Who gets on your wick....

First topic message reminder :

After seeing Kanye spouting all his rubbish on twitter, his new Homeless Look clothing range....and his video game of his mom trying to get into Heaven, could this man actually be any more of a b3ll3nd!

Tell me people.....who gets right on your t!ts!

SecretFly wrote:...He's been hogtied by people that fundamentally differ in their ideological views on how the world should progress from here - both in domestic policy and mostly in International policy....

Ergo, it's hardly entirely all his fault is it?

SecretFly wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:No pedantry at all, you're directly comparing to incomparable situations in order to support your flimsy argument.

If I am then it's because I'm responding to a similar argument.

Now if we all want to bring this debating fun back down the pedantic channels - and you all seem to be in a grim mood today - then lets.  I'm game for any game.

Go back to that initial post about Meryl's awards and Trump being 6 times bankrupted.  Find me the formal comparison in the incomparable situations?  What the hell does Meryl's awards have to do with Chapter 11?

America is haemorrhaging money and Trump might - just Might - have a few plans to get it back a little up the ladder.  Obama didn't.  What was one of the first things Trump commented on?  Over $4billion for an Air Force 1 replacement?  Didn't Obama have the power to say 'No'?  Did he say 'No'?

But anyway, no matter what Trump does, he's safe.  He can run back to Obama's excuse in four years or eight years time and claim he didn't create the debt and it was much too large for him to make much of an impression on it.  And all you people will be sympathetic and reassure him that you don't blame him, he couldn't'a done nothing.

(and, no, there's nothing wrong with my head)

navyblueshorts wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:No pedantry at all, you're directly comparing to incomparable situations in order to support your flimsy argument.

If I am then it's because I'm responding to a similar argument.

Now if we all want to bring this debating fun back down the pedantic channels - and you all seem to be in a grim mood today - then lets.  I'm game for any game.

Go back to that initial post about Meryl's awards and Trump being 6 times bankrupted.  Find me the formal comparison in the incomparable situations?  What the hell does Meryl's awards have to do with Chapter 11?

America is haemorrhaging money and Trump might - just Might - have a few plans to get it back a little up the ladder.  Obama didn't.  What was one of the first things Trump commented on?  Over $4billion for an Air Force 1 replacement?  Didn't Obama have the power to say 'No'?  Did he say 'No'?

But anyway, no matter what Trump does, he's safe.  He can run back to Obama's excuse in four years or eight years time and claim he didn't create the debt and it was much too large for him to make much of an impression on it.  And all you people will be sympathetic and reassure him that you don't blame him, he couldn't'a done nothing.

(and, no, there's nothing wrong with my head)

navyblueshorts wrote:
(and, no, there's nothing wrong with my head)

Oh I know, navy.  It's just that all die-hard anti-Brexitrump people happen to be Star Trek fans.  Now there's a surprise given the ropy 'Let's all make inter-dimensional and species love' philosophies spun on that show.

Meanwhile back in the Real World... or Trump Tower if you're allergic to it... are you absolutely certain you're not going to be blaming Trump for any infernal economic muck-ups he might get himself involved in over the next 20 or so years as American President?  I need to mark your card now, before he gets into office.

navyblueshorts wrote:

SecretFly wrote:...He's been hogtied by people that fundamentally differ in their ideological views on how the world should progress from here - both in domestic policy and mostly in International policy....

Ergo, it's hardly entirely all his fault is it?

It's hardly surprising that his ideological enemies would stall him either, is it? But it seems that's the Picard moment for both Obama and Clinton - 'how can these hick, white trash, mid-western, cajunised, half-human f**k-heads not like me or my policies?'

TopHat24/7 wrote:Timely to point out I stuck a tenner on Trump at 5/1......

If you'd been Trump, that would have been 100,000 you'd have put on that. Balls!

If I'd been Trump I would have have a millionaire daddy leaving me a giant inheritance to play with so probably would have dropped that much. Pocket change.

Ruby Wax gets on my wick.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Ruby Wax gets on my wick.

