Nice people thread part 7 - a thread in its prime

Doozergirl

vivatifosi wrote: »

It's my favourite of the home programmes even though it does warrant one of these :eek: on a regular basis.

I'm not sure that the male presenter was wearing sufficiently supportive underwear on today's program. Please don't ask me why I was looking.

Maybe he's practicing for babies too .

vivatifosi

Doozergirl wrote: »

I've just been told off for the fact that he swept the kitchen floor last week and it needed doing again. Also that I'm a bad mother because he also cleaned the kitchen worktop on Saturday and I've wrecked it purposely by cooking dinner for the family and then asked him to clean it again. Welcome to adulthood, kid.

How old is he Doozer? Sounds like he needs to do some more cleaning for you. Then he can get really good at it as if he doesn't try harder it could be his full time job.

JonnyBravo

Doozergirl wrote: »

Oooh, You've just reminded me that I havne't seen last week's GD. I'm told it was it was the GD of all GDs. That might make me feel better!

It's fabulous. Grand and very expensive. Certainly "up there" and in more ways than one.
But better than Hellifield Peel (and a few others)?
Not IMO.

Doozergirl

vivatifosi wrote: »

How old is he Doozer? Sounds like he needs to do some more cleaning for you. Then he can get really good at it as if he doesn't try harder it could be his full time job.

Twelve. I've reached the last page of the child instruction manual and need to upgrade to the teenage one.

lostinrates

Doozergirl wrote: »

I thought he was revising just then. However, I did tell him after the worktop complaint that he was free to cook dinner for us all. The text book is in fact a recipe book and he is making the shopping list for the Chicken Ramen, Gyoza and milkshake that he is making for tea!?

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::T

Sounds like a great kid. I bet making Gozo makes a mess....do NoT buy wrappers for pot stickers, make him roll hois own. :rotfl::rotfl:


Gozo? Gyoza . Spellcheck ...I keep meaning to turn it off but have not got round to it. Besides, it's quite funny.

Speaking of my spellchecker I wonder how lemonjelly is?

lostinrates

JonnyBravo wrote: »

It's fabulous. Grand and very expensive. Certainly "up there" and in more ways than one.
But better than Hellifield Peel (and a few others)?
Not IMO.

I certainly agree, it was far from the best IMO, but still worth watching. A very interesting one. And not at all unattractive.

Doozergirl

lostinrates wrote: »

I certainly agree, it was far from the best IMO, but still worth watching. A very interesting one. And not at all unattractive.

OMG, I know it! Lynzpower lived about 100 yards away

kabayiri

Generali wrote: »

Newton told us that

E = mv^2

So at any given speed, energy used is proportional to mass (weight).
...

Picky mode :-

I think this is more Einstein than Newton
Newton was a constant thrust kinda guy.

LydiaJ

SingleSue wrote: »

I have a problem with getting married again, as a divorced person, it makes it harder to get married in church and because of my views, I just couldn't get married in a registry office as it is not in the eyes of god (that is not to say others can't)

One thing I hope is that I would be able to find a sympathetic vicar who would realise that I kept to my marriage vows and was the one adultered against. Failing that, it would have to be a ceremony somewhere special to us with possibly a blessing done in church...but I would still prefer to be married in church, it is very important to me and my faith.

My info on this is a bit out of date, but I'm fairly sure there's a lot of variation in how C of E vicars respond to this one, but Methodist ministers are either all or mostly all OK with it. So if it comes to the point and your local C of E church won't oblige (although they very likely would) then you could try the nearest Methodist church and see what they say. Or a URC church or something. I get the impression they're fairly flexible too. Not that you need to remember that for years in case you need the info. In 4 years' time you can post the question on here and I'll repost the answer.

SingleSue wrote: »

Mind you, I would have to get over my eekness about having to share my house/life etc with someone else first. I like the control I now have although it is nice to be treated every once in a while (this has caused other problems because I insist on being on an equal basis on costs whereas loverrrr is used to paying for everything in a relationship).

You are sounding more and more like me!! (Well, like I would be if I found a bloke, IYSWIM)

SingleSue wrote: »

I also can't get the hang of this new relationship stuff of texting all the time, I find it so intrusive and others find it weird me and loveerrr are not constantly texting each other...but then he is old school too. He did try initially to conform to social norms when it came to texting and so did I but we failed miserably as we had both been singletons for so long and pretty stuck in our independent ways.

:rotfl: It's not a failure if both of you are happy with it.

Generali wrote: »

Newton told us that

E = mv^2

So at any given speed, energy used is proportional to mass (weight).

Ok, it's a bit more complex than that because you have friction within the bike, wind resistance, rolling resistance and so on but the principle is good.

Indeed. Well done ... except you missed out the half. Kinetic energy is 0.5 * mv^2. Not that that makes any difference to your reasoning.

kabayiri wrote: »

Picky mode :-

I think this is more Einstein than Newton
Newton was a constant thrust kinda guy.

Einstein is E = mc^2. That's about mass-energy equivalence, and c is the speed of light, not the speed of the object.

I don't know whether Newton actually identified E = 0.5 * mv^2 as the kinetic energy of a moving object, but that formula certainly belongs in what's called "Newtonian mechanics".

[/geek mode]

vivatifosi

LydiaJ wrote: »

Einstein is E = mc^2. That's about mass-energy equivalence, and c is the speed of light, not the speed of the object.

I don't know whether Newton actually identified E = 0.5 * mv^2 as the kinetic energy of a moving object, but that formula certainly belongs in what's called "Newtonian mechanics".

[/geek mode]

I just think apples are pretty.