pap

The new place has got an ensuite bog in the master bedroom. This place has just got the one communal crapper at the top of the stairs. This is not our first en-suite, and the fact we've been a one-bog household for a bit has meant that the question has never really come up here. What are they going to make me do? **** in a box outside? However, the missus has put her foot down on this one. Her mate at work has an en-suite, and has helpfully told ms pap about her husband, a layer of mighty dirty cables that stink the bedroom out. I have been banned without committing any offence. It's a bit like pre-crime in Minority Report, as I am sure everyone will agree.

I had a much longer post originally, but here it is, summed up. The site has failed to move with the times and is suffering for it. Example. "Everyone is always arguing". Complete nonsense. The vast majority of people have a quiet chortle and move on. The site doesn't reflect the wry grin of the majority; it's held hostage to the people who fancy bickering over nothing, because polls aside, posts are the only currency. Generalised, the two main arguments on the main board are:- 1) "I believe something good will happen with the club" vs "no it won't, you spanner!" 2) "I have heard that something bad will happen to the club" vs "how can this possibly be?" My retinue of internet locations features a number of different moderation systems. Though I think the moderators are alright chaps, and have never whined about any of my infractions, the system that they work under is fundamentally flawed. First, the established etiquette rules don't reflect the target audience. I seriously do not understand the difference between f*ck and one supplied with a "u". Plausible deniability, perhaps? ("In all fairness, he might have said fick!"). Much larger forums allow it, and guess what, it's not a constant stream of effing and blinding. The other problem is the system itself, when viewed uncharitably, might be seen as "bung out the bad points when things get out of hand". Some ideas I like from other sites; "like", poster rep, voting to close a post, turn into a community wiki, etc. The biggest problem with this site is the perception of this site. If a fan of another club visited here and left with the impression that we were a bunch of tarts arguing about nothing, I couldn't necessarily condemn them for it. Personally, I think we have some excellent contributors from all over the world, but it's a case of the vocal minority looking larger than they are, precisely because they post more and there is no other means of interaction. I've brought this up with the mods and they either ignore it or seem paralysed by the options. Start simple. A "like" button would sort a lot of stuff out immediately.

My missus has pre-emptively forbade me from taking a dump in the ensuite ahead of our move into the 80s soap star place. She is acting on past experience of me using a shared toilet and also, a friend's advice.

I happen to enjoy ottery st mary's posts. He has the courage to speculate on things that interest me, but wouldn't necessarily be something I pushed myself, largely because this sort of thing happens. "Prove everything or shut up!, or the old favourite, "how dare you question such a tragic event?". I paraphrase, of course. Referring to the oft-repeated "how dare you?/what sort of person are you?" remarks you make, you seem to have a lot of sacred cows. I would hope that the professionals who deal with tragic events as part of their remit are able to maintain greater emotional distance from the events than they are investigating than you are. In this instance, it seems to be your assertion that the McCanns had nothing to do with the disappearance of their daughter. You asked earlier what had been invalidly excluded. Take a look at the 135 points on that list; I've previewed them and I'll give you a heads up. There are less than 135. The author is a little cheeky in numbering some items which are actually his or her own questions, especially in the MISC section. Still, it provides a lot of food for thought, as do a lot of the events at the time, such as Kate McCann failing to answer 48 questions put to her by the Portuguese authorities. You get me on a technicality there; Kate McCann didn't actually give any evidence, so it cannot be excluded. What definitely was excluded was the cadaver and blood dog evidence.

Funny. Nelson Muntz's "ha ha" reminds me of about 90% of main board content

Question; does someone that has the initials ITK automatically and innately know about football transfers? e.g. Mr Kent decides to call his nipper Ignatius Tarquin or something? Could be a good long-term investment plan for anyone with a surname beginning with "K", if true. Get on it, Kardashians and Krabapples, etc.

I'm on a limited DS9 rewatch. I'm just going after the Dominion eps. The interesting thing about that is the end of season 5 and the start of season 6, the period in which DS9 has fallen to Dominion control. When I first watched this, I was very antsy about Sisko and co taking back the titular space station. This time around, appreciating it for what it is, the Federation running on fumes, every attack a huge gamble; if any of them had failed we'd only have had 6.25 seasons of DS9 I've seen some very good episodes lately. Perhaps the most memorable is Rocks & Shoals, which sees a contingent of regular DS9 crew marooned on a planet with some Jem'Hadar suffering ketracyl white withdrawal, led by a scheming Vorta on death's door. Really does build up to an interesting conclusion. The very last episode I've watched is "Favor the Bold", which in Friends terms, is "the one where they send a giant fleet to retake DS9". Starship porn, basically. Interestingly, the chaps at Red Letter Media reckon this is the point where Trek became whizz-bang; when it wasn't just about a single ship - but whole fleets. I've got some sympathy with that view, and reckon the huge scope of B5's battles might have pushed them down this route, but it does look pretty awesome. Makes a mockery of the usual conceit that there is usually only one ship in range

I have three more infractions to report, two blissfully not related to Barry Sanchez. This brings me up to four. Send me up that bad boy table please.

