aliceBB

Bloody uncomfortable?

It depends what you mean by 'you' (your character? what you say? or your actions?) and by which 'other people' we are talking about (your friends? your family? random people in the street? anonymous people on forums?), and it depends on what basis other people's opinions about your character/your behaviour are formed. If those opinions spring from blind prejudice, they are not worth a fig. If they are based on the experience of knowing you and being on the receiving end of your actions over a period of time, then those opinions/perceptions are clearly worth listening to.

Don't do it. A fan is as much use and far cheaper. Air con is often noisy and leaves you with a headache and dried-out sinuses.

Nicely put. But who is to say what 'the real meaning' of any utterance/post is? The author, or the reader? Or someone else? ---------- Post added 18-06-2017 at 22:54 ---------- I'm fascinated by the idea that in the 50s and 60s, women (and men) were slimmer, more smartly dressed and elegant. It would certainly seem to be the case if you look at photographs from that period. I don't doubt people were thinner' - any photograph of a crowded beach in the 50s will demonstrate that. You can see most people's ribs. But elegance...I'm not sure.it could be simply that photographers generally only photographed smart, elegant people. Perhaps all the scruffy, poorly dressed people were too busy slaving away earning a crust or doing the laundry or trying to feed their families, to get dressed up for a photograph. Rudeness/swearing - definitely worse, in my (obviously subjective) experience! My mum tells me people smelt a lot sweatier in those days, btw...

I've been following this story quite carefully and unless I have missed something (or unless the police are witholding something), what I find baffling is this. They say the recent excavations have 'convinced' them that Ben died in an accident (rather than being abducted). They seem to be basing their 'conviction' on the discovery of a toy which Ben owned, which was found in the site 750m away (from his grandparents' property where he was last seen alive), to which site earth from the Needham property was removed by a digger driver. Yet there is no mention of any human remains/DNA being discovered at either site. How can they rule out the possibility that the child was indeed snatched, the toy was left behind and inadvertently moved, along with a load of earth, to the further site? Surely the discovery of the toy is not proof that the child was killed, is it? Or have I missed something?

Why does there have to be anyone else?

I agree with Anna - check the tension. Also check whether the spool (and the top cotton) are correctly threaded.

Who or what do you think 'fancifully brainwashes' students? Please explain why you think people who are unable or unwilling to pursue higher education are likely to be much more intelligent when it comes to politics (as you seem to imply).

That's Lembit Opik , not Boris.

Absolutely. Self-obsessed, self-congratulatory luvvy.

Some kinds of stone are porous and will allow water to soak in. It only really matters if there is no cavity in the wall and the water ends up inside the building. There are clear silicone treatments which some builders claim are effective barriers against water ingress, but you have to allow the wall to dry out first before applying - so at the end of a hot summer, ideally. It's not cheap, either - allow several £k. I do not know of any DIY treatment which works.

I cannot see how it would involve extra work for the electrician to fix them to the cabinets rather than the walls. It's surely quicker to attach to cabinets (than drilling into walls and cutting holes in cabinet backs).

There were at least four of them, not just one, though.

Sorry, who do you mean?

Really? How do you know? What?