Huguenot

There's blood on the floor here... and here... WHAT'S THIS???? I'm not staying here.

This has all got out of hand.

PastaSue, I refer you without prejudice to LadyDelilah, who has identified several practices that you'd struggle to deliver on your own ;-)

It doesn't sound like you're really teckie. In your position I'd be tempted to set up a blog on something like wordpress.com, buy the URL through GoDaddy, and then divert the URL through GoDaddy to Wordpress. Nice'n'easy.

Nope, turdy tree and a turd is full whack hot stuff for a Sat afternoon when I'm watching the creeket...

A Mow, A Meal and Makin' Whoopee - that's McKinsey....

Demonstrating the quality of the goods through a low risk loss-leader is always a useful way to introduce a possible long term partnership. The economic benefits of partnership - particularly efficiency in delivering core activities such as food preparation - is a useful way of calculating and extracting measurable benefits from a merger. One should always be wary of uneven partnerships - these have a tendency to be perceived as a hostile takeover and prove unattractive for either one partner or the other in the long term. If there's a particular exchange of exclusive services (that is both proprietary and unique to each partner) that can be delivered with equal demands on resource that's usually where the best foundations lie.

teeth

Broad again - 6 for 46. Let's hope we can recover this and man of the match.

Google is your friend.

Oh, I don't know - most people wouldn't eat chicken if they had to wring its neck and pluck it - doesn't really tell us anything. Reminds me of a chum who was devastated in China to see cats in chicken cages being sold at a market for food. They were all packed in and miaouing. So she rifled her purse, negotiated a price and bought eight to set free. Tragically it all happened so quickly that it took four before she realised that the vendor was snapping the neck of each one as she pulled them out...

Well languagelounger, I work in tbe industry so may have been able to help you solve your problem. You're aware I take it that if someone had been using your account to send emails the IP address of the hacker's computer is encoded in the email, as is a variety of other useful information? However, now you've been so rude I won't bother.

Okay, so this is very naughty humour, and undoubtedly scary, but everyone's okay so I hope I'm allowed to... "A plane has crashed and broken in two on landing at Guyana's main airport in the capital, Georgetown, causing injuries but no deaths. "One woman described how a taxi driver got to the scene before the emergency services and charged her to be driven back to the terminal." Source: BBC Anyone got any other naughty disaster stories?

The 75/75 rule was originally proposed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as an alternative means of testing the bioequivalence of two formulations of a pharmaceutical agent. The rule specified that the ratio of test-to-reference formulation of a bioavailability measure arising in a bioequivalence study must be between 75 and 125 per cent of unity in at least 75 per cent of subjects to declare two formulations bioequivalent. Eat that. ;-)

urges karter into lake to save the medic, the wiggled and jiggled and tickled...

It certainly seeems very strange languagelounger, can you be more specific? Are you talking about an email account with someone like yahoo or google? Are you talking about a corporate email account like work? Are you talking about your PMs on here? It's usually very difficult to hack email accounts on public or corporate services. Industrial or state level attacks on a local voluntary service would be overkill, so it seems more likely that someone guessed your passwords. My suspicions would be nosing around people who had access to the PC you use to access your email - particularly if the two of you who were hacked knew each other. How do you know you were hacked? Sensible hackers wouldn't leave a trace.

Ah right. Well I reckon that if you're working in the accounts department, it's pretty safe to say that he has responsibility for accounts rather than swimming pools - and that includes never knowingly letting an erroneus set of accounts pass his desk unaddressed. Could see him in trouble. Cross-post

That's an interesting one Spaghetti - what level of crime would you have to witness before you'd try and draw someone's attention to it?

Same reason for me Spaghetti - no acccusation is necessary, just a little help required with a discrepancy... karter knows it ;-)

I don't eat foie gras myself, but do eat some nice rare pates. I tend to agree with Piersy that most people who are eating 'foie gras' are eating it only in the broadest sense. It doesn't have to be force fed to be fattened liver. 'Gavage' or force-feeding is a particularly French habit, so odds are if that if it's not the product of France it's not force fed. However, I've eaten horse, cat, dog, hamster and so on. I don't see any point in differentiating them.

I just don't think the people you refer to exist? You've identified "the collective hypocrisy by those that wear their 'progressive' politics as a badge of honour" and you're annoyed by it. The challenge is that I can see anyone who wears "their 'progressive' politics as a badge of honour". I don't think those people are here on the forum, or reading the guardian. I think you've invented it as a hate figure. And if these people don't exist, then by definition there is no hypocrisy. So it means that you get riled up by a figment of your imagination? The easiest way to stop being riled up by it is to accept that they don't exist.

I don't think you've got any choice but to highlight it. I would be very wary of accusing anyone - but I would feel quite happy in asking for someone's help in trying to help you resolve an inconsistency in the acccounts. This isn't just an issue of right or wrong, but also self-preservation. If someone can embezzle funds, they'll also be prepared to let someone else carry the can for it: what better target than the temp?

There goes quids, comparing Mickelwright with Wilberforce. Not only is it inappropriate, it's megalomania. Wilberforce was a rationalist, an MP and a parliamentary campaigner. He did not engage in unilateral guerilla targeting of those involved in the slave trade. The other problem is that quids uses the views on this to 'prove' that ED's Guardian reading bourgeoisie is hypocritical. Surely the more rational explanation is that actually the Guardian reading bourgeoisie he stereotypes simply doesn't exist? It wasn't me who brought up 'moral justice', it was the campaigners (and repeated by you quids in your Wilberforce comment). I'm merely pointing out that their claim to moral righteousness is unfounded and simply incorrect. They are anything but moral. They're a minority special interest group engaged in totalitarian posturing.

To be fair, there would probably be plenty of more important and somewhat disturbing reasons not to sit on your lap when you were naked.

Was that as lacking in irony as it appeared? ;-) Hunt saboteurs are as wrong as ALF terrorists are and as wrong as Mickelwright is. If you want to ban fox hunting you get public opinion on your side, you persuade a majority of people to support you, and push legislation through parliament. That's the way society and democracy work. If Mickelwright wants people to stop eating foie gras, he should persuade them not to buy it, not force them not to buy it.