1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Definitive proof that the Bulldogs are NOT the 2004 Premiers

Discussion in 'General Discussion Forum' started by Matabele, Dec 15, 2004.

  1. Matabele

    Matabele Well-Known Member

    23,047
    447
    Ratings:
    +466 / 6
    Gentlemen I owe you a huge debt of gratitude. Your compelling arguments over the last few days have opened my eyes to a completely new world view. Our discussions have covered much territory and you have so firmly asserted that it is impossible to prove a deity, that even if you could we would all need to co-exist in a world of tolerance and respect and of course you have also demolished such pillars of antiquated society such as history, an evidential approach and textual criticism.

    This exciting new world view where everything is relative depending upon personal observation and preference opens up a fascinating new world of possibilities and scenarios. [b:df653049e0]I like this world view.[/b:df653049e0] It confirms to me that I am indeed the axis of the world and that everything revolves around me. What need do we have for a god if I am god?

    I must admit I broke into tears of joy, relief and exaltation when I realised that this newly discovered world view is entirely capable of delivering us from parts of life which surely should not fit the prism of those wishing to live in complete dedication to the pursuit of their own desires and preferences.

    And it occurred to me that I am [b:df653049e0]COMPELLED[/b:df653049e0] to share with my fellow Manly fans that this world view delivers us from the awful burden that we have carried these past few months. The lie of course is that the Bulldogs won the Premiership. I now realise that this is absolute tosh and will go on to PROVE that this is an impossible scenario with the world view that we have.

    Firstly, there is no evidence that the Bulldogs won the premiership. I have yet to see anything substantive to prove that they were the Premiers in 2004. Have you? Now of course some wallies are going to say they saw it on television, but what we really viewed was a staged game “played� in a television studio for the enjoyment of the masses.

    Some will even say that they’ve talked to people that attended the game or indeed, there may even be some brave enough to say that they were AT the game. This is a ludicrous suggestion. Anyone saying they were at the game has obviously been paid off by media barons that don’t wish for us to know the real situation. Therefore anyone trying to tell stories of an eye-witness account is obviously discredited because of a clear conflict of interest.

    It is clear that there is no way of proving that the Grand Final took place, therefore the Bulldogs could not have won the Premiership. Why? Because I have decided that it is thus and in the complete absence of tangible and irrefutable evidence it MUST be so.

    I understand that you are concerned that there are many written reports of the Grand Final and a Bulldog victory. My friends, this is nothing to be feared. For whilst you may be able to produce newspaper and internet reports as well as books arguing Bulldog supremacy (and therefore claim tangible proof) I can assure you that this is not the case.

    The only proof these provide is that of a heinous conspiracy to deceive the public of the TRUTH and reinforce the might and power of the media in today’s society.

    To the enlightened modern soul this is an obvious assumption. Media wish to control the masses and reinforce their pre-imminent position amongst us. They learned quickly from the mistake of doing this in an overt way in the mid-90s. Now it is a covert operation, a rolling symposium of smoke and mirrors to ensure that the only truth we know is that which makes more dollars for them.

    Clearly they have a vested interest in seeing a side that has sold more newspaper copy than any other achieve a stirring against the odds victory at the end of a long season of turmoil and controversy.

    How wonderful that we are so intelligent that we need not fall for this lie. Anything coming from such a corrupt and power hungry industry is clearly false. Therefore reports, even those pretending to be an eye witness account of the event, can be safely ignored secure in the knowledge that the messenger is truly worthy of being shot.

    Another reason to discredit the so-called reports of the event is that we are now some months past the alleged occasion. Clearly people writing now that the Bulldogs are premiers are sad victims of a campaign of Chinese whispers where a lie has been misrepresented as fact often enough to give it currency.

    Anyone writing about the event now is immediately discredited because they were not witness to the source and are relying on the unreliable testimony of many that are discredited themselves or perpetuating a lie.

    The next logical step that you might propose would be to compile all of the texts and any other evidence that has been compiled and see if it shows any consistency as a collective whole. Well you might do this but it would all be to naught.

    For it has also come to me that the world view which we now have allows us to disregard anything which might contravene our own convictions and perceptions. Never before have we been so wonderfully endowed to truly say that the fact CANNOT stand in the way of a good story or prejudice.

