*Bob*

Top Tip though - if you need to, you can successfully combine a couple of banned words together to make a new word, like arsecuntpiss - and this makes it through just fine.

twat - looks like that's ok now too

You're ok with shit but you can't say cunt. You used to be able to say twat but I don't think you can any more.

View only RD.. imagine the pain this brings

If you can take a record, break it - and make it play so it keeps repeating itself - I will give you ?500.

'Broken record' has come into popular parlance for 'stuck', but it's all wrong, so wrong..

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That's the point *Bob*. You don't play anymore, > just an annoying scratching sound that keeps going > round and round. > > Louisa. No, that's a 'stuck record' you're thinking of, where the groove might perhaps have been scratched which is leading to a loop. A broken record would mean a break in the groove. No loop.

I don't want to be pedantic but a 'broken record' wouldn't actually play at all.

I'm with you there, Jez. As I've said before on more than one occasion, I bear TheFox?? no ill will whatsoever - more often I'm just baffled at how anyone could present such a perpetually 'down' view of everything, without realising they're even doing it, apparently. It's a Pavlovian thing now. But Louisa is my absolute fave, obviously.

Anyway I can't believe anyone would seriously give enough of a monkeys about being 'banned from General issues section' (like, whoop, big deal) to feel the need to issue 'stop press - my official response to' threads over here. I mean, really - think about it. its just not dignified.

desperate, fifth-gear face-saving overdrive has kicked in enjoy

Like Brangelina and TomKat - we are 'BoLoX'

So has-beens, one and all.

I'm a fast runner, Jeremy. Either that - or I haven't mistaken an internet forum populated by mostly anonymous users as the same thing as real life encounters with actual people.

baaawk

miga Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- yet still plenty of buttons are > pushed as witnessed by the popularity of threads > such as this. It's a different sort of button in here though, is it not? More of a pantomime bunfight by a load of people who know each other too well. For Lou - an altogether less satisfying experience - and all those rich pickings over in the general issues section going begging at the same time.. must be infuriating (ho ho ho)

miga Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't think Louisa is a troll in the classic > sense. I'd agree with that. The interesting thing (to me, anyway) is that Lou's restriction to the lounge has really exposed the one-dimensionality of the contributions - when starved of the regular supply of oxygen they?ve enjoyed up to now. The usual class-based button-pressers now fall upon ears who've heard it all too many times and lack any real motivation to engage - and all we're left with are these lame, manufactured ?I was in my garden the other day drinking Lambrini? type offerings, which read like a sixth former's first attempt at a theatrical farce.

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > OK. Firstly, your observation about people who > have been banned is plainly wrong *Bob*. If you go > back to the thread in the main section which > caused my restriction.. I know you only heard the leaky tap dripping last night, but it's actually been dripping for quite a while.

steveo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Anything on at the pictures? Cabaret, The Last Laugh, Sabotage, The Muppet Movie, Eyes Wide Shut, Intolerance, Fight Club, Performance, The Good The Bad and the Ugly and Trouble In Paradise.

AQ, consider this: you have to work pretty hard on here to get a ban of any sort. The admins on here (whoever they are and of whom there have been numerous) have a light touch. Consider that in - approaching a decade of existence - with tens of thousands of regular users and god knows how many posts, the number of posters who have been banned from the main section can be counted on one hand. What this means is that you have to work pretty bloody hard to get a ban on here. Louisa has worked hard - and hence she is one of those people to be counted on that one hand. She isn?t banned out of personal malice, nor from some great injustice because of not being in with some sort of clique (yawn): she is banned because amongst the people (like me) who see her tiresomely ?provocative? posts for what they are, there are also a sackload of people - perhaps not such frequent visitors - who felt that she was like a dog weeing on the carpet (on purpose) every time you let it to the front room. In addition you should also know that there are also a good number of people who have been genuinely pissed-off, upset or just plain bored to tears (enough even to leave, in some cases) by her mischief-making over the years. For mischief is what it is - and mischievous contributions demand only mischief in return. Personally I wouldn?t see her banned from the main section, but I find it highly amusing that she is - and am enjoying watching her twist and shriek as it become all the more clear that the main supply of her ?less knowing? targets has been restricted. I?ve never had any desire to fall out with any regular, reasonable person (such as yourself) - and there?s no need to - not when there is always a plentiful supply of pompous, snobbish, ignorant - or just plain bizarre contributions to come in on. Long may it continue.

Fair enough. I'm going down the bottom of the garden to hit my knackers with a lump hammer. See you tomorrow. Same time, same place.

You're right, we're all so lucky to be massively patronised by you both. Thank you, THANK YOU

Yes folks - that's another 'fun' post from the master of hilarity

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Cut and pasted from :- I learned from the master, Foxy

The world's first wireless telephone conversation occurred in 1880, when Alexander Graham Bell and Charles Sumner Tainter invented and patented the photophone, a telephone that conducted audio conversations wirelessly over modulated light beams (which are narrow projections of electromagnetic waves). In that distant era, when utilities did not yet exist to provide electricity and lasers had not even been imagined in science fiction, there were no practical applications for their invention, which was highly limited by the availability of both sunlight and good weather. Similar to free-space optical communication, the photophone also required a clear line of sight between its transmitter and its receiver. It would be several decades before the photophone's principles found their first practical applications in military communications and later in fiber-optic communications.