helena handbasket

It is very possibly a British thing........ what is considered polite conversation and all that. I can't recall ever reading of celebrities talking about it in the British media, but I still get a lot of North American media and (sadly.... my dirty secret) tabloids and it is actually all the rage for a celebrity mom to attribute her return to a size "0" and washboard stomach to breast feeding. American celebrities blabber on about it all the time. In some ways I believe it is a bit more indicative of wealth there because it suggests that you have the luxury of time (feeding on demand) and flexibility. Also it means you have a partner who makes enough income to allow you to be home with baby. The working poor don't have these options and so have little choice but to formula feed. It's pretty hard to pump when you work on a production line or behind a fast food counter for $5 an hour.

jimmy two times Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This thread has all gone t1ts up for you I'm > afraid Keef. ::o FUNNY! legalbeagle you hit the nail on the head. It seems there is no way to keep the conversation from going to the "breast is best" debate. Not at all Keef's point but there you have it. It's actually interesting to see this topic outside of the family room. It might take on a very different flavour.......

Thanks Keef. As usual I agree with you. No way I'm going on that thread though!

Something I realized was that I went through twice as many eco friendly nappies as the regular kind, which to me kind of cancelled out the "eco" part. In the early days my group of mom friends and I agreed to each buy one brand of nappies, then we had a nappy swap and each went home with a handful of each to try out. Saved us lots of money and hassle. We started with Pampers but ended up with Huggies for my thick legged cherub. They really do depend on body shape.

I put lavender oil on my pillow. I am always amazed ay how quickly my brain goes to mush and then I'm out. I've never been a great sleeper and over the years have tried many things, but nothing does it quite like the lavender. Admittedly, I've been up long before 7 for so long now I generally fall asleep when my head hits the pillow, but I'm still often visited by the ghost of 4 am wakings past and that's when the lavender oil helps. Works for small people too.

Charming. You're a really angry person.

You MUST have better things to do than stalk my posts.

Snowboarder does that mean the naps are working out? If yes then hooray!

It's slightly North American, except: - we hold the knife in the right hand, fork in the left to cut one mouthful - we then place the knife across the top right ridge of the plate - switch the fork to the right hand, place one mouthful in mouth, and place fork down while chewing - back to knife in right hand, fork in left This goes on and on for every single bite. It is just as pointless as it sounds and I would love to meet the person who made eating such a chore. I think about doing it "your" way, but it just happens without thinking about it. Try it the other way around, it's hard! But there you have it, you have likely seen at least one person in ED eat that way....... me!

Those windows are pretty high up. It makes me wonder if they already knew one might be open? A bit of a shot in the dark otherwise, no? Now this is completely my own little fictional narrative running through my head, but it almost sounds like the kind of thing that might happen when handy people are called in to do some work and you are "mysteriously" burgled a few days later. No need to shout, by my own admission I completely made that up and there is nothing mentioned previously to suggest this happened. Just my imagination running away on me again.......... *spelling edit

I understand the concept of "starting a new life" , that's how I came to Britain myself, but I was more than aware of the cost of living in London and ED is not an inexpensive neighborhood. There are loads of places in England that one can make a go of a better life without paying the London premium, particularly if your skill set is not white collar.

I know, I couldn't have managed without it. Mine was almost 10 lbs so close to 20 by six months, and I'm a bit height challenged myself. I would have had to drop him in and hoist him out! Ours had quite an easy mechanism so it wasn't a problem. But apparently the up and down wears the hardware and consequently loosens the rail, which makes the space too large (if I recall the space should be less than two fingers wide?) Honestly his head was so huge I doubt he could have got it stuck in there. But I was so paranoid in the first year that my goal was to just "keep it alive", so I know I would be a nervous wreck knowing about the safety risk. Bonkers yes.

Just to throw a cat in amongst the pigeons......... cots with side rails that adjust up and down have now been banned in Canada (and I think the US?) due to safety issues. I think that they can become a bit loose, leaving just enough room between the rail and the mattress for awful things to happen. They're not illegal here yet and they are incredibly handy to have, but as always it's good to have the information for your decision. Sooooooo the expensive one we bought for our first (to last through two babies) is now useless to me. Oh well, probably couldn't find the screws anyway.

I said fig. Anyhoo........ edited to add that I lost track of who you were insulting. Narnia said f*ck........ (I was just thinking it)

Read the post right before this one. About half way up I have an edit that says sorry you said late 2007 not 2008 I was wrong. Read it for the love of god read it and then give it a rest. Jesus on a bicycle!

