Happy Face

This morning I was reminiscing about being 10 year old, getting hold of a can of hairspray and a lighter, going behind boots (full of rubbish...mostly very dry cardboard boxes) and playing flame-throwers. We also covered our arms in the stuff and set them alight to mimic our favourite stunt stars. Anyone else a fucking daftee when they were little?

Like i say, we weren't that fussed that we would alter T&C's...or actually give him a ring now

http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/big-toon-survey-fans-give-4026182

http://tyneandwear.sky.com/newcastleunited/article/69021/newcastle-united-fan-survey-2013-the-results

That's just it. We wouldn't have even asked...he asked for our preference and we said ones of us would be fine, but as he was asking, best not put our guests pics up. That last point is exactly what I mean. Fair enough if no-one you know sees them, but if the mad bunny boiling ex does.....

We missed out a lot of specific groups posing that most sets of photos would include because we were much more keen for photos of people eating drinking and laughing. Agree that standing about bit is the worst of the day and we kept it to an absolute minimum. Not arsed really

Aye, that's what I asked about earlier. Assumed they were his images. Seemed odd for him to ask our "permission" and then ignore our answer though. He sent them to the venue and they hoyed them on their facebook before we'd even been to collect them too. When we mentioned that he expressed shock that they'd done that without asking, which seems incongruous now. Think we're at an impasse if you can't see why someone might not be keen though. If I took my family into a shop on (say) Clayton Street for a portrait and I walked past a week later and my family portrait was in their window for anyone and everyone walking past to see, could you understand any degree of annoyance at that?

Been to a few weddings/christenings/engagements where the organisers have messaged everyone invited on Facebook beforehand to ask them not to upload photos. Thought it was quite normal. If a wedding photographer wants to advertise his business he should get some models in and pay them for being part of his promotional material...or knock some money off the price I'm paying for my photos. I can see it's less an issue on a photographers website than on Facebook, but it reminds me of the time i went to see a mortgage adviser and when i told him where I work he started going on about all the people he's sorted mortgages for from there, where they moved, what they paid, what rate he got them etc. I never used that gobby fucker. Similarly, I'm not necessarily keen for anyone that uses this photographer that might coincidentally know us rifling through our photos and (for example) getting bitter over who got invites and who didn't. It's not hugely annoying us, we haven't been in touch to complain or owt. Just that he asked, so we expressed our preference....and he ignored it. @LTB - fortunately not. I'd look like that painting of Mr Burns that Marge did.

http://www.journallive.co.uk/nufc/newcastle-united-news/2013/05/30/russians-keeping-an-eye-on-cheick-tiote-61634-33403049/#ixzz2UlPVB0RA

Translating that into Premier League footballer on babelfish, it turns out what he means is he's "going to snub a lower wage in the first 11 at West Ham in favour of his current wage in the reserves at Liverpool....or loaned out somewhere else"

Haha. Didn't realize it went on that long. I don't do the Facebook requests or owt. I make my own way Thanks for the offer though.

Fucking sick. Level 79 of candy crush is a bastard and I've got no lives left... Again. Should really read a book instead of this addictive shit.

Adamskii Really suprised to hear that you think it sounds OTT. Would have thought lots of people would want their weddings to remain a private affair. Maybe a minority, but we aren't all looking for an OK deal To be fair to the lad we only mentioned it when picking up the photos, we've not been in touch to remind him of the chat and had a refusal to take them down or owt. Likely an honest mistake. Just wondered what his reaction might be if we did get in touch. From what you say perhaps he'd be peeved.

There was plenty of "one chris Hughton" at the games following his sack iirc. http://nufc.com/html/2010-11html/2010-12-11liverpool-h.html

Get your funk on

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/22702910 Bale's agent talking up a move to Madrid.

Why is that a surprise?

Andy, if a couple said to you that you could use a few pics on your website or in promotional material, but specified "only of the bride and groom please", cos none of the guests have agreed and we don't know how they feel about photos of them or their kids going on the web....is it something that gets honoured by people in your trade generally? Or do you have it in your small print about owning all the images and having the right to use them anywhere you choose? Turns out every single picture from my wedding is on this lads website, despite having this discussion

http://www.toontastic.net/board/topic/27348-treme/ I watched the first series and it never really gripped me. It was always quality, but I left months between episodes at one point. When I did come back to it though, I thought the finale was devastating. I've had series 2 on my box for years, but want to re-watch series 1 with the Mrs first. That will never happen as long as frigging Hollyoaks and Bones are on though.

http://www.sfgate.com/tv/article/Arrested-Development-review-even-better-4549548.php#ixzz2UfJarEMr

Not following your logic old bean. Are you're saying that hacking heads off is a "way of life" somewhere? That once you allow a mosque to be built you're asking for it to happen?

Bad enough you're cheating on Andy, but hoying up a link to this other fella? Unforgiveable!

Look into what the Pentagon think causes this sort of violence... http://www.salon.com/2009/10/20/terrorism_6/ What former CIA folk think... http://barryeisler.blogspot.com.br/2013/05/dont-worry-us-imperialism-is-cost-free.html Or what British former military think... http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/23/woolwich-attack-british-foreign-policy-role

What a pleasure it is that 8 pages of discussion on a "hot button" topic like this has been 99.9% civil and courteous btw, and when it has got silly there's been an instant apology and it's moved on. The quantity of posts on TT may have dropped of late, but the quality is much improved...as a direct result i would guess. Mentioning no names.

This has always been my question mark over the argument that we need to be run within our means. To what end? The books are balanced now, annually, but Ashley is taking out his money now (£11m last season, £18m this) in order to pay off the debt at this rate we need to be happy with this level of ambition for another decade until the club has no debt.......then what do we do? Build up the debt to chase success? No, we continue tweaking our team within our means rather than investing enough to actually push on. Fans don't see any glory in a profit making business like Ashley* does. *and Toonpack