Fitness

[Ryan]

I am looking forward to the day when like adults we make up like you and Rex did, and you become my special little friend too.

Yeah, Nar... the dribbling would remain an issue.

Maaaaaate, you're really struggling. Creche must be full. Stop, while you're behind ! Hahahaha.

@Rex hit the nail on the head, and I love his analogy. You become activated. Then you name call & diminish his rhetoric because you realise the subject matter is beyond your means / capability to debate without name calling / trying to belittle.

So what if people want to express opinion's in a format you consider too long winded? Arrogant much?

 

[Woodsie]

Maaaaaate, you're really struggling. Creche must be full. Stop, while you're behind ! Hahahaha.

@Rex hit the nail on the head, and I love his analogy. You become activated. Then you name call & diminish his rhetoric because you realise the subject matter is beyond your means / capability to debate without name calling / trying to belittle.

So what if people want to express opinion's in a format you consider too long winded? Arrogant much?

You really aren't very bright are you?

 

[Ryan]

You really aren't very bright are you?

Actually, I am. Doing very well for myself - thanks for your concern. You DO understand that these candid attempts at insult have no other affect, besides advertising the fact you have conceded in the debate, and have nothing of quality left?

Shame you're so one dimensional.

Again, I imagine you as the camel come Peter Griffin. Hahahaha. Sorry kid, it is, what it is. Open your mind. You've become activated again.

 

[Woodsie]

Actually, I am. Doing very well for myself - thanks for your concern. You DO understand that these candid attempts at insult have no other affect, besides advertising the fact you have conceded in the debate, and have nothing of quality left?

Shame you're so one dimensional.

Again, I imagine you as the camel come Peter Griffin. Hahahaha. Sorry kid, it is, what it is. Open your mind. You've become activated again.

What was the debate about again?

 

[Ryan]

What was the debate about again?

That I said a professional athletes fitness is a day to day, or week to week proposition, which you disagreed with. But I hold to that. Please take injury out of the equation though here - because that would be unfair.

I understand Simon's frustration if he thought people were taking impact injury and things into account, but I didn't see it that way.

Let's blame the numerous (bloody ridiculous if you ask me) turnarounds for the poor starts / finishes - whatever people want to say.

You want to know the difference between being minor premiers and bottom dwellers? It will be the ability to manage those peak periods, and have your team playing consistent 80 minute football week in, week out. That's why micro managing a team's strength and fitness regime is paramount.

Week - to - week proposition. The schedule is what it is. No-one can do anything about it. We just have to manage it.

Have we managed it well? Who's knows? It will be a learning process, that's for sure. We are 4 wins from 9 games. Similar numbers (not as good defensively) as the year Tooves was sacked.

@Woodsie THIS is how I'd prefer to debate football with you. You may disagree, sure - and I often concede - look at my stance on Toovey, but jeez, does it have dragged through the gutter as we go?

 

[Rex]

No Rex, stop trying to rewrite history. You challenged Ralphie with this unequavocable statement.

This is a direct attack on someone's right to have an opinion. Until you either retract or apologise, the 40 posts, and 50,000 words you have written trying to confuse or change the subject, are simply an evasion and irrelevant.

Again you have entrenched yourself into a singular simplistic interpretation of a small part of what I wrote, whilst ignoring the key point. Cognitive complexity not a strength area for you Woodsie?

Not once have you sought to enquire, or listen, to what this means. Instead, you kneejerk reacted into a very dumbed-down interpretation and then went hysterical about it and have stayed that way ever since.

If indeed you are a teacher as you claim, this inability to coolly and critically reflect on your interpretations is startling.

 

[Woodsie]

That I said a professional athletes fitness is a day to day, or week to week proposition, which you disagreed with. But I hold to that. Please take injury out of the equation though here - because that would be unfair.

I understand Simon's frustration if he thought people were taking impact injury and things into account, but I didn't see it that way.

Let's blame the numerous (bloody ridiculous if you ask me) turnarounds for the poor starts / finishes - whatever people want to say.

You want to know the difference between being minor premiers and bottom dwellers? It will be the ability to manage those peak periods, and have your team playing consistent 80 minute football week in, week out. That's why micro managing a team's strength and fitness regime is paramount.

