Loz

Well, *Bob*'s comment was "So we should get rid of The Sun, The Mirror and cheap tv. Also inexpensive alcohol. Cigarettes. Fast food. Easyjet. Possibly shagging. [...] It's for their own good. We know better. They are only The Dumb Proletariat." Still not looking good for you.

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hmm, but I didn't say this did I? I didn't say anyone should be denied access to any kind of > programming. All I said is that it is mindless dross that adds nothing positive to life. What you said was: "To argue that we should permit everything, because it's snobbery to quality control, isn't a good argument in my opinion.". Which certainly sounds like you wanted to stop the making of certain programmes based on your perception of 'quality'. No?

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I was quite surprised to find a few people with > the same name as me on FB. > > Both of my kids will probably be unique. You didn't call any of your kids 'Cockwomble", did you?

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yeah, Loz! Keith Lemon is made up! Stop being a cockwomble! Heh. It makes me laugh, but it's like a seven year old's first attempt at swearing. Next week: the EDF progresses to "poohead". Anyway, Lemon ain't half as good as that bloke that used to do Bo Selecta.

In fact, the output of ITV2 is so popular they've created an entirely new channel - ITV Be - so that people can watch endless repeats of the aforementioned cack.

Report it to 101, sarah-marie. As you said, it might be nothing, but if the police spot a pattern, they'll look into it.

Rolo Tomasi Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > http://www.southwark.gov.uk/womenssafety Two Gruiniad feminists, the NUS national womens officer... and the founder of "True Lad" website? There goes a bloke that lost a bet. Big time.

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think people would be better off without the Sun and Jeremy Kyle, as > both things add absolutely nothing to the quality of life. To argue that we should permit > everything, because it's snobbery to quality control, isn't a good argument in my opinion. Of course it is utter snobbery to quality control, in the sense of the Sun and Jeremy Kyle. Fine to stop them doing anything illegal, but to say to a section of society that likes reading/watch such stuff "I'm sorry, but people in the middle chattering classes just think this is not of sufficient quality for this likes of you" could only ever be seen as complete snobbery. I think programmes like TOWIE, Made in Chelsea, anything with Keith Lemon... hell, the entire programming output of ITV2 for that matter is complete and utter mindless cack and "add absolutely nothing to the quality of life", but if people want to watch it, then so be it. Who am I to judge?

the-e-dealer Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > With K*nts like Gordon Ramsay around you cant > avoid meat even if you are a vegetarian all you > can do is make a best effort to be a veggie. How exactly does Ramsay stop you being a veggie? Are you saying he pops around on occasion and shoves a pork sausage in your mouth? Treats you to a spit roast? Shows you how to enjoy a nice meat and two veg?

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If you ingest bodily fluids following certain > activities, does that break your veggie oath? Veggies would be OK, but it would definitely be against vegan principles. Never date a vegan.

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I also prefer Portuguese style (puff) custard tarts to the dull domestic variety! Pasteis de Nata. Oh, yes. Mmmmmm.

I bought a bottle of truffle oil from Waitrose today. I'm not sure it's possible to have a more middle-class afternoon than that.

Yeah, agreed. It was heading nowhere fast.

Jah Lush Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > > Jah Lush Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > > > Wind yer neck in Loz. > > > > Really, Jah, you should take your own advice. > > Loz, you're a cockwomble. Offensive first comment, pathetic, weak 'apology' and now getting all worked up and chucking your toys out the pram because you've been called up on it. Yep, a real tour-de-force of both cockwombleness and advanced muppetry. Well done you.

Jah Lush Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Wind yer neck in Loz. Really, Jah, you should take your own advice.

Jah Lush Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Fook me, Loz, get off your high horse. I apologised. I admitted I was in the wrong. I > wasn't thinking straight, OK. What more do you want? Jeez. I was less offended by your original post than your rather weird "apology" post. You admitted you were in the wrong, but only because you thought it was a bloke writing and therefore worthy of your ridicule of their unpleasant situation.

I don't (and, of that matter, didn't) deny a woman is more vulnerable in that sort of situation. But being unsure as to whether to dismiss or support someone's complaint about a situation where they were made to feel uncomfortable on the basis of their gender is pretty much a dictionary definition of sexist.

Jah Lush Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Apologies if I have caused any offence. For some > stupid reason I assumed the OP was a man, still > could be, though rereading the post in the clear > light of day I assume that not to be the case now. Good grief - why does the gender of the OP make one iota of difference? That's just plain and simple sexism at work.

aquarius moon Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 'Fake' vegetarians are clearly not animal lovers. People become vegetarians for many reasons - some for religious reasons, some for (perceived) health reasons. Not all are victims of Fluffy Cute Animal syndrome.

aquarius moon Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't approve of horses being killed if they break a leg on the flat either. If I owned > a racehorse & it happened to me I'd try & save it whatever the cost. Look at 'Mill Reef'. It's not an issue of cost. Trying to save a horse with a broken leg would almost certainly be hopeless and cruel, however well-intentioned. A really good article why appeared in the Guardian on this. http://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2011/sep/23/claims-five-broken-leg-horse

C'mon Andybol, there are only 83 overground stations. You can find it!!

Probably catarrh. Try a decongestant cough mixture.

Anyway, Foxy, you weren't quite right. Your 'local' IP address can change... they are on DHCP lease the same as the ISP allocated 'external' one for the router. In reality, neither usually do change. Your local one won't change because you generally don't have enough devices to for the DHCP server to reallocate and you external one won't usually change as it will keep renewing the ISP DHCP lease providing you don't turn it off for any length of time. The 'external' address is actually for the router, as it is the only piece of your hardware actually directly visible to the internet. So all devices behind a router will appear to the internet as the same IP address - the one assigned to the router. Your router is also the DHCP server for your home and assigns the internal addresses. Though you can actually use static internal addresses as well, internal addresses don't have to be dynamically assigned - I do this so I know that my NAS, for example, is on x.x.x.100 if I need to use an IP for it. The router also has an internal address (aka NAT address), normally - but not always - 192.168.0.1. Internal/NAT addresses are always 10.x.x.x, 172.x.x.x or 192.168.x.x, as these addresses are not legal addresses on the wider internet - they are reserved for internal/NAT use. Definitely too much information...!

I think that came under the heading of "too much information", Foxy.

For security reasons, I'll take it to PM, Sue.