sugna

Why, out of curiosity?

I can't be the only person who pressed the Play button to view that clip.

I can never quite remember the name they chose for their management consultancy business - did they plump for Consultio or Consultius?

Joneses. Joneses.

That is an excellent and comprehensive rebuttal. Leads no room whatsoever for any doubt, and links to detailed debunking on every single point. It's almost as though the scientific approach is to be evidence-based. (The canard that someone with expertise in a field can speak with authority in an unrelated field is not new. Indeed, it's one of the standard fallacies that are taught when beginning to study things like logic and philosophy: it's the fallacy known as "argument from authority".)

Scott MypantswentBrownwhenhelookedatmebecauseIcanonlypunchdown

This is not true, but the example will work, because of the specific domain. Gmail addresses work that way and are also case-insensitive; but neither of those is required by the relevant RFCs. (In practice, dots aren't generally irrelevant; case isn't generally relevant.)

Compo faeces thread for this muck.

I've no intention of being judgemental on this, but the levels of anabolic steroids and other PEDs that someone has to take to become even close to competitive in WSM are absolutely staggering, and require great care (and probably a degree of luck) to avoid severe health problems. Even at cycle dosages that could never lead to that level of strongman competition, rates of complications and fatalities are very sobering, and dangerous usage (levels and management) goes down much further than anything not involved in strength sports would imagine. When I was a junior, someone from my athletics club with a background in strength training died in his late 20s, with causes that indicated steroid usage. He was ranked around 20th in Scotland. He wouldn't have been the highest-ranked steroid user in that list, to put it mildly. It's simply impossible to compete in WSM without quite dangerous levels of PEDs. It's still a great sporting achievement, requiring tremendous dedication; but I wouldn't be quick to admire it from a health/role model perspective. Maybe others feel the same way, and that's why Tom isn't getting more love in this thread. I could cite other specific cases and historic data in support of this, but I am definitely not trying to make the case that people taking PEDs are "bad"; I'm simply recording the facts that WSM required very high PED usage, and that such usage is dangerous. Last week, I was at an international competition for athletes of a certain age*. That included throwers from the 70s and 80s, and there was some discussion of maximum "natty" strength levels. The consensus from people who have been there is that WSM starts a couple of strata above where natty ends. But that in no way undermines the efforts and dedication that are required on top of the PEDs. It's still a tremendous achievement. * Where I was a team mate of Dwain Chambers - whose levels when he was banned for PEDs would have been at least an order of magnitude below WSM competitors.

He's terrified.

It's easy to take things out of context, and infer that Barton has an enormous ego but is a terrible judge of footballing ability. Why, just a few years ago I recall him implying that he would do well on moving to Rangers, and that his career in Scotland wouldn't consist of repeated failure and humiliation, as well as complete submission to Scott Brown.

In the P&B Illustrated Dictionary, Barton's mugshot appears under "Scrambling for relevance".

Re-readingThe Clicking of Cuthbert and Honeysuckle Cottage (and most others from Mr Mulliner and The Oldest Member) would fit the brief, for me.

Hope Martin keeps an eye out for her.

First time I heard of (and rejected) a mac and cheese was just under a year ago. I thought it was a cheeseburger. Since then, I've rejected it several times on the basis of it having the wrong name.

That reminds me of the time I shocked my postman by coming to the door naked. He was surprised I knew where he lived.

Tl;dr Lisa needs braces.

"One World Military" Think it through, Andy.

Excellent, measured, expert advice from lichtgilphead, here. It's baffling that anyone could read his contribution any other way. Although I sense there's some history, here.

I have gone through the cutlery-trauma thing twice recently. I know more about spoons than I would like to. The cheap shot reply to our earlier post was my second instinct; my first was to say that tablespoons are not cutlery: I think they are for "serving at table". We got one of our cutlery sets from ProCook, buying it as a canteen since that was much cheaper than buying the same brand any other way - we got a couple of tablespoons with that. When we bought the other set of cutlery, we bought it as a mixture of separates and "wee boxes of aggregated separates", from Home Store + More. Neither the actual separates nor the boxes had the option of adding tablespoons, nor did any of the (admittedly wide range of) similar styles allow us to purchase tablespoons. I really like having a couple, for those rare occasions when we have food to serve from bowls, and where the metal spoons are just the ticket. I also use them for baking sometimes, although there's really no reason to do that. I ended up buying a boxed pair from TK Maxx. My biggest PSpoonsTGOMyN, though, is between the stupid "dessert and bigger dessert spoons" instead of "dessert and actual round soup spoons"; and the very annoying too-pointy teaspoons - I only really want those for making instant coffee, and pointiness is both pointless and a very bad fit for that. The image you've posted should come with a trigger warning.

If my guess is correct, you'll have the same problem with the teaspoons. Except the other pack will have the bigger ones this time.

In the interests of forum anonymity, I can neither confirm nor deny that. This was at Edinburgh airport, 6am this Saturday.