P-man

(Disclaimer: no offence is intended by the below. Just a bit of tongue in cheek to round off the week) Q: What colour is the sky? old dee: The sky is still blue after all this time will it ever change? i'll believe it when I see it rpfc: The sky might be blue right now, but it is naive to expect this is going to change overnight. We must accept that while others have a starry night sky, or a red dusk, or a pink dawn, our sky is blue, and it will remain blue until some significant changes to the way in which the air scatters the sunlight are made. These changes will take time. Ron Burgundy: The sky is the best thing that has happened to us in a long time. I have total faith in it. I love the sky. Satyriconhome: actually chap, I know where the sky is at and so does God. In fact when my lovely lady and I were talking to God the other day we spoke about the sky. I just like to entertain myself on here with all you keyboard heroes who think you know the sky better than God and I. WYL: it's still blue and it's still falling. When are we going to see change? How much longer are we going to put up with this incompetent sky? Webber: I thought I'd correct some of the statements being made in here regarding the sky's colour which are just plain incorrect. Except for light that comes directly from the sun, most of the light in the day sky is caused by scattering, which is dominated by a small-particle limit called Rayleigh Scattering. The scattering due to molecule sized particles (as in air) is greater in the forward and backward directions than it is in the lateral direction. Scattering is significant for light at all visible wavelengths, but it is stronger at the shorter (bluer) end of the visible spectrum; meaning that that the scattered light is more blue than its source, the sun. The sky can turn a multitude of colors such as red, orange, purple and yellow (especially near sunset or sunrise) when the light must pass through a much longer path (or optical depth) through the atmosphere. Scattering effects also partially polarize light from the sky, most pronounced at an angle 90° from the sun. Scattered light from the horizon travels through as much as 38 times the atmosphere as light from the zenith, causing it to lose blue components, causing a blue gradient: vivid at the zenith, and pale near the horizon. Because red light also scatters if there is enough air in between the source and the observer, these longer wavelengths of light will also scatter significantly, making parts of the sky change color during sunset. ENYAW: why does the sky do what it did? It just hangs there? I watch and think the sky, is not what it was 10 years ago. get the clouds to move to a different part of the sky ? dee-luded: the sky, forever changing, never constant. maybe someone else wants to offer up a bigger sacrifice to the sky?? just a thought Bitter but optimistic: bugger the sky I say! Who needs the sky when there is alcohol and women to consume! hogans heroes: The sky is pathetic. The clouds are hopeless and the sun is a loser. I hope the sky burns in hell for what it has done (three weeks later) The sky is absolutely beautiful. Redleg: The sky is still blue after all these years and it's about time we stood up to God and told him to change it. picket fence: The sky is blue but the clouds aren't puffy enough! Plus we need more rainbows! I propose we switch some clouds for rainbows! Just my view! rjay: That is an interesting question that you pose 'P-Man'. I think it is blue but I also think it can be a variety of other colours that we don't get to see as often. Machsy: Are you serious? How can you not know that? That is just about the stupidest question I've ever been asked. The sky? Seriously?? Jumbo returns: The sky is still blue and I am very skeptical of this God fella. I will wait to see what he does to change the colour of the sky before I sing his praises. Jaded: I stood underneath the sky yesterday while it rained. I stood there, wondering why I bother watching it while it pours down. But I'll be there again next week. Standing underneath it. Hoping it won't rain. Ben Hur: I could explain it to you but you wouldn't understand.

What does that have to do with how he performed on Petrie? It really was a very simple point. He didn't beat Petrie. That's it. He's beaten some decent opponents, and yes he's promising in that respect. I've never said any different. I am just less dismissive of his lack of skills. (Incidentally, I read very little into diplomatic comments from opposition)

Once again, it was a simple counter point to the comments pointing to Petrie's one goal as evidence that T Mac beat him.

Granted, but it is a clear overstatement to say that T Mac "beat" Petrie. That's the point I was making. Some posters might be comfortable in placing ALL their stock in McDonald and shout down anyone who dares questions it, like the OP has done here. At this stage I'm not comfortable. His horrible skills and decison making are not improving. They cost turnovers, momentum, and effectually, goals. Not putting a line through him by any means because in the lockdown role he has credits in the bank. I want to see him improve the other elements in his game more than anyone. But I'd also like to see another key defender being blooded.

For the record, Petrie kicked 1.5 and took 11 marks. The only thing that prevented a bag was his inability to kick straight.

