Ginger_Warrior

Thanks, that did give me a little giggle when I logged on to see the OT board. :^_^:

Unless it's work trial, or at least a means to a paid job... why you doing it then? You take enough [cabbage] from unappreciative people on here without having to do it in real life too. :huh:

If you're copying a quote verbatim, and there's an error in the quote, shouldn't there be a [sic] tag technically? Sorry if we've digressed here.

I've placed a marker for you on Montreal.

You realise the WW2 comments about Japan are NOTHING compared to how England fans react to getting beaten inevitably by Germany? It's practically hate speech, and it's why I distance myself as far as possible from Eng-er-land fans during the World Cup.

To watch, it depends on the code of rugby. Rugby union is about as interesting as watching paint dry. Warrington vs Wigan during the weekend promises to be a cracker. To play, football (soccer).

The fact that only the remote controller can navigate the Wii's menu, and once you've run out of batteries, you're screwed even though there's a perfectly good Gamecube controller plugged in.

A point about blocking not raised (well, two points actually) is: 1) The fact most cyberbullying happens through IM with known instigators; 2) The considerable overlap between IM/SMS/Facebook and real life interaction. It's wrong to suggest people on MSN are "dedicated trolls". The evidence doesn't support this idea that most instigators of cyberbullying are anonymous strangers on an Internet forum like Tip.It. It is also wrong to claim that all cyberbullying can be blocked when the bullying is likely to continue in the school corridors.

If it's a genuine attempt to humiliate and torment another child, or remove their dignity, then it's categorically wrong. If it's simply a case of somebody getting upset because someone assertively disagreed with them, then I'm sorry, but that isn't bullying. That's life. Bullying is not the mere act of "being mean". It's a systematic and calculated attempt to abuse someone else.

Let's move this along. What if the cable TV comes for free in a cheap Internet deal? I am personally am on one such deal so they definitely exist. The job market is becoming increasingly focused around the Internet, so much so that getting an email address if you don't already have one is now actually a requirement under the Jobseekers Agreement signed between a claiment for unemployment benefits in the UK and the JobCentre. Is it wrong to still receive welfare support in that situation?

I'd warn very cautiously against making corporations use domestic labour. Protectionism is not something that should be encouraged while many more Americans are working overseas, and many people in the US are employed by foreign-owned companies. Not to mention that it doesn't particularly solve the underlying problems of poverty. Namely, education and access to basic healthcare.

And he was arrested for common assault. Rightly so. That isn't how this problem is going to be solved: the select committee has shown us the right way with some excellent questioning today.

It's pretty obvious that "poor" in this thread refers to relative poverty, not absolute poverty. This thread seems to be based entirely on semantics. My opinion at calling people "poor", having come from a low-income working class backgrounf myself? Just call a spade a spade--you create more an issue and you distract attention away from the real problems that cause poverty by using euphemisms that needn't exist.

I was more focusing on how she made her decision, not the status of the relationship. In ny opinion, it's never right to force an opinion on somebody else because it happens to suit you more. The other person's right to make their own, informed decision should always be respected. Hence why the last one was red, because it was the opposite of that, whereas in the green example, she's been given the space and freedom to make her own decision. But Rob gave her every opportunity to make a decision of her own and only after about three attempts did he say what he thought so... I don't see anything wrong there.

The point where harmless procrastination turns into 'Oh [bleep], I'm screwed'. Best Facebook group ever, and unfortunately how I feel a lot of the time.

Be honest, what was the real reason you got involved? You saw a friend being hurt in a failing relationship, and helped her to realise her own decision to leave that relationship;You saw a friend being hurt in a failing relationship, and told her to get out of it;You were jealous because she was in a new relationship, saw you had a chance to break it, and took the opportunity when it presented itself. If you're wanting to know whether you did right by her, I'd say if you were doing it for 1), you've nothing to feel bad about. Also, at the moment she might be quite vulnerable, so even if she says she's interested in getting back with you, be cautious. She might not have gotten over this relationship and she might just be looking for a rebound with whom she feels familiar, which won't do either of you any good in the long term. As far as this other guy's concerned, is that really any of your business so long as you were just supporting her as a friend? The reason that relationship fell apart was because he was too overbearing and protective, and she wasn't for taking it, not because you advised her that her decision was probably the correct choice to make.

No, I'm not as it happens; I know why you moved URLs because you've discussed it on your forum which is in the public domain. The post was pretty clear in its implications. Which is why I'm a little surprised, disappointed even, to see this argument being raised from the dead over a non-issue. I think we can both agree on the central point that if a rule-breaking website (any hypothetical website, a porn website for a non-RS related example) were to change its URL for whatever reason, it would only be common sense to block the new URL as well if the website in question is still breaking rules, yes?

Milford, not Milton right? If so, done.

In a way I thought it was unfair actually. Helen tried reverting to Plan B which involved her work at Greggs and basically wasn't allowed to. But on the after program, it was revealed that Tom's new business was based around the nail filer he'd developed years ago, not the chairs he was trying to design now, so he had been allowed to fall back on his day job. I didn't really like that, wasn't a level playing field. When you look at how many opportunities Sugar had to fire him, I kind of wonder whether he'd effectively hired Tom from about week five and nothing Helen, Suzie or Jim did in the rest of the twelve-week process was going to make a shred of difference because they were all going through the motions without realising it.

People still do this at 25? Well, the slight glimmer of hope I had as a 21 year old with some naive vision of the future where everyone grows up and stops acting like they're 14 again just evaporated into thin air. :(

Assuming PPL/CPL refers to becoming an aircraft pilot, and EEG refers to electroencephalography, why do you need your brainwaves measuring for that? :huh:

Done. The map's really starting to take form.

Rumour is she's in for a $3.5m payout from Murdoch's own back pocket, but if she serves time for what happened, I'm not too fussed about that. It only reaffirms our convictions that Murdoch has no interest in doing the right thing, and would rather continue to pay his 'henchmen' even after they've been caught. All of which only strengthens the argument for new media ownership rules, to prevent people like him holding too much control.

That's good to hear, actually. No seriously. See, if rule-breaking websites only had to change their URL in order to evade the censor, well, that really would make the admins a bunch of idiots. So it's glad to know they follow up on things like this. On an unrelated note, I'm happy that over the past two to four weeks, the OT board has really enjoyed a boom in good threads, aided by unrestrictive moderating. I mean, I know many websites would have banned the Where in the World is Tip.It thread and the several polls asking for general, non-personal details. Also, some of the themes raised in the Today... thread could've been seen as harmful, but weren't. It's nice to see common sense allowing for good discussion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_Z#Beyond_Z Our kids will be known as Alpha babies.