neilinleeds's Profile

21 Feb 2012

Quote by foxylady2209
Yorkshire has go far more in common with Scotland than it does with dahn Sarf. So shall we agree to 'Northern' drop scones?

I may allow that, yes, so long as everyone understands they were Scottish first? I have to say that, me Mam'll kill me otherwise. :P

Now then, have you had Staffordshire oatcakes? Delicious and hearty made similar to pancakse but leavened with yeast and empowered with oatmeal - fabulous rolled and heated with bacon and cheese inside. :thumbup:

I think I could possibly eat such a thing? Bacon and cheese you say? That might work, with more bacon and less cheese with lots and lots of maple syrup. Nyoms. That's my one concession to the Yanks. :licksface:

View Post

21 Feb 2012

What is your perfect pancake - traditional thin, Yorkshire drop scone, French crepe, American breakfast pancake?

I've not yet come across a recipe that in any way replicates the crepes you can buy all over the place from vendor stalls on the streets of Paris, much to my disappointment. American pancakes, pah! Nowt American about 'em. I have no idea what a Yorkshire drop scone is? You sure about that?
*wanders off to make Scottish drop scones with butter, lemon and golden syrup on 'em.*

View Post

21 Feb 2012

Quote by peterdw
The sit was i placed an advert and a couple answered. I replied nicely but then ....................................................................... nothing!
They could have just said 'No thanks, we changed our minds' but not bothering to is in my opinion the height of bad manners.

There might be an issue for some getting into a conversation in PM they've decided they don't want to continue because as soon as two messages have been sent and replied to that enables you to SHREP ( Site Rep ) them, like this:

Quote by "]This part of the system allows all users who correspond on the site to give a positive,neutral or negative comment on each other’s Site Rep providing they both have chosen to use the system. As an example: after a two way conversation where you have received and replied to a private message, you will notice a hyperlink at the bottom asking you to use the system.

They might well have decided they didn't want you to have the ability to comment on them any which way using SHREP hence no second message.

View Post

20 Feb 2012

Quote by Bluefish2009
But will that happen, and who will pay?

Whaddya mean, who will pay? Are not these people so up in arms about their right to course the same who frequently claim that they're the true custodians of the countryside and acting in the best interests of the hare? I'm starting to think you or they might be telling me fibs if all of a sudden the question of money's come into it?
Alternatively, suppose charities could step in and manage some of the the land and the diverse animal populations on it if the pro-coursing lobby prove themselves to have tried to play everyone false with their true intentions as regards hare welfare? An Taisce ( Irish National Trust ) own around 10 000 acres for instance, and having posted the Irish Wildlife Trust's prominently on their seem to be in favour of the ban? How many acres do the ICC own just out of interest. Struggling to find that but it must be relevant to the discussion?

View Post

18 Feb 2012

Quote by MikeNorth
And that goes for me too.

Ha! I see what you did there.
True though innit? If you're gonna get all grammatically correct English on someone might as well go all out 17th century biblical. Can't argue with that, can they?

View Post

18 Feb 2012

Trevaunance, I just typed up a long post arguing with you, posted it, then deleted it, cos all of a sudden I realised I'd set myself up for a sucker punch. I think I've got it now though . . . .
This free vote is gonna be a yay / nay, repeal / don't repeal type thing isn't it? And when the vote comes back in favour of retaining, cos that's what will happen, and the Govt knows it, that will be the end of the matter. No further debate necessary. ( Except of course the endless, tedious special pleading from some quarters we've all grown so accustomed to. ) There'll only be a possibility of further debate if they lose, which they won't. So . . . the law's not gonna be changed at all?
I've been spectacularly dense. It will be Status Quo rules, as per usual, won't it? Nothing will change. It's not anything you particularly said, but in putting my thoughts down in argument I couldn't help but notice a little niggle that kept badgering ( no pun intended ) away until there was a dawning realisation and a light-bulb moment, at which point suddenly everything became clear. Wow. That truly is a waste of parliamentary time in an attempt to kid us we've got democracy in action. Can't believe I almost fell for it?

