Which Tyler

Members
  • Content count

    1,799
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Which Tyler

  • Rank
    AKA: Aidan
  • Birthday 02/19/1976

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    www.back-in-action.net

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    UK - West Country
  • Interests
    My name's an homage to the grammatically incorrect Wat Tyler, who led the Peasant's Revolt a mere 640-odd years ago. The avatar is the Monty Python crew having a bit of a moan about Pedants like myself. My pedantry is keen, but unskilled I'm afraid.
    My principal hobby is rugby, from which I retired (hurt) just over a decade ago; though I still follow the game, and support both the grass roots level, and Bath in the English top flight. I seem to be a much better supporter than I ever was as a player. I'm a fan of historical fiction and comedy, with Terry Pratchett and Bernard Cornwell as my favourite authors.

    I don't bake, knit, crochet, spin etc but I try to carry my weight about the house by being a keen, but unskilled (hmmm, that phrase seems to sum me up really) at gardening and DIY. I am, however engaged to Ali who does all of the that; though she rarely bakes - that's more for self-preservation of the waistline than anything else. She also has a tendency to steal my account log-ins for any discussion forum I use (most likely, if you see me posting in Dr Who, that'll be her); though I will make sure she doesn't use any of my mod-privileges.

    Beyond that.... I'm a chiropractor, and I work alongside Ali (massage therapist) as just the 2 of us in a small town that seems to spend half it's time under water since we moved here. We have 2 cats, 1 dog and 0 offspring are confirmed generation X-ers; and one of those lame-arse couples who got engaged a decade ago, but still haven't gotten around to actually getting married. My humour is generally inappropriate, but I enjoy bickering as well; so all's well that ends well.

