In message , Grunff
writes
Tonight's Property Ladder:

A) Beginning of program -
1. Beeny pregnant
2. House clearly not started
3. House owner lady not pregnant


B) Middle of program -
1. Beeny more pregnant than in A
2. House half demolished
3. House owner lady tells us she's pregnant


C) End of program -
1. Beeny *still* pregnant
2. House completed
3. House owner lady has given birth and is holding baby


Now I'm no biologist, but WTF is going on here??


Not really here for the house refurbishment are you g

Watched the whole thing for the 1st time tonight - what a bag of ****e,
and I'm not absolutely sure why all the fuss over Beeny?


--
Richard Faulkner

Richard Faulkner wrote:

and I'm not absolutely sure why all the fuss over Beeny?

Well, the pregnancy hasn't done her any favours, but come on!!

--
Grunff

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 23:11:11 +0100, Grunff wrote:

Richard Faulkner wrote:

and I'm not absolutely sure why all the fuss over Beeny?

Well, the pregnancy hasn't done her any favours, but come on!!



Come on what?

The woman's aesthetically challenged.


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

Andy Hall wrote:


Come on what?

The woman's aesthetically challenged.


I have to be very careful what I write, because SWMBO reads this
sometimes...

But I don't agree with the assertion that Ms Beeny is aesthetically
challenged; not by a long way.


--
Grunff

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 00:55:47 +0100, Grunff wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:


Come on what?

The woman's aesthetically challenged.


I have to be very careful what I write, because SWMBO reads this
sometimes...

I wouldn't worry - doubt if she'd feel threatened :-)


But I don't agree with the assertion that Ms Beeny is aesthetically
challenged; not by a long way.

Two attributes that are not that subtle, and that's about it
though......



..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

Andy Hall wrote in message . ..
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 00:55:47 +0100, Grunff wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:


Come on what?

The woman's aesthetically challenged.


I have to be very careful what I write, because SWMBO reads this
sometimes...

I wouldn't worry - doubt if she'd feel threatened :-)


But I don't agree with the assertion that Ms Beeny is aesthetically
challenged; not by a long way.

Two attributes that are not that subtle, and that's about it
though......


Anything more than handful is wasted.

"MBQ" wrote in message
om...
Andy Hall wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 00:55:47 +0100, Grunff wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:


Come on what?

The woman's aesthetically challenged.


I have to be very careful what I write, because SWMBO reads this
sometimes...

I wouldn't worry - doubt if she'd feel threatened :-)


But I don't agree with the assertion that Ms Beeny is aesthetically
challenged; not by a long way.

Two attributes that are not that subtle, and that's about it
though......


Anything more than handful is wasted.

Anyone who says that, lacks imagination. It's always nice to have room to
roam.

Andy Hall wrote:
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 23:11:11 +0100, Grunff wrote:

Richard Faulkner wrote:

and I'm not absolutely sure why all the fuss over Beeny?

Well, the pregnancy hasn't done her any favours, but come on!!



Come on what?

The woman's aesthetically challenged.


you really need to look at her from a hetrosexual point of view




RT

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 00:01:14 GMT, "R Taylor"
wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 23:11:11 +0100, Grunff wrote:

Richard Faulkner wrote:

and I'm not absolutely sure why all the fuss over Beeny?

Well, the pregnancy hasn't done her any favours, but come on!!



Come on what?

The woman's aesthetically challenged.


you really need to look at her from a hetrosexual point of view



Is there any other way? Whichever way, I don't see the attraction.



..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 00:01:14 GMT, "R Taylor"
wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 23:11:11 +0100, Grunff wrote:

Richard Faulkner wrote:

and I'm not absolutely sure why all the fuss over Beeny?

Well, the pregnancy hasn't done her any favours, but come on!!



Come on what?

The woman's aesthetically challenged.


you really need to look at her from a hetrosexual point of view

Oh, very clever! Miaow!

MM

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 22:47:47 +0100, Richard Faulkner
wrote:

In message , Grunff
writes
Tonight's Property Ladder:

A) Beginning of program -
1. Beeny pregnant
2. House clearly not started
3. House owner lady not pregnant


B) Middle of program -
1. Beeny more pregnant than in A
2. House half demolished
3. House owner lady tells us she's pregnant


C) End of program -
1. Beeny *still* pregnant
2. House completed
3. House owner lady has given birth and is holding baby


Now I'm no biologist, but WTF is going on here??


Not really here for the house refurbishment are you g

Watched the whole thing for the 1st time tonight - what a bag of ****e,
and I'm not absolutely sure why all the fuss over Beeny?

She doesn't look quite so 'fragrant' as she once did, but pregnancy is
a very tiresome thing, I am led to believe. My mum never stopped
telling me how big I was. What is getting more irritating about this
programme is the amount of time spent dwelling on who is right and who
is wrong. I counted off 22 minutes into the programme, and they were
*still* arguing about that fireplace! I would much rather see more of
the actual work done and how it is done. Also, the cavalier way the
prices of things are just increased in such a careless way, like the
kitchen suddenly costing a fortune, or the electrics and heating
rocketing from £1,000 to £9,000 - none of these increases is ever
explained in any depth, in any of the episodes. Why was it necessary
to spend such a lot on the kitchen, for example? I am absolutely
convinced that you could achieve just as welcoming an overall 'look'
much more cheaply, without resorting to MFI. Maybe the real money is
in the books that accompany series like this and the programmes are
just one long advertising slot.

MM

I am absolutely convinced that you could achieve just as welcoming
an overall 'look' much more cheaply, without resorting to MFI.

What's wrong with resorting to MFI?

Christian.

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 10:07:30 +0100, "Christian McArdle"
wrote:

I am absolutely convinced that you could achieve just as welcoming
an overall 'look' much more cheaply, without resorting to MFI.

What's wrong with resorting to MFI?

Where do you want me to start? (How about the emergency exit?)

MM

What's wrong with resorting to MFI?

Where do you want me to start? (How about the emergency exit?)

Come on, let's hear it.

Compared with other suppliers of cheaper kitchens, I find them superior.
We're not comparing with John Lewis here.

B&Q = has stock, but limited range, especially of hardwoods
Ikea = weird modern designs, has half the stock, other is always next week,
but isn't
Wickes = see B&Q
MFI = Very extensive range. Choice of prebuilt or flatpack. Large range of
modern and traditional designs, including hardwoods

Christian.

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 09:31:33 +0100, "Christian McArdle"
wrote:

What's wrong with resorting to MFI?

Where do you want me to start? (How about the emergency exit?)

Come on, let's hear it.

Compared with other suppliers of cheaper kitchens, I find them superior.
We're not comparing with John Lewis here.

B&Q = has stock, but limited range, especially of hardwoods
Ikea = weird modern designs, has half the stock, other is always next week,
but isn't
Wickes = see B&Q
MFI = Very extensive range. Choice of prebuilt or flatpack. Large range of
modern and traditional designs, including hardwoods

I can't abide MFI stuff. The designs are all twee, naff, or kitsch.
IKEA design is always fantastic, and good value. I especially like the
IKEA units that look like hospital operating theatres. I *hate*
oak-style kitchens - totally Daily Mail and toilet roll cosies, yuk.
One can practically smell the cheap scent from here.

MM

"MM" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 09:31:33 +0100, "Christian McArdle"
wrote:

What's wrong with resorting to MFI?

Where do you want me to start? (How about the emergency exit?)

Come on, let's hear it.

Compared with other suppliers of cheaper kitchens, I find them superior.
We're not comparing with John Lewis here.

B&Q = has stock, but limited range, especially of hardwoods

Wickes = see B&Q

The proper Wickes ranges are "to order" so that isn't the case really.

MM wrote:

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 09:31:33 +0100, "Christian McArdle"
wrote:


What's wrong with resorting to MFI?

Where do you want me to start? (How about the emergency exit?)

Come on, let's hear it.

Compared with other suppliers of cheaper kitchens, I find them superior.
We're not comparing with John Lewis here.

B&Q = has stock, but limited range, especially of hardwoods
Ikea = weird modern designs, has half the stock, other is always next week,
but isn't
Wickes = see B&Q
MFI = Very extensive range. Choice of prebuilt or flatpack. Large range of
modern and traditional designs, including hardwoods


I can't abide MFI stuff. The designs are all twee, naff, or kitsch.
IKEA design is always fantastic, and good value. I especially like the
IKEA units that look like hospital operating theatres. I *hate*
oak-style kitchens - totally Daily Mail and toilet roll cosies, yuk.
One can practically smell the cheap scent from here.

MM
You forgot the I in front of your name.

"MM" wrote in message
...

I can't abide MFI stuff. The designs are all twee, naff, or kitsch.
IKEA design is always fantastic, and good value. I especially like the
IKEA units that look like hospital operating theatres.

What, for a kitchen? Each to his own I suppose!

In message , MM
writes
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 22:47:47 +0100, Richard Faulkner
wrote:

In message , Grunff
writes
Tonight's Property Ladder:



Not really here for the house refurbishment are you g

Watched the whole thing for the 1st time tonight - what a bag of ****e,
and I'm not absolutely sure why all the fuss over Beeny?

I counted off 22 minutes into the programme, and they were
*still* arguing about that fireplace! I would much rather see more of
the actual work done and how it is done. Also, the cavalier way the
prices of things are just increased in such a careless way, like the
kitchen suddenly costing a fortune, or the electrics and heating
rocketing from £1,000 to £9,000 - none of these increases is ever
explained in any depth, in any of the episodes.

It is sometimes, I guess that they have to edit a lot of stuff to fit
into an hour, and also make each program different enough from the
rest.

Why was it necessary
to spend such a lot on the kitchen, for example? I am absolutely
convinced that you could achieve just as welcoming an overall 'look'
much more cheaply,

Indeed, which is point SB often makes - but as ever the 'developers' get
too hung up on their personal likes, not practicalities and profit. Why
on earth decorate the second bedroom as a twee nursery?
--
Chris French, Leeds

SB at end - not pregnant, just fat.

The finances of these developments are opaque - the other week SB
asked the developers (I think it was the two baggage handlers) how
much the development had cost and they said they din't know and SB
said "It cost £65,000" - how did she know ? I conclude the orders for
all the stuff are placed by the programme producers who keep a running
tab and negotiate assorted freebies and discounts from suppliers along
the way. Just like in "£1M Property Experiment" it turned out most of
the stuff had been given free.

How come no-one who has been on that show has posted inside
information on it here ? - I bet they all read it.

Richard Faulkner wrote:

Watched the whole thing for the 1st time tonight - what a bag of ****e,
and I'm not absolutely sure why all the fuss over Beeny?

She claimed in a programme a while ago that (although she doesn't do it
now) she has in the past done most of the practical work necessary,
including plastering & wiring. That alone makes her attractive in my view.