By comparison. The victim was 5' 2" and 110 lbs, right?
Well, using the standard 5lbs per inch, that means that their proportions were the same, Nelson was just taller. I agree she would be intimidating, but I still wouldn't say big.
Off-topic discussion. Wanna talk about corsets, duct tape, or physics? This is the place. Detailed discussion of any current-season TV must be whitefonted.
By comparison. The victim was 5' 2" and 110 lbs, right?
Well, using the standard 5lbs per inch, that means that their proportions were the same, Nelson was just taller. I agree she would be intimidating, but I still wouldn't say big.
That extra third-again of one's body mass could be pretty significant if a fight occurs, particularly with the opponent being a career criminal.
Congratulations Jess and E and AlterBaby!!
40lbs is a big weight advantage to have over someone in a physical confrontation, whether you're 230 or 130.
I have a fomenting rant. God, people can suck.
My twin sister is 110 lbs and I'm 170, I swear, it feels like Danny Devito/Arnold Schwarzenegger movie Twins thing every time I stand next to her.
40lbs is a big weight advantage to have over someone in a physical confrontation, whether you're 230 or 130.
Would being taller and having a higher center of gravity negate some of the advantage of having greater weight?
Longer reach would help, I would think.
I guess I just have a problem with the word "big" being used to describe someone that size. Maybe if they had used "bigger" in comparison to the victim I wouldn't have noticed it.
5'10" and 150 pounds would be slimmer than the woman in the photo. It's probably just a bad guess-- I know plenty of men who find it hard to guess what a woman is supposed to weigh, just as I personally find it hard to scale up to men's weights.
Would being taller and having a higher center of gravity negate some of the advantage of having greater weight?
Higher center of gravity isn't much of an advantage. -t is right--reach is the biggest one. But if you don't have speed or strength (muscle or technique) to back it up it's probably the lesser of the three.
Dear Dr. K,
You are an arrogant pustule of a man. Rest assured, your concern over me developing a dependency on narcotics pales in comparison to mine. Mine even came with a game plan, recommended by a specialist. Yours was naked and ass-backwards.
See, when I say "anti-inflammatory, anti-histamine, and sub-cutaneous triptan" ... that's my plan. Which has proven effective. I don't really care if you don't find it logical. I'm not there to show you the logic of a treatment plan. Feel free to call Dr. F at any point--whip out your caduceus and have a contest somewhere where I'm not in pain.
Giving me narcotics only and letting me go home is not a plan. Eyerolling and agreeing wearily to administer the anti-histamine is still not a plan. Arguing with the patient? Still on list of things that ARE NOT PLANS.
God, he was a lousy fuck of a man. Assessed me by listening to me talk from one bed over.
Now I know why the nurse was acting all weird. She knew you were a fuckhead too.
So I still have a migraine this morning, and a dramatically weak and sore left shoulder.
My ride took a note of the doctor's name, but I couldn't find it in my apartment this morning.
Maybe purposefully--it's prevented me from drafting an invective-laden letter to the hospital.
There will be a letter. Just perhaps a calmer one.
Dismissive little dicksmear.