View Post

18 Feb 2012

^ And this is why the law needs looking at. Not cos the intent is wrong, but because it's badly framed and all too easy to wriggle round avoiding successful prosecution.
I welcome a debate in Parliament. I think it will result not in the repeal Blue and others might like to see so as to unleash their worst tendencies, but a better law that makes them properly answerable when they do. A better law can only be a good thing. Tighten it up so there's no point bitching about it anymore and put this issue properly to bed once and for all.
I'll be amazed if a free vote results in repeal, and think the Countryside Alliance / pro-hunting types are gonna be very disappointed with the result. Bring it on. smile

View Post

18 Feb 2012

I don't really do text messages. It's too much like hard work. As per the other ongoing thread I have to type everything out in fully punctuated sentences. Gets to be a right pain in the testicles when you realise you need hyphens and colons and shit? They hide simple punctuation in the daftest, too many clicks away places on even the simplest phones. rolleyes

Me sis does pure txt spk. I hate it. She can be quite stylish I suppose with it, typing all in Can hardly be arsed even trying to work out WTF she's on about at times unless it's important, at which point I'll usually just give up and actually call her, but mostly I find myself thinking 'FFS love, you're 41, grow up. Hate to be the one to break it to ya but you're not down wiv da yoofs no more, you're really not'. It's even worse when me mam does it. She's 60 odd FGS. She should barely even know how to text let alone spell your as UR? It's wrong I tell you, it's just so wrong. confused

View Post

17 Feb 2012

Quote by Freckledbird
Profiles that resemble War and Peace.

:rotflmao: :rotflmao:
Ouch! Properly cutting. ;)
N x
p.s. Mids? If you're asking what really turns me off, FFS will you stop bolding everything and pick a chuffing colour? Little tip: default font in black's a good one. Your posts are an affront to the eyes before we even get to the words.

View Post

17 Feb 2012

Quote by Lizaleanrob
and us

And me.

Quote by Mids
the length of time on site with no SHREP for real meets.
huge list of friends but no SHREP for meeting

There is a school of thought that would probably tell you that people who've been on the site a long time but don't use SHREP to share their conquests to all and sundry are exactly the kind of people youshould be talking to? If you value discretion that is.
I don't use SHREP and I never will. It's nonsense Mids. Long term members who've run the gauntlet as far as being accepted on here know it's bullshit. I have some concerns actually all of a sudden as to whether you're clued up enough to understand that? Reason being I go on what you have to say for yourself, not what someone I don't know from Adam has to say about you.

View Post

17 Feb 2012

Quote by SinSi
Obviously you only need apply complete utter shite and spurious bollox 70% of the time!!

60 480 seconds a day, not allowing for leap years or other adjustments? Are you mad? I've got a living to earn mate. I can give . . . hmmmmmm . . . oh FFS I can't even be arsed averaging out me post count. Tell yer what, call it half an hour?

View Post

17 Feb 2012

It's a minefield out there, isn't it? I do love reading old books - like Darwin's records of the voyage of the Beagle. His phrasing as just that bit different from what we would put now - but perfectly understandable

All I have to say is if starting sentences with a conjunction was good enough for the , it's good enough for me! :P

View Post

17 Feb 2012

Quote by foxylady2209
The classic example usually quoted is " A prepostion is a bad word to end a sentence with." All it proves is that this 'wrong' structure makes a perfectly sensible sentence.

