Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Applespider Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Mwa ha ha!

>

> What about those which are GG - GiGantic! As an ex

> used to quote to me ;-)

>

> I don't mind the word 'boobs' but I do quite like

> using boobage instead of cleavage amongst my

> well-endowed friends.

>

> Words I don't like - flaccid although gusset is up

> there too.



you also forgot size SJ.

Dulwichmum how nice to be graced by your presence on this thread dear. We/I have missed you since you went professional and of course we do not expect so much output from your goodself now you get paid sooooo much for your wordsmithery.


Professionalism is all about money I know to my cost, that's why I don't have much!


Good to have you back.


Hmmm which reminds me I wonder what's happened to MsB she seems to have gone to sleep or away.

ENOUGH!


I shall be forced to slap your bottom Mr Huguenot. And as for the rest of you - I expect to see you personally apologise to Father O'Connor next Saturday morning. If you are not outside that church by 10.30 with a large donation in your pocket - I shall ask the administrator for your address...

HeidiHi Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> A - Almost boobs

> B - Barely there

> C - can't complain

> D - Damn

> DD - double damn

> E - enormous

> F - fake

>

> Someone told me this yonks ago!




All this talk about size (and ladies it doesn't matter to most blokes despite what is said in the press) and also the increase in bust sizes over the years has lead me to a question from a male point of view


Looking downwards, one wonders if there is also a 'size' scale for the men and their man boobs (or MOOBS) as I have heard them called in the Sunday times Style magazine.


I would suggest (for argument's sake)


OI - Over inflated

PP - Perfect Pecs

FP - Flat Pecs

N - Normal

SF - Slightly Flabby

TB - Training Bra Required

BB - Bigger then your Birds

OD - Oh Dear

C4 - Featured on a documentry about obese men




;-) And I think that Gentlemen, in most ladies eyes and in this context size really does matter and anything over 'N' is going to be too big !!


(Edited to satisfy Moo's desire below)

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The main problem Post Offices have, IMO, is they are generally a sub optimal experience and don't really deliver services in the way people  want or need these days. I always dread having to use one as you know it will be time consuming and annoying. 
    • If you want to look for blame, look at McKinsey's. It was their model of separating cost and profit centres which started the restructuring of the Post Office - once BT was fully separated off - into Lines of Business - Parcels; Mail Delivery and Retail outlets (set aside the whole Giro Bank nonsense). Once you separate out these lines of business and make them 'stand-alone' you immediately make them vulnerable to sell off and additionally, by separating the 'businesses' make each stand or fall on their own, without cross subsidy. The Post Office took on banking and some government outsourced activity - selling licences and passports etc. as  additional revenue streams to cross subsidize the postal services, and to offer an incentive to outsourced sub post offices. As a single 'comms' delivery business the Post Office (which included the telcom business) made financial sense. Start separating elements off and it doesn't. Getting rid of 'non profitable' activity makes sense in a purely commercial environment, but not in one which is also about overall national benefit - where having an affordable and effective communications (in its largest sense) business is to the national benefit. Of course, the fact the the Government treated the highly profitable telecoms business as a cash cow (BT had a negative PSBR - public sector borrowing requirement - which meant far from the public purse funding investment in infrastructure BT had to lend the government money every year from it's operating surplus) meant that services were terrible and the improvement following privatisation was simply the effect of BT now being able to invest in infrastructure - which is why (partly) its service quality soared in the years following privatisation. I was working for BT through this period and saw what was happening there.
    • But didn't that separation begin with New Labour and Peter Mandelson?
    • I am not disputing that the Post Office remains publicly owned. But the Lib Dems’ decision to separate and privatise Royal Mail has fatally undermined the PO.  It is within the power of the Labour government to save what is left of the PO and the service it provides to the community, if they care enough; I suspect they do not.  However, the appalling postal service is a constant reminder of the Lib Dems’ duplicity on this matter. It is actions taken under the Lib Dem / Conservative coalition that have brought us to this point.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...