mauriesy

When someone gets a conviction, get back to me.

The Australian has been obsessed with this issue for two years and it's gone nowhere in the courts.

Maybe the Age sees no point in flogging a dead horse.

Read the Age yesterday with opinion pieces from Amanda Vanstone and Tim Flannery. Watched a repeat of Q&A the other day with Christopher Pyne and Chris Bowen. Waiting with bated breath for the day the Herald-Sun has David Karoli alongside Andrew Bolt.

Dean Kent Dom Barry Jayden Hunt Because I like seeing how 'speccy' picks turn out and whether they can 'make it'. These three seem to have either some 'X-factor' or speed that may turn into something.

A month or two ago on his radio show, Red Symons said he had once briefly met Tom Waterhouse. As part if the discussion, he told Tom he 'never bet on anything'. Tom replied 'you should come and work for me'.

Clark is six foot seven.

The two hardest government departments to manage are Defence (including DSD) and ASIO. They are laws unto themselves and almost impossible to control. They can do what they like under the guise of national security and secrecy, and they never face inquisition, or budgetary constraints. Defence has 'defeated' every one of its Ministers, Liberal or Labor, over issues in the last three decades. I worked for five years in the Defence Department, and I know how they think and how they work. Attorneys-General jump as high as asked in regard to what ASIO wants. If ASIO thinks there's a security issue with East Timor, no one else will ever find out what it is, or even if it's real.

Yep, Vineyey, Frawleyey, Michieey, Barryey, McKenzieey and Clisbyey are putting in twice the effort. Should improve on last year's finish.

Did you know there is a World Banana Forum? http://www.fao.org/wbf/en/ World banana production rose from 48 million tonnes to 106 million tonnes between 1990 and 2011. I hope you all buy fair trade bananas.

We covered our needs well without overspending. 8/10

Interesting article on the AFL website that questions the whole value of altitude training. High altitude, low benefit, says expert Article summary: There were more effective training aids in which to invest, with the jury still out on the benefits from altitude training. $850,000 is a lot of money that could be better spent, for example on 4-5 assistant coaches. The cost benefit is not there and players could be better improved by spending the money on coaches or skills training. Players' running performance at sea level improved by 1-2% after a training camp, but the results were short-lived. The benefit lasts about four weeks and will be maintained until about Christmas when most players go off and do limited amounts of training anyway. There was no scientific evidence or documentation to support the belief that altitude training enabled players to train harder on return. There was no evidence to suggest there could be a cumulative effect from repeat ventures. (I notice Collingwood has ditched their's in favour of a cheaper in-house altitude facility.)

Not broad?

If you go to the AHG website, you'll find a comprehensive search facility for a huge range of vehicles at all their Australia-wide dealerships. You can see why they'd want to featured "ahg.com.au" prominently, regardless of how it looks.

A lot of phantom drafts have Acres around #15-16 and going to a side like Geelong. They'd win handsomely out of that selection.

Clubs can obfuscate and lie all they like, but in the end you can only pick those who haven't been picked already. I'm sure clubs would have a priority list, and on draft day just cross off those who are already gone.

Cripes you're quick. See the first line of post #303. It must be wonderful to think debates can be won just by applying labels. As soon as I see a label applied, like 'leftist' or 'warmist' or 'denier' or 'someone's staffer', I know immediately that the debate that follows will be sloppy, lacking in logic and going nowhere. Just tell me why Heinrichs' position on Abbott's and Bishop's gaffes is incorrect. After all, this thread is about Abbott on the international stage (although I think the label 'embarrassment' is over the top). And don't attack Heinrichs personally. Stick to the issue. For mine, I think it's the failure to recognise that foreign policy is more than making populist domestic pronouncements (e.g. 'buying boats') and then discovering the absurdity of your position internationally. And, to compound it, failing to back down thus digging a deeper hole for yourself.

I'm sure someone has said that every year since 1965.

Clearly you don't understand what 'spin' is. Otherwise more attacking of the messenger rather than arguing against the opinion.

What else is there?

1. Heinrichs' article wasn't 'spin'. And 'spin' is now just the throw-away line for something disagreed with. 2. If The Age is 'irrelevant' why on earth are you concerned about their 'balance'? 3. Have you asked the same (about balance) of the Murdoch press or the Sydney shock jocks? 4. Even Laurie Oakes is now getting shirty at the Government's decision to now regard the media as mere 'chooks'. Things really do change when you assume government.

It's all irrelevant to whether the article's opinion on Abbott's foreign policy 'gaffes' are real or not.

They're the government now. They're now accountable for what they say and do.

He advised Kevin Rudd for a year pre-2007. I guess that will immediately make his opinion invalid. Every new government makes mistakes and finds government harder than opposition. The issue will be whether they get over it. I for one can't see the point in 'taking sides' where two countries in the northern hemisphere are arguing over some rocks. I would think that resolving the issue diplomatically is more important. I don't have a clue how to do it, but I'd hope Abbott and Bishop might.

But not in the football season, unless it's to Darwin or Alice Springs.