Loz

... and cats.

Hmmm. Yellow box law is not straightforward. Just because you have been pictured in the box, doesn't mean you have contravened the law.

There's no need to cut and paste brainless comments.

Looking for adventure - puts out on the first date Fun Loving - puts out on the second date Looking for a long term commitment - fails to put out, then goes into full bunny-boiler mode when you even look at another woman

Hmm - I missed that northlondoner. Bit of a stupid thing to say by julijux.

Three? And we don't yet know their motives.

I suspect that may be a headline in a redtop tomorrow...

El Pibe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Incidentally I know a chap who used to be the pyschologist at gosforth prison, apparently Lady > in Red is the most requested song at the annual christmas party in the sex offenders wing. > > I'm not sure what that means, but it has to mean something!!! On the bright side, it's better than it being 'Sweet Child of Mine' or 'Two Little Boys'.

James Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Cat people... Are you being homophobic Loz!? I am outraged, offended and disgusted! *spits blood* No. More lonely-weird-old-lady-phobic. *spits false teeth out*

And that's just the ladies.

> > In online dating parlance, 'fat' is usually described as 'average build' > > Nah. > > Curvy = fat > Bubbly = fat > Vivacious = fat > Fun-loving = fat Great personality = fat and ugly

maxxi Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > RosieH Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > you're doing it wrong > > What every man has heard from a woman at least once in his life... Once? In his life?

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Mick Mac Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > The Guaridan is the last place I'd look. > > XXXXXX > > I expect The Telegraph and The Mail have lots of > lovely Thatcher like women for you, then :) The Telegraph you end up with a Thatcher-like. The Gruin you'd probably end up with some Harriet Harman harridan. I'd go for the Beano's dating service, based on that.

I'm still hoping we can implicate cat people and cyclists somehow. C'mon people.

Are we back on internet dating again, Maxxi?

Salsaboy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I've used it successfully. Sexcessfully, shurely?

the-e-dealer Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > At the Funeral of Mrs T he said "We are are > Thatcherites now" What on Earth did he mean ? I think he meant that all the major parties in the UK now follow a Thatcherite line in their policies. And he'd be right.

OK. We have parents, joggers and dog owners all laying into one another. If we can somehow get the cat people and the cyclists in on this one, it'll be like the biggest EDF self-interest group barney EVER!! Popcorn and comfy chair at the ready. And go...

Naaah. He'll get a euro-funeral. Buried somewhere in Greece by the Germans.

*Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Like so many others, I simply assumed it was part of a secret agreement with cross-party consent to > annoy George Galloway. Most (though not all) of the arrangements were decided by the Gordon Brown government. Probably, as you say, to piss off Galloway. And Dennis Skinner.

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No state funeral - neither was Princess Di. To be fair, at least Maggie was a national leader, rather than someone who just ponced around in designer dresses shagging anything with a pulse and a wallet.

Considering Blair probably has 20 to 25 years left in him, I suspect the minor (pffft...) complaining might have died down by then.

StraferJack Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That just doesn't apply if you are poor - if you are poor it's a miserable, daily grind. Throwing a > few mean spirited words their way seems nothing like someone grumbling about a rich person. Why > would you even compare the two to demonstrate fairness? Because it is - by definition - unfair. You may think it is acceptable, but unfair it still is.

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Surely nobody in their right mind would resent someone who has built up a business and makes a > positive contribution to the economy? You don't read the Guardian comments section...

You have a really weird outlook on things, RC, and use emotional language in very inconsistent way. > Less than 1/3rd of tax raised comes from income tax, most of the tax liability falls on those in the ?20-100,000 bracket. Actually, the top 10% of earners (i.e. over ?50,500) contribute 55.3% of income tax revenues. > By giving that ?0.05p back per pound earned equates to ?40,000 (per million) if this not paying the rich then what is it? They aren't 'giving it back'. They lowering the rate from now on. If the council tax rate falls this year, are the council 'paying' you? They dropped beer duty by 1p in the budget - are drinkers being 'paid' by the government? Obviously, no in all cases. > By having one's income cut without any way of recourse is tantamount to theft. 'Tantamount to theft'? No. That's not theft, unless you drastically redefine the word 'theft'. Are you saying that when Labour put the top rate of tax up to 50% that was 'theft' as well?? Well, by your definition it was.