Leaderboard

Can i get a red dot, one more needed to reach -300. Tahnks in advance.

Easy tiger, I never said you had to put up with it. Just that if the dog barks when she's not there she's rather limited in what she can do. Instead of shopping her to the council first chance you get why don't you offer to pop in on the dog when you're letting you're dogs out? Seems like an amicable solution and I'm sure she'd be glad to return the favour.

Well a bit of Gresian (sp) 2000 might help!

Hidden probably. Scroll to the bottom of your news feed and click on the 'Edit Options' link. Remove him from the right hand combobox.

What's the big dealio with Blink 182? If they were playing in my back garden I'd lock the door and shut the blinds, ffs.

"Last night I was playing poker with Tarot cards. I got a full house and four people died." Steven Wright - genius!

Absolutely, agree with all of that. I think they should play at least one of the Masters 1000 events on grass also. It's a bit unfair playing 3 of them on clay, 6 on various types of hard court and none on grass. It wasn't that many years ago that the French Open was the only grand slam not played on grass. If he would've been a massive favourite against Murray this year, then Murray can't be a slightly better grass court player as you claim then surely? Murray lost in straight sets to Nadal at Wimbledon, hardly close was it? Murray had his chances certainly, but tennis at the highest level is about playing the big points well usually. Murray soiled himself (just like in Australia against Federer), Nadal (as usual) rose to occasion when it really mattered. Federer's favourite/best surface is grass without question. He has been such an outstanding player since 2003, that he has won about 90% of his matches 2003-2010, regardless of the opponent or the surface. They could have been playing on an ice rink with a net and Federer would still have been the dominant player. He has won more events on clay and hard because there are a lot more events on those surfaces. Nadal, the only player to consistently get the better of Federer, has nearly always been worn out by the time the North American hard court swing starts because of the problems with his knees. Therefore using your ridiculous arguments, you could say that the hard court fields have been weakened because Nadal wasn't fully fit. Nadal's record post-Wimbledon has always been poor. He usually gets hammered at the end of year Masters Cup / ATP World Tour Finals because of the wear and tear on his knees. You could take this further, let's pick one clay courter in particular, Gaston Gaudio. I believe (although I'm not going to check) that the year he won the French Open he won only one match all year on an outdoor hard court. In a 14 year career, he has won only 48 matches on hard (compared to 210 on clay). Many clay courters are rubbish on hard as well as grass. This makes sense since the surfaces are so similar these days. If Federer only dominated on grass because everyone else was rubbish on the surface, then you could equally say the same about hard courts (not that I am, but following the ridiculous arguments outlined by McKee). Federer won US Open finals against Roddick and Hewitt, so if they are mugs on grass (which of course they aren't) then they would be equally rubbish on hard courts because the US Open play even faster than grass. Both of Federer's wins on clay against Nadal (not really relevant to this argument) came when Nadal was worn out, and on fast clay courts. This doesn't prove that Federer is better on clay than grass. If Bjorn Borg had been 25 years younger, or Pete Sampras 10 years younger (Federer won their only meeting at Wimbledon anyway), then perhaps Federer may have less than 6 Wimbledons. The argument is pointless. If Borg had been 25 years younger, then Nadal almost certainly wouldn't have won 5 French Opens. You beat what is in front of you, and Wimbledon is regarded by most people as the tournament they'd most like to win. Sure, clay court specialists tend to struggle on grass, but at least during Federer's spell of dominance, all of the top 32 in the world were in the field, unlike in the 1990's.

Let's back this up with some facts since I'm not doing much this afternoon. Multiple male grand slam winners since 1980. Name, total number of grand slam titles, age at first grand slam win Bjorn Borg, 11 GS, age 18 John McEnroe, 7 GS, age 20 Johan Kriek, 2 GS, age 23 [won 2 Australian Opens when most of the top players didn't bother playing] Mats Wilander, 7 GS, age 18 Jimmy Connors, 8 GS, age 22 Ivan Lendl, 8 GS, age 24 Stefan Edberg, 6 GS, age 19 Boris Becker, 6 GS, age 18 Pete Sampras, 14 GS, age 19 Jim Courier, 4 GS, age 20 Andre Agassi, 8 GS, age 22 Sergei Bruguera, 2 GS, age 22 Yevgeny Kafelnikov, 2 GS, age 22 Gustavo Kuerten, 3 GS, age 20 Patrick Rafter, 2 GS, age 24 Marat Safin, 2 GS, age 20 Lleyton Hewitt, 2 GS, age 20 Roger Federer 16 GS, age 21 Rafael Nadal, 8 GS, age 18/19 [birthday around the date of French Open final, can't be bothered checking] So there you have it. Of the 19 multiple grand slam winners from the past 30 years, only 3 of them won their first one past the age of 22. Kriek doesn't really count as the Australian Open in 1981 and 1982 featured hardly any of the top players and was just another tournament in the eyes of most people at that time. Lendl and Rafter were 24 when winning their first grand slam - Murray is 24 in May. Lendl is the only player to have had massive success who didn't win a grand slam by the age of 22 (Rafter and Kriek "only" won 2). Time is ticking for Murray. If you're going to argue this one garymcc1874, please make sure your facts are correct, thanks.

I appreciate it's a pain in the arse for you, but what do you expect the woman to do about it? If she's not in there's not a lot she can do to shut the mutt up.

Jordanhill Area Rent Boys - E. Frame, G. Cowie The game was shite, it was pishing down and I felt the surface was too slippery to get a decent game going. Aw aye and the small matter of standing in some of the worst rain in quite some for 40 minutes while a flat tire was changed. Even worse for those of us in just shorts and t-shirt.

If you want the same return either way, you just divide the odds you backed (60) by the odds you can lay (19.5) and multiply by the stake (£4). The odds have to be in decimal form for this. (60/19.5)*4 = £12.31 , which means lay £12.31 @ 19.5 If he wins, you win (59*4) - (18.5*12.31) = £8.27 If he doesn't win, you win 12.31 - 4 = £8.31 The same either way, except for a few pence due to rounding.

Fail number one. Fail number two. Thats just a fail.

f**k OFF YOU SLIMEY FUCKWIT.

A team should always opt for the eldest of any team in any amalgamation. Inverness Caledonian Thistle were founded in 1885 end of..............

Dave258 - that is one of the most sensible things I have read on here. I would give you a green dot but I am all out for today.