Nice people thread part 8 - worth the wait

lostinrates

Unlike the lovely baby pics from nag and Lydia, dh's new niece is not a looker. In fact, quite astoundingly not. I am confident she will grow into her face, they often do......but reviewing pics the sent of her in clothes I sent I think cute and quirky' suits her better than 'pretty pretty' clothes. I feel somehow guilty over this.

Spirit_2

lostinrates wrote: »

Unlike the lovely baby pics from nag and Lydia, dh's new niece is not a looker. In fact, quite astoundingly not. I am confident she will grow into her face, they often do......but reviewing pics the sent of her in clothes I sent I think cute and quirky' suits her better than 'pretty pretty' clothes. I feel somehow guilty over this.

The cuddly baby we are to be "odd parents" to, was described yesterday by her dad as looking like "Phil Mitchell".

I have googled Phil Mitchell. Yes. Definitely.

michaels

lostinrates wrote: »

Unlike the lovely baby pics from nag and Lydia, dh's new niece is not a looker. In fact, quite astoundingly not. I am confident she will grow into her face, they often do......but reviewing pics the sent of her in clothes I sent I think cute and quirky' suits her better than 'pretty pretty' clothes. I feel somehow guilty over this.

Unless medical science has advanced a long way since I last looked I don't think you can hold yourself responsible for the appearance of your in-laws' child....(although I guess perhaps you did determine what your in-laws' child might look like when you married your DH:rotfl:)

lostinrates

michaels wrote: »

Unless medical science has advanced a long way since I was looked I don't think you can hold yourself responsible for the appearance of your in-laws child....(although I guess perhaps you did determine what your in-laws child might look like when you married your DH:rotfl:)

:rotfl:

Guilty for thinking I should send cute and quirky clothes rather than pretty pretty ones. The pretty dress emphasises her 'plainness' while the quirky things looked better.

lemonjelly

LydiaJ wrote: »

The vast majority of them are decent people who don't cheat on their spouses. (And he himself was first unwise and then weak, rather than deliberately bad, IYSWIM.) Those who do stray in that way generally get sacked and lose their vicar licences, as he did, but that's rare enough that it usually makes the papers when it happens, as it did with him.

Friend of mines mom ran off with a strayer. Apparently it wasn't the first time (he'd been run out of town under nightfall by angry husbands/parisioners) & was given a "last chance".
History repeated, & it was front page of NOTW!

Fast forward several years & my first proper post-graduation job. I told my mate I'd got the job & he announced it was the same place this now ex-vicar worked!:eek:

michaels

Sold our broken old car - got a good price considering it is broken (although buyer only lives 5 miles away:eek:) but there will be tears on Friday when it goes - we got it 9 years ago ready for the arrival of DD1

neverdespairgirl

Generali wrote: »

I like to blame it on the change from measuring in lbs to kg but that is just a very poor excuse. When I used to hit 11st in the UK I'd cut back on the cheese and beer a bit and it'd fall back to 10st 7lb, my ideal weight. As I'm measuring in kgs, I never hit 11st as I hit 70kg instead and didn't realise it was the same thing.

You must be fairly small for 11st to be your highest ideal weight?

I do think that weight varies by more than just size - my dearly beloved is 6 ft 1, and has a slim build - he has a 40 inch chest, and takes 32 inch trousers, and is quite lean overall. But he is 12.5 stone, and says he has heavy bones. He also does quite a lot of cycling, as you do, so he's got quite muscle-y thighs and lower legs. (Query - calves? or calfs?)

neverdespairgirl

Generali wrote: »

The good thing with Weight Watchers forms is that it isn't prescriptive beyond

- don't eat too much
- have breakfast every day

Wouldn't do for me. Breakfast comes far too early in the day for me to enjoy it, so I don't bother, have a nice cup of tea or two instead.

Best diet I ever went on was pregnancy / breast-feeding. I was sick the whole way through being pregnant with Isaac, and then ate like a total pig when I was feeding him, and still lost some weight. I've never been so hungry, ever.

neverdespairgirl

LydiaJ wrote: »

The vast majority of them are decent people who don't cheat on their spouses. (And he himself was first unwise and then weak, rather than deliberately bad, IYSWIM.) Those who do stray in that way generally get sacked and lose their vicar licences, as he did, but that's rare enough that it usually makes the papers when it happens, as it did with him.

I think vicars are defrocked, aren't they?

Barristers are disbarred.

Solicitors are struck off the rolls.

LydiaJ

I think defrocking is more extreme that having licence revoked, which doesn't actually un-ordain them, but just means they can't work in that capacity until further notice. They can be relicensed at some unspecified point several years further down the line if their bishop feels they have repented, dealt with their issues, learnt from their mistakes etc etc, without needing to get ordained again. I'm sure they could be defrocked for some offences, but in this century, adultery with a consenting adult is felt to be adequately dealt with by revoking the licence.