Oosie

on the other hand, there's been an increase in wankers in britain.

Britain gets more like America all the time

LONDON (Reuters) –

People named Smellie decreased by 70 percent, Dafts by 51 percent, Gotobeds by 42 percent, Shufflebottoms by 40 percent, and Cockshotts by 34 percent, said Richard Webber, visiting professor of geography at King's College, London.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090325/od_nm/us_names_odd

I knew a family with the surname Smellie when I was young. They all insisted it was to be pronounced "Smiley"

One of the boys in that family was called #######. He had a horrible time at school especially as the teachers checked attendance by calling out our names by surname then first name.

Here's some scottish lingo for ya.

Amurny 'I am not'

Bin howker 'A person who 'howks' (takes) rubbish out of bins for further personal use'.

Bumpin yer gums 'Talking too much'

Cargo 'Carry out of alcoholic drinks'

Ersed 'Bothered' example ... Gonnae get us a beer fae the fridge?" "Naw.. Ah cannae be ersed"

Geggy 'Mouth' eg.... Wid ye shut yer geggy, it doesn't half spout a load of keech! (sh1te)

english only outside of the regional forums please

Charles,

I understand as a moderator here you are trying to impose the TOS but your command of regional English is woefully inadequate. The post from KolaKubez is English as it is commonly spoken in Scotland. I could understand your rebuke if the poster had used Gaelic but this is simply accented English and is no different to a person from a Southern state typing in a way to show their accent.

I use AVG free edition and have had no problems in over 4 years.

To be on the safe side I also password protect the Admin account and all user accounts are limited. This prevents any new executable files from running unless I am logged on as Admin. I only log on as Admin if I need to install new software or make any changes to the settings on my PC.

My husband and his kids complained loud and long when I first moved in and set up his PC this way but he was having virus problems almost monthly and has had no problem since. The kids still whine but I can live with that.

Me and my fiance are in the final stages of the fiance visa and so we will be doing a civil ceremony soon with a bigger wedding in 2010. We will be getting a small cake for the first wedding and so I want this cake topper to symbolize the 'distance'.

I was thinking something along the lines of us standing by a globe/world or with a airplane....any ideas? has anyone else thought of doing something like this??

I have seen custom websites...but I am not going to spend $160-$350 for a wedding topper.

Anyone have any ideas? websites? something??

Thanks!

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?showuser=135

This member can make anything you like and send it to you.

She doesn't charge anything like the amounts you suggested.

are the pictures for the initial application & G325A? the passport picture sent in on my form was a std UK picture size, we just left a large protion of border on.

For the medical again it was std UK size, but for the Embassy interview i had the correct US size.

Just a note that for the Embassy interview they have a photo booth inside the USE.

I had US sized pictures for everything that I had taken by a photographer fo who charged me way too much. When I went for the medical they took one and cut it down to UK size.

I am new to this journey also and will post of my detailsl soon but I felt the need to chime in here.

I keep reading many posts where the couple to be thinks that "being formally engaged" is a pre-requisite to filing for the K-1.

That is not true. Nowhere have I read that the couple MUST be engaged and also nowhere does it say that an engagement ring is required.

(Of course, I assume the couple has talked about becoming married if they are going through with the K-1.)

All that is required is the Letter of Intent to marry within 90 days (from both), at two stages of the process, and the proof of having met personally within the last 2 years prior to the initial filing and the proof of the on-going relationship.

Am I wrong in this assumption?

Phil

You're not wrong Phil, I got my K-1 two years ago and have never been formally engaged. We bought our wedding rings before we even filed the I-129(f) but didn't use the receipts for those as evidence.

The proof of an ongoing relationship depends very much on the Embassy, I had a ton of that and wasn't asked for anything in London.

Good Luck

So, where's the father? I've yet to hear mention of him (them??). And just what is a girl with six kids who lives with her parents doing going through fertility treatments?

i thought so.....

So, where's the father? I've yet to hear mention of him (them??). And just what is a girl with six kids who lives with her parents doing going through fertility treatments?

I read that he's going back to do contract work in Iraq. I'm not sure what he does though.

Well I'll tell you what he isn't doing there.. Changing 8 sets of diapers, listening to an opera of crying, and dealing with 14 kids fighting with eachother.

This is where Iraq duty is actually having it easy.

..........

Grandma: Octuplets mom obsessed with having kids

The woman who gave birth to octuplets this week conceived all 14 of her children through in vitro fertilization, is not married and has been obsessed with having children since she was a teenager, her mother said.

