"JohnD." <johnd1967_spamthing_@no-spam> wrote in message
news:bhrNa.404$kY2.17964@no-spam
>
> "Sanctify" <sancters@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:1057366315.793123@no-spam
> >
> > "JohnD." <johnd1967_spamthing_@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:geoNa.378$kY2.15871@no-spam
> > >
> > > "Adam SLATER (H0llyw00d H0gan)" <slattery@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > news:be473d$fls$1@no-spam
> > > > The chances of it being wet in perth again are minimal. Freo will
beat
> > the
> > > > lions by at least 5 goals
> > >
> > > Freo couldn't run the game out against Hawthorn last week. Lions by a
> > couple
> > > of goals.
> >
> > Freo spent over 10 hours flying to Tasmania last week - take that into
> > consideration when you look at that game.
>
> Must have been the world's slowest plane.
>
No I think that one crashed.
"Epigram" <atg@no-spam> wrote in message =
news:BB2F397A.295C%atg@no-spam
> On 6/7/03 4:10 AM, JohnD bleated:
>=20
> > "Sanctify" <sancters@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:1057386394.422692@no-spam
> >=20
> >> Nope - thanks to the AFL not giving a fuck about any non Victorian =
teams
> >> they couldn't get a direct flight.
> >=20
> > Surely it's not the AFL's fault that unaffiliated airlines don't =
offer
> > direct flights from Perth to Tassie ? If Freo (or WC) thought it was =
that
> > important they could always charter a plane. Selling packages to =
travelling
> > fans would offset the cost easily enough I'd have thought.
>=20
> Charter a plane? You're kidding, right? Pulling our strings?
> Who's going to pay for the charter- the club? The AFL? The club that =
wants
> to have a home game at Manuka or York Park?
>=20
> You say selling travelling packages to fans (or members) would offset =
the
> cost. Yes, well. It's easy to see you're not Richard Branson using a
> psuedonym. Fortutitously you added "I'd have thought.", because =
clearly you
> haven't.
Odd you say all of this because a few years back the Crows wanted to buy =
their own plane in conjunction with Port. Port said that they didn't =
have the cash required, so the Crows said that they'd put up the =
majority and allow Port to pay them back. All was well until the AFL =
said that it couldn't be done as the deals were in place with Ansett - =
the bastards.
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dwindows-1251">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4522.1800" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>"Epigram" <</FONT><A=20
href=3D"mailto:atg@no-spam"><FONT=20
size=3D2>atg@no-spam</FONT></A><FONT size=3D2>.> wrote in =
message=20
</FONT><A href=3D"news:BB2F397A.295C%atg@no-spam"><FONT=20
size=3D2>news:BB2F397A.295C%atg@no-spam</FONT></A><FONT=20
size=3D2>....</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>> On 6/7/03 4:10 AM, JohnD bleated:<BR>> =
<BR>> >=20
"Sanctify" <</FONT><A =
href=3D"mailto:sancters@no-spam"><FONT=20
size=3D2>sancters@no-spam</FONT></A><FONT size=3D2>> =
wrote in=20
message<BR>> > </FONT><A =
href=3D"news:1057386394.422692@no-spam"><FONT=20
size=3D2>news:1057386394.422692@no-spam</FONT></A><FONT =
size=3D2>...<BR>> >=20
<BR>> >> Nope - thanks to the AFL not giving a fuck about any =
non=20
Victorian teams<BR>> >> they couldn't get a direct =
flight.<BR>> >=20
<BR>> > Surely it's not the AFL's fault that unaffiliated airlines =
don't=20
offer<BR>> > direct flights from Perth to Tassie ? If Freo (or WC) =
thought=20
it was that<BR>> > important they could always charter a plane. =
Selling=20
packages to travelling<BR>> > fans would offset the cost easily =
enough I'd=20
have thought.<BR>> <BR>> Charter a plane? You're kidding,=20
right? Pulling our strings?<BR>> Who's going to pay for the =
charter-=20
the club? The AFL? The club that wants<BR>> to have a =
home game=20
at Manuka or York Park?<BR>> <BR>> You say selling travelling =
packages to=20
fans (or members) would offset the<BR>> cost. Yes, well. =
It's=20
easy to see you're not Richard Branson using a<BR>> psuedonym. =20
Fortutitously you added "I'd have thought.", because clearly you<BR>> =
haven't.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Odd you say all of this because a few years back the =
Crows=20
wanted to buy their own plane in conjunction with Port. Port said =
that=20
they didn't have the cash required, so the Crows said that they'd put up =
the=20
majority and allow Port to pay them back. All was well until the =
AFL said=20
that it couldn't be done as the deals were in place with Ansett - the=20
bastards.</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>
"Epigram" <atg@no-spam> wrote in message
news:BB3000D7.29AE%atg@no-spam
> On 7/7/03 12:09 PM, JohnD. bleated:
>
> > "Epigram" <atg@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:BB2F397A.295C%atg@no-spam
> >> On 6/7/03 4:10 AM, JohnD bleated:
> >>
> >>> "Sanctify" <sancters@no-spam> wrote in message
> >>> news:1057386394.422692@no-spam
> >>>
> >>>> Nope - thanks to the AFL not giving a fuck about any non Victorian
> > teams
> >>>> they couldn't get a direct flight.
> >>>
> >>> Surely it's not the AFL's fault that unaffiliated airlines don't offer
> >>> direct flights from Perth to Tassie ? If Freo (or WC) thought it was
> > that
> >>> important they could always charter a plane. Selling packages to
> > travelling
> >>> fans would offset the cost easily enough I'd have thought.
> >>
> >> Charter a plane? You're kidding, right? Pulling our strings?
> >> Who's going to pay for the charter- the club? The AFL? The club that
> > wants
> >> to have a home game at Manuka or York Park?