    How so? Well, imagine you could provide hard core and substantiated evidence for a Bulldog win in a Grand Final. Say for instance that we were able to go back in a time machine to that night at Telstra Stadium, stand on the turf and even feel and wipe away the spray that emits from the mouth of Willie Mason as he allegedly collects the Clive Churchill medal. What then? Simple.

    There are no absolutes in our world view. What you might hold up as truth or some position of integrity is easily discredited simply be my changing the parameters of that assumption. How easy does it become to discredit someone? Indeed I have already seen wonderful examples of it.

    Some people are alleging that the Bulldogs are the Premiers on the quaint and out dated assumption that Premierships are won by winning enough games through a season to qualify for the finals and eventually the Grand Final and then winning the game on that day. Isn’t that priceless? What a pack of antiquated fools.

    Everyone these days knows that the Premiership is decided upon your individual assumptions. I have seen a Rooster fan saying that they won the Premiership because they graciously chose to lose the Grand Final.

    I personally contend that Manly have won the Premiership two times over in 2004. The first time they won it was for fielding the highest number of under-performing, over paid nincompoops in one NRL season. The second time they won it was because I decided Premierships are decided by who concedes the second highest number of points in a season.

    You can see how this lack of absolutes allows me to set and dictate the terms of life according to my own personal whim. Two Premierships in the one season? No problem. Premierships decided on the parameters that I decide. Indeed!

    And of course you would not dare to argue with me. For that would make you a bigot! It is completely rude and despicable for you to try and box me into a certain set of parameters or pass judgement on the mores that I have decided should apply to me.

    You MUST tolerate my foibles and prejudices because to not do so is inherently unacceptable. It is simply untenable for you to decide that I am wrong on something even should you think the entire opposite of what I am saying.

    There is no greater sin than appearing to be a bigot, though of course that is my view and if you decide that being a bigot is okay, well that’s okay too but just don’t step on my toes or the toes of anyone else who might think it’s bad or even vaguely unpleasant to be a bigot. If you choose to be a bigot that’s okay but I think it’s wrong to be a bigot and that must be okay with you. Okay?

    What a wonderful world we live in – is it any wonder that most males resemble crutched geldings rather than the full blown stallions they were intended to be? Not that there’s anything wrong with that. Anyway lads, there’s no need for balls whilst we can pass our days dreaming of any number of ways that Manly qualify for Premiership glory. Go on, you know you want to. You won’t go blind.

    Finally, our world view assures us that even if it was discovered that there was irrefutable evidence of a Bulldog premiership and that miraculously (oops sorry, I didn’t mean to use that nasty religious word, make that ‘through a cosmological confluence of diverse and conflicting events’) the universe had collectively decided on the parameters of what constitutes a premiership, we simply activate our trump card.

    How could this be I hear you ask? Well it’s simple. It is clear that the NRL can not be the only path to NRL premiership glory. To say that you must play in this particular competition to win this particular premiership is clearly a position of great arrogance and completely unacceptable in this modern world. How restricting is that? How ludicrous! [b:df653049e0]I mean, the hide of the NRL to set the terms and conditions of the competition that it created![/b:df653049e0]

    Our world view clearly states that Arsenal has equal claims to the NRL Premiership on the basis that they have won the UK Premier League. The Australian Cricket Team, as current world champions are also clearly the NRL Premiers. Brazil will qualify on the strength of their win in the World Cup of Soccer. For goodness sake, even the Bulawayo based Highlanders are NRL Premiers because they took out the Zimbabwean Super League last season.

    Aren’t you glad that all roads lead to the NRL Premiership? Who cares if they play under different rules, with different numbers and different physiques on the field and are even playing other non-NRL teams thousands of miles away from Australia? Who are we to exclude them from Premiership glory on the piffling account that they did it differently?

    So there you go my good friends. We are indeed the luckiest souls on earth and indeed we live in a wonderful time of enlightenment. On any number of assumptions it is perfectly clear that the dreaded Bulldogs simply ARE NOT the Premiers of 2004. Period.

    As I said before, [b:df653049e0]who needs a god when we are indeed deities of our own making?[/b:df653049e0] Let us get to the important business of building and maintaining our own little kingdoms whilst taking great care to ignore those places where our views might contradict each other or, worse still, where they contradict universal truths.

