Happy Face

Aren't you the Movie snob? either way, there's a marked distinction between reading Dosty's work and refraining from reading utter shite. I don't expect people to muse over JPS over their lunch break... but pouring over pictures of "celebrities" buying cheese is a fucking joke Not really, I'll watch owt. And I don't (for example) think Brock should be culled for enjoying Saw, and i don't think it's a joke he even watches it, I just think it's shite personally.

Poor Bob.

It's a sad state of affairs when you can't trust a shoplifting, whoring, jazz mag model. To be fair she's had it tough what with her parents broken marriage, being as good as orphaned, living on the streets and losing her leg. She's used whatever methods necessary to make herself the life she currently has. Got to admire the determination, if not the methods.

Mine did the same last week. No problem adding stuff once restored though, I'm up to 19Gig so far. The second generation one(s) I had were a nightmare. Sent two back to apple and they send you another reconditioned one before they even look at yours. Excellent customer service. Just register at apple.com and tell them about it, they'll send you a pre-paid box to send it back to them.

Totally wrong. The 21st century living room should (nay, must) reject the dated notion of a tv in the corner. Surround sound insists on being set up in a square, not a diamond. £19.99 at game. Bargain. What did you buy? I can't see the picture. Virtua Fighter 5

I believe the police officer that said she's been a nuisance and wasted police time. Source? Well the story was reported in The Times, but the senior officer that said it was Chief Superintendent Kevin Moore, of Brighton and Hove Police. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1520452.ece

I believe the police officer that said she's been a nuisance and wasted police time.

Totally wrong. The 21st century living room should (nay, must) reject the dated notion of a tv in the corner. Surround sound insists on being set up in a square, not a diamond. £19.99 at game. Bargain.

Patrick Watson - Close to Paradise

People who read anything other than Dostoevsky are beneath me, in fact I'm so superior I don't think they should be allowed to inhabit the same planet as me. have them executed. Now. [/average Toontasticer] Christ, some of you are so far up your own arses it astounds me. Horses for courses.

The Polyphonic Spree - Lithium Yeah-eah, yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

What was the blatant falsehood? I agree that the retractions the papers are forced to print are paltry. Heather Mills isn't the person I'd be using as a beacon of hope in fighting that cause though. The poor lass has been through loads, I feel sorry for the life she had and respect her for any charity work she does, but that doesn't alter the fact she's a vile piece of work.

Mills was famous before she met McCartney and got a lot worse press than while she was with him. I'm guessing she's never actually received an apology in print (happy to be corrected though), I know she's never sued anyone for anything written. ...""She will defer issue of legal proceedings until the arrangements in relation to the divorce are concluded but intends to sue at that stage all parties (including individuals) who are intent on damaging her reputation" I won't hold my breath. That's her whole point - even if she started suing now (against all 140odd separate pieces she claimed) she would be in court for years before seeing a penny. She detailed an apology printed about something reported about the divorce, it was completely false and the paper admitted so, but the apology was like 1 paragraph on page 20 - that was why she's talking about equivalent sizes etc. Anyway, why should you have to sue them to stop them printing (patently and proveably false in that case) fabrication? I sound like I'm defending her, I'm not, I never much gave her much thought till today, but in fact the way she put it across today has got me wound up about the injustice of it all. And she was clear in detailing the less well known people/organisations this happens to every day, giving it the 'they don't have the profile I do to be able to stand up for themselves' line, which in a way is completely true. So the papers shouldn't be able to print ANYTHING she claims to be a lie? Sorry but I firmly believe in the freedom of the press. And The Sun are standing by their claims... "The Sun, which regularly refers to her as "Mucca" (a play on Paul's nickname "Macca"), has responded to Mills' threat to sue by asking her to "tick the boxes" on a series of allegations the paper has made about the former model stating "It is not clear what exactly she plans to sue us about." The paper then asks: "Come on Heather, what exactly did we get wrong? Is it that you're a ..." Underneath the open question, the Sun lists six allegations about the former model, with a blank box beside each one. The words beside the boxes read: "Hooker, Liar, Porn Star, Fantasist, Trouble Maker, Shoplifter". Fair play to her, she's gone on tv and got some people on her side, though she claims never to do any media other than promoting her charities. If she feels passionately about it, she's the one in a position to sue the papers in a high profile case that will hit them in the pocket, Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman did it, she's financially secure enough to do it, stop whining to me for reading the papers if you daren't ask them where their proof is.

Mills was famous before she met McCartney and got a lot worse press than while she was with him. I'm guessing she's never actually received an apology in print (happy to be corrected though), I know she's never sued anyone for anything written. ...""She will defer issue of legal proceedings until the arrangements in relation to the divorce are concluded but intends to sue at that stage all parties (including individuals) who are intent on damaging her reputation" I won't hold my breath.

