On Wed, 11 May 2011 08:58:53 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article ,
MM wrote:

On Tue, 10 May 2011 18:25:10 +0100, "Ret."
wrote:

So, do I take it that whenever you are changing on a beach, wherever you
are, - you just strip off naked before putting on your cozzie - or do you
simply not even bother with a cozzie and regard all beaches as nudist
beaches?

I never go to the seaside. I hate swimming. I don't like beaches. But
if I did, I'd wear my swimming trunks underneath, then simply strip
off my outer clothing. Afterwards, I'd sunbathe until my "cozzie"
(horrid, ozzie terminology) was dry, then I'd put my kilt back on.

Repressed, are we? Afraid of the effect that acres of *gasp* female
flesh will have? Scared of showing a square inch of naughty flesh, are
we?

Oh, it's YOU again!

MM

On 11 May 2011 08:26:53 GMT, Huge wrote:

On 2011-05-11, MM wrote:

I never go to the seaside. I hate swimming. I don't like beaches.

Phew, it isn't just me. (Although, I actually quite like swimming, but not
in the sea.)

Especially anywhere around Britain, which still pumps raw effluent out
to sea (not that far out, either) in some places.

I don't mind walking down an empty windswept beach in the autumn, but I'd
rather gouge my eyes out with a spoon than go to one of the Costas or
similar to lie on a beach, sweltering and uncomfortable.

Abso-ruddy-lutely.

Beach holidays are the most boring thing known to mankind.

The only thing nice about them is leaving early and going into the
beautiful countryside.

MM

On 11 May 2011 08:14:29 GMT, Huge wrote:

Posh western style hotels I guess...

For quite small values of "posh" in some cases; the room carpet was
soaked in raw sewage in one place.

Carpet? Posh... And what do you expect when importing forgien toilet
technology to China. B-)

The one or two times I stayed in "western" hotel in China they were
the grubbiest and least looked after. OK the "traveler" places where
basic with vinly tile floors, cheap but functional furnishings but
they were clean and tidy.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Tue, 10 May 2011 10:20:57 +0100, MM wrote:

Little to do with embarassment - everything to do with fear of
being
arrested for indecent exposure!

More absolute nonsense! People have been changing thus on beaches
since long before the police could arrest anyone on a whim.

Aye, I blame the Victorians, at it like rabbits behind closed doors
but in public... bathing machines, one peice covers nearly every
thing costumes.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 11/05/2011 06:01, MM wrote:
On Tue, 10 May 2011 17:39:38 +0100, Clive George
wrote:

Um, you're confused.

Don't be stupid. I know exactly where and what the tummy is, thanks
very much. To try and pretend that's where babies grow is foolish
beyond measure.

I don't think you do know what and where the tummy is, because it's
actually a rather vague word.

The tummy is just the stomach - it can refer to the
belly too, and as such "inside the tummy" is an entirely appropriate
description. Would "inside the belly" annoy you as much?

"Your stomach is a short-term food-storage facility. This allows you
to consume a large meal quickly and then digest it over an extended
period of time. When full, your stomach can hold around one litre of
chewed up food."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbo.../stomach.shtml

Still want to lie to your kids?

If I were to insert the missing "not" (my fault), would that make a
difference? The tummy is not just the stomach. Indeed ask most people to
point to their tummy, and they'll point to somewhere else.

On 11/05/2011 09:26, Huge wrote:
On 2011-05-11, wrote:

I never go to the seaside. I hate swimming. I don't like beaches.

Phew, it isn't just me. (Although, I actually quite like swimming, but not
in the sea.)

I don't mind walking down an empty windswept beach in the autumn, but I'd
rather gouge my eyes out with a spoon than go to one of the Costas or
similar to lie on a beach, sweltering and uncomfortable.

Beach holidays are the most boring thing known to mankind.

Playing at civil engineering renders a beach visit more fun IME. But it
is some years since I spent more than an hour or so on a beach, so take
that with however much salt is necessary.

Huge :
I don't mind walking down an empty windswept beach in the autumn, but I'd
rather gouge my eyes out with a spoon than go to one of the Costas or
similar to lie on a beach, sweltering and uncomfortable.

Agreed.

Beach holidays are the most boring thing known to mankind.

I'm pleased that that's not true for most people. If they're roasting on
the beach, they're not where I am.

--
Mike Barnes

On Wed, 11 May 2011 09:56:14 +0100, John Williamson
wrote:

MM wrote:
On Tue, 10 May 2011 17:43:28 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article ,
MM wrote:

On Tue, 10 May 2011 13:47:19 +0100, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:

MM wrote:
On Tue, 10 May 2011 11:22:16 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article ,
MM wrote:

On Tue, 10 May 2011 08:11:30 +0100, "Ret."
wrote:
No-one is 'lying'. The child believes that that area of the body
is the tummy. They baby is indeed inside that part of the body.
I cannot, simply cannot believe this garbage. No one is lying by
telling a child the baby is in mummy's tummy!! What utter nonsense.
Do stop talking twaddle, there's a good chap.
Ah, another repressed person, I see. I do hope you don't die of
embarrassment if and when you have to explain sex to your kid(s).
So if tell a 4 year old the baby is in mummy's tummy would I be sexually
repressed?
You are NOT telling the child the truth or even anything approximating
to the truth. The tummy is the ONE place you WOULD NOT want a baby.
And you won't tell the child the truth because you're too embarrassed
(opposite a 4-year-old, nota bene!) to explain the various bits in
simple language.
And just how do you know it's due to embarrassment? Or do you have a
habit of making things up as you go along? And why are you so fixated
about this issue?

Me, making things up? Yet you're part of the stupid crowd that wants
to tell their child that babies grow inside mummy's tummy!

I'm "fixated", as you put it, because I get so angry when faced with
such utterly obtuse flat-earth mentality as evidenced in this thread.

So, *you* will tell *your* toddler, who can just about understand that
there is going to be another member in the fmily shortly, that Mummy and
(Probably) Daddy had a fun time, and now there's a baby growing inside
mummy in a special place, not forgetting *all* the gruesome details
about how the baby's going to arrive? Oh, and by the way, that's how
*you* got here, too....

Or will you just tell the tot the simple version that they can
understand, and leave the details until they matter? Balancing the
knowledge you want to impart to a child's ability to understand is a skill.

