pk

i am prepared to believe that your earliest experiences can have some impact on who you are later in life, and that the time of year at which you are born may have some impact on what your first experiences are i am also prepared to accept that how old you are (relative to those in the same school year) when you start school can have some impact on how you are at that stage - given that the oldest children could be a year (or may be a year less a day) older than the youngest in the same year. by way of example ive heard the more professional sportsman are born the first half of the traditional school year - and as such on average are bigger and stronger than those in the second half and therefore are probably as a group better when they first play sport and therefore enjoy it more, with this early influence having a longer impact so i am prepared to accept that when grouped together on aggregate there may be some charactertics that may be more likely or more prominent in people born at different stages of the year, however i think that the differences would be small and subject to many exceptions is that astrology? probably not

Asset Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Cripes, I think most people with kids appreciate > the desire for a quite meal once in a while - and > dare I say it, possibly much more than people > without kids who get to have a quiet meal whenever > they please. > > yeah but can't have a quiet meal whenever they please, remember everywhere is full of wayward children always

my golden oldie is: darth vader to luke skywalker: luke, i know what you're getting for christmas i felt your presents

i've only just seen this thread, but was going to suggest the same myself of course, they're not for serious decision making and can only be as good as the questions asked by the originator, but i think that they could give some interesting (if unscientific) info about the views of those on the forum

david_carnell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > From the DCMS: > > A limited amount of low stakes, social poker may > be played in pubs. There is a stakes limit of ?5 > per player per game (not per hand), and the > aggregate stakes limit for pub poker is ?100 per > day for each premises. So, for example, a pub > could run a daily poker game involving 20 players > staking ?5 each. The maximum prize for a game of > poker played in a pub is also ?100. No charge or > entry fee may be made for participating in pub > poker and, as with clubs, no deductions or levies > may be made from either stakes or prizes. i'd play a 20 player ?5 in tourney (with prizes of say ?60/?30/?10?) and i'd buy a couple of drinks whilst i was there sounds like a good idea for a quiet night (tuesday?), if there's actually interest beyond you and me

do you know what kind of stakes/games the Gambling Act would allow?

david_carnell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Under the new Gambling Act pubs can have small > stakes betting on card games. > > How about a poker night? might not be the sort of kind that they're after (i think that some people think that poker's seedy) but if they were to put on a poker night, i'd def try to make it

also recommended in the observer last week

neecheecat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I've been married for 4 years and my husband > doesn't want kids either. But why would someone > have a kid because "he wants one" anyway? in some circumstances may be someone would 'have a kid because "he wants one"' because they love 'him', but i agree it sounds like it wouldn't be wise with your level of repulsion (which i find a bit weird)

Strawbs Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Coming up to the ticket barriers at any given > station and the person in front of me only then > decides to faff around in his / her pocket / > wallet for their ticket which they then have to > feed through the machine.. Did they not have the > preceeding travel time to get their ticket or > oyster out?? I am sure it doesnt bug anyone else > really but it bugs the hell out of me... and me same's true for me at the cash point when there's a queue and people wait til they reach the front before looking for their wallet/purse/card

so is mccain definitely going to turn up now? i thought that he was going to be busy solving the word's financial problems

so what was the graffiti that is covered over? could it have been left on display whilst 'the community' was 'consulted'? and who would have been consulted and how? do they know about removing graffiti and restoring paintings? would consulting on every such decision not mean more wasted time and money? imo i think that it's a shame to have spoilt a mural that i know quite well as my son plays in that park regularly, but i find it hard to get upset without knowing the nature of the graffiti and what other options there were to remove it, and to be honest i've never particularly liked the mural

however, if there is geuninely a redundancy situation and those 'at risk' are appropriate pooled, consulted and selected then he/they may not be doing anything wrong (as long as the selection process does not involve selecting you because you are pregnant, and a tribunal would look very carefully to see whether the selection could be objectively justified) have others been put at risk too? or should they have been?

