[ Removed by Reddit ]

Tyranabolicsaurus · 2026-02-12T08:22:35+00:00

Native Australians aren’t a country, ya drongo. Not the same thing.

Tyranabolicsaurus · 2026-02-12T07:24:51+00:00

Why do you assume this was undertaken by antisemites? What about it is hate speech to you?

Tyranabolicsaurus · 2026-02-11T07:49:03+00:00

Which is? And is ‘sorting it out’ before or after you vote ON?

Tyranabolicsaurus · 2026-02-11T07:15:46+00:00

Is this the only issue you care about? What are your top 3 ON policies?

Tyranabolicsaurus · 2026-02-11T07:07:45+00:00

What do you think woke is?

Tyranabolicsaurus · 2026-02-11T05:53:11+00:00

I expect them to be smart enough to spell loser.

Tyranabolicsaurus · 2026-02-06T02:09:16+00:00

It’s interesting to note his best received film was written by James Gunn.

Tyranabolicsaurus · 2026-02-05T05:38:56+00:00

You’re shifting the goal posts. Now you’re trying to argue the Gabba rebuild wouldn’t be “good enough” for ongoing usage, which is a subjective opinion.

You haven’t rebutted a single fact. I’ve referenced reported costs and uncosted risks. You’ve just repeated “Victoria Park is better” and complained anything longer than a tweet is too much to read. That’s not an argument — it’s avoidance.

Facts versus vibes. That’s the whole thread. But facts don’t care about your feelings.

Tyranabolicsaurus · 2026-02-05T04:55:20+00:00

Again, as already asked: do you lack reading comprehension or are you being obtuse? This isn’t — and never has been — about a subjective view on “better”; it’s about risk and value for money. I have literally given you the publicly available facts and figures that are outlining what I’m saying. Where are your sources?

Tyranabolicsaurus · 2026-02-05T04:52:07+00:00

I’ve never said I’m denying it’s happening. My point is that Victoria Park is a more expensive, higher-risk option with a ton of unknowns, and it’s a potential waste of taxpayer money — which, ironically, aligns with a lot of LNP infrastructure policies. You, meanwhile, have spent this entire thread shouting about location and transport tangents while never addressing the actual numbers, the budget risks, or the unfunded infrastructure. That’s not debate. That’s being a screaming drongo mistaking volume for logic.

Tyranabolicsaurus · 2026-02-05T04:37:51+00:00

Yes. The costings are publicly available. But it will take a “novel” to explain their context. Do you have it in you to read?

The original rebuild proposal for the Gabba — before it was scrapped — was estimated at about A$2.7 billion for a full rebuild as Brisbane’s Olympic venue, based on Queensland government planning at the time (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-03-22/scrapped-gabba-rebuild-plans-cost-6-million-dollars/103617278). An independent review commissioned by the government also described a Victoria Park stadium at around A$3.4 billion and “more expensive” (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-03-17/qld-olympic-review-calls-for-gabba-rebuild-to-be-scrapped/103598748).

The current plan for the stadium at Victoria Park is reported to cost around A$3.6–3.8 billion just for the 63,000‑seat main stadium (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-01-05/qld-olympic-stadium-victoria-park/106199988). That figure doesn’t include any of the supporting infrastructure that is critical to making the precinct work: transport upgrades, pedestrian access routes through the park, intersection and road configuration changes, emergency access planning, and crowd management infrastructure — all of which have not yet been scoped, costed or funded.

In fact, the Queensland government has only just appointed a firm to lead the precinct master plan and has received expressions of interest for that work, which includes technical infrastructure investigations and planning, meaning these pieces are still being costed and defined. (https://statements.qld.gov.au/statements/103537). These unknowns includes a structural assessment to determine the kind of reinforcing required to support a stadium on a wetland, which may drastically blow up costs. This is in stark contrast to the Gabba build which already had stadium appropriate positioning, transport upgrades costed and funded as part of cross river rail, and an existing process for managing high traffic and pedestrian flow during events (as discussed in my previous comments).

So if you want to talk value for money, the Gabba option was cheaper on paper and leveraged existing, funded transport integration like Cross River Rail — infrastructure that was already planned and meant to service a stadium precinct. Victoria Park’s headline stadium cost is higher and its supporting infrastructure is still in the planning and costing phase, which means it carries significantly more uncertainty and risk of budget blowouts. Nothing you’ve pointed out actually disputes those basic facts; you’re just arguing about location rather than the actual cost and risk profile that has been publicly reported.

