Things you often Wonder

[Paddywhack]

On 31/10/2018 at 11:13, Wainy316 said:

Is bum hair an evolutionary flaw?  What purpose does it serve?

I used to love pulling out nosehairs, but that soon got boring. Now I like pulling out arsehairs.

The missus has started wearing jeans to bed now though, made it a bit trickier.

[BOF]

53 minutes ago, Paddywhack said:

I used to love pulling out nosehairs, but that soon got boring. Now I like pulling out arsehairs.

The missus has started wearing jeans to bed now though, made it a bit trickier.

I knew where that was going long before the punchline and it was still funny

[sharkyvilla]

One of my mates had his bumcrack either waxed or shaved and the hairs growing back was the most traumatic thing in his life.  Firstly he missed the friction then he got in-growing hair in his anus which sounds as painful as it sounds.

[il_serpente]

In the match thread or any other where people have posted while you have it open, when it says, "There are x new replies" and it gives you the choice of going the the first new post or view the first x posts, what's the difference?   Both seem to refresh the page and show you however many new posts it takes to fill the page and then you have to go to the next page to view the rest.  Am I missing something?

[TheAuthority]

2 hours ago, il_serpente said:

In the match thread or any other where people have posted while you have it open, when it says, "There are x new replies" and it gives you the choice of going the the first new post or view the first x posts, what's the difference?   Both seem to refresh the page and show you however many new posts it takes to fill the page and then you have to go to the next page to view the rest.  Am I missing something?

Ssshhhh don't tell him.

[mjmooney]

9 hours ago, il_serpente said:

In the match thread or any other where people have posted while you have it open, when it says, "There are x new replies" and it gives you the choice of going the the first new post or view the first x posts, what's the difference?   Both seem to refresh the page and show you however many new posts it takes to fill the page and then you have to go to the next page to view the rest.  Am I missing something?

Seconded. 

[Mark Albrighton]

If I have the match thread open but not I’m not regularly refreshing it and I see there are 50+ new replies, I’ll go through them all quickly in the hope that it means we’ve scored by the end of it, rather than just skipping to the end.

Plus you can enjoy the development of the posts which go something like -

“ffs Kodjia playing shit again”

”this is rubbish, typical villa”

”Jimmy!”

”Yes!”

”Get in”

Edited November 3, 2018 by Shropshire Lad

[BOF]

19 hours ago, sharkyvilla said:

which sounds as painful as it sounds.

Indeed 

[mjmooney]

I was torn between the "Eating there" and "Tipple" threads for this one - the science of taste. Particularly the classic wine and cheese combo. In front of me I have a cheese board and a bottle of Chilean pinot noir. A sliver of vintage cheddar is delicious - with or without a slug of the wine, which makes no appreciable difference.

But a slice of epoisse tastes pretty bland, until washed down with the red, when - wham! - a flavour explosion. 

Why? 

 

[snowychap]

54 minutes ago, mjmooney said:

I was torn between the "Eating there" and "Tipple" threads for this one - the science of taste. Particularly the classic wine and cheese combo. In front of me I have a cheese board and a bottle of Chilean pinot noir. A sliver of vintage cheddar is delicious - with or without a slug of the wine, which makes no appreciable difference.

But a slice of epoisse tastes pretty bland, until washed down with the red, when - wham! - a flavour explosion. 

Why? 

 

Is it the wine that improves the cheese or the cheese the wine?

[snowychap]

@mjmooney, after a quick look, this Torygraph article contains the following:

Quote

The results, published in the journal Food Science, showed cheese changed all the wines, and made most more enjoyable. None of the four cheeses had a negative impact on any of the wines.

In both red wines, the Bourgogne and Madiran the four cheeses increased the aroma of red fruits in the bouquet.

They also reduced the duration of astringency, a wine tasting term that applies to the feeling in the mouth caused by tannins.  In the sweet white, Pacherenc, cheeses also improved the aroma.

Previous research in the US suggested that the pairing of cheese and wine works because the tannins in wine cause a rough, drying sensation leaving the tongue and gums feeling parched, but the fat in cheese has the opposite effect, lubricating the mouth again and making wine more enjoyable.

 

[mjmooney]

Thanks for that. The 'cheese improves wine' thing is well known - wine traders use the mantra 'sell on cheese, buy on apples' - any wine can be made to taste better with cheese, only the best can live with apple. 

But in my example, it was very much a case of the wine improving the cheese - really remarkably so. And only with that particular cheese. 

Edited November 3, 2018 by mjmooney

[snowychap]

34 minutes ago, mjmooney said:

But in my example, it was very much a case of the wine improving the cheese - really remarkably so. And only with that particular cheese.

If you had the cheese first and then the wine, would it not have been the same process?

Or could it be that if it's about the dryness from the tannins versus the lubrication from the cheese fat, softer (and thus more lubricant) cheeses such as the epoisse push the taste improvement towards the cheese?

[mjmooney]

Why does The Walking Dead get its own thread (separate from the general TV thread)? 

[tonyh29]

2 minutes ago, mjmooney said:

Why does The Walking Dead get its own thread (separate from the general TV thread)? 

let the virgins have their fun you meanie

[Mark Albrighton]

4 minutes ago, mjmooney said:

Why does The Walking Dead get its own thread (separate from the general TV thread)? 

Looking back in far reaches of off topic, the shows or films that create a lot of discussion (good or otherwise) have had their own threads in the past. I think Breaking Bad has it’s own thread, as did Nolan’s Batman films.

I dip into the walking dead thread just to humour myself at how people get annoyed with it (I gave up on it years ago).

[chrisp65]

The nice thing about Walking Dead is you don't have to watch every one. If you've seen any four episodes you're basically up to date, except for some specific interpersonal politics. 

Like Eastenders, but less stiffs.

[BOF]

20 hours ago, Shropshire Lad said:

Looking back in far reaches of off topic, the shows or films that create a lot of discussion (good or otherwise) have had their own threads in the past. I think Breaking Bad has it’s own thread, as did Nolan’s Batman films.

I dip into the walking dead thread just to humour myself at how people get annoyed with it (I gave up on it years ago).

That's it.  In their pomp they'd have utterly dominated the more generic (and ironically more zombie-paced) TV thread, making anything other than TWD discussion nigh on impossible to follow.

[mottaloo]

I wonder if I'm the only one in life who, when seeing a firework go off/up from someone's back garden display, now thinks "that's another fiver gone" instead of "wow, how pretty !" ?

[Stevo985]

20 hours ago, Shropshire Lad said:

Looking back in far reaches of off topic, the shows or films that create a lot of discussion (good or otherwise) have had their own threads in the past. I think Breaking Bad has it’s own thread, as did Nolan’s Batman films.

I dip into the walking dead thread just to humour myself at how people get annoyed with it (I gave up on it years ago).

I gave up on it after Season 1. It was shit.

I often wonder if should have given it another chance. I can't believe how into it people were, given how bad I thought it was.

But the recent, almost unanimous slating of the more recent seasons has quelled that inclination.