thunderhorse

This is the Lighter Side, and somebody needs a humour injection.

There are existing threads on this if you do a search.

A woman in her thirties is at home happily jumping unclothed, on her bed and squealing with delight. Her husband watches her for a while and asks, 'Do you have any idea how ridiculous you look? What's the matter with you?' The woman continues to bounce on the bed and says, 'I don't care what you think. I just came from having a mammogram and the doctor says that not only am I healthy, but I have the breasts of an 18-year-old.' The husband replies, 'What did he say about your 42-year old @rse?' 'Your name never came up,' she replied.

Sounds like a Bollywood script. [:P]

But he would probably have been selective with emery paper.

Our local wood supplier/farmer felled our 40' pine and chopped it all up into logs whilst I burned all the greenery. An hour and a half later he had finished, and I was... €40 lighter but still with a pile of logs to season. Find somebody local. [:D]

Maybe it's just semantics. After all, sand is silica and glass contains silica...

How are you trying to get the mix in the joints? Flicked in with a trowel? Scraped in? Have you tried a pair of marigolds (necessary), and shove it in hard by the handful. Great big dollops. Keep a plastic sheet underneath, and re-use the droppings. Messy, yes, but effective. Usual stone cleaning and brushing off afterwards.

All I did for my beams was wear a mask and goggles. So did friends. I don't see woodworkers dropping like flies. Perhaps, like asbestos, it needs prolonged heavy exposure over many years. Sanding beams aint gonna kill you - hopefully. [8-|]

[quote user="Gastines"]In case I didn't make myself clear.. To fit the flat one you have to remove the glass,undo the four clips that hold the glass in place fit the flat one then screw back the clips to hold the glass. Measure the curve for the right thickness of round rope to glue in. Too thick and the door won't shut, too thin and it will still draw up. I know having done it wrong!! Regards. [/quote] That's not the issue. The air gap is between the door frame and the insert casing, nothing to do with the glass in the door. There's nowhere on the door frame to put rope, and only the flat surface of the insert casing for the edge of the door frame (like angle iron) to butt up against. I've now located some flat fibre de verre to stick to the casing. (What's the betting it's out of stock? [;-)]) Cheers.

The alleged research by Cambridge is an urban myth, but it is an interesting exercise.

Located some fibre de verre tressé at Brico in Angoulême - 15mm flat + glue. Many thanks for input. [:D]

If I post an image or a link to an image, sometimes it shows, and sometimes it just shows a broken link. But if I right click the broken link and select view image, it comes up perfectly. So there is nothing wrong with the link, but the BB is not displaying the picture. It's so hit and miss (at least in my browsers - both FF and IE). Cheers

[img]http://fireflyrose.vndv.com/imgp0133.jpg[/img] The edge of the door fits up to the flat surround of the insert casing, but there's no provision for a rope seal (unless there's some form of thick tape seal available.) As a consequence, the insert is always drawing a little and difficult to keep in at night. Is there any form of fire seal that will go over the door frame edge, or alternatively can stick flat to the casing? Cheers. Just in case the pic doesn't show - it's a bit wayward...

[quote user="Cathy"]I read this article and wondered how she managed to get to France and back on a ferry, all for £1 per day?  My ferry journeys (Portsmouth-St Malo with a few children in tow) cost over £365 (one year's allocation) and that's just "aller simple" not "aller retour".  Even a passenger costs £120 return. Did she swim? [/quote] She didn't go to France and back on a ferry. Outbound she hitched a lift through the tunnel. Inbound she hitched with a wagon driver on a ferry. So comparing the costs of hitching to that of ferry fares is a non-sequitur. [:P]

[quote]...some people have claimed that it could end up destroying the entire cosmos.[/quote] Some thought the same about the atom bomb. Time to start thinking rationally. I need a drink. [:D]

I suppose the scientific version of hell is a black hole. We're all doomed. Doomed, I tell ye! [:-))]

Thought about it but couldn't on principle. Still only 3rd September... Put some jeans and socks on instead.

[quote user="Anton Redman"]I have had a run on 12 metres from one end of the house to the other with a 2 percent slope for the last three years with no problems. I did include a rodding eye just down stream of the toilet.  I believe there is now an issue with wash basin into toilet waste where you are not linked to mains drainage as I think there should be seperate types of bec a graisse for two types of waste.  [/quote] Thank you for that useful information.[:D]

[quote user="Will"]So if a scientist says he/she has seen or done something, it is fact, whereas if a 'theist' says something it's just the unprovable ramblings of a brainwashed moron who cannot reach a sensible conclusion?[/quote] Not quite. Scientists go through a peer-review process. What is produced is the best possible conclusion based on testable findings. If a scientific theory is successfully challenged, then it is dumped and they start again. The same cannot be said for religious belief. Theists start with the premise that God/gods exist, and then work backwards. It is up to each individual to decide if theistic claims are as you describe. [quote]Scientists have been proved wrong before, believe it or not.[/quote] Yes. But see above. And such an argument from you is not supportive of a theistic position of rationality.

Isn't the smell part of the character of the furniture? What about a pot-pourri, or spray deodoriser type thingy? Painting/varnishing insides may just spoil the piece. If I think on, I tend to leave empty aftershave bottles in drawers for a few days - more by habit from Navy days.

[quote user="allanb"]... there may be one somewhere who thinks that the non-existence of God was infallibly revealed to him ...[/quote] Only God could do that. [:P] Or the Pope.