If only you (and others here) could be bothered to check out some of
the excellent books for kids on the subject (search on Amazon), you
can be spared any embarrassment. Many of them have cartoon-style
pictures for even young children to look at, designed by authors and
illustrators who are obviously far more clued up than the closed minds
I am seeing in this thread. Maybe this is the reason why the UK has
such a problem with teenage and underage mothers and STIs. Maybe many
young girls have their first period and think they're bleeding to
death due to lack of information.

MM

On Wed, 11 May 2011 12:44:15 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article ,
Clive George wrote:

On 11/05/2011 09:26, Huge wrote:
On 2011-05-11, wrote:

I never go to the seaside. I hate swimming. I don't like beaches.

Phew, it isn't just me. (Although, I actually quite like swimming, but not
in the sea.)

I don't mind walking down an empty windswept beach in the autumn, but I'd
rather gouge my eyes out with a spoon than go to one of the Costas or
similar to lie on a beach, sweltering and uncomfortable.

Beach holidays are the most boring thing known to mankind.

Playing at civil engineering renders a beach visit more fun IME. But it
is some years since I spent more than an hour or so on a beach, so take
that with however much salt is necessary.

Yes. You need a small flow of water going to the sea, and a couple of
small children to whom you can introduce concepts such as erosion,
ox-bow lakes, and so on.

But not where babies come from...

MM

MM wrote:
Do stop talking twaddle, there's a good chap.

Ah, another repressed person, I see. I do hope you don't die of
embarrassment if and when you have to explain sex to your kid(s).

So if tell a 4 year old the baby is in mummy's tummy would I be
sexually repressed?

You are NOT telling the child the truth or even anything
approximating to the truth. The tummy is the ONE place you WOULD
NOT want a baby. And you won't tell the child the truth because
you're too embarrassed (opposite a 4-year-old, nota bene!) to
explain the various bits in simple language. So, yes, repressed
with bells on.

I'll bear that one in mind as it comes from someone who "said sex
was never important" with regards to his own lifestyle.

Having knobbed my way through well over 300 women and now currently
in a relationship where we both enjoy group sex and wife swapping I
doubt very much that I am sexually repressed or embarrassed about
answering a 4 year olds questions.

Thanks for sharing that fascinating information about how much of a
stud you are! (Bit of a show-off, really...)

...until it comes to explaining to children where babies come from,
that is.

Oh, sure, you'll
excuse yourself by saying that this is "stuff a 4-year-old child
doesn't need to know yet" - and yet the child will have been the
curious one asking questions!

Yes, a 4 year old does not need ALL the details - that is BECAUSE
they will not understand and there is something special about
letting a child have some innocenece.

What has innocence got to do with knowing where babies come from? Do
you protect a child's innocence by letting him run into the road, or
do you explain, several times if need be, that he has to take care?
What about potty training and protecting the child's innocence?

You answer the 4 year old in terms that they understand. I
can do that without getting embarrassed or having to give a biology
essay.

No-one has suggested that you need to "give" a biology essay.
Presumably you can say words like "leg", or "nose", so why not "womb"
and "vagina"? What is so very terrible about naming a part of the
female body where a baby grows? Why is this knowledge destroying a
child's innocence, but knowledge about other bodily functions isn't?

My girlfriends 7 year old gets all the questions answered he asks
about sex but he is still far too young to have ALL the details.
Does a 7 year old NEED to know about oral, anal, group sex

No, of course not! That has nothing to do with the question children
ask, namely where do babies come from. However, in this day and age, a
7-year-old may well come back from the playground with all kinds of
questions and if you're going to be a successful parent, you need to
know up front how you will answer him, not lie to him in order to
avoid YOUR embarrassment and pretend to yourself that you're doing
that to protect HIS innocence.

STDs etc in detail?

No, NOT in detail! No-one's saying you want the kid to become a doctor
by the age of ten! But you do presumably explain why we clean our
teeth, why we wash under our foreskins, why we don't let a wound get
dirty, but clean it, disinfect it, and put a plaster on? So why not
explain, even if only cursorily, but truthfully, what an STI is? Look
at the shocking statistics on chlamydia, for example, in older kids,
all too embarrassed to go to the doctor early on because of the bad
habits they learned from their stupid, repressed parents.

When he does
ask questions I answer without any embarrasment. He is not
embassassed about a naked body as he has seen me and the girlfriend
naked on many occassions and he is not afraid to ask questions when
he wants to. When he asked about circumcision I showed him my penis,
explained what happened in the circumcision and he then understood.
There was no giggling or other childish behaviour.

"There was no giggling or other childish behaviour." That sounds as if
you were expecting such a reaction.

Have you ever met a child or have you only ever read about them?

--
Adam

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Andy Dingley
saying something like:

On May 10, 6:28*pm, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:

Having knobbed my way through well over 300 women and now currently in a
relationship where we both enjoy group sex and wife swapping

When he asked about
circumcision I showed him my penis, explained what happened in the
circumcision and he then understood.

Circumcised, or is it just wearing out?

Supposed to be an appendectomy, but the surgeon was drunk.

MM wrote:
On Tue, 10 May 2011 18:25:10 +0100, "Ret."
wrote:

MM wrote:
On Tue, 10 May 2011 08:06:06 +0100, "Ret."
wrote:

MM wrote:
On Mon, 09 May 2011 21:43:37 +0100, Steve Walker
wrote:

On 09/05/2011 09:51, MM wrote:
On Sun, 8 May 2011 18:56:28 +0100,
wrote:

MM wrote:
On Sun, 08 May 2011 13:41:29 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In ,
Bernard wrote:

On 08/05/11 11:05, ARWadsworth wrote:

My strangest toilet was the one in my German apartment in
the 1970s. It had a ledge, with the water outlet at the
front of the ledge. So everything you "did" first landed
on the ledge. This was apparently designed so that you
could check for blood and thereby pre-empt any serious
medical condition. (The Germans were/are extremely
finickety about their health.) That design seems to have
vanished now, since all the German houses I frequent
nowadays have a "normal" UK-style toilet bowl.

One of these?

http://i428.photobucket.com/albums/q...020/img086.jpg

That's also a common design in the Netherlands.

Completely disgusting IMO.

Why? It's only a style of toilet! You sound typically British,
typically insular. Wait until you are invited to participate
in the NHS bowel cancel screening programme and you have to
smear samples of poo on a test card. Some people chuck the
invitation in the bin, preferring not to know, and some of
those statistically will die early of bowel cancer.