> >
> > Of course the club would have to shoulder some of the financial burden,
but
> > wouldn't the reduced travelling time be worth paying for ?
>
> If it guaranteed a win, yes.
Seeing as a fair percentage of Dockers & Eagles supporters reckon the only
reason the Hawks beat 'em was the travel factor, you'd reckon the clubs
would just charter a plane. I mean, if it guarenteed a win and all.
>
> >> You say selling travelling packages to fans (or members) would offset
the
> >> cost. Yes, well. It's easy to see you're not Richard Branson using a
> >> psuedonym. Fortutitously you added "I'd have thought.", because
clearly
> >> you haven't.
> >
> > Well actually, I can't claim to have "invented" the idea because the ACT
> > Brumbies do exactly that to reduce travelling drama when scheduled to
play
> > at some New Zealand venues in the Super 12 competition.
> >
> > Of course the downside is that the fans don't get to bitch about how
unfair
> > it is.
>
> The difference for the Super 12 are that the games are played from RSA to
> NZ, and it's up to the clubs to organise transport; it's not organised for
> them by a corporate sponsor that is an airline.
The cost of airline travel is paid for by the tri-nations rugby unions out
of television rights money from Sir Rupert. The charter flights come out of
Brumbies coffers. If they can do it in a two-bit town like Canberra with
15000 paid-up members then the WA clubs would shit it in.
> > But clearly, you're right ... it'd be far too hard to think outside the
> > square and actually provide a solution.
>
> "Thinking outsided the square" is a wanky phrase invented by people that
> have nothing better to do with their lives than to tell others how to live
> theirs by buying a catalogue. It is a fashion, and as such will go out of
> vogue.
>
> Being humble, I suggested a solution, however it seems that it's too hard
to
> organise clubs from capitals that have direct flights to Hobart. What
about
> a Hawks v Swans at YP if the HFC _need_ to play there? Nah! Can't be
done
> because it's too simple.
Swans draw some sort of crowd in Melb.
What is this fascination you have with Hobart. York Park is at the other end
of the state.
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2003 16:18:04 +0800
Epigram wrote:
> On 7/7/03 12:09 PM, JohnD. bleated:
>
>
>>"Epigram" <atg@no-spam> wrote in message
>>news:BB2F397A.295C%atg@no-spam
>>
>>>On 6/7/03 4:10 AM, JohnD bleated:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Sanctify" <sancters@no-spam> wrote in message
>>>>news:1057386394.422692@no-spam
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Nope - thanks to the AFL not giving a fuck about any non Victorian
>>>>
>>teams
>>
>>>>>they couldn't get a direct flight.
>>>>
>>>>Surely it's not the AFL's fault that unaffiliated airlines don't offer
>>>>direct flights from Perth to Tassie ? If Freo (or WC) thought it was
>>>
>>that
>>
>>>>important they could always charter a plane. Selling packages to
>>>
>>travelling
>>
>>>>fans would offset the cost easily enough I'd have thought.
>>>
>>>Charter a plane? You're kidding, right? Pulling our strings?
>>>Who's going to pay for the charter- the club? The AFL? The club that
>>
>>wants
>>
>>>to have a home game at Manuka or York Park?
>>
>>Of course the club would have to shoulder some of the financial burden, but
>>wouldn't the reduced travelling time be worth paying for ?
>
>
> If it guaranteed a win, yes.
>
>
>>>You say selling travelling packages to fans (or members) would offset the
>>>cost. Yes, well. It's easy to see you're not Richard Branson using a
>>>psuedonym. Fortutitously you added "I'd have thought.", because clearly
>>>you haven't.
>>
>>Well actually, I can't claim to have "invented" the idea because the ACT
>>Brumbies do exactly that to reduce travelling drama when scheduled to play
>>at some New Zealand venues in the Super 12 competition.
>>
>>Of course the downside is that the fans don't get to bitch about how unfair
>>it is.
>
>
> The difference for the Super 12 are that the games are played from RSA to
> NZ, and it's up to the clubs to organise transport; it's not organised for
> them by a corporate sponsor that is an airline.
>
>
>>But clearly, you're right ... it'd be far too hard to think outside the
>>square and actually provide a solution.
>
>
> "Thinking outsided the square" is a wanky phrase invented by people that
> have nothing better to do with their lives than to tell others how to live
> theirs by buying a catalogue. It is a fashion, and as such will go out of
> vogue.
And the irony is that people who repeat this phrase, aren't.
They're repeating what's been said to them, thus requiring very little
"thinking" in the first place.
deker19
"Epigram" <atg@no-spam> wrote in message
news:BB317E31.2A25%atg@no-spam
> On 8/7/03 3:48 AM, JohnD. bleated:
>
> > Seeing as a fair percentage of Dockers & Eagles supporters reckon the
only
> > reason the Hawks beat 'em was the travel factor, you'd reckon the clubs
> > would just charter a plane. I mean, if it guarenteed a win and all.
>
> And you obviously know what a fair percentage is, since you speak to every
> Fremantle and Wiggle supporter on a regular basis.
Oh, my statement didn't apply to you then ?
The travel had nothing to do with Freo getting done ? So you believe the
travel had nothing to do with the result ?
> Chris Connolly says he likes YP.
He would. He's had a good record there in various coaching capacities.
> He has no problem playing there. He's a
> diplomatic man. He believes we lost the game because of the poor start in
> the 1st 1/4. That's his opinion, for *that* particular game.
Are you saying his diplomacy is hiding the real reason ?
Why not say "honest" ?
> The powers that be within the club have told the AFL that they aren't so
> happy that the short straw is rigged so that WA and SA clubs are the ones
to
> play Hawthorn in Launceston.
