dpositive

As a retailer I have some sympathy for all the arguments both supporters and club. It is about markets and demand. No retail outlet would survive on sales of just Melb club colours. until we have more success and grow demand we will only feature in minority at AFL shops but that is the most appropriate outlet. I did like the idea of the airport outlet where we should be more strongly featured as the club of the city and may pick upsome novelty sales but is it enough to warrant an outlet. A poster with a direction to get it at the G The home of football would probably be more effective. An improved profile (location) at the G would be the best, the suggestion of an outlet facing Yarra park that could be used by other tenants may be more feasible. plus the selling of jumpers at a tent on game day has a real feel of involvement and could be why staff in the actual shop are diminished . Its a very small opportunity window to make a sale The online market is growing and probably is better suited to the considered purchase of a true supporter and can be more efficiently run by the club. So it is marketing improve the success increase demand improve the profile increase demand. Increase demand increase sales

Latest news from the age p3 details soaring fruit prices with the late summer, lemons up to $1.70 FGS HOWEVER Bananas are "the bargain fruit of the season" "Demand for bananas are generally poor anyway at this time of year...at the same time there has been an overproduction ...so they have been extremely cheap" Now things are really starting to fall into place

Thanks again Conservative from its original definition was about preserving and retaining which was adopted in a political sense as the more cautious approach which could be where I am and maybe why Myth is holding on to that. Interestingly Liberal (in the thesaurus) is related to free spending generous etc and makes a marked contrast to the current policies and practice of the current government. Left wing and right wing are related to the main body as there are left and right wing Labour and despite their denials left and right wing Liberals. I am sure there are left and right wing Greens but as they start out to the left of the above its hard to identify them. The press is by its nature to report both left and right views is a little more fickle with playing to its market and so can and has changed sides in various elections in various countries. I find it difficult when people target the ABC as left wing when it has the most conservative and traditional views aired so often (how they justify Peter Reith as a liberal I do not know) however I am prepared to look at all sides including extremes before probably taking my conservative middle of the road approach. I have been accused of both being too provocative and of being too boring so I can probably live with that.

It was the "crossroads" mention that made that a very clever pick up Has sparked further comment so even better.

Sorry had to return The article Myth presents on 814 is a continuation of the extremes that are always provided and I am sure HT will be looking to refute although I doubt it is worth the effort. The opening para does acknowledge the catastrophic weather events? I think some of the confusion I have is the capture of a simple term often misused to amplify a point and avoid the simple truth Carbon Tax was never a tax but a quite complex pricing mechanism and economic tool to alter financial direction Global Warming was not just warming but climate change and a complex analysis of weather patterns and influencing factors I am reminded of Newtons immutable 4th? law for each and every action there is an equal and opposite reaction I wont insert it in quotes coz I dont think thats exactly it The severe snow and cold currently in America would be an indication for the coldists where will the droughts occur for the warmists do we need these terms when there are obvious issues arising with weather and the changing placement and allocation of humans. I suppose I think it is a bigger issue than those engaging in [censored] for tat arguments seem to recognise. and with that I will try and restrain myself from further comment while admitting to reading and liking most of the information disseminated by all

Thanks HT

I agree that No is the answer but for different reasons. Good teams are made up of a mix of types, many and varied. In my studies and in the interests of simplicity we reduced the team mix to Doers. Thinkers , Carers and Leaders. To many or all of one type will be a problem. All doers will mean that something is done wether its right or wrong, all Carers and whatever is done will probably be done slowly and with no risks taken, all Thinkers and it whatever is done will be well supported and done right Leaders usually accommodate all types, able to step in and support whichever phase is needed as well as providing some vision and direction for the thinking, doing, caring. Yes it is good to have the flexibility of leaders but all leaders will also cause problems as the tasks are ignored due to persoanl direction. All types need the support of others to achieve the goals desired and all teams need the blend of types to achieve what is desired. A back line leader, a mid field leader , a forward leader could be fine if all have defined responsibilities and a clear combined direction. I hope that our leaders PJ and PR have the skills to identify, promote and support the structure needed to fulfill our desires.

I know I said I would retire but Thanks for this (I cant just like it as we used to ) I did find the opening para appropriate. The latest information in isolation is not conclusive as is indicated . I await further analysis, with my last comment still applying. "I appreciate all advice even when I choose to ignore it." .

