User talk:Titch Tucker/Archive2

Gone to the pub. Mmmm, Guinness!

 * Mmm, gone to the moon. Space cowboys! Yippee Yie Aye, ghost riders in the sky!!!--jeanne (talk) 18:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Back from the pub,, Mmmm, lovely, Haggis supper! Titch Tucker (talk) 00:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Speaking of the moon, there's a lovely glowing photo on Sarah's talk page. Makes me wish I were an astronaut.--jeanne (talk) 06:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, James Bond, tell me what I did at Wikipedia today.--jeanne (talk) 13:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Big brother is watching you, Jeanne. I'm not really that nosy, but you would probably be surprised at the number of editors, usually with the same interests as you, who are checking out which articles you are working on. Titch Tucker (talk) 21:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Big Brother (Big Sister?) is indeed watching me. Reminds me of that Black Sabbath song Paranoid. Only joking, I don't mind if editors watch my articles. I watch theirs hee hee hee.--jeanne (talk) 06:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Hasn't your local pub closed yet?

 * Last time I visited a pub in the Islands of Britain and Ireland (See, I AM learning how to be PC), pubs closed at midnight (Are you right, lads?). You have been at the pub for DAYS. What happened, were you accidently locked up inside after closing?--jeanne (talk) 14:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I wish. I've been locked up in the house for the last few day's with a bloody awful cold, probably caught whilst standing outside the pub smoking. I would call it the flu, but woman always think men exaggerate these thing's. I just don't get any sympathy, and I'm dying, honest! Titch Tucker (talk) 14:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to hear it, Titch. I hate colds. They aways affect me very badly, and they last forever. When I worked outside the home, I used to get a cold about six times a year. I never suffer from fevers though. Drink lots of pineapple juice. Great remedy for a cold, also take aspirin which contain vitamin C.--jeanne (talk) 14:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank's, Jeanne. I'll bounce back in no time, after all, it's just a cold. ( walks off feeling sorry for himself ). Titch Tucker (talk) 14:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Titch, I didn't know you worked as a bouncer?--jeanne (talk) 14:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Not my idea of a good night out, standing by while other people enjoy themselves. Titch Tucker (talk) 15:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know, the bouncers seemed to have fun in the joint where I worked in central Dublin back in 1981.--jeanne (talk) 15:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Why not come back over to GoodDay's page, let's get the show on the road!--jeanne (talk) 17:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * How's the cold?--jeanne (talk) 12:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Easing off, Jeanne. Thanks for asking. Titch Tucker (talk) 16:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's minus twenty (celsius), on Prince Edward Island, today. GoodDay (talk) 16:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Jeez! I hope your house has plenty of insulation. If I walked out when I it was minus twenty I think I'd freeze to death. Brrr! How warm does your island get in the summer? Titch Tucker (talk) 16:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * About 30 degrees. GoodDay (talk) 17:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Quite good summers then. I remember as a child in Glasgow skating on ponds that had iced over. You just don't find that anymore, the ice never get's thick enough. I have no idea if that's because of global warming due to us human's or if it happens naturaly in cycles. We had a little bit of snow today which lasted all of a couple of hours before the rain came. I imagine you would be in danger of getting snowed in over there. Titch Tucker (talk) 17:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) We don't get as much snow, as we did over 25 yrs ago. GoodDay (talk) 17:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I much prefer the snow to rain. I can handle dry cold, it's wet horrible rain that I detest. That's the thing I hated about Dublin-rained constantly! Otherwise, it's a fabulous city.--jeanne (talk) 17:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of rain, have ya'll seen the 1998 film, Godzilla? -- GoodDay (talk) 17:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it was sad. I cried.--jeanne (talk) 17:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I got drenched by that movie. GoodDay (talk) 18:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Drenched? And I thought I was emotional!--jeanne (talk) 18:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I shed no tear, it was the constant raining in the movie. My TV set, couldn't hold the rain water anymore. GoodDay (talk) 18:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Do any of you remember when the film Earthquake came out starring Charlton Heston? Certain picture halls had their seats shake during the earthquake sequence. It was suppose to be impressive for its time, I just found it annoying. Titch Tucker (talk) 21:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking at the film article, it seems it was the sound system that shook the surroundings. Titch Tucker (talk) 21:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Nowadays, the producers use the shaky camera technique (which is also annoying). GoodDay (talk) 23:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, I saw that film in a cinema on Hollywood Blvd which was wiped out in the film! How do you think I felt? Remember Victoria Principal with her Afro?!!--jeanne (talk) 06:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure do. As for Charleton Heston, I used to think for years that Moses was realy badly knocked kneed. This was the same guy who told the anti-rifle association they could take his guns only from his dead hands. I used to enjoy his films, particulry his big budget films, but I think he must have taken his dramatic acting into his real life. Sad really. Titch Tucker (talk) 11:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Politics and stuff