Newsflash ... the whole schedule of H&A games is rigged. There is no random
element to the "draw" at all. All fixtures are designed to achieve a certain
outcome. I'll give you a clue, it isn't to ensure that interstate teams miss
the 8.
>
> >>>> You say selling travelling packages to fans (or members) would offset
> > the
> >>>> cost. Yes, well. It's easy to see you're not Richard Branson using
a
> >>>> psuedonym. Fortutitously you added "I'd have thought.", because
> > clearly
> >>>> you haven't.
> >>>
> >>> Well actually, I can't claim to have "invented" the idea because the
ACT
> >>> Brumbies do exactly that to reduce travelling drama when scheduled to
> > play
> >>> at some New Zealand venues in the Super 12 competition.
> >>>
> >>> Of course the downside is that the fans don't get to bitch about how
> > unfair
> >>> it is.
> >>
> >> The difference for the Super 12 are that the games are played from RSA
to
> >> NZ, and it's up to the clubs to organise transport; it's not organised
for
> >> them by a corporate sponsor that is an airline.
> >
> > The cost of airline travel is paid for by the tri-nations rugby unions
out
> > of television rights money from Sir Rupert. The charter flights come out
of
> > Brumbies coffers. If they can do it in a two-bit town like Canberra with
> > 15000 paid-up members then the WA clubs would shit it in.
>
> Canberra chartering a flight to RSA and paying for it themselves?
No, the Canberra Raiders play in the NRL and don't charter flights at all.
The ACT BRUMBIES are the ones that charter one, perhaps two, flights per
year and that is to NZ ... not RSA as you stated. I was quite clear about
this fact previously in this thread.
> So does other non-Victorian clubs, including the Dockers. There's quite a
> following for Freo in Geelong.
I'm glad they follow someone there in Geelong. Are you suggesting the Hawks
V Freo fixture should be played at Shell Stadium ?
> And they'd draw a crowd at YP. Or are you "captivated" by a sense that
it's
> the complete generousity of the VFL to become the AFL and allow clubs like
> Fremantle to be a part of it? And of course there are more South
Melbourne
> supporters that pop down to TD or the MCG to see their twice bankrupted
team
> play than Freo supporters, so it makes it worthwhile.
Not at all. I welcome Freo's involvement in the AFL. I reckon it's a great
thing. Of course it does complicate travel arrangements for many clubs but
you don't hear them whinging about it. Of course Collingwood would whinge
about it but it seems they have an exemption from travelling west.
> And this year, the AFL have made sure Carlton play most of their home
games
> at Princess Park. Bugger me, Melbourne had a home game at the MCG v
> Fremantle while Carlton played at their home ground, as it should be. In
> previous years, it seemed as if Carlton had a morgage on the MCG, forcing
> Melbourne and Richmond to play home games at PP. There was a lot of
> complaining from both Melbourne and Richmond supporters on this ng and
other
> media, and I don't blame them.
I don't care.
> > What is this fascination you have with Hobart. York Park is at the other
end
> > of the state.
>
> Oh, I don't know. Maybe because the flights the AFL organise go to Hobart
> before the team hop on a bus and wander up to Launceston...
Bullshit. What would be the point when there is direct flights to Launceston
? Oooooh - maybe it's another AFL conspiracy.
> Still the point remains- with the deal Hawthorn has with the TFL, it makes
> sense to have an away team to travel with Hawthorn to YP, one that doesn't
> have to spend 10 hours in the air.
Freo doesn't have to spend 10 hours in the air. That is a complete
fabrication.
Besides, a solution has been presented to you. It's not Hawthorn's fault
that you'd rather play victim than be a part of the solution. There is a
successful example of how it can be done in the above thread, and all you
want to do is argue about how unfair it is. Still, they reckon it's
impossible to graft a new idea on to a closed mind.
On 9/7/03 12:31 AM, JohnD. bleated:
>
> "Epigram" <atg@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:BB317E31.2A25%atg@no-spam
>> On 8/7/03 3:48 AM, JohnD. bleated:
>>
>>> Seeing as a fair percentage of Dockers & Eagles supporters reckon the
> only
>>> reason the Hawks beat 'em was the travel factor, you'd reckon the clubs
>>> would just charter a plane. I mean, if it guarenteed a win and all.
>>
>> And you obviously know what a fair percentage is, since you speak to every
>> Fremantle and Wiggle supporter on a regular basis.
>
> Oh, my statement didn't apply to you then ?
What? Are you being treated for dementia?
> The travel had nothing to do with Freo getting done ? So you believe the
> travel had nothing to do with the result ?
The travel had some impact. Even so, we should have, and could have won
that game.
>
>> Chris Connolly says he likes YP.
>
> He would. He's had a good record there in various coaching capacities.
Nothing to do with the fact being assistant coach for the Hawks, nah,
couldn't be...
>
>> He has no problem playing there. He's a
>> diplomatic man. He believes we lost the game because of the poor start in
>> the 1st 1/4. That's his opinion, for *that* particular game.
>
> Are you saying his diplomacy is hiding the real reason ?
>
> Why not say "honest" ?
Because it's *his* opinion. Opinions are neither honest or dishonest.
Haven't you worked that one out yet?
>> The powers that be within the club have told the AFL that they aren't so
>> happy that the short straw is rigged so that WA and SA clubs are the ones
>> to play Hawthorn in Launceston.
> Newsflash ... the whole schedule of H&A games is rigged. There is no random
> element to the "draw" at all. All fixtures are designed to achieve a certain
> outcome. I'll give you a clue, it isn't to ensure that interstate teams miss
> the 8.
How many hours a day do you practice being a fuckwit? Must be at least 23.
