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?

That sounds like a challenge for you.

It is however unethical and immoral to be paid out fo the public purse to construct an identity for yourself which you use deliberately to mislead someone over a period of years. It's a bit different from you pretending (?) to be a tosser in order to get someone into bed for the night.

Apparently one in seven children of married couples are fathered by someone other than the husband. Yes, I have to agree with you.

The above makes little sense, but I think it can only mean: 'they consented to have a relationship with the person, except they were misled as to that person's occupation'. No. They were misled as to that person's whole identity. That's more of a deception than simply being misled as to occupation.

Interesting that all the people conned were women. I wonder whether any men have been unknowingly lured into relationships with female police spies? No? Wonder why.

For the avoidance of confusion, in claiming that he is offering junior doctors an 11% pay rise, Hunt is conveniently omitting to mention that the changes in the way shifts are paid means that most doctors will actually suffer a 20-30% pay cut compared with their current renumeration for the same hours. Doctors want a 7 days a week NHS as much as the rest of us, but not at the cost of patient safety or doctors working for nothing. The last year has seen the largest exodus ever from the NHS by doctors and nurses facing intolerable pressures - many of them are heading for Australia or New Zealand or the USA, where salaries are higher and the work-life balance much more sane. Who can blame them? The government's attitude towards them is disgraceful. Hunt needs to go.

r a i n r a i n r a i n r a i n r a i n

Thank you! I'd be interested to know what other people think about the way in which meanings of words change over time and in different contexts*. I bet most people can think of words/phrases from their childhood which meant one thing then, and something else now, or (currently) non-standard words/phrases which sound perfectly natural and 'right' in one context but not in another. (*'Tragedy', for example).

Absolutely. Couldn't agree more. It's all about context. School is a formal context where you can practise all kinds of behaviour (including the way you speak and write) which will help you to reach your potential in life. It's different from home. ---------- Post added 17-11-2015 at 22:24 ---------- Does missing the point come naturally to you, or do you have to practise?! All that is revealed by the results of the poll is that a majority of people on this thread who bothered to respond think that 'would of' is 'not acceptable now'. As I've shown, that's meaningless since it ignores context. If the question were framed better, e.g. 'Is 'would of' acceptable in formal contexts such as journalism or job interviews'? then I would have been one of the first to vote 'No'. But it wasn't...so I didn't vote. Again.. read what I said! I'm ending my conversation with you now, as I'm bored by your simplistic view of the topic. I don't expect I'm the first nor will I be the last. I hope you don't have this effect on people in your real life. Good luck

You are wrong about that. The OED includes 'until' as one meaning of 'while': http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/while Who do you think makes the rules? And if all you want to do is trot out examples of language use which you think demonstrate other people's stupidity, why are you still engaged in this discussion with me? Actually, they are. They are an expression of identity and personality, which are formed and develop throughout a person's life. Whatever. So you're OK with the use of the third person plural possessive adjective ('their') in relation to a singular subject ('A 25 year old who has...' etc)? That's not in your rule book, surely?! Hoist by your own petard, I'd say.... (Back to farts again!)