Hallelujah!

Another well timed change of tack.

Why Ruby? Not saying I disagree but specifically why?

SecretFly wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Ruby Wax gets on my wick.

Hallelujah!

Another well timed change of tack.

Why Ruby?  Not saying I disagree but specifically why?

Because of Rowley's fireplace

ShahenshahG wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Ruby Wax gets on my wick.

Hallelujah!

Another well timed change of tack.

Why Ruby?  Not saying I disagree but specifically why?

Because of Rowley's fireplace

Oh .................. well,.... em, carry on folks.

SecretFly wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Ruby Wax gets on my wick.

Hallelujah!

Another well timed change of tack.

Why Ruby?  Not saying I disagree but specifically why?

Because I have a red candle.

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha

L*L out loud

Cut back on the little blue pills.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Ruby Wax gets on my wick.

Hallelujah!

Another well timed change of tack.

Why Ruby?  Not saying I disagree but specifically why?

Because I have a red candle.

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha

Hahahahahahaha, bravo, bravo, bloody good showing.

SecretFly wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:
(and, no, there's nothing wrong with my head)

Oh I know, navy.  It's just that all die-hard anti-Brexitrump people happen to be Star Trek fans.  Now there's a surprise given the ropy 'Let's all make inter-dimensional and species love' philosophies spun on that show.

Meanwhile back in the Real World... or Trump Tower if you're allergic to it... are you absolutely certain you're not going to be blaming Trump for any infernal economic muck-ups he might get himself involved in over the next 20 or so years as American President?  I need to mark your card now, before he gets into office.

It depends SF. If he has both Houses behind him for 4/8 years and it's bad at the end? You bet your ass I will. If it's good, I'll probably say it was Obama laying the ground so that plank can take all the credit; you know how this works .

SecretFly wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

SecretFly wrote:...He's been hogtied by people that fundamentally differ in their ideological views on how the world should progress from here - both in domestic policy and mostly in International policy....

Ergo, it's hardly entirely all his fault is it?

It's hardly surprising that his ideological enemies would stall him either, is it?  But it seems that's the Picard moment for both Obama and Clinton - 'how can these hick, white trash, mid-western, cajunised, half-human f**k-heads not like me or my policies?'

No, it's not surprising at all. What is surprising though is that, given this (and your acknowledgment of it), you think it's all Obama's fault. Hey ho.

navyblueshorts wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

SecretFly wrote:...He's been hogtied by people that fundamentally differ in their ideological views on how the world should progress from here - both in domestic policy and mostly in International policy....

Ergo, it's hardly entirely all his fault is it?

It's hardly surprising that his ideological enemies would stall him either, is it?  But it seems that's the Picard moment for both Obama and Clinton - 'how can these hick, white trash, mid-western, cajunised, half-human f**k-heads not like me or my policies?'

No, it's not surprising at all. What is surprising though is that, given this (and your acknowledgment of it), you think it's all Obama's fault. Hey ho.

I say his eight years of it, he's responsible for. Whether he likes it or not, the buck stops with the Commander-in-Chief.  
Now let's see what Trump does in his time.  If Trump turns out to be an eejit, so be it - it won't exactly be new news, fake or otherwise .  But if he genuinely turns that big heavy American economy around, then there'll be quite a few red faces from the administration that was in that White House before him.  

But then again, you have to WANT to improve the economy to actually have a chance at doing so - and given the cosy relationship with China (the 'nice' oppressive Communist Super power as distinct from the 'Evil' pseudo dictatorship Ruskie one ) some people are of the opinion that improving the American economy in real terms was never the agenda.

Around?? Deary me.

SecretFly wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

SecretFly wrote:...He's been hogtied by people that fundamentally differ in their ideological views on how the world should progress from here - both in domestic policy and mostly in International policy....

Ergo, it's hardly entirely all his fault is it?

It's hardly surprising that his ideological enemies would stall him either, is it?  But it seems that's the Picard moment for both Obama and Clinton - 'how can these hick, white trash, mid-western, cajunised, half-human f**k-heads not like me or my policies?'