If only this could all be attributed to a corked thigh. He's always been a horrible kick and at this level, it's a problem. Poor kicking was a significant factor in why we were humiliated yesterday and continue to be a bottom four side.

His kicking and decison making is diabolical and is showing signs of getting worse. It's a conversation worth having. Criticism of players like McDonald and Grimes can be shouted down, but they are both huge liabilities at present.

Smart fella P-man. Smart, handsome fella.

I don't remember it being this instant with Howe, and he certainly wouldn't get the commentators buzzing with his first touch of the footy. I'm predicting he is going to be every bit as important as Howe in terms of putting the club on people's radar.

I love the buzz that is already generating over this fella, including outside of club circles. It is palpable. Been a long while since a Melbourne draftee that ISN'T a first round pick has created this sort of excitement.

Apparently his lip towards Murphy on the weekend was along the lines of him being too old and past it. What a little champ.

The Tyson / Salem deal is starting to look like one of the best trade deals of recent times. Let's be honest though. We were due.

He was better today. That's the minimum you would want from Jack. Seemed risky to keep him on but fair play to him for working through it.

You've been critical of him this week as well, Ronald. What Bernie says is fair enough, but in response I would say it's all very well that his laconic playing style is what draws attention, but it is the things he is doing when he DOESN'T have the ball that are equally or more damning. The reluctance to put his head over the ball, to tackle and chase, to the equal extent of his other teammates. Supporters can see his continual reluctance for years to do these things and that is why he cops heat. Pendlebury makes time stand still with the ball in hand as well, but it is what he does when the ball is in dispute that makes him a great player. I'd also be lying if I said I didn't hope the younger players look up to Nate Jones more than they do Jack Watts. Watts gets criticism because people see the talent not being fulfilled and those keeping faith aren't being repaid. I said he would lift last week and he went backwards, so this week I just hope he comes out on par.

Jewels? Sweet. As long as I can pawn them. I'm a bit skint at the moment rob. The missus keeps going clothes shopping.. Listen to me boring you with my fiscal problems. Sorry. I'll [censored] off to Collingwood now and leave you in peace.

Feel better now princess? Say hi to saty for me.

I don't want to do this.. Ah who am I kidding. I totally want to do it. By Round 6: But this is even better I think.. So having him leave would have been a culture killer. Having him stay is a culture killer. Literally [censored] either way. Deadset, my 5 year old nephew is less up and down.

It's a prediction thread, OD. "Who will be.."

I agree it's between these two, but interesting that you see Georgiou as fillng a greater need. Right now with Garlo going down it could be argued that he is, but with the long standing absence of crumbers and quality small forwards, I would've thought JK is filling a greater need. His versatility and ability to run through the middle only adds to that.

Tyson will be most valuable, but "find" in terms of one out of the box, JKH by the Flemington straight. Pick 40 is looking like a steal.

There are no words that can suitably describe that effort from Rhino. If anyone stayed up to watch it, I am extremely jealous.

Christ on a bike. Read. Comprehend. You're speculating. I'm speculating. It's silly and plain wrong to suggest that time wasn't a factor. Of course it was. You want to a) accumulate enough runs to defend and b) ensure you are left with enough time to bowl the other mob out. Achieving (a) quicker assists with (b). Not complex. As it turned out, Doolan did finally sacrifice his wicket and Watto/Smith came in to achieve a and b, but it doesn't make examination of Doolan at the time any less warranted. Yes, it was mentioned in the commentary a few times. So what? Moody thought it was an issue worth mentioning. You don't. I know whose opinion I give more weight. Enjoy yours. Say hi to the cows for me.

Against my better judgement, mainly because I enjoy your posts when you're not posting rubbish like you have here. Read the OP again. He was asking a legitimate question. And even if it was a creating a discussion of the past, there's nothing wrong with doing that. You seem to think it's always an exercise in laying the boot into others or self-flagellation, when it may just be a case of discussing whether Taggert would have made it under the new coaching regime. Where's the harm? There is none.

You've "got a feling" do you mate? So in other words you are speculating on what his instructions would have been, as all of us are. Clarke's body language looking on suggested that he wasn't 100% comfortable with the scoring rate, and it was rightly raised in the commentary several times. Doolan was plodding along when there was 9 wickets in hand and time was a factor. If his instruction was to do that, fine. I don't see why it would have been. As cute as I find this obsession you have developed with picking apart my posts, with little personal jibes thrown in, I'm really not that interested in indulging them anymore.

Yes, how dare he ask a question about a previous draft. What a ridiculous post. Get over yourself.