Past #26: Tarryn Thomas [Part III] - 18 week suspension confirmed; ineligible to play in '24 season; NMFC has officially sacked Tarryn.

[Mcarcherey]

I understand ur point but there is literally no point with him bc he takes u around in circles and circles and circles.

he's not the one going around in circles though...

it boils down to many posters blindly believing the AFL and the club, some others want more transparency. so far, the only argument against more transparency is "privacy", which is meaningless when names and specifics can be redacted. the other 'argument' is "who cares, it's done, why do you care?" - we say "transparency", you say "privacy" and "why do you care" and round and round we go.

no transparency leads to corruption, always.

 

[The Filth Wizard]

he's not the one going around in circles though...

it boils down to many posters blindly believing the AFL and the club, some others want more transparency. so far, the only argument against more transparency is "privacy", which is meaningless when names and specifics can be redacted. the other 'argument' is "who cares, it's done, why do you care?" - we say "transparency", you say "privacy" and "why do you care" and round and round we go.

no transparency leads to corruption, always.

I like this gif.

 

[blackshadow]

he's not the one going around in circles though...

it boils down to many posters blindly believing the AFL and the club, some others want more transparency. so far, the only argument against more transparency is "privacy", which is meaningless when names and specifics can be redacted. the other 'argument' is "who cares, it's done, why do you care?" - we say "transparency", you say "privacy" and "why do you care" and round and round we go.

no transparency leads to corruption, always.

Privacy is 100% valid in this case.

Enough of your redacted information bullshit. If "redacted" transcripts were release it would be pretty simple to put two and two together and identify the other parties from TT's previous social media postings.

Time to drop your weird crusade and move on.

 

[Mcarcherey]

I like this gif.

if you're in the "who cares about transparency" camp just don't reply, leave the discussion for those that want to discuss TT. you're the reason the thread is going in circles.

 

[Mcarcherey]

Privacy is 100% valid in this case.

Enough of your redacted information bullshit. If "redacted" transcripts were release it would be pretty simple to put two and two together and identify the other parties from TT's previous social media postings.

Time to drop your weird crusade and move on.

if it's obvious from his previous social media postings then there is no point the privacy to begin with....

like i said countless times, redact the specifics to the individuals, if it's all redacted due to this then so be it.

stop replying if you don't care, leave the thread for those who can discuss nuanced topics.

 

[Disco Dew]

nuanced

 

[blackshadow]

if it's obvious from his previous social media postings then there is no point the privacy to begin with....

like i said countless times, redact the specifics to the individuals, if it's all redacted due to this then so be it.

stop replying if you don't care, leave the thread for those who can discuss nuanced topics.

Do you realise that talking shit doesn't make you nuanced?

 

[Mcarcherey]

oh yea liiteracy genius, explain how one poster is a campaigner for "minimising DV"

 

[LuvtheKangas]

He doesn't understand the shortcomings of redaction, either.

 

[Disco Dew]

oh yea liiteracy genius, explain how one poster is a campaigner for "minimising DV"

aight here you go I’ll engage a little more.

Minimise - to make something seem less important or smaller than it really is.

The thread has been rife with it.

Do you need a definition for rife?

 

[Ligma]

pEoPlE BLinDly bElIeVIng tHE AfL aND the CLuB

Give it a bone.

 

[Mcarcherey]

Do you realise that talking s**t doesn't make you nuanced?

and around and round we we go!

asking for transparency isn't talking shit.

 

[Disco Dew]

oh yea liiteracy genius,

Also the correct wording is literary genius

 

[Mcarcherey]

aight here you go I’ll engage a little more.

Minimise - to make something seem less important or smaller than it really is.

The thread has been rife with it.

Do you need a definition for rife.

it was a sh*t choice of words.

now, off you f**k

 

[Disco Dew]

View attachment 1914496

it was a sh*t choice of words.

now, off you f**k

Nah, you’re just stupid.
Edit: sorry that was mean.

If you’ve never seen or heard it used in the context I used it that’s ok, but choosing to call it a shit choice of words when I 100% used it correctly is a sad reflection of who you are and your ability to have “nuanced” conversations

 

[Mcarcherey]

Nah, you’re just stupid.
Edit: sorry that was mean.

If you’ve never seen or heard it used in the context I used it that’s ok, but choosing to call it a s**t choice of words when I 100% used it correctly is a sad reflection of who you are and your ability to have “nuanced” conversations

you know that was a single line of my post that went on to assume you meant minimise the impact of DV....

but no, you had to let your ego get in the way and go down this path. and now you think i'm incapable of a nuanced discussion. mate, i'm not the one obsessing about semantics.

now, if you can't answer why transparency isn't important in this case, can you just not reply anymore...

 

[Mcarcherey]

pEoPlE BLinDly bElIeVIng tHE AfL aND the CLuB

Give it a bone.

wHy dO YoU cAre!?

too biased to realise your own hypocrisy.

 

[Mcarcherey]

imagine wasting pages and pages of a thread trying to argue why someone shouldn't care about what the thread is about

 

[Disco Dew]

but no, you had to let your ego get in the way

The irony…

 

[The Filth Wizard]

if you're in the "who cares about transparency" camp just don't reply, leave the discussion for those that want to discuss TT. you're the reason the thread is going in circles.

Theoretically then the thread should just come to a dead stop because otherwise it's just looking like this.

 

[Ligma]

wHy dO YoU cAre!?

too biased to realise your own hypocrisy.

as someone who reads criminal case law for study purposes, the only time you’ll see the evidence and timeline of events is when court documents such as judgements are published.

The document will most likely have the victims name redacted to protect her.

But of course this has to reach court for this to happen. Unless someone is dumb enough to leak it.

 

[Ligma]

I have also sat on a few cases in the Magistrates Court that contain domestic violence and it is really not fun.

 

[Mcarcherey]

as someone who reads criminal case law for study purposes, the only time you’ll see the evidence and timeline of events is when court documents such as judgements are published.

The document will most likely have the victims name redacted to protect her.

But of course this has to reach court for this to happen. Unless someone is dumb enough to leak it.

yes i know. what is your point? that it never reached court?

 

[Dan]

I have also sat on a few cases in the Magistrates Court that contain domestic violence and it is really not fun.

I’ve seen how you play soccer….this doesn’t surprise me.

 

[Ligma]

yes i know. what is your point? that it never reached court?

If it reaches court and gets published, there you go.

If not, you’ll probably never get it.