What Clarke said is all words. All of it. It's context. Everything.

its not taking anything 'favourably' if there was a way of phrasing what Clarke said which i wouldnt find offensive i would be happy to accept it could simple be poorly worded, like Mclennans. But there is no way of phrasing what Clarke has said which i would find palatable.

nope, no mention of intent again. Are you ready to apologise for your fabrication
im not offended by someone mistaking Mcguires collision with Carmont as a foul by Carmont. Its a little bit of nothing really

you have even managed to get this wrong



are we at the part where you and Era of the biff confess to simply trolling yet, or do i get to play with you some more?

Clarke is supposed to independent - McClennan is not - simple really?

You cannot expect the impartiality from McClennan you should demand of Clarke?

Without McGuire Leeds have to play a different game based around the kicking of Sinfield and Burrow as we have to make up for the loss of Danny's usual 1 or 2 tries. So I think Sinny will move to 6 to control the game as field position will be vital and we need our kickers to have some space so they have time to kick into space.

Senior looked good in the pack at Hull with a high tackle count and added pace to the pack so this will allow Smith into centre as we will need a 3rd kicker. I hope JJB is fit as we will need his energy.

So for me Webb, Hall, Delaney, Smith, Donald, Sinfield, Burrow, Ambler/Bailey, Buderus, Kylie, Senior, JJB, Clarkson. With a bench of Eastwood, Ali, Ablett, Diskin

If we can play in their half we can win so must watch our discipline and not give easy yards away. We should borrow Huddersfield's tactics against Warrington. They were fast up in the Wires faces with an "attacking defence" in the first half and it blew them away just as they did to us at Wembley.

Why is Clarke supposed to be independent?

Is that part of his contractual terms with his employer Sky?

You seen to know a lot about rugby related contractual agreements as you are constantly commenting on players salaries, maybe you could tell us?

I would have thought so - if you want to sell TV programmes I would suggest it would be a good idea not to upset potential subscribers through bias towards one particular side?

To applaud an injury to one of the game's star players which help to attract new viewers which keeps the presenters in job is hardly conducive to attract new viewers?

I would have thought it was obvious why the presenters need to be impartial - obviously to anyone with a hint of common sense?

i think moving Sinny to 6 will give Burrow a lot more freedom to cause damage in attack. With McGuire his game is far more restricted and we don't see his best. Lets hope he can conjure up some runs like last week and make the loss of McGuire a lot less harmful to our attack.

Remind me how State of Origin is marketed down under. Are the studio analysts and commentators there completely unbiased and impartial in their opinions on both teams and who they want to win?

How often is Stevo controversial with his opinions?

Grow up.

SOO is not SL it is tribal contest between two sides who both have equal representation on the TV. If nine had Warren or Gould behave in the way Clarke does they would soon get very short shrift from nine.

There is a difference between being controversial and commenting on a particular incident and bias towards one particular side in a contest.

I appreciate the logic is beyond your comprehension but then I have assumed from your comments you are still at school?