St Landrew

Cute..! OK, 1p to you then.

Yeah, I've heard of that one too. I didn't succumb to the temptation though.

And the cameras would be linked and have timings on the shot. Simple visual proof. Although in this case, I'm inclined to agree with ol' Visage himself.

Ever ducked your head, in your hard top saloon, as you go under a really low bridge too..?

Fair enough. That is infuriating. You could have made it a little clearer in your first post though, yes..?

If you feel like it. I acted on impulse, and it got out of hand. Perhaps I should step down as a moderator..? I've thought about it, and I've decided not to. My contract is too good.

In a traffic jam situation, the driver that leaves quite a gap is usually one who is rather p!ssed off with the stop/go mentality of drivers around him/her. I'll admit to occasionally leaving a gap in the traffic when it doesn't cause other drivers problems. When doing so, I can crawl the car along in first or second gear, on minimal throttle. It causes less pollution, less wear on the car, and I am not forever braking and accelerating, and so eating up the fuel and brake pads. Now the funny thing is, is that I suspect you knew the answer, as to why drivers leave a gap, all along. Peculiar as it may seem, most drivers are on the road for their purposes, not yours, however polite or impolite they might be.

Very good. I like the fact you've pulled another issue in from another thread. I did look at the figures years ago, for cholera outbreak in a pre-Joseph Bazalgette London. If memory serves, try looking at Bethnal Green and you'll find that it was a very, very poor district; in fact one of the poorest. Yet its cholera deaths were much less than surrounding more affluent districts because it was further away from foul water. So low income isn't a factor in causing cholera, it is close proximity to foul water and nothing else. The fact that people died, rich or poor, is just because the water company drew it's drinking water out of the foul mess that was the River Thames at the time. Other water companies drew their water from up river, and far fewer people died as a result, including poor people from the Bethnal Green district. Of course I realise poor people did die in the outbreak back then, and fact they were in the majority. But the poorer are always in a majority. As for Sachs and his daughter, all I can say is, true, nobody killed them. But would anyone like what happened to them, happen to you or me..? If we wouldn't like it, why would they be any different..? Nobody is exempt from having their feelings hurt. Personally, I believe that fashionable celebrity presenters/comedians/etc.. get away with too much p!ss taking of people from other walks of life, including the general public. Any chance of moving on from this now..? I think it has had enough attention now.

Very good. I like the fact you've pulled another issue in from another thread. I did look at the figures years ago, for cholera outbreak in a pre-Joseph Bazalgette London. If memory serves, try looking at Bethnal Green and you'll find that it was a very, very poor district; in fact one of the poorest. Yet its cholera deaths were much less than surrounding more affluent districts because it was further away from foul water. So low income isn't a factor in causing cholera, it is close proximity to foul water and nothing else. The fact that people died, rich or poor, is just because the water company drew it's drinking water out of the foul mess that was the River Thames at the time. Other water companies drew their water from up river, and far fewer people died as a result, including poor people from the Bethnal Green district. Of course I realise poor people did die in the outbreak back then, and fact they were in the majority. But the poorer are always in a majority. As for Sachs and his daughter, all I can say is, true, nobody killed them. But would anyone like what happened to them, happen to you or me..? If we wouldn't like it, why would they be any different..? Nobody is exempt from having their feelings hurt. Personally, I believe that fashionable celebrity presenters/comedians/etc.. get away with too much p!ss taking of people from other walks of life, including the general public. Any chance of moving on from this now..? I think it has had enough attention now.

I suppose the funny thing is... is that I don't find the comments overtly offensive. I have heard it now, and the comments are just juvenile and pathetic. What troubles me is that anyone should find the comments amusing. It's the verbal equivalent of knocking someone's front door and running away. Hilarious if you're a kid and playing the joke. But not funny at all if you're the frustrated person having to deal with the hassle. Why does comedy have to be so directly cruel to the person nowadays..? Years ago it was cruel to the stereotype. Now it's aimed at the individual to get under the barrier. It's not right, and the reason it's not right is because it wouldn't be funny if Ross or Brand were called on their answer machines and had lewd comments left and broadcast. And btw, something doesn't escape being wrong because lots of people don't hear about it. And if you still don't think it's wrong, just think of the worst thing that someone could invent about you down your phone, and simultaneously broadcast it to your faimily and friends. Unimportant now..? Sensibly, both Ross and Brand have realised that their comments were stupid and potentially offensive. I'm hopeful that they realised their fault before they counted up the money they'll lose in the process, and the potential blow to their careers. My sympaties are with poor old Andrew Sachs and his granddaughter.

