ChezGiven

I know, how bad am i? eeeee! I've dropped right down to this lots general level. i feel so liberated. p.s. you starting to worry bout your folks now? huh huh huh? oh oh oh and I love that word smut. smut smut smut, doesn't it just feel good in a naughty way when you say it?! Are you happy though?

Not sure which is worse, that photo or insinuating someone's mum or dad is having an affair because they dont argue. Smut, either way.

Great jingle.

That's utter shite peddled by women who're so misdirected by bloody soap operas, they believe it's not possible to have a melodrama-free relationship. My mam and dad have been married for over 35 years and I've been around for 27 of them and can swear on whatever you like they've never had an argument. They might disagree, they might get frustrated with each other, but they don't need to have a petulant fight about it, they just resolve it. They're both individuals and it's fucking revolting how in love they are with each other. I know a couple of my mates parents are roughly in the same boat, so what you've said is cock of the poppiest variety. The parents of friends who do have the arguments are also the parents of friends whose home life hasn't been the best, and who've been through more shitty relationships than I can count. Of course there's middle ground, but having arguments is no more healthy than being dishonest. If you're honest with your partner, 90% of the petty shit won't crop up, and the bedrock is sound for when the actual, honest to goodness drama occurs. Personally, I've had plenty of relationships where the girl has come home with a raging blob on and taken it out on me just because she's a mardy cow, those ones don't last. I've also had passionate relationships without any petty arguments ruining them. I've found that the difference between a happy thing and a crappy thing is the level of honesty. (by the by, you can be honest without having an argument.) p.s. I've never EVER heard a bloke say that every relationship needs an argument or two, only ever women. Now what does that tell you? p.p.s I'd say you had a fight with your fella, came on here looking to get sympathy, but five'll get you ten that's it's your own bloody fault the argument happened in the first place. We haven't had a fight. he's done nowt wrong today Two different people should disagree at times, cos they're DIFFERENT, duh. Bollocks one of your parents is rolling over and playing dead just for a fucking quiet life. .....or may be one of them is just agreeing cos they're fucking the life out of someone else quietly! Never has the phrase 'snakes with tits' been so apt. I could hardly be described as a snake - but I do have tits Don't all PM me at once, my inbox (he he) is kind of full now, I may need to delete a few before yours will be accepted.... Marry me.

So what happened TS? If you want my advice, its easy discovering what you dont want to do, the trick is working out what you want to do. Once you've sorted that out, it all tends to fall into place. Harder than it sounds.

That's utter shite peddled by women who're so misdirected by bloody soap operas, they believe it's not possible to have a melodrama-free relationship. My mam and dad have been married for over 35 years and I've been around for 27 of them and can swear on whatever you like they've never had an argument. They might disagree, they might get frustrated with each other, but they don't need to have a petulant fight about it, they just resolve it. They're both individuals and it's fucking revolting how in love they are with each other. I know a couple of my mates parents are roughly in the same boat, so what you've said is cock of the poppiest variety. The parents of friends who do have the arguments are also the parents of friends whose home life hasn't been the best, and who've been through more shitty relationships than I can count. Of course there's middle ground, but having arguments is no more healthy than being dishonest. If you're honest with your partner, 90% of the petty shit won't crop up, and the bedrock is sound for when the actual, honest to goodness drama occurs. Personally, I've had plenty of relationships where the girl has come home with a raging blob on and taken it out on me just because she's a mardy cow, those ones don't last. I've also had passionate relationships without any petty arguments ruining them. I've found that the difference between a happy thing and a crappy thing is the level of honesty. (by the by, you can be honest without having an argument.) p.s. I've never EVER heard a bloke say that every relationship needs an argument or two, only ever women. Now what does that tell you? p.p.s I'd say you had a fight with your fella, came on here looking to get sympathy, but five'll get you ten that's it's your own bloody fault the argument happened in the first place. We haven't had a fight. he's done nowt wrong today Two different people should disagree at times, cos they're DIFFERENT, duh. Bollocks one of your parents is rolling over and playing dead just for a fucking quiet life. .....or may be one of them is just agreeing cos they're fucking the life out of someone else quietly! Never has the phrase 'snakes with tits' been so apt.

WSJ subscribers pay on their expenses anyway. Still think the media industry has to get a return from its output. The issue is that if print media outlets cant, they will go out of business. Which means consolidation and mergers, which returns greater power to the remaining giants. Like Murdoch.

More bad grammar?

If bawan listens to any of the daft cunts on here, he deserves a life on the dole.