 * Gun control would never work in the USA. It would only serve to create more crime such as Prohibition did back in the 1920s.--jeanne (talk) 12:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, Jeanne. I was refering to Heston's rather overdramatic speech so soon after the Columbine High School Massacre. He could have and should have given his opinion at a later time, when the tragedy was a little less raw, and as I said, a little less dramaticaly.. I do think so much freedom to own gun's is wrong, but alas for the US, it is past the point of no return. Titch Tucker (talk) 12:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I remember Columbine. I also remember Dunblane. Hamilton was able to obtain weapons despite Britain's strict gun control laws. That's the problem with guns. Legal or not, if a person really wants to get his/her hands on a gun he will.--jeanne (talk) 16:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * He did not get his gun illegally, he was a member of a gun club who screwed up allowing him to own a firearm.. My brother owns a shotgun, but before he was allowed to have one he had to have a police check to ensure he was responsible enough to have one. The US basically don't give a shit who owns a firearm. Titch Tucker (talk) 00:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * True, but maniacs will always find a way around the law as did the monster Hamilton by joining a gun club. Guns have always been around in America, yet the mindless violence and mass shootings began in the late 1970s with this wee lass Brenda Spencer who started the bloody ball rolling.--jeanne (talk) 06:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why or what it is, but I find Michael Moore annoying. I mean, he's gotten rich off of the country that he constantly runs down. GoodDay (talk) 20:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure he is running down his country GD. He's being critical of his government, and while he still lives in a free country, he has every right to do so. And of course, you have every right to say he annoys the hell out of you. He makes it clear that he loves his country but doesn't believe that should mean my country right or wrong. Titch Tucker (talk) 00:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with you GoodDay. Moore sounds like a typical liberal. Runs down the country where he is free to air his anti-government views, whereas in most countries around the world he'd be arrested and shot for subversion. I notice he isn't loath to accept American dollars issued by his despised government. Oh and he describes his parents as typical good liberals who are Irish Catholic Democrats. My dad was also a good Irish Catholic Democrat but he was not a liberal. There are many Irish Catholic Democrats who are in point of fact, quite conservative. See Irish American article.--jeanne (talk) 08:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If the man believes there should be stricter gun control, the wrong reasons were given for the invasion of Iraq, or that Bush is too matey with Saudi Arabia, a country that no one could call Democratic, he has every right to air his views. Which countries, Jeanne, would shoot him for subversion? Certainly not a country that is alway's proud to say they have free speech. A country I know that would have shot him would have been Nazi Germany, or Stalinist Russia, but then we wouldn't want to go down that road. I also don't understand why you mention that he isn't loathe to accept American Dollars from his despised government. I despised the Thatcher government, but not my country, should I have refused to accept British pounds because of that? All of us in the "free world" have a right to lambast our governments if we think they are not doing the right thing, the day that ends is the day Democracy dies. Titch Tucker (talk) 11:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think he would fare too well in China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Haiti, Saddam's Iraq. I don't for a minute believe the man should be silenced, however I never fail to marvel that despite the West's wrongs it is far safer for liberals in the countries they love to knock than in the countries they constantly defend. Another thing, liberals always condemn the nations which afford women more freedom and civil rights, yet praise the nations which continue to treat women as second (or third)-class citizens. As I have stated on my talk page, scratch a liberal or a revolutionary and you'll find a misogynist.--jeanne (talk) 12:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've read a couple of his books and nowhere do I see Michael Moore, a Liberal, defending any of those countries you mention, although he did praise Cubas free health care. I'm also curious to know where you got your idea that a liberal hates women, what about female Liberals? Are they self haters? And don't forget, your own country had the first Liberal government in the world, and without revolutionaries the US would still be a colony of Britain. Power to the people! Long live Castro! ;) Titch Tucker (talk) 13:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) It's gonna be interesting, to watch Moore in his attempts to keep the Obama Administration accountable. PS: I wonder if he's patched things up with Ralph Nader. GoodDay (talk) 15:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't of course only be the responsibility of Moore to keep Obama's Administration accountable, the government is accountable to all the people, and if the people don't excercise that right it gives the government carte blanche to do as they please, which can never be a good thing. As for Ralph Nader, he had every right to stand for presidential office. In the UK you can have half a dozen small parties putting forward prospective candidates in a general election, which can take seats away from the major parties, but that's what Democracy is all about. Titch Tucker (talk) 15:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, Castro, what a lovely island paradise he's created in his communist Cuba. The lack of amenities, daily power cuts, old cars, so many young women forced into prostitution to keep food in their stomachs and clothes on their backs (At least their VD clinics are free). My best friend when I was growing up in Los Angeles was Cuban. At the age of 4, she and her family fled Castro's Cuba with just one suitcase each. They had to leave behind a beautiful home with many rooms, a swimming pool, servants, all their possessions, apart from a few clothes and photos-all that could fit inside a suitcase. Her parents, to this day, dream of returning to the old, pre-Castro Cuba.--jeanne (talk) 16:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, pre Castro. Lot's of Cubans living in poverty whilst big American businesses made a fortune and the mafia ran all the casinos. Perhap's if the US hadn't refused to trade with them they wouldn't be in the pickle they are now. Now, where's my Cuban cigar, ah, there it is, good stuff! PS, maybe when your friend goes back to a free Cuba she can get a job as a servant. I'm sure she would love it.Titch Tucker (talk) 16:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * My friend's dad earned his money honestly, yet the communists gave it to the proletariat, that amorphous, anonymous snarling mass of people mobbing outside the palace gates demanding bread, while the Hapsburg gaily replies let them eat cake. Problem is Titch, Marie Antoinette never said it, and revolutions are never started by the starving masses but the jaded, well-fed middle class.--jeanne (talk) 16:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You are correct, they are never started by the masses, but if the masses don't have a genuine grievance against the ruling class revolutions won't occur. I am certainly no communist, but if you don't look after your people and have a society were the gap between the rich and poor becomes so great that people are willing to take part in a revolution, then we shouldn't be surprised when it happens. I think we have to look elsewhere if we want explain the dire circumstances Cuba finds itself in today. Castro taking power was just a consequence of that. Titch Tucker (talk) 16:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You can't blame America for that. One could probably start by studying the period of Spanish colonialism, and it's lasting legacy of huge gaps between the very rich and the very poor. Mexico and Argentina are other good examples besides Cuba.--jeanne (talk) 17:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's easy to despise people who worked hard to earn their money, so that once they have obtained it, and want to settle down and enjoy it, some intellectual who is bored with his inherited wealth takes it away from him in order to help the mass of lazy-arsed people who haven't the intelligence to do what the hard-working, smart people did (who often are from a far more poverty-stricken background than the so-called starving masses).--jeanne (talk) 17:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I certainly don't despise anyone who worked hard for their money, I certainly worked hard enough for mine. Do you believe that unintelligent people, who are that way either because they were given a below par education or they are just naturaly that way should be left out of society? You will alway's have rich and poor, but if a country allows the gap to become too great, then they will deserve it if the masses revolt. Nobody likes "lazy-arsed people", but when someone somewhere works in a field or factory for 16 hours a day and can still hardly feed his/her family there is eventualy going to be discontent shown to the ruling authorities. It's impossible for everyone to be rich or even well off, but we can sure as hell make sure we live in a society were noone is actualy poverty stricken. Titch Tucker (talk) 17:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Titch, I don't disagree with anything you have said. Nobody wants a Dickensian poverty with children in the workhouses and mines, and their parents in the mills and factories working just to put mouldy bread and black tea on their meagre tables while their fat cat bosses dress up their wives and whores in diamonds and furs.--jeanne (talk) 18:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Not a word from GoodDay, where has he scarpered to? Titch Tucker (talk) 18:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * How'd we veer off of Moore? GoodDay (talk) 18:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know, we just got carried away I guess. Titch Tucker (talk) 18:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Careful Titch, that could be misconstrued by others! We just got carried away hmm....Must have been those Cuban cigars--jeanne (talk) 08:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) I wonder who'll take over in Cuba, after the Castro brothers have passed on. GoodDay (talk) 18:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia community.--jeanne (talk) 05:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

