Jump to content

Recommended Posts

SteveT Wrote:

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

> There is a food on the market which reduces the

> sex drive of females by around 70%, it's called

> wedding cake.

>

>

>

>

>

> Thank you to Terry Wogan for that.



I am not amused(6)...next you'll be telling us that the reason women have shorter feet than men is so that they can be closer to the sink!;-)

Well well well. What have we here...


Steve,


The only foodstuffs in the world that can sate a womans appetite for a good old bit of sausage is either chocolate or Jam.


When in the solitary company of chocolate they can think of nothing else but how to snaffle the whole bar without anyone noticing. The notion of male company is alien to the female mind after she's opened a cinema bag of Malteser's.


Jam week put's them right off as well.

Mick Mac Wrote:

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

> bigbadwolf Wrote:

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

> -----

> > D.M,

> >

> > What have I done to cause such a stressful,

> angry

> > response?

> >

> > Have you spilt some Jam?

>

>

> Oh dear BBW - thats another week without DM

> speaking to us.


Double standards?


http://www.dulwichmum.net/

bigbadwolf Wrote:

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


> When in the solitary company of chocolate they can

> think of nothing else but how to snaffle the whole

> bar without anyone noticing. The notion of male

> company is alien to the female mind after she's

> opened a cinema bag of Malteser's.


Please, chocolate isn't that good. The only reason the woman wouldn't want sex with a boyfriend after troughing her way through a cinema sized bag of malteasers is because the action might make her hurl after eating so much. Trust me, if I had a nice boyfriend at home I wouldn't need chocolate.

bigbadwolf Wrote:

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

> The only foodstuffs in the world that can sate a

> womans appetite for a good old bit of sausage is

> either chocolate or Jam.


Oh rilly? Au contraire, I would suggest that it's the fellas who find the jam a little too fruity for their palate...


Stupid myth propagated by squeamish small boys

indiepanda Wrote:

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

> Please, chocolate isn't that good.



You can't have tasted the chocs by "Hotel Chocolat"... (aaarrhhhhgggg....gurgling and dribbling with eyes rolled upwards).


Trust me, if I had a

> nice boyfriend at home I wouldn't need chocolate.


You could have BOTH (AND ON THE SAME DAY!);-)

bigbadwolf Wrote:

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

> Well well well. What have we here...

>

> Steve,

>

> The only foodstuffs in the world that can sate a

> womans appetite for a good old bit of sausage is

> either chocolate or Jam.


That jam thing is true, one of my exes loved eating blackberry jam, she used to eat it with a soft mozzarella type cheese


I'm actually trying to seduce a gorgeous woman at work using Cadburys buttons. So far so good, she even facebooked me to tell me that she was washing em down with a beer...she's soo awesome.

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

    • Actually I don't think so. What caused the problem was the ban on councils using the revenues from sales to build more houses. Had councils been able to reinvest in more housing then we would have had a boom in building. And councils would have been relieved, through the sales, of the cost of maintaining old housing stock. Thatcher believed that council tenants didn't vote Conservative, and home owners did. Which may have been, at the time a correct assumption. But it was the ban on councils building more from the sales revenues which was the real killer here. Not the sales themselves. 
    • I agree with Jenjenjen. Guarantees are provided for works and services actually carried out; they are not an insurance policy for leaks anywhere else on the roof. Assuming that the rendering at the chimney stopped the leak that you asked the roofer to repair, then the guarantee will cover that rendering work. Indeed, if at some time in the future it leaked again at that exact same spot but by another cause, that would not be covered. Failure of rendering around a chimney is pretty common so, if re-rendering did resolve that leak, there is no particular reason to link it to the holes in the felt elsewhere across the roof. 
    • Hey, I am on the first floor and I am directly impacted if roof leaks. We got a roofing company to do repair work which was supposed to be guaranteed. However, when it started leaking again, we were informed that the guarantee is just for a new roof and not repair work. Each time the company that did the repair work came out again over the next few years, we had to pay additional amounts. The roof continues to leak, so I have just organised another company to fix the roof instead, as the guarantee doesn't mean anything. 
    • Fernando came and sorted out our very overgrown garden.  He is a very friendly chap, works meticulously and charges very fair prices.   We’ve been using his Services for many years now and will continue to do so.    Here are his contact details if you have any gardening questions: Fernando - 07946 757938       
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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