Certified Legendary Thread The New Carlton Thread: big club beats medium club (again)

[sideswipe]

This is the closest to what I’ve been told. But I’m lead to believe there’ll be no need for divorce proceedings.

Another one with the “divorce proceedings”. Think ppl might have seen too many movies.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

We should poach BUPA…..

 

[Scodog10]

This is the closest to what I’ve been told. But I’m lead to believe there’ll be no need for divorce proceedings.

Prenup? It seems prime for her to squeeze all sorts of juice from that lemon.

 

[sideswipe]

Prenup? It seems prime for her to squeeze all sorts of juice from that lemon.

What are you on about?


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[JB1975]

Once upon a time, Australia didn't have no-fault divorce. One party had to establish 'fault' against the other, according to a handful of accepted reasons for divorce.

Lack of faithfulness was the most common.

In the days before men 'hung' themselves with dick pics, proof often required the use of private investigators. Higher profile cases brought forward details which ended up in court and in the gossip pages of the dailies.

'Divorce proceedings' in this sense haven't been a thing since 1975. There's a case to suggest that we're all the poorer for it.

 

[sideswipe]

Once upon a time, Australia didn't have no-fault divorce. One party had to establish 'fault' against the other, according to a handful of accepted reasons for divorce.

Lack of faithfulness was the most common.

In the days before men 'hung' themselves with dick pics, proof often required the use of private investigators. Higher profile cases brought forward details which ended up in court and in the gossip pages of the dailies.

'Divorce proceedings' in this sense haven't been a thing since 1975. There's a case to suggest that we're all the poorer for it.

There’s a gag there about Private Dicks seeking out public dicks but I just can’t swing it.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Piesinmyeyes]

We should poach BUPA…..

Carlton deem BUPA as this.

Blatantly Using Penis as Advertising.
The boffins need to check the product disclosure statement or at least the ex president does.

 

[Scodog10]

What are you on about?


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Sorry you’ll have to clarify what you mean I don’t speak campaigner.

 

[sideswipe]

Sorry you’ll have to clarify what you mean I don’t speak campaigner.

You seemed to be suggesting there was “meat on the bone” for an aggrieved party in “divorce proceedings”?

Seemed a rather pre-Family Law Act way of thinking?

Btw, pre-nups don’t really work once a marriage is decades long.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[manicpie]

You seemed to be suggesting there was “meat on the bone” for an aggrieved party in “divorce proceedings”?

Seemed a rather pre-Family Law Act way of thinking?

Btw, pre-nups don’t really work once a marriage is decades long.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

It looked more like a chicken throat than a bone full of meat.

 

[JLC]

I can’t imagine companies clamouring over themselves to add him to their board anytime soon. But hey, with the way the pendulum is starting to swing back - an errant dick pic may very well become the ticket for plumb board gigs.

As for his consulting career - yeah, he’s taking a break, but he’ll always find work with that.

He wouldn't need to work again.

 

[sideswipe]

He wouldn't need to work again.

That’s unknowable.

Confucius say, “big earn, big spend”.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Pistol Night]

That’s unknowable.

Confucius say, “big earn, big spend”.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

100% truth to that statement. Seen it many times

 

[JB1975]

You seemed to be suggesting there was “meat on the bone” for an aggrieved party in “divorce proceedings”?

Seemed a rather pre-Family Law Act way of thinking?

Btw, pre-nups don’t really work once a marriage is decades long.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

One of the early advocates for 'no fault' was a bunch of mostly blokes calling themselves the Divorce Law Reform Association, who saw it as an easier way for blokes to exit an unhappy marriage.

They were among the loudest to complain when the Family Law Act saw waves of women lining up for a quick and easy exit from unsatisfying/controlling/abusive marriages.

Great days, I remember them well.

 

[sideswipe]

One of the early advocates for 'no fault' was a bunch of mostly blokes calling themselves the Divorce Law Reform Association, who saw it as an easier way for blokes to exit an unhappy marriage.

They were among the loudest to complain when the Family Law Act saw waves of women lining up for a quick and easy exit from unsatisfying/controlling/abusive marriages.

Great days, I remember them well.

The opposite happened during the GFC. Many marriages were preserved by a sudden diminution of assets.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[JB1975]

The opposite happened during the GFC. Many marriages were preserved by a sudden diminution of assets.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Sounds a bit like the pandemic. Enforced romance.

 

[Scodog10]

You seemed to be suggesting there was “meat on the bone” for an aggrieved party in “divorce proceedings”?

Seemed a rather pre-Family Law Act way of thinking?

Btw, pre-nups don’t really work once a marriage is decades long.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

In the spirit of WBnW I treat this thread as a giant pisstake.

The post that really triggered you was a razz up because I knew exactly where it would go once I saw you’d jumped on “divorce proceedings”. It seems like I snared my favourite bunny Jmac at the same time (it’s cramped in there, but I live rent free in that bonce ).

I appreciate the lesson, but I wasn’t referring to the profession…

 

[swoop42]

He denies he's responsible.

I guess that makes him Luke Naysayer.

 

[sideswipe]

In the spirit of WBnW I treat this thread as a giant pisstake.

The post that really triggered you was a razz up because I knew exactly where it would go once I saw you’d jumped on “divorce proceedings”. It seems like I snared my favourite bunny Jmac at the same time (it’s cramped in there, but I live rent free in that bonce [emoji23]).

I appreciate the lesson, but I wasn’t referring to the profession…

Does your keyboard have reverse beeps?


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Pistol Night]

Does your keyboard have reverse beeps?


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

God I wish mine did sometimes

 

[sideswipe]

God I wish mine did sometimes

Mine plays Ride of the Valkyries.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[sr36]

Once upon a time, Australia didn't have no-fault divorce. One party had to establish 'fault' against the other, according to a handful of accepted reasons for divorce.

Lack of faithfulness was the most common.

In the days before men 'hung' themselves with dick pics, proof often required the use of private investigators. Higher profile cases brought forward details which ended up in court and in the gossip pages of the dailies.

'Divorce proceedings' in this sense haven't been a thing since 1975. There's a case to suggest that we're all the poorer for it.

Bring back interesting divorce proceedings!

 

[manicpie]

Bring back interesting divorce proceedings!

You can't beat an interesting divorce. It's high on my priority list.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

Btw, pre-nups don’t really work once a marriage is decades long.

You recommend the introduction of mandatory term limits?

 

[sr36]

You recommend the introduction of mandatory term limits?

]

][emoji[emoji6

]

]]]

[emoji[emoji6

]

[emoji6

]][emoji

[emoji[emoji6

]

][emoji[emoji6

]

[emoji6