Magpie_Oz

So same as always then? Glad you can keep the women consoled it will have them prepared for when the real men come home.

Sure it's mobile but the trick is carrying enough ammo to make it worth your while. 20mm is HEAVY !

Nah, we prefer to play the game than talking about playing the game

OOOOOOHHHH, Scotland so close

What? So you guys aren't going to turn up late this time?

That when discussing any subject in this genre there is an awful lot of myth and bollocks to get through

Dunno, I'm not. The original comment was that the Germans were the world leaders in clever science which is far from the case.

I actually mean Germany not Germans But a few things in addition to Mr Womble Einstein never actually split the atom he created the theory of what might happen if you did. Enrio Fermi the Italian was probably the first to do so but it was Lise Mitner , an Austrian until they took away her citizenship because she was a Jew who actually worked out what was happening. The German Knickebein and similar systems were defeated by British ECM as compared to the British H2S, Oboe and Gee which the Germans were never able to counter. Also the integrated radar defence network that saved Britain as compared to the German fighter network which the British were able to confuse and attack electronically. ASDIC later sonar which turned the tide of the Battle for the Atlantic along with the first airborne search radars, which ironically the French provided a detector for, thanks fellas The marvellous German V2's that did pioneer rocketry were foolish enough to fall for the British counter plan of telling porkies as to where the missiles landed. And of course the crowning achievement of all : Ultra and Colossus where the finest minds of Britain utterly ran rings around their German foes.

Sure the pay is better in some areas of the resources boom but that doesn't make the country better. Those sort of jobs are there for those who are lucky enough to find way in but it is pretty hard. I'm one of those lucky ones and earn probably 3 times what I would if I worked at home. Mind you being away from home is pretty hard. As for the expenses Aff, well my company pays for everything for me so it's not an issue. In fact on most mine sites beer etc is actually cheaper, almost at cost usually.

Nah I don't go with that Jon. The article doesn't talk about studying the behaviour as the link you provided does, it merely says "Yeh we don't like it but it's part of the game" That would be like saying we don't condone the riots but it is to be expected when you live in a city and leaving it at that. The distinction being that a study of the riots can get to the root social problems that cause the riot, saying that "it's to be expected in a big event" is not making any attempt to discover the root cause of the behaviour and solve the issue.

My whole point is that: saying "I don't condone it" and then saying "it should be expected as part of a big event" is contradictory because it actually does condone the behaviour. and saying the because the other teams cheered the Irish win means that they hate Australia is not a logical conclusion. [Edit] : She also adds a bit of sweeping archetyping to finish up on : " Australia is seen as New Zealand’s better, stronger and insanely annoying Big Brother." I certainly don't and I am sure more NZ'ers don't consider Oz "better", not sure how we are stronger and people are annoying not countries. I've certainly never considered us to be brothers, close mates for sure but quite distinct in many ways. So it does nothing for putting things in perspective. It's like using calling someone Boorish and then making a personal attacks or not checking typing or capitalisations and saying things like "dickhead" [sic] and that sort of thing.

I think you are drawing a very long bow there Duke, sure the Russian Front was a major investment for Germany but I cannot agree that had they not attacked the technology race would not have proceeded. I also do not see how you assume Germany was any more technically adept than anyone else, Britain never lost the technological initiative they had over Germany through out the war. I really believe that even if the US had not entered the war Britain would have still prevailed over Germany as the Empire had manpower and resources far in excess of what Germany did. Once recovered from the shock of the lighting victories of 1940 the British Empire would have defeated Germany just the same as they did in WW1, granted probably over a much greater time scale. As regards staving them or invading them Hitler had good reason to believe that he had a certain degree of support within England, the royal family having strong ties to Germany and it was widely believed that Edward the VIII had Nazi sympathies. There is nothing to suggest that the USSR would have laid waste to a conquered Germany. Why would they? Take the country and subjugate its people and then have to rebuild it all? I don't think so. Sure the USSR had a scorched earth policy but this was to stop their resources falling into German hands. Had the Soviets not destroyed the Ukrainian oil fields things might have been very different. I think you'll find too that Soviet deaths in German captivity far out weighed German deaths in Soviet captivity. Sure sole occupation by the USSR would not have been good but I cannot see that it would have meant extinction for the German peoples.

He must have been busy, wasn't he with everyone but the Japanese ?

