Jara

1 hour ago, JakovichScissorKick said:

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/bushfires-firebugs-fuelling-crisis-asarson-arresttollhits183/news-story/52536dc9ca9bb87b7c76d36ed1acf53f

Almost 200 arrested.

The country is on fire due to arsonists.   The climate change cult will conveniently ignore that though.

Not ignoring at all. There are lots of ignition causes - but fires are all about the conditions. Global warming heats things up and dries them out. Primes the country for the fire.

Anyway, didn't McCormack say it was all due to spontaneously combusting cow poo?

The CFA are in no doubt as to the real driver behind our worsening bushfire conditions: climate change.

https://news.cfa.vic.gov.au/-/climate-linked-to-earlier-longer-fire-seasons-cfa-and-bom-researchers

I'm a volunteer firefighter - it's nuts - we were down fighting fires in Gippsland at the end of March, and then we had terrible ones again even before summer had started.

As for fuel-reduction burns: don't get me started. Yeah, they can help - I've worked on lots of em - have had em on my own property - but they're difficult and risky - and getting moreso - I've been to fires caused by runaway burns (eg Lancefield) - main reason we don't do more of em is the shrinking window of opportunity - and the cost - and the threat of being sued if you burn down somebody's house. From what I've gathered, we need to do more strategic controlled burns, not mass hectares.

Most frustrating part of it for me: it's apparently all my fault.  I woke up one day last week after some quite dangerous, painful experiences with the fires at Plenty and Sunbury - wandered down to my local coffee shop, made the mistake of reading The Hair-oiled Scum and read that : it's all down to me and the rest of us who vote for the progressive side of politics -  according to the Murdoch columnists and letters page (and Craig Kelly today) it's all because 'the greenies' won't let you burn the place down. I thought, like - yeah, right - The Greens are a huge influence on Gladys Berajiklian

Here's one thing I learned from The Scum : next time you hear somebody calling out for more 'backburns', thump them, because they don't know what they're talking about. 

3 hours ago, Fork 'em said:

Wandering nomads don't build empires.
To build an empire 1st you need a castle.
 

Can't be bothered looking it up, so maybe not word perfect, but Yeats had a memorable couple of lines (after reflecting upon past glories) - 

"Where fashion or mere fantasy decrees, we shift about

All that great glory spent

Like some poor Arab tribesman and his tent" 

That's awful. Great band.  They were responsible for my favourite Australian song title (If you leave me, can I come too?) - although it was written by Martin, not Greedy.

Each to their own, I suppose, but personally I love a good, long half-time break. Have a stroll with the kids,  a kick in the park, nip across to Laurent's bakery if we are getting thrashed. 

Ten minutes? Nah

 I start to browse this thread, and before I'm finished, I get ads for super-absorbent undies.

WTF? I haven't read it all, but this must be a very low-brow discussion.

2 hours ago, Fork 'em said:

Virtue signalling isn't being an annoying turd attending protest rallies.
It's getting on your high horse sticking insulting labels on anyone who doesn't agree with your attention seeking antics.
No shortage of "educated" morons out there and you should know.
Seems you like to surround yourself with them.

 

Fork em - er - this doesn't make a hu-u-ge amount of sense. That's not how the language works. You don't just get to make up your own definitions of things -well, you can, it's a free country, but if you want to be understood, you'd be advised to stick to certain standards.

I can't say the animal standing in my front paddock looking at me as I write is an elephant. By most people's definition, it's a horse. Similarly, you can't just say 'virtue signalling' isn't going to rallies, it's getting on your high horse and insulting people. How do you decide that? What's your reference? Do you just make up your meanings as you go along? That must get awfully confusing. 

But you are supporting my basic point - which is that 'virtue signalling' is a pretty meaningless word.

Besides, as Smokey said, by your definition of 'virtue signalling', you're virtue signalling yourself. 

11 hours ago, ding said:

Virtue signalling Redneck means precisely nothing - it's just an empty insult rednecks virtue signallers throw at conservatives. It assumes the insulter knows the mind-set of the insulted. How can they? 

?

