2008 Tour De France Stage 15 - Sunday, July 20: Embrun - Prato Nevoso, 183km



classic1

Well-Known Member
Jul 29, 2006
11,491
2,085
113
thunder said:
harder than Pendlebury
I wouldn't think so. No. People confuse 'evasiveness' with 'softness'. Pendlebury can take a hit when he has to and is an excellent tackler.
 

thunder

New Member
Jan 8, 2006
3,214
0
36
classic1 said:
I wouldn't think so. No. People confuse 'evasiveness' with 'softness'. Pendlebury can take a hit when he has to and is an excellent tackler.
last years finals he heard footsteps and sqibbed multiple contests
 

fscyclist

New Member
Jul 30, 2006
753
0
0
Crankyfeet said:
As Drongo and classic said, my take also is Australia is conservative, yet also socialistic (comparitive to America... not to Europe).

IMHO....Links to the UK are largely hypothetical... the Queen has only intervened once that I can remember (sacking Prime Minister Gough Whitlam in 1975 when the Senate was blocking supply bills to pass and the country was in an economic mess ... though not that different from the mess the rest of the world was in .... it was a very divisive action though).

The main thing IMO that favoured being part of the Commonwealth was that the UK provided defense support in the event Australia was attacked. The downsides were hardly noticed as the UK didn't interfere in politics (barring 1975). The Monarchy has gradually become more ceremonial and symbolic even to people in the UK, however they pay taxes to support it, Australia doesn't. The need for links to the UK are becoming less relevant IMHO. It will die eventually. The reason it hasn't is because it doesn't cost Aussies much to stay linked. It is largely just a matter of principle and self reliance. To be independent. Officially.
From what I can tell, it looks like the Brits call on you guys whenever they need some fresh cannon fodder.
 

thoughtforfood

New Member
Jul 24, 2007
2,474
0
0
54
Eldron said:
I'm a bit concerned about thoughtforfood myself - I think he's off the steroids or summin.

I preferred him aggressive too - who's signature had the quote about foody working in profanity and not clay??? Classic!

He was even nice to me - next he'll be saying how good Evans looked in yellow...
Actually, Periwinkle is his best color...
 

thoughtforfood

New Member
Jul 24, 2007
2,474
0
0
54
Eldron said:
I'm a bit concerned about thoughtforfood myself - I think he's off the steroids or summin.

I preferred him aggressive too - who's signature had the quote about foody working in profanity and not clay??? Classic!

He was even nice to me - next he'll be saying how good Evans looked in yellow...
...and YOU started the niceness! :)
 

nns1400

New Member
Jul 27, 2006
6,276
0
0
classic1 said:
No, the problem is seppos don't think much full stop. Fortunately if Australia ever upset the US the seppos are likely to nuke Austria or something out of plain ignorance.
Who would notice?
 

nns1400

New Member
Jul 27, 2006
6,276
0
0
Crankyfeet said:
As Drongo and classic said, my take also is Australia is conservative, yet also socialistic (comparitive to America... not to Europe).

IMHO....Links to the UK are largely hypothetical... the Queen has only intervened once that I can remember (sacking Prime Minister Gough Whitlam in 1975 when the Senate was blocking supply bills to pass and the country was in an economic mess ... though not that different from the mess the rest of the world was in .... it was a very divisive action though).

The main thing IMO that favoured being part of the Commonwealth was that the UK provided defense support in the event Australia was attacked. The downsides were hardly noticed as the UK didn't interfere in politics (barring 1975). The Monarchy has gradually become more ceremonial and symbolic even to people in the UK, however they pay taxes to support it, Australia doesn't. The need for links to the UK are becoming less relevant IMHO. It will die eventually. The reason it hasn't is because it doesn't cost Aussies much to stay linked. It is largely just a matter of principle and self reliance. To be independent. Officially.
Well shucks, if you don't have to pay for the Queen then it's not so bad really...
 

Crankyfeet

New Member
Jun 5, 2007
10,817
0
36
nns1400 said:
Well shucks, if you don't have to pay for the Queen then it's not so bad really...
She does it for free for Aussies.

BTW Anticyclone... that 61p per person per year is a bit misleading. I bet the multi-millionaires in the UK are carrying a lot more of the tab. They're probably paying £3.00 each.
 

