Why in the name of all the gods were you lifting a prop?Sandydragon wrote:I’ve lifted heavier in a lineout.Digby wrote:You'd have to be in decent shape to throw him anywhereSandydragon wrote: If only I could......
Puja
Why in the name of all the gods were you lifting a prop?Sandydragon wrote:I’ve lifted heavier in a lineout.Digby wrote:You'd have to be in decent shape to throw him anywhereSandydragon wrote: If only I could......
Craig Quinnell?Sandydragon wrote:I’ve lifted heavier in a lineout.Digby wrote:You'd have to be in decent shape to throw him anywhereSandydragon wrote: If only I could......
You lifted 300 pounders???Sandydragon wrote:I’ve lifted heavier in a lineout.Digby wrote:You'd have to be in decent shape to throw him anywhereSandydragon wrote: If only I could......
Trumps only about 17 stone. Playing in Devon we had ball boys heavier than that.Puja wrote:Why in the name of all the gods were you lifting a prop?Sandydragon wrote:I’ve lifted heavier in a lineout.Digby wrote:
You'd have to be in decent shape to throw him anywhere
Puja
Our heaviest lock was somewhere between 25-30 stone. That fucker didn’t get that far off the ground. Quite a few locks at the 20’stone mark though.gransoporro wrote:You lifted 300 pounders???Sandydragon wrote:I’ve lifted heavier in a lineout.Digby wrote:
You'd have to be in decent shape to throw him anywhere
Respect.
He's more than 17 stone! I'm 5ft 10 and 18st and he is both taller and fatter than me. I'd be surprised if he's under 21st. Plus, I'd imagine that your jumpers were able to make a vertical leap higher than 3cm.Sandydragon wrote:Trumps only about 17 stone. Playing in Devon we had ball boys heavier than that.Puja wrote:Why in the name of all the gods were you lifting a prop?Sandydragon wrote: I’ve lifted heavier in a lineout.
Puja
I'm with Puja on this, no way he's below 20 stone, not even if fat weighs a lot less than musclePuja wrote:He's more than 17 stone! I'm 5ft 10 and 18st and he is both taller and fatter than me. I'd be surprised if he's under 21st. Plus, I'd imagine that your jumpers were able to make a vertical leap higher than 3cm.Sandydragon wrote:Trumps only about 17 stone. Playing in Devon we had ball boys heavier than that.Puja wrote:
Why in the name of all the gods were you lifting a prop?
Puja
Puja
I’ll agree that most of our locks were able to propel themselves a short way off the floor. Still don’t think he’s that heavy but somehow I doubt that we will have reliable stats available.Digby wrote:I'm with Puja on this, no way he's below 20 stone, not even if fat weighs a lot less than musclePuja wrote:He's more than 17 stone! I'm 5ft 10 and 18st and he is both taller and fatter than me. I'd be surprised if he's under 21st. Plus, I'd imagine that your jumpers were able to make a vertical leap higher than 3cm.Sandydragon wrote: Trumps only about 17 stone. Playing in Devon we had ball boys heavier than that.
Puja
There’s a report that a protestor was shot dead by some random bloke in a pick up truck.cashead wrote:Some shit is going down.
I heard that report too, lets hope for better than that 'fine people on both sides' garbageSandydragon wrote:There’s a report that a protestor was shot dead by some random bloke in a pick up truck.cashead wrote:Some shit is going down.
This has potential to explode and Trump is utterly unable to grasp that it might be serious or has the skills to defuse the situation.
Yup. Fuck human lives, it's all about political advantage.Mikey Brown wrote:He has no interest in defusing, whether he has the skills or not.
Digby wrote:SCOTUS, just, came down on the side of law and the logic in rejecting the idea California's lockdown orders are putting an unconstitutional burden on religious lunacy. It was a 5-4 ruling with the Chief Justice siding with the so called liberals on the court.
The court's four other GOP appointees, Chief Justice Roberts apart, dissented, with three of them signing up to an opinion written by Kavanaugh, which by any fair definition is not only barking mad but basically ignores both the law and the question that was asked of the court. It doesn't really seem like it should be possible the ruling was so close, and it certainly doesn't seem cool that Kavanaugh and company can just go full retard because of the politics. No word on why one of the dissenting judges wouldn't sign up to Kavanaugh's opinion, probably he couldn't bring himself to be quite that shameful, and he didn't want the dressing down the Chief Justice handed to Kavanaugh in basically calling Kavanaugh a rancid liar.
I think I heard the whole thing is largely a waste of time with some changes to make gatherings voluntary as to size? But yep, it's full on banana republic time just looking at the behaviour of 3-4 of the judgesmorepork wrote:Digby wrote:SCOTUS, just, came down on the side of law and the logic in rejecting the idea California's lockdown orders are putting an unconstitutional burden on religious lunacy. It was a 5-4 ruling with the Chief Justice siding with the so called liberals on the court.
The court's four other GOP appointees, Chief Justice Roberts apart, dissented, with three of them signing up to an opinion written by Kavanaugh, which by any fair definition is not only barking mad but basically ignores both the law and the question that was asked of the court. It doesn't really seem like it should be possible the ruling was so close, and it certainly doesn't seem cool that Kavanaugh and company can just go full retard because of the politics. No word on why one of the dissenting judges wouldn't sign up to Kavanaugh's opinion, probably he couldn't bring himself to be quite that shameful, and he didn't want the dressing down the Chief Justice handed to Kavanaugh in basically calling Kavanaugh a rancid liar.
That is proper fucking mad. Kavanaugh is an idiot. An idiot for life. What a fetid backwater.
It's hardly wanton destruction of property, but it is destruction of property, and if you're going to be amused by destruction of property it's a bit weird to decry the loss of some bottles of milk.Puja wrote:cashead wrote:
![]()
Puja
Milk is the easiest way to mitigate the damage of tear gas. Given the police have been summarily gassing peaceful protesters all across the country (including children in Seattle, I hear), yes, I am decrying them actively destroying an aid station that was there to help people who had been hurt.Digby wrote:It's hardly wanton destruction of property, but it is destruction of property, and if you're going to be amused by destruction of property it's a bit weird to decry the loss of some bottles of milk.Puja wrote:cashead wrote:
![]()
Puja