Enigmatic Legends Intelligently Teach Excellently

mhoc

emerald21 wrote: »

She was in a car crash Ssm on her way home from town. A flaming single decker bus that was speeding in the opposite direction braked and skidded across the road and smashed head on into her car. She had no chance.:T

This is very sad

wackynut

Sunflower1227 wrote: »

Can I ask if the Herbal Essences Hello Hydration poo & con works?

Thanks

The dearer one, yes but only gives a small return AvS so not really worth getting.

tweets

Serendipitious wrote: »

A bit ahead of you both age-wise and fuming about the State Pension Age.

In 1995 they told me it would be 62 and a bit - so would've been later this year, then in 2012 they told me 66 so another 55 months to go as of now.

When you've been a single economic unit for a long time, it isn't easy to save on one income and things like the recession really hit hard as well so no chance of doing anything much from 2012 onwards to help offset the extra waiting time.

Plus you get tired more quickly at 60-plus, so days off are recovery time not quality time.

I reckon at even £100/week that this has cost women my age over 20k each. Yet we help out with g/kids so our adult children can work effectively, thus the adult children are saving the country millions in benefits and also contributing extra in taxes.

Rant over.

I think if they keep raising pension age how do they expect school leavers to get jobs . There isn't any or very few.

We laugh in our kitchen and say if we don't get transferred to another we will be able to invent a new programme 'Pimp my zimmerframe' in a few years :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Just read some good news on facebook Frankie one of the French bulldog pups stolen along with her brothers and sisters from an house in Oldham as been found by police. :T They still looking for the other 4 pups.

mhoc

emerald21 wrote: »

Funnily enough I passed it yesterday and thought of you lol. I parked my car near the bridge there and walk into Chester . I don't think I'd go in there on my own though plus I don't drink unless they offer soft drinks but I ll have a look Thanks

I think it does say somewhere on the email you can have a soft drink ... This is a good opportunity to practice naughtiness, going into pubs on your own in the middle if the morning
Mind you p & p is mire line your own living room than a pub

We always go into Chester now on the train as its only 20 mins and walk into town from the station via the canal - 40 mins in the car also going on the train gives us a good excuse to go to p & p!

no1_salad_dodger

Savvybuyer wrote: »

Don't tell me that - I do not want them to come down to £2.50 individual! Are you looking at the right ones though? Most of the 400ml HE are £2.50; some are £3.79 but there are the two Naked ones at £3.99. Don't be distracted by seeing a lot of £2.50s and thinking they are all that; your quick nose was therefore too quick!:rotfl: If you look at it now, can you see the £3.99 ones?

I found the £3.99 ones might try it out tomorrow after my 13hr shift :T

hornetgirl

Just catching up on footie news. See we managed to dodge you in the semi final tweets. How funny would it be be if we met in the final. Never dreamed a year ago that I would ever be saying that lol.

Serendipitious

mhoc wrote: »

And women in this age group are also looking after elderly relatives as well as financially supporting young adults through uni - the crux pin that ensure the generations above and bellow can function

Exactly - both my parents suffered chronic ill health and needed daily visits and full support from me for around 10 years - so we women all work jolly hard both inside and outside of paid work - and that's why I get cross when they say this pension thing is in the interests of achieving 'equality.' On paper, yes, it might look like it. But comparing lifestyles shows there is no such thing.

Savvybuyer

Serendipitious wrote: »

Thanks, Tweets.

There's actually 3% more cotton in these than in M&S cotton-rich men's socks. x

:rotfl: Wouldn't surprise me. What was it that I had before? The Low Fat Coleslaw having more fat in it than the Savers version (which is not marked as Low Fat)? That was because the "Low Fat" was being measured against the higher fat content of the regular standard-range (Full Fat) version of which it was part, but the Savers product has lower fat than either of them. Or the Weight Watchers ones that turn out to have more fat in them than some own label versions?

I think it's based on what people generally would assume, and people generally assume things that are almost always incorrect. I assume:rotfl:. People would tend to assume that a "Savers" or "value" range had more fat or was less healthy. In fact, they can be the better value products of all - and the ones we see on BBC consumer programmes where they take the different branded ice creams, or the chicken nuggets, and find them packed with sugar and fat and find the ones with the least sugar/fat content are the value versions. The branded cooking sauces are often much higher in sugar/fat than the value ranges - the value ranges are probably the most healthy ones of them that there are! Would not surprise me if they were. It would not surprise me if people were generally paying far more for stuff that is less healthy or is inferior. But ignoring the fact that branded products on glitch can be far cheaper than the value versions:rotfl:.

I think it's a case of everything being the opposite of what it says in the supermarket. If they say something is, then it is not. If they point something out to you, then do otherwise and buy anything except. If they don't mention something or advertise it, then it's probably the best thing that is there! Anything that claims to have its price reduced is a price increase, all "low fat" is packed with fat (I am exaggerating), if they say you've "saved", you've paid too much, if something is a "new and improved" formula, it is worse than the old one and anything that is omitted to be mentioned is probably present.

Following on from this, under the retailers' approach, "cotton-rich" means it is poor in cotton and has less cotton than some other products (or, certainly, poor in cotton compared to those, in truth, richer versions that don't mention anything about being rich in cotton. If they don't mention they are rich in cotton, they probably are and, if they do, they probably are not).

Sunflower1227

Savvybuyer wrote: »

Should do, but :(not very well as it's £2.50 individual price on a.com:(. We want the Naked Daily Clean versions as they are the only ones showing £3.99 on .com.

The one for Dry Hair is £3.79 on A.Com so just wondered

vanilla_twist

Snap-ant wrote: »

Day 7 of sucky pipe = 1 whole week :eek:

:T:T:T

Congratulations. Major big deal and I hope you continue:T:T

V x