Cat got your tongue Gallop ?

[ManlyBacker]

Rex, please desist from suggesting you know what I am claiming until I actually put it in writing. "You suggest four weeks suspension was therefore appropriate." No Rex, I have never suggested that in any post nor do I think so. I find it hard to believe that my statements are that hard to understand.

Time for a Rexism. If a dog decides to have some fun and runs around biting and chasing its tail for hours and then stops, why is it that the dog does not understand why the tail is throbbing and bleeding? Is it an emotional dog and a rational tail? Is this a classic Cartesian circle? Of course I don't know the answers but I look forward to your analysis as always.

 

[niccipops]

The cat hasn't got Gallop's tongue, the cat got him horny and he took her to a secret location. That's why we haven't heard from him regarding the "Inglis affair".

 

[mwsneagle]

But that is the whole point. The NRL punishment of Stewart was ridiculously dishonest. The created the difficulty they have been in ever since when a player does anything wrong, namely there is no consistency. This Inglis incident is the first that has come up since which actually has some degree of parity with Stewart's case, namely the profile of the player and the allegation of violence against a woman. The NRL will have to treat this case in a similar fashion, and so far they haven't had to do anything because Storm stood him down. But when Storm try to pick him to play against Manly watch the fur fly.

I agree. Gallop has continually referred to Brett's intoxication as a reason and Manly's refusal to do anything about it.

I don't know how drunk Brett was, apart from the too drunk to remember reports, I believe I read that the bar where the launch was held knocked back the offer of a card to go behind the bar as it was past the time hired and was going to be open to the public thus too hard to police expenditure.
There was initial reports he was refused entry into 2 bars - but no name of said bars were forthcoming. Bellew, in his letter to Gallop, apparantly refuted that Brett was too dunk to be interviewed by the police. So how drunk was he? No footage of him ala Seymour and he didn't drive - he caught a cab.
No-one knows what transpired after that. But the media certainly went to town and changed it's version on a daily basis. How can Brett be responsible for that ridiculous level and style of reporting?
Manly may not have acted how the NRL wanted them to, however they were acting exactly how others before them had - Broncos anyone? Gallop stated on "The Footy Show" that the decision with Brett and Manly was NOT a precedent - that they always had the power to intervene and this case warranted it - even though it supposedly had nothing to do with the charges levelled at Brett.
Now someone correct me if I am wrong - but I don't think I heard anything about alcohol in relation to the Inglis incident, and if that is so based on Gallops previous actions - then I am surprised he has been suspended at all, Cherrington was allowed to play up to and after being charged.
ALso how long is Brett going to be penalised for this (as per Gallop) being refused service - he was not included for The Aust. Post stamps (maybe NRL intervention maybe not) but definitely withdrawn from the Avocado campaign due to the NRL. All supposedly because he was refused service at a bar??? :🙂

 

[Rex]

Rex, please desist from suggesting you know what I am claiming until I actually put it in writing. \"You suggest four weeks suspension was therefore appropriate.\" No Rex, I have never suggested that in any post nor do I think so. I find it hard to believe that my statements are that hard to understand.

On the one hand, MB, you demand I don't make any tentative inaccurate statements about what you have suggested and demand that I must restrict myself solely to your literal statements.  And what if I rebel and choose my path? Would that infuriate you?

On the other hand you totally discard Gallop's literal statements and make your own abstractions and interpretations of his thoughts - abstractions and interpretations that he has specifically stated are not true.  How do you reconcile this inconsistency?  Don't make the same demands of yourself as you do of me? Rebelling against your own standards?

Maybe analysing what Gallop overtly and literally says are his reasons and what he overtly and literally says are not his reasons is not "silly"?  Maybe second-guessing Gallop's thoughts, whilst fun and entertaining, is "silly"? And maybe when it all boils down, it doesn't really matter if we're seen as "silly" or as "sober/rational/logical".

 

[ManlyBacker]

Well done Rex. It took you more than 2 days but I found a well made point inside your usual verbiage.