Reader's Wives

Posted by: seagull on 18 February 2004

That got your attention! Big Grin

I wonder how long before this one gets pulled...
Posted on: 18 February 2004 by Malcolm Davey
I assume you are reffering to Mrs S.... Big Grin
Posted on: 19 February 2004 by Roy T
"Reader's Wives" brings back many happy Mammaries from the past Razz
Posted on: 19 February 2004 by Jez Quigley
Gentlemen's Relish
Posted on: 19 February 2004 by BigH47
Wanks for the memories?

Howard
Posted on: 19 February 2004 by David Stewart
quote:
Gentlemen's Relish
Jez, that is so gross - can't you find something a little more tasteful to counteract my immediate desire to chuck-up Wink

David
Posted on: 19 February 2004 by Jez Quigley
quote:
counteract my immediate desire to chuck-up

A random-sample anonymous survey of the members of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) was conducted in the spring of 1990 measuring the attitudes and experiences of American oncologists concerning the antiemetic use of marijuana in cancer chemotherapy patients. The survey was mailed to about one-third (N = 2430) of all U.S.-based ASCO members and yielded a response rate of 43% (1035). More than 44% of the respondents report recommending the (illegal) use of marijuana for the control of emesis to at least one cancer chemotherapy patient. Almost half (48%) would prescribe marijuana to some of their patients if it were legal. As a group, respondents considered (smoked) marijuana to be somewhat more effective than the legally available (oral) synthetic THC (Marinol) and roughly as safe. Of the respondents who expressed an opinion, a majority (54%) thought marijuana should be available by prescription.

These results bear on the question of whether marijuana has a "currently accepted medical use," an issue in an ongoing administrative and legal dispute concerning whether marijuana in smoked form should be available by prescription along with synthetic THC in oral form. This survey demonstrates that oncologists' experience with the medical use of marijuana is more extensive, and their opinions of it more favorable, than the regulatory authorities appear to have believed.


Feel better now David?
Posted on: 19 February 2004 by Jez Quigley
And just to complete the sex, drugs, and rock and roll of the thread:-

http://www.piccadillyrecords.com/mp3/Readers%20Wives%20-%20Bitch%20At%20The%20Brits.mp3

not so much rock as dance though.
Posted on: 19 February 2004 by Minky
The problem, according to Martin Amis in "Yellow dog", the problem with "readers wives" sections in tabloids is that you can't actually use pictures of actual readers wives in them, as such, because in doing so you would be leading your "readers" on a sun dappled romp through meadows of page three girls and then hurling them into the post-holocaust cave in the second "planet of the apes", i.e. an abrupt reminder of the ugly world of the tabloid reader, and probably not great for circulation. Putting pictures of models in the RW section would seem to be "taking the piss" but apparently your average reader is comfortable with the notion that other average readers have stunning wives because it makes him feel that he is part of a QUALITY group.

Yup.
Posted on: 19 February 2004 by Martin D
I'm sure John Cooper Clarke would have something to say
Martin