ruffers

Moyes must be on his way soon, can't see him taking Everton any further and he's had a new contract in front of him for weeks and not signed it. Next stop? Newcastle? Spurs?

Keef Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Did the same supporters come up with the skol song > by any chance? :-) Great result, and agree totally > about the goal celebration, It's like a primary > school forward roll! I think forward roll is dignifying it a bit. Let's call it what it is, a rubbish roly poly.

People in a coffee shop who say "Can I get a coffee?". What do you think you bleedin' idiot, it's a coffee shop. That's why you came in in the first place. I'd just love to see a member of staff give the only correct answer of "yes".

Peckhamgatecrasher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > NO! Good Didn?t think so. Would of is the one really getting me at the moment as it?s just become so common, you see it all over the web in particular. I think most people getting apostrophes and the alike wrong probably know they might not be 100% accurate, it?s my feeling though that people think ?would of? is correct as that?s how people tend to say it. A losing battle.

I pronounce "Would have" as "would've", but I increasingly see it written as "would of". Before I vent and it turns out I'm wrong, is "would of" now acceptable?

Leaving for Exeter Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- . ...Bit > like getting an extra chocolate bar in the tube > vending machine or a solid choc kitkat Why do we all (self included) get so excited about that?! OOh! Solid chocolate! Just like all the bars of solid chocolate I chose not to buy as I wanted a Kit Kat.... Ocado all the way. I was a bit dubious at first but you get what you ask for and it's all in date with a few days to go, none of that "use all your shopping by.......... tomorrow" action. And they're on time, even ringing if they're running a bit early to see if we'd like an earlier delivery. Recommended.

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If you're offered cashback in Somerfield - make > sure they give you the cash. > > Luckily I realised yesterday while I was still at > the till. > > Genuine error? I don't know. But the assistant was > doing a lot of merry talking whilst I was about to > leave with my shopping - to distract me from the > fact he hadn't given me my cash? I don't know. > > I'd only just started using my card in there > again, too :-S Charitably I'll interpret this as general advice while using Somerfield as an example as opposed to a specific insinuation, I think that's for the best.

chuff Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ruffers said > Can we therefore conclude that Mr Chuff is a short > ugly dark haired ginger tall handsome man? > > > that is my point exactly Ruffers. > > He actually looks closest to simon pegg without > the massive head. > > I have a great mini soap going on in my head now > picturing you lot, must get on with some work, the > launderette is getting chocka. Yeah I was a bit slow there wasn't I? :-$ (Picture a very tired looking love child of Will Self and Richard E Grant looking apologetic, as they're the only people I've ever been told I look like at all)(Apart from the singer in Fields Of The Nephilim although that may have been more to do with the hair, the hat, the coat, the boots and the flour. And the dark.)

chuff Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Him - brad Pitt, ricky jervais, Simon pegg, > Russell crowe and Jimmy sommerville! Can we therefore conclude that Mr Chuff is a short ugly dark haired ginger tall handsome man?

Sandperson Wrote: > > No, no, no Ruffers! You've got it all wrong we > just LAUGH at City. > Not as much as we laugh at ourselves I suspect. While I was reassured by the loss at Brighton that we weren't going to become some kind of clinical professional organisation with our new found wealth I smiled less at the Wigan score. For anyone who did see the game, or will see it on MOTD2, this quote from bbc text commentary re the penalty is brilliant 1646: "And people said building the JJB on an ancient trampoline burial ground wouldn't have any consequences."

Now I'm not claiming any great expertise.... but that's not a tortoise. If it's a turtle then a quick google comes up with - ________________ lf you keep your turtle inside, you must have a tank that is at least forty gallons. There has got to be enough room to have a land area and a water area. Two-thirds of the aquarium should be water and one-third should be land. You also need a place where they can lay in the heat of a lamp. You should keep the tank around eighty degrees during the day and seventy degrees at night. Turtles are cold blooded animals so they take a long time to adjust to temperature changes. For this reason, you should not take the turtle out of the tank to play with it. This sudden change in temperature can harm their immune system. Some turtles do carry salmonella so be sure to wash your hands after handling them. Your turtle's environment also needs to be kept clean. Keep the water fresh and keep any waste out. You might want to get a water filtration system to keep the water clean. You should not use tap water for the tank, because tap water contains chlorine and fluoride. This can really mess up the ph balance. De-chlorinated water needs to be used for the swimming area and filtered water for them to drink. There are many commercial diets available for turtles. Dietary requirements differ depending on the species. You should feed your pet two to three times a week. ___________________ From http://www.milliondollarpetpix.com/index.php?searchword=terrapin&option=com_search&Itemid= Maybe do a bit more research before you get another?

