The only thing that was interesting about her, apart from being a teacher and being engaged to Richard;):p.

That's a ridiculous comment. What do you then define as large. 10cm by 10cm or 14.75 by 14.75? Suffice to say it was large enough for me to take notice of it. Further, it is not the size that is really the issue, but her shallow nature in puting this up in the first place, rather than something more sentimental or meaningful. It tells us she has little to go on except her physical attributes (which aren't fantastic anyway).

I'm not going to argue about Rachel's depth. Can't really remember her. More focused on Amy at the moment. One thing is for sure, she is as shallow as they come.

Amy Childs to Win!! Shuttttt upppppp

How does it tell us Sir?

Lol that would be funny :joker:

As I would say if I was in the classroom, read the post again.

Maybe she doesn't feel the need to have family photo's around her while she works, and I don't recall her mentioning a dog or gerbil.

You ask this after starting this stupid pointless thread?

Maybe she just likes that picture. Really no need for deep psychological analysing. And it certainly doesn't make her a bad person.

The intellect here is baffling me. What is the age of most people I am conversing with here. I really would like to know.

Old enough to have teachers younger than myslef.:blush:

Photo's ....real good English there. I suggest you re-read again my comments on what is says about her character. One doesn't need to have dogs and gerbils on the wall. You seem to need one on punctuation! She could have one in 'depth of character'

Tell me. I must know. I'm 32. Honest truth.

41, mental age of 33.

1) I never said she was a bad person. I only claim she isn't a particularly good person. There is a difference.

2) Maybe she just likes that picture.....do you not understand there are deeper meanings behind things people do. What a ridiculous thing to say. Why do you think she likes the picture. That is what this thread was about.

3) No need for deep psychological analysing? Well, judging from the bimbo you have in your avatar, I'm sure psychological analysing isn't on the top of your priority list. But surely that is what the show was originally about?

4) The only reason you found the thread 'stupid' was because you didn't read into the subtleties I was referring to. Your call. I consider your avatar stupid and boring. But, hey, it takes all sorts to make the world go round.

Predicted age for you: 17

Christ sake's, you're a ranty bugger are ye no.

Somebody who starts a thread and quotes everybody who disagree's with them with angry & annoyed comments is rather foolish too. This is a forum full of differing opinions; allow people to have them.

Predicted age: 15

OK this **** is officially on my last nerve.

1) Disagree's ???? PUNCTUATION

2) I have never said anything whereby I haven't allowed others to express their opinions. All are allowed, as long as they back them up intelligently. To say 'Amy to win shuttttt uppppp' is completely moronic.

3) I admit sometimes my comments can come across as emotional and somewhat angry. Foolish? I don't really think so.

Predicted age: 16 (your use of semi colon was good, but the apostrophe is sickeningly innaccurate.)

amy..gr8 or grating?

Look this is not a argument about my vocab and i cba to read your paragraph but the photo means nothing your wrong I'm right bye :xyxwave:

Well well well. To admit you are getting wound up? Always a bad move in a debate. Once one admits to being emotionally beaten, there can be no argument. I suggest you think about how to develop yourself intellectually, rather than become so wound up. I must admit, I am chuckling with jubilated exultations as I type this. (look up dictionary meaning).

you are so heading for a ban

just a prediction

Yeah, YOU'RE right and I'm wrong. And to claim you 'can't be assed' (I assume) to read my paragraph just shows you up unfortunately.

Predicted age: 15