Exactly. And one that reads much better and is more natural sounding than the more 'correct' "A preposition is a bad word with which to end a sentence."
Just realised reading that back I started a sentence with a conjunction there. My bad! lol

View Post

17 Feb 2012

Quote by Freckledbird
Though I WOULD like to know what a split infinitive is, and why it is so EVIL. (Feel free to PM about it - though I won't reply ;) )

'To boldly go' is an example of a split infinitive. You put an adverb between 'to' and the verb. Who says it's evil?
The supposed rule about not splitting infinitives is an old one that goes back to a slightly odd belief that formal English should try and match the grammar of the Latin spoken by scholars, the present tense infinitive being a single word in Latin impossible to split. Quite why infinitives should be so favoured given that most verbs ((( With the exception of some of the trickier tenses. ))) are single words in Latin is beyond me? Noone ever seems to have had a problem with 'He quickly went' but seems to me you could use the exact same logic as that applied to the splitting of the infinitive.
In any event there's no rational basis for the rule in English, and trying to avoid one can lead to some clumsy phrasing, or phrasing that lacks proper clarity. 'You really have to watch him' doesn’t have quite the same meaning as 'You have to really watch him'. The emphasis is slightly different. 'To boldly go' is a perfect example where the supposedly more proper 'To go boldly' doesn't work nearly so well.

View Post

17 Feb 2012

Quote by SinSi
I seem to remember from my latin days that it's a book written by Cicero named after his friend, the politician Quintus Hortensius Hortalus :jagsatwork:

Oh, well yeah. If they'd said it was that Hortensius I'd have known who we were on about immediately. Roman chap? Big nose? Roman all over his face? That the fella?

Quote by Fraser
Typical, she just lies there while cicero works his hortensius off trying to please her

Stop talking about Funlovers like that. It's rude when they're not here to answer for themselves?

Quote by Fraser
Probably left him for one of those smooth talking Judean People's Front chaps at the first opportunity too! :lol2:

Judean People's Front? Fuck off. T'was the People's Front of Judea. Judean People's Front, caw. :roll:

View Post

17 Feb 2012

Quote by Bluefish2009
I think you may well be confusing the the hunt followers, with the hunts men, the huntsman is there to do a job, where as the followers are there for a day out on horseback. They finance the hunt.
The followers may well be pleased with them selves and there mounts if they are there at the kill but this would be extremely rear indeed for a follower to keep up with the hounds.
I do not believe there is any cheering, in the way you perceive it, the huntsman may blow his horn and hounds may be encouraged to do there job swiftly. But no cheering. Just as a terrier man my encourage his terriers when ratting.

Nothing I have written is dishonest, neither do I need to swear to make my point.

Ok Blue, let's assume I am confusing the huntsman with the followers. I'll try and avoid swearing this time if you're that sensitive about it? rolleyes

These sick and old foxes the huntsman is after? How many dogs exactly would it take to flush and / or track one? Surely a skilled huntsman could do it with one if the dog is well trained, fit and healthy and the fox in question is that sick and old, the huntsman applying all these skills and local knowledge you're so in awe of? Let's put it this way, I've known absolute idiots manage it with a single lurcher when they're out lamping, how hard can it be? I believe he's allowed two. I believe the hunstman can also use a horse or a motorised vehicle or means of keeping up with his dog(s) if needed. The legislation doesn't forbid it. It's all about the number of dogs and the uses to which they are put, as set out in
So . . . what is the point of the rest of the pack, and all these followers then? They're not helping the skilled huntsman surely? They're there for fun. In point of fact you know damn well one of the main reasons for banning hunting with packs of hounds was because they're indiscriminate, and quite often kill animals other than these intended sick and old foxes. Collateral damage if you will.

View Post

16 Feb 2012

Quote by essex34m
Are all swingers ignorant bastards?

I am. And I get more than you.
Ouch. Harsh Essex. Funny, but harsh! lol

Peterdw, has it occurred to you that having initiated a contact, and entered into conversation with you something you may have said may have led them to think 'Actually, shouldn't have done this.' Instead of coming on here commenting on the failings of others, may I suggest you first think what might have led to their desire for no more contact?
It might of course be that you just picked a wrong 'un and they bottled out at the death? Either way, no point bitching about it. Move on, try someone else, or something else.

View Post

16 Feb 2012

Quote by Cicero
A former lover and I had a dildo we called St Augustine ...does that count?

