"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ll.com...
On Sun, 22 May 2005 10:17:15 +0100, Mary Fisher wrote:

I *broad* ...

Hey, who nicked me n!

Not me gov, I suspect it's still on your keybord somewhere.

Dam, I'm goig to have aother look for it.

Ice oe - isert your ow.

Everything else is a bounus that makes life easier or more
comfortable.

But not necessarily.

True.

Hey! I've just found your 'n', it's inverted in 'bounus'!

Great, thanks Mary you are an angel.

I know blush

Well, I'm closer than some :-(

Mary

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

"Conor" wrote in message
t...
In article , Stuffed says...

You also need the means to find, habitalise or maintain the shelter, and
the
means to attain the food. This requires "things". You then often need a
way
of making these things, which requires more things. And before you know
it,
your back to basics lifestyle is on a technological crusade, like it or
not.

Oh dear. Lead a comfy life haven't you?

At times. Other times, very much not so. But my life, comfy or not, is what
caused mankind to come down from the trees and start making things.

All you need is your bare hands and a bit of knowledge. With that you
can build a shelter and learn how to make traps/snares with nothing
more than a sharp stone and what a wooded area provides.

So you take the sharp stone, craft it into the desired shape. It is now not
a random object, but a "thing" you have fashioned. You use it to make your
snares, axes, or other implements. These then also become things upon which
you depend. Somebody accidentally or delierately breaks your stone
implement, thereby requiring you to make another, something you would
otherwise not have had to do, and something that due to your responsibility
to the expanding communitiy you cannt do without. Your thing has been broken
during hunting season, when you need to be gathering for the winter, which
is when you would normally be making new things, or repairing the old ones.

The thing can be something as simple as a flint axe, my point is that humans
have managed to evolve in a way that in most climates requires objects to
survive, so if people want to take it to the most basic level when saying
"things" aren't important, they're really talking crap. Electricity isn't
important to a group still living in a (probably far more sustainable and
enjoyable) culture, but try going without any of the things it provides in
this country. Even living in a cardboard box requires someone somewhere to
have made that box, and living in a tree tends to get you locked up for
being a loony!

"Conor" wrote in message
t...
In article , Stuffed says...

Oh, I have social problems alright. Society has become a load of crap,
and I
never thought for one second I'd be saying that before pension age

Don't know where you live but small towns (under 15000 people) seem to
have a decent community.

I live in a part agri, part retirement, part leftover small town in the
south. The community is made from those who have been left behind as the
farms get ever smaller and better at producing more for less workforce,
retired wealthy people who choose to live in the pretty buildings in a semi
rural location on the outskirts, and the very few who manage to find decent
usually skilled employment.

Most of the somewhere inbetweens live out of town, commuting to the more
diverse cities in the county.

However, I accept that this place is somewhat unusual, compared to many
smaller towns I've been to/ lived in over the years.

"Tash" wrote in message
...
To get a blue badge, I would have to apply for DLA. I would almost
certainly
get it too, but I manage without it, and don't want to be a further
burden
on the system.

No you wouldn't all you have to do is apply to your local council, who
would
send you a very simple form which takes two mins to fill in and send back,
then if you do in fact qualify you get a nice legal blue badge.

The blurb I found online didn't seem to say that, but I might just look into
it if it means having the extra I could do with, without taking more money
out the system (that I would obviously like, but don't feel I honestly need

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 22 May 2005 12:41:09 +0100, Conor
wrote:

In article , says...

I was in our local Asda at THREE THIRTY AM today and there wandering
around the store was mum and dad with a no older than three year old
child in a buggy screaming its head off would you believe . I went to
the store at that time to compleatly avoid the little *******s during
the day but now it seems there is NO escape from them .

Welcome to the 24 hour society perpetuated by people, like yourself,
wanting to be able to get anything whenever they want.
You missed the point no child of that age should be out at that time
of night/morning some parents are just not fit to have children .

For all you know, that family could have been coming back from a hospital
visit to a dying relative, returning from holiday, or any other of a
multitude of reasons. However, as you seem to believe that you are always
in the right and everyone else is wrong, I'll assume you'll ignore this
post.