    And remember, if all that is too much for you then drink up, for oblivion is a very good thing (well, according to my set of ‘truths’ anyway).
     
  2. Dan

    Dan Administrator Staff Member Administrator 2016 Tipping Competitor

    32,371
    3,610
    Amsterdam, The Netherlands
    Ratings:
    +5,468 / 74
    Im not going to even dignify that with a proper response.

    Your vision and grasp on reality is severely damaged by that country air you breath down there mata.

    In this day an age we live by a saying "seeing is believing"

    let me know when you actually saw the bible being written, either with your own eyes or through the TV

    let me know when you saw Jesus, noah, adam, eve and anyone else in any other way shape or form that simply reading them or seeing painting based on descriptions in the bible.

    You see matabele, through this debate I have started to lose respect for your ability to respect other peoples opinions enough to see them as valid if they do not fit into your world view.
    You can not tell me that the Bible provides a better set of evidence that a god exists than the media coverage and reports from friends who were actually at the game (i will give you their numbers if you wish to confirm) proves that the bulldogs won the grand final.

    Your arguments are null and void and hold as much water as a tea strainer.

    Now back to the bible belt god boy

    (and I could help giving you at leat half a response in the end)
     
  3. Matabele

    Matabele Well-Known Member

    23,047
    447
    Ratings:
    +466 / 6
    That's a selective response Zap. :wink:
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Dan

    Dan Administrator Staff Member Administrator 2016 Tipping Competitor

    32,371
    3,610
    Amsterdam, The Netherlands
    Ratings:
    +5,468 / 74
    If its a luxury you can afford its a luxury I can too.

    I would respond to your entire thread, but to be honest, I fell asleep and started dribbling all over my keyboard half way through
     
  5. Matabele

    Matabele Well-Known Member

    23,047
    447
    Ratings:
    +466 / 6
    I always love it when I hit a nerve with Zap and he tries so hard to cover it up. :lol:

    You of course did read my reasons for selectivity? There's no selectiveness there - fire away. :p
     
  6. Dan

    Dan Administrator Staff Member Administrator 2016 Tipping Competitor

    32,371
    3,610
    Amsterdam, The Netherlands
    Ratings:
    +5,468 / 74
    i read to this line

    "How so? Well, imagine you could provide hard core and substantiated evidence for a"

    then gave up.
     
  7. Matabele

    Matabele Well-Known Member

    23,047
    447
    Ratings:
    +466 / 6
    No rush kiddo. Go and get a coffee.

    I'm dissapointed that you pretended to respond in such a "knowledgeable" manner when you'd only read one quarter of the piece.

    That's how mistakes happen.
     
  8. Dan

    Dan Administrator Staff Member Administrator 2016 Tipping Competitor

    32,371
    3,610
    Amsterdam, The Netherlands
    Ratings:
    +5,468 / 74
    I can respond in knowlege because i know the pattern of your responses. It amazes me that a guy of such self proclaimed intelligence can write such ignorant, inside the box posts.

    read <a href='http://www.johntitor.com' target='_blank'>http://www.johntitor.com</a> and tell me, if that were true what would that do to your world view and belief in your chosen religion?
     
  9. Matabele

    Matabele Well-Known Member

    23,047
    447
    Ratings:
    +466 / 6
    Oh Zap, so someone of your self proclaimed intelligence is now consigned to referring me to obscure web sites?

    Shall we put this web-site through the same rigorous routine of criticism and proof that some of the other religious texts have had to endure and survive over the years?
     
  10. Dan

    Dan Administrator Staff Member Administrator 2016 Tipping Competitor

    32,371
    3,610
    Amsterdam, The Netherlands
    Ratings:
    +5,468 / 74
    Have you read this website.

    It wont serve to improve my argument. In fact it will probably be more detrimental. You will however find it interesting I am sure. I am also sure you will start using quotes from it or in your arguments.

    The one part in particular I want you to find is the one that I mentioned to you previously about worldlines.