Angela Suleman told The Associated Press she was not supportive when her daughter, Nadya Suleman, decided to have more embryos implanted last year.

"It can't go on any longer," she said in a phone interview Friday. "She's got six children and no husband. I was brought up the traditional way. I firmly believe in marriage. But she didn't want to get married."

rest of the story here

Yahoo

Thank you so much for my new wallpaper.

You have just made a houseful of Catholics very happy.

As for praying for a visa, St Rita and St Jude might be more appropriate. For non catholics they are respectively the patron saints of the impossible and of hopeless cases.

I've never been in labor but I have had a miscarriage. I think it's safe to say I would not compare the pain to diarrhea at all. She's a nut case and just didn't want the baby. Stupid @ss woman.

Back in the late 1960's one of my aunts thought she needed to use the bathroom and her baby just popped out and she had to pull him out of the toilet bowl. Two years later the same thing happened to her again and her daughter almost drowned. She wouldn't have lived if the next door neighbour, a nurse, hadn't been able to resuscitate her. Labour isn't always obvious and this is more common than most people realise. It's generally more of a risk with with later pregnancies as after giving birth to one or two the babies usually come out much more easily.

what was she thinking the whole months that her tummy is getting bigger?! a ball perhaps..

The article says she knew she was pregnant, she just didn't know she was in labour.

http://www.connpost.com/ci_11021578?source=most_viewed

Lawyer: Alcohol testing device is racist

By DANIEL TEPFER

Staff writer

Updated: 11/20/2008 12:17:25 AM EST

A lawyer representing a man arrested in Fairfield for drunken driving says the state's breathalyzers discriminate against black people.

"They are KKK in a box," said lawyer James O. Ruane of Shelton. "We really have some racist machines here."

Ruane represents Tyrone Brown, 40, of Burritt Avenue, Norwalk, who was arrested April 9 by the state police on Interstate 95 in Fairfield and charged with drunken driving.

A breath analysis administered at state police Troop G in Bridgeport found Brown had a blood-alcohol content of 0.188. The legal limit is 0.08.

In a motion filed Tuesday in Superior Court, Ruane asked a judge to suppress his client's breathalyzer test results, contending the device used by the state police, and most other local police departments, the Intoxilyzer 5000, discriminates against blacks. Brown is an African-American.

Assistant State's Attorney Mark Durso declined comment on the motion.

Ruane claims the lung capacity of a black man is 3 percent smaller than a white man and, therefore, black men's test results vary from the sobriety standard set by the device.

He said Dr. Michael Hlastala, a lung physiologist at the University of Washington, examined research of other lung physiologists and, based on his studies, has determined the Intoxilyzer 5000 does not effectively test the blood-alcohol content of black men.

"He looked at all the research and came up with the bigger picture and found the common thread," he said.

Ruane said he intends to have Hlastala testify on Brown's behalf.

"The data is very clear," he said.

Based on the data here, Ruane is a chopf##k--even if the lower capacity is accepted as fact, there is no way it's going to inflate a reading of 0.079 (just below legal limit) by 137%!

This would make breathalyzers sexist too as women tend to have lower lung capacities than men.

If I ever start drinking that will be my excuse when I get caught behind the wheel.

If she looks in the phone book or online for her local Catholic Social Services she shouldbe able to get good legal advice about her immigration problem. This won't help with her husband wanting a divorce, she will need to do that seperately. She needs to be divorced to file to remove conditions by herself and will have to prove she entered the marriage in good faith. She can start now getting together all the papers she can find at home that show there was a good faith marriage. Everything she can find that shows them living as man and wife will be useful to her. She may need to taslk seperatley to a divorcelawyer ormay be able to file for divorce without a lawyer. If she can prove he tried to send her home that might help her prove her case.

The immigration lawyers at Catholic Social Services help anyone, Catholic or not, and they don't charge a lot, I think they may have a sliding scale.

Depending on her state her husband may have to pay her alimony, even if he doesn't he did sign an affidavit of support and he can be held to that. That's clearly why he wants her out of thecountry.

Hey, its time to get new glasses. I'm thinking about getting Transitions lenses. I would love to hear opinions about them from people who have used them. Thanks!

I'm thinking you mean the colour changing lenses.

Personally I dislike them, they generally darken faster than they lighten making driving into the shade or into a tunnel an unpleasant experience. The lenses also yellow with age and look terrible. This may not be a problem for people who have to change their prescription regularly but I rarely have any change and like to be able to keep and wear my old glasses years after they were replaced/

But that is no different to the woman's rights, she may or may not get what she wants. Whether to have sex or not is a mutual decision. No one person has the power to make it happen nor should they. Both people have the power to say no.