John Roberts moment in History
By jumpins. It took Chief Justice Roberts & President Obama, a little longer to get through the 'oath of office' bit, but they got through it. GoodDay (talk) 02:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What should have been a dramatic moment in history was botched by the two. What mumbling, bumbling inarticulation. And I thought politicians were smooth talkers! No, I was disappointed in the ceremony. Obama was tense and uptight throughout his swearing-in.--jeanne (talk) 05:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I heard the booing of Bush was so loud the band actually turned up the volume in an attempt to drown it out. Personaly, I prefer the UK way of doing it (minus the visit to the Queen), get elected, give a wave and a short speech, and get on with the job. Titch Tucker (talk) 11:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought the cameras were too focused on the guests rather than Michelle and the kids. Anyroad, Michelle's clothes are a disaster zone, and she is rather awkward in her movements and posture. She needs a new stylist. Obama dressed well, however. I just thought the ceremony was a bit anti-climatic after all the hype and anticipation.--jeanne (talk) 12:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I find these ceromonies rather boring and predictable. Now, if Obama started rapping or break dancing it might have been more entertaining. Titch Tucker (talk) 13:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I was hoping for a bit of a disturbance actually. Some aggro. Perhaps a hair-pulling fight between Michelle and Jill Biden. Like that catfight on Dynasty between Linda Evans and Joan Collins. Now wouldn't that have been FUN, Titch?--jeanne (talk) 13:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

