Huguenot

Well the only stats I've seen are IV's own. They seem to show her rah rah right on rant was a loadee of oldee bolloxee. I can't see that helping much when you're down the pub complaining about how hard done by you are, but hell, maybe you're complaining because it's a bonding thing, rather than because its true.

Oh bollox, I was only saying its boring, that's all.

vagina *titters*

"Huguenot gets exactly the response he was aiming for" bosh. "Hugo - is your wife one of the ones who fake it?" I think pathetic childish moron just about covers it. Well done.

:)) Watch this one... Me: "I think DJKQ's cross because she believes that my disapproval of threads about masturbation aids is somehow a criticism of women" DJKQ: "That pure fantasy on your part H......I really think you have a real issue with women" Badaam, tish. I kind of think my sexuality is my own buiness, thank you for your assumptions, but I have no intention of resolving them one way or the other in public. I don't think sexuality is something that's undeserving of discussion, but I think it's such an intense private issue that it's best kept to more secluded environments. After all, I don't come on here talking about my favourite poo do I? I don't actually think that vaginas are intrinsically funny - the only way they could be fun is through the giggly *shock* of breaking a social taboo. Breaking that taboo doesn't have long time hilarity value, it's funny the first time, and then you have to find something to shock more. This conversation started with accessories, and then stooped to a rather uninspired reference to discharges. That kind of escalation is typical of *shock* tactics.

I think DJKQ's cross because she believes that my disapproval of threads about masturbation aids is somehow a criticism of women or lesbians. There's nothing I can say to change that. The irony is that I only took the mickey out of attention seeking behaviour. On the other hand she started attacking men for being paedos and rapists. She's been incredibly insulting and sexist, and in response she's merely been chastised for preening.

Sorry, you're right. ;-) "Look at me, look at me, I have a vagina" Is that better?

Well, if you ever needed evidence that technology and real life do not mix... http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3302/3242768153_53f2ed056b.jpg

Well, SMG, I feel it only proved my point. I don't think this thread is anything about sexuality at all. I think it's about a few people seeing how far they can push it before someone 'says' something. When they get the reaction, they launch into a man-hating rant. First IV with some scarcely concealed misandry about climaxing, and then DJKQ tossing subtelty out of the window. The goal wasn't self-expression, it was conflict. It's only fun, like the 'lesbian' thread, when it's being tested for *shock* value. As soon as it becomes humdrum the attention seekers will drop it like an old rag.

Surely that's a 1950's argument belatedly chucked out 50 years later? If you're a woman born post '68 I stuggle to believe that you're still in a corset?

No, honesty is not a thing to be liberally tossed around on principle. Trustworthy is a much better goal. That way you can avoid calling fat people fat until they're in the right mood.

'99? You've never lived.

"Women are always worse than men for filth..." Whatever the historical precedent for patriarchy, there's every evidence that in the modern era women are overcompensating with a complete rejection of social decorum. After all, there isn't a thread here entitled 'chopped liver'. I'm guessing this thread is here because of a social weakness - an insecurity with sexuality that means women need to keep stating it to complete strangers... "I have a vagina" The only thing I can assure you, is that like a tourette's sufferer at Hyde Park Corner, listing names for the female pudenda and the various items you can abuse it with to people you've never met is unlikely to give you any closure. Like playing the 'cock' game in the pub, it'll only result in short lived screechy hysteria and a vague feeling that you've let yourself down. Take your accessory, give it a name if you will, and know that in your private 'confidence' you will take more pride and succour than in a decade of fanny threads on the EDF. *normally places winky icon here, but other people's vehemence seem to have deprived me of the pleasure*

No way Sue, at stake are some key issues. I note that investigative journos at Panorama have unveiled untoward happenings at FIFA. According to Loz, this should never have been broadcast. Thoughts?

ianr seems to have blasted that with the entire constitution. Won't fault it.

Okay Loz, I totally accept your point of view. It has a righteous precision that belies logical denial. I take that on the chin. I'm just not convinced that it reflects any realistic social relevance. Life is full of grey areas, standing tall on ethics is like expecting the tide to turn because I posited my throne on the sand. I'd be able to argue your position with all enthusiasm. It's a margin call. I can't because at some level I reject the idea that the 'authorities' are responsible for my society. I belive that 'we' are. We need to grasp that, welcome that, stop asking the 'authorities' to be responsible for our relationships and welcome getting on with each other. There are bound to be mess ups, but they're icomparable with the social benefit.

Ah right, I was taking Dulwich Fox's word for it on occupancy :-)

A violet wand was apparently used as a torture device by the Chicago Police in the 70s and 80s. I'd prefer not to take a PR exam with one of those!! ::o

Hmm, 30-odd restaurants with 30-odd covers each, say 800 in total. 5,000 ED residents, say 3,000 of those 18-54 (kids are seldom taken out in the evening I guess). Even allowing for blow-ins, it would suggest that a quarter to a third of ED adults are either eating our or ordering in every night. What recession eh?

Found this for you Narnia. For its provenance, please check 'Is there a God' thread... ;-) So far as I can tell this wouldn't resolve issues with signal interference, but it would resolve a fragmented hard drive (which can cause jumping and skipping in playback). Check you haven't got an unshielded loudspeaker next to it that could cause interference on particular frequencies (a TV speaker will be shielded, but a hifi speaker may not be).

Haven't seen snow in a while ::o

*observes that we've now sunk so low that daylight is no longer apparent through the murky waters of our conversational abyss*

No need to isolate me itatm, if I keep responding, it's because DJKQ keeps assserting it. It's a logical contradiction, if landlords can't afford to discount rents, they can't afford to go without any rental either. It's only the UK that the government takes vast sums of tax payers money and throw it down the throats of grasping BTL landlords under the guise of protecting the poor. As DJKQ has pointed out many times, the % of total income in taxes is a larger percentage of income for the poor than it is for the rich, so this BTL frenzy is a tax on the poor that creates massive market distortion that disproportionately affects on those on poor income. I think that a 'socialist' solution that entails sustaining this distortion, bankrolling the wealthy at the expense of the needy lacks imagination and achieves eactly the opposite of the goals that campaigners seek. The irony is that throwing taxpayer cash at the poor is a one-size-fits-all solution that fails the nation, and has its roots more in a utopian dream of asocialist state than it does in common sense and logic.

I don't know about Sky+ boxes in particular, but TV channels are broadcast on 'carrier' frequencies. Sometimes if a connection becomes loose (even fractionally so), it can resonate at the same frequency as the carrier wave of a particular channel. Hence you can lose the odd channel, but not the whole lot. My first check would be that all the connections twixt box and dish are nice and tight.

Incidentally, before you take the moral high ground on behalf of the UK, please do be aware that only 30% of UK citizens are against the death penalty - so the only thing that prevents the UK having the death penalty is the rejection of democratic mandate by a tyrannical political elite. (I'm actually against the death penalty myself, just not against the social humiliation of petty criminals. I can distinguish between them.).