Venezuela offer Snowden asylum. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/06/edward-snowden-venezuela-asylum

Yeah, but Boro's appeal wasn't felt over the long term. http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/emerson-and-wife-may-be-back-soon-1313427.html

Do stay on topic, CB. This is the McCann thread. Glad to have made an impression on you though.

Noticed, have you, ottery? I have to admit, as someone who can chip in on either side of an issue, depending on whether I think the right things have been done, I do find it a bit suspect when you have a poster, that no matter what, unfailingly lines up behind the official account of things. Problem is, just thinking that puts you in line for being the sort of nutter people want to portray you as. I've decided to take comfort in the fact that so many people are pleased with the worldview they have, even if I don't agree with it myself

This reminds me of arriving in Derby train station around 2002. A placard outside the station gave directions to all the chain shops. Half of them were in Nottingham. On this sort of basis, we could recommend Pompey as a place for a Southampton fan to live. Only 22 miles away, after all!

Hinder, probably. I've lived outside the bubble for years. The only specific thing I hear about Southampton is in reference to the relatively high number of Eastern Europeans living there or the links with the Titanic. Otherwise, Southampton is just another place, not particularly famous or infamous for much. Nothing wrong in that, but compared to some of the places that have got a lively reputation, it's going to come second best for some footballers. Nightlife is crap, and generally, it's a city that feels like a town. All relative to my experience, of course.

Glasgow Saint = collecting friends like Pokemon. Read nothing into it. I never do.

Some sorts of bondage are better than others, Tokyo. If it is a scary but sexy woman telling you that you've been a very naughty boy, and must be punished, that's one thing. If it's a system that guarantees that 90% of people are distracted for 50% of their waking lives, that's another.

Didn't say anything about them being charged. They were very close to events. It beggars belief that none of them are being considered for investigation.

As a sometime contributor, I'm proud of the way that fellow posters have lovingly curated this collaborative masterpiece. Any random old sh!t lives here now. It's a beautiful thing. As we approach Ramirez Off-Topic Thread's first birthday, I can't help but feel a little emotional. It's like the PTS without the skates and hates.

I'm not incredibly close to the investigation. The vast majority of unlawful killings are attributed to someone close to the victim. We don't know that's what this is, but it's a possible outcome. If the taxpayer is going to spend millions on an investigation, I'd like them to consider all possible suspects. The Portuguese police listed the McCanns as suspects, as do, I'm guessing, a significant portion of the UK population. If our money is being spent on a verdict that reflects the absolute truth, why shouldn't the McCanns or their friends, who have never been successfully exonerated, and only have their own patchy and oft-changing recollections to back each other up, be listed as possible suspects in this case? Any investigation that begins with disputed information as a point of truth is ultimately flawed.

You're quite right; he did. I don't see a valid reason for them to be excluded from the investigation.

Didn't realise that the McCanns had already been excluded from the investigation. Meh.

Interesting post on the David Icke forums (yeah, yeah) Reckons there are 195 separate leads. Don't know how accurate these are. Sharing, rather than endorsing. http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1061597985&postcount=5

Nope. Renting the new place. Housebuying fund will allegedly be unaffected and will continue to grow ( according to ms pap's business case ).

I welcome a full investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, provided that investigation doesn't assume that Kate and Gerry had nothing to do with it. I've never really bought their story from the stuff they choose to show on TV. I suspect no sensible parent will. Their defence is that they left their kids alone, and someone abducted one of them. On that level alone, I find it baffling. I've left my kids in the house, post-13, while I've nipped to the shop, etc. To leave babies alone in a foreign country? Madness. Even if they had nothing to do with their daughter's disappearance, they are guilty of being hugely irresponsible and I don't get why they have so much airtime given their circumstances. It's a sad fact of life that kids go missing far too often. The McCanns are distinct in their longevity. There's very much an element of "thou doth protest too much" about the whole affair. I think they've been protected from on high because of the international nature of the case ( very reminiscent of the Louise Woodward case in that respect ). The Portuguese have unfailingly been presented as incompetent and I wonder how things might have turned out if similar events had played out in a UK CentreParcs instead of the Algarve.

This is awesome. I'd advise everyone to have a nose at the full thing. One of the most interesting snippets is the claim that the act of signing of a mortgage actually creates the money in the system. Mortgage = bondage, people. You don't need chains to be slaves. The other point I'd make is that the unnamed scouser is very impressive. Word to the wise; got a beef with authority, an articulate Liverpudlian* is the way to go. * Awaits numerous low-hanging fruit jokes from morons that have finally "seen their chance"