I only commented on what you said, not how you intended it to come out. Fuck knows what you meant by it, I can't read your mind. Only you try to make such assumptions by telling people 'what the really mean/think'. I just didn't want to bring it up because this argument will just go on forever now as you try to refute something else. All over to Tart now, I'm outta here.
Not really. Neither of them are particularly interesting with regard to analysing the game. The sort of old school shit I hear from my old man.
"in that context it is definitely being used as..." ^That is, by definition, an attempt to derive meaning, you dishonest muppet. You're just trying to backpeddle out of it. Yeah that's the other thing you do that I just love - Get into multi-response argument spanning multiple pages and then try to take the moral high ground by walking away, all the while making disparaging comments about my intransigence. Takes two to tango.
Sorry if that's obscure. Was meant to be a princess with a sandy vagina. I'm going to have that image in my mind whenever I read one of Chook's posts.
Apologies if it's been brought up but it's pretty fucking shit how the dogs got both of their field goals. First coming off a ridiculous rule because Reynolds put a crap kick in that hit the ref. Second off the stupid 7 tackle rule.
http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...ennis-20140921-10k0ox.html?rand=1411298200523 lol Wonder if they'll change that ball hitting the ref rule now? It says they won't after last night but if it gets abused maybe.
Change it to a play of the ball where he gets hit and just cancel out the previous tackle so if it happened on the last it's the last again, they just get free extra territory.
Bill Harrigan on the radio said after the game that players used to try to do it on purpose all the time. He said Kimmorley hit him twice on purpose but he played on as he didn't feel it effected the outcome.