watt price tully wrote:mooretreloar wrote:watt price tully wrote:......
Mooretrealoar said
With all due respect, Cloke has never been a forward/ruck, so I would suggest Matthews was saying in a very diplomatic way that he was done. Thus, in my view you are dismissing his opinion.
WPT replies:
I think you're playing loose with the truth & seem to have an inflated opinion of your opinion by calling it fact:
!. Fact check: Cloke has played in the ruck. (not particularly well but he has played the role).
2.Fact check: Mathews did not say that Cloke is done
3. Fact check: What you say is opinion ( & at times a good opinion too but don't confuse your opinion with fact or describe that opinion as fact re your interpretation of Mathews statement).
It seems Footscray doesn't share your view that Cloke is done either because they seem to want him. The low pick offer appears to be part of their upper hand currently.
With all due respect you don't know me from a bar of soap, so refer to me as loose with the truth is a disgrace and not what I am about as a person.
With all due respect, your view that I have inflated view of my opinion is your thoughts not mine and is probably because it disagrees with yours.
With all due respect, you wanted me to post the experts I referred to. So, I did. Again, this is because the experts don't agree with your opinion.
Then you criticise who I post and try to discredit me, which I am able to provide examples for to stop your discrediting tactic.
So, you try to focus on Matthews, where there is some grey. However, the facts are Matthews said what he said. This is indisputable. If someone of his standing says he he doesn't see a spot for him and then suggests a role he has not played. I repeat a role he has never played. This role is 70% forward, 30% ruck. He is saying he is done, which again doesn't fit in with the view that you have, so you don't like it.
The low pick offer is because he is worth nothing and he is insurance because Redpath did his ACL. Nothing more, nothing less.
Actually, after typing this there is only one person that has an inflated opinion of themselves and is loose with the truth and it isn't me.
This is getting tedious.
What you posted is opinion not fact which I've shown above. I shouldn't have to revisit this.
The reference to you is not you personally but your opinions here where I've already shown that you've played fast & loose with truth: Namely that Cloke is done & this is supported by many "experts". Of the experts you've shown at least two of them don't don't support your claim.
I asked you to show who are the experts. You provided a list of 5 former footy players.
Of those 5 former footy players only 2-3 can be said to have actually stated Cloke was "done" that is, Walls & King.
Bucks has stated according to you that Cloke has been in a form slump for a long while - which I agree with (words to that effect). For you that means he is done but isn't necessarily the case.
As for the other two experts you posted, neither state Cloke is done.
You put up 5 names where at least 2 do not support your contention.
Ultimately Footscray do not share your view that Cloke is done & in terms of experts I'll take the current premiers as a pretty good source of "evidence" that Cloke is not done.
I am not interested in discrediting you. None of this is personal. As you yourself state I don't know you. However, when you make a sweeping statement which is opinion then state it is a fact or supported by facts which turn out in part to be spurious then yes I will hold you accountable for what you've posted (as others should do & do with me when I've made a mistake).
Now I'm off to make tofu burgers for tea tonight for me & the family. (that is fact & I make great tofu burgers - fact too, not opinion )
Actually, it is quite tedious. There is only one person making it tedious and it isn't me. By the way, who are you to say you shouldn't have to revisit it, which again shows who has an inflated opinion of themselves.
I posted a very detailed analysis of my views and you tried to be smart and select a three word part, which was a extremely minute part of what I wrote, to try and discredit my argument because it doesn't agree with your opinion. Basically, you selected the only part of the argument that you could nit pick at. (Page 29 of this thread for those who want to refer it, unfortunately being new to the forum I don't know how to post two quotes in the one post)
I then provided names on your insistence, could have provided more (Chris Judd, Cameron Mooney to name 2 more), all supporting that Cloke is done, including Leigh Matthews.
With respect to Leigh Matthews, I will keep this simple watt price tully, so even you will understand:
FACT: Travis Cloke is a Key Position Forward
FACT: Leigh Matthews said that he did not see a spot for Travis Cloke in the Bulldogs line up.
FACT: This means he does not see a spot for him in the only position that he has played for over a decade. That is, he is not good enough to play key forward in the Dogs side.
FACT: He then threw him a bone, saying that he may be able to play the Forward/Ruck role. This role is 70% Forward, 30% Ruck.
FACT: This is a role that Travis Cloke has never played.
CONCLUSION: Travis Cloke is done.
I posted to try and assist people in understanding why we are getting what we are going to get from the Dogs for Cloke. I have better things to do than be attacked (your view I was loose with the truth, not even close to the actual facts of what was posted) and be nit picked by a poster that obviously has an agenda, that being to bag our coach.
People are posting with psydenoums on this forum, so I suggest that you don't waste your time or mine by commenting on fact v opinion. Let people make up their own mind, you are not the arbitrator, nor are you correct on what is fact v opinion.
