Quote ="CrusaderPete"For goodness sake GF, stop it, he said "one of the biggest of all time", which the fact that everyone knows who he is kind of proves the point!'" I know about One Direction. That doesn't mean they are fit to lick the boots of a great many bands that have gone before them. Russell Crowe is a well known star, but he is by no means "one of the biggest film stars of all time" as was claimed. The first film of his to appear on the all time top grossing list is Gladiator, in at 161. boxofficemojo.com/alltime/world/ ... m=2&p=.htm Neither does he appear on the list of 100 of the all time richest Actors www.therichest.com/top-lists/top ... st-actors/ Quote ="CrusaderPete"One minute your bemoaning the lack of PR, Quote I don't bemoan it... I point out why we don't get the exposure some believe we should. Quote ="CrusaderPete"then the one filmstar who gets us that comes along and you slate him, get a grip!'" I never slated him. I said he wasn't one of the biggest of all time and he isn't. Quote ="CrusaderPete"I'm sure Mr Crowe is very sorry for not being big enough or famous enough for you, but I doubt it keeps him awake at night!'" '" '" No skin of mine either way. Russell Crowe is a RL man through and through and good for the game. All I said was he wasn't "one of the biggest film stars of all time" and I am right, he isn't. Now, Samuel L Jackson on the other hand....

Quote ="CrusaderPete"For goodness sake GF, stop it, he said "one of the biggest of all time", which the fact that everyone knows who he is kind of proves the point!'" I know about One Direction. That doesn't mean they are fit to lick the boots of a great many bands that have gone before them. Russell Crowe is a well known star, but he is by no means "one of the biggest film stars of all time" as was claimed. The first film of his to appear on the all time top grossing list is Gladiator, in at 161. boxofficemojo.com/alltime/world/ ... m=2&p=.htm Neither does he appear on the list of 100 of the all time richest Actors www.therichest.com/top-lists/top ... st-actors/ Quote ="CrusaderPete"One minute your bemoaning the lack of PR, Quote I don't bemoan it... I point out why we don't get the exposure some believe we should. Quote ="CrusaderPete"then the one filmstar who gets us that comes along and you slate him, get a grip!'" I never slated him. I said he wasn't one of the biggest of all time and he isn't. Quote ="CrusaderPete"I'm sure Mr Crowe is very sorry for not being big enough or famous enough for you, but I doubt it keeps him awake at night!'" '" '" No skin of mine either way. Russell Crowe is a RL man through and through and good for the game. All I said was he wasn't "one of the biggest film stars of all time" and I am right, he isn't. Now, Samuel L Jackson on the other hand....

I'll admit I wish you had remained past tense.

Is it because of my style of posting, it's content or a bit of both?
Genuine question by the way, because I believe that RL in England/Europe could be so much bigger and better if run properly, that the game has become far to beholding to SKY, that London being relegated could and should have been avoided, that the NRL isn't the holy grail that a great many posters on here believe, that comparing/laughing at Union does RL no favours as it rarely comes out looking anything other than insecure, that International RL is the best tool to grow the games popularity, that the RLIF needs to be a more powerful and totally impartial organisation, that the NRL and SL need to play by the same rules, that Russell Crowe is not one of the greatest actors of all time, that Saint Simon may have been a little premature, that the RFL needs to do more to attract more fans to games, more sponsors and corporates, that the past should be left where is is and not trawled up at the drop of a hat, that French Rugby League is not a basket case because of events 70 years ago, that the RFL need a total change of personnel, that London should have and should still be a centrally owned club like Melbourne storm was and pretty much all the other stuff that Gutterfax posted over the years.

Genuine answer. People get fed up with you because no matter what's being discussed, when you join in you'll try and shunt it over towards one of your repeated topics.... which you listed above.....with your often repeated answers that we've heard several dozen of times before and we either don't care for or are completely not applicable to the thread being discussed.

In all of the many posts you've had on here, it's always been 'marketing'......to which it's easy for you to claim from behind a keyboard that you're the dogs-go-betweens at in NZ, which is unprovable and could be a massive exaggeration. Not once have I seen you display any real or even basic knowledge of the sport of RL.

Perhaps that's why people really think so little of your posts, even if you like to convince and lie to yourself that people are upset with you because you're 'fighting the party line'

oh ffs!

Without reading all 7 pages of this thread, the one that's been annoying me this season is
"We're only two weeks in and already we're talking about the officials"
Well guys, stop talking about them.
There's very few blindingly obvious referee gaffs, but E & S jump on every decision. If a border line forward pass is penalised and its 50/50 whether we agree, that's just part of life. Eddie's on every decision - When Jamie Ellis clearly knocked the ball on over the line t'other week, Eddie wouldn't shut up about it. Commentators should be like the players, they should accept they can't change a refs mind and move on, not bang on like nitpicking the ref is the main event.

When Graham allegedly bit Slater in the GF, the commentators hardly mentioned it after the event, because they had a game to concentrate on.