>>>>>> You say selling travelling packages to fans (or members) would offset
>>> the
>>>>>> cost. Yes, well. It's easy to see you're not Richard Branson using
> a
>>>>>> psuedonym. Fortutitously you added "I'd have thought.", because
>>> clearly
>>>>>> you haven't.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well actually, I can't claim to have "invented" the idea because the
> ACT
>>>>> Brumbies do exactly that to reduce travelling drama when scheduled to
>>> play
>>>>> at some New Zealand venues in the Super 12 competition.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course the downside is that the fans don't get to bitch about how
>>> unfair
>>>>> it is.
>>>>
>>>> The difference for the Super 12 are that the games are played from RSA
> to
>>>> NZ, and it's up to the clubs to organise transport; it's not organised
> for
>>>> them by a corporate sponsor that is an airline.
>>>
>>> The cost of airline travel is paid for by the tri-nations rugby unions
> out
>>> of television rights money from Sir Rupert. The charter flights come out
> of
>>> Brumbies coffers. If they can do it in a two-bit town like Canberra with
>>> 15000 paid-up members then the WA clubs would shit it in.
>>
>> Canberra chartering a flight to RSA and paying for it themselves?
>
> No, the Canberra Raiders play in the NRL and don't charter flights at all.
> The ACT BRUMBIES are the ones that charter one, perhaps two, flights per
> year and that is to NZ ... not RSA as you stated. I was quite clear about
> this fact previously in this thread.
ACT, Canberra. What's the diff? It's called "generalising". Like you
"generalising" about Perth, as if Fremantle is the same thing. I'm clearly
not as pedantic as you. I never said anything about the NRL or Raiders, and
confined this point to RU & the Super12.
>> So does other non-Victorian clubs, including the Dockers. There's quite a
>> following for Freo in Geelong.
>
> I'm glad they follow someone there in Geelong. Are you suggesting the Hawks
> V Freo fixture should be played at Shell Stadium ?
You really are a twat.
>> And they'd draw a crowd at YP. Or are you "captivated" by a sense that it's
>> the complete generousity of the VFL to become the AFL and allow clubs like
>> Fremantle to be a part of it? And of course there are more South Melbourne
>> supporters that pop down to TD or the MCG to see their twice bankrupted team
>> play than Freo supporters, so it makes it worthwhile.
> Not at all. I welcome Freo's involvement in the AFL.
Thankyou.
> I reckon it's a great thing. Of course it does complicate travel arrangements
> for many clubs but you don't hear them whinging about it.
Funny, thought I heard Essendon, Brisbane and Adelaide complain to the AFL,
wanting to make sure they don't have to travel to Perth twice....
> Of course Collingwood would whinge about it but it seems they have an
> exemption from travelling west.
How odd it is of you to admit that one club has complained, then fob it of
as some sort of non-interest story. Either it is point clubs have discussed
with the AFL or it isn't. Which one is it? You say "yes", and then dismiss
it simply because it's Collingwood.
>> And this year, the AFL have made sure Carlton play most of their home games
>> at Princess Park. Bugger me, Melbourne had a home game at the MCG v
>> Fremantle while Carlton played at their home ground, as it should be. In
>> previous years, it seemed as if Carlton had a morgage on the MCG, forcing
>> Melbourne and Richmond to play home games at PP. There was a lot of
>> complaining from both Melbourne and Richmond supporters on this ng and other
>> media, and I don't blame them.
> I don't care.
Because you're self-centred.
>>> What is this fascination you have with Hobart. York Park is at the other end
>>> of the state.
>>
>> Oh, I don't know. Maybe because the flights the AFL organise go to Hobart
>> before the team hop on a bus and wander up to Launceston...
>
> Bullshit. What would be the point when there is direct flights to Launceston
> ? Oooooh - maybe it's another AFL conspiracy.
Another conspiracy? What is the first one that is upsetting you?
>> Still the point remains- with the deal Hawthorn has with the TFL, it makes
>> sense to have an away team to travel with Hawthorn to YP, one that doesn't
>> have to spend 10 hours in the air.
>
> Freo doesn't have to spend 10 hours in the air. That is a complete
> fabrication.
Hmm. 3.5 hrs to Melboure, 1.5 hrs to either Launceston or Hobart- have it
which ever way you want, then the game, then 1.5 hrs back to Melbourne, then
4.5 hours back to Perth, at best. Yes, you are completely correct. It's 11
hours in the air. Even if we shave 2 hours off, we are 9 hours. Now, do
you want precise, to-the-second times, or a rounded number, like 10.
Even 9 hours flying time is unacceptable. Or 8.
I put it to you that if a Victorian team had to spend 8 hours flying time
for a H&A game, they'd have reason to complain, and I'd support them, and so
would you. Flight time has been a contentious issue since '87, and will
continue to be.
> Besides, a solution has been presented to you. It's not Hawthorn's fault
> that you'd rather play victim than be a part of the solution. There is a
> successful example of how it can be done in the above thread, and all you
> want to do is argue about how unfair it is. Still, they reckon it's
> impossible to graft a new idea on to a closed mind.
Okay, I'm suffering from not "thinking outside the square", woe is me. I'm
a woman whose being bashed by a man and can't get out of the house because
I'm chained to the bed, so it's all my fault.
And gee, I suggested, using lateral thinking, which seems to be out of
style, by suggesting that perhaps the Bulldogs or Sydney could play at YP,
and it wouldn't cost a thing to the clubs. But, of course, because my mind
is closed, these suggestions have no merit.
If I remember, which I can't because I'm inept, is that Fremantle charter an
aircraft from Perth to Launceston, at the club's expense. Nevermind the
problem that the AFL has a contract with Qantas, and all clubs must abide by
that contract.