Mind you, if there wasn't a good reason to have a child out at that time,
I'd have to agree with you that it was irresponsible in the extreme.

--
Unlock Your Phone's Potential
www.uselessinfo.org.uk
www.thephonelocker.co.uk
www.gsm-solutions.co.uk

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sun, 22 May 2005 01:40:41 +0100, Alistair J Murray wrote:

[...]

the second because the possessed "shop" is implied.


Sorry lost me. Who or what is "possessing" Tesco, implied or not?

Tesco is possessing a shop, nothing (in this context) is possessing Tesco.

The form

"I had to pop out to Tesco's earlier today."

is an elision of

"I had to pop out to Tesco's shop earlier today."


The apostrophe also implies something is missing doesn't it? In this
case a missing "comma his". The use of which is clumsy at best to
very clumsy hence the normal shortening.

The apostrophe can indicate abbreviation but in this instance it
indicates possession.

"Tesco's shop" is equivalent to "The shop of Tesco".

The definitive resource on the apostrophe:

http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif



A

--
Trade Oil in €

On Sun, 22 May 2005 14:57:54 +0100, wrote:

On Sun, 22 May 2005 12:19:56 GMT, Andy Turner
wrote:


But does that mean you need to use disabled spots? Surely they're not
just a 'bonus' for anyone who's disabled, they're there for people who
have trouble walking, for whatever reason.
You do not need to have " physical trouble"walking but there are
people like myself which walking any great distance can bring on an
Angina attack I do suffer from arthritis also which walking any
distance causes pain .

Fair enough, but do you take any steps (excuse the pun), to reduce the
amount you walk around the supermarket? The distance saved parking in
a disabled spot compared to a normal spot seems to be about the length
or one or at the most two supermarket isles.


andyt

"Richard Colton" wrote in message
news:Xn1ke.37192

....

For all you know, that family could have been coming back from a hospital
visit to a dying relative, returning from holiday, or any other of a
multitude of reasons. However, as you seem to believe that you are always
in the right and everyone else is wrong, I'll assume you'll ignore this
post.

Mind you, if there wasn't a good reason to have a child out at that time,
I'd have to agree with you that it was irresponsible in the extreme.

Perhaps this would be one occasion when the ID system would clamp down on
the family :-)

Mary

--
Unlock Your Phone's Potential
www.uselessinfo.org.uk
www.thephonelocker.co.uk
www.gsm-solutions.co.uk

"Alistair J Murray" wrote in message
...

The definitive resource on the apostrophe:

http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif

I don't know if it's definitive or not (whose definition in any case?)
because I couldn't read it easily so gave up.

Sorry!

Mary

On Sun, 22 May 2005 14:40:25 +0100, "AndrewR"
wrote:

Andy Turner wrote:
On Sat, 21 May 2005 18:28:27 +0100, "AndrewR"
wrote:


It's also now the case that the average person in the UK has less
than 1 child, so the population is actually shrinking slightly

Nah. Y'see, by virtue of people having too many kids, there's going to
be lots of people around who don't yet have kids of their own - which
gives the appearance of the average person having less than 1 child.
There's still an explosion going on.

Would you care to cite a source for this?

Sure. It's logic.

Take a couple which only has one kid. From that, you could conclude
that 2 out of 3 people have kids. Take a couple that has 8 kids and
from that you could conclude that only 2 in 10 people have kids. If
the average person has less than one child, that may well simply mean
that there's lots of kids.


The only people I've heard expressing concern on this matter are
people who (a) ignore the facts and believe that an explosion is happening
and (b) people who ignore the facts and believe that we are dangerously
over-crowded.

I don't believe we are dangerously overcrowded. But should we wait
until that's the case before considering it?




Personally I feel that couples should only have two kids of their own.

That's lovely. What would you do if they dared to have a third? Forced
termination? Forced adoption? Drown it in a bucket?

Taxation.


andyt

"Andy Turner" wrote in message

... If
the average person has less than one child, that may well simply mean
that there's lots of kids.

No it doesn't, it means that child was deficient in some part of its body.


