norwaysaint

That sounds about the same, only on one side of the house obviously, but they always have a salty residue on them. I'd pay somebody to clean them if they came round here, but I'll probably just make my kids do it when they're a bit older.

Wow, I would pay so much more than that for a window cleaner. I don't think anyone over here does it and I live by the sea, so the windows are dirty really quickly.

Never been to Seattle, but one of my wife's colleagues loves it so much that he bought an apartment there just for holidays. That's quite a jaunt from Norway, so it must have something going for it.

As I don't get to see many matches I just based it on the impressions I had and gladly concede to others who know better. Guly's surely going to get limited chances up front anyway. Yes, somehow I missed the midfield of Davis, Hammond, Schneiderlin, Cork, Chaplow and Ward Prowse, which seems pretty good to me, at least as good as we had last time around in theory. Is Chambers centre mid? Stuff I'd read before made me think he played on the right, but don't mind being wrong. Would be very happy if Lee can alternate with Lallana on the left.

GK: Davis Well we all know we need a new goalie, we could do with one for now and a decent prospect. Right back: Clyne Richardson Butterfield Stephens That's not a bad choice, one we hope is at the right standard, one we know can do a job, one emergency back-up and one prospect. left back: Fox Harding Dickson Shaw Not including Buttner. Not quite so strong, Fox can do a job, Harding isn't expected to rise to this level, Dickson wasn't seen as good enough last season, Shaw is still just a prospect. CBs: Fonte Hooiveld Seaborne Clearly no strength in depth, we need back-up and we need somebody good enough to challenge Fonte and Jos for their place. Right mid/wing: Guly De Ridder Puncheon Chambers There's nothing there that leaves you too happy. Guly's done his best work up front, Puncheon's not reliable and Chambers is just a prospect. Left: Lallana Am I missing someone? Is it just him? Strikers: Lambert Rodriguez Sharp Lee I like all of these and would expect at least two of them to make the step up well. Looks like we still need a GK and a centre back. We'd also like a more strength down the left and somebody on the right. Seems like we need loads, despite having a good team last year. and quite a lot of players. Are we carrying too many average ones now? I didn't even include some.

I would never rent. Instead I built a property that was within a price range I new I would be able to pay off without problems in the future. It is security for my family and if sold would pay for itself three times over, so in having it, I know my family will always be okay. I'd hate for my kids to be growing up in a place we didn't own, it'd never really be home. The problem is that a lot of people go heavily into debt to own a property that is really way beyond what they really need and is far further up the ladder than they should have been stepping. It's the whole sense of entitlement that saw people replacing functioning CRT TVs and DVD players with Big flat screen TVs and Blueray players or going on holidays abroad despite not really having the funds for it.

Good for you. I blame a lot of society's problems on the fact that few parents are able to stay at home and raise their kids properly. I took a year's unpaid leave of absence with our first. it was a strain financially, but I've always been glad I did and only wish we'd had the finances to do it again with the second. At least when you have young kids, the cost of going out and socialising becomes irrelevant anyway.

Yeah, the original Salem's lot scared me for weeks as a kid. I thought i could hear tapping at the window every night. Other ones that scared me over the years were Halloween, although the million unstoppable slasher films since have diluted its effect, and Rosemary's Baby, very creepy and a proper well made film. Modern stuff like Saw and Hostel just seem like more and more of the same. You need a proper story and feeling for the characters to get genuine scares. Those films just cut straight to the gore and it stops being scary. Troll Hunter is great, but surely it's not a horror in anybody's book? Dark Water was pretty good and I quite liked 1408 too.

Single malt with a splash of water (not chilled).

Great pictures Delldays, got any more?

That's a pretty weak comment to fall back on. Everybody has experienced life. There is nothing more valid about your experiences. I'm older than you who have experienced things that you haven't, for that reason should I sneeringly dismiss everything you say? He has plenty to learn about life, so do you, so do I, if we should listen to you, we should equally listen to him. If we should ignore him for inexperience, we should ignore you. Or do you believe you've reached the point where you know everything, like Dune does?

Well, he's a boxer, so he's going to fight, get hit and lose anyway, but nobody would have been interested at all in Chisora's next fight without all of this pantomime. For Haye, he managed to drum up interest despite fighting a very poor opponent for no real reason except money. They both did very well out of this, but without the media game, we wouldn't have cared about it.

Well they had just worked together to make a pointless fight into a money-spinning media event.

I don't really see how we'd ever win the title without spending the silly amounts of money other clubs have. Europe should be a possibility, although it'd be astonishing to reach the CL any time soon, we could make the UEFA. Of course as a fan you have to mix your hopes with some realism, but nobody can deny it's going to be exciting seeing how the club pushes on towards those kinds of ambitions.