I've done two of those so far. Not particularly pleasant - but
only a complete idiot would not participate in the test.

Huh, Britain is, then, full of complete idiots, because the
review nurse I first went to see when they invited me for a
colonoscopy was overjoyed at getting a new client. She said the
majority of cards they sent out never came back.

Doesn't surprise me. In Britain we have doctors despairing at
trying to find out what a patient is complaining of because said
patient cannot describe body parts or functions (too
embarrassed).

How many men simply cannot visit their GP with an STI! And then
you get the programmes on TV where things have been allowed to
get out of hand and the man's willy is practically
unrecognisable as a willy. Same with girls' bits, too. Again,
this is ALL because parents REFUSE to discuss these things with
their children from a very early age and thus the fear of
embarrassment is perpetuated from one generation to the next.

Is there anything more ridiculous than the way many British
people change into their swimming costumes on the beach?
Desperately using a large towel so that not a mm² of illegal
flesh is displayed.

MM

I don't think it's that simple. My parents have never been open
about such things, but my kids are completely used to me walking
around the house naked first thing in the morning. When it comes
to my body, I am far, far less prudish than my wife - who's
parents did talk to her about her body and sex (her mother was a
midwife).

I have had a skin problem (autoimmune problem) that caused me
intense itchiness and rawness on my arms and legs and around my
scrotum - I had no problem at all stripping off in front of the
female GP (and the four female students that she had with her!)
or the dermatologist that I was referred to.

Similarly, I have stayed on camp sites in France, where the
urinals were around the *outside* of the toilet block, on view
to all and crossed the channel on ferries where women cleaners
were in the toilets, but French men continued to use them - so I
just did the same.

SteveW

Well, then, you are one of the enlightened few. Try encouraging
others to behave likewise, although in Britain it will be an
uphill struggle, because we as a nation are completely f***ed up
about sex. On the one hand we consume vast quantities of sexual
tittle-tattle in the tabloids. We are voracious. Sex sells
newspapers. But then we take every possible precaution while
changing on the beach to prevent any stray ounce of flesh from
appearing, otherwise we would be SO embarrassed we'd rather die.

Little to do with embarassment - everything to do with fear of
being arrested for indecent exposure!

More absolute nonsense! People have been changing thus on beaches
since long before the police could arrest anyone on a whim.

So, do I take it that whenever you are changing on a beach, wherever
you are, - you just strip off naked before putting on your cozzie -
or do you simply not even bother with a cozzie and regard all
beaches as nudist beaches?

I never go to the seaside. I hate swimming. I don't like beaches. But
if I did, I'd wear my swimming trunks underneath, then simply strip
off my outer clothing. Afterwards, I'd sunbathe until my "cozzie"
(horrid, ozzie terminology) was dry, then I'd put my kilt back on.

So you would not display your 'kit' for all to see? How repressed...


I will struggle with a towel to get changed on a UK beach - but
when my wife and I went on one holiday to Fuerteventura, and found
that the beach adjacent to the hotel was a nudist beach, we both
stripped off with the rest.

And I reckon you both felt really weird, didn't you? Talk about
sheep!

Actually no - it was quite 'liberating'.

But back in the UK your liberation turns back into repression, yes?

For pity's sake - it's not 'repression' - it's simply compliance with the
norm.

--
Kev

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
Clive George wrote:

On 10/05/2011 17:29, MM wrote:
On Tue, 10 May 2011 13:47:19 +0100, "ARWadsworth"

You are NOT telling the child the truth or even anything
approximating to the truth. The tummy is the ONE place you WOULD
NOT want a baby. And you won't tell the child the truth because
you're too embarrassed (opposite a 4-year-old, nota bene!) to
explain the various bits in simple language. So, yes, repressed
with bells on. Oh, sure, you'll excuse yourself by saying that this
is "stuff a 4-year-old child doesn't need to know yet" -- and yet
the child will have been the curious one asking questions!

Um, you're confused. The tummy is just the stomach - it can refer to
the belly too, and as such "inside the tummy" is an entirely
appropriate description. Would "inside the belly" annoy you as much?

To a small child, the whole of the lower part of the torso is just the
tummy. Explaining in greater detail will just confuse the poor kid.

Just as I was confused when, after an operation, I asked the surgeon
what he'd done. He pompously explained in what I have no doubt was
quite an accurate and true manner, but couched entirely in
incomprehensible medical terms, so I ended up being none the wiser,
and felt put off asking doctors for explanations for some time.

M&M obviously has no concept of how a small child, given an
explanation it can't understand, will feel intimidated and therefore
end up repressed.

He has obviously never spent any time with kids. Or if he has, he has turned
them into precocious little *******s and never let them have any fun.
Strikes me as the type of ****** that instead of letting a couple of kids
have a kickabout with a football would pull out a copy of the FA rules and
ensure that the kids understood the offside rule before they could play.

--
Adam

In message , MM
writes

However, your response just shows how far Britain has to go to be in
the same league as most other countries in Europe.

I don't accept that European parents differ significantly in the way they
speak to very young children as they are developing.

Well, then, FIND OUT! Because I can assure you that NO European nation
is more repressed about sex and sex education than Britain.

Well having actually been stepfather to three kids of that age bracket
in Germany for something over 5 years, I have to say that you are, as
usual, talking durch deinen Arsch again

As for Italy where I have also lived, their attitude to sex is totally
hung up through their RC influence


--
geoff

In message , MM
writes
M&M obviously has no concept of how a small child, given an explanation
it can't understand, will feel intimidated and therefore end up
repressed.

Oh, sure! Look at the vast armies of repressed and intimidated
children out there who have correctly had explained to them where
babies grow. I really don't know how primary school teachers cope with
all the terrible repression and intimidation. It is simply shocking
that it's allowed to go on.

Is that why you hang around outside school with a raincoat and wellies?


Education ?

--
geoff

On 10/05/2011 17:58, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
Clive George wrote:

On 10/05/2011 17:29, MM wrote:
On Tue, 10 May 2011 13:47:19 +0100, "ARWadsworth"

You are NOT telling the child the truth or even anything approximating
to the truth. The tummy is the ONE place you WOULD NOT want a baby.
And you won't tell the child the truth because you're too embarrassed
(opposite a 4-year-old, nota bene!) to explain the various bits in
simple language. So, yes, repressed with bells on. Oh, sure, you'll
excuse yourself by saying that this is "stuff a 4-year-old child
doesn't need to know yet" -- and yet the child will have been the
curious one asking questions!