Crankyfeet

New Member
Jun 5, 2007
10,817
0
36
fscyclist said:
From what I can tell, it looks like the Brits call on you guys whenever they need some fresh cannon fodder.
Nah... they just send you guys an intelligence report littered with words/phrases like "uranium", and "nuclear", and "terrorists"... and "baddies"... and then just sit back and wait a couple of days.
 

rob of the og

New Member
Nov 20, 2003
253
0
0
Crankyfeet said:
She does it for free for Aussies.

BTW Anticyclone... that 61p per person per year is a bit misleading. I bet the multi-millionaires in the UK are carrying a lot more of the tab. They're probably paying £3.00 each.
Nah, multi-millionaires in the UK don't pay any tax so it's the rest of us that fund the free-loading royals.
 

fscyclist

New Member
Jul 30, 2006
753
0
0
Crankyfeet said:
Nah... they just send you guys an intelligence report littered with words/phrases like "uranium", and "nuclear", and "terrorists"... and "baddies"... and then just sit back and wait a couple of days.
One word. Gallipoli.
 

Crankyfeet

New Member
Jun 5, 2007
10,817
0
36
fscyclist said:
One word. Gallipoli.
No one goes into battle expecting to be decimated. The following table from Wiki shows that the casualties were spread around the Allied forces. Britain had almost three times as many casualties as Australia.

Gallipoli casualties
(source: Wikipedia)

=> Died.... Wounded.... Total

Total Allies => 44,072.... 97,037..... 141,113
The United Kingdom => 21,255.... 52,230.... 73,489
France (estimated) => 10,000.... 17,000.... 27,000
Australia => 7,594.... 20,000.... 27,594
New Zealand => 2,701.... 4,546.... 7,247
India => 1,358.... 3,421.... 4,779
Newfoundland => 49.... 93.... 142
Ottoman Empire => 55,801.... 140,000.... 195,000

Total (both sides) => 99,893.... 237,037.... 336,930
 

nns1400

New Member
Jul 27, 2006
6,276
0
0
Well, I'm sure it was serious and important, but all I really remember about Gallipoli is that Mel Gibson was hot in the movie...call me shallow...not as smokin hot as Fletcher Christian in The Bounty however...
 

heinkel12

New Member
May 9, 2006
122
0
0
Crankyfeet said:
No one goes into battle expecting to be decimated. The following table from Wiki shows that the casualties were spread around the Allied forces. Britain had almost three times as many casualties as Australia.

Gallipoli casualties
(source: Wikipedia)

=> Died.... Wounded.... Total

Total Allies => 44,072.... 97,037..... 141,113
The United Kingdom => 21,255.... 52,230.... 73,489
France (estimated) => 10,000.... 17,000.... 27,000
Australia => 7,594.... 20,000.... 27,594
New Zealand => 2,701.... 4,546.... 7,247
India => 1,358.... 3,421.... 4,779
Newfoundland => 49.... 93.... 142
Ottoman Empire => 55,801.... 140,000.... 195,000

Total (both sides) => 99,893.... 237,037.... 336,930
They possibly had three times more men serve there though. Don't know those figures. Australia's casualty rate (dead/wounded) was about 65% for WW1 as a whole. But that's getting way off topic.
 

Crankyfeet

New Member
Jun 5, 2007
10,817
0
36
heinkel12 said:
They possibly had three times more men serve there though. Don't know those figures. Australia's casualty rate (dead/wounded) was about 65% for WW1 as a whole. But that's getting way off topic.
Did you think I was trying to illustrate that the British were inferior soldiers?....
tongue.gif
(respectful laughter)

I realise they had more troops there... I was trying to illustrate, in reply to fscyclist, that the Battle of Gallipoli wasn't just a case of Britain sending Australian lambs to slaughter while they stood back and watched.
 

heinkel12

New Member
May 9, 2006
122
0
0
Crankyfeet said:
Did you think I was trying to illustrate that the British were inferior soldiers?....
tongue.gif
(respectful laughter)

I realise they had more troops there... I was trying to illustrate, in reply to fscyclist, that the Battle of Gallipoli wasn't just a case of Britain sending Australian lambs to slaughter while they stood back and watched.
I was really just trying to say everyone had it the same no matter who you were with. Agreeing with you I suppose. The Brits have always been good soldiers. Their leadership however hasn't always been up to the same standard.
 

classic1

Well-Known Member
Jul 29, 2006
11,491
2,085
113
thunder said:
last years finals he heard footsteps and sqibbed multiple contests
Rubbish. Pendlebury was among the best in each of the finals he played, (except maybe the Geelong one, coming off two ripper games inc the marathon extra time game in Perth), and I didn't see him take backwards steps in any of them.