A Bush appointee swears-in Obama. I wonder if Roberts did the fumbling, deliberately. GoodDay (talk) 17:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * All I know is that an historic moment was ruined. --jeanne (talk) 17:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * How could Roberts not remember the words? Wowsers, he's the Chief Justice, has been for over 4yrs. If the CJ had been Dan Quayle, it would've made more sense. GoodDay (talk) 17:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * PS: Actually, I betcha Quayle, was chuckling to himself, over this one. GoodDay (talk) 18:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * When Obama just stared at him I thought Roberts was going to collapse, or just run away screaming. He looked really nervous. Titch Tucker (talk) 18:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Giggle giggle. Obama did have that What the heck are you doing? look, on his face. GoodDay (talk) 18:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure Bush is relieved to be off the hook.--jeanne (talk) 18:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Just watch Obama age before our very eyes. It happens to every President and even British Prime Ministers. For all that they are criticised for this or that, its certainly a high pressure job. Titch Tucker (talk) 18:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, the Presidency of the United States, ain't for the faint of heart. It gets tougher, with each passing generation. GoodDay (talk) 18:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Tony, you tiger

 * Obama has aged! So did Blair, But I think Tony has a lot of sex appeal.--jeanne (talk) 18:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Your last sentence? I'll take your word for it, Jeanne. Titch Tucker (talk) 19:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Tony Blair does have a lot of sex appeal. Besides, isn't he Scottish?.--jeanne (talk) 07:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * He was born in Scotland and spent some of his childhood here. He has certainly got a small amount of Scottish blood in him, but how Scottish he feels I don't really know. Being born here, if he says he's Scottish, he has every right to be considered so. Titch Tucker (talk) 13:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * He's also got quite a bit of Irish in him. Did you like him as PM?--jeanne (talk) 17:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If you read the UK Labour Party article you will see in the infobox it says their ideology is Democratic Socialism. Well, don't believe a word of it. Tony Blair sacrificed the ideology of the Labour party because he thought it was the only way for him to become Prime Minister, leaving many Labour supporters disenchanted. We now have the two major parties of the UK with policies and ideals that can hardly be seperated. My answer would have to be no, I never liked the man as PM. Titch Tucker (talk) 17:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't trust any politician, right or left. They only care for two things: Power and Money. The people can all go to hell, as far as they're concerned.--jeanne (talk) 05:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, according to Blair's article, Tony is half-English (his dad's real parents were both English), one quarter Scottish (maternal grandfather), one quarter Irish (with a remote German-Jewish ancestor who immigrated to Donegal before the 18th century and married an Irish girl).--jeanne (talk) 08:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Hiya do Titch
I'm been wondering lately, about the Roberts/Obama Inaugural oath blooper. Thank goodness, they both didn't break into a Who's on first routine. GoodDay (talk) 00:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you think Roberts did it intentionaly? Titch Tucker (talk) 00:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, a certain Senator from Illinois (we won't mention any names), did go against Roberts' confirmation as Chief Justice, in 2005. But, is that enough of a grudge, to embarrass oneself infront of 'bout 2 million people? Even more embarrasing for Roberts, Justice Stevens (nearing 89yrs old) easily administered the 'longer' oath of office to Biden. GoodDay (talk) 00:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * there are two ways of looking at it. He `was really nervous and screwed it up, or he knew what he was doing. Do you think he was the kind of guy who would mess it up through nerves? I'm not so sure.Titch Tucker (talk) 00:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's said he memorized the oath & foregoed his notes. IMHO, Roberts was nervous, as this was the first time he swore in a US President. A President who was historic, simply for becoming President no less. In fact, I believe Roberts anxiousness to not mess up, caused him to mess up. Afterall, we must all remember, the guy's human. I'm not certain, as to why Obama didn't simply speak the oath correctly, guess he was nervous too. GoodDay (talk) 00:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, they were both nervous. Who can blame them, if it was me I would be a gibbering wreck. Titch Tucker (talk) 00:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I feel bad for both of them though, it's a historic moment that they'll both never get back. Even if Obama gets re-elected & they do the swearing-in correctly (in 2013), it won't be the same. GoodDay (talk) 00:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If Obama becomes a great President it may be forgotten about. He does though have a difficult job ahead of him. I do like his first command though, within a year he wants gauntanamo bay closed down. It was disgustingly the least democratic procedure the US have ever been involved in. Great start for him. Titch Tucker (talk) 01:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * We'll soon be seeing the troops leaving Iraq, aswell. It's gonna be interesting to see how things are in the USA, by 2010. GoodDay (talk) 01:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ha ha haaa. I just remembered, if the Inauguration of 2013 involves Roberts & Obama, the presidential swearing-in will (likely) occur twice 'again'. Why? January 20th, 2013 falls on a Sunday & likely following tradition (see 1957 & 1985 for example), the President will be (ironically in reverse, from 2009) sworn-in privately on the 20th & publicly on the 21st. GoodDay (talk) 02:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Canadian Baywatch

