Mahone

I can see what you are saying, although the disadvantage of this method is receiving calls from people you don't really want to talk to, but feel you have to, in order to remain polite. Or any similar scenario. In the UK, if a landline user with the phone company British Telecom calls a mobile phone user with the mobile network T-Mobile, T-Mobile will charge BT for using their network, and BT will ultimately pass that charge onto the customer who made the phone call. There are regulations in place to keep this system fair.

Not just you. Got a P45 today. Not sure why :/

Being very pedantic here, but her name is spelt Rowling, not Rawling/Rawlings. Sorry. Carry on :)

Not so sure about that. We don't always have to buy our phones here, but they simply charge you more per month in your contract instead. Back in 2008, I paid $525 (US) for my iphone 3G simply to get it on pay as you go (I tend to use voice over IP rather than using the standard telephone networks, so i didn't require a contract). The cheaper/free options where all high price contracts. They always get the money off you somehow. It just seems odd to me that both people could end up getting charged, almost unfair. In the UK, it's unheard of for the recipient of the phone call to get charged. The only time this would occur is when using a mobile phone with a sim card for a UK network when abroad. In this case, the person calling the phone gets charged a national rate, and the owner of the phone gets charged the international rates. This is, I assume, because the caller doesn't necessarily know the recipient is abroad, therefore it's unfair to charge them international rates.

‪Nyan Cat 5 Hour Loop‬‏ - YouTube Try and get that out of your head...

I'm under the impression that most phone packages in the USA include charging you for receiving a phone call, or otherwise deducting it from your free minutes? This is on top of charging the caller? Is this accurate? it just seems a little odd to me. I'm used to phone packages in the UK where you only get charged for making phone calls, not receiving them.

The most amusing part is seeing his wife flying into the cream pie attacker and onto the floor - she got there quicker than any official did lol.

Except the UK media have been reporting on this, slowing building up for the last five years. This hasn't suddenly just happened, I've been reading about it in our papers for a long time now, and each new report has a new and far worse revelation. America seems to have only just gotten hold of the news now it's possibly affected them too. However I too suspect and this was very common practice, and The news of The World just happened to get caught due to the British royal family initiating an investigation on a report about them.

Welcome, LizardReptile. How goes thing down under? How is the cane toad population?

She expressed regret at letting scholastic change the book title afterwards. Ultimately the reason was because, at the time, she was just desperate to be published - she didn't have the power to compromise too much with them at the time. She obviously didn't let them do any such thing again in the subsequent books.

As we're talking finances, bear in mind that all prices in the UK are inclusive of tax. I've visited the USA multiple times over the last year and the lack of this catches me out every time, so I'm assuming having it vice versa will have the same effect

I have no idea who Casey Anthony is, but were drugs involved by any chance? In cases like this, drugs are usually the cause.

Psssh.

The problem is, some people do accept it as truth. Talks involving some of the phrases I used ultimately ended up with 9/11 and 7/7. Some of those talks happened on American and British soil. I'm not saying this is the same as what happened in the OP, just that free speech isn't always just speech - it incites actions, which are a lot more harmful. Unfortunately freedom to essentially do as you wish in this regard has negative connotations. So yes, I don't think people should be allowed to say literally anything they want. Any extreme in one direction or the other is bad.

It's easier if I take a screenshot than copy and paste, seeing as the forum doesn't support HTML. Fixed.

Just out of interest, here are the official stats (the top 10) for those that migrated to the USA legally. As for whether those there illegally roughly tally, that remains up for debate.

Do you really though? Lets take the same scenario as the news article Pam posted, with one difference. The words the announcer said: I wonder how many people would still genuinely support his right to free speech, and even go as far as to defend him? An extreme example I know, but I for one wonder how far freedom of speech should be allowed to go. This is not just speech. It incites hatred and fear.

The threads that are locked are good examples for the most part. Especially when the reason given is that it has run its course. A quick usage of the search facility could come in handy here :) The moderating experience of JohnDoe and Pam combined is extensive. They didn't land the job as head moderators for no reason. I for one trust their judgement when it comes to deciding how heated something needs to get before a thread is locked - they've seen it time and time again, enough to predict what comes next. That said, any moderator, past and current, will tell you that moderators don't always agree with each other, hence why most issues are discussed before action is taken - sometimes an action is reversed, or not taken at all as a result of a disagreement.

There is obviously no "one size fits all" rule, and we do use discretion. In some cases, we do allow it, especially when it is pointed out that the thread is old, so other readers are aware - if it isn't pointed out, it could be considered rude - very much in the same way typing everything in capitals is considered rude and annoying, even if the person doing it doesn't realise this.

Well for example, there might be a thread about terrorism in general, nothing specific. Terrorism will always be around, so the thread is never no longer relevant. Someone mentions Osama Bin Laden during this thread, and about how has potentially been seen in Afghanistan somewhere. This post was made in December 2009. Someone reading the thread in June 2011 may be very confused at this point if they don't realise the post was made back in 2009. When a thread is bumped, it appears at the top of the list. This is when people are less likely to realise the thread is old. As Pam said elsewhere, we as moderators are more likely to let a bumped thread slide if the person that bumped the thread mentions that it's an old thread and gives reasons for bumping it.

I did say this before in another thread, but it's not just the primary subject of the thread that is the issue, when it comes to old threads. People post with the information they have at the time, and the world changes a lot over the space of a couple of years. When someone makes a post, they often include little tidbits of information in that post that are related indirectly to the primary subject of the thread. These tidbits of information may make sense at the time of posting, but two years down the line may not make any sense at all unless the person reading the thread realises that the post was made two years ago. Not many people actually think to check the dates on the posts. The closing of old threads, and general distaste of bumping old threads (especially without warning on the part of the person that bumped it) is not unique to this forum. It's considered netiquette to avoid doing it. It depends on the way the database is designed, but generally large threads do not cause data storage issue or a processing issue. On the same note, forum threads do not take up a lot of storage space. It's merely text, and nothing else pretty much. With the low cost of storage nowadays, the size of the forum database will be of little concern to web administrators, no matter how popular the forum.

Common does not always equal correct. See my subsequent posts too.

My understanding, is that with verbs, you can leave out the 'to' for the indirect object, when there is also a direct object. So your above example is correct. So are these: He gave her a house He gave the house to her He wrote me a letter He wrote a letter to me Write me whenever - this is wrong, there is no direct object, therefore it's 'write to me whenever' If someone uses the above incorrect example here, they are usually mocked for using american english

"I will write him" - you mean, you'll write TO him? (I know it's common in america but simply makes no sense in the UK lol) "I borrowed it to him" - I LENT it to him "I could care less" - I know it's been mentioned, but this one is so common that I feel it deserves mentioning again.

We'll all wait for the update tonight as the first thing dravin and beefche do on getting to their hotel is whip out their phones and post on lds.net