Week - to - week proposition. The schedule is what it is. No-one can do anything about it. We just have to manage it.

Have we managed it well? Who's knows? It will be a learning process, that's for sure. We are 4 wins from 9 games. Similar numbers (not as good defensively) as the year Tooves was sacked.

@Woodsie THIS is how I'd prefer to debate football with you. You may disagree, sure - and I often concede - look at my stance on Toovey, but jeez, does it have dragged through the gutter as we go?

Oh, Thanks.

 

[Woodsie]

Again you have entrenched yourself into a singular simplistic interpretation of a small part of what I wrote, whilst ignoring the key point. Cognitive complexity not a strength area for you Woodsie?

Not once have you sought to enquire, or listen, to what this means. Instead, you kneejerk reacted into a very dumbed-down interpretation and then went hysterical about it and have stayed that way ever since.

If indeed you are a teacher as you claim, this inability to coolly and critically reflect on your interpretations is startling.

Again you evade and deny, I am coolly and critically holding you to account.

I am sure some people mistake your prose and eloquence for substance, I however am simple folk as you say, I prefer honesty.

So again (10th time)

You said to Ralphie

"What right do you have to APPROVE or disapprove of someone else's sexual orientation? How arrogant is that? Are you God? Self-appointed moral police?"

That was an attack on the very foundation of free speech, and when used in the context this forum to a fellow poster is in my opinion abusive and the recourse of a intellectual bully.

So continue to claim victim hood, some will be swayed by your eloquence, I just find it abhorrent.

 

[Ryan]

Again you evade and deny, I am coolly and critically holding you to account.

I am sure some people mistake your prose and eloquence for substance, I however am simple folk as you say, I prefer honesty.

So again (10th time)

You said to Ralphie

"What right do you have to APPROVE or disapprove of someone else's sexual orientation? How arrogant is that? Are you God? Self-appointed moral police?"

That was an attack on the very foundation of free speech, and when used in the context this forum to a fellow poster is in my opinion abusive and the recourse of a intellectual bully.

So continue to claim victim hood, some will be swayed by your eloquence, I just find it abhorrent.

Of "an" intellectual bully @Woodsie . Use your words if your going to attempt to outwit someone mate. You're doing well though, for someone who is activated by the way.

It's just that @Rex has you well and truly down for the count in both quality AND execution. The comparative here is that Rex is Jim Jeffries, and you're Craig Mclachlan on the footy show that ill fated night.

 

[Woodsie]

Of "an" intellectual bully @Woodsie . Use your words if your going to attempt to outwit someone mate. You're doing well though, for someone who is activated by the way.

It's just that @Rex has you well and truly down for the count in both quality AND execution. The comparative here is that Rex is Jim Jeffries, and you're Craig Mclachlan on the footy show that ill fated night.

an, OK got it.

 

[lsz]

For reference here is some of it...

 

[Ryan]

For reference here is some of it...

Poor guy. I actually feel pretty bad now. Tough life. In hindsight, that loud mouth in the crowd was just a complete and utter wanker - sorry guys.

 

[lsz]

Poor guy. I actually feel pretty bad now. Tough life. In hindsight, that loud mouth in the crowd was just a complete and utter wanker - sorry guys.

Same here...almost wish I had never seen it!

 

[Ryan]

Same here...almost wish I had never seen it!

Andrew Denton is honestly one of the best one on one interviewers. Actually, Foran bias aside, Sterling has that one on one connection with his opposite.

 

[lsz]

Andrew Denton is honestly one of the best one on one interviewers. Actually, Foran bias aside, Sterling has that one on one connection with his opposite.

Agree you forget how good he was in those interviews

 

[yokahontas]

That I said a professional athletes fitness is a day to day, or week to week proposition, which you disagreed with. But I hold to that. Please take injury out of the equation though here - because that would be unfair.

I understand Simon's frustration if he thought people were taking impact injury and things into account, but I didn't see it that way.

Let's blame the numerous (bloody ridiculous if you ask me) turnarounds for the poor starts / finishes - whatever people want to say.

You want to know the difference between being minor premiers and bottom dwellers? It will be the ability to manage those peak periods, and have your team playing consistent 80 minute football week in, week out. That's why micro managing a team's strength and fitness regime is paramount.

Week - to - week proposition. The schedule is what it is. No-one can do anything about it. We just have to manage it.

