StringJunky

Keeps everyone on the same page.

If I'm microwaving a potato, I put it on full for 5 mins, take it out, squeeze and add anything up to another 5 mins depending on that test.

There's less stringent safety oversight on shampoo ingredients compared to foodstuffs as well.

There's far more ingredients in shampoo than bottled water.

Think about what's in fizzy water and then think about what's in shampoo.

I'm sure you've put far worse things on your head; like shampoo.

Because they want to try and keep it as pristine as possible. The principle there is that: whatever you go in with, you come back with; there is no long-term waste allowed.

Is there not always some dishonesty in every political process? We are always 'done wrong' on the losers side.

You don't think it would work out that way?

What does anyone think of this strategy on letting Trump have his wall in this Reuters opinion piece. It's more thinking on the long game.It's about a five minute read. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mitchell-wall-commentary/commentary-why-trumps-border-wall-would-backfire-on-him-idUSKCN1PG25B

Yes, there should have been a minimum difference; 55% would have been reasonable. It would have removed doubts of dishonestly-intended effects.

It's a shame that wasn't specified, and also, very short-sighted to think it wasn't going to be binding, given the depth of feeling on both sides.

Guilty, Your Honour.

Your sarcasm detector's not working.