SA Footy

Purchases only, not from hotels

Agree with @Broadlach

Top 3 are putrid, the fifth is no other option go to.

What is interesting the majority of the list here are brands not individual beers.

am Bays wrote:Agree with @Broadlach

Top 3 are putrid, the fifth is no other option go to.

What is interesting the majority of the list here are brands not individual beers.

If it Tooheys New then I can live with that, it’s my go to interstate.

I stumbled across Asahi accidentally one day and I’ll grab a box if it’s on special, a refreshing beer imo.

Mid strength beers are very popular in QLD… not sure why. Maybe a bit that way in NSW too?

Corona Man wrote:Mid strength beers are very popular in QLD… not sure why. Maybe a bit that way in NSW too?

On a similar theme, an odd one i found moving out north was how popular schooners still are. All the oldies still drink there schooners.

Receiving an email a few days ago from cricket Victoria.

They are offering cut price 3 game memberships for either the Stars or the Renegades to all registered (I assume) players over here.

They’ve cooked the golden goose with the amount of pointless T ball cricket, the market is saturated and lost interest it seems.

I’d rather go to a day of shield cricket, but not at Junction oval.

So, we've gone from:

Someone tests positive at the SCG so everyone gets locked down for 2 weeks

to

Picking a player despite testing positive the morning of the start of the Test

Jimmy_041 wrote:So, we've gone from:

Someone tests positive at the SCG so everyone gets locked down for 2 weeks

to

Picking a player despite testing positive the morning of the start of the Test

Almost like we know more about the virus now.

Oh, and the vaccinated people who typically have milder symptoms.

Other than that, same.

Booney wrote:

Jimmy_041 wrote:So, we've gone from:

Someone tests positive at the SCG so everyone gets locked down for 2 weeks

to

Picking a player despite testing positive the morning of the start of the Test

Almost like we know more about the virus now.

Oh, and the vaccinated people who typically have milder symptoms.

Other than that, same.

But can still pass it on (which was the main reason for the lockdowns) - so Yes - same

Something about hospitalisations, I can't recall exactly.

What model of rectraspectrascope do you use Jim?

DOC wrote:What model of rectraspectrascope do you use Jim?

If no one was complaining back when the illogical rules were being put in place, then yes, you could say its a bet of retrospective complaining.
However there very much were people pointing out at the time about how over the top some of the rules were.

Therefore, this isn't a case of people complaining with hindsight, this is people pointing out the stupidity that was obvious from the start.

Trader wrote:

DOC wrote:What model of rectraspectrascope do you use Jim?

If no one was complaining back when the illogical rules were being put in place, then yes, you could say its a bet of retrospective complaining.
However there very much were people pointing out at the time about how over the top some of the rules were.

Therefore, this isn't a case of people complaining with hindsight, this is people pointing out the stupidity that was obvious from the start.

The only thing that was obvious from the start was how little was known about the virus(s) and everything associated with its spread, treatment, mutation etc.

No argument from me about how much things have changed (from lockdowns to picking test players).

DOC wrote:

Trader wrote:

DOC wrote:What model of rectraspectrascope do you use Jim?

If no one was complaining back when the illogical rules were being put in place, then yes, you could say its a bet of retrospective complaining.
However there very much were people pointing out at the time about how over the top some of the rules were.

Therefore, this isn't a case of people complaining with hindsight, this is people pointing out the stupidity that was obvious from the start.

The only thing that was obvious from the start was how little was known about the virus(s) and everything associated with its spread, treatment, mutation etc.

No argument from me about how much things have changed (from lockdowns to picking test players).

Agreed Doc

To me the analogy is good test batting.

Play in the "v" for the first 50-60 balls - you may miss a few long hops and easy fours but you're "getting in" then you can "manage" the bowling

Yeah some of the early rules about Covid especially after we had initially dealt with it (in the 40-60 ball range) were a bit head scratching and indicated w that perhaps we were being over cautious but now after 34 months we "are in" and can play normally

All IMO

am Bays wrote:

DOC wrote:

Trader wrote:

DOC wrote:What model of rectraspectrascope do you use Jim?

If no one was complaining back when the illogical rules were being put in place, then yes, you could say its a bet of retrospective complaining.
However there very much were people pointing out at the time about how over the top some of the rules were.

Therefore, this isn't a case of people complaining with hindsight, this is people pointing out the stupidity that was obvious from the start.

The only thing that was obvious from the start was how little was known about the virus(s) and everything associated with its spread, treatment, mutation etc.

No argument from me about how much things have changed (from lockdowns to picking test players).