Mary

Andy Turner wrote:
On Sun, 22 May 2005 14:40:25 +0100, "AndrewR"
wrote:

Andy Turner wrote:

Nah. Y'see, by virtue of people having too many kids, there's going
to be lots of people around who don't yet have kids of their own -
which gives the appearance of the average person having less than 1
child. There's still an explosion going on.

Would you care to cite a source for this?

Sure. It's logic.

Take a couple which only has one kid. From that, you could conclude
that 2 out of 3 people have kids. Take a couple that has 8 kids and
from that you could conclude that only 2 in 10 people have kids. If
the average person has less than one child, that may well simply mean
that there's lots of kids.

Oh, right, you just made it up.

If you'd taken the time to do even some very basic research you'd have found
that you're wrong.

--
AndrewR, D.Bot (Celeritas)
Kawasaki ZX-6R J1, Fiat Coupe 20v Turbo
BOTAFOT#2,ITJWTFO#6,UKRMRM#1/13a,MCT#1,DFV#2,SKoGA#0 (and KotL)
BotToS#5,SBS#25,IbW#34, DS#5, COSOC# Suspended, KotTFSTR#
The speccy Geordie ****.

The message t
from "Mary Fisher" contains these words:

No, it was 'cos I was already in the driving seat and it would take
getting on for minutes to swap.

Oh.

I see.

I think.

I wonder what you did with the minutes you saved ...

Sorry, that was supposed to read "ten minutes". Getting in and out of a
car is a major undertaking for Mum. Since I was already in the driving
seat it seemed daft to swap over just so she could reverse down the
drive.

--
Skipweasel.
Ivor Cutler - "Never knowingly understood."

The message t
from "Mary Fisher" contains these words:

No it doesn't, it means that child was deficient in some part of its body.

Remembering, of course, that I have more than the average number of legs.

--
Skipweasel.
Ivor Cutler - "Never knowingly understood."

In article , Andy Turner
says...
On Sun, 22 May 2005 12:28:36 +0100, Conor
wrote:

In article , joe parkin
says...

And without exception I have seen these "disabled " people climb easily
out of their top of the range luxury cars and stoll into the shops.

You'd see me get out of my car like that. However if you ask, I'll
quite happily show you the 8 inch scar that runs along my spine and the
results of my last MRI scan.

But does that mean you need to use disabled spots?

Depends on what I'm doing and whether its a good/bad day.

Surely they're not
just a 'bonus' for anyone who's disabled, they're there for people who
have trouble walking, for whatever reason.

No, really?

--
Conor

"Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most." O.Osbourne.

In article , Mary
Fisher says...

"Conor" wrote in message
t...
In article , Andy Luckman
(AJL Electronics) says...

My sister in law's child will eat anything, provided it's chicken nuggets
or
crisps. Now how do you think that happened? Seriously, she will eat
nothing
else.

My 3 year old was like that. Solved the problem very easily by putting
the same meal as we had out for him and not giving him the option of
nuggets or crisps. They soon get hungry and the penny drops.

Good for you.

But I do wonder how your child became addicted to the other stuff before
then.

I wouldn't say it was an addiction but a reluctance to try something
new.


--
Conor

"Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most." O.Osbourne.

In article , Stuffed says...
snip
The thing can be something as simple as a flint axe, my point is that humans
have managed to evolve in a way that in most climates requires objects to
survive, so if people want to take it to the most basic level when saying
"things" aren't important, they're really talking crap.

Actually it wasn't really an issue until monetary value started to be
assigned to things.


--
Conor

"Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most." O.Osbourne.

Conor ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

My sister in law's child will eat anything, provided it's chicken
nuggets or crisps. Now how do you think that happened? Seriously, she
will eat nothing else.

My 3 year old was like that. Solved the problem very easily by putting
the same meal as we had out for him and not giving him the option of
nuggets or crisps. They soon get hungry and the penny drops.

I knew a guy at *UNI*, ffs, that would only (and I mean ONLY) eat buttered
white toast or chicken nuggets.

Conor ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

Then take a look at the link above and see what definition 3 says :-)

Yes there are several definitions. The supermarket has made the mistake
of assuming people actually are capable of thinking for themselves.