Um, you're confused. The tummy is just the stomach - it can refer to
the belly too, and as such "inside the tummy" is an entirely
appropriate description. Would "inside the belly" annoy you as much?

To a small child, the whole of the lower part of the torso is just the
tummy. Explaining in greater detail will just confuse the poor kid.

I have heard of at least one child saying that they have "a tummy ache
in my head" because they were used to tummy aches, but not headaches. A
childs concept of anatomy is somewhat flexible!

SteveW

In message , ARWadsworth
writes
MM wrote:
Do stop talking twaddle, there's a good chap.

Ah, another repressed person, I see. I do hope you don't die of
embarrassment if and when you have to explain sex to your kid(s).

So if tell a 4 year old the baby is in mummy's tummy would I be
sexually repressed?

You are NOT telling the child the truth or even anything
approximating to the truth. The tummy is the ONE place you WOULD
NOT want a baby. And you won't tell the child the truth because
you're too embarrassed (opposite a 4-year-old, nota bene!) to
explain the various bits in simple language. So, yes, repressed
with bells on.

I'll bear that one in mind as it comes from someone who "said sex
was never important" with regards to his own lifestyle.

Having knobbed my way through well over 300 women and now currently
in a relationship where we both enjoy group sex and wife swapping I
doubt very much that I am sexually repressed or embarrassed about
answering a 4 year olds questions.

Thanks for sharing that fascinating information about how much of a
stud you are! (Bit of a show-off, really...)

...until it comes to explaining to children where babies come from,
that is.

Oh, sure, you'll
excuse yourself by saying that this is "stuff a 4-year-old child
doesn't need to know yet" - and yet the child will have been the
curious one asking questions!

Yes, a 4 year old does not need ALL the details - that is BECAUSE
they will not understand and there is something special about
letting a child have some innocenece.

What has innocence got to do with knowing where babies come from? Do
you protect a child's innocence by letting him run into the road, or
do you explain, several times if need be, that he has to take care?
What about potty training and protecting the child's innocence?

You answer the 4 year old in terms that they understand. I
can do that without getting embarrassed or having to give a biology
essay.

No-one has suggested that you need to "give" a biology essay.
Presumably you can say words like "leg", or "nose", so why not "womb"
and "vagina"? What is so very terrible about naming a part of the
female body where a baby grows? Why is this knowledge destroying a
child's innocence, but knowledge about other bodily functions isn't?

My girlfriends 7 year old gets all the questions answered he asks
about sex but he is still far too young to have ALL the details.
Does a 7 year old NEED to know about oral, anal, group sex

No, of course not! That has nothing to do with the question children
ask, namely where do babies come from. However, in this day and age, a
7-year-old may well come back from the playground with all kinds of
questions and if you're going to be a successful parent, you need to
know up front how you will answer him, not lie to him in order to
avoid YOUR embarrassment and pretend to yourself that you're doing
that to protect HIS innocence.

STDs etc in detail?

No, NOT in detail! No-one's saying you want the kid to become a doctor
by the age of ten! But you do presumably explain why we clean our
teeth, why we wash under our foreskins, why we don't let a wound get
dirty, but clean it, disinfect it, and put a plaster on? So why not
explain, even if only cursorily, but truthfully, what an STI is? Look
at the shocking statistics on chlamydia, for example, in older kids,
all too embarrassed to go to the doctor early on because of the bad
habits they learned from their stupid, repressed parents.

When he does
ask questions I answer without any embarrasment. He is not
embassassed about a naked body as he has seen me and the girlfriend
naked on many occassions and he is not afraid to ask questions when
he wants to. When he asked about circumcision I showed him my penis,
explained what happened in the circumcision and he then understood.
There was no giggling or other childish behaviour.

"There was no giggling or other childish behaviour." That sounds as if
you were expecting such a reaction.

Have you ever met a child or have you only ever read about them?

Has he ever had a woman?

--
geoff

In message , Alan Braggins
writes
In article , PeterC wrote:
On Tue, 10 May 2011 00:41:20 +0100 (BST), Dave Liquorice wrote:

On Mon, 09 May 2011 21:01:53 +0100, Steve Walker wrote:

In this Teachers are referred to as having an honoured place in society
as "Liars to Children," as at each stage they teach something that in
later years is revealed to be a gross simplification (or even completely
wrong) and that without that simplification, the children would not have
been able to continue to a stage where they could understand the next
level.

Yep, the first thing that my A Level Chemistry teacher said was
"Forget what they taught you at O level, it's wrong".

Had just the same at start of HNC - from the same lecturer as in ONC!

http://xkcd.com/895/

I was going to post something like that, just waiting for the right
place

Yup - that about sums it up


"mummy, where do babies come from?"

"Well, Johnny, once upon a time there was a thing we call the big bang
...."

If you really want to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but
the truth (well to an approximation, anyway)


--
geoff

In message , MM
writes
On Sun, 08 May 2011 10:34:19 +0100, Lobster
wrote:

On 08/05/2011 07:40, David WE Roberts wrote:
Travelling in the USA at the moment and the toilets over here are
different from those in the UK but reasonably consistent.

As an obvious afficionado of such matters, you should really try to take
a trip to Japan, then. Having had the opportunity to travel there last
year, naturally enough I photographed a toilet (as you do):

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images...6288small.jpg/

These khazis are a truly fascinating experience... you can probably see
just below the rim at the back there are two little nozzles, which aim
water jets upwards and forwards, in slightly different directions in
order to target different bodily orifices (and they are uncannily
accurate, as SWMBO confirms) as you can see from looking at the
different 'spray' icons on the control panel buttons (yes, honestly -
sitting on this thing is like piloting the Starship Enterprise)...

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images...6285small.jpg/

The other controls - the one on the far left is to adjust the power of
the water jets; others are for water temperature, electrically-heated
seat temperature, the hot-air drier, and the motor which raises and
lowers the seat (oh yes, really)... Other features you often get include
a slot to insert an SD card, so you can crap along to Black Sabbath or
the Nolan Sisters as the mood takes you.