Do try to pay attention.

The woman gets to decide whether or not she wants sex, and whether the man gets sex with her.

The man gets to decide whether or not he wants sex, and whether the woman gets sex with him.

It ain't that complicated man. I dunno why you went off on this tangent.

I think the tangent is yours, you seemed to have trouble accepting it's a two way street. You're the one who keeps insisting that the woman gets to choose whether you have sex though suddenly now you seem to see the light and agree it goes both ways. - Oosie _ I messed up the quotes and make this look like akdiver said it - my apologies

realistically, how often is a man gonna say no?

Results vary.

I've told three different women no. Why?? Didn't want to get stuck with the cost of a baby. Just not worth it. Not even close to worth it.

I can think of plenty men who would say no. Not wanting to risk a baby is a great reason to only have sex with a woman you trust.

Realistically speaking I can think of a few men I would love to f**k but I wouldn't even waste my time asking as I know I'm too old and that they are into women a lot younger than me. I could always try to get some hot young guy drunk but by the time he was drunk enough he would be too drunk to perform. On top of that I think it's despicable for a man to get a woman drunk to get past her better judgement so I have to behave by the same standards myself.

The man had the same power, if she wants him and he isn't interested he also has the right to say know.

I never said he doesn't determine whether or not he DOES NOT get sex...only that he does not determine whether or he DOES get sex.

But that is no different to the woman's rights, she may or may not get what she wants.

Whether to have sex or not is a mutual decision. No one person has the power to make it happen nor should they. Both people have the power to say no.

Pro-life / pro-choice are idiotic labels we have stuck on a complex personal situation.

Agreed (omg hell just froze!).

I am against abortion as I believe it is taking life. However, I do believe that going back to the pre-Roe V Wade days would be a mistake in this country. More lives would be lost.

I think the key here is education. I also think counseling should be required.

Who do you think should provide the counselling?

It's such an emotive subject and the cousellor is going to have a difficult time keeping personal feelings out.

I know a lot of pro life groups offer abortion counselling and provide women with misinformation about the long term effects of abortion. I also think it's possible for pro choice advocates to be too dismissive of real concerns a women may have.

Do you think it's possible to have completely unbiased counselling available for women faced with the decision of whether to contunire with a pregnancy or not?

Are you seriously suggesting he doesn't get to decide if he want sex or not?

No. I'm pointing out that while the man gets to decide if he WANTS sex or not, it's the woman who decides whether or not he actually has any.

The man had the same power, if she wants him and he isn't interested he also has the right to say know.

That's generally a joint decision, men are hard to force. Or rather if you try to force them it's generally not hard enough.

No, a woman decides who comes in (except in cases of rape). A man only gets to decide whether to go in once approval has been granted.

There are TWO decisions being made, not one.

Are you seriously suggesting he doesn't get to decide if he want sex or not?

At some point the man makes that choice as does the women.

Nobody forces him and a man should know that sex carries the risk of pregnacy.

If he really wants to be sure he avoids that risk he can opt for celibacy, castration or a vasectomy ( though that isn't 100% guaranteed. Both partners need to take steps to protect themselves from an unwanted pregnancy but both must share the responsibility for any mistakes.

Both parties involved have an "out":

a]. Women have a chance to get out from having a baby

b]. Men have a chance to get out from the cost of the woman's choice to have a baby

I DO understand what you are saying.

How do you account for cases where an abortion might be detrimental to a woman's health?

I would be interested to know just how an abortion can be detrimental to women's health (excepting coathangers of course).

I dunno... just playing devil's advocate...

I'm sure there must be some instances, maybe cardiac type cases.

A woman with a heart condition takes a bigger risk carrying a pregnancy to term than she does having an abortion.

I was hoping maybe you had some facts that I didn't. I know pro lifers sometimes argue that abortion harms womens mental health but the only solid reasearch on this actually disproves that theory.

Laws regarding child support are written to protect and provide for the child.

Yes, I know. My argument is that the law needs to change.

But it's not the woman who puts it in there. Remember the birds and the bees.

As I said - she decides who comes in.......or whether anyone comes in at all.

That's generally a joint decision, men are hard to force. Or rather if you try to force them it's generally not hard enough.

When you have a uterus you can decide who gets to stay in there.

I have no interest in deciding who gets to stay in there. I thought I made that abundantly clear.

My interest is in who pays for what comes out. Using your logic, I can argue, "Woman's uterus. She decides who comes in. She decides who stays. She pays for what comes out. It's her uterus."

