norwaysaint

I think they are pretty devoid of genuinely interesting breakthrough TV ideas these days, so they try to get us excited about what is basically just fine tuning of what we already have. Higher and higher definition, when nobody was really complaining about definition, more exact Colour on screen, when nobody was unhappy about the colours before. 3d that doesn't really add anything to the experience of a decent movie. The thing is, they have to sell more units, so they have to make us believe we need something more.

Ahem, Ødegaard, as in Østenstad. Ø is pronounced like the o in worst. Doubt that he'd come to saints, but you never know.

Changing to winter tyres is a legal requirement here, you get used to changing all the tyres a couple of times a year. You can choose studded or stud-free. Studded are of course much better if you live off the beaten track, but you have to pay a tax to drive in the city with them. You're also pretty crazy if you make any decent size trip out of the city in winter weather without chains in the car. I've had to put chains on quite a few times and that is a horrible job. Dragging pieces of freezing metal around your freezing tyres, usually with your bare hands deep in the snow. It's pretty common to scrape up your hands a bit doing it and they are always a fuss to get on. However, once on, it's amazing the grip you get. A huge amount of road accidents over here are caused by foreign delivery lorries being taken over the mountains by clueless drivers with no chains and, unbelievably, with summer tyres.

As good as everybody wearing helmets at my local place. I always do. I'd guess less than 5 % without helmets.

Lovely blue sky and perfect snow today, only problem was it was minus ten. I can feel my fingers again now.

Went out today for the first time this season, absolutely glorious conditions. Had a great day, so good that I'm not even bothered about missing a good win. Think this will be a really good season for skiing over here after a terrible one last year. Hoping to spend most days over the rest of the holiday out skiing now.

i think you've really misunderstood a key point here. The idea is tolerance of all religions, not an attempt to silence them all equally. If somebody who is part of a group promoting religious tolerance can't express their own faith, who on Earth can? You are saying somebody saying they are praying should be made to stop. That is incredibly intolerant and oppressive.

Odd that there's a reaction to this, I've read loads of comments after matches saying that Tadic looks like he needs a rest. Lallana was never a very consistent performer either and also was known for getting worn out too often, so we still need the full season to decide. When Tadic was on form, the consensus was that he was an upgrade on Lallana, but his off-form patch has probably seen him have considerably less effect. Like I questioned on another thread, the real question is whether or not our players were on unusually good form at the start, and this is their real level, or whether they are having unusually bad form now and they actually are as good as they looked early season.

It really isn't, but I can understand your mistake.

Don't even get them here that often. Maybe one out of three or four, although the mountains are all white already. We have had a few snowy days, followed by rain.

That's not Buzzin' Orn.

Has a new book to sell in the spring, so he's talking openly to the media about his addiction to cocaine alcohol and pills and how close he came to killing himself. Not too much we haven't already heard a bit about already I suppose. He says he hasn't taken anything in 12-13 months. Seems pretty soon to have written a book if he's still at such early stages of recovery. I guess it's either helpful to him or he needs the cash now, maybe a bit of both. I can really understand how people who had lots of money, but couldn't really get wasted too much, go off the rails a bit when their career comes to an end and they have plenty of time and money and freedom to go a bit crazy at last. Happy google translating: http://www.bt.no/100Sport/fotball/england/Lundekvam---Kan-jeg-stanse-n-jente-eller-gutt-fra-a-ta-den-forste-dosen_-da-er-jeg-fornoyd-480385_1.snd

Wasn't that pathetic arsehole "bedroom general" who was arrested for organising fighting for saints fans a teacher or something? These dickheads come from all backgrounds.

I've did this a couple of years ago. It was really interesting and you find out loads of stuff. It's nice to know which diseases you're more genetically inclined to, so that you can be a little more careful with your lifestyle. For example I'm more than average genetically susceptible to diabetes 2. It doesn't mean I'm actually more likely to get it, it means that more than average numbers of people with my genes have had it in the past, so I'll be careful with my diet. It's worth doing it with your partner to see if there are any diseases that are super-likely in your kids because you both carry the same recessive gene. There are also little oddities you find that are interesting. People with my genes are more likely to become quickly addicted to opiates, so I'll have to avoid the skag from now on, but we also generally have a high tolerance to caffiene. sometimes you'll quickly see things that although genetically high probability for you, don't apply: low chance of hayfever my arse. You also find out what percentage of the neanderthal gene you carry (2.9%) and what parts of the world your genetic make up comes from. I am 100% European, with 66.6% British/Irish, my wife was almost 100% Scandinavian. Most of the value is in changing any bad habits to prevent more likely diseases and just for the fun of it. Also, if you enjoy spending 30 minutes dribbling into a test tube, it's for you. Just don't reveal the results to your life insurance company.

Having trouble with the word "fewer"? I'm not putting my kids on a carb free diet, but they never get chips or potatoes and things like rice, pasta or noodles make up a very token part of any meal nowadays. There was a time when they were a main part of any meal, so yes, fewer, often none.

