Dane Gagai Re-Signs with Knights until 2017

[Kenny Powers]

Well Chanel was recommended for the NSW residents side by Stone, and after he played well in that game he was promoted to firstgrade to replace Mamo, and he was kept in firstgrade over Mamo, Mantellato and Sione (although Sione was almost certainly dropped so he could place in the NYC finals).
I can't see any evidence in that which shows Stone doesn't rate him - just the opposite in fact.
I'll be surprized if he isn't 4th choice winger behind Uate, Macca and Sione, but until the team is named, there's no evidence to say that's how Stone will go.

Don't disagree with you, Billy. I'm certain Stone rates him. And aside from Jake Mamo, there are very limited 4th options anyway. Fact is, like me Stone wouldn't have him In the starting side, and in the event of injury it will be touch and go between him and Mamo for a spot on the wing

I think you guys are trying to find something that doesn't exist.... delusion?

 

[Defender1]

Alright then. Exactly what are you referring to? Please, present this contradictory evidence.

I disagree with morons on forums. Not professional footballing clubs.

I'd just refer you back to your posts... speaks for itself. And, people can work out for themselves who may or may not be a moron. :think:

- - - Updated - - -

Don't disagree with you, Billy. I'm certain Stone rates him. And aside from Jake Mamo, there are very limited 4th options anyway. Fact is, like me Stone wouldn't have him In the starting side, and in the event of injury it will be touch and go between him and Mamo for a spot on the wing

I think you guys are trying to find something that doesn't exist.... delusion?

Kenny, your opinion isn't 'fact'. Opinion and fact are two very different things!

 

[Kenny Powers]

I'd just refer you back to your posts... speaks for itself. And, people can work out for themselves who may or may not be a moron. :think:

Let's not escape your initial comment. You called me delusional because you feel that the evidence (my posts) contradicts my statement: I don't so much disagree with the club or its selection decisions as much as I am in disagreement with others on the forum.

I asked you to evidence that statement. You haven't, because you couldn't. Because your statement was wrong... So unfortunately, Defender 1, you cannot simply make a false accusation and then refer me to my own posts in search for the evidence you weren't able to find lol

Stop pretending

 

[jamesgould]

I'm not really sure what the disagreement is about, but my personal winger ranking would currently be:

Uate
Sione
McManus
Chanel a smidgen over
Mamo (based on form shown in first grade so far, but Mamo has a lot of developing to do yet)

I'd bet my house on McManus starting in round one, though.

 

[Kenny Powers]

I'd just refer you back to your posts... speaks for itself. And, people can work out for themselves who may or may not be a moron. :think:

- - - Updated - - -



Kenny, your opinion isn't 'fact'. Opinion and fact are two very different things!

Again, you hand out ontological lectures all the while remaining ignorant to the real world.

I said: it's a fact that Stone wouldn't have Chanel in his starting side

It is a FACT that Stone would not have Chanel in his starting side. And it is simply a coincidence that my opinion mirrors this fact.

So, yes Defender1. I understand the basic difference between fact and opinion. Unfortunately, though, you're easily confused..

 

[Defender1]

Let's not escape your initial comment. You called me delusional because you feel that the evidence (my posts) contradicts my statement: I don't so much disagree with the club or its selection decisions as much as I am in disagreement with others on the forum.

I asked you to evidence that statement. You haven't, because you couldn't. Because your statement was wrong... So unfortunately, Defender 1, you cannot simply make a false accusation and then refer me to my own posts in search for the evidence you weren't able to find lol

Stop pretending

Pretending what?

You're belief that you're opinion is 'fact' or 'evidence' is wrong. If you think it's not, that's delusional!

 

[Kenny Powers]

I'm not really sure what the disagreement is about, but my personal winger ranking would currently be:

Uate
Sione
McManus
Chanel a smidgen over
Mamo (based on form shown in first grade so far, but Mamo has a lot of developing to do yet)

I'd bet my house on McManus starting in round one, though.

This is the most likely order. I totally agree

- - - Updated - - -

Pretending what?

You're belief that you're opinion is 'fact' or 'evidence' is wrong. If you think it's not, that's delusional!

Jeez, you didn't go to uni, did you?

I do not think that my opinion is fact, obviously. Re read what I wrote because you're off on your own planet at the moment

 

[manager]

I have to agree with Kenny Powers.
I didn't read what he wrote but I like a good underdog story.

 

[Defender1]

Again, you hand out ontological lectures all the while remaining ignorant to the real world.

I said: it's a fact that Stone wouldn't have Chanel in his starting side

It is a FACT that Stone would not have Chanel in his starting side. And it is simply a coincidence that my opinion mirrors this fact.

So, yes Defender1. I understand the basic difference between fact and opinion. Unfortunately, though, you're easily confused..

No kenny, YOU don't understand!!!

If Rick Stone says, Chanel won't be in the starting side, that statement can be taken as fact!!! You saying the same thing is your opinion, unless you can qualify your statement with a fact (or evidence).

