In my decade-long stint in Dunedin, I quickly learned what a crib, chuck and chunder, handle, jandles, tea, bogans and scarfies were.
Very much a Pacific Islander well after the turn of the century, I found the better I understood the patois and subculture the more easily I assimilated and grasped what separated the Southerners from the Northerners.
Frighteningly, in hindsight, I even embraced and related to some of the myopic reasons as to why the Southerners considered themselves a different species from anyone who hailed from the North - the farther north they went the less desirable they became, especially Auckland rugby.
In that vein, I ask, is it a myth that Pacific Island players supposedly didn't respond well to former Warriors coach Matthew Elliott?
Whether the Australian stepped down or was forced to walk the gangplank is still a moot point.
What gets his goat is the suggestion the club is best left to a Kiwi born-and-bred coach who understands the cultural nuances of their predominantly Polynesian contingent of players.
"That is overstated, really. I never felt having an Australian coach is an inhibiting factor. They are a great group of guys," Elliott told the Daily Telegraph not long after returning to Australia a fortnight ago.
It was Elliott's second NRL termination in three years. It came on the heels of an abysmal performance against the Sharks early in his second year at the helm of the New Zealand franchise.
In many respects, Elliott and Hurricanes coach Mark Hammett make good case studies.
One can ask the question: Is a Crusaders coach the right fit for a Polynesian/Maori-heavy Super Rugby franchise based in Wellington?
Since Hammett's appointment in 2011 there has been a steady exodus of players, such as Ma'a Nonu, Andrew Hore, Piri Weepu, Hosea Gear and Neemia Tialata, to name a few, to other franchises or overseas.
Is it a coincidence that the Hurricanes and the Warriors are beginning to play with some conviction since their coaches' stance?
Sure, the Warriors still haven't won a game since Elliott's departure.
Not that winning should always be the yardstick of success.
It seems the players have discarded the intangible shackles of coaching manuals that seldom take into account innate qualities such as flair and vision.
No doubt the absence of structure at pivotal moments may have been the difference in the Warriors' gut-wrenching losses to the Bulldogs and the Dragons.
For a start, the NRL faithful can walk through the turnstiles comfortable in the knowledge they are unlikely to be subjected to another flogging against the Storm, Raiders and Bulldogs.
The Warriors can take a leaf from the training manual of Waipukurau horsewoman Kirsty Lawrence, who on Saturday engineered Intransigent to a career-defining Group 3 win in Hastings.
Jockey Robert Hannam steered the stayer from last place to parochial celebrations in the Hawke's Bay Gold Cup.
Explained Lawrence: "My instructions to Robbie were don't hunt him out of the gate, let him settle. If you get angry with him, he'll stick it to yer.
"You can't beat his ticker. He's 437 kilos wet when he's racing - that's small - and he does little things wrong all the time but you've just got to sit quiet with him."
That interim coach Andrew McFadden read the riot act to Dane Nielsen before the Dragons match couldn't have been that productive, as the centre committed a rash of unforced errors.
Why didn't McFadden put scrum half Shaun Johnson under the same pressure for missing conversions and grubber kicks after five tackles?
Is it because Johnson, who admirably accepted blame through the media, and English import fullback Sam Tomkins are considered indispensable?
It almost seemed as if it had been drilled into the Warriors not to execute grubber kicks on the fifth tackle against the Dragons on Saturday night, even though it was obvious continuous up-and-unders were rendered useless.
Should Tomkins' positional play come under scrutiny?
When kicks come in on the final tackle, shouldn't the fullback almost always be the first player leading the welcome party?
Another beef of Elliott is the myth that Warriors have "massive packs".
True, few Warriors have been out-and-out giants in the NRL domain.
But how does McFadden explain the omission of Konrad Hurrell on Saturday?
The centre is a lethal weapon in the NRL, with 27 tries from 39 games, but supposedly struggled on defence.
He scored a try and posted a game-high 157m in the agonising 21-20 defeat to the Bulldogs. Chew on the five tackle breaks and one linebreak. He also made 12 tackles and missed one.
What was that about tackles again, McFadden?
He reportedly returned to pre-season training 10kg overweight.
If an "overweight" player can bust tackles with such agility - something few Warriors could claim to have done against Dragons - doesn't that make Hurrell an asset?
Separating fact from fiction, as they say, is almost always the first step to success.
