Brendan

Sweetness and light? Wouldn?t know, I never go in there. My assertions are all based on hearsay. I don?t suppose anyone can tell me if I need to get a car seat professionally fitted or if I buy it online I can secure it myself?

Can I make a request that we keep the sanctimonious opinions regarding other peoples? parenting restricted to the Family Room please?

I?m sure I remember drinking and smoking with Keef at least once when he was pregnant.

Having grown up in a country that produces them mangos were an every day fruit and one of my favourites but I have never had one in Britain that wasn?t a disappointment. They are too stringy too hard and have no flavour. Probably something to do with them being picked too early so that they last longer in transit.

So in short, they just aren?t very good at soccer and this is probably because they?re English.

No I think she said they were having coffee.

Was it a fighting gerbil?

This is all very entertaining. Steven Gerard is the scouse one and John Terry is the one with the face that looks like it?s begging for a slap right? Which one of them slept with which ones missus?

Now if someone invented a quilt cover that was easy to put on. Or a quilt that would find the corners by itself. There?s a pocket of tin in this for somebody. Mark my words.

That clip reminds me of this recent blog, The World Cup vs the American Right http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2010/06/16/the-world-cup-vs-the-american-right/ More entertaining than a lot of the matches. You just couldn?t make it up.

Well Tory policy is to keep the poor in subjugation. Having them working in salaried positions give them freedom whereas having them dependent on the sate keeps them trapped and under control to used as cheep labour or cannon fodder as and when necessary. They go on about the evils of socialism that people should all work to support themselves. Just don?t mention that in order for that to work properly you would have to create economic conditions where someone on a dustman?s salary could buy a decent house and support his family without having to rely on handouts for survival and be treated like some sort of sponger for doing so as if the job he does is not worthy of dignity. Oh no then they get on the back foot because their philosophy is not about everyone in society. Because those below them* should be kept on the estates without the opportunity to compete on an equal footing. *and yes conservatives, especially their leadership, are for the most part from a specific class and economic background which actively excludes and discriminates against others, regardless of what they say.

Like Jesus. Or was he Irish? I still dunno with that one. It depends on which grandmother I ask.

And bum jokes Citizen. Don't forget the bum jokes.

I understand the need to not spend public money that does not exist. (As much as I understand the stupidity in banks being allowed to lend money they don?t have and then claiming the debt as an asset along with all the other contrived ways of magicing money from nowhere that they have) What worries me is the knock on effect of large scale redundancies on the economy. It is all well and good saving X billion ? by sacking 100 thousand people but you?ve only saved the money that those people weren?t paying back to you in tax anyway which could be 50% and above, then they are going to claim benefits, they may require housing, they are going to stop contributing to commerce by buying cars and video games and pooper scoopers and borrowing money from banks, they aren?t going to use private healthcare or education etc etc. So there must be a tipping point where it causes more damage than it solves.

brum Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I may have got this wrong, but I recall Desmond > Morris once suggesting that the breasts evolved > once we started walking on two feet. Before then, > females would attract males by simply sticking > their bottoms in the air. Once we became bipeds, > this obvious signal was not so.... well, obvious. > So women, being very clever, grew their breasts > larger and made them permanent (not exactly > Desmond's words) to imitate a pair of bum > cheeks... and when you think about it chaps, the > view 'from behind' is not too dissimilar to the > ladies' cleavage view from the front! > > Plausible? Yeah I?ve heard that theory too. Because of it whenever I see cleavage I picture a little person bending over inside the lady?s blouse and sticking their bum out the top. Which is amusing but has also somewhat ruined it for me.

They?d only go and breed fighting gerbils.

What the fukis a Gaggia? Does everyone have one?

move along.

daizie Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well Desmond Morris in the Naked Ape says that, > for our species, breast design is primarily sexual > rather than maternal in function That?s an interesting point on its own. The consensus is that protruding breast must have evolved as a social/sexual adaptation in modern humans. The consensus seems to be based on a lack of any other reliable theories. Some more radical ideas are that they evolved for buoyancy during feeding in water or to stop Neanderthals from raping Cro-Magnon women by fooling them into thinking they were pregnant but these theories seem to be considered nonsense by those in the know. When exactly and how quickly we developed them is still not really known. Most of what I?ve read* suggests it was pretty recently. Within the last million years. Apparently it is very hard for palaeontologists to say with soft tissue. It is interesting (although it doesn?t really help to deduce anything) that Bonobos have slightly more protruding breast tissue than common chimpanzees. We last shared a common ancestor with these species about 7 million years ago. But all this has nothing to do with feeding babies from the mammary gland. That is a defying characteristic of mammals and probably evolved with the first mammals up to 200 million years ago. So yeah it?s all very interesting but trying to use the sexual role of the breast in human evolution as an argument for or against feeding babies from the mammary gland is perhaps barking up the wrong tree. (facts may have been changed to protect the innocent) * What I've read about human evolution not specifically about boobs ok.

The difference is that in the Lounge when you start a thread about breastfeeding people make jokes about tits.

With a heavy heart I inform you that, having taken the morning off for constitutional reasons, I have returned to the bank to find all of the employees have been replaced by what appear to be Bertie Woosters. I fear it is a condition brought about by excessive humidity and the sight of the female shoulder. I have barricaded the door to my office and I am medicating myself against contamination with a tincture I have prepared from absinth and a herbal mixture of my own making. I am trapped at my desk between a door to my right, through which fearsome plus-foured brays emamate and a shaft of unrelenting sun to my left burning in through the sash window. The seeds of dread are already sown and I am afraid that these conditions will only bring about germination.

I speaking from personal experience of some very unpleasant individuals I?ve met. But I will leave this now as I don?t want to hi-jack yet another thread with dissident ranting.

frierntastic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I have only just read your comment about > buy-to-letters exploiting young families. Where > would these families live without a large rental > market? Eerrm, they would buy the houses they lived in instead of being forced to rent off the people who elbowed them out of the market.

Ok not that I thought this would need explaining but perhaps I wasn?t being clear. I wasn?t speaking about the coalition government but about the type of policies which conservatives would see as morally just and have been suggested by them. These and more are all issue I have heard bandied about by conservatives in my office. Another recent corker by a chap (who has thankfully left now as his pal got elected and is bunging him a job) about scrapping state pensions and university funding. He had some very unpleasant and contrived justifications for it but when you got down to it, it was mostly because he resented elderly people and didn?t like people who he considered below him outperforming him at uni. These are the sort of people the party attracts. The sort of people who speak about those who are forced to live on benefits and crinkle their noses in scorn but if you mention fixing it with equitable pay they shriek injustice.

A square with a little red X in it. Who is that then?