Homer Thompson

It is now Happy Birthday guys

Happy Birthday Ricster. How long till you start quoting your age in Hex?

Happy Birthday Monster

You mean you didnt know? Obviously there are no job opportunities in China up on the staff noticeboard then? More worryingly, the Tesco's brain washing, sorry staff communication, must be severely lacking The sponsor some lower league diddy team down south Which makes your following sentence even more appropriate

You think I just knew all that off the top of my head Isnt the internet a wonderful thing

You sure? He has also been in The Bill, Boon, Doctor Who, Juliet Bravo, Rumpole of The Bailey and The Profesionals

Isnt that some sort of soft drink Probably some short, 40odd year old, balding guy with sticky out ears and tiny round glasses

Are you sure its not a woman?

Pleeease tell me his surname is Jeff and he has a friend called the Fresh Prince?

What was his surname .... Meecoatup?

Some of the companies who've outsourced their call centres to India have spent a lot of time and effort patronising their staff to be more British. Everything from voice coaching (with regional accents!) to shipping over newspapers and episodes of Corrie and football matches. And yet, its still blatantly obvious where they are

I did think of that and might try it if it happens again. Although, they might try and convince me that my life will improve if I get a quote for a new kitchen

I hate telesales people who blatantly lie. I also hate this new technique of trying to be my pal when I first answer the phone - Me - "Hello" teleseller - "Hi, how you doing tonight?" Me - "What do you want?" teleseller - "You had a good day then?" Me - "What do you want?" .... and then they go into their blurb. Im sorry, but whoever came up with that opener should be shot. I actually dont mind getting called anymore. It happens very very very rarely now that we're listed with the Telephone Preference Service. First thing I do now is ask for the company name and address - this really throws them and when they eventually get round to asking why, you can hear them physically squirm when you say "Cause this number is registered with TPS and you shouldnt be phoning. So I need your companies name and address to report you" The last one tried to fob me off with a blatant lie - "Errr, we're between offices at the moment" my gf nearly spat her drink out when I said "So you're calling me from the street then?" When I pressed him for his address again, he said "Aberdeen" At this point I got bored and hung up. Having worked in inbound and outbound call centres, written and given call centre training and managed in a call centre I am officially telesellers worst nightmares

My pttgoyn - people who dont read threads fully

Here to help

I think the point you're all missing is that insurance companies have no option but to categorise people and make assumptions based on fairly broad criteria. Im no fan of insurance companies, far from it, but they have to distinguish between different risks somehow. The only way to fairly assess someone would be to have every applicant complete an extensive psychological profile, provide proof of driving experience, work history, family circumstances, how dodgy their neighbours are etc etc etc. This would certainly lead to a fairer pricing on an individual basis but the cost of administering all of this would hugely increase everyones premiums. To get around it they compile a load of statistics and pigeon hole people. That means people pay higher premiums if they live in certain postcodes, have accidents, have points on their licence, drive expensive/fast cars or are young. Young people are by no means the only group being royaly screwed by the insurance companies, get over it edited to add - I forgot about parent & child parking. What winds me up almost as much as people parking in it without kids are the ones that park there with a car full of kids that then sit in the car while one parent nips into the shop! Surely people arent that stupid that they miss the whole point of parent&child spaces that badly?

People who dont read the small print and then bleat about it

Whos being snidey? You're entitled to your opinion and thats what I was saying. Are you denying that the ending was re-written with an American audience in mind? Actually, thats reminded me of something else that bugged me during the film - characters with British accents referring to "candy" Anyhoo, I agree about Wilders meaner moments. But while Wilder was at times too mean Im merely saying that Depp, at times, is too weird. As for the songs, I didnt like the new ones but as you say the first film ones are very un-Dahl. None of this gets away from the fact that neither film can claim to be an accurate working of the novel, neither are perfect and IMO the ending of Burtons, along with some other minor annoyances, utterly ruined what could have been a good film. Oh, and I really liked the new Star Wars films, thanks for asking (except for Jar-Jar ) Not sure what my childhood memories have to do with anything though

Slugworth is in the book, Wonka's Dad isnt. Thats not opinion. You said Burtons version was closer to the book, I simpy used that as an example to suggest otherwise. Im sorry, but making Wonka's dad a dentist isnt even close to being clever enough for Dahl. But if you're happy with the flashbacks and the re-written Americanisation of the ending, then good for you, that is your opinion.

Burtons film is no more, and no less, faithful to the book than the 1971 version, IMO. Both made changes to the story, as is common with all book adaptations. However, the Slugworth/fizzy lifting drinks thread is a lot closer to the book than the creation of Wonka's father and the nonsense that is the ending. I've read several opinions that have said that Burtons version is more faithful in terms of details, which is true but overall I wouldnt say either could claim to be more faithful. I never said Depp wasnt very good in it, he was. However, Im just not convinced that he played Wonka the best way he could. It was just too weird and wacky for me, just strange rather than eccentric.

Charlie and the Chocolate factory This had the potential to be a great working of Dahls classic. Burton got the mood right and Depp gave an interpretation of Wonka that only Depp could. Why then did they decide to change the story line and, more importantly, schmooz up the ending?? Every film based on a book takes a bit of poetic licence from the original story but the truely awful Americanising of this story really spoiled the film. We're "treated" to flash backs of Wonkas childhood where he and his dad (a dentist ... oooooh, how ironic ) dont get on. These simply set the scene for the most god-awful ending ever! Charlie turns down the factory cause his family cant come too, until he takes Wonka to see his Dad. The two make up and everyone lives happily ever after I cant quite make my mind up about Depp's Wonka either. Sometimes the childishness and innocence seem very Wonka-esque, but I cant help feeling that the confidence and mischeviousness of Wilder was better. A mix of the two may well be perfect. Am I just taking all of this too seriously?

What do you do to them? They're hard pages!

"On Monday he ate one apple" Got that one too Good, but not Gruffalo-good

Only 4 pages? You were skipping some, werent you? If you liked that, I'd also recommend "Thats not my kitten", "Thats not my car" and "Thats not my mermaid" Although none are as good as "The Gruffalo" - not so much read anymore as recited

The way he's going he'll be forced into retirement before he's 20