No, it's not surprising at all. What is surprising though is that, given this (and your acknowledgment of it), you think it's all Obama's fault. Hey ho.

I say his eight years of it, he's responsible for.  Whether he likes it or not, the buck stops with the Commander-in-Chief.  
Now let's see what Trump does in his time.  If Trump turns out to be an eejit, so be it - it won't exactly be new news, fake or otherwise .  But if he genuinely turns that big heavy American economy around, then there'll be quite a few red faces from the administration that was in that White House before him.  

But then again, you have to WANT to improve the economy to actually have a chance at doing so - and given the cosy relationship with China (the 'nice' oppressive Communist Super power as distinct from the 'Evil' pseudo dictatorship Ruskie one ) some people are of the opinion that improving the American economy in real terms was never the agenda.

Some people have weapons grade levels of stupidity.

Yep, and some people still think nobody in the big financial world, full of thousands of experts on moving capital and currency fluctuations, and trade and labour and loan imbalances - none of them saw the great collapse coming.

Yeah...they were all fooled by that one; except for the ones preparing for it and making their profit-getting plans on the back of letting it all happen. None of these 'experts' saw it coming years in advance but still they were the ones that were asked to clean it all up again? It's a good comedy - with nobody laughing.

So yeah, there are a lot of gullible people in the world sure enough.  Most of them only ever allowing themselves to read the narrative written by the deceivers.  Read everything - that's the course of wisdom.  Read everything and then choose your camp. Ideological war is upon us.

Lots saw it coming. Vince Cable for starters. Then a bunch of guys who made a packet off it.

TopHat24/7 wrote:Lots saw it coming. Vince Cable for starters. Then a bunch of guys who made a packet off it.

And coxy as well, he'd always known it was coming.

Anyone want to hear my Ruby Wax joke again?

Anything to spare us this tin foil hat banality.

Don't be such a boor, Top - tin foil added to your top would have the fashion world - and magpies - swooning.

People on Facebook posting videos that have a birdseye view of some meal being made.

I know exactly how to make bacon on toast with melted cheese you tw@t.

The increasing rise of flat earth folk (unless I am just noticing it more) but seriously...

rick_dagless wrote:The increasing rise of flat earth folk (unless I am just noticing it more) but seriously...

Amen!

People sharing posts on Facebook by David 'Avocafo' Wolfe - a man who is, at best, a kook, and at worst, a love.

Following on from Rick's comment, this guy that posts all this 'inspirational' memes and 'life quotes' is a bullsh!t peddlar of the highest order who not only thinks the world is flat but also that gravity is a myth, a conspiracy theory by 'the man' propogated to maintain corporate control over worker servitude (or some sh!te like that).

Conversation I had tonight..

Wife...Are the potatoes done ??

Moi...No..

Wife...Are they burning? ?

Moi....If they were burning they'd be done..Wouldn't they ??.

I don't know... Where would men be without Women to guide them ??..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Conversation I had tonight..

Wife...Are the potatoes done ??

Moi...No..

Wife...Are they burning? ?

Moi....If they were burning they'd be done..Wouldn't they ??.

I don't know... Where would men be without Women to guide them ??..

Are you saying your wife gets on your wick Truss? Just to be picky, were they boiled potatoes? If so, you could have too little water to ever cook them, have them boil dry and then start to burn before they were done. Think nothing of it .

navyblueshorts wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Conversation I had tonight..

Wife...Are the potatoes done ??

Moi...No..

Wife...Are they burning? ?

Moi....If they were burning they'd be done..Wouldn't they ??.

I don't know... Where would men be without Women to guide them ??..

Are you saying your wife gets on your wick Truss? Just to be picky, were they boiled potatoes? If so, you could have too little water to ever cook them, have them boil dry and then start to burn before they were done. Think nothing of it .

Seems blueshorts was a Navy chef

Joe 'The Body Coach' Wicks. What an A-hole.