Well it might not seem obvious to posters on TMS, but what about bringing Saints back to the Premiership..? At this rate, my bringing them back, it might be the only route they have.

Could I remind you that this is the Lounge..? Save your TMS comments for that forum.

You don't quite get the significance of why people are so offended, do you CF..? This is actually quite an important point for society. Do we allow powerful people to walk all over other weaker individuals, in the name of entertainment..? Or do we have a code of respect for all..? This incident could be considered a crossroad. I agree, there are more important things to contemplate, but this isn't anything like as unimportant as you seem to believe it to be.

You obviously don't know your history. Cholera has nothing to do with how much money you have, it's all about location to foul water.

Yes indeed, have a police presence that is visible. The police are so busy blasting up the road, with every unit joining in, they leave the field clear for criminals to do their work. I bet burglars rub their hands with glee when they see police cars shooting by. They know they can do their work in peace. Yes, a visible Poilce presence, on the street, wouldn't find more crime. Because by their very presence, there would be less crime committed. And that's the whole point isn't it..?

Like the majority, I didn't know Paula. But there's a big chance I've seen her at SMS doing her job. You see people in their various walks of life and barely give them a thought. And then it comes home to you that we're all easily vulnerable and can suffer. There's a whole load of us today who are sad to hear of this news, but we'll go on with our lives. But Paula's life is ended - I won't even contemplate how; and her family's life is shattered. How do they pick themselves up from this..? R.I.P. Paula, just doesn't seem enough. I feel so sorry for that poor woman and her family. I just hope they know we all feel that.

I didn't listen, as I'm simply not interested, but I can gauge pretty accurately the sort of stuff Brand and Ross would do [which incidentally is why I wouldn't be interested]. The problem isn't the material in itself. It's the context in which it is done. The blokes themselves are moderately talented comedic style presenters. I've been known to laugh with both of them, but I've also been left switching off the TV or radio. The fact is, they broadcast material which they might have considered might have been offnesive to the people they were directing it at. Their own internal moral conscienses, should have brought them up short. Hang on... this isn't going to be right. We shouldn't be about to doing this. This could seriously offend someone and a family... And that's the point isn't it..? WE all have a our own moral compass. It informs us of what is right and what is wrong. There is a point we do not go beyond. And when it comes to hurting other people mentally and physically, we could all say... would I willingly want this to happen to me..? And if the answer is in anyway shape or form, NO, then perhaps we shouldn't do what we're about to do. Both Brand and Ross [and all these comedic presenters, yes, you too Graham Norton] need to do a bit of a rethink of how they respect and treat the people around them. They are exhibiting a convenient disregard for other people for the purposes of entertainment. It's practically a form of bullying, and while there will be people who wonder what the hell others are complaining about, they need to think the repercussions through. Sadly, this complete disregard is very prevalent in today's society, in all walks of life. Brand and Ross are just the TV/Radio face of it.

Get a decent book on fishing, beachcaster style. Then, head for your local angling shop. If you are local to Southampton, there are loads of angling shops. However, In-Excess, over at West End are doing loads of fishing equipment for a snip of the usual price. they also have branches elsewhere, though I don't know about the stock of other shops. Most of the equipment is NOT crap. Besides, it certainly wouldn't hurt to purchase a few cheaper bits of kit to try with before you get seriously hooked [sorry, I just had to]. http://www.in-excess.com/

Yes, I just love the way the Police try to make you feel better by telling you it could have been far worse. Just catch the f*****s, then we'll feel a little bit better. What's the usual excuse..? Oh we know who's doing it, but we have no proof and we need to catch them in the act. Well..? Catch them in the bloody act then..? :mad: My sympathies Hamster. Hope you feel a tiny bit better that someone knows the frustration and anger you almost certainly have bottled up inside.

