daisycutter

alternatively they could use the witch test

shirley it must over. how long does it take for 34 players to plead guilty? p.s. and don't say shh it to me

any news? anything happening? has the jury been empanelled yet?

does maroochy have sand dunes? maybe they are going to do a percy cerutty style training

my point exactly, od boy, you are sharp today

btw are we keeping cricket scores for this trial?

that should stop the hun or the rage finding something outrageous and sensationalist to report, od

from now on only high-brow humour will be allowed on land (take note bbo) all other forms of humour should be reported to admin. ldvc can be the unofficial land humour nazi - should keep him very busy of course we will all keep a very close watch on any humour ldvc personally attempts, for appropriateness

scarlet was heard once to refer to us as " fiddly dees" - quite apt on recent history

well regardless of "innocent until proven guilty" or "guilty under proven innocent" arguments the fact here is 1] you can be found guilty based on circumstantial evidence (as you can be in a court of law) 2] the weight of proof in this jurisdiction is less onerous than that of a criminal court how that plays out remains to be seen

no, one man's hobart is another man's launceston.....................ask nazzer

hey fencey, remind me of your predictions for the last ashes tour over here

phew, thank god for that looked like lose 12 wickets and still lose the gamefor a while there i wonder what the record is (ie least wickets lost for a loss)

far too logical

seriously, what do you expect a player's qc to say? especially in public

indians can win this, especially if current partnership continues

jfc! give it a rest

you mean the red'n'blueprint, smithy?

i'd say 100% of forwards..........aimed for 1 goal a quarter that is

or a urine allowance for those so inclined? makes one question the meaning of a "wet nurse"

just stocked up on popcorn and bananas this morning, thanks jack

even so, that in itself doesn't prove that a paleo diet is only suitable for the first 25 years anyway the 25 years is speculative and an average anyway. given that so many died in the first few years the mean deviation would be quite substantial also, it strikes me as quite logical that a different (even if only slightly) diet at different times in one's lifespan where requirements change, makes sense as clint says it doesn't have to be something taken to religious extremes at the end of the day it is probably horses for courses, but i agree with od that most dieticians don't have a good track record nor all the answers

that quote about cave men living to 25 and connecting it just to diet was a very cheap (and un scientific) shot if we took the advice of the heart foundation dieticians and lived on red tick foods we would be worse off than paleo

well first you need to develop an agenda with a large chip on the shoulder

no, i think it is a term for someone who listens to too many seekers' songs i.e. "seeked out"