But it's not the woman who puts it in there. Remember the birds and the bees.

Both parties involved have an "out":

a]. Women have a chance to get out from having a baby

b]. Men have a chance to get out from the cost of the woman's choice to have a baby

I DO understand what you are saying.

How do you account for cases where an abortion might be detrimental to a woman's health?

I would be interested to know just how an abortion can be detrimental to women's health (excepting coathangers of course).

Free contraception needn't be a socialist policy. If targeted to lower income groups as it was in America in the late 80's it can be a tool for right wing eugenicists. At least that's the only reason I can come up with for the overuse of contraceptive implants in teenage black girls in some US cities. From a conservative viewpoint cutting the birth rate in lower income groups can lead to a cut in taxes with fewer children to support on welfare.

I was only kidding...

But WHOA...that's a whole other kettle of fish...

I don't see this reducing abortions but cutting down on unwanted pregnancies. If you don't know for sure that you have taken steps to prevent pregnancy then don't have sex. If you agree to the risk of a pregnancy then fine but you make your mind up first. If couples agreed this in advance then maybe they would both be in agreement about what to do when a pregnancy happens. If a man uses condoms and a woman also uses contraception the number of accidental pregancies will decline. If you don't see her using contraception then you know you are taking a chance. That's when it's time to walk away.

This head in the sand issue is ignoring the central argument here.

Fact: In the U.S., women have been granted the right to choose an abortion.

Now, GIVEN this fact, not trying to CHANGE this fact, what we are now discussing is providing an equitable and parallel choice for men.

In this case, as women have the option to abort the baby, men should have the option to abort having to pay for her decision.

Both parties involved have an "out":

a]. Women have a chance to get out from having a baby

b]. Men have a chance to get out from the cost of the woman's choice to have a baby

You will never get total equity in this unless you share the cost of reproduction. Men can't share in the cost to a woman's body of carrying a pregnancy to term so can't expect to have a say in it.

When you have a uterus you can decide who gets to stay in there.

Condom manufacturers and resellers are in the business to make money, not provide a public service.

Maybe if contraception was provided as a public service there would be fewer unwanted pregnancies after all if you can't afford contrception you certainly can't afford to raise a child.

Abstience doesn't work, you can't ask people to give up a natural biological function, it would be no easier than giving up eating or sleeping.

looks like there is another socialist in the room... LOL

Free contraception needn't be a socialist policy. If targeted to lower income groups as it was in America in the late 80's it can be a tool for right wing eugenicists. At least that's the only reason I can come up with for the overuse of contraceptive implants in teenage black girls in some US cities. From a conservative viewpoint cutting the birth rate in lower income groups can lead to a cut in taxes with fewer children to support on welfare.

The time for an equitable choice is before having unprotected sex.

Again - using that logic to deny the male choice can also be used to deny the female choice. Using this logic - no abortions for anyone, and lots of unplanned and often unwanted babies.

I don't see this reducing abortions but cutting down on unwanted pregnancies. If you don't know for sure that you have taken steps to prevent pregnancy then don't have sex. If you agree to the risk of a pregnancy then fine but you make your mind up first. If couples agreed this in advance then maybe they would both be in agreement about what to do when a pregnancy happens. If a man uses condoms and a woman also uses contraception the number of accidental pregancies will decline. If you don't see her using contraception then you know you are taking a chance. That's when it's time to walk away.

Whilst AKDiver's proposal sounds reasonable in theory, I'm not sure it can be used in a practical sense. The issue of child support (for those mother's who want it) could be overturned, I suppose, based on the man saying that he wanted her to have an abortion.

Well, it's a simple matter really. If a woman finds out she is pregnant, goes to the potential father and reveals this information. At this time, he can either sign a standardized contract indicating that he will receive parental rights in exchange for assuming 18 years of financial servitude. This document must be properly notarized to avoid any opportunity for forgeries, etc. Now, should the woman fail to secure this contract, then she will know that she will be absorbing the full costs of parenthood and can make her choice whether to have the baby accordingly.

This way - both parties get an equitable choice.

Man cannot later say, "oh, nevermind" - the contract is enforceable by the courts.

The time for an equitable choice is before having unprotected sex.

Condom manufacturers and resellers are in the business to make money, not provide a public service.

Maybe if contraception was provided as a public service there would be fewer unwanted pregnancies after all if you can't afford contrception you certainly can't afford to raise a child.

Abstience doesn't work, you can't ask people to give up a natural biological function, it would be no easier than giving up eating or sleeping.