norwaysaint

I can't believe so many people don't use ad-blocker.

Taking the first question, I suppose it was Bridge, who was in the England squad, but didn't seem to be actively seeking a move. Of course he eventually got an offer that was impossible to refuse, which isn't the same as looking to move on as soon as you get selected. One who stayed on playing for England and saints despite big club approaches? No idea, but I disagree that it surprises anyone. I think Fraser Forster is the most likely answer for the third part.

Too many people not giving Hull credit for playing well. We always hate it when other fans say they were poor on that day rather than recognising good play from us, then our fans do the same. We weren't poor. They did well and in the end we overcame them. Well done to them, well done to us. Schneiderlin the main difference, he's irreplaceable and would be mad not to move on to a bigger club this summer.

JWP!!!!!!!!!!!

Due to a power outage I've missed most of the match. There don't seem to be many on here giving Hull any credit, just saying we are poor, but the commentaries I've read on my phone say they are dealing with us well. Is this a case of us not giving the other team credit, like we've so often moaned about other fans doing to us?

I went to see Sean Lock over here a few weeks back. He's generally one of my favourite comedians, but it was awful. He used material I've heard him do years ago, nothing new at all and it all sounded very tired. I don't know why he made such little effort, it was obvious that most of the crowd would be there because they'd heard his stuff before, so I think everybody was familiar with most of the routine. Oddly he had Johnny Vaughan as his support. I'm not a big fan of his, but on the night he was so much fresher and more energetic that he went down far better than Sean Lock (yes, really). He was clearly pretty inexperienced and used sort of basic, obvious material, but he was funny. I can't imagine he'd ever get fair treatment from a British crowd though, just too much history of being annoying on TV and radio, shame, because he does have some potential as a stand up.

Fair enough, they've set their criteria and judged it about right on that. Other people will disagree because they'll favour other criteria, but there is no real right or wrong is there? Viewing it from overseas, United and Liverpool are seen as far ahead of the others here. Leeds are also surprisingly popular, but you almost never meet a Norwegian saints fan, despite out Norwegian players of the past. Saints just don't really have any international profile.

So you would only post on subjects where you are in favour of the subject? Not from the evidence... People on here are probably even more vociferous when giving a negative opinion than when giving a positive, you included. It's not odd at all is it?

Turkish's embarrassing little public breakdown was probably a sign of personal problems at home or at work and it's probably a good thing for him to get away from here for a bit. Infractions for Bearsy's well humoured and harmless **** takes is ridiculous though and it looks like Stevegrant was geting a bit too precious, looks like he's calmed down a bit now.

Is this a serious thread? Jesus Christ, this place can make you cringe. Serious business.

Exactly, that fits with what I said. Whereas in the outside world you would filter your comments and hold back, meaning we wouldn't see the whole truth about you, on here you will just let the unpleasantness flow out freely. What comes out on here, without the same filters, tells us a lot more.

I think you learn a lot more about what people are "really" like by seeing what they would post on an internet forum, thinking they can get away with it, than by how they would act in public in real life. If somebody seems unpleasant on here, I think it's fair to assume that they probably are quite unpleasant, despite how they might act in front of others.

Surely the original tradition is that the title Mrs. is followed by the husbands first and last names, eg. David Cameron's wife would be Mrs. David Cameron. Do you and your wife follow this tradition or does she use her own first name and the tradition not worth keeping?

Couldn't care less. She actually took my surname as a new middle name rather than part of her surname, but I didn't ask her to. The kids have my surname, but I've also told them that they can call themselves by either name when they are older. Mind you my surname comes from a father I wasn't close to, rather than the stepfather I grew up with, so I wouldn't have much reason to be attached to it. I wouldn't really consider double barrelled names, but can see why some people want an attachment to both family names. If I were a woman, I don't think I'd bother changing my name.

Chelsea looking very good indeed. It'll be a real achievement if we get something from this.

I find the important thing is just to keep on buying and consuming. It doesn't matter that the stuff you're buying is only a marginal, fine tuning upgrade on what you had before, just keep getting new stuff.

Dunno, but congratulations on your engagement, deano.

There seems to be a few on here who are mistaking Roy of the Rovers for He-Man.

Pretty much impossible to say without more details than I've seen. If their living situation tied her to the home and their child and if she had custody that also limited her ability to progress her professional life for years after the marriage, while his role left him more free to develop the skills and connections that would later be invaluable in making him rich, then I can see a connection. It says she raised her son through "sixteen years of real hardship". That would definitely make it hard for her get into the same earning position as their situation left him in. He would have been left free to pursue his ambitions, while she did a huge amount of work on both of their behalves with no financial reward. He has at least partly made his fortune using freedom that she gave him by taking care of the child the made together. Again, I'm playing devil's advocate because it seems on this thread that it's needed. I'm not strongly opinionated here.

I suppose the idea is that quite often in a marriage, one partner puts their career and/or education on hold and stays home by mutual agreement, or gets a lower paid job with more flexible and forgiving hours, while the other pursues their professional ambitions and makes far more money. Then it can be seen as unfair that only one of them suffers for this agreement when they split up and one has spent years progressing and increasing their earning potential and the other will be at an age where they have little chance of ever reaching the earning potential they would have had. That could still have an effect many years later, somebody starting a career path in their mid thirties is often not going to reach the heights they would have done starting out in their mid twenties. The partner not working professionally will have been doing something of value to both partners (raising kids, improving the home, being a ready and willing sex object, I don't know) and they would both have entered into that agreement mutually. I'm not expressing my own opinion about what's right or wrong, just thinking about the reasoning.

No, but you don't routinely organise massive parties for people on the assumption that they must be nice guys either.

For all these people know, he might be a really horrible racist, sexist pedophile, but because he was laughed at while dancing, it's widely assumed he is an innocent nice guy.

Well now I feel like I'm being mocked.

If you don't need something as big as a golf, I'd recommend a Yaris. I've had the same one for ten years and it never really gets anything wrong and is still working as well as when I bought it.

They aren't the cheapest, but you get the quality you pay for. They won national installer of the year two years running.