Yep. 'Lean in 15' with a 600-700 calorie meal.....

All part of the pseudo-science clean eating bullsh!t generally propagated by very good looking but generally vacuous people like those sisters, pretty little tarts but cr@p cooks selling themselves as experts in diet & nutrition.

All now trying to distance themselves from the 'clean eating' phrase as it's been roundly criticised....

TopHat24/7 wrote:Yep. 'Lean in 15' with a 600-700 calorie meal.....

All part of the pseudo-science clean eating bullsh!t generally propagated by very good looking but generally vacuous people like those sisters, pretty little tarts but cr@p cooks selling themselves as experts in diet & nutrition..

#Envy

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:Yep. 'Lean in 15' with a 600-700 calorie meal.....

All part of the pseudo-science clean eating bullsh!t generally propagated by very good looking but generally vacuous people like those sisters, pretty little tarts but cr@p cooks selling themselves as experts in diet & nutrition..

#Envy

Envy of what?

For people peddling weight loss advice, I've lost more than all of them combined. Will remember the tag though for pretty much every post you make hating on someone.....

Joe Wicks. Didn't know him so did a Google pic check. He likes his shorts.

TopHat24/7 wrote:Yep. 'Lean in 15' with a 600-700 calorie meal.....

All part of the pseudo-science clean eating bullsh!t generally propagated by very good looking but generally vacuous people like those sisters, pretty little tarts but cr@p cooks selling themselves as experts in diet & nutrition.

All now trying to distance themselves from the 'clean eating' phrase as it's been roundly criticised....

Nailed it.

How did you lose all that weight toppy? The last time you told us your weight it was in the Vanessa Felt atop a whale category then suddenly it was mildly obese. Share your secrets so Rowley can lose his b*tcht*ts too.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:Yep. 'Lean in 15' with a 600-700 calorie meal.....

All part of the pseudo-science clean eating bullsh!t generally propagated by very good looking but generally vacuous people like those sisters, pretty little tarts but cr@p cooks selling themselves as experts in diet & nutrition..

#Envy

Envy of what?

For people peddling weight loss advice, I've lost more than all of them combined.  Will remember the tag though for pretty much every post you make hating on someone.....

100 pounds in two weeks doing park run.......

You're naturally fat.......You'll have a job keeping it off...

ShahenshahG wrote:How did you lose all that weight toppy? The last time you told us your weight it was in the Vanessa Felt atop a whale category then suddenly it was mildly obese. Share your secrets so Rowley can lose his b*tcht*ts too.

Sadly I had typed a whole reply but it failed to post....

Simply put, Tom Kerridge made the point on Sunday Brunch, sustainable diets fall into 3 buckets - low calorie, low fat or low carb. Find the one that's right for you (everyone suits different) and then accompany it with lifestyle change.

For Tom is was low carb. For me it was pure calorie counting.

To answer Truss' point, 25 stone to 16 stone in Year 1, have maintained circa 17 stone for the 2+ years since.

To call yourself a "nutritionist" doesn't require any qualifications, hence anyone can do so, but it lends them an air of authority or expertise. The term which requires qualifications is dietician BTW, so if one of those gives you some advice on what to eat or not you at least know they have some idea of what they're talking about.

Genuinely had never heard of Joe Wicks, but agree with the general sentiment about so-called fitness gurus pushing some sort of miracle diet to make your body look great. Still, could we possibly avoid using words like "tart"? It feels rather unnecessary and distracts from the point.

Eat varied. Not too much. Mainly vegetables. Exercise plenty. Usually works ok.

Everything works.... if you're in a mood to follow a reasonably reasonable diet to keep the weight down.  Everything works...until it doesn't.  That time can come at any period depending on how you're aging and your lifestyle (which includes leisure activity plus working life conditions).  But it doesn't matter how much you're doing when you get to a certain point, the weight does begin to cling in places you wish it didn't.

