The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > The real reason for the NRL group sex 'scandal'

The real reason for the NRL group sex 'scandal'

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 74
  7. 75
  8. 76
  9. Page 77
  10. 78
  11. 79
  12. 80
  13. ...
  14. 91
  15. 92
  16. 93
  17. All
Thugby League news of the day:

<< Club boss accused of tackling player, 12
Ellie Harvey
August 3, 2009

THE president of a junior rugby league club has been accused of grabbing a 12-year-old boy by the throat and crash tackling him in yet another juniors game gone wrong.

The boy was allegedly tackled by the opposing team’s club president during a game in Camden on Saturday after a brawl between players on the field.

[...]

In the complaint to the Warriors, which is expected to be forwarded to Campbelltown Wests Football Association, the president is described as having behaved ‘‘like a thug’’. >>

http://www.smh.com.au/national/club-boss-accused-of-tackling-player-12-20090802-e5v3.html

Master, a heads up: Cornflower's a woman, and she seems to have a crush on you. Be afraid, be very afraid...

Cornflower, Master's no sockpuppet - that's just a dumb fantasy of Antiwomen's. You NRL types aren't very bright, are you?
Posted by CJ Morgan, Monday, 3 August 2009 6:34:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poor little obsessed sock-puppet.

TPP:"Excuse me Anti (talking about you in front of you and all that)… why did that happen?"

It didn't Jewels, you've fallen for another of the sock-puppet's fevered imaginings. I'm a bit worried about her, actually, the poor thing seems to have forgotten to take her medications. Next thing she'll be having more visions of TWO CHILDREN (sic) being KILLED (sic)and who knows what she might do then?

As it happens, the only contact I've had with DOCS was when they called me in to tell me that my ex's new boyfriend's ex-wife had made a complaint about her. The complaint was ridiculous and I told them so.

Jewels, you asked why I'm sure the sock-puppet is a sock-puppet. My suggestion is to look at the first post she made, which was solely an attack on antiseptic, not for the post, but in general. Remember, that was her very "first" post. Ask yourself how many 81 year old men use phrases like "antiseptic dude" or "men's collective". Note that there is no attempt to discuss the subject, other than to create a flurry of strawmen to derail the discussion, with the Pomeranian, whistler and poor dim Sancho adding to the crows chorus.

So yes, jewels, I'm sure the sock-puppet is a sock-puppet and I have a fair idea who she is in her other personas here, none of whom have posted much since she "showed up".

I regard her creation as flattering, really, since it clearly shows that my message about the pernicious nature of feminism is having an impact.
Posted by Antiseptic, Monday, 3 August 2009 8:16:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Master,

'Now let's examine how this topic has "progressed":'

You missed out the part about scouts!

Hey I know you. You're the same one who wrote 6 times in every post.. 'The Lying antispetic', and ended with 'I'm glad I had the opportunity to clear that up.' every time. That was some pretty groovy work. How come you went away?
Posted by Houellebecq, Monday, 3 August 2009 1:05:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
C J Morgan

All your list of football incidents shows is your own confirmation (bias) error, which is the tendency to believe your own preconceived ideas and irrationally deny information that could challenge your beliefs.

Doubtless you would be aware of that, however your vicious little parlour games played out daily on the Net are more important to you. So be it, it is your life and the clock is always ticking.

As you know, I have no interest in taking sides in the long-running blood feuds and the 'gender', 'racist' or whatever wars you seem to promote for fun and attention. You have missed your calling, you should have been a World Wrestling Federation (WWF) spruiker. Anyhow, please include me out of that BS.

In this case I would like to see some proof of Master's claims, seeing he made them after all.

Master (or whoever you are)

Your latest effort where you claimed to be a large pastoralist is an absolute screamer, much better than that secret squirrel university degree, which has now been relegated to second place.

The wronged lemon squeezer? Go for it, you are on a roll. Convincing no but funny, yes!
Posted by Cornflower, Monday, 3 August 2009 2:27:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks CJ for informing me that Cornflower is female. That explains why she has no knowledge of scouting - - - - - it's obvious she's had no involvement.

Cornflower, you display a lack of character in your continued refusal to admit you were WRONG regarding your scouting claim (designed specifically as an attempt to discredit), despite the PROOF shown by me, and repeated again and again and again. This shows you are here, at this stage in the topic, for the express purpose of "attempting" to discredit another poster. Your refusal to simply admit you're wrong, then move on, shows a basic lack of decency.

Cornflower, your rather vicious little parlour game discredits only YOU.

Cj's list of football incidents is just that - - - - a list of football incidents. Cornflower, are you with your bitter and sarcastic comment to CJ, now trying to imply that they are made up, didn't really happen? If they happened, he has EVERY RIGHT to print them if he chooses. And a sanctimonious fuddy duddy like you is incapable of doing anything to stop it - - - - - - all you can do is,

CONTINUE YOUR TROLLING.

That's "all" you have left in your arsenal.

Your CONTINUED refusal to admit you're wrong, then simply move on to other things, shows a basic lack of decency!
Posted by Master, Monday, 3 August 2009 5:23:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cornflower, I have gone back to past posts and checked Antiwomen's claims against me. He has accused me (as a "tactical" move after losing the conspiracy debate) of being "one" person who posts here under quite a few different names. I've found out that one of those names he says is "me" is a person called JW. I've learned (from Antiwomen's past posts) that Antiwomen claims JW is the woman he dealt with at the CSA (I thought it was docs). He claims she came here specifically to hound him (how she was supposed to know he was here is something he didn't explain to my knowledge). He now claims that I, of all people, am the SAME woman who is an official at the CSA. If this is the case Antiwomen would have grounds for involving the police, as it would be against the law for a government employee to act in this way.

Has Antiwomen involved the police?

Of COURSE he hasn't!

Why?

Because he KNOWS it's ALL BS. But he continues the "pretense", because he "thinks" it discredits his enemies here and those who don't agree with his opinions.

Ok Cornflower. Answer 2 questions. (1)If I am the woman from the CSA, how did I "originally" know that the person here called Antiseptic was the SAME person I encountered within the CSA govt. department? (2) If I am the woman from the CSA how did I "originally" know that Antiwomen was on this site anyway?

Now cornflower, you've shown a recent history of IGNORING the tough questions, and PROOF.

If you are to retain even a semblance of credibility and decency, you need to successfully answer those 2 questions, and supply the supporting evidence.

YOU "KNOW" YOU CAN'T.

So what are you bound to do?

TROLL ON as usual!
Posted by Master, Monday, 3 August 2009 5:54:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 74
  7. 75
  8. 76
  9. Page 77
  10. 78
  11. 79
  12. 80
  13. ...
  14. 91
  15. 92
  16. 93
  17. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy