ants

The bit there about the police and the access to EU systems was one I hadn't heard of before. Pity that didn't get discussion in the original debates, arguing that it would reduce safety and help criminals might have influenced more people to vote remain.

Read the latest (two) October Daye books, biting the bullet that they won't come out on Kindle and purchasing the physical books. In my view the series continues to be strong, with further development of the characters and hints at a deeper over-arching plot they may capture Toby in the future. Plus a few curve balls. They were a lot of fun.

Lol. That lady is kind of hilarious. Her accent is so annoying, but kind of funny. I would say that the Anita Blake books were pretty good, up until about book 7ish. But a lot of that reviewers' comments are correct, and I would point out I did read them back in the nineties! And the writing does reflect where the cultural views were back then. I've not been reading the series and didn't realise it was still going. I would point out the review spoils the entire book, if anyone wants to read it.

Of course you will. It’s not like there will be any food to eat .....

I'm still trying to figure out how heavy drinking suddenly makes accusations against you credible. Or how being nominated by Trump does either. Or what the Republicans have been doing to get people to support his nomination. None of these make this accusation more or less credible, unless you want to play party politics and stereotyping. So from now on if the Repubs can find someone who credibly (which has been defined elsewhere in the thread as plausibly) allege sexual assault every Liberal nomination and candidate has to step aside? Because the issue here is that the standard the liberal base holds the Dems to is very different to the standard the Repub base holds them to. A big chunk of the Repub base doesn't care about this allegation. But if it was switched and a Dem nominee had these allegations? Then the Dem base would certainly give a stuff. Which means Dem Senators would feel pressured to vote no. I'm not saying the Dems shouldn't fight Kavanaugh's nomination. I'm not saying that this shouldn't be investigated, and definitely used to stall the process (which is a nice side benefit). I'm not saying I don't believe her. If more evidence comes out to support (and the other student's knowing of it sounds promising), then hopefully nail him by his petards to the mast. But I am saying that the Dems want to think hard on what their standards of evidence are to fight on, because you know that the Repubs will lie in the future, and that the Dem base will not accept things the Repub base will. One area Zorral is perfectly correct on is that the Dems should have been hammering much harder on a heap of other ares, but especially the lying, before this even came up.

I find it hard that anyone who has been paying attention to Republican actions and the long term game they play on SC seats, that they wouldn't be just as capable of playing a long term game on potential Democrat nominations. And we know Republican operatives lie. Although being in the person's past life is important, I suspect a significant number of SC potentials went to similar universities, where being there for several years the capacity, the operative could easily be in a position to have interacted with a significant number of potential nominees. So I'm a bit with @Rippounet, we should be very clear what we define as credible, what that triggers, and how much evidence is to be given before we tank a nomination or elected official. Because we know Republicans don't truly give a shit about this and will be happy to be hypocrites. Its the Dems who have to be careful. I don't think further investigation here is at all unfair to the process or the parties. But if nothing more substantial was found, I don't think you could knock back Kavanagh's confirmation as a Dem on this particular issue, given the information public to date. Of course, there are plenty of others issues to choose from where that particular slimeball is concerned that could be used to justify voting against him.

The simple fact is Fry’s opportunity cost of doing the show was way higher, plus his celebrity helped make it popular. Both are good reasons for a pay disparity.

Given the way you describe the series above, you might want to try Kit Whitfield's bareback (I think it is beknighted in the USA). Its about a world where werewolves actually make up the bulk of the population, and the "barebacks" (who can't shift) are the minority. It is really well done with a complete culture that rings true, and the story is very good.

Hollows spoilers above. Guys, these posts in conjunction with each other are effectively spoilers. I get you guys don't like the way the series went, but I know I do and I assume plenty of others would agree given the book sales. Can you please go back and put spoiler tags around the bits which reveal too much?

Watford should have been down to 10 men after 3 minutes. Absolute disgrace that they weren't, and then the same player had another nick after being given the yellow which could have got him something. Palace very unlucky, but Ward should have got something for them at the end.

It will be interesting to see if the success it had at the WC changes anything more quickly.

Come on Timmy, get a goal!

Not a great day for the Aussies but hardly surprising.

Could have won it, but just lack any class up front.

If people can keep posting, it is really appreciated. The games are mostly overnight Australian time, so on weekdays I can usually only catch up on one match. If we're nominating past matches, apart from the ones mentioned I thought Iceland vs. Argentina was good. Really gripping through to the end to see what would happen, and a few twists along the way. Obviously a few days late now on this!