Again I do not wish to be pedantic but I did not say ''nothing concerns ''me, but rather in response to your post, "What information particularly concerns you ? Please quote." I said "None actually concerns me." and I think it is time to withdraw from this discussion because of that concession. I appreciate the points of hardtack and admire his/her capacity to respond to your opinions. The problems have been articulated throughout the thread by yourself,hardtack and others, with the principle being in the title and to which the ensuing debate has seemed to bypass. In my opinion Tony Abbott is an embarrassment because he fails to recognise the complexity of the argument reducing it "to crap", and denying an aware and concerned portion of the population any consideration of progressive or alternative practices to reduce their concerns. The ancillary problems which have been identified subject to much better credentialed experts than me are still under dispute and I will watch the hopefully continuing exposure of alternative opinion from them. I thank you for your comment "I'm not suggesting you're not right," which is more of a concession than is usually made, and in return I can offer that I am not suggesting you are not right, rather I am waiting for an indication of effective action supported by informed opinion. I am still forming my opinion and will take such actions as are available to me. While I do not recommend civil disobedience I did not support all of the actions of previous governments and do not see myself slavishly following every edict of this or future governments. I hope yourself and others can continue to provide me with illuminating information and I assure you that I appreciate all advice even when I choose to ignore it.

None actually concerns me. Again my full quote was "Thanks for all the information here which confirms the thought that there is an actual problem." If you cant concede there is a problem from the array of opinions displayed on just this thread then there is little hope that you are the more enlightened person I was suggesting may emerge when I entered the thread. It certainly has been an interesting conversation and I am still unconvinced that doing nothing is the right option. I had hoped we Australians as unimportant as we may be to some were still capable of taking some initiatives and with changed behaviour become more relevant in developing more efficient and effective sustainable processes for energy generation and use and perhaps try and maintain the delicate environment in which we live rather than continue to degrade it through our actions. I am happy to concede that the current government does talk of "direct action" but I have seen very little progressive suggestions from the policy presented and I doubt there will be much action other than to ensure political survival.

Thanks for all the information here which confirms the thought that there is an actual problem. Perhaps Tony could be shown some of this and avoid the embarrassment that he is attracting by failing to acknowledge that many Australians are aware of the problem?

Some models have been embarrassingly wrong. Many have overstated impacts while some have understated impacts also. The data collection of some models has been questioned and there have been many new models developed from the scrutiny of collection methodologies. Much of the current data is still pointing to change and much of the weather impacts are still being analysed. One thing for sure when the insurance companies are convinced that the costs of restoration are caused by the weather changes we will see some greater emphasis on behaviour change to limit that impact. The major impacts even of the much maligned sea level changes are on the poorer populations who are under represented on the insurance companies radar. As to Australian impact I think we have a greater influence than you may recognise. Certainly in our region and when it comes to supply of coal gas and uranium the very real energy production and perhaps polluting products our influence on supply, markets and behaviour is considerable. We are powering the Chinese expansion through our resources. This discussion is getting more difficult and needs to be held over a convivial beer or two I doubt that we know the answers because we dont have all the detail. Maybe we can agree to disagree and as I commenced hope that some more enlightened powers are able to sort it out.

This is a great post and I hope you are right I wouldnt say you were a fool as I also supported a different approach and supported Neeld while recogniszing he was an untried option. Not only sport is 80% above the shoulders, when all else is equal in any competition the difference will be above the shoulders. Roos seems to be able to massage that component so lets hope it works or we will all be in the foolish camp.

V clever

I was also interested in the links you provided (post 756) and yes I think they confirm my argument that there is much contradictory modelling, no wonder we are all confused. However the empirical factual evidence is now coming in and being very carefully presented due to the challenges that are likely to arise from opponents to doing something. We do know that if you continue to do what you have done you will get the same results so like my football team I merely want my government to change what it is doing. The ill fated Rudd Gillard Rudd governments were not totally successful with what they achieved it lokks like Tony and the team will be taking us back to the Howard years (unfortunately the rest of the world has changed.

Just got back to this thread sorry for the delay I am not sucked in and thought that was the neutral position I was displaying Would have been better had you looked at the whole of my sentence "Australia did have some of the highest rates of emission per head of population and as a developed country with aspirations for some influence as a well educated country our adoption of progressive practices inspired continued studies and considered action." and instead of the response to the limited selection (I know we are only 1.5% of total emissions but we are also a minnow in most other endeavors. The point I was trying to make was that as an intelligent progressive country with aspirations to be recognised as such we can lead to change behaviour through our actions. It would seem that the current government reflecting the views of a sort of democratic result (look at the large informal vote, the selective policy positions of the Liberal, National,Liberal National and Country parties coalition before informing me of "the mandate" please) is determined that Australia will return to its position of being a middle order thinker and influencer, inoffensive to the major players and repository of international investment (takeovers)as we continue to wallow in a serfdom of sorts. Sorry got a bit distracted there Just hope we can endure this government until a more enlightened leadership emerges, (I dont see any on the Labour horizon either) which reflects my aspirations. Incidentally I think I did read that the limited actions taken did lead to a reduction in the increases, that is they have not increased as badly as some models predicted. This was in regard to Australias reduction in energy use and consequent carbon emission as well as world wide impacts (Germany etc) I havent got sources to link you too as it was just another article in the comprehensive debate and probably too insignificant to most. However I am also reminded of the words of the song "Big things from little things grow". Hope that doesnt open me up to a tirade as some sort of left wing pinko looney a charge I was never accused of when I was secretary of the young country party> I could add and bring this back to a footy analogy (rather than litter) that I hope that our new coach and administration are looking to change the paradigms of footy to come up with a new system to lift us out of mediocrity to lead the field.