If we have to play at YP next season, can we get you to organise the
aircraft, and negotiate with the AFL so that we & the AFL aren't penalised
by Qantas? Hey! We could charter a Qantas aircraft- wow, and it would be
so cheap to charter a 737, and fill it full of members wanting to watch the
game.
You at times approach Mr Kynoch in terms of idiocy.
Пока!
"It's times like this I wish I listened to my mother."
"What did she say?"
"I don't know! I didn't listen!"
ICQ 17561990
"Epigram" <atg@no-spam> wrote in message
news:BB31A103.2A64%atg@no-spam
> On 9/7/03 12:31 AM, JohnD. bleated:
>
[...]
I've taken the liberty of cleaning up a fair bit of stuff here. Gone mostly
is the content which you resorted to attacking me, as opposed to addressing
the subject.
> >> He has no problem playing there. He's a
> >> diplomatic man. He believes we lost the game because of the poor start
in
> >> the 1st 1/4. That's his opinion, for *that* particular game.
> >
> > Are you saying his diplomacy is hiding the real reason ?
> >
> > Why not say "honest" ?
>
> Because it's *his* opinion. Opinions are neither honest or dishonest.
> Haven't you worked that one out yet?
If that is the case, how can they be described as diplomatic ?
> >> Canberra chartering a flight to RSA and paying for it themselves?
> >
> > No, the Canberra Raiders play in the NRL and don't charter flights at
all.
> > The ACT BRUMBIES are the ones that charter one, perhaps two, flights per
> > year and that is to NZ ... not RSA as you stated. I was quite clear
about
> > this fact previously in this thread.
>
> ACT, Canberra. What's the diff? It's called "generalising".
Actually it's called "being wrong". It's like me calling The Dockers
"Perth".
> Like you
> "generalising" about Perth, as if Fremantle is the same thing. I'm
clearly
> not as pedantic as you.
Describe yourself however you want. Pedantic is certainly not a word I would
use to describe your posts. A pedant pays attention to detail and values
correctness of argument and language (however annoying that can be). That
description certainly does not apply to you. In contrast, your argument is
half-arsed at best and your style relies on attacking the other poster when
you feel you are unable to respond appropriately to what is written. In this
respect, banter with you has been disappointing.
> > Of course Collingwood would whinge about it but it seems they have an
> > exemption from travelling west.
>
> How odd it is of you to admit that one club has complained,
Well, have they actually complained ? I know McGuire is weaseling his way
out of games in the west but has done so fairly quietly. In fact, most
Collingwood supporters here believe they travel west their "fair share" of
times compared to other clubs.
> then fob it of
> as some sort of non-interest story. Either it is point clubs have
discussed
> with the AFL or it isn't. Which one is it? You say "yes", and then
dismiss
> it simply because it's Collingwood.
I dismiss most things Collingwood.
> > Freo doesn't have to spend 10 hours in the air. That is a complete
> > fabrication.
>
> Hmm. 3.5 hrs to Melboure, 1.5 hrs to either Launceston or Hobart- have it
> which ever way you want, then the game, then 1.5 hrs back to Melbourne,
then
> 4.5 hours back to Perth, at best.
Planes must be flying uphill on their way back west eh ? I don't believe it
takes an extra hour to fly west than it does to fly east. It'd be pretty
reliable to suggest it would take the same amount of time actually.
Secondly, it takes 50 mins to fly from Melbourne to Launceston, not an hour
and a half as you suggest.
> I put it to you that if a Victorian team had to spend 8 hours flying time
> for a H&A game, they'd have reason to complain, and I'd support them,
So you'd support complaints by any Vic team about having to play at Subi ?
> I'm a woman whose being bashed by a man and can't get out of the house
because
> I'm chained to the bed, so it's all my fault.
You seem to have enough chain to get to the computer.
I feel for you. However, this is neither the time nor the place to discuss
these matters. Can I suggest alt.support.domestic-violence
> If we have to play at YP next season, can we get you to organise the
> aircraft, and negotiate with the AFL so that we & the AFL aren't penalised
> by Qantas?
Typical victim mentality. "I've got problems but I want everyone else to
take responsibility for them". The only reason that your club hasn't
negotiated the proposed solution is that they, like you, are hoping not to
have to play at YP at all. If they made arrangement to solve the airtime
difficulties they'd have no argument. QED.
Tell you what, I'll save you some time and tell you what you really want to
hear. You win. Yeah it's so unfair. Obviously there is a conspiracy against
Western Australian teams. The AFL should buy them jet aircraft to get to
games further than an hour away. The AFL should organise their travel
arrangements for them so that they do not have to plan, manage, or take
responsibility for anything other than team selection. Calculating travel
time should include rounding up all times to the nearest 10 hours to better
support you argument. I am really Colin Kynoch in drag. Anything else ?
On 10/7/03 8:17 AM, JohnD. bleated:
<....>
> Describe yourself however you want. Pedantic is certainly not a word I would
> use to describe your posts. A pedant pays attention to detail and values
> correctness of argument and language (however annoying that can be). That
> description certainly does not apply to you. In contrast, your argument is
> half-arsed at best and your style relies on attacking the other poster when
> you feel you are unable to respond appropriately to what is written. In this
> respect, banter with you has been disappointing.
All that can be said is pot, kettle, black.
>>> Of course Collingwood would whinge about it but it seems they have an
>>> exemption from travelling west.
>>
>> How odd it is of you to admit that one club has complained,
>
> Well, have they actually complained ? I know McGuire is weaseling his way
> out of games in the west but has done so fairly quietly. In fact, most
> Collingwood supporters here believe they travel west their "fair share" of
> times compared to other clubs.
Let's change "complained with" to something more "diplomatic" as in "spoken
to". Collingwood have "spoken to" the AFL on many things, and I feel for
you that it seems to be that Collingwood doesn't play at Subi often enough
when Hawthorn seems to have one game a year at Subi.
