that the club didn’t know he was guilty until June is incorrect as he had already made a guilty plea to the charge at Waverley court on April 15.
So the club knew the facts. did as little as possible and said even less.
Muzby loves rob make it personal as to his feelings in an effort to defend the club.
Nice try but not the issue.
If the club wanted to make a stand and a difference in respect if DV do you really think “breached his contract” and no further comment is the appropriate answer?

Yawn.. You’ve changed your argument multiple times purely to try and fight, now saying it was a commercial decision by the club.

You may notice that you and Dennis are the only ones rabbiting on using a domestic violence case to have a go at the club and also at me, whilst none of the usual brains trust have jumped in to join you..

I wonder why that may be......?

Anyway, carry on defending the perpetrators of DV.. Just remember they are not the victims here..

 

[Old Timer]

Yawn.. You’ve changed your argument multiple times purely to try and fight, now saying it was a commercial decision by the club.

You may notice that you and Dennis are the only ones rabbiting on using a domestic violence case to have a go at the club and also at me, whilst none of the usual brains trust have jumped in to join you..

I wonder why that may be......?

Anyway, carry on defending the perpetrators of DV.. Just remember they are not the victims here..

By all means demonstrate where I have changed my opinion
If you think asking questions is changing opinion then obviously you have little understanding if the argument or discussion
Show me anywhere where I have defended anyone perpetrating DV, you are obviously very confused as to what the difference between rehabilitation of an offender is as compared to defending a perpetrators actions. You just can’t reconcile that people think that perpetrators can be rehabilitated within our system.
Your conclusion that Dennis and I are defending AFB and ignoring the victim just shows what a contemptuous and deliberately misconstruing arsehole you really are
Re the club don’t forget to show me the definitive statement condemning DV and spelling out the specific reasons for sacking AFB.
Re suggestion that it was a commercial decision the fact the club new in January of the incident, knew the guilty plea from the April court appearance, waited for the penalty from the court until June and the ruling from the NRL as to what penalties it would apply before sacking him and if that doesn’t reek of commercial then you need to see an ENT specialist

 

[muzby]

Dig up...

 

[Dennis Papaioannou]

Definitely frustrated..

But thank you, your spelling attempts are a very humerous read.. I recommend next time you pass a primary school to pop in and ask a teacher to help you clarify.. Just don’t shout at them..


Of course I’m glad you’ve finally admitted that you value results on the football field ahead of trying to send a message about domestic violence.

That attidude needs to change.

The difference between my spelling attempts and yours is that you pretend to be perfect and I don't.
I don't think you realize how silly that makes you look.
I have never aligned my views on AFB and his treatment by the club with my views on DV - you continue to do that because it suits your pathetic agenda.
I am not frustrated and the way I write has nothing to do with shouting.
I have already exposed that to be erroneous and irrelevant.
Just another example of your propensity to make things up and misrepresent the meaning of my posts.
The comment about primary school is not even a witty or cutting retort.
It's just stupid.
Once again, definitely not frustrated.
Certainly not with this little exchange with you.
You love making things up and it is pretty obvious that you can dish it up in spades but you can't take.it.
All the traits of a keyboard grub.

 

[muzby]

The difference between my spelling attempts and yours is that you pretend to be perfect and I don't.
I don't think you realize how silly that makes you look.
I have never aligned my views on AFB and his treatment by the club with my views on DV - you continue to do that because it suits your pathetic agenda.
I am not frustrated and the way I write has nothing to do with shouting.
I have already exposed that to be erroneous and irrelevant.
Just another example of your propensity to make things up and misrepresent the meaning of my posts.
The comment about primary school is not even a witty or cutting retort.
It's just stupid.
Once again, definitely not frustrated.
Certainly not with this little exchange with you.
You love making things up and it is pretty obvious that you can dish it up in spades but you can't take.it.
All the traits of a keyboard grub.

Definitely frustrated. Otherwise you wouldn’t be harping on with such a long post.

Your words in the matter are here for all to see, hopefully over time you can change your views.

 

[hewi]

https://www.news.com.au/sport/nrl/r...t/news-story/5f24d18d47d58d7b3efe87b04a7e320f

Faaark $650,000 a year, we dodged a bullet.

 

[possm]

https://www.news.com.au/sport/nrl/r...t/news-story/5f24d18d47d58d7b3efe87b04a7e320f

Faaark $650,000 a year, we dodged a bullet.

It is Packers last contract so the Tigers and just suck it up and pay the piper.

 

[Frank Facer]

https://www.news.com.au/sport/nrl/r...t/news-story/5f24d18d47d58d7b3efe87b04a7e320f

Faaark $650,000 a year, we dodged a bullet.

I read it was 750K yesterday.

 

[Knuckle-dragger]

Russell Packer [...] prison sentence.

 

[Dennis Papaioannou]

Good old muzby

• Loves accusing people of things that are not true. (Simply bad form.)
• Says others play the man whilst he always plays the ball. (LMFAO.)
• Demands answers of others whilst dodging, ducking & weaving questions of him. (Avoidance personified.)
• When he runs out of argument he tries to belittle people by becoming the forum English professor and is continually passing critique on people's use of English in their posts. (Piss poor pedantry.)
• Relentlessly defends the club (especially the Illawarra side of things) and creates subterfuge as to what he thinks the club did as against what the club actually did. (Probably has a job with them is their legal consultant.)
• Instead of simply disagreeing with people and allowing them some slack re interpretation he insists on him being correct and them being wrong. Belligerent & bombastic. When he is getting caught out he tries to introduce sarcasm and other poor forms of humour in an effort to deflect criticism away from himself or he tries to solicit support by people that read more into him then there actually is. (A sham of the 1st order.)
• Hanging his hat on the clubs supposed moral backbone when the club actually said "AFB breached his contract" and said nothing further when it actually had its chance to make a big statement in respect of not tolerating DV or violence in general. (Trying hard to make a purse out of a sow's ear.)
• Loves dishing it out but hates copping it back and runs for cover when he cops a couple of shots and again tries to take the moral high ground with dismissive statements trying to end it. (Can't go the distance).

Now please show me the definitive statement from the club about not condoning DV or assault and that AFB actions were against the moral fabric of society and not condonable and he was sacked directly as a result of that and also and what the club will do to any other player in the future who is involved in such incidents. You keep rabbiting on about it but I see nothing other than the words that when they found out about the common assault charge they saw it as a breach of contract (really standing up for women by calling it a breach of contract) and stood him down and then tore up his contract. You make far more noise about it then the very people you are defending and for the record they are the people being questioned not you.
By the way your notion that the club didn’t know he was guilty until June is incorrect as he had already made a guilty plea to the charge at Waverley court on April 15.
So the club knew the facts. did as little as possible and said even less.
Muzby loves rob make it personal as to his feelings in an effort to defend the club.
Nice try but not the issue.
If the club wanted to make a stand and a difference in respect if DV do you really think “breached his contract” and no further comment is the appropriate answer?

I enjoyed reading that OT - well said.