IMPROVES The coach The team The hopes of supporters SLIDERS The despair of supporters The Pies Malthouse

I guess I see Howe not only as a fantastic high marking forward but also as a crumber off the pack. Clarke Hogan and Dawes are all very mobile and agile but may be more capable of the big pack mark. Fitzy is also agile but not as consistently high flying as Howe. We will not need to play all of them on the field all the time but can use the number and skill necessary I just recon all five provide some fantastic options and will worry most defensive units. The task for Roos is placing and moving these strengths to not only unsettle but overwhelm every other side.

Climate change is constantly occurring, it is the extent and level of the change that is occupying a range of studies, not only related to weather but also plant and life forms plus sea and ground changes. Many well credentialed scientists have analysed much data and are making as well as some speculative models, some fairly profound factual indicators. Not all data is conclusive but it is certainly comprehensive. As a response a price was put on carbon emissions identified as one of the factors that could be managed. The pricing mechanism has been adopted in many different forms in many different locations. The purpose of the charge was to alter behaviour and encourage development of alternative practices. This was termed a tax by some in Australia despite it having none of the characteristics of other taxes, especially being universally applied. Australia did have some of the highest rates of emission per head of population and as a developed country with aspirations for some influence as a well educated country our adoption of progressive practices inspired continued studies and considered action. Our current government is merely reacting to perceived difficulties which are consistent with conservative action. Some of us expected no less and will await the continued stifled results while we slip further behind the more dynamic countries.

It would be great for all us distant supporters if you can make it down and give us a report. I think this year holds so much more promise despite the disappointments of the past. Even the quality and quantity of the training reports seems to have improved with less speculative "tearing it up " style to factual recording of routines and performance. You're right that the next month will be vital for the season which makes me even more grateful for the reports. Thanks to all those who have provided information every effort is recognised and appreciated.

Have tried to erase it from memory but can remember feeling drained of all emotion and the palpable shock was only tempered by the elderly demon supporter in front of us who suffered a heart attack and had to be attended by medical support. Just outright confusion and disbelief, quiet surreal. I cannot even remember where we went to drown our sorrows and relive the drama but certainly it will only be erased with a flag.

I reckon this is a great thread almost all about the footy, and its almost all about a Demons forward line. I agree that the fantasizing is dependent on the mids and getting the ball down forward but I would like to see Howe mainly deep in the pocket running to the goal square for the mark when the ball is dogged there by Clarke Dawes Hogan and Fitzy who are all mobile and love to move to create space. As all those players are pretty good at second efforts and creating space their mobility rotating around and through CHF could create a new game plan and a real problem for defences. they all have an ability to drift back and support the high flier Howe and can act in that role when he or they need a rest or wants a bit of run on the ball. Hopefully they will all need a rest as the ball will spend so long in our deep forward that they will be exhausted kicking scores and will not have to run too far out to the centre. Also our mid fielders will not have to run too deep defensively or in attack and this will make them more durable and effective in the HB to HF lines with perhaps only one running deep for the crumbing. I dont know if I have explained that too well but I have seen similar patterns work at various levels. I am confident PR can use the predominant skill and abilities of our players to achieve some significant team football results.

I reckon thats them though mine were sourced in the Tamar Valley

Dont forget the cherries best in the world and should be in season.

I have enjoyed reading the posts but am still uncertain what action should be taken. I do support strenuously transparency for open and informed decision making, but I also appreciate, (if I interpret it correctly), Robbies view that we may not be prepared for the truth. This is supported by some of the alternative points that raking over these coals may reignite some different perspectives given the passing of time. I watched the Nixon Frost movie the other day and it provided a remarkable insight into the frailties of perception revisited. Like many issues (some already mentioned) analysis and reflection is probably better than trying to achieve some tribunal of panel decision. There are so many shades of grey and we will all make an individual decision onthe information available, hence I am back to my informed decision making requirement of transparency and disclosure. I think I, as mentioned by someone else will concentrate again on the future and potential of the demons and retain only a slight passing interest in any revelations .