Also of interest is the top of the cistern, where you can just see a
vertical tube: this is actually a tap; when you flush the toilet, the
clean water comes out of the tap and into the basin formed from the
cistern lid, whereupon it runs into the cistern to flush the toilet - so
the water coming out of the tap is used for washing your hands before it
is used to flush with. Quite ingenious, both in terms of saving water
and space.

Bit worried about the bonding cable just lying on the floor, wired into
the toilet but not connected anywhere else - however a very common sight
in Japan.

David

Another thing I don't understand is why modern technology has not yet
come up with a way of having crap eat itself inside the bowels,

Just take an alligator enema MM

... please


--
geoff

In message , MM
writes

Is there anything more ridiculous than the way many British people
change into their swimming costumes on the beach? Desperately using a
large towel so that not a mm² of illegal flesh is displayed.

So, why not **** off to one of your imaginary more enlightened
destinations then?


I think that you are in a time warp of what parents were like 30 years
ago

Our little island has moved on, you haven't

--
geoff

In message , Tim
Streater writes
In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:

MM wrote:

And I reckon you both felt really weird, didn't you? Talk about
sheep!

Ditto in Latvia '97 and no, it wasn't weird.

M&M certainly has a fixation about this, doesn't it?

He's been abroad, you know

International Man of Mystery's little brother

talking of whom ...

"DRIVEL, DRIVEL, DRIVEL"

see if he appears


--
geoff

In message , Huge
writes
On 2011-05-11, MM wrote:

I never go to the seaside. I hate swimming. I don't like beaches.

Phew, it isn't just me. (Although, I actually quite like swimming, but not
in the sea.)

I don't mind walking down an empty windswept beach in the autumn, but I'd
rather gouge my eyes out with a spoon than go to one of the Costas or
similar to lie on a beach, sweltering and uncomfortable.

Beach holidays are the most boring thing known to mankind.

+1

--
geoff

On Wed, 11 May 2011 17:57:48 +0100, "Ret."
wrote:

MM wrote:
On Tue, 10 May 2011 18:25:10 +0100, "Ret."
wrote:

MM wrote:
On Tue, 10 May 2011 08:06:06 +0100, "Ret."
wrote:

MM wrote:
On Mon, 09 May 2011 21:43:37 +0100, Steve Walker
wrote:

On 09/05/2011 09:51, MM wrote:
On Sun, 8 May 2011 18:56:28 +0100,
wrote:

MM wrote:
On Sun, 08 May 2011 13:41:29 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In ,
Bernard wrote:

On 08/05/11 11:05, ARWadsworth wrote:

My strangest toilet was the one in my German apartment in
the 1970s. It had a ledge, with the water outlet at the
front of the ledge. So everything you "did" first landed
on the ledge. This was apparently designed so that you
could check for blood and thereby pre-empt any serious
medical condition. (The Germans were/are extremely
finickety about their health.) That design seems to have
vanished now, since all the German houses I frequent
nowadays have a "normal" UK-style toilet bowl.

One of these?

http://i428.photobucket.com/albums/q...020/img086.jpg

That's also a common design in the Netherlands.

Completely disgusting IMO.

Why? It's only a style of toilet! You sound typically British,
typically insular. Wait until you are invited to participate
in the NHS bowel cancel screening programme and you have to
smear samples of poo on a test card. Some people chuck the
invitation in the bin, preferring not to know, and some of
those statistically will die early of bowel cancer.

I've done two of those so far. Not particularly pleasant - but
only a complete idiot would not participate in the test.

Huh, Britain is, then, full of complete idiots, because the
review nurse I first went to see when they invited me for a
colonoscopy was overjoyed at getting a new client. She said the
majority of cards they sent out never came back.

Doesn't surprise me. In Britain we have doctors despairing at
trying to find out what a patient is complaining of because said
patient cannot describe body parts or functions (too
embarrassed).

How many men simply cannot visit their GP with an STI! And then
you get the programmes on TV where things have been allowed to
get out of hand and the man's willy is practically
unrecognisable as a willy. Same with girls' bits, too. Again,
this is ALL because parents REFUSE to discuss these things with
their children from a very early age and thus the fear of
embarrassment is perpetuated from one generation to the next.

Is there anything more ridiculous than the way many British
people change into their swimming costumes on the beach?
Desperately using a large towel so that not a mm² of illegal
flesh is displayed.

MM

I don't think it's that simple. My parents have never been open
about such things, but my kids are completely used to me walking
around the house naked first thing in the morning. When it comes
to my body, I am far, far less prudish than my wife - who's
parents did talk to her about her body and sex (her mother was a
midwife).

I have had a skin problem (autoimmune problem) that caused me
intense itchiness and rawness on my arms and legs and around my
scrotum - I had no problem at all stripping off in front of the
female GP (and the four female students that she had with her!)
or the dermatologist that I was referred to.

Similarly, I have stayed on camp sites in France, where the
urinals were around the *outside* of the toilet block, on view
to all and crossed the channel on ferries where women cleaners
were in the toilets, but French men continued to use them - so I
just did the same.

SteveW

Well, then, you are one of the enlightened few. Try encouraging
others to behave likewise, although in Britain it will be an
uphill struggle, because we as a nation are completely f***ed up
about sex. On the one hand we consume vast quantities of sexual
tittle-tattle in the tabloids. We are voracious. Sex sells
newspapers. But then we take every possible precaution while
changing on the beach to prevent any stray ounce of flesh from
appearing, otherwise we would be SO embarrassed we'd rather die.

Little to do with embarassment - everything to do with fear of
being arrested for indecent exposure!

More absolute nonsense! People have been changing thus on beaches
since long before the police could arrest anyone on a whim.

So, do I take it that whenever you are changing on a beach, wherever
you are, - you just strip off naked before putting on your cozzie -
or do you simply not even bother with a cozzie and regard all
beaches as nudist beaches?

I never go to the seaside. I hate swimming. I don't like beaches. But
if I did, I'd wear my swimming trunks underneath, then simply strip
off my outer clothing. Afterwards, I'd sunbathe until my "cozzie"
(horrid, ozzie terminology) was dry, then I'd put my kilt back on.

So you would not display your 'kit' for all to see? How repressed...


I will struggle with a towel to get changed on a UK beach - but
when my wife and I went on one holiday to Fuerteventura, and found
that the beach adjacent to the hotel was a nudist beach, we both
stripped off with the rest.

And I reckon you both felt really weird, didn't you? Talk about
sheep!