 * Well, have you found the scandalous photo of our bathing beauty GD baring all and sundry for the entire Wikipedia community to gawk over?--jeanne (talk) 12:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope, my brain isn't in gear yet. Titch Tucker (talk) 13:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Category:Swimsuit Commons should get you there.--jeanne (talk) 13:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yuk, he seems to be flossing his bum. I hope to god that's not GD. Titch Tucker (talk) 13:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I was only joking. GD has more class than to flash his arse in that revolting manner. Honestly, I'd be disgusted even if Antonio Banderas were to do that!--jeanne (talk) 13:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd never take a photo, like that. I would've been totally nude. GoodDay (talk) 15:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Like TOTALLY nude?! Whoa dude, now I really will start singing Oh Canada, oh Canada, (and not be faking).--jeanne (talk) 18:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I'd have nothing on but my cloth. GoodDay (talk) 19:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Loincloth! O Canada-again.--jeanne (talk) 19:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Some people stand in the darkness, afraid to step into the light......--jeanne (talk) 19:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I shall never reveal my appearance. I value my 'shroud of secrecy' too much. GoodDay (talk) 19:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)r
 * Shroud of Secrecy. Sounds like the name of a gothic novel. I used to devour gothic romances when I was younger.--jeanne (talk) 19:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I watched the Batman movies, as it was in Gotham city. PS: Why are police needed, in these super-hero stories? GoodDay (talk) 19:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point. The cops are probably used as props, same as they were used in Dallas on 24 November 1963.--jeanne (talk) 05:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Just curious
For a few moments, did you have trouble 'editing'? I sure did. GoodDay (talk) 15:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I seemed to be alright. I may not have been editing at that particular moment. Titch Tucker (talk) 15:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I kept getting a red coloured message at the top of my page (forget the words) & it was blocking my postings. GoodDay (talk) 15:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Strange. I'd ask the Help Desk just to satisfy my curiosity. You never know, it may happen again. Titch Tucker (talk) 15:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll let'er go, as things have returned to normal. GoodDay (talk) 15:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Righto! Titch Tucker (talk) 15:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

HotGossip

 * Hey Titch, check out my latest article. I know you remember her! God, I wish I had looked like her-she was georgeous.--jeanne (talk) 16:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure do! And I'm old enough to remember Pan's People as well. It was quite tame compared to what you see now, but for it's day it was all quite raunchy. Titch Tucker (talk) 16:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * How does the article look now, Titch? An editor put a cleanup tag on it!'?--jeanne (talk) 17:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The only thing I can suggest is to add some external references. There appear to be a number of google hits for her. I don't know if you have already done it, Jeanne, but as you have created a number of articles, have you asked for an assessment on them? Titch Tucker (talk) 17:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you add the external refs for me, please as I don't know how to do them. Thank you.--jeanne (talk) 17:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks a million, Titch. The refs look good. I added a bit to the article about her having been one of the Blitz Kids. Thanks again for your help. Seeing as we're stuck in the 1980s, do you remember the Scottish girl group, Strawberry Switchblade? They were popular around 1985.--jeanne (talk) 06:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Titch, thanks to your help, the editor has taken off the maintenance tags on the Perri Lister article and he even added that the article has improved. Thanks ever so much. I really felt that she deserved her own article, especially seeing as how she's mentioned in many so articles on Wikipedia. I shall look for her photo over on Commons-hopeully there's a free one available.--jeanne (talk) 07:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I have not. How does one go about doing it? I just assumed someone came along and automatically assessed it.--jeanne (talk) 12:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You should ask at WikiProject Biography/Assessment. I would also double check to make sure your biography articles have not already been assessed. If they have you may want them re-assessed due to any improvements you made to them. Titch Tucker (talk) 13:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Your welcome, Jeanne. You still have'nt answered my question about whether or not you have asked for an assessment on the articles you have created. Titch Tucker (talk) 11:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The Bianca Riario article has been rated as C-class on the biography section.--jeanne (talk) 15:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing the refs on Perri's article. I have added some stuff. How does it look now? I just loved that New Romantic, post-punk era. Perri still looks good--jeanne (talk) 15:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I used to have a pal who was a New Romantic. His dad thought he was gay, he couldn't have been further from the truth. Titch Tucker (talk) 15:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Libel