I might go for that as long as the service providers merge with the content providers. Can you imagine paying your monthly subscription to Sky.....and then having to pay again to subscribe to individual shows? ISPs merging with content providers? I think you're onto something there. The Sky analogy is interesting though, since they provide the broadcast / recpetion service and some of the content. Don't they buy in 99% of their shows from production companies to air on their channels....which they can sell to other providers (Virgin). I was thinking more about the football and the movies, which makes up most of their revenue and is their content.

I might go for that as long as the service providers merge with the content providers. Can you imagine paying your monthly subscription to Sky.....and then having to pay again to subscribe to individual shows? ISPs merging with content providers? I think you're onto something there. The Sky analogy is interesting though, since they provide the broadcast / recpetion service and some of the content.

Only 11% have said 'yes' to the poll asking whether they would pay to read a newspaper online. Of course, that ignores the fact that people dont know what they are prepared to pay for before they have to pay for it. I once paid 20 notes for an hours internet access at an airport. A fucking hour!

Geordie Caulkin's articles might cost in the future too.

Its a huge untapped well of 'willingness to pay'. Its also a signal for the higher quality writers to work for the higher payers, as some of the additional revenues will be used to attract in the talent.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/may/0...arging-websites I think i mentioned this in one of the more in depth threads on here but it is the next logical step for the media industry. I think it will work too, people are now used to gaining access to the stories and features and in the event of major news stories, more and more people log on, rather than switch on 24 hour rolling news. The time has come. Get yer wallets oot.

I got that ages ago too. Showed it to Mrs Paws and she completely understood. Show's how their minds work In fairness though, explain anything using examples someone is interested in / can relate to; and they are more likely to understand it. Just makes me marvel at how stupid women are that not one, but two of them would wait in the queue for a till when they don't have any money on them. And the answer is to the question in the topic is regular blowjobs. There is no way a woman can know she doesnt have her purse on her untill she is asked for payment, as its not untill then that they start looking for the fucker.

Perhaps Jonas's problem is that he expects his team-mates to make intelligent runs? Rather than random ones.

She Sells Sanctuary is class.

I thought they were now a requirement? Even if there are no clauses, am sure the club could argue for changed circumstances. When a normal company make redundancies, they have to demonstrate a significant change in their financial circumstances, to break the employee contract. Again, am speculating but i reckon relegation would allow us to legally change the contracts even without the clauses.

We don't though, like Asprilla says. Newcastle United still have all that debt and more....until Mike Ashley says he'll forfeit it all. The debt is growing at a slower rate than it was though. But then our Premier league status and full houses every week meant we could sustain the debt we had. Without either of those, it's less likely. He 'internalised' the debt as far as i am aware. Therefore defaulting on any credit we have isnt subject to the `leeds' model of disintegration. So really his the person that would call up the debt anyway? Chez might correct me, but the way I see it is he doesn't have to call in the existing debt for us to go into administration, he just needs to refuse to guarantee future losses. We still owe other clubs for players bought as well as the ongoing costs of paying staff and suppliers. If the club doesn't earn enough to pay them (which it hasn't for 5 years, even in the Premier league) and Ashley refuses to loan the club more money to pay them, we'd be screwed. Who puts us into administration? There are only 2 routes, petitioned at court by the creditors (Mike Ashley will take Mike Ashley to court to get Mike Ashley's money back?), or voluntary, which destroys the residual value of the asset. Netither seem like a good idea to me. The issue is complicated though by what you point out, the guarantee against future losses. There are also two types of administration (and you'd need an accountant to precise the details), one where your costs are too high and one where the 'books' are not balanced, which includes all the amortisation of assets and the rest of the complicated stuff. Depends on the loss being made (which relegation is bound to make worse one way or another). I went through the figures the other day, assuming we can change the terms of the player contracts, i dont see why losses would have to be bigger, as we'd knock around 30m off the wage bill, maybe more.

I think Ashley's guarantee to continue 'bank rolling' us is only relevant to the auditors and signing off on our accounts as a going concern. I don't think we'd go into administration if they didn't do so, we'd just find it very hard to get credit and creditors could start calling in debts, though I'm not sure that would be enough to push us over the edge. Apparently, we dont have any. Thats to be seen though if things get worse than they already are.

Like asking a flower not to blossom, or a bird not to fly. On the attendance, i noticed that the back rows of the stand behind the goal were all empty (opp away fans end). Only the back rows though, it was as if they were trying to hide the fact they couldnt sell out a CL semi-final against Barcelona.

Who wouldnt? its called Lotta Livin (that TL track - had to check their discog). Lindstrom - Where you go, i go too. Epic!