it's quite hard to sack people at anytime once any probationary period has passed unless the employer can demonstrate poor performance and has taken steps to address that if there's a suggestion that a dismissal might be linked to a pregnancy then there's a further burden on the employer and if a tribunal was find that a dismissal was linked to pregnancy that dismissal would be automtically 'unfair' - entitling the employee to claim for unfair dismissal (i think) if you haven't got it by email consider making notes now when it's fresh in your memory and may be sending a note to the boss saying something about what you understood to have been said in your discussion and inviting him to correct anything that you've misunderstood the boss sounds like an idiot

jumpinjackflash Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > KalamityKel Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > ::o I didnt know butchers showed the footie! > > Certainly something to remember for the future! > > > > Whome... I'm curious as to your definition of a > > "chav" care to clarify? > > Yes, I'd actually be interested to know what > defines a 'chav'. Chavs come up quite a bit on > this forum - some people take offence, some don't. > Here's what springs to my mind when I think of > 'chav': > > MEN > Kappa tracksuit > White Reebok Classic trainers > Baseball cap > Burberry overload > Rings with your initials on > Stone Island cardigans > > WOMEN > Elizabeth Duke from Argos jewellery > Velour tracksuits on girls > White puffa jackets > Gelled back hair/scrunched hair > Foundation three shades darker than actual skin > tone (that does not blend in to neck) so you define 'chavs' by what they wear?

Jah Lush Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Do you mean the Faces version? Here they are down > at the Marquee Club in 1970. > > Maybe I'm Amazed - The Faces no, much later - carleen anderson can't find it on youtube

HonaloochieB Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Maybe I'm Amazed. > i didn't know this song til i heard it covered, but i really love that cover

Peckhamgatecrasher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "It only takes an objective observer to notice > this." > > At least they teach us not to split infinitives! isn't the infinitive here 'to notice' (which isn't split)? i wasn't taught grammar at school so i might be wrong

didn't go to madonna so sorry if it's highjacking, but i consider the ?65 i spent to see stevie wonder at the O2 to have been money well spent

James Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Being a "chav" is not genetic. and is there now overwhelming evidence that homosexuality is? i am geuinely looking to be educated here as i don't know

benjaminty Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Slip of the finger adelaide? > > Anyway since you've brought this thread to my > attention ..... I gotta tell you all about wahaca. > I'm no judge as to how authentic mexican food > should taste, but this place is fresh, clean, > cheap and I've enjoyed everything I've tried > there. I've been several times and never been > dissapoointed. > > Think it won Observer cheap eats this year.. > > Give it a go ... I know it's not local .. > > http://www.wahaca.co.uk/ i like wahaca the test that i tend to apply to a restaurant is 'do i want to come here again?' - and for wahaca i've been back a couple of times and will keep on going back when a bit of mexican is in order

citizenED Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > the trouble is that this all started on that other > thread when you belittled Muffintop's experience > of being racially abused on a train and went on to > suggest that you being called a "fa**ot" was far > worse. i think that this is right, i posted a little on that thread (before giving up) and read the first post on this thread as saying (in not so straightforward words) 'intelligent black woman diane abbott agrees with me therefore i was right' (perhaps a little harsh)

SeanMacGabhann Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't think the thread has been annoying at all > - both pk and DaveR have expressed one side of the > argument and people like James and me have > expressed another. S'alright isn't it? i thought that i'd finished contributing to this thread, having been unable to get my point across but i've been drawn back in by the above as far as i can recall all that i've said is that in my eyes people should be allowed to hold beliefs or opinions that i don't agree with - be they racist/homophobic/whatever. i have not said that i support such views (which i don't) or that these views should not be challenged (which they should) i've just challenged the idea that people are not entitled to have different views. i've even resisted the urge to introduce intolerance and prejudice based around religion as another comparator

SeanMacGabhann Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But if you are homophobic (and to be fair to > religions, it doesn't require a religious faith to > be homophobic) to the point of attacking and > killing gay people - TO DEATH! - it's not really a > like for like choice is it? No-one can really > believe "Barry, you do have a point about the joys > of gay sex, but unfortunately, because of my > beliefs, you have sacrificed the right to safety > and/or life" is a valid viewpoint? > > That seems to be the gist of what some people are > saying where is that the gist of what anyone's saying?

SeanMacGabhann Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Of course i believe that certain religious beliefs > are wrong. Indeed i dont know of any religious > person who believes everything their chosen > religion teaches so i dont think thats a > controversial view > > but the point i was making is that even if i believe that they are wrong they are still entitled to hold opinions other than mine, it wasn't about the above