 * I have been removing lots of libel from articles. Check out these articles and see what was in them before I removed the stuff. Flavio Briatore and Elisabetta Gregoraci. Wow! I cannot believe no other editor bothered to remove it before me.--jeanne (talk) 16:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia have a massive problem with biographys of living people. I believe they are now trying to implement something to deal with it. If you have a look at Jimbo Wales talk page you will see a discussion on it. Titch Tucker (talk) 16:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I was shocked to find all of that. These guys are rich and powerful. One cannot print tabloid-stuff in an on-line encyclopedia!--jeanne (talk) 17:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I totaly agree with you. Here is a statement from Jimbo Wales on this very topic . Titch Tucker (talk) 17:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I was right in removing all of the inflammatory accusations.--jeanne (talk) 17:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Using the word currently

 * Titch, do you think I phrased this well on the Perri Lister article, As of 2009, Lister resides in Los Angeles or should I say instead, Lister currently resides in Los Angeles? Currently is a bit ambuguous as it could have been written 5 years ago, thus is no longer current. I never have this problem when I write about my usual medieval noble ladies!--jeanne (talk) 09:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Have a look at this page Jeanne. Personaly, for that article I would go with "As of 2009". I don't think many editors stick to a hard and fast rule on this though they probably should. Titch Tucker (talk) 12:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that As of 2009 is best. Currently is too vague a term. Thank you for your reply. I see you have left the battlefield for the moment. Everytime I go over there I get a few rounds of verbal artillery blasted at me.--jeanne (talk) 14:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You'll notice nobody has taken up the request for comment. I reckon I wasted my time asking for it and will remove it soon if there are no new editors willing to get involved. As for me, I think I've made my last comment on the subject. Titch Tucker (talk) 15:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a no-win situation.--jeanne (talk) 18:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

RfC on British Isles
Bit premature removing the RfC? I think it usually takes a while to get comments via this route (read it in some proc or other). I hoped we might get some impartial comments on the RfC page. MidnightBlue  (Talk)  21:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It was the first time I've asked for one so you may be right. Perhaps I was wrong to expect a deluge of comments within a couple of days. If you want me to I'll ask for another RFC, although I will step away from the discussions. Titch Tucker (talk) 21:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, maybe worth putting it back for a week or so and see what we get. Cheers. MidnightBlue   (Talk)  21:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Titch, it's useless to comment further on the BI talk page. It just creates hostility, emnity, which has a demoralising effect on editors. That is why I feel edit-wars should be strictly forbidden at Wikipedia. We are here to work together as a community to create good articles not fight with one another. God, Titch I sound like Mick Jagger at Altamont in 1969, Come on, brothers, sisters, Hell's Angels, why are we fighting? Just be cool now, don't push around, be still, just relax, and GET INTO THE GROOVE--jeanne (talk) 10:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've already stepped away from the BI talk page. I do understand though why some people feel strongly enough about a subject to get a little heated over it, though the debate on the BI talk page is not one where I feel bothered enough about to get too involved, hence my reason for leaving it. Titch Tucker (talk) 10:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I prefer to save my emotions for the Lee Harvey Oswald talk page or my reasons for hating the EU. Why do so many people ask me why I hate the EU? Here in Italy, it's taken for granted that one hates the EU-they never ask you WHY!!!--jeanne (talk) 10:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Titch, I have just put some photos I took in Scotland back in 1979 onto my talk page. I fell in love with the place.--jeanne (talk) 13:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Uh-oh, I can feel a storm brewing over on the Troubles talk page. As if the BI wasn't explosive enough. Thunder is rumbling in the distance, I'm just waiting for the flash of forked lightning. Ssssssss!Boom!--jeanne (talk) 15:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Just had a wee look. The editor who says Scotland was not targeted by the IRA is correct, though he would need to find a source for it. It can be frustrating if you know something and have no references to verify it. I remember a number of years ago a couple of small explosives were set off in a city shop and the Scottish news said it was a suspected IRA bomb. I immediately knew and said it was nonsense considering they had no history of setting off bombs in Scotland. Turned out to be some nutter with a grudge. Titch Tucker (talk) 15:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sean O'Callaghan says that Scotland wasn't ever to be targetted by the IRA in his book, The Informer.--jeanne (talk) 19:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

GoodDay

 * I hope GoodDay is doing OK. Pneumonia can be serious. I hope he recovers soon. Oh Titch, remember that pic I took of MT. Etna yesterday? I couldn't take that same photo today as Etna is completely enshrouded by clouds and fog!--jeanne (talk) 10:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * He did say he was recovering, I'm sure he'll be alright. Titch Tucker (talk) 22:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Dead Zone