I had to look that up. You got it the wrong way round though surely? It was St Augustine who was deeply moved by the Hortensius of Cicero, not St Augustine doing the moving? lol

Fuck knows what a Hortensius is though?
:P

View Post

16 Feb 2012

Quote by Dave__Notts
:rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao:
It is posts like this that keeps me logging on
Dave_Notts

Fuck me Dave, you're easily pleased? If it means you post more I shall of course try even harder with the complete utter shite and spurious bollox. ;)

View Post

16 Feb 2012

Quote by SinSi
%

I think you will find it more like 70%
Depends on your interpretation of 70%
Not sure you three even know how statistics work? Need to see your raw data set please, and any transformations you've applied to it. rolleyes

View Post

16 Feb 2012

Quote by Blue
I am not trying to justify hunting, I firmly believe I hold the higher moral ground. The foxes are not killed for fun

Bullshit. We've all seen the hunts as they gather sharing the stirrup cup before the off, we've all seen kids being blooded into the lifetsyle, we've all seen and heard those in at the death cheering on their dogs and patting their horses chuffed to fuck they were there. Any attempt to pretend otherwise is intellectual dishonesty of the most unconvincing kind.

Quote by Rob
we have ran motorways and rail lines through peoples lively hoods,then a bunch of townies who know nothing of the ways of the country then decide we know whats best for it and the lively hoods of everyone involved with the hunts
. . . .
i don't see racing pigeons or greyhound racing banned even though it just for sport/fun and over 20 greyhounds are put down every week in the UK and I'm not seeing the grand national being banned anytime soon, or any other sport involving animals suffering week in week out
i despair at the double standards banded about

Rob, is the intention that an animal is dead at the end of pigeon / greyhound / horse at the Grand National racing? No. Obviously. Was it anyone's intention when motorway lines and railways got put in that an animal, or even the human beings that did it should end up dead? No. Obviously. The fact that some did / do end up dead is an issue, but a very different one. Don't make comparisons where none can be made. At least compare apples with apples. Might stop you giving in so easily to despair?

View Post

16 Feb 2012

Quote by Big_Fraser
The only guy I know who went to public school excuses himself to go to the toilet with the phrase:
"one's orf to point pink percy at the porcelain"
Safe to assume you were not classmates Neil?? :lol2:

Probably not. Even the kids I went to public school with had flat vowels. Oddly enough most of 'em came from the posh bits of the pit villages around Wakefield so none of this orf business? They'd never have survived? confused

Besides, anyone who dared talk like that would have been beaten to death on the rugger pitch, or pelted in the showers afterwards at the least! :P

View Post

16 Feb 2012

Not really on topic seeing as you were specifically asking the question of the ladies but I trim the curlytops, shave anything outside that immediate region. Sack and crack as I believe it's referred to in vulgar parlance. lol

Have to really, cos despite their general prettiness and wow factor ringlets growing all the way up me knob ain't all that conducive to oral sex. rolleyes

G generally goes smooth or near as dammit with a neatly trimmed. This is when we can both be arsed that is. You can usually tell when we're both feelin' up for some special loving cos the bath's got stubble to the tide line and the water won't go down the plughole for all the curlies. We don't really do high maintenance. I know, we're sooooo hot! ;)
Girlies can get away with a totally smooth look, but I'm not sure it works so well for men. A discarded set of turkey giblets in a far flung corner of the Bernard Matthews factory ain't a good look. That could just be me though? :uhoh: Shame, cos me cock looks well bigger when it's all shaved off! :lol: Whatever, I find the look less attractive on men, though would take it anyday in preference to something a little more au naturel.

View Post

16 Feb 2012

Quote by pebble
Re. no.2 - a great chuckle! Until I realised what had happened there - then your correspondent's exotic prerequisite became a mere typo, that spoilt it for me, boo.

Beautiful Freudian slip there. There he was clearly trying to be all polite and non-pushy but his devious tricksy brain was obviously somewhere else altogether and just couldn't help but reveal what was really on the bloke in questions mind. Love it!