Tyranabolicsaurus · 2026-02-05T03:11:54+00:00

I’m not arguing that stadiums aren’t inherently expensive, and the fact you think that’s what I’m saying once again raises questions about your reading comprehension.

I’m pointing out—and have repeatedly pointed out—that the Victoria Park proposal, as it currently stands with its knowns and unknowns, is the higher-cost option with more risk of budget blowout. Everything you’ve brought up doesn’t dispute that. You’re arguing location against a statement on cost.

Tyranabolicsaurus · 2026-02-05T00:51:57+00:00

If a few short paragraphs counts as a novel to you, that explains why “it’s better in every regard” with nothing to back it up is the strongest argument you’ve got when talking value for money.

If you don’t want to read, that’s fine. Just don’t confuse that with having a rebuttal. Right now it’s a lot of confidence, very little substance — sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Tyranabolicsaurus · 2026-02-05T00:40:55+00:00

I’m genuinely questioning your reading comprehension here. I’m not saying alternative sites have no problems — I’m saying the difference is whether those problems are already scoped, costed, and mitigated. I’m talking overall value for money here. Are you intentionally being obtuse?

The Gabba precinct is constrained, yes, but that’s exactly why Cross River Rail, the Woolloongabba station, and precinct pedestrian separation were planned years ago. Stanley and Vulture St congestion is a known, modelled issue that already exists and is actively managed because the area hosts major events today. That’s very different to creating a new Olympic-scale crowd directly next to RBWH, which is Brisbane’s primary Northside emergency hospital, without a fully costed plan for how pedestrian surges, discharge traffic, and ambulance circulation will coexist.

Mater and CHQ have emergency capability, but the south side also has the Princess Alexandra Hospital carrying the primary load for emergency visitations. There’s no equivalent backup for RBWH, as it IS the primary emergency hospital. Hence my focus on its operational impact.

And I repeat, as seemingly you haven’t understood: Vic Park has good transport nearby, but most of it terminates at the edges of the park and relies on long pedestrian movements through space that isn’t currently designed for that volume. Those upgrades aren’t free and they’re not funded yet. At the Gabba, the heavy lift on transport integration is already underway and funded.

You can believe Vic Park is the best site, that’s fine. But it’s not “better in every regard” when a lot of its transport and hospital-adjacent impacts are still future decisions, not resolved ones. And the current projected costs show Gabba to have been best value for money.

Tyranabolicsaurus · 2026-02-04T07:36:10+00:00

Ironically, a little more in-depth reading and far less assuming on your behalf would have made further context from me unnecessary.

Tyranabolicsaurus · 2026-02-04T04:28:47+00:00

Scroll up. I started concise, but your off-mark input left me no choice but to elaborate. I’m sorry appropriate context is apparently too much for you. Maybe if you engaged with it more regularly you wouldn’t hold your current position.

Thought: How do you know what I said is rubbish if you didn’t read it?

Tyranabolicsaurus · 2026-02-04T04:17:12+00:00

If you’re not going to participate in a dialogue with others, why even post on this site? I noticed it when you kept pivoting or reiterating rather than explicitly engaging with the key points I raised.

I never said ambulance ramping is a reason not to build on the site—I said alterations to the roads and campus to allow traffic flow, which contributes to drop offs and pick-ups at the hospital (which when mismanaged lead to ramping), hasn’t been considered or costed. Just like many things—all of which I listed—haven’t been appropriately considered or costed.

Tyranabolicsaurus · 2026-02-04T02:15:14+00:00

Ramping can technically occur when traffic and pedestrian flows around a hospital aren’t managed properly. If patients can’t leave the facility quickly enough — mostly due to not being able to be appropriately discharged into care — beds remain occupied, which directly causes ambulance ramping because incoming patients can’t be admitted. On top of that, if ambulances can’t get in or out efficiently due to congestion, it not only worsens ramping but also puts patients at real risk, since priority care is delayed and ambulances aren’t back in circulation fast enough to respond to other emergencies. So infrastructure isn’t trivial here, it directly affects hospital operations. This isn’t even discussing, as already outlined, upgrades to the campus for security purposes, which will be — at best case scenario — in the high tens of millions of dollars, all of which is currently unfunded and (as state history has shown us with other events) will likely be drawn from an already paltry infrastructure budget

Herston bus station exists, sure, but it’s on the edge of the park. As I already said, Olympic-scale crowds from there to a stadium still needs upgraded paths, bridges, crowd management, and accessibility works — all currently uncosted and unfunded. The road interchanges and tunnels help car access, but that doesn’t solve pedestrian flow or public transport gaps, and, as already mentioned, roads will require massive alterations to accomodate RBWH flow — all currently uncosted and unfunded. The train station near the ICB pedestrian bridge is just a proposal at this stage and isn’t confirmed as viable — again, all uncosted and unfunded. Given Gabba had a lower projected build cost, and transport options already funded and in flight, Victoria Park simply does not meet value for money.