Hmm yeah, that's a nice one. A PC's HDD will give you plenty of audible warning that it's on the way out. All makes of HDD have their individual sounds, but it's hard NOT to recognise the distinct clink of a pickup flying to and fro across the disc. Laptop HDDs by their nature are smaller and tucked away a little more, but they will be audible if dodgy. It would certainly answer why shut down takes so long. But it doesn't answer why start up is so long unless you are getting reports of a dodgy HDD from the OS. Either way, a fresh install is going to answer the question for you. If it cures your problem completely, then your HDD is fine. If it doesn't, and your computer exhibits the same problems, it's almost certainly your HDD, unless you have another component going off colour. But any other critical component will usually freeze the OS and a reset button press is required. Go on, steal yourself and do the dirty deed. Your laptop will love you again.

Thanks Pancake. Perhaps that did need clarifying..!

Do's and Don'ts. Do save you important files, your e-mail archive, your favourites, computer settings, and format the bleeder. Do install a fresh copy of Vista and online update to present [you'll have to anyway]. Do use as little memory resources as you can [by following the advice below, you're helping this to happen] Don't download all and sundry stuff that you think might be cool to use. Don't update Vista where you don't need it. A less bloated Windows is better Windows. Don't have everything switched on at startup Don't have stuff like Windows Messenger and other little incy wincy programs running in the background. They all clog up the speed. Don't have a anti-virus/spyware/malware/whatever scan schedule that starts every time you turn on the computer, because you missed the last one. In fact, don't have one at all. Just catch the bleeders when necessary, which certainly won't be every time you start your computer. More like once every 3 months or even longer. You'll wonder where all the extra power and speed came from. Now that lot might read all cavalier and irresponsible, especially the format the bleeder and reload Windows. But it isn't. If you do it properly [or get someone who can], you'll notice your beloved laptop will perform like the day you took it out of the box. Now that's rather better than farting around putting plasters on the OS for a few days until your computer coughs and splutters into running marginally faster. Any problems and you know where to come.

Finally got round to watching a bit of Top Gear Australia: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=hkdWXL1ekwc Only the first bit, and it's a quiet, uncertain start because the expectation levels are both high, and slightly unknown. One question has been answered though, because earlier in the MotoGP season, Steve Parrish's commentator partner, Charlie Cox was absent for a few races. Now CC isn't the healthiest of blokes, and I thought he was under the weather at the time. Fact was, he was just Down Under, presenting this series. If CC can keep up the banter that he uses during his MotoGP commentaries, then I'm sure TGA will be a success. Just find a couple of other presenters to go with him. Mind you, it's not aimed at us, is it..!

Nobody would be changing the concept of GMT, if the UK adopted BST for all the year. GMT stands for the prime meridian. All earthbound time is set by GMT [or Universal Time Coordinated - UTC], whether nations adopt midday in Greenwich as their midday or whether it is midnight where they are. GB are not the guardians of GMT. It doesn't need protecting or preserving. The Earth functions in time on it. Btw, there is no original Spring forward and Fall back phrase in Britain. Let's leave the Fall to the USA and Canada, and keep to Autumn, ta. There is actual data from the 1970's when the last experiment was carried out, that significant drops in energy consumption, accidents on the road, crime, and rises in spending on outdoor activities, and rises in personal exercise, compared to years when the clocks weren't put back, and weighted for economic activity fluctuations, finds it is beneficial for Britain to have the clocks permanent set to BST. That is evidence, not hearsay, or folklore. There is absoutely no reason to suggest that the same, or similar results would not be achieved in modern day Britain. The 1970s weren't exactly the middle ages..! It is considered that this trend may well be further enhanced if the clocks were set forward, one hour, from a newly adopted winter BST equivalent, at the last weekend in March, and set back during the last weekend in October - hence Double Summer Time during the warmer months between those dates. This is well considered supposition, although it was actually adopted during WW11, so that energy consumption would be lowered at prime times of the day, and that people would be awake and active during German night air raids so that they could escape the bombs. There is a real case for not putting clocks back in the winter. For people who say, why bother not to, my answer would be.. why bother at all..? If it means that little, then any time would seem to be suitable to them. Why the reluctance for beneficial change..?

I don't care whether Pringles are no longer a crisp. The sour cream and onion flavour is almost completely worthy of their catch phrase. Of traditional crisps, slightly salted kettle crisps are my favourite. But only if they are incredibly crisp, and not, as sometimes happens, slightly chewy. EDIT: And Cheesy flavoured Wotsits are always good too. The rest can go hang.