I'm deliberately late to the party here. Going against what the Fern is based on I decided to wait until the dust settles and try and post with reason and logic instead of pure emotion... I think some of my initial disappointment was actually just because the series is ending rather than anything to do with the shortcomings of the show/writers.

Overall I am... very happy with how it ended up. Although it did seem a bit rushed, that was hard to avoid given how many story lines the show ended up running with. It was always going to be very difficult to tie them all away nicely - as mentioned in this thread even in the books fantasy novels do struggle to finish given the complexity of the plot.

Anyway some random thoughts:

• There were some absolutely epic scenes in the final episode. Dani walking out to address her army with the dragon wings coming out was sensational. Drogon melting the throne was also absolutely awesome. I suspected he wouldn't incinerate Jon as he is a Targaryen, but destroying the throne was brilliant - in the end it was the throne and the power it symbolized that drove his mother mad. Brilliant stuff.
• My only real criticism of the episode was the jump from Dani dying to the council a month later. Threw me out for a while, and there was plenty of action that I thought was going to follow immediately after her death. Could have split that into two episodes IMO - that would have been a great way to finish leading up to the finale.
• Bran was always the best option for King. Unemotional, no desire for power, can see the wider picture better than anyone. I'm pleased they went with him in the end.
• A little surprised Jon and Greyworm both survived, thought they were both done after their actions (Greyworm slaughtering innocents and Jon slaying Dani).
• Love that it ended with the Starks to go full circle on where the series started. No doubt there is plenty of scope to do some spin off series - people already calling for Arya the Adventurer.

Overall I feel privileged to have been able to watch such an incredible series; at home with surround sound and in high definition to boot. Fark we live in great times. The show has been running for as long as I've been with my wife, and for someone that disliked fantasy when I met her she is now absolutely enamoured with it and wants to read more. I watched the first series without her, and when Ned died I immediately knew I had to force her to watch it just to see her reaction to that, which didn't disappoint. I've successfully turned her into a fantasy geek.

This show has really set the standard, and I'm super excited about what is to come now that the bar has been set so high.

@MN5 said in Stormers v Crusaders:

He's experienced this "day after day after day"

All the complaining he must do as a result leaves him very little opportunity to dress up and be fabulous. He must have great time management skills.

It's pure narcissism. He gets a dopamine hit from all of the likes, retweets and comments of support every time he pretends to be a victim.

@jegga said in NZ Politics:

@No-Quarter said in NZ Politics:

Why are they linking the threats to Seymour's factually correct comments? Did the threats specifically reference Seymour?

They are trying to cast Seymour as some sort of leader of the far right in NZ in reality he’s pretty irrelevant . Apparently he’s part Maori (Ngapuhi) too which is a rare quality in a neo Nazi

I'm not much of a fan of Seymour but he seems to be the only current politician that has been prepared to push back against the expansion of hate speech laws following Christchurch, so I have to give him credit for that.

The way the left is equating advocates for free speech as right wing extremists is just so absurd.

@canefan said in The Folau Factor:

If this article is to be believed Folau's tweets have scared off some potential landing spots. I expect many will be afraid of the optics of allowing Folau in, and the high risk of him going off piste again. For example if you are the NRL you have enough trouble keeping your current players out of trouble without courting more heat

It's crazy - the NRL don't want him yet what he did absolutely pales in comparison to what some of the scrumbags playing NRL have done in the past.

Why are they linking the threats to Seymour's factually correct comments? Did the threats specifically reference Seymour?

@Rembrandt said in British Politics:

@booboo They advocated throwing bricks rather than milkshakes and then doubled down on anyone calling them out. Said it's the only way to stop genocide.

The lack of self-awareness is simply staggering.

@Machpants said in Stormers v Crusaders:

On attacking scrums, Ardie is fkn awesome, so fast off the back, it's a big point of difference IMO. It's not like he is operating behind a tight 5 that is giving him an easy ride at the canes!

I can see him being an absolute weapon off the bench. Could provide the ABs with a real point of difference in the final 20 - fuck coming up against a fresh, pumped up Ardie when your lungs are burning and your legs feel like jelly.

One thing is for sure. The lawyers will be absolutely licking their lips. They live for this kind of thing.

@NTA said in The Folau Factor:

@No-Quarter said in The Folau Factor:

I've also read that he is protected under the Fair Work Act, which are laws that protect workers rights. This includes protection for religious beliefs, stopping employers from terminating employment based on those beliefs.

Having beliefs is fine. But I think there are also sections in the Act about expressing those beliefs in a way that is detrimental to the employer.

That's more to do with disparaging your employer though. Paraphrasing the bible is a different kettle of fish.

@MajorRage said in The Folau Factor:

@No-Quarter said in The Folau Factor:

Im also interested in how many breaches Cheika has been served a based on this under the coaches section:

2.7 Accept and respect the authority of a referee, assistant referee, touch judge or other match or team official. Do not abuse, threaten or intimidate, use crude language or gestures, or show unnecessary obvious dissension, displeasure or disapproval towards a referee, touch judge or other match official, whether on or off the field, or a selector, coach, manager or other team official.

Must be 50 odd at least? Or do they pick and choose what parts to enforce?

Although you make a good point which I agree with, it's quite reasonable to have different levels of breaches of conduct, and hence different punishments.

Yeah but 50 odd low level breaches must add up to something bigger?