"While that kind of behaviour should never be condoned, surely it is just part and parcel of a big event like the Rugby World Cup, especially when your neighbour and bitter rival has just been beaten in one of the best games in rugby history." That very much indicates to me that spitting on people is being suggested as an appropriate response. It recommends that at the highest level of the sport it is acceptable to spit on your opponents supporters. And you yourself said "everyone at het cup except teh Aussies celebrated the Irish win - poor didums aussie cry babies!" So you suggesting that if the Irish had of beaten the All Blacks and they didn't celebrate the win they would be the cry babies? The article also draws the conclusion that "And the fact that it wasn’t just the Kiwis and the Irish, but the English, the Samoans, the Italians, the Scots and pretty much every other nation at the tournament celebrating the victory says more about the world’s feelings toward the Australian rugby team than anything else. " Which is BS in it's purest form. It belittles all teams involved by suggesting that they are celebrating an Australian loss rather than a well deserved Irish win.

No he wasn't, read it again, he completely changed what you said, but I do like your twist on the theme As much as ANYONE editing my post might **** me off

The German Kar98K had a 5 round magazine, Russian Mosin-Nagant 5 round magazine, British SMLE had 10 rounds so really 8 rounds isn't that bad. Much is made of "the ting" but really in close quarters stuff it might be a drama but I can't imagine it making much difference in most situations. I know the Aussie Army and I believe the UK as well train their troops to shout to their oppo that they are reloading which is more of a give away than a ting. Don't forget too that the rifle only goes "ting" milliseconds after it has made a colossal BANG!!!!!!! so it is a good ear that would pick out the subtle harmony. I'm with Yankee Dog that the inability to top off the magazine is more cumbersome.

That is a really annoying habit you have there Jon, Quoting and changing the words.

Yeh, except for the bit where the Normandy campaign was actually shorter than anticipated. Nazi Germany was soundly defeated by a superior enemy, the Allied tanks were better, the troops were better, their weapons better, the logistics better, manpower better and under more or less air supremacy.

I am on record as saying I like my privacy and secrets so I'll not be investing in "The Eye of Big Brother" any time soon.

Maybe there are 6 to allow for step up? As the SP Guns (and Inf Regt Cannons too) are considered more likely to be on the move, with 6 weapons they could have two moving and 4 static at any time, so they would always be providing the same support as a 4 gun troop???

"Here's an op-ed that puts it into sperspective - everyone at het cup except teh Aussies celebrated the Irish win - poor didums aussie cry babies!" Quite a BS article that one. So we are expected to celebrate Ireland beating us? I think the thing is that the Irish win was a very good and unexpected one, hence all the other nations cheered them on. It says more about the admiration for an Irish win rather than hatred of the Australians. Had the Irish beaten the All blacks is it being suggested that they would have celebrated the loss? I must remember the next time NZ loses a game, to go and spit on my Maori next door neighbour and show him this article before he punches my head in. I did like 67-5 against the US tho'

oops I was thinking internal combustion was how you indicate that the combustion takes place inside a sealed space within the engine. Which really is not all that much faster than the top pistons, Rare Bear is at 530 odd mph. Smaller single engine Turboporps seem to not be able to reach such high speeds, The PC-9 of the RAAF, USAF, USN, and the Tucano of the RAF only have speds in the low to mid 300mph range. Not sure if that is because they aren't designed to or if there is some limiting factor. According to Reno rules the "unlimited" class must be a prop, piston engine, be able to pull 6G and weigh more than 4500lbs. I see they have a jet class now but maybe the main reason there are no Turboprops is because they don't have a class to race in?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavalier_Mustang http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piper_PA-48_Enforcer Yep sure can, but like you say a Turbo prop is certainly not an internal combustion engine. Thing with most turboprop aircraft is that they are not really about speed but more so torque. A lot of STOL and crop dusters use them so they can haul themselves into the air with comparatively low airspeed. Having said that the fastest prop aircraft is a Turboprop but it isn't all that much faster than the "Rare Bear". I think the big limiter with prop aircraft is not so much horsepower but more the limits of the propeller itself. I'd be interested to see how a highly manoeuvrable jet, F16 for example, would go at Reno, I'd be thinking their rate of turn would be great but the radius of turn would be huge so the ol' props could out turn them?

But that is my point, you are at far greater risk driving there than being there.

Not to diminish the tragedy of the event but on the same day 125 people died and 6500 were injured driving on the roads, always gets me how we simply accept everyday deaths but get all concerned about comparatively rare occurrences.