sugna

Challenging w**k indeed.

The offer apparently finished on 2 May 2018. More of a PTTGotOYN, really.

She gave me the wrong code for a key safe. True story.

Hamish Buick was a friend of my dad's, and a top swearer to admire whenever he visited. As a young lad, you need people like that to inspire you. Effortless cursing compared to the playground try-hards.

Yes, I've no doubt you'll make that guarantee. But I can't spend all of my time explaining that your guarantees don't get past the most rudimentary of fact-checking.

That's a bold guarantee. Not even anywhere close to a majority of people I know have even been in a hotel in any of those places, let alone one that has been built under exactly the same conditions as the WC football stadia, or have been on a cruise. So the "huge proportion" is immediately swimming upstream against the data. There must be a self-selecting mechanism at play: stayed in one of those hotels or been on a cruise? Then there's a probability of close to unity that you'll get on your high horse. Unless of course that guarantee has no basis in reality.

Yes, that was exactly the point that I was trying to make. I didn't expect it to be controversial: St Mirren were pegged back from a win to a draw, they didn't spend the 90 minutes on Rangers' coat-tails, trying to scrape the draw.

"hold"

Woof! The whole school went up!

Appreciate your efforts to tilt facts against fantasy. It's a Sisyphean task.

Nailed it.

I would agree they're probably strangers to their hole.

Enjoyed the The Office references this engendered. Expected to see "... don't get me wrong, Anton's a lovely bloke!" - ah, there it is.

Evil tormentor of Adrian Monk, Dale the Whale.

^^^ Doing it right. (Also, it's terrifying that people still think that enforced group behaviour isn't a bad thing, if they somehow happen to approve of the behaviour that's being enforced.)

Ah right, I think I missed that post. That explanation sounds a lot more like the way that routers are usually designed.

I think you've understood me fine. If you can do what you say, effectively taking down all peer users at will, there's something very bad going on. You could be working away, and anyone else who has the password for using the same WiFi as you're using for Internet access could just lock you out - because user = admin. I've only ever seen configurations where there are separate user and admin roles. (But I'm feeling well-disposed towards routers tonight anyway. I've just migrated a sports club website from a noisy desktop to a quiet laptop, before we have friends coming to stay in "the desktop room". GIRFUY, as we never say in Computer Club. Which we never talk about.)

There are generally two independent passwords associated with a wireless router: the router admin password, and the WiFi network password. Without the former, which should be very difficult to crack, it isn't possible to do anything other than as a client device of the WiFi network. But it's another example of how the bad people (would-be freeloading neighbours) push the bad feelings resulting from their badness onto the blameless people*. "I have this selfish, outrageous imposition! You accommodate me now, or feel terrible for being unhelpful!" * disclaimer: I have never met superwell87, so I'm just assuming blamelessness here.

I read that in Humphrey Lyttelton's voice.

The ironing is delicious.

A couple of years ago, my son was living in a top-floor flat on one of the streets off Dalry Road. They had some water ingress through the roof, and he had to go through the pain of getting quotes and agreeing that everyone was up for engaging a selected tenderer. There is indeed always one person in a common stair who treats all such requests with unhelpfulness bordering on indignation - but he eventually got them all to sign up for it. He wasn't going to be home during the repairs, so he gave them the flat number of someone to buzz, described how to get access to the roof from the stairwell, and confirmed that the main door was "Number 7, 4th door down from Dalry Road". On the appointed day, a neighbour noticed that the roof was being repaired at number 8, too. The roofers had ignored the door number, counted down the doors from the main road, and fired in there with ladders, tiles and flashing.

Arsehole attempt by the Guardian to weasel out of a clear mistake. Also, taking the "general" (by which is apparently meant 'highly specific") sense, the assertion is still clearly incorrect. Counterexample: 10 households, 9 paying £100, the other paying £1000. The average in the sense intended is the median: £100; 10% of households pay more than (that) average. QEb*****dingD