Have we managed it well? Who's knows? It will be a learning process, that's for sure. We are 4 wins from 9 games. Similar numbers (not as good defensively) as the year Tooves was sacked.

@Woodsie THIS is how I'd prefer to debate football with you. You may disagree, sure - and I often concede - look at my stance on Toovey, but jeez, does it have dragged through the gutter as we go?

I don't want to get in the middle of the p*ssing contest, but my two cents on the fitness thing:

It's not really a 'week-to-week' thing once you get into the season. Cameron Smith actually said something about this very recently - the Scum did a lot more running than usual in pre-season apparently - and are now doing very little fitness/conditioning work in their weekly training.

My background is swimming, and martial arts - but the principle is the same. You build a fitness base (in pre-season for footballers, at the start of a training cycle for swimmers, fighters etc), and then you taper it off and focus on skill, strategy etc later in the training cycle (closer to or during competition). You essentially do no more than what you have to do to maintain your fitness base, you are certainly not working on 'building' fitness at that stage.

Secondly, short turnarounds can most definitely affect susceptibility to injury. Essentially, if you're carrying a niggle, you will be (largely without realising it) making slight changes to things like your running gait, or the way you brace for impact, for example. A broken jaw - plain bad luck, but recurring ankle sprains, hamstring strains etc are the type of injury likely to be affected adversely by lack of sufficient recovery time. Rest is an incredibly important part of injury management and recovery.

Like I said, just my two cents - but I do have qualifications in both fitness and sports coaching, and I have competed at international level in a contact sport. I'm not totally guessing here.

 

[Garts]

Holy sh!t, what a pile of dribble I have just been through. Boys, insult each other a couple of times then move on

Imo it is not a fitness issue. Our issue is we are just not in the top echelon of sides. We are not losing due to lack of fitness. It is a skill, ability and game plan issue. And no doubt the injuries and short turnarounds have not helped.

 

[Rex]

Again you evade and deny, I am coolly and critically holding you to account.

I am sure some people mistake your prose and eloquence for substance, I however am simple folk as you say, I prefer honesty.

So again (10th time)

You said to Ralphie

"What right do you have to APPROVE or disapprove of someone else's sexual orientation? How arrogant is that? Are you God? Self-appointed moral police?"

That was an attack on the very foundation of free speech, and when used in the context this forum to a fellow poster is in my opinion abusive and the recourse of a intellectual bully.

So continue to claim victim hood, some will be swayed by your eloquence, I just find it abhorrent.

So you don't see your utter hypocrisy then Woodsie? Oh dear.

You (incorrectly) perceived one part of one posting of mine, when taken totally out of context, sought to shut down Ralphie's right to free speech. And in response you spend 5 weeks, and innumerable abusive and repetitive postings, seeking to shut down mine?

Here is the link and entire posting (posting 35):
http://silvertails.net/threads/the-...f-his-sons-gay-union.48675/page-2#post-779064

What right do you have to APPROVE or disapprove of someone else's sexual orientation? How arrogant is that? Are you God? Self-appointed moral police?

Your business: Someone else's behaviour directly impacts on you

Not your business: Someone else's behaviour that doesn't impact you.

So explain to me how two people - irrespective of sex - loving each other adversely impacts you? Where's the harm to anyone else?

It's is soooo basic having to explain this to you again Woodsie. If you take off your emotive drama queen hat, and put on your thinking cap, you'll notice three elements in my challenge to Ralphie:

1. A challenge to explain ANY harm coming from two same-sex people loving each other. Ralphie couldn't articulate any harm at all. Neither could you. Neither could anyone else.

2. An assertion that if people's behaviour doesn't cause harm, then it is none of your business to moralise about it.

3. If you choose to moralise about people's behaviour that does not cause harm, then you are acting as if you are God.

Let me be explicit because you have clear trouble comprehending this. I did not seek to stop Ralphie expressing his view. I challenged the premise of his view, and highlighted the implications of it. Including the implication that he was acting as if he had direct access to the mind of God.

That you obsessed so vehemently defending Ralphie suggests that you are in exactly the same bucket as Ralphie. And that you NEED to judge (ie moralise) about other people, and feel offended and extremely activated when someone challenges you on that.

