rourkster <rourkster@no-spam> whilst enjoying the feel
of that sweet, sweet wood moaned:
> On Fri, 4 Jul 2003 18:36:09 +1000, "GV }:c{»"
> <asrl_gv_spam@no-spam> gave us the following fascinating
> insight:
>
>>
>> rourkster [rourkster@no-spam wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, 4 Jul 2003 14:26:24 +1000, "Chris Cox"
>>> <cjcox@no-spam> gave us the
>>> following fascinating insight:
>>>
>>>> "rourkster" <rourkster@no-spam> wrote in message
>>>> news:nmv9gv4v08vphecr48p3mrsu546f09msff@no-spam
>>>>> Poor Mick. The illusion just gets worse doesn't it.
>>>>
>>>> Hmmm, yes, poor Mick:
>>>>
>>>> "Nobody is suggesting that the playing surface is
>>>> dangerous," he told ABC radio.
>>> But there's plenty who are saying it's crap. Including the
>>> state government. Time for Mick to stop defending the
>>> indefensible.
>>>>
>>>> "If they were then there wouldn't be any games on it. It's
>>>> as simple as that."
>>>>
>>>> The only people saying it's unsafe are the Roosters. And
>>>> you can understand, having lost four or five players on the
>>>> ground in two appearances. But the Broncos have played up
>>>> to 240 minutes each on the field with no problems -
>>>> including Darren Lockyer who already has a dodgy ankle
>>>> injury that he's been carrying for a month. Wouldn't you
>>>> think it would affect him a bit?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> When did Lockyer get his dodgy ankle? Wouldn't coincide with
>>> the Broncs first training session at Sandcorp would it?
>>
>> I hope I don't get a dodgy ankle when I give you a kick up
>> your sandy arse. :-p
> How have I upset thee GV? Personal threats really aren't your
> style. Oh - any time you feel capable, let me know. ;-)
GV doesn't like idiots ... HTH ;-p
Daniel.