Meld Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > helena handbasket Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > Incorrect on what point?! I don't want to get > > into > > > a debate about Metaphysics, but the point I > > made > > > did actually happen. Planning permission for > > the > > > development near my house was put in for > during > > > 1999, building work didn't start until late > > 2007, > > > these things actually occurred, no grey > areas, > > no > > > opinion. > > > > > > You're not "pretty sure" Narnia, and > similarly > > > Reggie it's not that you are "not sure", > you're > > > both just making things up, like many of the > > > posters on this forum. That's what people do > > when > > > they're hiding their real motivations. > > > > > > edited to add: sorry, late 2007. I said 2008. > I > > was wrong wrong wrong > > > Why the obsession with trying to trip someone up > over semantics? Perhaps he or she should have said > 'planning permission was ORIGINALLY granted in > 1999' but does that actually change the point that > the poster is making? Good god she accused me of making up that she said that! And there it is........ not a matter of semantics, a matter if calling me a lier. I could no longer give a flying fig. edited for crap spelling

Milo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > helena handbasket Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > Incorrect on what point?! I don't want to get > > into > > > a debate about Metaphysics, but the point I > > made > > > did actually happen. Planning permission for > > the > > > development near my house was put in for > during > > > 1999, building work didn't start until late > > 2007, > > > these things actually occurred, no grey > areas, > > no > > > opinion. > > > > > > You're not "pretty sure" Narnia, and > similarly > > > Reggie it's not that you are "not sure", > you're > > > both just making things up, like many of the > > > posters on this forum. That's what people do > > when > > > they're hiding their real motivations. > > > > > > edited to add: sorry, late 2007. I said 2008. > I > > was wrong wrong wrong > > This is a strange post. I understand you're using > my original text to make a point (and a kind of > weak joke), but in it I didn't write 2008 as you > know. Freud indeed. How about you ready the bloody edit before you attack?

> Incorrect on what point?! I don't want to get into > a debate about Metaphysics, but the point I made > did actually happen. Planning permission for the > development near my house was put in for during > 1999, building work didn't start until late 2007, > these things actually occurred, no grey areas, no > opinion. > > You're not "pretty sure" Narnia, and similarly > Reggie it's not that you are "not sure", you're > both just making things up, like many of the > posters on this forum. That's what people do when > they're hiding their real motivations. edited to add: sorry, late 2007. I said 2008. I was wrong wrong wrong

Milo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > helena handbasket Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Or...... > > > > planning permission could have expired, then > > applied for again. > > > > Seems to me that by using terms such as "pretty > > sure" and "not sure" Reggie and Narnia have > been > > honest about the extent of their understanding. > > > > > Yes, planning permission could have expired, then > applied for again, and the same is true of this > property being squatted. Funny how those 'pretty > sure' and 'not sure' turn into facts a few posts > later. Just like the squatter's being aggressive > and the building work which is imminent. A very > useful way of putting down someone whose lifestyle > you disagree with - the real motivation. But I could have sworn in your post previous to this you said that planning permission was granted in 1999, work in 2008. "No grey area, no opinion". So could this not turn into fact down the line as well? It seems like a useful way of putting down someone whose opinions you disagree with.

Or...... planning permission could have expired, then applied for again. Seems to me that by using terms such as "pretty sure" and "not sure" Reggie and Narnia have been honest about the extent of their understanding. Curious to know who is "making things up" and what you suspect their motivations could be?

I myself am an immigrant. When I asked your government to please let me live in your country, they sent me a tome of an application which essentially made me agree (and prove) that I could fend for myself and had no right to "the public purse". I then had to have just about everyone I've ever known sign and witness that I understood this. My entry visa states "no recourse to public purse". I agreed, and was welcomed. The recession hit, we lost our jobs, and the savings are gone. So we are going home, as that was my end of the agreement as I read it. We rolled the dice, lost everything, but we made that choice. Britain gave us as much as we were promised. Simples. edited to add: way off topic now sorry!

ClareC Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > My partner won't eat mushrooms, peppers or > tomato's !?? I didn't eat any of those until I was an adult. Add onion to the list as well. But then at 18 I lived in a house with a bunch of adventurous eaters and was shamed into eating all of my listed hate foods, and wouldn't you know I couldn't live without them now! I wish I knew why my son won't eat hummous. I love it so much.

We found a really inexpensive plastic sand box, shaped like a dinosaur (I think?) at Toys R Us (Old Kent Road) last year. It came with a lid. I think it was ?15? Could also be used as a little pool. Maybe worth checking out........ they have online catalogues.

So Meld, that makes us roughly of a similar age? Interesting.

Is the issue here about squatting in general or about this particular situation? As I mentioned earlier, I was not conceptually against squatting before. It's the attitude and motivation that are the problem here. TE44, that's not meant to be a serious question is it? It's a bit more complex than that wouldn't you agree?