Nowt to do with it being her. This argument has been dismissed for years. The fact she's on GMTV or Larry King every other week suggests she wants it both ways though. I do have more sympathy for somone like Middleton who (as far as i know) has never used the media before abusing it. Who has dismissed it? It comes up all the time about how you can't do a thing about red top lies, especially if you don't have the money. A very basic point she has is, if they printed a lie about someone/some organisation, then the apology should be printed on the same page and of the same size as the offending article. That seems perfectly fair to me. If I as a manufacturer make a dodgy product, I have to recall every single one at my expense with full page recall notices, what's the difference for them regarding dodgy 'news'? As you put it "the masses". All the royals have had the same complaint, the Beckhams, Gazza, Pete Doherty etc. She hasn't come out with anything that hasn't been complained about before so it's not just her being victimised or dismissed. I wouldn't have said any of those have a better standing with the public to be listened to either. Like I said, she has a very good point, but because of who she is, like the Royals etc, it will be dismissed. As far as I'm aware, none of those above have put the issue across in as general and as sensible way as she did today. The paparazzi conviction point was a real eye opener. It's about time these scum were rightly put out of business. I'd say they're all more popular than her. Two of them (at least) are national heroes.

Nowt to do with it being her. This argument has been dismissed for years. The fact she's on GMTV or Larry King every other week suggests she wants it both ways though. I do have more sympathy for somone like Middleton who (as far as i know) has never used the media before abusing it. Who has dismissed it? It comes up all the time about how you can't do a thing about red top lies, especially if you don't have the money. A very basic point she has is, if they printed a lie about someone/some organisation, then the apology should be printed on the same page and of the same size as the offending article. That seems perfectly fair to me. If I as a manufacturer make a dodgy product, I have to recall every single one at my expense with full page recall notices, what's the difference for them regarding dodgy 'news'? As you put it "the masses". All the royals have had the same complaint, the Beckhams, Gazza, Pete Doherty etc. She hasn't come out with anything that hasn't been complained about before so it's not just her being victimised or dismissed.

Nowt to do with it being her. This argument has been dismissed for years. The fact she's on GMTV or Larry King every other week suggests she wants it both ways though. I do have more sympathy for somone like Middleton who (as far as i know) has never used the media before abusing it.

This.

When someone bost out laughing while Skinner was giving her sympathy and quick as a flash he goes "Is that Glenn Hoddle in tonight?" I almost shit myself laughing.

I was determined to hate that when it first started, have to say I was totally won over though. It's quality.

Didn't Roeder get us into Europe when everyone thought relegation was on the cards? And didn't he leave us in a higher position than he found us? And didn't he buy our current high scorer for two thirds of the price of Michael Owen? (A buy that will almost certainly recoup more of the fee paid) And wasn't Sibierski one of the better free transfers of that window, against virtually everyone elses judgement? I don't think he deserves to be anywhere near the pariah that I hope Souness remains.

No wonder you're upset, have you been crossing books off your wish-list every time you find out the author is dead? Just the ones the author hadn't got round to writing yet.

Erm....all our strips are made in China?

Siskel died It's Ebert and Roeper's Guide to Football on my wishlist.

How else could you take it? If he was talking after we'd played Arsenal I'd understand it. It's already been pointed out that we have a squad of Internationals, and Allardyce is basically saying to them "you aren't good enough to match Reading in a game, so don't worry about going at them, just try and stop them plying their magic out there"If I were an experienced international player I imagine that would dishearten me. You see, I don't agree with that being the only interpretation either. I find your downer on Allardyce almost as perplexing as I did your support for Roeder though. I was reiterating the same interpretation. How do you take it? "We need to become more determined to stop the opposition playing." You can 'stop the opposition' by imposing your game on their's. Plus, whenever you go away from home in the Premier League, stopping the opposition from playing is the priority imo, because no matter who plays who the home team nearly always has a go. I think he wants to start with a solid backline and midfield and then take it from there. It's not a view I necessarily subscribe to against teams like Reading as I pointed out the other day, we don't look like keeping clean sheets so we might as well have a go. I'm guessing that long-term though Allardyce wants us to be more solid and concede less which is what is needed. I think it was a general comment too. I didn't really read that much into it though, I just thought you took one line out of context and put a very (and unnecessarily) negative spin on it. So you're saying no matter who plays who you've got to stop the home team playing....though you yourself don't subscribe to it against Reading. I think we agree completely, which is why I said I'd understand it if we'd just played Arsenal. You do have to stop the oppostion playing away from home though. You have to work hard and close them down. Even Man Utd do that. Then you can impose your game on their's. If you're too open and let them play even good footballing sides will struggle away from home. Arsenal have struggled in this regard in the last two previous seasons. What I don't 'necessarily subsrcibe to' is solidity being the priority for us, especially against teams like Reading. By this I mean we were set up wrong - playing with no wingers and all grafters in midfield. It would be ok if we looked like never conceding and snatching a goal, but that hasn't really been the case in our away games - quite the opposite. Therefore, I think we'd have been better off having a go as that seems to suit our current personnel best. Perhaps it's the long-term plan to be very solid away from home and, if we achieve that and play some football at home, I don't really think anyone can complain. I hope that makes more sense. Wouldn't argue with any of that.