>> then fob it of
>> as some sort of non-interest story. Either it is point clubs have
>> discussed
>> with the AFL or it isn't. Which one is it? You say "yes", and then
>> dismiss
>> it simply because it's Collingwood.
> I dismiss most things Collingwood.
Pick and choose as you please. Feel free to ignore arguments that don't
suit you, and use spurious ones that do.
>>> Freo doesn't have to spend 10 hours in the air. That is a complete
>>> fabrication.
>>
>> Hmm. 3.5 hrs to Melboure, 1.5 hrs to either Launceston or Hobart- have it
>> which ever way you want, then the game, then 1.5 hrs back to Melbourne,
> then
>> 4.5 hours back to Perth, at best.
>
> Planes must be flying uphill on their way back west eh ? I don't believe it
> takes an extra hour to fly west than it does to fly east. It'd be pretty
> reliable to suggest it would take the same amount of time actually.
Ah! Another member of "The Flat Earth Society"! It takes between 60
minutes to 90 minutes more to fly from Melbourne to Perth. You, see, a
thing called a "Jet-stream" travels west to east along the south of the
continent and the Southern Ocean. The jet-stream, or "high altitude wind"
travels at a considerable speed, hence the term "jet". Plus the prevailing
winds come from the west.
If you've ever flown to Perth from Melbourne,Sydney or Brisbane, then flown
back, you would know about this 60-90 minute difference. Or you could ask
the BM where the prevailing winds come from, and what direction the Jet
Stream travels.
> Secondly, it takes 50 mins to fly from Melbourne to Launceston, not an hour
> and a half as you suggest.
I did show the calculation with 2hrs less, which would mean less than 50mins
for a flight, and that is within the 9hr+ range, but you've ignored that.
>> I put it to you that if a Victorian team had to spend 8 hours flying time
>> for a H&A game, they'd have reason to complain, and I'd support them,
> So you'd support complaints by any Vic team about having to play at Subi ?
I do feel sympathetic to a Vic team having to play twice in Perth. Yet such
a fixture rarely happens.
>> I'm a woman whose being bashed by a man and can't get out of the house
>> because
>> I'm chained to the bed, so it's all my fault.
> You seem to have enough chain to get to the computer.
The computer's close by.
> I feel for you. However, this is neither the time nor the place to discuss
> these matters. Can I suggest alt.support.domestic-violence
And you can ring "The Men's Helpline". It's all very funny, isn't it? A
bit like Alex Downer's policy of "The Things That Batter".
>> If we have to play at YP next season, can we get you to organise the
>> aircraft, and negotiate with the AFL so that we & the AFL aren't penalised
>> by Qantas?
>
> Typical victim mentality. "I've got problems but I want everyone else to
> take responsibility for them".
You're so right. You see, I'm gay and I get bashed because I'm a threat to
some guy's maculinity- which is his defence in court- even though because
I'm gay I'm a weakling. That "victim's mentality" went out with the last
Vic Lib government. As did that it's a prostitute's fault that they were
raped, or a de fact wife or whatever "victim" you choose. Your argument is
that the onus is on the victim to change society's attitude and use it as a
template for the travel issue of clubs playing against the Hawks at York
park. If you were a horse, you'd be put down for being as lame.
> The only reason that your club hasn't
> negotiated the proposed solution is that they, like you, are hoping not to
> have to play at YP at all. If they made arrangement to solve the airtime
> difficulties they'd have no argument. QED.
Didn't know you spoke Latin. The club has spoken to the AFL about flying
time. Ring Cameron Schwab at the club or Alex D at the AFL for
confirmation. As yet there is no arrangement because Qantas does not have
direct flights to Tasmania from Perth, and until Qantas do, it will remain a
problem as long as Hawthorn have an agreement with the TFL to play at YP and
the draw ensures that WCE and FFC have to play at YP.
It happens because no matter what the clubs ask for from the AFL, nothing
changes. I have suggestes that Hawthorn can have its YP home games against
Siddenee or the Pups- but you've ignored that because I'm a "victim". The
club want to help solve the problem and I've aired them, but ignore me
because I'm a "victim" and as thus can't be part of the solution.
> Tell you what, I'll save you some time and tell you what you really want to
> hear. You win. Yeah it's so unfair. Obviously there is a conspiracy against
> Western Australian teams. The AFL should buy them jet aircraft to get to
> games further than an hour away. The AFL should organise their travel
> arrangements for them so that they do not have to plan, manage, or take
> responsibility for anything other than team selection. Calculating travel
> time should include rounding up all times to the nearest 10 hours to better
> support you argument. I am really Colin Kynoch in drag. Anything else ?
I have never said there is a conspiracy against the WA clubs by the AFL. If
there is any "conspricacy", then it is by the HFC. The nature of the draw
means that Hawthorn, having an agreement with the TFL, try to arrange their
"home" games at York Park to be against SA and WA clubs because they believe
that such a game in Melbourne wouldn't draw the same attendence at YP
against the possibility of a Vic club drawing larger crowds than YP can
handle. And that's fair enough. However not enough consideration has been
given to the travelling team. And I still suggest that the assistance the
Hawks get from the Tassie government to play at YP plus the attendance puts
more money into the Hawks pockets if they played th WB's or Sidenee, despite
the following of those clubs in Melbourne. As is happens, a ferry leaves
Sydney and Melbourne for Devonport, so the WB's and/or Sidenee could
organise a cruise+game package which is more convenient than for WA/SA
clubs.
It is with the AFL and Hawthorn, that an agreement could be struck so that
Qantas has a direct flight at no cost to the clubs for that game.
