Posts by giovanni tiso
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Google provides the answer in 0.04 seconds and boy, was I far off the mark. It was going to guess a poor translation of Machiavelli.
-
I knew the other half was a keeper when I asked him to pick up some pads for me at the supermarket and he said "sure, but you'll have to tell me what size."
We are instructed to give that answer during training.
-
Is picking it up "catching", so long as the ball is moving? Or does "catch" mean what it says -- ie, on the full?
That was my (very uneducated guess), which is why I asked.
And does that make a difference as to which side is deemed to have put the ball out??
It ought to. If the player catches the ball when it is deemed to be in touch, then he's not the one who put in touch. Although I agree it could be worded better.
-
Since we're also talking rugby, I wonder if somebody could enlighten me on the following: some have said that the ABs were incorrectly awarded the lineout that lead to Woodcock's second try, since the Aussie fullback (was it the fullback) grabbed hold of the ball with a foot deliberately outside the line. But he didn't catch it on the full, the ball was on the ground - does that make any difference as far as the rule goes?
-
I can't actually understand why FHP as you call 'em aren't free. How is it a choice to consume such items?
Others have mentioned food, might I add why should I have to pay for the roof over my head?
People, I think we might be on to something here.
-
Insurance cheap(ish) for young drivers in big cars
Car insurance not compulsory. That sends shivers down my spine on a pretty regular basis.
-
Her argument consists of guilt-by-association anecdotes.
Frankly, no, it doesn't. And I think she does make an empirical argument that is not so easy to dismiss, although of course you're free to find it lacking. FWIW I wasn't entirely sold, as I may have said upthread. And the fact that she didn't mention New Zealand speaks directly to the last sentence in your post.
-
Yeah, a sarcasm tag, that'd be just great...
-
so many of our most educated disappear overseas for want of opportunity or adequate remuneration. If we invest heavily in education, won't we just be funding a brains trust for the taxpayers of other countries
How else do you move to a high-wage economy, though? It ain't going to be roads. We'll always lose some people, and will gain others (yours truly doesn't come from a third world country and is any politician's wet dream - a highly educated exporter!) (thank you, thank you, that's enough applause).
I mean, did that really work out for Ireland, or was it just the EU subsidies and remittance of funds from the UK?
It worked in places like Korea and Vietnam, though, right?
-
__we might even get to have a reasoned and reasonable debate on policy__
An optimist, I see!
Thanks for putting it politely. I do think that we had quite a good debate back in 1999, though, with clear cut policy differences and in a similar situation, opinion-polls wise. Perhaps I felt that way because it was my first exposure to a non-Italian political campaign.
Then again, I should also point out that I'm the last person that has any use for debates on policy, honest or otherwise. I'm a hopelessly entrenched ideologue who will always vote for a party of the left, even if they promised to nationalise my own children.
(I could have so used my daughter being nationalised at breakfast time this morning.)