 * Have you noiced lately that Wikipedia has become a dead zone? Nothing's going on anywhere? Tell me, Titch, on which pages is the in crowd hanging out, as I want to be a part of it?!!!!!!--jeanne (talk) 09:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's all quite on the western front. There is no in crowd as far as I can see, they must be out enjoying themselves. Titch Tucker (talk) 11:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Can't they enjoy themselves HERE? I thought Wikipedia was where the action was? Hmm, I must be getting old and boring, eh?--jeanne (talk) 12:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't say that, it would mean I'm old and boring too. I reckon everyone on wiki has decided to have an amnesty and agree with each other on everything, hence the dead zone. Titch Tucker (talk) 12:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with each other? Here? Wikipedia remiinds me of that old Gary Glitter song, Do You Want To Be in My Gang?--jeanne (talk) 14:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Westminster election 2005
Hi, Titch. Yes I probably did word that a bit inaccurately. By mainstream, I really meant the three Unionist parties. If you go here you'll find the Electoral Reform Society's analysis of the 2005 Westminster election results. On page 14 there are two tables, one for Scotland and one for Wales. The Scottish results showed that the unionist parties got 78% of the vote and in Wales they got 82.5%. Maybe your referring to the Holyrood elections? Thanks for pointing out my mistake. Rgds, - Bill Reid |  Talk ''' 10:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I see what your saying, Titch, but what I was focusing on Kilfeather's assertions in the book regarding the mandate or lack of at Westminster elections. I think the electorate sees the two elections in a different way, though, but I'm no expert&mdash;but statistics, now that's a different matter;). Rgds, - Bill Reid  |  Talk ''' 11:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Pissed off

 * Right now over at Commons, I am arguing on behalf of all the photos I have hosted to be used as fashion images, etc. while some editors over there have requeated their deletion. I don't see why that man with his arse hanging out hasn't been deleted whereas genuine fashion pictures are considered out of scope? Now I can see why people get absolutely disillusioned with Wikipedia. Waste hours of precious time writing articles, and uploading images, only to have them threatened with deletion by others. F..king hell, I'm really annoyed--jeanne (talk) 08:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hee hee hee, I figured you would delete it. It would give you digestion problems were you to behold it just after a full meal-or a visit to your local pub! I'm sure as hell glad he isn't one of the lifeguards at my beach!--jeanne (talk) 09:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And I had just finished my breakfast! You know how to make a guy feel queezy, Jeanne. Titch Tucker (talk) 09:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Titch, you really know how to boost my self-esteem!LOL--jeanne (talk) 09:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Please, I'm begging you! No more pics like that again! By the way, how did you get on with your image's being put up for deletion? Titch Tucker (talk) 05:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Most have no educational value, they are poor quality, they are a family album, in short, I'm being made to feel like a criminal for having spent HOURS of my precious time uploading them. If you'd like go have a look at them, they are categorized under Black clothing, female or Fashions of various years, such as Fashion in 1986, Fashion in 2008, etc. I included some of my kids in sicilian 19th century costumes, and one bloke says they should be deleted. The upshot of all of this is that I'm now planning to curtail my activities on Wikipedia, create fewer articles, make fewer edits etc. The time I wasted scanning my pics, uploading them to Commons has apparantly been for nought. I'm really humiliated and disappointed, Titch.--jeanne (talk) 05:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't let them get you down. It would be nice if people praised you for the good work you have done, unfortunately, most would rather criticize. If I were you I'd get on with writing your articles as you obviously enjoy it and don't give a second thought to the critics. Titch Tucker (talk) 06:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have placed some at the bottom of my talk page. I believe these to have value.--jeanne (talk) 07:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Peek-a-boo
Hiya Titch, it's great to be back in the land of Wiki. GoodDay (talk) 18:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Magyar
Yup, I am a Hungarian guy. :-) Cassandro (talk) 01:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't know a word of Hungarian I'm afraid, but my sister in-law is a Hungarian from Budapest. I'm just a plain old Scot from Scotland. Titch Tucker (talk) 01:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments on Snowded's page to Kjaer
Hi. You may not have realised that these messages are part of a major dispute that has been going on for some time about the content of the article at Ayn Rand. The full nature of the problems can be seen on Talk:Ayn Rand, which I advise you against posting comments to: the situation is extremely strained, and it probably wouldn't do you any good to get drawn into the problems. Arbcom is considering a plea to it at the moment on Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand‎‎ and its subpages, especially Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand/Evidence‎‎, where I am sure that after a quick look you will want to withdraw completely from getting any more involved. The messages you are seeing are "fall-out" from some major disagreements about a number of issues. Better to try to not see them. DDStretch   (talk)  03:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support though! Kjaer is probably the most extreame of the editors involved in this but he is fairly easy to ignore and I have to resist taking him too seriously.  -- Snowded   TALK  12:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Like you, I find ignoring those with extreme opinions is the best policy as it gives them less opportunity to vent those opinions. He does seem to be in a constant state of agitation over his philosophy and those who disagree with it. He really should be a little more philosophical about it. Titch Tucker (talk) 13:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm following your advice