Surman, came up through the ranks, Saints through and through, played his heart out during the bad years, then had to leave whether he wanted to or not and ended up missing out on our rise in fortunes.

Maybe we should try him out up front.

Every couple of years I do some work for the petroleum directorate here in Norway. it involves having a ten or fifteen minute chats with fishermen who work as contacts on their seismic ships, dealing with any clashes of agenda. I have to give them a basic level pass or fail in English, 95% of them pass and most of the test questions were written by somebody else. They fly me all over Norway and put me up in nice hotels with lunch and dinner included. The pay is close to a hundred pounds an hour plus extra for preparation and admin and the fishermen are great fun to chat with, I often go out drinking with them in the evening. The whole time I'm away, I'm also being paid for my normal job. It's not bad work.

These people are excellent with glazing, can't recommend them highly enough. http://www.romseyconservatory.com/

Trying to work out which bit of what I posted that you're saying is wrong. I've re-read it and it all seems right and in no way contradictory to what you just posted. Of course moderation is important, but it's not a good idea to give kids the idea that a bar of chocolate or a bag of crisps is as much a valid part of a lunch as things containing protein, minerals and vitamins etc. Why choose to give kids crisps? I'm not saying ban crisps, I'm saying that I think marketing people over the years have succeeded in convincing British people that crisps, essentially party food, are a standard lunch or snack item and nobody challenges this. Growing up in England I also assumed crisps were everyday food, but visiting England after being away from that mindset for a few years, you really notice how British people are with crisps and you notice all of these "sandwich, crisps and fizzy drink" meal deals. I also have to add that prepared fresh fruit is also much easier and more accessible in the UK than here. Very surprised at just how protective and defensive people are about the issue though. They're only crisps.

Serious question, why do you give your children crisps for lunch? What purpose do they serve in the lunch box? Don't you think your kids will grow up thinking crisps are a valid food item, when they really aren't? Anyway, a lot of people have asked why the focus on crisps and that wasn't really the point of the thread. I was just saying that after having lived in other countries for a few years, you really notice just how many people in the UK walk around eating crisps all the time compared to other countries and how common it is to see small kids saying they're hungry and the parent giving them crisps instead of proper food. I wondered how people thought about this and to be fair I've been given a pretty good cross section of people who find it pretty shameful and people who think it's normal because they've always done it. Lots of countries have bad eating habits, here people eat too many frozen pizzas and hot dogs, crisps is probably the most widely visible example over there.

It is a bit mad, does anyone know how they judge it? For example, in theory, we didn't lose any of our matches at the euro's, only going out on penalties after a draw. Do they count it as a proper defeat or as a draw or somewhere in between? We've been rubbish, but our results have been flattering, I suppose that's all that counts. Italy have been rewarded, they went up six places.

I came during my summer holiday. As a teacher I get ****ing tons of holiday, but I don't get to choose when it is.

Well, there were always those who thought crisps were a normal part of a lunch, but I always thought they were either fatties or chavs. Your post sums it up a bit for me though, it's the idea that having party food for lunch every day is okay and normal, because you've always done it. There's no nutritional value there, it's not adding to your lunch. It's just a greed thing. Worse when parents buy big multi-packs to feed to their kids though. Why? I can't think of a single reason. They're just teaching their kids that food like that is a valid part of a lunch. It's become a very British thing to do. If your kids are hungry, why not take the chance to give them some apple or a piece of fresh chicken?

I really can't understand the mentality, of, when a child says "I'm hungry", giving them crisps. if they were hungry, you can give them proper food, an apple for example. If they don't eat it, they weren't really hungry and you don't need to worry. Perhaps it seemed oddest because I was also really impressed by how easy it is to buy really good quality, healthy food relatively cheaply now. In Asda or wherever, there are rows of easily packaged beautiful fresh fruit, ready prepared. I know there's an issue with packaging too, but there's no good reason for not eating well. It wasn't like that when I emigrated.

I've just got back from a week in the UK and couldn't believe the amount of overweight people I saw. My wife even commented that she thought a higher proportion were overweight in the UK than she saw in the US on her recent travels there. This is in the Winchester, Southampton and Bournemouth areas too, so I'm not talking about northern diets, which are often criticised. The one thing that we both noticed particularly is that crisps seem to be a normal part of a lunch in the UK these days. Shops offer them as part of meal deals and people just walk around eating packets of crisps. What role does a packet of crisps play in a lunch? How did that come to be normal? Why do people give them to kids instead of proper food? I often saw parents pull a packet of crisps out of their bag and give the whole pack to a whining child, why are they giving them crisps? There's no nutritional value in crisps. Here in Norway you can't really even buy individual packets of crisps, they're sold in big packs and seen mostly as party food, which seems about right. Are British people eating party food as part of their everyday diets now? Just interested to hear how normal people on here consider it is to walk around eating this stuff as a regular snack or as part of a lunch.