Recent Profile Visitors

4,616 profile views
  1. I think the obvious thing to separate Saidin for Saidar is how the thread is modelled - model Saidar on water flowing through tubes, with water-type movements in the air; whilst Saidin would be modelled on fire, crackling in it's weaves; then chaning the colour depending on what weave is used. I choose water and fire that way due to the descriptions; of channelling water versus burning your emotions in the flame; surrendering and channelling rather than fighting and forcing etc.
  2. Poirot seems the obvious answer to this question - quite possibly too obvious to be of any actual use.
  3. I have to ask... pun intended?
  4. Just bumping this thread, as it starts in less than 1 week, so should be available to book in the EPG now. April 30 on Starz if you live Stateside May 1 on Amazon Prime for everyone else
  5. It's also worth mentioning that when "fighting his enemies" means fighting to the death; he kinda has to win; because dying would put a bit of a kybosh on continuing his story.
  6. You don't live in Paris then - that or your polling card was laced with LSD
  7. Really enjoyed Osferth's arrival, a re-imagined Aldhelm as spin-master rather than mindless thug, Oda as Uthred's supporter. Have to say, they're doing a good job of some of the books' clunkier parts; and he shaky cam for towards the end was actually really effective - for the first time since the Blair Witch Project. First season was really good, but let down by Uthred's acting, and not enough time to let the characters breathe and develop. This season is better, his acting has improved tenfold, but i still wish for another episode or two to let things develop more naturally.
  8. Well, that puts the Launchbury is unavailable rumour to bed - tourin with England and a whole bunch of kids: Props Collier Genge Hill Williams Mulan Hookers LCD Hartley Locks Ewels Isiekwe Launchbury Back Row Curry Curry Haskell Hughes Robshaw Underhill Wood Scrum Halves Care Maunder Fly Halves Ford Francis Lozowski Centres Slade Mallinder James Marchant Wings Cockanasiga Earle May Solomona Full Back Mike Brown
  9. I'm not sure how much you disagree, as I said that I DO think diplomacy should have won out, and that the marginal calls should have gone the way of whichever nation is the less represented by the time you get to the marginal calls (though I may have toned it down a little from there). The likes of Halfpenny, North, Faletau are pure class, just out of form (actually, Faletau isn't even out of form, he was just back from injury too soon during the 6N to show any; but has shown it for Bath these last 2-3 weeks); and for class they go. For me, the most marginal Welsh calls were Moriarty (should have been Heaslip or Watson), Davies (should have been Ringrose - I gather both Scottish centres are injured, but either would have been preferable), Ken Owens over Hartley was pretty marginal as well, albeit in a bit of a cripple-fight manner AWJ over Launchbury is really easy - Launch isn't available for selection (allegedly, according to forum posters who know him personally); whilst having him over JGray is a matter of experience winning over potential, and is pretty damned marginal. Biggar was an absolute stinker of a choice, Russel should have gone, with Ford / Jackson on stand-by; he's just an awful choice to take on a Lions tour to NZ, where we will need to score tries - which we won't with Biggar (timing is pretty perfect for Farrell, I'd have said the same about him 18 months ago, but now, he's fine). For me, at this stage, there's no place for favouritism, even if it is understandable and a price you pay for appointing a current home nations' head coach. You decide your squad by listing out the must-go.s; and then a list of marginals. England's must-go players are: Vunipola, Marler, Kruis, Lawes, Itoje, Launch (unavailable), Vunipola, Farrell, Joseph, Watson (9) Ireland's must-go players are: McGrath, Furlong, Henderson, Stander, POM, Heaslip, Murray, Sexton, Hensaw (9) Wales' must-go players are: Warburton, Tipuric, Faletau, Webb, Williams (5) Scotland's must-go players are: Hogg (1) You're then picking 2 more THPs, but Nel is injured, Francis, Bealham and Lee aren't good enough; so Cole is obvious, then Sinkler & Fagerson provide inexperienced impact, 2-way marginal call IMO. You want 3 hookers, from Hartley, George, Best, Cronin, Owens & Ford. Best is the obvious choice from that lot, leaving you to perm 2 from 5 - none of which are obivously superior/inferior to the others; George probably the most talented, and least experienced. 5-way marginal call for IMO. We still need 1 more lock, from Ryan, Jones, Gray & Gray; whilst I'd personally go for JGray, I could make a good case for all 4 - 4-way marginal call IMO. We also want 2 flankers, from Robshaw, Haskell, SOB, JdvF, Moriarty, Watson - I wouldn't say that any of them are obvious choices; and he went with just about the least appertising 2 for me, but there's nothing clear-cut about it; a 6-way marginal call IMO. Given that he's gone for Moriarty as a flanker, we need to lose a N8; or Vunipola, Heaslip and Faletau; all are great players, and all deserve to go on merit... how the hell did he pick Moriarty over those 3? I dunno, I'm talking myself around to calling one a stinker of a decision. 1 SH from Youngs, Care & Prygos (Laidlaw injured) - much as I dislike YBY; this is not a hard decision to make. 1 FH from Ford, Jackson, Biggar & Russell - and he piocked the 4th choice of 4, and the only one who will be completely out of his depth talent-wise in NZ - even if he'll be reliably out of his depth. An absolute stinker. 2-3 more centres required (is Faz a 10 or 12? are JJ / Daly 13 or 14? is Payne a 13 or 15?); to pick from Te'o, Daly, Ringrose, Davies, Dunbar, Jones & Bennett. IMO Gatland's gone for bulk rather than antionality, skill, form or class - what a surprise! Given his predeliction for centres over 110kg I guess the choices were obvious, but he still managed to get 0/2 (or 1/3) correct according to just about everyone else in rugby. Wrong decisions, but not outright stinkers IMO. 3 Wingers required, from Nowell, May, Earles, North, Seymour & Visser; Seymour a favourite, and May the least; essentially leaving us with 2 to pick from Nowell, Earles, North, & Visser. For sheer class, North is top of that little pile, for form, Nowell; 4-way marginal IMO, with a note that form tends not to last the 3 months before the squad has their first training session; and any coach will back themselves to bring a class player into form. Gatland wanted 2 more FBs, and whilst I disagree (I'd take 1, with another winger, given that Williams, Watson and Daly are already all in), he's picking from Kearney, Payne, Zebo, Halfpenny and Maitland. I personally wouldn't have picked either of Gatland's options, but can't argue with Halfpenny's class, just his form (for which, see above) - Payne is the poor choice for me there; but I guess his versatility gets him the slot; either way a 5-way marginal call IMO. I'd have made different choices from Gatland on many of those marginal calls; but there's not a lot in it for each individual one - diplomacy and the act of bringing 4 nations together as 1 team means that the Scots should have been favoured more in the tight calls.
  10. To my eyes the only stinker of a decision is Biggar going ahead of Russell / Ford / Jackson; Jared Payne is a pretty dodgy one too, but not an outright stinker. A few of the others I wouldn't have gone for myself, but you can make decent cases for. It's not even remotely surprising that Gatland has gone for the players he knows when making marginal calls. The Scottish players to miss out are generally doing so in positions of strength (JGray, Watson) Diplomacy might have given Ford the nod over Owens, or Maitland over Payne, Visser over North; but you can understand a coach favouring the player he's used to managing, and who is used to being managed by him - that's just an unavoidable facet of appointing a home nation's heac coach as lions head coach. Basically - to say that more Scot.s should have gone, you need to identify who AND who should have made way for them. To say that fewer Welsh should go, you need to identify who AND who should take their place. When you do that, those decisions look much better. Diplomacy should still have had it's place though - especially after the Sco v Wal match in this year's 6N, and the form of both teams since the RWC. Of course, this is also just the opening gambit - a quick glance at the schedule will tell you that there's likely to be a dozen new names on the actual tour by the time the tests roll around.
  11. An animated film about bunnies, what could be better for Easter. I watched WD aged in single figures, and re!Ember being pretty even between loving it, and being traumatised. I very much enjoyed traumatising my French wife with it in her 30s, she absolutely hates it.
  12. I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. I never said that it makes you right by default, just that the person without power is escalating the situation by defying the orders given to them by someone with power, and in many cases they're right to do so. I just don't think this is one of them. So... you do consider peaceful non-compliance to be escalation, as opposed to maintainable of the status quo. So if I'm sitting in my seat, and choose to remain sitting in my seat, I'd be the one escalating things. The escalation came from United by chaning a request into an order, and further escalated by calling security; then escalated again by turning it from peaceful into violent. Refusing an order is not escalation; turning a request into an order is; as is turning peace into violence. Expecting your order to be obeyed because you're in a position of power, is an abuse of power. Expecting it to be obeyed because you're in a position of power AND entitled to give the order (contestable in this case) is not an abuse of power. Refusing that order is still not escalation though.
  13. Hyperbole? Pretty much dictionary definition thanks. Status quo ≠ escalation, by definition. Having power over someone does not make you right by default, and does mean that non-compliance = escalation. Thinking it does IS an abuse of power. Thinking that an abuse of power is both legally and ethically right is a pretty good definition for living in a police state.
  14. It really, really doesn't. You'd have to search pretty hard to find a better definition of "abuse of power". Such thinking is ONLY acceptable if you happen to live in a police state.
  15. Mormont - I agree entirely, but it may just be our euro-commie-ness. Maintaining the status quo ≠ escalation. It cannot, it would be a complete contradiction in terms. Mind, I'm also unsure why there seems to be a thought process suggesting that because Dao felt he was being treated illegally, and so may have contacted his lawyer means that he is at fault and possibly that he deserves it.