Recent content by Doogie

My guess is that most see some footy light at the end of the tunnel and are looking at this and seeing it affect the team. What the dumb cnts don't see is that internal adversity can send the team to a higher level if the culture is on point. Topine and the media is just noise. An opportunity...

Yes. Yes. No idea. That help?

That bro - is some mighty fine work. :tearsofjoy: :tearsofjoy: :tearsofjoy:

Don't enjoy an argument bro. Just happen to be good at it. And if you go back 30 pages you'll find I've said many times, Topine was badly advised and it should never have come to this. So I definitely don't agree with Topine's position. What I really don't agree with is this immediate pile on...

You're right but..... I didn't open the door about changing thread titles. But if people want to play - I'll play. My rules seem pretty fair. Bet they don't take it up though.

Yeah other avenues. Like from August to Feb where the mediation occurred. As disgraceful as justifying online bullying of a mental health kid because he deserves it because u read a newspaper article? But hey - a muppet is always going to recognise a clown show. Guess you're right...

Yeah. 3 tours of afghan and you can see it in his eyes.

Well if nothing doing - then why we paying out at all? I've never said the club was wrong. All I've said is its weak as piss to pile on a kid with mental health problems and to let the courts decide. And whenever someone has pulled some tripe from some 'reliable source' (aka a newspaper) - I've...

Sure. I'm good with that. But if the Dogs make any sort of payout or it makes it to court, both which I've said all along, you ok with us changing the thread title to 'Shanked tried a circle jerk and just ended up shooting in his own face?' Fair fair I reckon.

Well - not really. Using my awesome google lawyer skills, once the statement of claim is lodged, Dogs have 28 days to submit a defence. If they chose not to, then the judge can base his decision on what was presented by the plaintiff. Now whether that decision requires evidence to be provided...

Nope - keeping away from the real crackers these days and sticking to Dogs threads - and yet look what I attracted. Go figure.

Remind all you want. You claimed I brought in the Lehrman case. Wrong. You admitted you did because of some weird perception of what I put in that thread. Wrong. And you are saying I'm falling for what the press says when its clear all along - I'm doing the very opposite. Wrong again. And...

Quits. Nah. We just got started :smilingimp:.

Yep - poor data management vs some evidence that he's not actually suffering and good to go are a fair way apart. Just the usual media whoring which no one has any actual basis on. Could be he's stooging and good to go, could also be its just a bog standard IT fck up. Know from my experience...

So u admit you were baiting. Good to know. As I said b4 - for someone so keen on peoples behaviours - can say this opened my eyes. @DinkumDog - in this instance - apologies. I was wrong and you were right.