Amusing riposte, but you miss my point. Redneck has got a very clear meaning: from the dictionary: "a working-class white person from the southern US, especially a politically reactionary one."  (Although it has, of course, gone way past the southern US - I suppose bogan is the Australian equivalent)

'Virtue signalling' is different. Think about it. When Bolt or some other intellectual slob says that I'm 'virtue signalling' because I attend a climate protest or an anti-racism march, he's saying that I don't really believe in those things, I'm just pretending I do, sending out a signal that I'm virtuous. But he's wrong: I'm doing those things because I honestly believe in them. How does he know what my mind-set is? He doesn't; he just wants to insult me. He wants to stir up antipathy against me from the uneducated people who read his columns so that they will vote against their own economic interests. 

On 11/15/2019 at 6:41 PM, old dee said:

I am so old I don't know any of those terms ds.

Neither do most of the people who use them.

Virtue signalling means precisely nothing - it's just an empty insult rednecks throw at progressives.It assumes the insulter knows the mind-set of the insulted. How can they? 

Pray that he comes good 

Currently he owes us, big time.

3 hours ago, AshleyH30 said:

I can not see this happening. A lot of Teams would Crack it if they did. Most of the clubs have remained silent at the AFL's request. I'm sure pitchforks would be out, and the AFL wouldn't be happy either. They're taking Rowell and Anderson. People thinking we could trade pick 3 and extra to get pick 2 are also dreaming.

I see in this morning's Age Peter Gordon is expressing his displeasure at the GC debacle.

Nothing from us, of course  (unless I've missed it) 

Gentlemen.

Best and Fairest? Should call it The Least Worst.

Maxy and Clarry I like, rest of em... meh. 

6 hours ago, Wiseblood said:

Spot on LH.  They need to improve their culture and their ability to develop and retain players, not add more young kids to the mix who might bolt in a few years time.  And that comes from all of the things you've mentioned above.

While I'm not fussed at all with our picks changing, I'm disappointed to see that the AFL have been very short sighted in the 'help' they've given to the Suns.

I don't get it. Some of you seem to care more about GC than Melbourne - offering advice about what they need etc

I couldn't give a sh $&#t about GC. I only care about one team, and it's been screwed yet again. I realize I picking recruits isn't an exact science but all the experts are saying there are two standouts in this year's draft and we just had one of them stolen from us.

Free country People can think whatever they like.

What i  think is that i hate the AFL. Like all carnivorous capitalist beasts, it grows fat by devouring the weak. Doubtless Greasy Gill will get bonuses etc for pushing GC up the ladder.

3 hours ago, Demonsone said:

It’s never one thing .. it’s about bringing in good people , our recruiting is still questionable with paying overs on lever/may, not convinced on Pert either. Balme has done wonders in every club he’s gone to. Are our players selfless? Our leadership on field is poor!

I'm with you on Pert. Dunno why, but something in me died a little when i saw we recruited him. 

We can walk and chew gum at the same time. Pushing to maximize our options at the draft table is one of the things a strong administration should be doing. 

Of course i know the draft isn't a panacea but it can help - just look at Hawthorn 15 years ago.

i suspect our main trouble is the lack of a home base. 

Did i read this right?  Somebody said here recently that we haven't had a Rising Star nomination for three years. If that's the case...jeez. ..

5 hours ago, deebug said:

GC through clumps of $$$ to Ablett jr and IF, sorry not sure how to spell the guys name, the rugby player guy.

I believe it was Harmichael [censored], or something similar. (Arrr, damn - censoring ruins the joke)

It's not a matter of 'we've had help'. We are the game, just as much as Hawthorn or Collingwood (arguably more so - we invented the bloody game)  Every time one of those teams steps out onto a field, they're benefiting from our past endeavours. We don't 'get help' - we are simply claiming a fair share of what's rightfully ours.

I just don't understand why things are structured so that we keep getting reamed and we do nothing about it. (I presume this PP to GC is going to be announced in the middle of Grand Final week, where it will be ignored). Who are these 'commissioners', or whatever they're called. Do any of them represent us?

2 hours ago, Mach5 said:

There’s simply been far too many cases like Fyfe, Cripps, Curnow, Oliver, Rozee, Stephenson, Bontempelli, etc. ad nauseum, where the best players from a draft come from outside the consensus-top-few at the time of the draft.

