Centrals belt Glenelg - Match Review

[maxyoz]

Doesn't matter - no point letting the truth get in the way of a good story. As long as everyone is happy having a crack at the Snouts Louts, who are we to argue.

Well, the letter was apparently signed Snout's Louts. It is fair enough that the initial suspicion falls in that direction.

Oh, well that makes more sense.

I was going to pass it off as rubbish, but since it's been signed, it must be true.


Edited in the name of good taste.

[Apachebulldog]

Beware of the old age dogs lol

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[maxyoz]

Beware of the old age dogs lol

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Aah - that makes much more sense.

Valid point.

In all honesty, I think most REASONABLE people are very much aware of the Bulldogs and their abilities.

[Jimmy]

Doesn't matter - no point letting the truth get in the way of a good story. As long as everyone is happy having a crack at the Snouts Louts, who are we to argue.

Well, the letter was apparently signed Snout's Louts. It is fair enough that the initial suspicion falls in that direction.

Oh, well that makes more sense.

I was going to pass it off as rubbish, but since it's been signed, it must be true.


Edited in the name of good taste.

<edited by Mods due to original post being edited>

im pretty sure not everyone thinks it was them that really sent it, but probably someone 'passing' it off as them.

either way, its hilarious and it totally fkd the gfc on the weekend.

that guy =

[Dogwatcher]

Doesn't matter - no point letting the truth get in the way of a good story. As long as everyone is happy having a crack at the Snouts Louts, who are we to argue.

Well, the letter was apparently signed Snout's Louts. It is fair enough that the initial suspicion falls in that direction.

Oh, well that makes more sense.

I was going to pass it off as rubbish, but since it's been signed, it must be true.


Edited in the name of good taste.

See, if you got off your self righteous high horse, you would see the words "apparently" and "initial suspicion" in my post.
I haven't said there is any proof of it being sent by Glenelg supporters. However, I notice several Bays supporters have been quiet quick to seek to put the blame on Doggies supporters too.

[maxyoz]

Doesn't matter - no point letting the truth get in the way of a good story. As long as everyone is happy having a crack at the Snouts Louts, who are we to argue.

Well, the letter was apparently signed Snout's Louts. It is fair enough that the initial suspicion falls in that direction.

Oh, well that makes more sense.

I was going to pass it off as rubbish, but since it's been signed, it must be true.


Edited in the name of good taste.

See, if you got off your self righteous high horse, you would see the words "apparently" and "initial suspicion" in my post.
I haven't said there is any proof of it being sent by Glenelg supporters. However, I notice several Bays supporters have been quiet quick to seek to put the blame on Doggies supporters too.

Yep, you're right Dogwatcher. My self righteous high horse which pointed the finger at nobody can see the folly in my ways.

I actually blame Ricky MacGowan, but I guess, as he used to play for Centrals, he must still be a Centrals supporter.

Not that I would apportion blame to anybody without knowing the facts.

[Dogwatcher]

Ha ha ha.
Mate I don't care who sent it.
It's a storm in a tea cup.
I really don't think it actually had any part to play in Centrals win on the weekend either.
The Bulldogs were ready to play.

[maxyoz]

Ha ha ha.
Mate I don't care who sent it.
It's a storm in a tea cup.
I really don't think it actually had any part to play in Centrals win on the weekend either.
The Bulldogs were ready to play.

I concur wholeheartedly.

Centrals are a very good side and if that's what they need to motivate them, then they are a pooh side with a pooh coach.

I know they aren't.

[Ecky]

I really don't think it actually had any part to play in Centrals win on the weekend either.

Yes, to think that something like that would actually make the difference to the result is an insult to the Centrals players - surely they aren't that gullible to
1) think that it was sent by a Glenelg person?
2) take it so seriously?

[Dutchy]

I really don't think it actually had any part to play in Centrals win on the weekend either.

Yes, to think that something like that would actually make the difference to the result is an insult to the Centrals players - surely they aren't that gullible to
1) think that it was sent by a Glenelg person?
2) take it so seriously?