People on X Factor, Pop Idol etc etc saying "It means everything to me." Not that I watch such shows of course, no no no, not me mister.

Annasfield Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Considering how much united win, i'm surorised how > bitter their supporters are. > Don't call them merd though, that's derogatory. X And they call us (City fans) the bitters.

For the avoidance of doubt I'm with them as well. My "hands up" comment should perhaps have been concluded with "none - thought so" as I hadn't seen at that point anyone not treating it as anything but serious apart from Jimmy 2X who I though was asking for opinion rather than just straight reporting of facts.

I'm still trying to get my head around or find an example where people are discriminated against on the grounds of having no faith. I can see discrimination against people not of a specific faith, but that also includes those of other faiths so isn't against 'no faith' specifically. If you see what I mean....

There's a road called Quorn Road? Brilliant! I thought quorn was a made up word for that veggie stuff.

People who write phone numbers thus - 0208 xxx xxxx, or 0207 xxx xxxx. The code is 020. Not sure how petty that is, I'm serious on this one. (Obviously not the x's as that would be silly.)

Monkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This is arson and arson is a very serious crime. > Why anyone on this forum or elsewhere should think > otherwise beggars belief. Hands up who doesn't think it's a very serious crime?

I went to a humanist naming ceremony recently and it was a bit poor to be honest, interesting point about the religions having had years to practice and agreed, despite belief issues the catholics do put on a good funeral ceremony. To go back to Peckhamrose comments - Well the school in Bury has said they don't want the injections on their premises, and this is "despite support for the injections from the Salford Diocese and the Church nationally" (Source Manchester Evening News) (I'm in Manchester today) so it's the view of a small group of governors rather than the Church from that information. Scouts - interesting, didn't know that. I guess when I was there I just lied a bit! On the third point I don't choose to say anything, why the need? Why "have to explain?"

PeckhamRose Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi everyone, > I wonder if there are any parents reading this who > may be interested in the subject, and care enough > to help if they can. > It's from British Humanist Association (those good > folks who fight to make sure people of no faith > have equal rights with those who do). > It's never occured to me that people of no faith suffer in this way, and I count myself as one of them. You've made me think if nothing else but can you give a couple of examples? ta

Not one of these? http://www.thinkgeek.com/gadgets/electronic/8c52/ ;-)

cdonline Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ruffers Wrote: > > > > > Bikes can hurt people, and they can cause > > accidents. I'm sure this one's been done to > death > > before but I still think they should be taxed, > > insured, and subject to the rules of the road > just > > like the rest of us. > > > I know. Many a time you hear about the carnage > that somebody on a two wheel contraption causes. > It's Mayhem out there. I'm sure the person > killed just down the road a few days ago, as a > driver decided to ploughed onto the pavement, > would rather play dodgems with a bike rather than > bloody great van that ended her life. Or the time the cyclist caused an accident involving me on my motorbike. Personal injuries to me, hundreds of pounds of damage to my bike. But that's OK eh? as he cycled off without a number plate or insurance care in the world leaving me to pick up the tab...

Marmora Man Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ruffers Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > Can I do this in the car then. Reason? Green > > efficiency. Stopping the car and starting again > > uses a lot more fuel than just carrying on... > :) > > I tend to view pedestrians and cyclists as equals > - so pedestrians cross the road when the little > man is red, but there is no traffic and I cross > pedestrian crossings when the light is red and > there are no pedestrians. > > Cars are different - the driver is in a bubble, > not sharing the same air / world as cyclist & > pedestrian, the car driver's decision to go thru' > a red light or brake has to be taken sooner / at a > greater distance from the light and there is thus > a greater danger of someone stepping out onto the > crossing. Bikes can hurt people, and they can cause accidents. I'm sure this one's been done to death before but I still think they should be taxed, insured, and subject to the rules of the road just like the rest of us.

Marmora Man Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > On pedestrian crossing I will stop if the crossing > is in use / about to be in use, but if it's clear > I'll cross the red light. Reason - momentum, if I > stop at every red light where there is absolutely > no purpose for the red light I'll lose momentum, > speed and arrive home / work later - I tried it a > few times over two weeks. Observing absolutely > every red light added about 7 minutes to my > journey time - or about 20%. Can I do this in the car then. Reason? Green efficiency. Stopping the car and starting again uses a lot more fuel than just carrying on... :)

SeanMacGabhann Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I would argue that the staff don't leave a LOT to > be desired.... No-one is perfect. Compared to the > service in sister pub Crown and Greyhound in the > village, they are made of aceness. I would go > further and say I have never jad a single problem > with the staff in there.. > > The food tho'.... I seldom go to said pub in the village but was truly impressed at how shockingly awful the service was last Sunday. Really very special!