    Johntitor.com is not obscure it is actually one of themost popular websites on the internet
     
  11. Fluffy

    Fluffy Well-Known Member

    17,768
    1,418
    Ratings:
    +3,625 / 132
    Your an idiot sometimes mata

    I have not argued that the bible wasnt written but that you can not prove it was written. Whereas yet again you take thing to extremes and then a little beyond such as your views on the manly team. He you claim you have proof by not having proof. All you ever use is SPECULATION. I believe you asked me how one of my statements would hold up in a court and i replied that most statements here wouldnt which you unfortunatly were so busy again that you couldnt reply. Now we know why you are so busy, your writing drible like this. This has the same quality as Sherlocks work. Have you been taking lessons from him??.

    I mean you got too personally involved in the Prove existance of god thread that you lost the path and started arguing the wrong thing.

    All you have done here is proven us right - that there is NO decisive proof that there is or is not a god.

    DOnt you just hate shooting yourself in the foot like that.
     
  12. Dan

    Dan Administrator Staff Member Administrator 2016 Tipping Competitor

    32,371
    3,610
    Amsterdam, The Netherlands
    Ratings:
    +5,468 / 74
    Fluffy I think ill copy and paste that then delete your post, cause that was perfection
     
  13. Matabele

    Matabele Well-Known Member

    23,047
    447
    Ratings:
    +466 / 6
    So the boys don't understand what satire is then?

    Fluff, perhaps I missed it where you said that biblical proof wouldn't stand in a court of law. That's funny seeing as as the bible is used to sear someone in. However, that aside I think there was a famous "mock trial" held some decades ago where exactly that was done.

    It would be interesting if the same were done today with recent archeological and literature finds.

    You will notice that I've not had to stoop to personal insult. It's interesting that people who profess a faith (particularly in Christ) are immediately branded as lunatics, regardless of what manner of success they enjoy in other walks in life. As Socrates said "A life unexamined is a life not worth living".

    So Fluff, let's put the onus of proof on you. Prove to me that it is impossible to "say that the bible was written". The starting point is that I find it strange that we have this document in our hands that has words in it. Is it something like a tree that just appeared out of the ground?
     
  14. Fluffy

    Fluffy Well-Known Member

    17,768
    1,418
    Ratings:
    +3,625 / 132
    AGAIN you miss my point

    i only entered your god debate over the fact you said the bible is proof. All i have ever debated is that there is not enough proof to say that it is what it says it is. I have never denied that there is a possibility that its true however i argued that there is a possibility its just the best selling fiction book ever written. You have just proved my point here.

    And it wasnt meant as an insult more of an observation - you obviously wrote this as an attempt to win the god debate and at least for my part of it you lost by writing this which is very idiotic.
     
  15. Matabele

    Matabele Well-Known Member

    23,047
    447
    Ratings:
    +466 / 6
    Show me where I said the bible was proof.

    Over the course of weeks I've argued all manner of different "proofs" such as cosmological, teleological etc etc.

    I'd engage you on the topic that the bible is fiction for I do not believe that to be so. However, I have turned it around for once by putting the onus of proof upon you to prove your assertion of fiction. As yet you've put up nothing substantive.

    I'd actually contend that the bible in and of itself is not sufficient proof of "god", though those good parishioners at the Sydney Anglicans would burn me at the stake for saying so.

    But anyway, I wait with baited breath to see your proof that the bible is fiction.
     
  16. fLIP

    fLIP UFO Hunter

    6,779
    351
    Brisbane
    Ratings:
    +790 / 15
    :lol: When it all comes to the crunch, we are all just stating belifes. Only some of us can admit it.
     
  17. Matabele

    Matabele Well-Known Member

    23,047
    447
    Ratings:
    +466 / 6
    Flipper can obviously read but that doesn't guarantee comprehension.
     
  18. fLIP

    fLIP UFO Hunter

    6,779
    351
    Brisbane
    Ratings:
    +790 / 15
    I comprehend you. Which is why im so confunsed. Cant you just stand by your belifes without claiming them as fact?
     
  19. Dan

    Dan Administrator Staff Member Administrator 2016 Tipping Competitor

    32,371
    3,610
    Amsterdam, The Netherlands
    Ratings:
    +5,468 / 74
    matabele you missed his point again

    HE said we can not prove it is fiction or fact, not that it is fiction
     
  20. fLIP

    fLIP UFO Hunter

    6,779
    351
    Brisbane
    Ratings:
    +790 / 15
    To I have probems expressing myself through word? I understand myself :lol:
     

Share This Page