Winning is a seperate issue. All clubs have to learn to win. All clubs
have to learn to win away. All clubs have to learn to win interstate.
There is not a level playing field with travel, some is because of the
vagaries of the draw and nothing can be done about that, and with others
some can, and here there has been that issue. You debate it, but want staus
quo without giving reasons or resorting to claiming I have a "victim's"
attitude because I brought the issue up, or "complained". I still would
have brought the issue up even if Freo had won, simply because if Freo has
to play the Hawks in an away game, then the Hawks choose that away game to
be at YP.
The "10 hours" flying time was brought to the AFL's attention by both the
Wiggles and Freo, and discussed in the local media. I've suggested that
even 8 hourse is boardering on too much flight time. Adelaide and Port
Power FC's have brought there concerns to the AFL's attention about flying
time if they had to play at YP. Brisbane Lions and Adelaide FC's have asked
the AFL to ensure in a draw that they don't have to fly to Perth twice
because of flight times, and you've conveniently ignored that. If at least
2 clubs are concerned, isn't that enough to talk about? If 4, then even
more so?
As for you being Colin in drag, it has its appeal- re Alex Downer and those
stockings- to Hawks' fans.
Quod erat demonstrandum.
Пока!
"It's times like this I wish I listened to my mother."
"What did she say?"
"I don't know! I didn't listen!"
ICQ 17561990
"Epigram" <atg@no-spam> wrote in message
news:BB3474B0.2B9A%atg@no-spam
> On 10/7/03 8:17 AM, JohnD. bleated:
>
> <....>
>
> > Describe yourself however you want. Pedantic is certainly not a word I
would
> > use to describe your posts. A pedant pays attention to detail and values
> > correctness of argument and language (however annoying that can be).
That
> > description certainly does not apply to you. In contrast, your argument
is
> > half-arsed at best and your style relies on attacking the other poster
when
> > you feel you are unable to respond appropriately to what is written. In
this
> > respect, banter with you has been disappointing.
>
> All that can be said is pot, kettle, black.
>
> >>> Of course Collingwood would whinge about it but it seems they have an
> >>> exemption from travelling west.
> >>
> >> How odd it is of you to admit that one club has complained,
> >
> > Well, have they actually complained ? I know McGuire is weaseling his
way
> > out of games in the west but has done so fairly quietly. In fact, most
> > Collingwood supporters here believe they travel west their "fair share"
of
> > times compared to other clubs.
>
> Let's change "complained with" to something more "diplomatic" as in
"spoken
> to". Collingwood have "spoken to" the AFL on many things, and I feel for
> you that it seems to be that Collingwood doesn't play at Subi often enough
> when Hawthorn seems to have one game a year at Subi.
>
> >> then fob it of
> >> as some sort of non-interest story. Either it is point clubs have
> >> discussed
> >> with the AFL or it isn't. Which one is it? You say "yes", and then
> >> dismiss
> >> it simply because it's Collingwood.
>
> > I dismiss most things Collingwood.
>
> Pick and choose as you please. Feel free to ignore arguments that don't
> suit you, and use spurious ones that do.
>
> >>> Freo doesn't have to spend 10 hours in the air. That is a complete
> >>> fabrication.
> >>
> >> Hmm. 3.5 hrs to Melboure, 1.5 hrs to either Launceston or Hobart- have
it
> >> which ever way you want, then the game, then 1.5 hrs back to Melbourne,
> > then
> >> 4.5 hours back to Perth, at best.
> >
> > Planes must be flying uphill on their way back west eh ? I don't believe
it
> > takes an extra hour to fly west than it does to fly east. It'd be pretty
> > reliable to suggest it would take the same amount of time actually.
>
> Ah! Another member of "The Flat Earth Society"! It takes between 60
> minutes to 90 minutes more to fly from Melbourne to Perth. You, see, a
> thing called a "Jet-stream" travels west to east along the south of the
> continent and the Southern Ocean. The jet-stream, or "high altitude wind"
> travels at a considerable speed, hence the term "jet". Plus the
prevailing
> winds come from the west.
>
> If you've ever flown to Perth from Melbourne,Sydney or Brisbane, then
flown
> back, you would know about this 60-90 minute difference. Or you could ask
> the BM where the prevailing winds come from, and what direction the Jet
> Stream travels.
>
> > Secondly, it takes 50 mins to fly from Melbourne to Launceston, not an
hour
> > and a half as you suggest.
>
> I did show the calculation with 2hrs less, which would mean less than
50mins
> for a flight, and that is within the 9hr+ range, but you've ignored that.
>
> >> I put it to you that if a Victorian team had to spend 8 hours flying
time
> >> for a H&A game, they'd have reason to complain, and I'd support them,
>
> > So you'd support complaints by any Vic team about having to play at Subi
?
>
> I do feel sympathetic to a Vic team having to play twice in Perth. Yet
such
> a fixture rarely happens.
>
> >> I'm a woman whose being bashed by a man and can't get out of the house
> >> because
> >> I'm chained to the bed, so it's all my fault.
>
> > You seem to have enough chain to get to the computer.
>
> The computer's close by.
>
> > I feel for you. However, this is neither the time nor the place to
discuss
> > these matters. Can I suggest alt.support.domestic-violence
>
> And you can ring "The Men's Helpline". It's all very funny, isn't it? A
> bit like Alex Downer's policy of "The Things That Batter".
>
> >> If we have to play at YP next season, can we get you to organise the
> >> aircraft, and negotiate with the AFL so that we & the AFL aren't
penalised
> >> by Qantas?
> >
> > Typical victim mentality. "I've got problems but I want everyone else to
> > take responsibility for them".