 

[Woodsie]

So you don't see your utter hypocrisy then Woodsie? Oh dear.

You (incorrectly) perceived one part of one posting of mine, when taken totally out of context, sought to shut down Ralphie's right to free speech. And in response you spend 5 weeks, and innumerable abusive and repetitive postings, seeking to shut down mine?

Here is the link and entire posting (posting 35):
http://silvertails.net/threads/the-...f-his-sons-gay-union.48675/page-2#post-779064


It's is soooo basic having to explain this to you again Woodsie. If you take off your emotive drama queen hat, and put on your thinking cap, you'll notice three elements in my challenge to Ralphie:

1. A challenge to explain ANY harm coming from two same-sex people loving each other. Ralphie couldn't articulate any harm at all. Neither could you. Neither could anyone else.

2. An assertion that if people's behaviour doesn't cause harm, then it is none of your business to moralise about it.

3. If you choose to moralise about people's behaviour that does not cause harm, then you are acting as if you are God.

Let me be explicit because you have clear trouble comprehending this. I did not seek to stop Ralphie expressing his view. I challenged the premise of his view, and highlighted the implications of it. Including the implication that he was acting as if he had direct access to the mind of God.

That you obsessed so vehemently defending Ralphie suggests that you are in exactly the same bucket as Ralphie. And that you NEED to judge (ie moralise) about other people, and feel offended and extremely activated when someone challenges you on that.

Thank you for the free psychological assessment, it is worth what I paid for it.

For the 11th time. You said,

"What right do you have to APPROVE or disapprove of someone else's sexual orientation? How arrogant is that? Are you God? Self-appointed moral police?"

Is not, as you continually try to assert, a challenge of his view, it was and remains, an abusive challenge to his right to hold a view.

That you assert that I am obsessed with defending Ralphie shows how far removed from reality you have wandered.

The only thing I share with Ralphie is the belief that he has a right to have an opinion, without being abused and bullied.

Again, you said,

"What right do you have to APPROVE or disapprove of someone else's sexual orientation? How arrogant is that? Are you God? Self-appointed moral police?"

Keep rewriting history, inventing personality traits I possess, and evading. You self promote and justify when there should only be two options you should adopt.

1) Admit you over stepped and apologise, and retract your statement.
or
2) Take ownership of your statement and declare that in your opinion, people are only allowed to express views you approve of.

 

[Rex]

Oh dear Woodsie,

Which is it? You can't read or you can't comprehend? Maybe you don't want to?

All your statements are clearly already answered here for anyone above semi-literacy:

So you don't see your utter hypocrisy then Woodsie? Oh dear.

You (incorrectly) perceived one part of one posting of mine, when taken totally out of context, sought to shut down Ralphie's right to free speech. And in response you spend 5 weeks, and innumerable abusive and repetitive postings, seeking to shut down mine?

Here is the link and entire posting (posting 35):
http://silvertails.net/threads/the-...f-his-sons-gay-union.48675/page-2#post-779064


It's is soooo basic having to explain this to you again Woodsie. If you take off your emotive drama queen hat, and put on your thinking cap, you'll notice three elements in my challenge to Ralphie:

1. A challenge to explain ANY harm coming from two same-sex people loving each other. Ralphie couldn't articulate any harm at all. Neither could you. Neither could anyone else.

2. An assertion that if people's behaviour doesn't cause harm, then it is none of your business to moralise about it.

3. If you choose to moralise about people's behaviour that does not cause harm, then you are acting as if you are God.

Let me be explicit because you have clear trouble comprehending this. I did not seek to stop Ralphie expressing his view. I challenged the premise of his view, and highlighted the implications of it. Including the implication that he was acting as if he had direct access to the mind of God.

That you obsessed so vehemently defending Ralphie suggests that you are in exactly the same bucket as Ralphie. And that you NEED to judge (ie moralise) about other people, and feel offended and extremely activated when someone challenges you on that.

You have your inflexible, moralistic, school-teacher rules and your self-righteous school-teacher stick which you apply when someone expresses an opinion that doesn't match yours. All the while imagining that your stick is more than a flimsy twig.

I'm very happy for you to continue exposing your religiously moralistic, hypocritical, unthinking self if you so wish. One day you may see there's another one underneath your emotional hyper-reactivity.