Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Frankito Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Oi Meds, your thread on Less is More has just been

> nominated by me as a piece of unpolished turd.

>

> Get in here.


I already nominated him for that Frank and he ignored it - this makes the whole naughty room null and void and you can leave now.


(the key is under the dead cat by the window)

maxxi Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Frankito Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Oi Meds, your thread on Less is More has just

> been

> > nominated by me as a piece of unpolished turd.

> >

> > Get in here.

>

> I already nominated him for that Frank and he

> ignored it - this makes the whole naughty room

> null and void and you can leave now.

>

> (the key is under the dead cat by the window)


maxxi, no one seconded your proposal thus I didn't ignore it. So the Naughty Room is still very valid. Fancy a stay?

The 75/75 rule was originally proposed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as an alternative means of testing the bioequivalence of two formulations of a pharmaceutical agent. The rule specified that the ratio of test-to-reference formulation of a bioavailability measure arising in a bioequivalence study must be between 75 and 125 per cent of unity in at least 75 per cent of subjects to declare two formulations bioequivalent.


Eat that. ;-)

Frankito Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I said 73 first

>

> I seconded Maxxi so what next..?


You're obviously NOT going stir crazy given your droppings are all over the place like that of an unwanted mouse, so what are you talking about?

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • There was an excellent discussion on Newscast last night between the BBC Political Editor, the director of the IFS and the director of More In Common - all highly intelligent people with no party political agenda and far more across their briefs than any minister I've seen in years. The consensus was that Labour are so unpopular and untrusted by the electorate already, as are the Conservatives, that breaking the manifesto pledge on income tax wouldn't drive their approval ratings any lower, so they should, and I quote, 'Roll The Dice', hope for the best and see where we are in a couple of years time. As a strategy, i don't know whether I find that quite worrying or just an honest appraisal of what most governments actually do in practice.
    • They are a third of the way through their term Earl. It's no good blaming other people anymore. They only have three years left to fix what is now their own mess. And its not just lies in the manifesto. There were lies at the last budget too, when they said that was it, they weren't coming back for more tax and more borrowing. They'd already blamed the increase in NIC taxes on what they claimed was a thorough investigation. They either knew everything then or they lied about that too .   They need to stop lying and start behaving. If they don't the next government won't be theirs, it will be led by Nigel Farage.  They have to turn it round rapidly. Blaming other people, telling lies and breaking promises isn't going to cut it any more.
    • Is it lame? Or is it Lamey? (sorry)
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...