Wareside, Hertfordshire

Needs a little less north, otherwise very good.

There's a weather vane, far left. I'll airbrush out the offending directional arm.

A little less top and slightly more bottom is what I meant..

My facetiousness was in vane, but whatever your preferences (or mine), body-shaming is unwoke and liable to get you deplatformed. I'd admit to liking more bottom, but wouldn't have the cheek.

I've reduced them to half-width, but a fat lot of attention you've paid to it.

Hark who's talking! You're the worst fat-shamer I know.

Aw! Where are my comments?

I deleted them, as I wasn't comfortable with mocking other people's body image like that.

Who was doing the mocking?? Am I a hypocrite?

The fact is that people's body image and the reality are rarely the same.

1. Both.
2. Yes.
3. Agreed.

We shouldn't criticise or mock things which cannot be helped, I agree, and I'd bet that those ladies, if they could choose, would be half (or in one case a third) of the width.

But to pretend that we have no preference, that would be hypocritical.

Agreed, but I don't feel comfortable mocking these ladies online and being involved with the altering of their image, especially when I took the photo without their knowledge or consent.

So let us replace it with this one.
www.ipernity.com/doc/isisbridge/44997752

That makes me ashamed to be British.

But seriously, legally you do NOT require their knowledge or consent to photograph people in public places and publish the images online. And that fairground, I presume, was in a public place.

Yes, I know that. I took my photo quite legitimately in a public place.
www.ipernity.com/doc/isisbridge/39570474.

But, legal or not, it seems morally wrong to reproduce their image in grossly altered form
and then discuss it on the internet. I'm sorry if I led you down that path.

Grossly? It was gross before I altered it. Twelve dozen times so.

Maybe so, but it was a fun picture with no malice intended.

No malice? This is sounding more like a murder mystery. We must get to the bottom of it.

Miss Marple is on her way.

I thought I'd try something new, and, seeing it in the supermarket, bought two packets of Bachelor's Pasta 'n Sauce, which I've just had for dinner. They're supposedly "ready in 5 minutes"; after 15 minutes on the hob they were still as tough as plastic and tasted much like it. Horrible! Be warned.

Best stick to Pot Noodle (chicken and mushroom with soy sauce)
www.potnoodle.com/products/pot-noodle/chickenmushroom.html

Those are what I normally do have (I must have had a hundred of both the chicken and beef ones) ideally on a bed of spinach and topped with one or two fried eggs. If all three components are defrosted/hydrated/fried simultaneously, the whole dish can be prepared in five minutes flat.

Never heard of anyone frying their pot noodle before.

Whose pot noodle? I don't fry anyone else's.

Why would you want to fry YOURS? You complain about not liking gravy on your potatoes because it makes them soggy. So why would you mix Pot Noodle with fried egg?

1. I defrost the frozen spinach, hydrate the pot noodles and fry the eggs. I don't fry the noodles, just drain them.
2. Pasta and potatoes are different. Pasta after draining is still slightly damp and has to be to be palatable; that's why it's always served with sauce or oil. Pot Noodles come with only a soupcon of soy sauce, and egg yolk is perfectly compatible with them.

Why would you drain POT Noodle? Sounds like you're tipping the flavour down the sink.

I don't eat Pot Noodles out of the plastic pots; when they're ready I put them on a warmed plate and unless drained of excess water, they'd have to be eaten with a soup spoon with a napkin tucked into one's shirt collar, which isn't done. Apart from that, if it's excessively wet, pasta cannot be mixed with anything else.

What I dislike about Pot Noodles is the demotic tone of the instructions, which e.g. tell the consumer to "grab" a fork. I prefer to be addressed as an adult who takes, and not grabs, things.

Fair enough, but if you dislike so much about Pot Noodles, one wonders why you buy them. Wouldn't it be simpler (and probably cheaper) just to buy a packet of plain noodles and then sauce and serve them according to your requirements?

Pot Noodles are designed as an instant convenience meal and not intended to be mixed with other foods on a plate. The instruction to grab a fork conveys the idea of speed, delivering the message that this is a meal which can be prepared quickly and easily, although I don't see any such instruction on my own pot.

Yes, but plain, raw pasta takes over 20 minutes to cook, whereas Pot Noodles take less than 5 minutes and don't need a saucepan which afterwards needs to be washed.

I've just looked at the instructions on a pot and see that (wisely) they've been revised and no longer tell one to grab this and grab that. So that I take back.

I wasn't talking about pasta: I was talking about noodles.
You can buy packets of noodles without the Pot.

Sharwood's egg noodles, for example, can be cooked in four minutes.
www.tesco.com/groceries/en-GB/products/315362515

The washing of the pan would be minimal, as only water will have adhered to its sides.

I did in fact this very evening use those noodles. But there's still more time and effort involved than in preparing Pot Noodles in their pots.

Wonderful photo.

Delightful