Loz

richardbach Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > it is true thuogh parking is a problem in south > london and the4 sonner we have redisents parking > for us all the better Who do you think owns all those cars?

... and a bunch of opportunistic looters.

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Huguenot Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > The thing for me, and the most important thing, > is > > that other people think this argument is about > > Foie Gras. It's not. It's about a petty > extremist, > > who in his own words, wants to 'make' people > > conform to his outlook. > > No, I understand that. I'm just pointing out that > whereas you're obviously concerned by his > intentions, I'm only really concerned about the > consequences. Which appear to be minimal. First they came for the fois gras... :))

granadaland Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > For the same reason motorists should (nay, must) wear seat belts. > Motorists wear seatbelts so they don't get catapulted through a windscreen in a crash. > a cyclist isn't a motorist. > Motorists think cyclists should wear helmets because they may get mown down by a motorist. > And if they get hurt it's their fault. > Helmets have their purpose but they're not compulsory for good reasons. You don't need to wear a helmet. Brain damage just doesn't seem possible.

granadaland Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But why should cyclists wear helmets? For the same reason motorists should (nay, must) wear seat belts.

I am assuming here that cycle helmets are of similar build to snowboard helmets, but... My snowboard helmet has saved my scone more than once. I am on my second snowboard helmet after smashing my first after catching an edge at speed. Apart from being rather dazed, a sore neck and a scorching headache, I was completely unhurt. I can only wonder what the state of my head would have been had I not been wearing it at the time, especially given the big cracks the impact left in the helmet. There is, like cycling, research suggests that snowboarders are more reckless whilst wearing a helmet - and that is probably true in my case - but I would not be out without mine. I really don't understand the mentality of cyclists who say they don't need them.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Cllr Peter John also appointed the chair of > Southwarks Olmypic Legacy Fund Tony Doyle who > stated in Southwark Life the councils magazine > "Ideally all cyclists should wear a helmet at all > times". Apart from a pedantic objection around 'at all times', I'm not sure I see a problem with this.

Why? Shares down, a little panic selling. Not like that's never happened before. The bargain hunters will be along soon. Are you actually saying we should start building lifeboats, like he said. I'm not sure your soothsayer knows the difference between an economic collapse and a dam collapse. Your little smiley suggests you seem to be actively hoping for a global economic collapse, just so you can be seen as correct. Slightly sick, really.

woody549 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hehe... So there was a mention of a g string :p is it an edible one :p If not, you can probably floss your teeth with it afterwards, though. Helps get those pesky hairs out.

I've always liked Gordon Ramsay's approach - "Yeah, there is a vegetarian option - you can f*** off somewhere else..."

LadyDeliah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I quite like banging on about shagging, better > than banging on about Waitrose or Marks & > Spencers, in my humble opinion. Fills the voids > in my uneventful day and gives me hope that I may > eventually get to remember what it feels like! How come you can bang on about shagging, but you can't shag on about banging?

LadyDeliah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Actually I think I need something harder. I may > have to raid my piggy bank and purchase a few cans > of White Lightening, or splash out on some > strawberry MD 20-20. I'd go the whole hog and spring for a can of WD40.

Do you know the lady on the corner? If not, that comment would have set every alarm bell I have ringing. I suspect there was not a lot of teak in that van. Or if it was, it would have been so hot as to be close to ignition point.

Ridgley Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I dont give a rats arse tis what you think H you > just want to pick fight like you do on other > threads with your over baring crap @#$%& off get > @#$%& off > Edited 1 time(s). Last edit was today, 01:42pm by Ridgley. If Ridgley went nuclear before, I think this one just overshadowed the Big Bang. I am dying to know what you edited to fix, though.

I think all references to the F word should be banned outside of the main season. The Metro and the Evening Substandard used to be especially annoying - you'd have all sorts of major sporting events going on and their back page headline was along the lines of "Viera: I Rather Like Broccoli" or something similarly useless.

Ridgley Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > not quite clear on this,does this harm the duck or > goose? Well, removing the liver is rather fatal.

...and I suspect it's not the egg.

*Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Does anybody else like to stimulate the anus with > a large vibrating egg, with the cricket on the > background? > > Or is it just me? Is it just you? Does this actually involve another person?

I read the other day that the NHC is the most expensive event in the UK to police. I'm not sure we (or they, if the organisers contribute) could afford to extend it. Besides, a month? You'd have roughly the same number of people spread over a much longer period. Not much gained.

From that picture, looks like it has the option of with or without false teeth.

Nope, but I'm lucky - the little buggers don't like me.

He seems to have assumed Graeme Hick's role in that one. Smear county attacks around season after season with zero hope of a recall.

I actually don't rate either highly, anyway, and I can't see either of them being long term holders of test places and will go the way of Sidebottom. Both are solid bowlers, but I really expect something better to some along soon. But, since he's in and has done nothing to be dropped, I'd retain Bresnan. I'd still go for another batsman, if no other reason than to take a rare "2-0 up after two" opportunity to blood someone new. You'd better just hope they don't recall Bopara.

maxxi Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > good bowling by Bresnan means there's a dilemma for > next test - do you drop Bresnan after a fine > performance or bring Tremlett back and - with the > batting strong and deep - drop Trott? Never muck around with having six batsmen. The last time England tried to play Prior at six they lost games due to a weak batting lineup. The tail won't always wag, and the bowling won't always be, as Tuffers put it, "flans of the highest flan order". Mind you, the question is, if Trott is injured who comes in. There's not a lot of test-level batting depth at the moment in the counties.

Well, if England want to be really sporting, they'll give India a third innings. Just to make a game of it. Or bring Cook and Prior on to bowl Or something.