No, the supermarket are guilty of *not* actually defining their meaning
properly. Don't forget, we've also been told in this thread that by
"parent", they don't *actually* mean "parent", too.

) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying :

That aside, I once observed a car pass several open use, empty spaces
that were much very closer to the supermarket door than the one
remaining disabled space that was available at the farthest point from
the door. It would appear that they have the mentality of 'I have a blue
badge and I am going to park in the blue badge area'.

You are wrong

Umm, no, I would suspect he knows what he saw.

I will always try and park in a BB space for the simple reason I would
not like to think that a person with a BB was taking up a space that I if
I where able bodied could have used likewise when I see a car not showing
BB in a BB space I am straight to the customer service desk .

Umm, isn't that what he said? "I have a blue badge and I am going to park
in a blue badge area"

There's also the issue of the disabled spaces having more width available,
as somebody with mobility problems may well find it difficult to do the
usual squeeze past mirrors.

On Sun, 22 May 2005 17:02:04 +0100, "AndrewR"
wrote:

Andy Turner wrote:
On Sun, 22 May 2005 14:40:25 +0100, "AndrewR"
wrote:

Andy Turner wrote:

Nah. Y'see, by virtue of people having too many kids, there's going
to be lots of people around who don't yet have kids of their own -
which gives the appearance of the average person having less than 1
child. There's still an explosion going on.

Would you care to cite a source for this?

Sure. It's logic.

Take a couple which only has one kid. From that, you could conclude
that 2 out of 3 people have kids. Take a couple that has 8 kids and
from that you could conclude that only 2 in 10 people have kids. If
the average person has less than one child, that may well simply mean
that there's lots of kids.

Oh, right, you just made it up.

It's logic. I notice that you've avoided actually trying to dispute
the logic.



If you'd taken the time to do even some very basic research you'd have found
that you're wrong.

Show me your research.



andyt

Adrian wrote:
Conor ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :


My sister in law's child will eat anything, provided it's chicken
nuggets or crisps. Now how do you think that happened? Seriously, she
will eat nothing else.


My 3 year old was like that. Solved the problem very easily by putting
the same meal as we had out for him and not giving him the option of
nuggets or crisps. They soon get hungry and the penny drops.


I knew a guy at *UNI*, ffs, that would only (and I mean ONLY) eat buttered
white toast or chicken nuggets.

One of my gf's co-workers apparently eats a crisp sandwich in the morning.

He's alright at lunch, becuase his mum makes him a ham sandwich before
work. He's in his mid twenties at least...

Richard

--
RichardK - 1980s in a can. http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/music/
Retro computing - http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/retrotech/
Cars - 2004 Beetle Cabrio, 1989 Supra 3.0i, 1990 Sera, 1989 Volvo 740
MidiGuitar, AU/X. Apple 77-04. See links. Email - upgrade to 128

Andy Turner wrote:
On Sun, 22 May 2005 17:02:04 +0100, "AndrewR"
wrote:

Oh, right, you just made it up.

It's logic. I notice that you've avoided actually trying to dispute
the logic.

It's not logic, it's gibberish based on you misunderstanding what is being
quoted. The average woman in the UK, by the time she is no longer of
child-bearing age, has had 1.64 children.

If you'd taken the time to do even some very basic research you'd
have found that you're wrong.

Show me your research.

FFS, you must at least be bright enough to use Google.

--
AndrewR, D.Bot (Celeritas)
Kawasaki ZX-6R J1, Fiat Coupe 20v Turbo
BOTAFOT#2,ITJWTFO#6,UKRMRM#1/13a,MCT#1,DFV#2,SKoGA#0 (and KotL)
BotToS#5,SBS#25,IbW#34, DS#5, COSOC# Suspended, KotTFSTR#
The speccy Geordie ****.

RichardK ) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

One of my gf's co-workers apparently eats a crisp sandwich in the
morning.

He's alright at lunch, becuase his mum makes him a ham sandwich before
work. He's in his mid twenties at least...

Does she work with Peter the Pinquecento...?

"Conor" wrote in message
t...
In article , Mary
Fisher says...

"Conor" wrote in message
t...
In article , Andy Luckman
(AJL Electronics) says...