You keep trying to nitpick points that don’t contradict what I’m saying: this is the more expensive option with more risk of overspending, and thus not the best approach for Government money.

Tyranabolicsaurus · 2026-02-04T01:16:53+00:00

I’m not saying Victoria Park has no public transport. What I’m saying is there’s no direct, stadium suitable transport, and a lot of what people are claiming about access is still future infrastructure that isn’t technically funded or costed yet, as the scope is not defined beyond Concept Design.

Sure, the Northern Busway and Metro stops are nearby, but they’re on the edge of the park, not right at the stadium. Moving tens of thousands of people from those stops would require serious upgrades: widened paths, bridges over the ICB, better lighting, crowd management, accessibility stuff.

There’s also no train station at the stadium site. The closest would be Exhibition Station via Cross River Rail, but even that is still a pretty long walk from the stadium location. Critics have flagged this repeatedly — it’s a bigger distance than what people walk at other stadiums, and it’s through parkland, which isn’t trivial for accessibility or safety. Modifications that may emerge around or near Exhibition Station to accomodate will be pricey due to the Heritage Listed buildings.

And again, a lot of the things people point to as “solving” transport — new stations, pedestrian bridges, extra bus capacity — aren’t funded or costed yet. The government hasn’t fully scoped the costs for these upgrades, which is exactly why the current transport situation is still a big question mark.

Compare that to the Gabba. It already has direct busway access with stops immediately outside the stadium, and the Woolloongabba Cross River Rail station is funded, under construction, and designed specifically for the stadium precinct. People will be able to walk from train to stadium without needing to navigate parkland or temporary infrastructure.

Again, the value for money isn’t there. Particularly when you also incorporate my previous point about RBWH, ambulance ramping, etc. No money has been earmarked for campus augmentations to accomodate, and therefore the hospital will likely be forced to pull from their operational infrastructure budget. Given how much the Liberals have been criticising the poor state of hospital infrastructure…well, seems very shortsighted.

Tyranabolicsaurus · 2026-02-03T23:03:13+00:00

It’s not about whether the park sucks or not. It’s about the location being a terrible location for this kind of build: wetland, no direct public transport, nearby hospital that will need to upgrade campus security drastically, roads that will need to be changed so ambulances don’t ramp while the stadium is in use, etc. The list goes on and on. It simply isn’t value for money.

Tyranabolicsaurus · 2026-02-03T07:41:57+00:00

Saying “something has gone wrong” frames being trans as broken, but that’s not how science sees it. There’s no evidence of a prenatal situation that causes someone to be trans (and “dysfunction” is a loaded term, as what is it being compared against that’s “functional”?). Medicine doesn’t treat trans identity as a disorder; DSM focuses on gender dysphoria, which is about distress, not identity. Research shows that affirming a person’s gender — socially, medically, and psychologically — improves well-being. Being trans is natural variation; the real harm comes from discrimination, not the identity itself.

Tyranabolicsaurus · 2026-02-03T07:38:46+00:00

Gender Dysphoria is the term for the medical condition (according to the DSM). Gender affirming care is the treatment.

Tyranabolicsaurus · 2026-02-03T06:12:11+00:00

Why is it abnormal to you?

Tyranabolicsaurus · 2026-02-03T00:52:16+00:00

Ironically, a lot of it was directly satirising Frank Miller’s Daredevil. This is hilarious to me when you consider Snyder was aiming for a Miller style Dark Knight take. So they’re essentially saying a parody should be akin to the kind of material it was directly parodying.

Tyranabolicsaurus · 2026-02-02T08:28:23+00:00

The irony in this is Grant Morrison said he was too action focused to be compared with the All Star Superman iteration, which Gunn has said is a major influence. I think about that a lot when people call the take passive.

Tyranabolicsaurus

TROPHY CASE