louisiana

Only askin', TJ. You maybe need to chill. ::o

Nah, that's the Great Disconnect (when people fail to...). Edited to correct spelling.

PeckhamRose Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > With a Scottish accent. My partner happens to be from Bathgate. (That's next to Blackburn, for you Sarah Boyle watchers.) I believe that there they call it a 'full Scottish'.

Qids, she is of course quite right :)

It's a delicate balance, PinkyB, between splodge and firm. But trying too hard is an automatic disqualification.

Lorraineliyange, while your relationship is commendable and olbviously exactly as you wish it, I'd venture to suggest that many non-smokers will tend to prefer non-smoking partners, owing to the smell of smoke not being so appetising to non-smokers (plus if their parents etc. have died from lung cancer - which is surprisingly often the case as many people used to smoke - this tends to leave a major mark, and such people will tend to seek non-smoking partners.) I suppose it depends on your time of life too...

What got me was the idea of this woman so deluded. Me myself, I can't stand a gym bunny.

louisiana Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > EDmummy Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Louisana, didn't you say on another thread that > > you drink but your partner doesn't. Ah, my partner doesn't drink coffee generally after a meal - but then neither do I, mostly (unless it's offered at someone's home).

EDmummy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Louisana, didn't you say on another thread that > you drink but your partner doesn't. Not at all. We both drink ale, copiously.

I know there has been some debate about a new crossing down LL opposite Somerfields, but here up in the Upper SE Side we seem to be getting a new crossing. To replace the one we used to have way back when. Or at least that seems to be the indication from the workmen who are currently laying the paving... (junction LL and Dunstan's Road) Or am I wrong?

?

PinkyB Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm intrigued as to what a "hot ?$%^&" might be... It's whatever you want it to be.

TJ is Tessa Jowell?

Moos, while you may have your own views, I am not a wind up merchant. Most people tend to find people something like themselves. Most of the women I know who are ale drinkers are with men who are ale drinkers, dance music lovers find dance music lovers, etc. I love both. While I have had a neighbour who when invited to dinner did bring her own cheese made of potato, I would think twice about making dinner again for - let alone live with - someone unable or unwilling to differentiate potato from cheese. You may be right, and the world may be full of such people, but most people I know tend to aim for likes that are at least to a degreee similar.

As a beer-drinking woman (as in ale)... I don't think I mentioned beer at all.

See Emily Play - Pink Floyd

jctg Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > louisiana Wrote: > > If we look to who has > > been promoting the anti-CC agenda, it tends to > be > > people who are non-scientifically trained. > Nigel > > Lawson comes to mind, but I can think of > > others... > > ie. businessmen. Or those funded by business people. Certain large US corportations have put money on the table to sell the anti-CC story in the UK media.

louisiana Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > jctg Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Marmora Man Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > While scientists arguing in favour of the > > climate > > > change model are in the majority - that, of > > > itself, does not indicate unanimity and many > of > > > their reports are hedged with more > "possibles", > > > likely", "most" etc. > > > > Using Climate Change 2007, the Fourth > Assessment > > Report (AR4) of the United Nations > > Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as an > > example, try getting 620 different eminent > > scientists to agree on a wording. It took four > > years. > > > > > > the vociferous and almost evangelical nature > of > > the many > > > supporters > > > > which is understandable given that it's the > > biggest issue facing humankind in the next 50 > > years. > > > > > > - whose invariably unscientific > > > approach seems to be unconcerned with facts, > > > > I think you'll find the unscientific approach > is > > more likely to be employed by climate change > > deniers and sceptics. > > jctg has a point here, MM. If we look to who has > been promoting the anti-CC agenda, it tends to be > people who are non-scientifically trained. Nigel > Lawson comes to mind, but I can think of > others... > > Would you like to put forward the name of someone > who is anti-CC and who does not conform to this > model? i.e. who has scientific training in the > relevant fields and who has published > peer-reviewed papers... Even one paper? somewhere? Edited to correct vowel.

Indeed you could, Brendan.

They've been having smog in Shanghai and I'm not in Shanghai. Thanks heavens. Plus I've paid my electrician and am doing a piece of work. I could be out on the lawn sunning myself, but hey.

jctg Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Marmora Man Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > While scientists arguing in favour of the > climate > > change model are in the majority - that, of > > itself, does not indicate unanimity and many of > > their reports are hedged with more "possibles", > > likely", "most" etc. > > Using Climate Change 2007, the Fourth Assessment > Report (AR4) of the United Nations > Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as an > example, try getting 620 different eminent > scientists to agree on a wording. It took four > years. > > > the vociferous and almost evangelical nature of > the many > > supporters > > which is understandable given that it's the > biggest issue facing humankind in the next 50 > years. > > > - whose invariably unscientific > > approach seems to be unconcerned with facts, > > I think you'll find the unscientific approach is > more likely to be employed by climate change > deniers and sceptics. jctg has a point here, MM. If we look to who has been promoting the anti-CC agenda, it tends to be people who are non-scientifically trained. Nigel Lawson comes to mind, but I can think of others... Would you like to put forward the name of someone who is anti-CC and who does not confirm to this model? i.e. who has scientific training in the relevant fields and who has published peer-reviewed papers... Even one paper? somewhere?

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Louisiana - at first I thought you were just a bit > arrogant. Now I think you're a sandwich short of a > picnic. I just like my food. That's all.

And do you really drink port in The Palmerston?

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Louisiana - at first I thought you were just a bit > arrogant. Now I think you're a sandwich short of a > picnic. So where do you work, Jeremy?

I broke out into titters on the scene, I confess.