Huguenot

Ah, interesting point. Is the quality of a metaphor defined by what was implied or what was inferred? Is it degraded as an artform if the audience is unfamiliar with context? My own answers are contradictory - I'd tend to feel the quality of a metaphor can only be crafted, not accidental, but then I don't think a great work of art ceases to be one if the audience doesn't appreciate it.

Well I don't really want to get dragged into a slightly disappointing debate about it, but it's clear that as a metaphor 'getting on the pitch' conveys an array of ideas about teamwork, motivation, rules and discipline, goals and ambition. It's also quite nice to hear it as an English idiom (Americans don't use the term 'pitch' as a matter of course, although I'm sure you'll try and jump down my throat with 'proof' that they do). But if you want to be obtuse about it be my guest.

Well I suspect any alternative would be rather long winded, no?

I wonder how one would say those things without resorting to cliche?

What was the problem with the voting system Siverfox?

I don't think John K was challenging you jimbo1964, as a historian he'd probably be able to help more if you explained why you believe it's an ED house? Is it of friends or family - where did it come from?

It probably has to be a lovely house because the programme is aspirational.

Loz, if you assume the van was lighter than the water it displaced, then as it floated the mass of water displaced would equal the mass of the van. If the van sank, you'd be buggered unless it was in a very deep part of the ocean where the density (and hence mass) of the water rose appreciably with depth. The van would sink until buoyancy was achieved at a particular depth (and hence density and mass).

If you haven't got a big enough graduated flask you could drive it off the end of a pier and see how far the water comes up the beach. Another way might be to drive it very fast into a church and see how hot the fireball gets - it will be proportional to the kinetic energy in the system, which is itself a function of mass and velocity using the formula ? mv?. For the purposes of this calculation you could ignore the speed of the church. If you want to keep it in one piece (you don't mention this) you could perhaps tie a stout rope around it and tie the other end to a bollard. If you knew the breaking strain of the rope (a good hardware store should be able to tell you), you could calculate how fast you had to drive around the bollard before the rope snapped. At this point you could calculate mass using the formula F = mv?/r, where F is the breaking strain of the rope, r is the length of the rope, and v is the speed you were going when it snapped.

Haha, only because it broke the 'taboo' that elevates young parents into martyrdom. They're having kids for themselves, not for anybody else. I think they should be approached like any other needy social zealots group - no special treatment should be accrued!

I don't think it's helpful to bandy aroun terms like 'disadvantage' and 'penalize' in this debate - it destroys rational thought by deliberately inflaming base human emotions regarding 'loss'. Twinset mum did the same thing in the telephone call by describing the system as an 'attack' on stay at home mothers. As LM pointed out, the only sensible discussion lies in 'who is supported by tax payers and why'? Since the advantages accrued by parents from their children vastly outweigh those derived by complete strangers, I see no logic in why complete strangers should pay for them to have kids (unless we're on a baby drive). Conversely I think that complete strangers will benefit from thriving economies, and well adjusted and socialised kids, so I can form a perfectly reasonable case for supporting childcare and education fees. I'm guessing there's a biological imperative from young parents that creates delusions about entitlements.

Vietnam? My mate runs an outward bound place in Borneo called Tampat do Aman? Not much chance of getting laid though :)

"flights are always ridiculously expensive these days" Hee hee, there's a sense of entitlement for you ;-) How much SHOULD someone charge you to fly you half way around the world in a ?200m plane designed and made by others, whilst you fill the stratosphere with noxious gases?

Being an East Dulwich mummy is no insurance against being an idiot it seems.

Give it a rest t-e-d. Congrats on the relaunch, hope it all goes well!

"what i can tell you is that nearly all people with sexual addictions were exposed to pornography during early teenage years" Let me correct your fairly straightforward error: "what i can tell you is that nearly all people were exposed to pornography during early teenage years" It doesn't take rocket science MDs to point out that many more people were exposed to porn that didn't end up with sexual addictions than those that did. Not only is there no causation/correlation link, but taking away porn is not going to take away sexual addiction.

Bog gled

Kinda depends where you are Loz. It's rainy season in Saigon, but even rainy season is about time of day. 4pm to 6pm is rainy season. I really like the rain here, it's heavy but warm. I do dislike 'hot' season when the skies may be travel brochure sunny but really it's unmanageable. Come and visit :) Moos is here too, and much nicer than me!

Nannyjuice, sorry to hear about your trouble - however, do you not think you're reading a little too much into one isolated incident? It would be likely that moving house would be an excessive response to workmen doing some work outside your house once?

That's nothing short of trying to instigate a run on banks. It's a shameful and morally corrupt approach that serves only to satisfy your deep seated desire to see society fail. How many people would you like to see suffer to satisfy your Armageddon fantasies? There is something to be said for investors who select apparently fast tax dodging returns from offshore banks in under capitalised countries to recognize that their fast bucks come at a risk - and the taxpayer isn't going to bail them out if they come unstuck. Get rich quick schemes come at a price, and I'm pleased that finally we're seeing irresponsible investors pay it.

Fly drive California? Not sure about whether that's in budget?

Ah, I didn't realize you were talking about small children - but I guess if you want a good deal from a fixed price 'all you can eat' buffet, you don't take a small child? You know that they're not going to eat their money's worth. It's not the nature of the deal. You still can't take it home. No pointing getting outraged about it.

If you don't want to eat anything you shouldn't be going into 'all you can eat' buffets blocking the seats for other customers and refusing to pay. What, exactly, is difficult to understand about this?

I guess the owner is entitled to put in as many ridiculous applications as they want. They're not really losing out at the moment, because Iceland are filling the gap like an unwanted doormat boy/girlfriend hanging on until someone better comes along! M&S or Waitrose have no obligation or even interest in helping them out - they simply want the right properties at the right price. Any interference is only likely to weaken their negotiation position.

To make the link live, copy and paste with the http:// prefix.