katie1997

Mick Mac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > cate Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Yes, that was Sean. > > > I'm not sure it was Sean. But don't quote me on > that. OK. Whatever you say.

White stilettos (unscuffed) - check. I will be there a bit later (ahem) but looking forward to meeting new people from EDF. Cheers for arranging :)-D

W-ell today (w-ell, yesterday) was effectively, Monday. Right? First day back at work (for most).... [email protected]

SeanMacGabhann Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Old fashoned boozers are closing because they > don't make money and don't have enough customers - > if everyone who says they were much better > actually went regularly enough then they would > still be in business Can I be controversial here and suggest that it may have a lot to do with the smoking ban? Oh that and the ridiculous cheap pricing and availability of alcohol in supermarkets and other places nowadays. > Modern pubs, for all of their faults (as well as > pluses) tend to make money. Because people in > there spend money > > There are what I would consider 2 proper old > -school boozers left in SE22, and I like them > both. But I rarely see many people in either of > them. Which is doubly-odd considering how many > proper-boozers have gone, you would think the they > would benefit. But I suspect a lot of the old > patrons actually (whisper it) quite like the newer > pubs as well Sean, what ones are they in ED/SE22, out of interest? (seriously, I do not know) My personal opinion, I suspect a lot of the old patrons don't like the newer pubs either, its maybe just that the 'old-school' ones are beyond recognition. (yes, I do realise things cannot stay the same forever but...it often seems that we are becoming too homogenous and appealing to the 'masses' with familiarity)

Ladymuck Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yep been busted many times (including 3 times by > local businesses)... too funny. How on earth did they know? ;-) *don't answer that*

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > :))(tu) *posts hockey stick book to DJKQ* ;-)

...in surprisingly few messages too, apparently. My very lovely friend (*waves*) has worked out my username. Not a problem but I kinda liked being anonymous for a while. I don't post things I wouldn't agree with in real life - Rolf Harris being a force for good in the world and mushy peas being evil* for a start. Anyone else been 'discovered' on here? *although I know I am up against fierce opposition on this important point.

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > well to err is human after all :) Hurrah. At last I can agree with something you've said on here. Happy Days. Perhaps I am human after all.....

katie1997 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'd like to know what you consider to be the > 'modern lifespan of the planet'. The trouble > is.....this often varies from person to person. > Makes it very difficult to accurately demonstrate > scientific facts. So your earlier comment about > the Earth's atmosphere having always being a > greenhouse environment is completely inaccurate, > to put it politely. > > When do you think the 'greenhouse atmosphere that > gave us the ecosystems we have' came into > existence? Those were my two questions. When I came on and said that your earlier comment about the Earth's atmosphere ALWAYS having a greenhouse atmosphere was wrong, you later acknowledged "thats true....". I have honestly got no idea what question you seem to think I was asking when you posted your response above either. Again, I think you are incorrect about greenhouse environments during early planetary accretion. Plate tectonics is a constant process btw so its still happening...its not something that formed many millions of years ago and stayed the same. Yes, volcanoes and volcanic activity does indeed produce many gases, including CO2. PS. how much is LM paying you to keep me up? ;-)

Ladymuck Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > katie1997 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > *wonders if there's any cider left?* > > ...it's in all probability in the process of being > converted into methane at the mo! :)) Yeah....there seems to be a lot of it about ;-) *save the moles*

PS. I can recommend a good read on the *iconic* global warming graph if you like. You know, the old hockey stick. Distorted science and misrepresentation of data. All gripping stuff. PPS. yes, the Great Oxidation Event was very fortunate for us... *wonders if there's any cider left?*

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No those greenhouse gasses are what have allowed > the earth to have the range of temperatures > necessary for life. Without them too cold, too > much of them too hot. It's called the 'Goldilocks > Principle' and is why we are the only planet on > our solar system with life. The main gases are > water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous > oxide and they trap sufficent solar energy to > create the right temperature ranges. Sorry have I missed something? If that response above is to my post, it doesn't answer any of the questions I asked and seems quite unrelated. I am struggling to see where anyone (ok, me) said that gases did not contribute towards life on the planet either. Your response does not seem to follow, perhaps I am being dim. PS. Its also a bit too late for a science lesson for me I'm afraid.

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That's true but in the modern lifespan of the > planet it is a greenhouse atmoshpere and it's that > greenhouse atmosphere that has given us the > ecosystems we have. I'd like to know what you consider to be the 'modern lifespan of the planet'. The trouble is.....this often varies from person to person. Makes it very difficult to accurately demonstrate scientific facts. So your earlier comment about the Earth's atmosphere having always being a greenhouse environment is completely inaccurate, to put it politely. When do you think the 'greenhouse atmosphere that gave us the ecosystems we have' came into existence? The planet used to have a reducing environment and then it became an oxidising environment.

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > LM the earth's atmosphere is a greenhouse > atmosphere and always has been. We breath in > Oxygen and breathe out CO2, plants abosorb it and > release oxygen and so on. The issue is the over > prduction of CO2 above and beyond the normal > balance of life on the planet and in that regard > we are mostly responsible. No it hasn't. Earth's atmosphere has changed throughout the history of the planet. For example, there was much less oxygen in the atmosphere 2400 million years ago. Oh and there are far less rare gases in the atmosphere now than existed a very long time ago too. PS. *warns moles to leave LM's cider alone*

PS. And rice cookers LM. They contribute to what makes us....well...human ;-)

Ladymuck Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes but so is C02...it's still causing probs > though as it re-radiates the sun's heat and > contributes to global warming. > *thinks...not bad for half a frog* *thinks...then decides against it* > *disappears back to guests/another top up of > cider* *wonders how many moles of CO2 are in LM's cider* :)-D

Ladymuck Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Isn't carb. mon a GH gas? Y-es. It is also a naturally occuring substance and has been around for a very long time. *thinks probably as long as LM's guests have been wondering where she is*

Ladymuck Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > waynetta Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > However, it produces > > dangerous carbon monoxide so the ants have > built > > their mounds to have air conditioning so that > > harmful fumes are got rid of. It's amazing. > > Individually the ants have no intelligence, but > > collectively they are like cells in a massive > > brain. > > Blimey - so ants are contributing to global > warming? Noooooo LM they aren't.

katie1997 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > may I have bonus ball number 30 please woof? > *still waiting* disclaimer: I have (kindly) donated this number via PM to another forumite. So er...I need to know if thats okay. Cheers.

Yeah, I mean, there are just soooooooooooo many people watching crap TV nowadays, like x-factor... *QED*

...can I hear the creaking noise of the Lounge door opening? Hmmmm.....maybe not.

waynetta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think it's worth pointing out that the pictures > attached I don't think are the actual pictures of > these dogs. They are pictures that the OP has > trawled the internet for to use to demonstrate > what she saw. I think its worth pointing out that the OP explained in an earlier posting that the pictures attached weren't the actual pictures of the dogs in question, rather that they were used for comparison purposes.

may I have bonus ball number 30 please woof? Thank you so much for doing this btw. (see you in a month if you're reading LM)

the fact that the username 'jrussel' has only one 'l' irrational? indeed.

jrussel Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Someone said something about this being a 'private > forum open to the public'... you what!? der...read it again jrussel. I read 'a private forum used by the public'.