>
> You're so right. You see, I'm gay and I get bashed because I'm a threat
to
> some guy's maculinity- which is his defence in court- even though because
> I'm gay I'm a weakling. That "victim's mentality" went out with the last
> Vic Lib government. As did that it's a prostitute's fault that they were
> raped, or a de fact wife or whatever "victim" you choose. Your argument
is
> that the onus is on the victim to change society's attitude and use it as
a
> template for the travel issue of clubs playing against the Hawks at York
> park. If you were a horse, you'd be put down for being as lame.
>
> > The only reason that your club hasn't
> > negotiated the proposed solution is that they, like you, are hoping not
to
> > have to play at YP at all. If they made arrangement to solve the airtime
> > difficulties they'd have no argument. QED.
>
> Didn't know you spoke Latin. The club has spoken to the AFL about flying
> time. Ring Cameron Schwab at the club or Alex D at the AFL for
> confirmation. As yet there is no arrangement because Qantas does not have
> direct flights to Tasmania from Perth, and until Qantas do, it will remain
a
> problem as long as Hawthorn have an agreement with the TFL to play at YP
and
> the draw ensures that WCE and FFC have to play at YP.
> It happens because no matter what the clubs ask for from the AFL, nothing
> changes. I have suggestes that Hawthorn can have its YP home games
against
> Siddenee or the Pups- but you've ignored that because I'm a "victim". The
> club want to help solve the problem and I've aired them, but ignore me
> because I'm a "victim" and as thus can't be part of the solution.
>
> > Tell you what, I'll save you some time and tell you what you really want
to
> > hear. You win. Yeah it's so unfair. Obviously there is a conspiracy
against
> > Western Australian teams. The AFL should buy them jet aircraft to get to
> > games further than an hour away. The AFL should organise their travel
> > arrangements for them so that they do not have to plan, manage, or take
> > responsibility for anything other than team selection. Calculating
travel
> > time should include rounding up all times to the nearest 10 hours to
better
> > support you argument. I am really Colin Kynoch in drag. Anything else ?
>
> I have never said there is a conspiracy against the WA clubs by the AFL.
If
> there is any "conspricacy", then it is by the HFC. The nature of the draw
> means that Hawthorn, having an agreement with the TFL, try to arrange
their
> "home" games at York Park to be against SA and WA clubs because they
believe
> that such a game in Melbourne wouldn't draw the same attendence at YP
> against the possibility of a Vic club drawing larger crowds than YP can
> handle. And that's fair enough. However not enough consideration has
been
> given to the travelling team. And I still suggest that the assistance the
> Hawks get from the Tassie government to play at YP plus the attendance
puts
> more money into the Hawks pockets if they played th WB's or Sidenee,
despite
> the following of those clubs in Melbourne. As is happens, a ferry leaves
> Sydney and Melbourne for Devonport, so the WB's and/or Sidenee could
> organise a cruise+game package which is more convenient than for WA/SA
> clubs.
>
> It is with the AFL and Hawthorn, that an agreement could be struck so that
> Qantas has a direct flight at no cost to the clubs for that game.
>
> Winning is a seperate issue. All clubs have to learn to win. All clubs
> have to learn to win away. All clubs have to learn to win interstate.
> There is not a level playing field with travel, some is because of the
> vagaries of the draw and nothing can be done about that, and with others
> some can, and here there has been that issue. You debate it, but want
staus
> quo without giving reasons or resorting to claiming I have a "victim's"
> attitude because I brought the issue up, or "complained". I still would
> have brought the issue up even if Freo had won, simply because if Freo has
> to play the Hawks in an away game, then the Hawks choose that away game to
> be at YP.
>
> The "10 hours" flying time was brought to the AFL's attention by both the
> Wiggles and Freo, and discussed in the local media. I've suggested that
> even 8 hourse is boardering on too much flight time. Adelaide and Port
> Power FC's have brought there concerns to the AFL's attention about flying
> time if they had to play at YP. Brisbane Lions and Adelaide FC's have
asked
> the AFL to ensure in a draw that they don't have to fly to Perth twice
> because of flight times, and you've conveniently ignored that. If at
least
> 2 clubs are concerned, isn't that enough to talk about? If 4, then even
> more so?
>
> As for you being Colin in drag, it has its appeal- re Alex Downer and
those
> stockings- to Hawks' fans.
>
> Quod erat demonstrandum.
Well you've certainly gone to a lot of trouble responding. Don't, however,
assume that because we exchange ideas on this NG that I welcome private
email from you. This is the forum in which we communicate and anything you
have to say can be said here.
It would seem we are unlikely to see eye-to-eye on this issue. Both sides of
the debate have their merits but weighting such things all depends on where
one's personal investment lies.
On 10/7/03 7:55 PM, JohnD. bleated:
<...>
>
> Well you've certainly gone to a lot of trouble responding. Don't, however,
> assume that because we exchange ideas on this NG that I welcome private
> email from you. This is the forum in which we communicate and anything you
> have to say can be said here.
You are not forced to read anything I have to say. Yet I have been
criticised for not making use of email for an issue. For those interested,
the basis of the email was to say passion is the driving force of r.s.a-r.
At least there are people like you and I that don't hide behind undecodable
false adresses like x@no-spam
As for the the trouble I went to to answer your post, you haven't edited or
even responed; just lay down and died, not even bothering to challange
anything- not even something so simple as the different flying times of
travelling east to west and west to east.
I don't need you to satisify any part of my life, as much as you don't need
me for yours. End of debate of that; more below.
> It would seem we are unlikely to see eye-to-eye on this issue. Both sides of
> the debate have their merits but weighting such things all depends on where
> one's personal investment lies.
Agreed that we won't agree on this issue, and indeed we invest a lot in our
passions.
Пока!
"It's times like this I wish I listened to my mother."
"What did she say?"
"I don't know! I didn't listen!"
ICQ 17561990