Actually no - it was quite 'liberating'.

But back in the UK your liberation turns back into repression, yes?

For pity's sake - it's not 'repression' - it's simply compliance with the
norm.

Like I said earlier, talk about sheep!

MM

On Wed, 11 May 2011 21:43:59 +0100, geoff wrote:

In message , MM
writes
M&M obviously has no concept of how a small child, given an explanation
it can't understand, will feel intimidated and therefore end up
repressed.

Oh, sure! Look at the vast armies of repressed and intimidated
children out there who have correctly had explained to them where
babies grow. I really don't know how primary school teachers cope with
all the terrible repression and intimidation. It is simply shocking
that it's allowed to go on.

Is that why you hang around outside school with a raincoat and wellies?


Education ?

Why aren't you in school today???

MM

On Wed, 11 May 2011 18:33:56 +0100, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
Clive George wrote:

On 10/05/2011 17:29, MM wrote:
On Tue, 10 May 2011 13:47:19 +0100, "ARWadsworth"

You are NOT telling the child the truth or even anything
approximating to the truth. The tummy is the ONE place you WOULD
NOT want a baby. And you won't tell the child the truth because
you're too embarrassed (opposite a 4-year-old, nota bene!) to
explain the various bits in simple language. So, yes, repressed
with bells on. Oh, sure, you'll excuse yourself by saying that this
is "stuff a 4-year-old child doesn't need to know yet" -- and yet
the child will have been the curious one asking questions!

Um, you're confused. The tummy is just the stomach - it can refer to
the belly too, and as such "inside the tummy" is an entirely
appropriate description. Would "inside the belly" annoy you as much?

To a small child, the whole of the lower part of the torso is just the
tummy. Explaining in greater detail will just confuse the poor kid.

Just as I was confused when, after an operation, I asked the surgeon
what he'd done. He pompously explained in what I have no doubt was
quite an accurate and true manner, but couched entirely in
incomprehensible medical terms, so I ended up being none the wiser,
and felt put off asking doctors for explanations for some time.

M&M obviously has no concept of how a small child, given an
explanation it can't understand, will feel intimidated and therefore
end up repressed.

He has obviously never spent any time with kids. Or if he has, he has turned
them into precocious little *******s and never let them have any fun.
Strikes me as the type of ****** that instead of letting a couple of kids
have a kickabout with a football would pull out a copy of the FA rules and
ensure that the kids understood the offside rule before they could play.

And all this because you insist babies grow in mummy's tummy?

"precocious little *******s"
"******"
"football"
"FA rules"

You forgot the kitchen sink...

MM

On Wed, 11 May 2011 11:59:05 +0100, Clive George
wrote:

On 11/05/2011 06:01, MM wrote:
On Tue, 10 May 2011 17:39:38 +0100, Clive George
wrote:

Um, you're confused.

Don't be stupid. I know exactly where and what the tummy is, thanks
very much. To try and pretend that's where babies grow is foolish
beyond measure.

I don't think you do know what and where the tummy is, because it's
actually a rather vague word.

The tummy is just the stomach - it can refer to the
belly too, and as such "inside the tummy" is an entirely appropriate
description. Would "inside the belly" annoy you as much?

"Your stomach is a short-term food-storage facility. This allows you
to consume a large meal quickly and then digest it over an extended
period of time. When full, your stomach can hold around one litre of
chewed up food."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbo.../stomach.shtml

Still want to lie to your kids?

If I were to insert the missing "not" (my fault), would that make a
difference? The tummy is not just the stomach. Indeed ask most people to
point to their tummy, and they'll point to somewhere else.

Yeah, like I'll go to the doctor and say, doc, I've got a problem with
my tummy, and he says, why are you pointing at your foot? And I go,
that's where the pain is!

MM

Ret. wrote:
MM wrote:
On Tue, 10 May 2011 18:25:10 +0100, "Ret."
wrote:

MM wrote:
On Tue, 10 May 2011 08:06:06 +0100, "Ret."
wrote:

MM wrote:
On Mon, 09 May 2011 21:43:37 +0100, Steve Walker
wrote:

On 09/05/2011 09:51, MM wrote:
On Sun, 8 May 2011 18:56:28 +0100,
wrote:

MM wrote:
On Sun, 08 May 2011 13:41:29 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In ,
Bernard wrote:

On 08/05/11 11:05, ARWadsworth wrote:

My strangest toilet was the one in my German apartment in
the 1970s. It had a ledge, with the water outlet at the
front of the ledge. So everything you "did" first landed
on the ledge. This was apparently designed so that you
could check for blood and thereby pre-empt any serious
medical condition. (The Germans were/are extremely
finickety about their health.) That design seems to have
vanished now, since all the German houses I frequent
nowadays have a "normal" UK-style toilet bowl.

One of these?

http://i428.photobucket.com/albums/q...020/img086.jpg

That's also a common design in the Netherlands.

Completely disgusting IMO.

Why? It's only a style of toilet! You sound typically
British, typically insular. Wait until you are invited to
participate in the NHS bowel cancel screening programme and
you have to smear samples of poo on a test card. Some people
chuck the invitation in the bin, preferring not to know, and
some of those statistically will die early of bowel cancer.

I've done two of those so far. Not particularly pleasant - but
only a complete idiot would not participate in the test.

Huh, Britain is, then, full of complete idiots, because the
review nurse I first went to see when they invited me for a
colonoscopy was overjoyed at getting a new client. She said the
majority of cards they sent out never came back.

Doesn't surprise me. In Britain we have doctors despairing at
trying to find out what a patient is complaining of because
said patient cannot describe body parts or functions (too
embarrassed).

How many men simply cannot visit their GP with an STI! And then
you get the programmes on TV where things have been allowed to
get out of hand and the man's willy is practically
unrecognisable as a willy. Same with girls' bits, too. Again,
this is ALL because parents REFUSE to discuss these things with
their children from a very early age and thus the fear of
embarrassment is perpetuated from one generation to the next.

Is there anything more ridiculous than the way many British
people change into their swimming costumes on the beach?
Desperately using a large towel so that not a mm² of illegal
flesh is displayed.

MM

I don't think it's that simple. My parents have never been open
about such things, but my kids are completely used to me walking
around the house naked first thing in the morning. When it comes
to my body, I am far, far less prudish than my wife - who's
parents did talk to her about her body and sex (her mother was a
midwife).

