ianr

>There is another older sister whose name slips my mind for the moment. Sara?

Just to mention in passing that Archive CD Books is having an online half-price sale until Sunday. Their stock includes some London directories and maps, including a CD of London maps through the ages. There's a rundown of its contents here., though I don't know anything of their quality or how commonly available they are. There's a fair bit of other interesting stuff too, as well as specifically genealogical items.

>OK, fair enough. I didn't realise it was supposed to be satirical. I doubt that most of the people I've seen quoting it did.

Men's Minds Matter Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I wonder if Ian took part? No.

>Who is the hell is this "Stewart" person? I assume it's Jon Stewart.

Went into the Mind shop this afternoon, and what was playing on the radio? "And if this world starts getting you down There's room enough for two Up on the roof"

With ADSL, no more so than usual.

There is another photograph here. She is described as 5'3", medium build.

Have you considered the possibility that it might be the perfume in your 'deodorant' that's the problem?

>Since its digital audio broadcasting there is no particulur frequency, it part of a > multiplex along with several other stations. The multiplex is LON 3. Which appears to be using Channel 11B (218.64MHz), if you need to try manual tuning. >and they are probably on digital TV listings under the radio section as well It looks as if not. It's also apparently a return to DAB for them: http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=801094

Fireworks used to be fun, when you could buy them as an eight-year old, and they were cheapish. You could even get penny bangers. I'm surprised at the pangs of nostalgia from just looking at the photos on http://www.pyrosociety.org.uk/forum/topic/3073-jumping-jacks/.

I see that the revamped Southwark site now has an old maps page which includes this one.

All that's said about it in the 35-page paper is:

Distal phalangectomy is very reliable..

Michael Palaeologus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "Invalid Image Request"? > > Are you suggesting that these words should be stamped across the willies and boobies as a form > of censorship to avoid outraging the morals of East Dulwich? If so, well done, like your thinking. A succinct 404 might do nicely. Sorry for the gltch, I should have checked: the b*rs are presumably checking the Referrer. Not, I'm sure, that you really need any reminder of the cross-section, but for those who may: http://www.smartimagebase.com/penis-cross-section/view-item?ItemID=6621

Planar views are more up-market: try practising with one like this.

>She's hot! Her mate Minnie's the real goer. Ask them both along.

>This one certainly looks like a bit of a monster! >Attachments: Slug hedge front.jpg (46KB) Remind it to audition if they ever do a remake of The Shining including the hedge animals.

> Could we have some good drama instead? Just google "assaulted neighbour hedge". :)

That sounds a good idea.

>keep your eyes on gumtree.. ... and this compendium of recent bike ads (as mentioned by mlteenie here).

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Southwark Council has a consultation about introducing Dog Control Orders. > > The consultation is rather leading - no questions about whether you agree SOuthwakr has a problem or > not, where any problems might be. This is the statutorily prescribed way of consulting about a specific proposed order: Procedures before and after making, or amending, a dog control order 3. ? (1) Before making a dog control order under section 55 of the Act, an Authority shall? (a) consult upon its proposal to make the order by publishing a notice of that proposal in a local newspaper circulating in the area in which the land in respect of which the order would apply is situated; (b) consult every other Authority having power under section 55 of the Act to make a dog control order in respect of all or part of the land in respect of which the proposed order would apply; and © where all or part of the land in respect of which the proposed order would apply is access land, consult? (i) the access authority for that access land, and (ii) the local access forum for that access land, and, in respect of any of that access land that is not situated in a National Park, the Countryside Agency. (2) The notice referred to in paragraph (1)(a) shall? (a) identify the land in respect of which the order is to apply, and, if any of the land is access land, state that this is the case; (b) summarise the order; © where the order refers to a map, state where the map may be inspected at an address within the Authority's area, and that any inspection shall be free of charge at all reasonable hours during the period mentioned in sub-paragraph (d); (d) state the period within which representations may be made in writing or by e-mail, such period being not less than 28 days after the publication of the notice; and (e) state the address and e-mail address to which representations may be sent. (The Dog Control Orders (Procedures) Regulations 2006) It's unclear to me whether the council's consultation is intended as such a consultation, or is simply a general consultation as to whether specific proposals for Dog Control Orders would be generally welcome if made (in which case they would then have to go through the formal procedure, as above, if they wanted to make any). I suspect, and hope for their sake, that it's the latter. But I think it might be sensible to get some clarification.

There are 'explanations' of traceroute about. This one is pretty basic. But next time you're stuck, just run the prog and paste the results. :) There's also the more basic ping www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk , if you want to check just connectability and speed.

If it's really bad, another useful diagnostic might be to run tracert: tracert www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk If running Windows, you can run it in a Dos[-like] command (cmd) window. It reports the times spent on individual hops from node to node by packets in three trials. It's taking twenty hops for me, at present, half of those at my ISP's end!, but always getting through. One server en route, te1-7.mpd01.lon01.atlas.cogentco.com, currently seems to be a consistently weak link from where I am (not all test packets getting through), though I don't know whether that necessarily indicates it as a significant increaser of perceived latency. The test is likely to be more informative in cases where your browser does time-out.

>does seem to be a problem at the server end rather than at our end then. Or anywhere en route. I came across http://downforeveryoneorjustme.com on a Virgin forum today. Can't vouch for its accuracy, but probably worth trying. Just replace google.com with the relevant URL.