View Post

16 Feb 2012

Quote by Pink_n_Blue
I had an ex who referred to it as Percy - embarrassed to say I giggled myself stupid and for some reason we didnt last much longer after that

:sad: :sad: :sad:
Hahaha I don't really call it Percy. I was just kidding. Noone would call it that IRL would they? Be stupid! rolleyes

Good save that wannit? No? Oh well. sad

View Post

15 Feb 2012

Quote by noladreams
D'you know, I was having a similar convo with a friend who was taught English in India only last night. I think we decided a return to discrete grammar teaching would probably be beneficial. Dull, but beneficial.

I had to Google 'discrete grammar' so I knew which way I was jumping? I think we should go back to it. I wouldn't have been in any doubt about the half-understood Oxford comma thing earlier if I'd been better taught it I suspect? I now understand a serial comma requires three terms to be that posh! lol

I think there was a huge difference in the way I was taught English as opposed to the way Latin and French were taught. In those last two subjects correctness was key. Grammar was rigidly defined; free and fluid translation was what you did once you had a firm grasp of the logical underpinning of the language. 'A' Level stuff. English was different, perhaps because there was no translation involved being native speakers. We'd already learned a lot of the rules subconsciously so maybe the expectation to some extent was that it didn't require teaching as a formal language to quite the same degree, even at grammar school. Expression was everything. Our Latin teachers were forever correcting our ill-understood grasp of English. When to use 'Fred Bloggs and I' rather than 'Fred Bloggs and me' for instance. Depends on whether the 'Fred Bloggs and somebody' are subjects or objects of a verb, don't it? Had to go to a dead language to learn that. I'm sure it was covered but didn't get it in an English class cos you understand who's doing what to who(m?) without the need for formal rules to help you work it out?
Purely as an aside, everyone I hope is familar with Mark Grist, english teacher extraordinaire? Probably not to everyone's taste but this is how to play with langauage:

Poor kid got rinsed:

View Post

15 Feb 2012

Never met a penis with a name? Have you even asked?
It can only have one name:
Obviously. What else would you call it? ((( There are other names, but they're faaaaar to intimate to share! ))) confused

View Post

15 Feb 2012

all fox's should be killed. they outlawed hunting, then everyone was up in arms about people getting bitten by them in town and the mennace they cause. as a farmer, it makes my blood boil. if you saw the amount of chickens we have lost just so 1 fox can eat 1 chicken. and, yes we are totally free range, not just by gov guidelines which are cruel. let the country folk take care of foxes as they wish. i only have 5000 chix but boy, they will take 20 to eat 1

You did of course know that putting shit loads of fox food in a convenient place was likely to attract predators with a killing pattern of that sort before you decided to try and make a living off fox food in a convenient place, didn't you?
Sorry, no sympathy. You make your living how you like, but don't expect me to approve of your extermination of predators at the top of a food chain that inconveniences that. Cost it in. If you can't cost it in, find another living. Farmers like you tried to eradicate Red Kites. I know what I'd rather see. I'll happily pay for the privelege, before you try and ask how I expect to be fed.

View Post

15 Feb 2012

how many people actuaully take the time to revue the facts before posting

All or none. Can't be arsed looking up the exact figures? Noone likes a smart arse. :P
;)

View Post

15 Feb 2012

Quote by noladreams
I favour your second version Neil... but purely on a gut reaction preference. I know nothing.

Damn you and your subjectivity Nola. This is probably why noone can speak the lingo no more! What are people teaching 'teh kids' these days? :P
p.s. I favour the first one atcherly: the one in the middle. That's exactly how I'd type it cos I read things in my head as though someone was speaking it. Pauses are important. Is it grammatically correct? Course it is. Any poet worth their salt will till you the way they lay signs out on a page is abitrary! Are kids poets? Debatable, but they sure 'nuff know how to play with language. smile

View Post

Forum