[quote user="The Riff-Raff Element"][quote user="thunderhorse"][quote user="The Riff-Raff Element"]...Some people, not me, but other people, would say that the evidence for the existence of God is all around us, not least in the existence of “holy” books that are supposedly divinely inspired. Pretty shaky in my view, but then so is casting out the possibility of the existence of the supernatural when the hypothesis cannot be disproved.[/quote] It's very easy to cast out the possibility of the existence of the supernatural, especially when there is no testable evidence to support such a notion. The onus of proof is on those who assert that the supernatural exists. Following your argument, should we accept the possibility of mermaids and unicorns, and teach similar idiotic ideas in schools, seeing as how the hypothesis cannot be disproved?[/quote] Onus? Some key points in the philosphy of science:  - Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence;  - An hypothesis can only be discarded once it can be tested;  - Observations defeat theory;  - A scientist who disregards any of the foregoing is not a scientist. He is a muppet. Sure, I can state that unicorns do not exist. And tomorrow a fossil unicorn might turn up. And I might try to argue that they still don't exist and have never existed, like the people who argued that the Earth was not a sphere and did not go around the sun despite there being plenty of evidence that it does or those who encountered dinosaur bones and argued for years that they were forgeries. On the other hand I could suppose that both unicorns and mermaids are mythical creatures and no evidence currently exists to suggest they were ever real but that I couldn't say that it would never appear. That is a rigorous philosophy. And that is what I would teach, were I called upon to do so. I imagine that some people would except that it is possible that life might one day be shown to exist elsewhere in the universe, it being a big place and all. As things stand – as far as I know – there is not a single shred of hard evidence that life does exist elsewhere. Following your logic, should we now state that we are, definitively, alone?[/quote] Unicorns, mermaids, dragons. Human inventions so it's stretching credulity to pose in an argument that one day such a fossil may turn up, as a basis for that argument. In logical argument, the burden (onus) of proof is on the one making a claim or assertion. To do otherwise is a logical fallacy. It is not incumbent on the other side to try and prove a negative, for obvious reasons. When you linked supernatural with hypothesis, I don't know if you meant in a strictly scientific sense. Religion (God) is not generally (or at all) amenable to scientific enquiry and the scientific method. The existence of the supernatural is not a(n) hypothesis that can be checked, altered, verified, rechecked etc. It's a religious 'theory'. A foregone conclusion. The existence of the supernatural is a pre-requisite and a given. From there, a worldview is formed to fit. Rational enquiry and independant thinking dictates the opposite. The problem lies in being told what to think, not how to think. There is no evidence (how can there be?) for the real existence of inventions of the human mind. I don't give credence to those who have seen leprechauns and believe in fairies and other fanciful imaginings like anal probing after abduction by aliens. Likewise, I can't say that God/gods don't exist, but I don't give the notion credence when theists assert it as an evidence-less fact, and especially, I don't bend my life around the concept as if such existence is a fact. Neither is there any evidence for aliens. There may well be later. We just don't know. I keep an open mind, but I don't bend my life to reflect that aliens do exist. That's the big difference in rational enquiry. If we don't know, we say we don't know. The theistic viewpoint is generally, Goddidit. I have never seen a theist produce any evidence for the existence of God, other than their own wishful thinking. Theists need faith (belief without evidence). Evidence would therefore kill their faith, and for most, that just wouldn't do. I'm sure you can see the illogicality in theistic thinking. [quote]That is a rigorous philosophy. And that is what I would teach, were I called upon to do so.[/quote] Agreed. It's called teaching how to think, not what to think.

[quote user="jondeau"]7m is a long run, however with a fall of 20mm per metre this would appear to conform to the standard for drainage 1:50 so it should be fine if properly supported. There is no reason why bath drainage cannot be connected before the WCs......I would run the soil pipe past the WCs a little (Tee pieces for loos) and then if you are not proposing to run a vent stack from it to the open air, fit a 90 degree bend on it and a short piece of pipe so that the upright section of the stack is above the flood level of the highest piece of sanitary ware you are connecting to it. Onto this you must fit an air admitance valve, this will let air into the stack and prevent syphonage from your sanitary equipment. In the UK this type of soil stack arrangement is known as a 'stub stack'. On the horizontal section of the soil pipe just after the WCs you can if you wish fit a tee piece to the soil pipe instead of an elbow to bring it around to the vertical, and fit a rodding eye. JD[/quote] Many thanks. 7m horizontal is what it takes for loo #2 (#1 is 4m) to access the fosse drains (far side of the house), and I really didn't want maceraters if I could avoid it! If 7m is practicable, I'll go for it. I'm now picturing the stub stack in the corner with the new chauffe-eau... [:D]

[quote user="Callie"][quote user="thunderhorse"] 1. Is a 7m (100mm) internal pipe run (before dropping down the wall outside) too long? [/quote] Are you proposing to run the waste pipe down the outside of the house ?  I have yet to see a French-renovated house done this way, just one or two British ones that have not had planning approval/permission.  But perhaps it depends on the commune ??  By the way, this is not a criticism, just an observation ! [/quote] I've asked that particular question before, and no-one came up with any legal reason why it can't be done. The guy who fitted the fosse before we bought the house is a commune committee member and does all the local travaux publics. He is accessing the fosse for the new pipework (who better to do it?), saying that there is no problem with a 3m outside pipe on the gable end.