I have had a skin problem (autoimmune problem) that caused me
intense itchiness and rawness on my arms and legs and around my
scrotum - I had no problem at all stripping off in front of the
female GP (and the four female students that she had with her!)
or the dermatologist that I was referred to.

Similarly, I have stayed on camp sites in France, where the
urinals were around the *outside* of the toilet block, on view
to all and crossed the channel on ferries where women cleaners
were in the toilets, but French men continued to use them - so I
just did the same.

SteveW

Well, then, you are one of the enlightened few. Try encouraging
others to behave likewise, although in Britain it will be an
uphill struggle, because we as a nation are completely f***ed up
about sex. On the one hand we consume vast quantities of sexual
tittle-tattle in the tabloids. We are voracious. Sex sells
newspapers. But then we take every possible precaution while
changing on the beach to prevent any stray ounce of flesh from
appearing, otherwise we would be SO embarrassed we'd rather die.

Little to do with embarassment - everything to do with fear of
being arrested for indecent exposure!

More absolute nonsense! People have been changing thus on beaches
since long before the police could arrest anyone on a whim.

So, do I take it that whenever you are changing on a beach, wherever
you are, - you just strip off naked before putting on your cozzie -
or do you simply not even bother with a cozzie and regard all
beaches as nudist beaches?

I never go to the seaside. I hate swimming. I don't like beaches. But
if I did, I'd wear my swimming trunks underneath, then simply strip
off my outer clothing. Afterwards, I'd sunbathe until my "cozzie"
(horrid, ozzie terminology) was dry, then I'd put my kilt back on.

So you would not display your 'kit' for all to see? How repressed...


I will struggle with a towel to get changed on a UK beach - but
when my wife and I went on one holiday to Fuerteventura, and found
that the beach adjacent to the hotel was a nudist beach, we both
stripped off with the rest.

And I reckon you both felt really weird, didn't you? Talk about
sheep!

Actually no - it was quite 'liberating'.

But back in the UK your liberation turns back into repression, yes?

For pity's sake - it's not 'repression' - it's simply compliance with
the norm.

More of a risk of frost bite in the UK:-)

--
Adam

On Thu, 12 May 2011 09:44:11 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article ,
MM wrote:

On Wed, 11 May 2011 17:57:48 +0100, "Ret."
wrote:

MM wrote:

But back in the UK your liberation turns back into repression, yes?

For pity's sake - it's not 'repression' - it's simply compliance with the
norm.

Like I said earlier, talk about sheep!

Baaaaaah! Baaaah!

Does the farmer know you've lost your ear tag?

MM

Steve Walker wrote:
On 10/05/2011 17:58, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
Clive George wrote:

On 10/05/2011 17:29, MM wrote:
On Tue, 10 May 2011 13:47:19 +0100, "ARWadsworth"

You are NOT telling the child the truth or even anything
approximating to the truth. The tummy is the ONE place you WOULD
NOT want a baby. And you won't tell the child the truth because
you're too embarrassed (opposite a 4-year-old, nota bene!) to
explain the various bits in simple language. So, yes, repressed
with bells on. Oh, sure, you'll excuse yourself by saying that
this is "stuff a 4-year-old child doesn't need to know yet" -- and
yet the child will have been the curious one asking questions!

Um, you're confused. The tummy is just the stomach - it can refer to
the belly too, and as such "inside the tummy" is an entirely
appropriate description. Would "inside the belly" annoy you as much?

To a small child, the whole of the lower part of the torso is just
the tummy. Explaining in greater detail will just confuse the poor
kid.

I have heard of at least one child saying that they have "a tummy ache
in my head" because they were used to tummy aches, but not headaches.
A childs concept of anatomy is somewhat flexible!

Well the child needs a bloody good hiding for talking rubbish:-)

--
Adam

MM wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2011 06:55:16 +0100, Tim Watts wrote:

MM wrote:

On Tue, 10 May 2011 17:39:38 +0100, Clive George
wrote:

Um, you're confused.

Don't be stupid. I know exactly where and what the tummy is, thanks
very much. To try and pretend that's where babies grow is foolish
beyond measure.

The tummy is just the stomach - it can refer to the
belly too, and as such "inside the tummy" is an entirely
appropriate description. Would "inside the belly" annoy you as
much?

"Your stomach is a short-term food-storage facility. This allows you
to consume a large meal quickly and then digest it over an extended
period of time. When full, your stomach can hold around one litre of
chewed up food."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbo.../stomach.shtml

Still want to lie to your kids?

MM

Oh FFS stop being a ****.

*I'm* a **** for telling people to stop lying to their kids?!!!

Yes. You are telling educated adults what to do when they never asked for
your advice and you are also telling them how to bring their children up
when you have never brought up a child.

So that makes you a first class steaming great ****.

--
Adam

In message , MM
writes
On Wed, 11 May 2011 21:43:59 +0100, geoff wrote:

In message , MM
writes
M&M obviously has no concept of how a small child, given an explanation
it can't understand, will feel intimidated and therefore end up
repressed.

Oh, sure! Look at the vast armies of repressed and intimidated
children out there who have correctly had explained to them where
babies grow. I really don't know how primary school teachers cope with
all the terrible repression and intimidation. It is simply shocking
that it's allowed to go on.

Is that why you hang around outside school with a raincoat and wellies?


Education ?

Why aren't you in school today???

Because you might be waiting outside ...

--
geoff

On Thu, 12 May 2011 13:40:09 +0100, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:

MM wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2011 06:55:16 +0100, Tim Watts wrote:

MM wrote:

On Tue, 10 May 2011 17:39:38 +0100, Clive George
wrote:

Um, you're confused.

Don't be stupid. I know exactly where and what the tummy is, thanks
very much. To try and pretend that's where babies grow is foolish
beyond measure.

The tummy is just the stomach - it can refer to the
belly too, and as such "inside the tummy" is an entirely
appropriate description. Would "inside the belly" annoy you as
much?

"Your stomach is a short-term food-storage facility. This allows you
to consume a large meal quickly and then digest it over an extended
period of time. When full, your stomach can hold around one litre of
chewed up food."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbo.../stomach.shtml

Still want to lie to your kids?

MM

Oh FFS stop being a ****.

*I'm* a **** for telling people to stop lying to their kids?!!!

Yes. You are telling educated adults what to do when they never asked for
your advice and you are also telling them how to bring their children up
when you have never brought up a child.