My sister in law's child will eat anything, provided it's chicken
nuggets
or
crisps. Now how do you think that happened? Seriously, she will eat
nothing
else.

My 3 year old was like that. Solved the problem very easily by putting
the same meal as we had out for him and not giving him the option of
nuggets or crisps. They soon get hungry and the penny drops.

Good for you.

But I do wonder how your child became addicted to the other stuff before
then.

I wouldn't say it was an addiction but a reluctance to try something
new.

The other stuff must have been new once.

Mary


--
Conor

"Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most." O.Osbourne.

"Adrian" wrote in message
. 244.170...


I knew a guy at *UNI*, ffs, that would only (and I mean ONLY) eat buttered
white toast or chicken nuggets.

That doesn't surprise me at all.

Mary

"Guy King" wrote in message
...
The message t
from "Mary Fisher" contains these words:

No, it was 'cos I was already in the driving seat and it would take
getting on for minutes to swap.

Oh.

I see.

I think.

I wonder what you did with the minutes you saved ...

Sorry, that was supposed to read "ten minutes". Getting in and out of a
car is a major undertaking for Mum. Since I was already in the driving
seat it seemed daft to swap over just so she could reverse down the
drive.

Ah, that's not quite the impression you gave :-)

Mary

--
Skipweasel.
Ivor Cutler - "Never knowingly understood."

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 22 May 2005 15:17:11 GMT, "Richard Colton"
wrote:
Mind you, if there wasn't a good reason to have a child out at that time,
I'd have to agree with you that it was irresponsible in the extreme.
This particular store isn't in a location that you just would not call
at if on the way home from the airport or whatever the nearest air
port ferry terminals etc being over 30 miles away. You would have to
know exactly where it is and a stranger would not find it in a month
of Sundays

A very odd place for a supermarket!

and not anywhere near any through routes from A's to B's.
These two where doing their weekly shop

How do you know?

If you talked to them about the contents of their trolley you could have
asked them, delicately, why they wereshopping at that time.

There's always another side to a story.

Mary

"Guy King" wrote in message
...
The message t
from "Mary Fisher" contains these words:

No it doesn't, it means that child was deficient in some part of its
body.

Remembering, of course, that I have more than the average number of legs.

What a co-incidence! So do I :-)

Mary

--
Skipweasel.
Ivor Cutler - "Never knowingly understood."

The message t
from "Mary Fisher" contains these words:

Remembering, of course, that I have more than the average number of legs.

What a co-incidence! So do I :-)

Amazing how many people think they don't.

--
Skipweasel.
Ivor Cutler - "Never knowingly understood."

"Guy King" wrote in message
...
The message t
from "Mary Fisher" contains these words:

Remembering, of course, that I have more than the average number of
legs.

What a co-incidence! So do I :-)

Amazing how many people think they don't.

Little amazes me about people :-(

Mary

--
Skipweasel.
Ivor Cutler - "Never knowingly understood."

Bob Eager wrote:
There's also the (not uncommon) situation where the child just can't
sleep, so you take them out for a ride in the car...

I don't remember ever being taken out in the car to get me to sleep.

If I wandered out of bed late at night (after 7 pm) I was given a nip of
sherry then put back to bed.

Owain

Adrian wrote:
My 3 year old was like that. ...
I knew a guy at *UNI*, ffs, that would only (and I mean ONLY) eat buttered
white toast or chicken nuggets.

I knew one too. Was yours called Bruce by any chance?

Owain

Conor wrote:
In article , Dave
says...


Having worked in the military side of the aerospace industry for well
over 25 years, I can state that there is no such thing as common sense.


Of course there is.

So what you are saying, is that everyone will have the same solution to
a problem that can be solved by common sense?
I very much doubt that.

In life, just as in the aerospace industry, you need an authority to do
something, not just use common sense.


?????

Likewise to your 5 questions.

One man's common sense is some one else's accident.


I give up.

I am glad the aerospace industry does not have your faint heart, or all
those that get on a flight would be risking death, much more than when
they cross a road. The aerospace industry never gives up.

Define the following into mandatory or advisory...