You just have to look at the players who were duking it out for the Brownlow: Fyfe (20), Dangerfield (10), Neale (30s?), Cripps (13), Kelly (20s), Grundy (20), Coniglio (2), Zorko (rookie?), Martin (3).

 

Great observation. Let's swap our Pick 3 for Pick 20. Or - why not go the whole hog? - 60. We might pick up the next James Hird.  

47 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Because having uncompetitive teams is bad for the competition. Because having teams anchored to the bottom of the ladder for decades on end is bad for the comp. Because for the national expansion of the game to really take home we need the expansion teams to at least be competitive to help grow interest with flow on effects to media rights, talent pool etc.

It's a no brainer.

Boy, you've accepted the party line.

I couldn't care less about the 'national expansion" - I just want my team to win a bloody flag. The expansion teams snapping up the top picks at the same time as we were bottoming out is one of the (many) reasons we suck. 

6 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I couldn't give a stuff if the Sun's get a priority pick (which they have/will). Who cares, we got knocked back one spot, big deal. The draft is a complete lottery. The Suns must succeed for the sake of the game and if giving them a priority pick helps them get there then that's good.

I'm not sure how much it will help, particularly in the short term but the AFL cant afford to have uncompetitive teams anchored to the foot of the ladder for years at a time. It's bad for the competition.

Why "must the Suns succeed for the sake of the game"? 

I don't get it. Why do we keep getting screwed? How does it work?  Don't we have a representative on the board (or whatever they call this monstrosity that keeps fu#$*ing us? )

I'm a twenty year member, a fifty year supporter and I'm close to bowing out of the whole corrupt shebang 

The AFL is typified by the slimy spiv Demetriou and his post-AFL career (for those who don't know he was on the board of one of those rip-off private education companies that were exploiting the poor and disabled - should be in gaol but i presume he's lolling around his Toorak mansion getting fat)

1 hour ago, drysdale demon said:

All clubs have any misses, I still stand by my post that no one on this site could do a better job than the recruiting teams for any club

It would be just about impossible to do worse.

15 hours ago, bingers said:

As soon as I heard that Australia won the toss and sent England in, I knew we'd lose.

Paine, Langer et al obviously engaged Baldrick to assist them to make that decision. "I have a cunning plan..."

And it has turned out like that.

 

 

 

One can only assume they did it because the were afraid of Archer (can't say I blame em)

16 hours ago, Macca said:

Harmison was part of the ball tampering scandal in the 2005 Ashes.  Lollygate.  Sounds harmless but that cherry of their's swung around like nobody's business for that whole series.  Cheats!  Booooooooo! 

Trescothic was the devil at play and they all knew about it. Strauss,  Vaughan,  Flintoff,  all of them.  So they are hypocrites of the highest  order.

In another series Atherton went out on the field with a pocketful of dirt and there is video available of him applying the dirt along with saliva to the ball.  There might be more to that story - who knows? And he was the captain. 

One could argue that Smith never actually ever knew about the sandpaper.  But it was under his watch so he had to cop the punishment.

Faf du Plessis was directly involved with a ball tampering incident and got off with a slap across the wrist.

There have been a stack of other incidents but we've borne the brunt of the punishments.  CA ruled over the ICC who weren't going to come down hard. 

I am in 2 minds about the punishments handed down.  In one way it sets a great example but what if the rest of the world doesn't follow suit?  Worse still if we're hung out to dry Jara

Warner got off lightly is my personal view.  And Smith was harshly dealt with.  Bancroft fair enough.

Thanks Macca - yep, that was more or less as I read it (except, in the interests of consistency, I don't think I agree with you about Warner - I know he was the organiser (and he's a bit of a bogan) but a year out of the game is much more than anybody other than The Sandpaper Threesome has received)    Re Smith, I'm pretty sure I recall them saying he noticed they were planning it and simply gave it a diagonal nod (which was one of the reasons I suspected it was much more common than everybody was admitting, and why I thought their punishment was unfair)  - 

Anyway, we've retained the Ashes now, Smith's looking good, so who gives.....  Poms are just doing what they do best - whinging - Cheers