Yet SL.org takes it seriously?

[TigerBoss]

Big HeadFM coming to a ground neat you soon....

Ha ha ha Dutchy...

Nice try at getting stuck into me but you might want it to be a bit more effective, you might want to explain what it means by "neat you soon" ???

BTW, when are you going to start up your own radio station, I reckon I've got a good name for it... DH FM

Yeah, you're right BP...

Maybe Dutchy just can't handle the "prressure" or is it just that you can't spell?

[Grahaml]

My Latin is very rusty, but should that actually be caveTIS cavi cautum canis?

[stampy]

Doesn't matter - no point letting the truth get in the way of a good story. As long as everyone is happy having a crack at the Snouts Louts, who are we to argue.

Well, the letter was apparently signed Snout's Louts. It is fair enough that the initial suspicion falls in that direction. Sadly, mud sticks.

well that settles it then dont it? it was signed "snouts louts" guilty as charged, nuk nuk nuk, i might send a card to the gfc before the next bays doggies game and sign it "dogwatcher", does that make you guilty??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? fair dinkum what a crock of s***, i need a drink

[smithy]

I think the issue some people are having Stampy is that if you have nothing to hide, why not discuss it in an open forum rather than be gagged and look like a guilty party.

[am Bays]

I think the issue some people are having Stampy is that if you have nothing to hide, why not discuss it in an open forum rather than be gagged and look like a guilty party.

I thought it was obvious Smithy, As posted on SnoutsLouts.org by Snouts Admin:

Posts regarding this topic have been removed at the request of the Glenelg Football Club, so please do not discuss the alleged "incident" that was discussed on here before.

The Snouts Louts are not responsible for the alleged incident.
To our knowledge nobody connected with the Snouts Louts is responsible for it either.

Nothing to see here, play on.

The 'Louts have a great relationship with the club and if they would prefer it wasn't discussed we are more than happy to comply. Those Snouts who have felt inclined and others from the wider SAFooty community have had the opportunity to discuss it on here. To my knowledge no one from the GFC or Snouts Louts have contacted a Moderator or site Admin to try and stop the discussion on SAFooty unlike other clubs who have attempted gag debate or issues on this site.

So discuss it on here for all its worth. The club and Snouts know they had no involvement in the issue and deep down we think it is nice compliment that others think so highly of us they would use such tactics against our league team. Shows how far we've come since 2005.

[smithy]

Fair enough Tassie, it still looks worse when your hiding/stopping discussion of the issue though.

Ok, racial vilification, serious sexual allegations etc you don't discuss but a sympathy card.........

[Dirko]

Fair enough Tassie, it still looks worse when your hiding/stopping discussion of the issue though.

Ok, racial vilification, serious sexual allegations etc you don't discuss but a sympathy card.........

If something similar involved the Sturt FC would you comply with their wishes to remove from DB ?

[smithy]

Fair enough Tassie, it still looks worse when your hiding/stopping discussion of the issue though.

Ok, racial vilification, serious sexual allegations etc you don't discuss but a sympathy card.........

If something similar involved the Sturt FC would you comply with their wishes to remove from DB ?

You have to ask Barto that.
Like i said above, it was a sympathy card, no ones broken the law.
It's an unofficial fans site and therefore shouldn't be gagged.
Are the club going to refuse your dollars and membership if you don't comply? I should think not.
I just think that it makes it look worse because it's not allowed to be discussed.

[Dirko]

I just think that it makes it look worse because it's not allowed to be discussed.

Be it cards or whatever, the club requested, the mods obliged...

Can recall plenty of threads on this site that have been locked or deleted as well, especially some involving certain cheersquads,
yet no one seem to worry about that...

And as TAS said nothing stopping people discussing it on here...

[Punk Rooster]

I thought the Snowts were pretty strong on the anti-censorship stance...
actually, haven't seen their leader post here since Carlton beat the Bulldogs, & the Bulldogs beat the Yabs...