Once again, your opinion does not make something fact. If you qualified all your statements with it as being your opinion, not a problem. Everyone's entitled to an opinion, even if you don't agree with them. But, when you qualify your opinion as fact, you need to back it up with hard, tangible evidence.

What evidence do you have to support your statements re what Rick Stone is thinking about Chanel?

- - - Updated - - -

This is the most likely order. I totally agree

- - - Updated - - -



Jeez, you didn't go to uni, did you?

I do not think that my opinion is fact, obviously. Re read what I wrote because you're off on your own planet at the moment

Yeah, I did go to Uni as a matter of fact. But, that's really irrelevant in this debate.

You state your opinion as fact all the time, which I take great exception to, and I'm going to pull you up on it every time. How about you go back and read your previous posts!

 

[Joel]

I'd bet my house on McManus starting in round one, though.

Where would Sione fit in, in the backline?

 

[ASJ82]

LOL, I can only imagine how hard your life is. You've been waiting to sling mud at me, haven't you?

Unfortunately for you, my opinion seems to be mirrored in the clubs decisions. So while the club may not be bothered by my advice on player selection, it seems not much would change even if I were coach haha

No mud I just disagree on your opinion of Chanel, and I think the only reason he's so underrated is because he's had to come through at same time as his bro who is getting all the lime light for good reason but what Chanel did as a rookie was quite impressive Imo.

 

[Kenny Powers]

No kenny, YOU don't understand!!!

If Rick Stone says, Chanel won't be in the starting side, that statement can be taken as fact!!! You saying the same thing is your opinion, unless you can qualify your statement with a fact (or evidence).

Once again, your opinion does not make something fact. If you qualified all your statements with it as being your opinion, not a problem. Everyone's entitled to an opinion, even if you don't agree with them. But, when you qualify your opinion as fact, you need to back it up with hard, tangible evidence.

What evidence do you have to support your statements re what Rick Stone is thinking about Chanel?

- - - Updated - - -



Yeah, I did go to Uni as a matter of fact. But, that's really irrelevant in this debate.

You state your opinion as fact all the time, which I take great exception to, and I'm going to pull you up on it every time. How about you go back and read your previous posts!

In order to establish what Stone may, or may not do. We don't require one single definitive statement. We require a broad range of evidence. The best way to qualify 'fact', in this instance, is to consider everything from player form to the history of team selection and, of course, what we know to be the most probable outcome. We know, by taking all of these factors into account and using common sense that it is 99% likely that Stone will not select Chanel ahead of the other players mentioned. You know this, Billy knows this and Akbars Goat knows this


Granted, in a technical scientific sense it is Impossible for me to qualify this statement as fact. It's nonsense to pretend this can happen. In fact, it is impossible to qualify Chanel's selection, *or non selection as certain, whether Stone makes a definitive statement, or not. Because he can change his mind at any time leaving the statement as irrelevant. So really, we're flogging a dead horse in trying to qualify anything related to sports selection as 'fact'


I totally understand this.


The reason I use the word 'fact' when expressing my opinion is because it is dualistic and polarizing in nature. To put it in simply, it ****es people off and makes for sensational debate, particularly when they almost certainly disagree with my opinion. Like now!


So congrats for taking the bait.


I will say though, please refer me to any statement I have made which I have labelled as a 'fact'. I bet you cannot, in sense and reason, show It to be a false statement. Just like the Chanel statement. It's right, mate. That's the bottom line

 

[Defender1]

The reason I use the word 'fact' when expressing my opinion is because it is dualistic and polarizing in nature. To put it in simply, it ****es people off, particularly when they almost certainly disagree with my opinion*


So congrats for taking the bait, Flathead.*


I will say though, please refer me to any statement I have made which I have labelled as a 'fact'. I bet you cannot, in sense and reason, show It to be a false statement. Just like the Chanel statement. It's right, mate. That's the bottom line

So, you're saying, you use the word 'fact to express your opinion' (deliberately, knowing it to be wrong) to polarise people and p!$$ them off, but then in the next breath claim I won't be able to find any statement you've made where you claim your opinion to be fact? Gee, that makes sense... The Chanel statement may be right, I don't disagree, he probably is behind a couple of others, but, that's just our opinion lol!!!

As for the first part of your comment, doesn't warrant any form of reply, other than to say, you have no idea!!!

Anyway, should have guessed I was being baited. No one could be that moronic without trying. Or could they!!! Funny how you always fall back on the 'I'm just joking' or in this case 'baiting' people when you get exposed as the fool you portray. :think:

 

[ASJ82]

So, you're saying, you use the word 'fact to express your opinion' (deliberately, knowing it to be wrong) to polarise people and p!$$ them off, but then in the next breath claim I won't be able to find any statement you've made where you claim your opinion to be fact? Gee, that makes sense... The Chanel statement may be right, I don't disagree, he probably is behind a couple of others, but, that's just our opinion lol!!!

As for the first part of your comment, doesn't warrant any form of reply, other than to say, you have no idea!!!