I've can make a few desserts, but try to get the wife or kids to do that if we need one now. They're so much fuss and always need so much more cleaning up afterwards and so do the desserts.

I'm an okay cook and cook 90% of the meals in our house. I never, ever make any instant meals and only feed my kids using proper meat and vegetables, nothing processed at all. I've got a fairly limited repertoire, but enough to keep it fairly interesting and not too repetitive. We eat quite a lot of Mexican stuff, fajitas and tacos etc, pasta with sauce, curries, loads and loads of stir fry things, salmon, white fish etc. My wife's a better cook, but doesn't have the time for day to day stuff, she's better at making more complex stuff from the ground up. It's so much easier nowadays, you can just grab the ipad or laptop and find out how to do something, so you don't even need to have a cookbook. The main way I've improved over the last few years is definitely veg. I usually serve about three different freshly cooked vegetables with each meal now, where it used to be one on average, far fewer or no carbs now as well. I make my kids join in with making dinner too, so that they'll grow up knowing how to make at least a few healthy meals and won't be afraid to try to make stuff. I'm cooking full Christmas dinner on my own for 14 this year, which is about normal.

The CIA has tried to hold this line, but the examination of all of the facts has shown "The information the CIA collected this way failed to secure information that foiled any threats". Also "None of 20 cases of counterterrorism "successes" attributed to the techniques led to unique or otherwise unavailable intelligence". So they only gave information already available and none of their information stopped a single threat. Where did I get this? Just about every article on the report.

This must be a wind up! Nobody can have failed to understand that much of the report! Yes, everybody talks, that's exactly the problem. It's no good if you just do something that makes everybody talk, you need to get the people who know something to say something useful, and it's been shown that that's not what torture accomplishes, it just makes everybody talk. The comment "I'm not sure where this proof has come from but I expect if it didn't work they wouldn't do it." is incredible. It didn't work, that's what the report showed. Do-gooders? Is everybody trying to find ways of stopping terrorism that actually work a do-gooder? Or are you only doing good if you stick to methods that don't actually get you anywhere? You're either on a wind up or this whole thing has gone entirely over your head.

Necessary for what, given that it's shown not to be an effective way to get information? I can't think of what else it's necessary for if it's no good for that. It's kind of odd in many ways how little we've really progressed since witch trials. Use some horrific method to make somebody say what you want them to say, whether true or not. I reckon you could torture any person on this forum for long enough and they'd give you some piece of information about possible terrorists, if they thought would make you stop. It would be nonsense of course, but that seems to be what's generally been happening with the detainees they've had. The "torture apologists" on here so far just can't seem to get past the fact that no useful information has been gained, it's only had a negative outcome, setting back progress against terrotism. As somebody else mentioned, their idea of torture situations is too heavily built on an illusion of Jack Bauer-like figures doing whatever's necessary to get the job done. This is more like Jack Bauer's misguided boss getting people to torture his cab driver until he makes up a story about terrorists, Jack Bauer spending the rest of his 24 hours chasing down false leads, then the entire community the cabbie belonged to, protesting and refusing to cooperate, when before they may have.

Just wondered if opinions have changed at all. Are we still having a better season than last or is it about the same? Will we settle down at about the same place or will we kick back on as our tricky run ends? Are our new signings so much better than what we had or about the same level? We are still looking quite good even in defeat, but we did last year too.

Would you rather finish top four on this list, or 34th and a cup run?

I was looking through responses to the drink driving thread, which generally seems to have gone off topic onto other things that are dangerous too. I was interested in CB Saint's quote from a Times article about a study. Sorry I don't have the actual study, but I have heard similar before and I'm sure somebody will produce some evidence either way: So the question is, taking these figures as somewhere near correct, if it's so much more dangerous than being over the alcohol limit (far more dangerous than four times the limit of some countries) should ALL mobile phone use, including bluetooth, be banned from driving? I would imagine that people are so attached to their phones now that the very idea of a blanket ban would be horrific to many. Obviously, people will take this discussion whichever way they like, but it's not really about the fact that music/passengers/children/drinking a coffee can also be distracting, in the same way you don't need to argue that guns should be legal because a plastic bag can also kill.

"Field" hockey isn't a sport for grown ups at all, it belongs in schools, like netball and rounders. If you're an adult and want to play hockey, you'd better have a pair of ice skates ready or you're already a joke.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-30329743 Scotland have reduced their drink driving limits by nearly a half (from 80 down to 50mg per 100ml blood). Northern Ireland considering the same, but England not planning to. That will leave England and Wales pretty much out on their own with a considerably higher limit than other European countries. So what do people think? Here in Norway it's 20mg, which is low enough that it is effectively zero. You cannot knowingly have any kind of alcoholic drink and then drive, but it gives a small chance of passing if you drank the night before and are driving early, although it's not advisable. Should it be effectively zero? Is this over-protective and unnecessary? Should England and Scotland have the same to avoid border crossing problems or do you deserve what you get if you have a drink before driving into a country with different laws? Interesting to see that Germany has a sliding scale limit, is that sensible or too likely to cause confusion?