You can
You must
You may
You should.

Dave

wrote:

On Sat, 21 May 2005 22:40:13 +0100, "Taz" me@home wrote:

Oh, come on ! Any mother with a pre-school child will still think of the
child as her baby. This carries on until the child is in their 40's.

Well I think that mother&brat spaces should all be turned into
disabled spaces you have two choices regarding babies to have or not
to have them and to take or not to take them to the supermarket.
Disabled people have no choice their health brakes down in some way
and they are stuck with it and have no control over it either .

Those who have their health break down are sometimes guilty of causing
that breakdown themselves.

I know several ex joggers that have cream crackered knees and have a
blue card. Several that played rugby and have a blue card.

Why am I discriminated against, by looking after by body?

Just playing the other card :-)

Dave

On Sun, 22 May 2005 17:52:55 +0100, "AndrewR"
wrote:

Andy Turner wrote:
On Sun, 22 May 2005 17:02:04 +0100, "AndrewR"
wrote:

Oh, right, you just made it up.

It's logic. I notice that you've avoided actually trying to dispute
the logic.

It's not logic, it's gibberish based on you misunderstanding what is being
quoted.

The stat presented was simply that "the average person in the UK has
less than 1 child". I was simply showing how that quote can be
misleading and actually serve to show that there are lots of children
- hence more people without children. My logic is correct in this
instance, but you've now tried to say it's gibberish by presenting a
different stat!


The average woman in the UK, by the time she is no longer of
child-bearing age, has had 1.64 children.

And that's a totally different statistic which has no bearing at all
on the points I'd presented. Are you *seriously* suggesting that to
present a different stat somehow discredits or even relates to the
logic I'd presented WRT the original, and quite different, stat?


If you'd taken the time to do even some very basic research you'd
have found that you're wrong.

Show me your research.

FFS, you must at least be bright enough to use Google.

No Andrew, I asked you to show me *your* research.

I doubt if I were to look for "AndrewR's research" on Google, I'd find
it. So again I ask you, show me your research.


andyt

Owain ) gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying :

I knew a guy at *UNI*, ffs, that would only (and I mean ONLY) eat
buttered white toast or chicken nuggets.

I knew one too. Was yours called Bruce by any chance?

Dave.

Adrian wrote:

) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying :


That aside, I once observed a car pass several open use, empty spaces
that were much very closer to the supermarket door than the one
remaining disabled space that was available at the farthest point from
the door. It would appear that they have the mentality of 'I have a blue
badge and I am going to park in the blue badge area'.


You are wrong


Umm, no, I would suspect he knows what he saw.


I will always try and park in a BB space for the simple reason I would
not like to think that a person with a BB was taking up a space that I if
I where able bodied could have used likewise when I see a car not showing
BB in a BB space I am straight to the customer service desk .


Umm, isn't that what he said? "I have a blue badge and I am going to park
in a blue badge area"

There's also the issue of the disabled spaces having more width available,
as somebody with mobility problems may well find it difficult to do the
usual squeeze past mirrors.

I also saw the same driver get out of his car, very nimbly I might add,
and go into the store. Perhaps he has a disabled wife, but then he
should not be using the BB parking slots if she is not with him.

Having said that, it does not follow that a BB driver has an observable
impediment that prevents him from driving. It may be something that
occurs after he has exerted himself. I have a friend like that. Half his
heart is dead.


Dave

Taz wrote:

I've done that before, but only because when I use a blue badge,
it's for my
mother-in-law who has lost both legs. The extra space afforded by the
disabled space allows me to open the door fully so I can lift her into her
wheel chair, and guarantees that I can do the same in reverse when we come
back out of the shop.

I understand that. See a post I made earlier :-)

Dave

"Owain" wrote in message
...
Bob Eager wrote:
There's also the (not uncommon) situation where the child just can't
sleep, so you take them out for a ride in the car...

I don't remember ever being taken out in the car to get me to sleep.

If I wandered out of bed late at night (after 7 pm) I was given a nip of
sherry then put back to bed.

You lucky thing. We only had sherry in the house at Christmas. I never dared
wander out of bed, the stairs creaked ...

Mary

Owain