 * Titch, I am following your advice. Instead of permitting those editors to spoil my pleasure in editing, I have gone ahead and uploaded more pics to Commons, but this time only of landscapes and historic buildings. Why give strangers power over one's activities? I enjoy contributing here and at Commons. I shall continue to do so. As I said on my User page, if somebody does not like me, Oh well. Thanks for your good advice. I'm glad GoodDay is back among us.--jeanne (talk) 07:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Good on you, Jeanne. Titch Tucker (talk) 13:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I told you a storm was brewing on the Troubles talk page. I see, however, that you rode out the storm very well without being injured in the cross-fire. I hate these post-1990s terms such as ethnic conflict being used in unrelated historical events. --jeanne (talk) 09:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * To call it an ethnic conflict is just plain wrong. There may be citations from authors who see it that way but unless I missed something the people of N.Ireland don't refer to it that way. 09:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It was never called that, not by journalists, politicians, or the people of Northern Ireland. Civil disorder, sectarian violence, as well as the troubles were the terms most commonly used by most people.--jeanne (talk) 09:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Which proves that no matter how many refs and citations we have it doesn't always make it right. As`I said on the talk page, imagine two full brothers being told they are of different ethnicity because they practice different religions. Now, that's silly. Titch Tucker (talk) 09:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * In Northern Ireland, when a Protestant woman marries a Catholic man, she sometimes (though not always) converts to Catholicism, so does that mean her ethnicity changes as well? The journalists who created the term ethnic cleansing in the 1990s are responsible for this current trend to employ that term in regards to every conflict which has taken place on the planet, even going back to the Punic Wars!!!--jeanne (talk) 10:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And the punic wars had nothing to do with ethnicity. Old Hannibal and his brothers never fought the Romans over ethnic differences, it was political (control of Spain etc), just as the troubles were political. Titch Tucker (talk) 10:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly.--jeanne (talk) 10:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I should be back in a week or two from tomorrow

 * God bless Titch. Best of luck. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm waiting for your return, don't stay away long. GoodDay (talk) 00:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll miss you. Take care.--jeanne (talk) 05:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

My dad asked me to tell everyone that he will be back fighting fit in no time and to say in his own words "you won't get rid of me that easily". He's starting chemo today and knows he'll be unable to do much for a while. Knowing my dad, it won't be long before you hear from him. Thank you for the messages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.198.212 (talk) 16:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Please tell your dad that we all miss him and know that Wikipedia won't be the same until he's back here among us. Thank you for your message, and I wish him a speedy recovery.--jeanne (talk) 17:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Same here. GoodDay (talk) 19:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I've only just read all this. Tell your dad that there will be a lot of people who will be there in spirit, fighting with him, and willing him to great success in the treatment. Get well soon. DDStretch   (talk)  19:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello Titch, hope you're doing OK. Get well soon.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Good Luck
Just noticing your page now and I want to wish you all the very best stay strong and see you when you get back, Sláinte chugat a chara. BigDunc Talk 15:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

thumb|right|Honoring your fighting spirit Beat the heck out of 'em. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your message, Titch. I cannot wait until you are back with us. Take care and get well soon. The party can't start without you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Trollers
Thank you for your support. I have an idea these trollers all post from public access computers. How are you feeling now? GoodDay will be happy to see you back with us, as well as lots of other editors. The fight over ethnic conflict is still waging over on the Troubles talk page, and nothing has changed on BI (will it ever?)LOL.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Your advice to me has always been good, so I shall now delete his/their message on my talk page, and if they continue, I'll consult Rockpocket.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As I said, I'm having one of my good day's. It's this wikipedia thing, even on a bad day I feel like logging on. I won't be posting as regular but will pop in now and again. I couldn't help myself today when I saw the trolling on your talk page. Titch Tucker (talk) 11:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's done. I deleted the message, as responding will only serve to fuel his fire. Now he'll be disappointed to see that I've blanked his comments. Thanks again.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Jeanne see don't feed the trolls good advice from Titch. BigDunc  Talk 14:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Great to see ya back in Wiki-land, Titch. You're correct about the trolls, their main purpose is to attract attention to themselves & in the process, create havoc. GoodDay (talk) 17:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There's trolling and there's trolling, neither of them good. This ip's trolling was just a nasty piece of work. Titch Tucker (talk) 18:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. In future they shall be quickly deleted into cyberspace.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)