So that makes you a first class steaming great ****.

Educated, huh?

MM

MM wrote:
On Thu, 12 May 2011 13:40:09 +0100, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:
*I'm* a **** for telling people to stop lying to their kids?!!!

Yes. You are telling educated adults what to do when they never
asked for your advice and you are also telling them how to bring
their children up when you have never brought up a child.

So that makes you a first class steaming great ****.

Educated, huh?

Yep.

Educated and also experienced in the real world, not the parallel universe
that you occupy where you believe that reading about children in a book
makes you a good parent.

There are about 6 million children in this country under the age of 8. You
would need 6 million different parenting books to correctly cater for all of
the children.

--
Adam

On May 10, 5:58*pm, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
*Clive George wrote:

On 10/05/2011 17:29, MM wrote:
On Tue, 10 May 2011 13:47:19 +0100, "ARWadsworth"
You are NOT telling the child the truth or even anything approximating
to the truth. The tummy is the ONE place you WOULD NOT want a baby.
And you won't tell the child the truth because you're too embarrassed
(opposite a 4-year-old, nota bene!) to explain the various bits in
simple language. So, yes, repressed with bells on. Oh, sure, you'll
excuse yourself by saying that this is "stuff a 4-year-old child
doesn't need to know yet" *-- *and yet the child will have been the
curious one asking questions!
Um, you're confused. The tummy is just the stomach - it can refer to the
belly too, and as such "inside the tummy" is an entirely appropriate
description. Would "inside the belly" annoy you as much?

To a small child, the whole of the lower part of the torso is just the
tummy. Explaining in greater detail will just confuse the poor kid.

Just as I was confused when, after an operation, I asked the surgeon
what he'd done. He pompously explained in what I have no doubt was quite
an accurate and true manner, but couched entirely in incomprehensible
medical terms, so I ended up being none the wiser, and felt put off
asking doctors for explanations for some time.

M&M obviously has no concept of how a small child, given an explanation
it can't understand, will feel intimidated and therefore end up
repressed.

M&M may also be unaware of people using 'tummy' as a synonym for
'abdomen', rather than just 'stomach', even if 'tummy' looks to have
been derived from 'stomach'.

MM wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2011 11:59:05 +0100, Clive George
wrote:

On 11/05/2011 06:01, MM wrote:
On Tue, 10 May 2011 17:39:38 +0100, Clive George
wrote:

Um, you're confused.

Don't be stupid. I know exactly where and what the tummy is, thanks
very much. To try and pretend that's where babies grow is foolish
beyond measure.

I don't think you do know what and where the tummy is, because it's
actually a rather vague word.

The tummy is just the stomach - it can refer to the
belly too, and as such "inside the tummy" is an entirely
appropriate description. Would "inside the belly" annoy you as
much?

"Your stomach is a short-term food-storage facility. This allows you
to consume a large meal quickly and then digest it over an extended
period of time. When full, your stomach can hold around one litre of
chewed up food."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbo.../stomach.shtml

Still want to lie to your kids?

If I were to insert the missing "not" (my fault), would that make a
difference? The tummy is not just the stomach. Indeed ask most
people to point to their tummy, and they'll point to somewhere else.

Yeah, like I'll go to the doctor and say, doc, I've got a problem with
my tummy, and he says, why are you pointing at your foot? And I go,
that's where the pain is!

No

You are the sort of tool that goes to the doctors with piles and points to
your elbow.

--
Adam

On Wed, 11 May 2011 22:30:40 +0100, geoff wrote:

In message , MM
writes

Is there anything more ridiculous than the way many British people
change into their swimming costumes on the beach? Desperately using a
large towel so that not a mm² of illegal flesh is displayed.

So, why not **** off to one of your imaginary more enlightened
destinations then?


I think that you are in a time warp of what parents were like 30 years
ago

Our little island has moved on, you haven't

*We've* moved on? Surely it's other nations that are less inhibited
than the British?

MM

In message , MM
writes
On Wed, 11 May 2011 22:30:40 +0100, geoff wrote:

In message , MM
writes

Is there anything more ridiculous than the way many British people
change into their swimming costumes on the beach? Desperately using a
large towel so that not a mm² of illegal flesh is displayed.

So, why not **** off to one of your imaginary more enlightened
destinations then?


I think that you are in a time warp of what parents were like 30 years
ago

Our little island has moved on, you haven't

*We've* moved on? Surely it's other nations that are less inhibited
than the British?

Err ...
like the Irish for example?

What you've said might have been correct 30 years ago

not now

--
geoff

MM wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2011 22:30:40 +0100, geoff wrote:

In message , MM
writes

Is there anything more ridiculous than the way many British people
change into their swimming costumes on the beach? Desperately using
a large towel so that not a mm² of illegal flesh is displayed.

So, why not **** off to one of your imaginary more enlightened
destinations then?


I think that you are in a time warp of what parents were like 30
years ago

Our little island has moved on, you haven't

*We've* moved on? Surely it's other nations that are less inhibited
than the British?

No, the rest of the UK has moved on, you have not moved on and you are stuck
in a time warp.

--
Adam

"Ret." wrote in message
...
snip
Why? It's only a style of toilet! You sound typically British,
typically insular. Wait until you are invited to participate in the
NHS bowel cancel screening programme and you have to smear samples of
poo on a test card. Some people chuck the invitation in the bin,
preferring not to know, and some of those statistically will die early
of bowel cancer.

I've done two of those so far. Not particularly pleasant - but only a
complete idiot would not participate in the test.

Should perhaps mention that the test is renowned for false positives - piles
are an obvious cause, but allegedly even a rare steak will pass enough blood
products through to give a positive result.

As far as I know as well as false positives, the test is also not that good
at detecting the presence of cancer.

So a considered decision may lead to the rejection of the test.

--
No plan survives contact with the enemy.
[Not even bunny]

Helmuth von Moltke the Elder

(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

"David WE Roberts" wrote in message
...
Travelling in the USA at the moment and the toilets over here are
different from those in the UK but reasonably consistent.

snip

Just got back from our travels and catching up.

A very good response to the thread (thanks).

Also, until reading this thread I had no idea so much sex education went on
in US toilets (I think).

Cheers

Dave R
--
No plan survives contact with the enemy.
[Not even bunny]

Helmuth von Moltke the Elder

(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")