Discussion in 'The Games Room' started by Derek W, Jul 15, 2019.
At least they are correctly erect; a bent back could prove crippling.
Tripods as members on the Forum are used to...
If you are going to use long words in an attempt to impress, it helps to use them correctly: surely 'traditionally girl' should be 'with traditional girls''?
When I was much younger, I had elderly relatives who had a very small dairy herd (10-12 cows) and each member had a name, which made their eventual slaughter a very sad event. I don't recall any masculine names, apart from a visiting bull called Roger whom I once saw in action. A dozen cows didn't take him long, and he was soon taken off to his next appointment.
Cows being female, why would they be given male names?
They could be trans bulls...
Seems appropriate enough!
Because they maybe wanted to identify as male
All our cows are pedigree purebred, so have their official full names. Most of the families are girls names or flowers, even the imported genetics (Folkea, and Sietske). There are a couple of exceptions. We have Jarrive, and Gelaforme (we Anglecised the name to Gilly for her daughters) from France and our most prolific family line which is Gem and has been in the herd for 60 years. We also had a cow called Norm, which was reserve champion at the Royal Show, so there was at least one with a blokey name.
BBC preoccupation at present. I'll wait and see if they get around to cows!
In Scotland at least surely the education authority would insist on their right to do so.
(Smiley winky thing which my phone is unable to show)
Where did they get the bread from?
Last week's food waste bin.
CF Baldrick's rat au van
Eddie Stobart’s trucks identify as female, unless we have moved into the age of transgender transport.
It has to be said that even I, not suffering (or at least only by association) from them myself get pissed off that in 2021 so much can still be dismissed as "women's things".
The main factor with the never-falling prevalence of cancer is that the population is getting older and, as we age, the natural repair mechanisms in our DNA that act to prevent damage that could lead to cancers age and work less well, much like the rest of us. As a result more old people = more cancers. That and people tend to survive with it for longer, so you hear more from them.
You could certainly argue a case for the cartoon being true in academia (in which case I should really have added a qualifier to the "utter..." phrase, though any cancer cure would have to have a lot more done with it once it left an academic lab), but if you consider that a company won't make any money until it gets something to market, which it won't do without positive trials, it's in the company's interest to make something that actually works. Especially in a small one like the one I work for.
I didn't set out to hurt you. I simply think research into everyday complaints should be funded centrally and adequately and the profit or kudos direction not being the dominant one. I can't see there ever being a cure-all for cancer other than genetic engineering. However, skin complaints, digestive problems, rheumatism, arthritis, even haemmorhoids, circulatory problems common skeletal problems would benefit so many people worldwide if something other than just attempts to subdue symptoms. That's my real gripe. It seems that only cancer and some very obscure conditions are the ones attracting funding.
Separate names with a comma.