In the end, if you want to have a good body shape without too much bloody fuss about special diets and counting calories and all that incremental nonsense - just check out hormones.  
Check out how hormones shift with age, how our lifestyles can aid those shifts, how those shifts can heavily influence the capacity of the body to burn fat for energy (thyroid) and the capacity of the body to process waste metabolites (liver, kidneys) that can collect in the fatty layers if those organs aren't functioning properly.

So a lot of the excess weight issue is not fully exercise or fully the amount of food you choose to eat but the very food choices (example: 'healthy' poly fats ironically play havoc with hormone balance in the amounts that are now in our diets.  They are meant to be needed in only small amounts, not poured over salads etc like milk over cereal)... and a misguided fitness/diet industry focus on calories.

Hormones - liver and kidney health.  Machine works better if they are worked on.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:To call yourself a "nutritionist" doesn't require any qualifications, hence anyone can do so, but it lends them an air of authority or expertise. The term which requires qualifications is dietician BTW, so if one of those gives you some advice on what to eat or not you at least know they have some idea of what they're talking about.

Genuinely had never heard of Joe Wicks, but agree with the general sentiment about so-called fitness gurus pushing some sort of miracle diet to make your body look great. Still, could we possibly avoid using words like "tart"? It feels rather unnecessary and distracts from the point.

Eat varied. Not too much. Mainly vegetables. Exercise plenty. Usually works ok.

The tart comment was fitting. It reflected the level they operate at. Paper thin and little more than vacuous aesthetics.

SecretFly wrote:Everything works.... if you're in a mood to follow a reasonably reasonable diet to keep the weight down.  Everything works...until it doesn't.  That time can come at any period depending on how you're aging and your lifestyle (which includes leisure activity plus working life conditions).  But it doesn't matter how much you're doing when you get to a certain point, the weight does begin to cling in places you wish it didn't.

In the end, if you want to have a good body shape without too much bloody fuss about special diets and counting calories and all that incremental nonsense - just check out hormones.  
Check out how hormones shift with age, how our lifestyles can aid those shifts, how those shifts can heavily influence the capacity of the body to burn fat for energy (thyroid) and the capacity of the body to process waste metabolites (liver, kidneys) that can collect in the fatty layers if those organs aren't functioning properly.

So a lot of the excess weight issue is not fully exercise or fully the amount of food you choose to eat but the very food choices (example: 'healthy' poly fats ironically play havoc with hormone balance in the amounts that are now in our diets.  They are meant to be needed in only small amounts, not poured over salads etc like milk over cereal)... and a misguided fitness/diet industry focus on calories.

Hormones - liver and kidney health.  Machine works better if they are worked on.

Uh oh, now he's an 'expert' on this as well. It's close to making sense, but comes out all 'mumbo jumbo' and this isn't the thread for it - we're meant to be slating Joe Wicks et al just now and the standards to justify it don't have to be that high...

How do you know what I'm an expert on, navy.

That's the secret...ain't it

btw......... it's not 'close' to anything.

Ignore it by all means. Maybe you got a good deal on a nice new fad- diet that's too fabulously fashionable to ever dream of injecting real science into. Go for it, gurl!

Anyway, ..so cooks are the new 'get-on-your-wick' sub-topic?

em....... well of course mental eejit himself, Ramsey.  What a hateful schidt.  But he's a lad, ain't he - so right popular with the lads who like to large it in an aggressive, in-your-face way.

em - anyone else?.... no - that's enough about cooks.  Hate too many of them to name them all

SecretFly wrote:Anyway, ..so cooks are the new 'get-on-your-wick' sub-topic?

em....... well of course mental eejit himself, Ramsey.  What a hateful schidt.  But he's a lad, ain't he - so right popular with the lads who like to large it in an aggressive, in-your-face way.

em - anyone else?.... no - that's enough about cooks.  Hate too many of them to name them all

They have taken over the Television...I imagine it will be the stage next...

"To be or not to be garlic on thine lamb.....That tis the question ??"

"Thou art a dab hand with ye frying pan..mine noble Lord !!!"