Agreed Doc

To me the analogy is good test batting.

Play in the "v" for the first 50-60 balls - you may miss a few long hops and easy fours but you're "getting in" then you can "manage" the bowling

Yeah some of the early rules about Covid especially after we had initially dealt with it (in the 40-60 ball range) were a bit head scratching and indicated w that perhaps we were being over cautious but now after 34 months we "are in" and can play normally

All IMO

I think most people would agree with the general analogy.
The questions came however when we were on day 4 of the test match, 550 runs in front and we are still playing in the V.

The logic of playing in the V early was fine, the length of time it took to start to play some shots was not, IMO.

Statewide Lockdowns 6 months after the vacine was rolled out for example, that's still playing in the V when we were miles on top in the match.

I wrote a long-ish post in the Covid thread on Jul 27th 2021 questioning the costs of over the top protections.
I flagged the impacts they would have on the cost of living.
Come the middle of 2022 and inflation jumped to 40 year highs.
This was not unforseeable.

Anyway, the best thing about these debates is we'll never know if they were too cautious for too long, as we won't be re-running the simulation with different inputs. It's a one off and we just have to accept the actions we were forced to take.

DOC wrote:

Trader wrote:

DOC wrote:What model of rectraspectrascope do you use Jim?

If no one was complaining back when the illogical rules were being put in place, then yes, you could say its a bet of retrospective complaining.
However there very much were people pointing out at the time about how over the top some of the rules were.

Therefore, this isn't a case of people complaining with hindsight, this is people pointing out the stupidity that was obvious from the start.

The only thing that was obvious from the start was how little was known about the virus(s) and everything associated with its spread, treatment, mutation etc.

No argument from me about how much things have changed (from lockdowns to picking test players).

I totally agree.

My unwavering beef is the lies put out as scientific or medical advice that was used to justify their actions and/or coerce people into doing what they want

Catch them lying once and everything they say should be scrutinised from then on.
Keep catching them and we have a real problem as they obviously dont care

F*** me, can we keep the Covid shit for the Covid thread, I don’t visit that one for a reason, we don’t need it to spread

Trader wrote:

am Bays wrote:

DOC wrote:

Trader wrote:If no one was complaining back when the illogical rules were being put in place, then yes, you could say its a bet of retrospective complaining.
However there very much were people pointing out at the time about how over the top some of the rules were.

Therefore, this isn't a case of people complaining with hindsight, this is people pointing out the stupidity that was obvious from the start.

The only thing that was obvious from the start was how little was known about the virus(s) and everything associated with its spread, treatment, mutation etc.

No argument from me about how much things have changed (from lockdowns to picking test players).

Agreed Doc

To me the analogy is good test batting.

Play in the "v" for the first 50-60 balls - you may miss a few long hops and easy fours but you're "getting in" then you can "manage" the bowling

Yeah some of the early rules about Covid especially after we had initially dealt with it (in the 40-60 ball range) were a bit head scratching and indicated w that perhaps we were being over cautious but now after 34 months we "are in" and can play normally

All IMO

I think most people would agree with the general analogy.
The questions came however when we were on day 4 of the test match, 550 runs in front and we are still playing in the V.

The logic of playing in the V early was fine, the length of time it took to start to play some shots was not, IMO.

Statewide Lockdowns 6 months after the vacine was rolled out for example, that's still playing in the V when we were miles on top in the match.

I wrote a long-ish post in the Covid thread on Jul 27th 2021 questioning the costs of over the top protections.
I flagged the impacts they would have on the cost of living.
Come the middle of 2022 and inflation jumped to 40 year highs.
This was not unforseeable.

Anyway, the best thing about these debates is we'll never know if they were too cautious for too long, as we won't be re-running the simulation with different inputs. It's a one off and we just have to accept the actions we were forced to take.

In my opinion the six month/ vaccine reference is equivalent to the 40-60 ball innings mark - we think we're going OK but just need another 20 balls before we can start to cash in

Now we at the day four mark and can through caution to wind so to speak and it's fruit for the side-board time

Jimmy makes a good point about the use of "spin" to try and justify decisions and actions when come mid 2021 the message of mid 2020 wasnt going to cut it anymore.
Any yep as you say, we are never going to know but if we were too cautious for too long

Lightning McQueen wrote:F*** me, can we keep the Covid shit for the Covid thread, I don’t visit that one for a reason, we don’t need it to spread

More misinformation - you've posted on nearly every page of that forum

Lightning McQueen wrote:F*** me, can we keep the Covid shit for the Covid thread, I don’t visit that one for a reason, we don’t need it to spread

Clearly a pun ;-)