A rule of thumb in this debate is that a parent who does not smack their child decries those that do, they are quick to point out the proper (in their thoughts) parenting skills and those who use other methods are wrong. The truth is that both can be right. The real problem is that there are a large number of parents who have absolutely no idea of parenting and that's where both sides find their ammunition. I know of parents who have used a smack and their children are exemplary. I have also known parents who follow the no hitting rule whose children have become monsters, both as children and as adults. I believe that the trick of the game is a balanced approach. As on old teacher who used the strap, I used to first give a warning, followed by a brief glimpse of the leather instrument. If the matter recurred the student was asked to hold the instrument, to get the feel of what it may be like to receive it forcefully. The third time they found out the advantage of behaving better. I taught for 8 years in Broadmeadows (Broady East and Upfield) and never got to use the strap more than a couple times a year. Today the kids have been given the idea that a teacher hitting them would be abominable but the same kids have no worries about hitting others. I often liken kids to cattle. When in a paddock they see outside the fence and are prepared to push against a fence to get to the other side. If the fence is strong they accept that and leave the fence alone. Kids are similar. They will test and push the boundaries. If the boundaries are strong the kids will remain within the acceptable area. Strength of boundaries are set by the parents. Sometimes a harsh word, sometimes a careful explanation of possible consequences will do the trick. But sometimes the strength begins to wilt under pressure and a smack will quickly bring reality back in. Note that I said a smack -NOT A BEATING. there is a vast difference. Don't blame a parent or decry for smacking their child. They may have already implemented several other approaches first before resorting to their ultimate defence. Those parent who beat their children and/or don't try other methods first should be assisted not derided. A good friend of mine at the time came to visit me in my new house. Their three year old when offered a soft drink and biscuits, broke the biscuits on the new carpet, poured the drink over that and proceeded to make 'biscuit pies'. Both parents laughed at their child's antics. When they didn't respond I picked up the child sat him on my knee and wouldn't let him off. They never visited again, much to my delight. The same child six years later was pushing my 5 year old daughter under the water in a mutual friend's backyard pool. He refused to stop when asked. So I went around and held him by the hair and pushed him under the water. When I finally let him up spluttering for air, I explained that if he continued with his behaviour I would also continue with mine. The rest of the afternoon went entirely without further incident.
I sat through the first half of the game totally devastated then had to go out for a family tea. Found out we won by a point. DOES ANYONE KNOW HOW I CAN WATCH A REPLY (NON FOXTEL)? PLEASE.
The AFL need to be especially heavy on Hird. At least 2 years, better still 5. Hird has become a cult figure to those idiot supporters who still cannot see that he has done anything wrong.
Let's see, what makes up a cult? A figure who dominates the local landscape but desires greater achievement. A figure who perceives themselves without any sin and absolutely right in all aspects. A figure who is adored by the stupid. A figure whose followers are devoted entirely to that one person. A figure who gives the illusion of kind benevolence but who is in fact extremely controlling. A figure who sets their own rules. A figure whose devotees see any punishment to be a challenge that the 'messiah' must endure.
Watson's man was Robbie Tarrant for anyone in doubt, I mentioned in my discussions prior to the game that it was always likely to be him, but that I thought North should have played Daw instead, I also think if they did... they would have won this game.
Watson was so far behind Tarrant on the lead tonight that it was embarrassing. I was sitting with a North mate and pointed out the contest before the game, but both agreed that it was unlikely Tarrant would be able to exploit it, because if he gets a free hit at a contested pack mark he is going to reach in to mark, or turn away, because he severely lacks the fortitude required to put a body into the contest, he also is only an average mark anyway and when he kicks a few goals it is often with great kicks, which he is.
I think Tarrant created plenty of chances to influence the game and very little that Watson done had any influence on Tarrant not taking those chances.
Now I have said negative things about Watson before, so perhaps this comes across as biased.... But I absolutely think he had a poor game, it would be akin to saying in the first half McInnes beat Black... nope Black's horrific kicking beat himself. I do think McInnes was better in the 2nd half and the same goes for Watson.
That's what I mean about Watson. Tarrant beat himself, Watson didn't do it. A forward not scoring does not necessarily mean that his opponent has played well. Perhaps some of Jammo's problems last night may have been because he was aware that he could not depend on Watson for support. However, saying that I reckon that Jammo has a mental problem playing North, which, added to his loss of closing pace (carrying an injury??) resulted in a really bad game for him.
As I pointed out Elwood he took that mark because he was in the vicinity. He is an absolute dud! He can have all the skills about the place but he has to GET the ball not wait for it to be handed to him. And his lack of pace and intensity is incredible.
Choo, name all his highlights for the game. If you can reach two you are doing well. Don't make a remark about a post without backing up your own comment.
Jammo certainly was bad. He has no pace this year and obviously hates playing N.M. He gets a bath every time. His fumbling tonight was especially bad, but at least he tries. Watson is an absolute NO-TRIER!
Elwood you mention Watson's mark. Well done, it was his only highlight and as I said, he was in the vicinity so he had a chance.
Worst on Ground? Watson. Should never get another game. Can anyone remember him using any intensity over the last couple of weeks? He can only gain possession when he is the immediate vicinity. He cannot GET the ball! Never helps out. Runs , no, make that TROTS beside the opposition.
I oppose the idea of a republic for a variety of reasons. One being the historical aspect but another being the cost involved. Just try and think of all the paraphernalia that would need to be changes. Starting from every button on every policeman's uniform, crested paper, etc, etc. right up to a total re-write of the constution. (something that would take over a decade these days.) Then we have the problem of who becomes the president and how are they to be selected. It needs to be in a way in which they can be ousted quickly (today's G/G can have their commission withdrawn reasonably easy and quickly) How about State Gov's? All state government rules need to be re-written. No you cannot just white-out G.G. or State G. and type in another name, it would be a far wider ranging task. All of these things would require a huge number of inputs from volunteer self-professed academics not to mention the huge number of paid jobs that would have to be old. Think of the court battles to challenge each and every process/statement/idea. The task would be enormous. Currently the process works well. Why change it?
When I finally let him up spluttering for air, I explained that if he continued with his behaviour I would also continue with mine. The rest of the afternoon went entirely without further incident. 
