Fjool

When the 'unexplained' is examined too closely, it most frequently becomes 'explained' and that is not nearly as exciting.

The best place to be thrown out of would be a Robbie Williams concert.

There are folks that would believe you if you told it in the right way. They want to believe so much that someone punched him that they will not question it. If I was to refute your claim to have punched Jeremy Clarkson, your argument would have to be along the lines of: 'You can't prove that Jeremy Clarkson does not exist!'

Like how? Looking at mine, it bunches up to quite degree (say 10 or so tabs) and then starts scrolling... but this is how it used to be before too. Maybe I'm missing your point. The biggest difference I've noticed is that each tab now has a close button, but I know this can be changed back to the old behaviour Quite a few of these things are customisable in FF, it's just that the setting is hidden in the about:config screen. Try entering 'about:config' into the address bar and setting your tabMinWidth (search at the top) property a bit smaller perhaps. Not sure if that solves your problem but worth a try. This resource documents all the available settings: http://preferential.mozdev.org/preferences.html

An Australian news channel ran a report on one such scam. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRx2ZXCWuDU

The only difference between Derek Pakora and any other TV 'psychic' is that people have started taking notice of his mistakes. Many others have made similar gaffes, yet continue to spread their nonsense. Seems that believers will attempt ignore or explain away any inconsistencies and mistakes. An example from the ever-revolting Sylvia Browne: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFNKsmwgw8w There are other, well known, videos of her making similar errors and really upsetting people but she continues to be a successful, wealthy 'psychic'. The TV networks know she's good for ratings. In the clip above, Montel has to try really hard to cover her mistakes. He is complicit in the lie that is Sylvia Browne.

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e205/christianguy74/68aa981f.jpg

Sometimes the experience is more than just the ingredients... the whole environment, your hunger, the excitement of the journey and so on... Like the time I had a cheese sandwich on the train from Edinburgh to Aberdeen. Normally I love cheese sandwiches but the fact that this one cost £3.50 and had to be consumed facing an obnoxious old sod who kept trying to touch my leg meant that this was the most unpleasant sandwich I'd ever eaten...

Eh... I dunno. What was that 80s film where the orbs came and made all the old-folks young again?

100 images that changed the world: http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0309/lm_index.html Except I don't see 100 here... maybe there's a main index somewhere.

Some people think that taking a photograph captures part of your soul. Perhaps it's a similar belief at work.

You don't. He'll contact you.

Ahh, that's why I like them sun-dried in sandwiches!

Exactly the same as I. Kinda relieved to find out otherwise since I always thought it was a bit unfair.

I beg your pardon. I just double checked this and I've been labouring under a misconception. Sorry. http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/gethelp/faqs.jsp#link1 So, yeah, you should be ok if you can prove you only use it for games. What threw me was the (apparent) need for a licence if you have a TV card in your computer, but I guess the same rule applies there if you have no arial for it.

Dunno much about that but I have heard this elsewhere too. Even so, if you are going to the trouble of building a new school, might as well make it large enough to accomodate a few extra rather than run the risk of it being too small; which would be more of a problem. You could be right. I simply don't have the information on this to say either way. Was just my initial hunch because this is what I'd do if I were deciding how large to make a school.

Unfortunately yes. It's a license for owning a TV, not for actually watching TV programmes.

I've also heard differing accounts... http://www.accidentalhedonist.com/index.php/all?cat=127

That's partly my objection... the attitude is that breasts must be either saggy or augmented. 99% of women who think they have 'saggy' breats, just have normal breats. Our perceptions of what a normal breast should look like has been skewed by such magazines to the point where women are made to feel that they are somehow inferior because they haven't been modified. I heard of soya being used too... http://www.justbreastimplants.com/implants/soya_oil.htm

Fine. That's something else then. I hadn't considered that angle and would agree that helping someone feel normal after loosing a breast is valid. Much as I'd agree that getting a prosthetic eye would be good for people who have lost one; I'd never suggest that people got artificial eyes for cosmetic reasons. I'm talking more about the folks who believe breasts should be perfectly spherical, anti-graviational - I hestitate to use the word - 'orbs'. Of course, it's their choice but I just don't think it's attractive to know that there are plastic bags filled with soya-gel (or whatever it is) in there. Lots of people smoke. Doesn't mean that I think it's advisable. 17 isn't the youngest I've heard of either.

Bad idea. Why do people get them done? They look ridiculous, cost a fortune and give health problems. What was the question again? /opinionated sod, aren't I?

Great stuff! Just listening to 'KokRock' at the moment. Site looks excellent and seems to be working really well. Nice one.

General population growth I was assuming. It would be odd to build a new school with precisely the capacity of the existing number of pupils. There has to be some room for manouvre and a figure of 33% extra space provides room for growth without being completely outrageous. You could be right with your prediction but this would quickly leave the school at bursting point which, for a brand new school, would be farcical.

Future-proofing?

We always thought you were special, Frankie!