The Swans Recruiting policy

[swansrule100]

Originally posted by footyhead
What a nasty nasty man you are turning into.
Cheer Cheer

By the way Robbie you may not like or agree with what I say, but by reducing your argument to personal attacks with invective, you show your true colours.
So could you please try to elevate your antagonistic language a little. Personal attacks should be saved for the school yard.



PS, All the teams in the AFL, and certainly most of the supporters would say that they COULD win a preiership within the next 5 years, that does not change the fact that the Swans won't.

why are u going for the swans?? u dont seem to like or support them

[mocaholic]

Hey Bloodsports,

WHAT IS YOUR SUGGESTION AS TO BRINGING HOME A FLAG? In this forum plus on BF you have not once given an alternative.

A troll is all.

[Sanecow]

Re: Re: Re: The Swans Recruiting policy

Originally posted by footyhead
Look especially at Saint Kilda's drafting and trading and ports and the cats ! we are screwed.

Geelong: Spriggs at pick 15. Us: Spriggs at pick 47. Their recruiting is so much smarter.

St Kilda: They gave us Hall, they have Gehrig. LOL @ St Kilda.

[footyhead]

Originally posted by Dpw
what a joke you are footyhead, you dodged all the points that Robbie raised and then turned his post into something it wasnt. how about addressing the points and then trying to put forward a plan stating how you would like it done and why its better?
untill you do that people will just keep dismissing most of your posts as rubbish.

That is the classic control freak tactic, "Others may have there opinion, but they have to stick to the logic, or rules that I (the control freak) am putting forward".
This is a forum for discussion.
Who said that the rules were that you have to put forward something other than a critisism to be legitimate ?
Thats just a way for Robbie to keep his hopes alive that the Swans might be heading in the right direction. "oh this fool says..... but he offers no alternatives, therefore he's just a f'ing idiot who ... Blah blah blah.
Well say what you will, all I'm saying is that the Swans won't win the flag in the next five years, because they have fallen into the bad ways of old habits. Don't agree ? Fair enough , but don't resort to calling me names, and don't fool your self that you have the right to demand that others do anything.

[mocaholic]

Originally posted by footyhead
That is the classic control freak tactic, "Others may have there opinion, but they have to stick to the logic, or rules that I (the control freak) am putting forward".
This is a forum for discussion.
Who said that the rules were that you have to put forward something other than a critisism to be legitimate ?
Thats just a way for Robbie to keep his hopes alive that the Swans might be heading in the right direction. "oh this fool says..... but he offers no alternatives, therefore he's just a f'ing idiot who ... Blah blah blah.
Well say what you will, all I'm saying is that the Swans won't win the flag in the next five years, because they have fallen into the bad ways of old habits. Don't agree ? Fair enough , but don't resort to calling me names, and don't fool your self that you have the right to demand that others do anything.

Hey F'Head - I've got a proposal for you:

If Sydney don't win a flag up to and including 2009, you can come back to this forum and slag the lot of us. I'll eat humble pie too. But till then, you vanish.

[footyhead]

[i]... If we win one, we will all laugh at him, and he will ignore it and say it was a fluke... therefore he is still right. Win win I say. [/B]

What you don't understand, is that if I am wrong and we do win the flag, I will be as ahppy as anyone, and will be more than prepared to admit I was wrong, In fact I hope I am.

[Sanecow]

Re: The Swans Recruiting policy

Originally posted by footyhead
Don't fall down the ladder

Are you seriously critical of this plan?

[footyhead]

Re: Re: The Swans Recruiting policy

Originally posted by Sanecow
Are you seriously critical of this plan?

Many people here and else where have said things to the effect- that the swans precarious commercial situation, is having an undue negative affect on the Swans footballing dept.

[mocaholic]

Re: Re: Re: The Swans Recruiting policy

Originally posted by footyhead
Many people here and else where have said things to the effect- that the swans precarious commercial situation, is having an undue negative affect on the Swans footballing dept.

So....answer the question.

[footyhead]

Re: Re: Re: Re: The Swans Recruiting policy

Originally posted by mocaholic
So....answer the question.

One minuet you are telling me to vanish till 2009 the next you are telling me to answer questions.

May I respectfully tell you to get stuffed.
I am not your bitch, bitch.

[mocaholic]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Swans Recruiting policy

Originally posted by footyhead
One minuet you are telling me to vanish till 2009 the next you are telling me to answer questions.

May I respectfully tell you to get stuffed.
I am not your bitch, bitch.

The desire to get rid of you was an obviously vain hope.




Answer the question.

[timthefish]

Originally posted by footyhead
This is a forum for discussion.

precisely. how about if it's put in these terms....

"The swans are making intelligent decisions concerning team management and recruitment with the intent of having a serious shake at the premiership over the next five years. Discuss."

Your basic assertion is "NO", and you have cited a single example of trading pick 15 for jolly as an error demonstrating this. These are merely assertions without discussion. Obvious avenues of discussion following from these would be

1. Jolly is not worth pick 15
2. Player X in the draft would have been a better option.
3. The solution to our looming ruck deficiency would be better addressed by
a) grooming draftees
b) scouting local/country leagues
c) stacking dwarves.

do you get it? you have not discussed your assertions to any degree beyond superficial conjecture. that is not discussion by any reasonable definition.

[mocaholic]

Originally posted by timthefish
precisely. how about if it's put in these terms....

"The swans are making intelligent decisions concerning team management and recruitment with the intent of having a serious shake at the premiership over the next five years. Discuss."

Your basic assertion is "NO", and you have cited a single example of trading pick 15 for jolly as an error demonstrating this. These are merely assertions without discussion. Obvious avenues of discussion following from these would be

1. Jolly is not worth pick 15
2. Player X in the draft would have been a better option.
3. The solution to our looming ruck deficiency would be better addressed by
a) grooming draftees
b) scouting local/country leagues
c) stacking dwarves.

do you get it? you have not discussed your assertions to any degree beyond superficial conjecture. that is not discussion by any reasonable definition.

- If I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
- Yes, but that isn't just saying "no it isn't"
- Yes it is.

Give it up Tim. Waste of time I reckon.

[timthefish]

Originally posted by mocaholic
- If I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
- Yes, but that isn't just saying "no it isn't"
- Yes it is.

Give it up Tim. Waste of time I reckon.

had the same thought halfway through the message.

[Benevolent Ert]

- No it isn't, an argument is an intellectual process... contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.

- No it isn't.

- Yes it is.

- Not at all.

Ah such fun - and always so applicable on forums like this!!!