Anyway, should have guessed I was being baited. No one could be that moronic without trying. Or could they!!! Funny how you always fall back on the 'I'm just joking' or in this case 'baiting' people when you get exposed as the fool you portray. :think:

it's fact kenny powers is simply a manly supporter looking to bait ppl

 

[Kenny Powers]

So, you're saying, you use the word 'fact to express your opinion' (deliberately, knowing it to be wrong) to polarise people and p!$$ them off, but then in the next breath claim I won't be able to find any statement you've made where you claim your opinion to be fact? Gee, that makes sense... The Chanel statement may be right, I don't disagree, he probably is behind a couple of others, but, that's just our opinion lol!!!

As for the first part of your comment, doesn't warrant any form of reply, other than to say, you have no idea!!!

Anyway, should have guessed I was being baited. No one could be that moronic without trying. Or could they!!! Funny how you always fall back on the 'I'm just joking' or in this case 'baiting' people when you get exposed as the fool you portray. :think:

If you understood what I said in the first paragraph, you would understand that, in fact, you have no idea. There's nothing controversial in there buddy Haha. It was basically an expression of the idea that 'common sense' can be established by using a range of evidences. Not sure how one would disagree with that, lol. But please enlighten me.*


"So, you're saying, you use the word 'fact to express your opinion' (deliberately, knowing it to be wrong) to polarise people and p!$$ them off, but then in the next breath claim I won't be able to find any statement you've made where you claim your opinion ato be fact?"


No. Mate. That's not what I said, but nice try.*I'll reword it simply for you:

I can sometimes use the word 'fact' to express my opinion, knowing that it is not a factual statement, but knowing that it is nonetheless a very astute and reasonable thing to say


For example, I said it was a fact that Stone will not select Chanel in the starting side. We both know that it is not a fact. But we both know that it is an astute and reasonable thing to claim. So again, the Bottom line is that I am right


Haha, you're struggling mate

 

[Billy]

No mud I just disagree on your opinion of Chanel, and I think the only reason he's so underrated is because he's had to come through at same time as his bro who is getting all the lime light for good reason but what Chanel did as a rookie was quite impressive Imo.

Chanel's first 7 games were as impressive as almost anyone in Knights history. We won plenty of the games and he scored 5 good tries and made very impressive metres.
People remain impressed with Mamo, but he made a fraction of the metres per game and a fraction of the tries, and he was dropped to make way for Chanel.
Any way you look at it, Chanel was far more impressive than Mamo.

 

[Kenny Powers]

Unless Mamo can start showing some outrageously good form, most people would agree that he is probably second in line to Chanel. Chanel is more battle worthy and arguably the safer option

 

[Defender1]

If you understood what I said in the first paragraph, you would understand that, in fact, you have no idea. There's nothing controversial in there buddy Haha. It was basically an expression of the idea that 'common sense' can be established by using a range of evidences. Not sure how one would disagree with that, lol. But please enlighten me.*


"So, you're saying, you use the word 'fact to express your opinion' (deliberately, knowing it to be wrong) to polarise people and p!$$ them off, but then in the next breath claim I won't be able to find any statement you've made where you claim your opinion ato be fact?"


No. Mate. That's not what I said, but nice try.*I'll reword it simply for you:

I can sometimes 'use the word 'fact' to express my opinion', knowing that it is not a factual statement, but knowing that it is a very astute and reasonable opinion


For example, I said it was a fact that Stone will not select Chanel in the starting side. We both know that it is not a fact. But we both know that it is an astute and reasonable thing to claim


Haha, you're struggling mate

I know who's struggling champ!!!

Anyway, you keep pumping your chest out. You may even convince yourself one day you know what your talking about. But, anyway, would hate to be baited (again) by someone so intelligent lol.

 

[Kenny Powers]

I know who's struggling champ!!!

Anyway, you keep pumping your chest out. You may even convince yourself one day you know what your talking about. But, anyway, would hate to be baited (again) by someone so intelligent lol.

Well I accept your forfeit.

I'm not trying to pump my chest out. You called me delusional, so I defended my position knowing that if you had correctly understood me, you may not be so impartial towards the things I say and the way I say them.

Unfortunately, as it turns out you struggle to comprehend in full the arguments I presented. But the parts you understood were enough to demonstrate to you that I was right. So I'm glad we could reach this point ;)

 

[ASJ82]

Chanel's first 7 games were as impressive as almost anyone in Knights history. We won plenty of the games and he scored 5 good tries and made very impressive metres.
People remain impressed with Mamo, but he made a fraction of the metres per game and a fraction of the tries, and he was dropped to make way for Chanel.
Any way you look at it, Chanel was far more impressive than Mamo.

Well said, as we all know it's hard to know where a player will end up as rugby league can be cruel in all different aspects from injury to opportunity etc but if Chanel can keep improving his game I can't see why he can't go on to be successfull. Blokes like Beau Ryan got through just out of hard work and persistence