Guy King wrote:

The message
from "Taz" me@home contains these words:


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.


Ha! If only it did guarantee it. We parked in a blue badge space in
France and some (non bagde displaying) berk shoved his/her car between
ours and the one next to it 'cos the gap was just big enough. Sadly his
wing mirror fell off while getting the wife into the car.

Only his wing mirror? I would have made sure that other things dropped
off :-)

Dave

Mary Fisher wrote:
"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.

Here's a text version.

http://www.miketaylor.org.uk/humour/btaf.html

Sorry!

's OK



A

--
Trade Oil in €

Taz wrote:

"Guy King" wrote in message
...

The message
from "Taz" me@home contains these words:


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.

Ha! If only it did guarantee it. We parked in a blue badge space in
France and some (non bagde displaying) berk shoved his/her car between
ours and the one next to it 'cos the gap was just big enough. Sadly his
wing mirror fell off while getting the wife into the car.

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




'kin 'ell - If I got that, I'd probably blow a gasket. If I do get a problem
like that I generally grit my teeth, because the MIL feels bad enough having
to depend on us to get her around. She's old school proud. If I blew my top
it would only make her feel bad and that would make me feel like a ****.


Don't blow your top and make sure the other driver gets extremely
embarrassed. Get some Avery labels, about A5 size, and print on them
something like.....

'Thank you for parking so close to me that I could not get a wheel chair
up to my door to get my aged mother out, but what the heck, you have
total mobility'.

Stick them on the drivers side window, just to educate them.
The stickier the glue on the label, the better :-))

Dave

"Alistair J Murray" wrote in message
...
Mary Fisher wrote:
"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.

Here's a text version.

http://www.miketaylor.org.uk/humour/btaf.html

Is that IT?

There's a lot more to apostrophes than that :-)

Or perhaps it's The Greengrocers' Basic Guide?

Mary

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

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.

You were not "simply" showing that the figure was misleading, you were
attempting to use a bit of home made logic to advance your viewpoint that we
should limit procreation.

My logic is correct in this
instance, but you've now tried to say it's gibberish by presenting a
different stat!

It's not a different stat, it's the source of the stat that I quoted ...

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

.... which is divided by 2 to give 0.82 children per person.

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?

To, I'm suggesting it discredits your comment of "There's still an explosion
going on" because there isn't and making up your own way to interpret stats
that you don't understand doesn't make it so.

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.

Yes, yes, wonderful. You've been shown to be wrong so now you're trying to
discredit me.

There is no population explosion. You thought there was and that you could
prove there was, but there isn't and you couldn't. End of story.

--
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 ****.

"Mary Fisher" wrote in news:4290f7d4$0$28628
:

http://www.miketaylor.org.uk/humour/btaf.html

Is that IT?

There's a lot more to apostrophes than that :-)

Or perhaps it's The Greengrocers' Basic Guide?

Mary

I would not take grammatical advice from anyone using "where'd" - but then
again, there is a hint in the URL, "humour".

--
Rod

"Rod" wrote in message
. 4...
"Mary Fisher" wrote in news:4290f7d4$0$28628
:

http://www.miketaylor.org.uk/humour/btaf.html

Is that IT?

There's a lot more to apostrophes than that :-)

Or perhaps it's The Greengrocers' Basic Guide?

Mary

I would not take grammatical advice from anyone using "where'd" - but then
again, there is a hint in the URL, "humour".

Yes. What was funny about "aboyt"?

:-)

Mary

--
Rod

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.

So what? I regularly use East Midlands airport, which is a damned sight
further than 30 miles from where I live (and from the supermarket I use).

You would have to
know exactly where it is and a stranger would not find it in a month
of Sundays

I can't imagine any supermarket being daft enough to make their shop nigh on
impossible to find, but you're still missing the point - they might well
know exactly where it is and use it normally on a regular basis.

and not anywhere near any through routes from A's to B's.

Eh? How on earth could you possibly know where they were coming from or
going to?

These two where doing their weekly shop and had half a trolley full of
goods when I saw them and they where still in there when I came out
this was no quick call for a loaf of bread tea sugar and milk on the
way home from a weeks holiday or whatever .

I'm sorry, but I still don't see your point. It can take me ten minutes to
fill a trolly, and if you're going to go and get some food etc, on the way
from an airport, you might as well make the visit worthwhile and buy what
you'll need for a few days.

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

In article , Stuffed
writes
I choose not to apply for a badge, but I often have problems managing
shopping, so frequently use the disabled spaces at the supermarket. Should I
have to spend hours trying to get my window clean for daring not to give the
civil service even more paperwork?

Yes - to put it bluntly.

If you're not disabled enough to have a blue badge then don't park
there.

A doctor is the person who can decide whether or not you're disabled,
not you.
--
Charlie Mitchell.
To reply by e mail, change the first charleem to my real first name.
Check out my E-Bay stuff! http://urlcut.com/ebaythings

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


Why is "I had to pop out to Tescos earlier today." possessive?

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

is acceptable; the first because one is going to the local
manifestation of the entity "Tesco plc"


Yep, I agree with that.


the second because the possessed "shop" is implied.


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

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.

"Fred's coat is red." - "Fred, his coat is red."

"I had to pop out to Tesco, his earlier today."

Definately doesn't work!

Come on where are all the expert English pedants out there when you
want one?

"I had to pop out to Tesco, his (shop) earlier today."

Dave Liquorice wrote:

On Sun, 22 May 2005 10:01:21 +0100, Mary Fisher wrote:


The problem with giving people the choice not to breed so much is
that, at a biological level, that's what we're designed to do.

By?


Depending on your beliefs, God, evolution and I expect you can combine
the two if you try hard enough. B-)


it's a fact that later menarche, frequent child bearing and long
lactation help to protect against some cancers.


Why am not surprised, frequent child birth etc is what the female form
is "designed" for. You don't have to go back all that far to find that
most women of child bearing age were almost premenantly pregnant and
gave birth to a dozen or more children but with child mortality at
well over 50% only a 3 or 4 of those babies made it to adulthood.

Is that why these days with birth control and time they weren'tr
'designed' to have they poke their noses into stuff they don't seem
competent to handle eh?

;-)

Conor wrote:

In article , joe parkin
says...


A sign that says blue badge holder, would mean I could park there
because I hold my daughters, blue lapel badge?

Bin there, done that. But the badge used to be Orange.
It has no authority.

Only if you want to confirm your stupidity by showing that you're
completley incapable of understanding the accompanying picture of a
wheelchair..the internationally recognised symbol for disabled.

Which has absolutely no authority. You can paint whatever you like on
private ground, it makes not a jot of difference to the law of the land.

If I chose, I could park my car in either a parent and child, or a
cripples corner spot and the supermarket would not take any step to
prevent me. If they did, I just have to take them to court and show that
they are predgiseced against an able bodied person.

What does p**s me off, is the disabled parkings in the mother and child
slots when my dauther has to park well away from the supermarket door

On Sun, 22 May 2005 00:42:13 +0100, Stuffed wrote:

See too attached. Not able to think of anything else to do ...

See skint,

You don't need money to entertain yourself. Stop that, you'll go
blind. B-)

Look it up. My school was obsessed with far more important things
than the finer points of the mother tongue to bother giving me half
a clue, so the quarter I do have has been what I've taught myself
over the years, probably wrongly!

Snap. Many English teachers I find are hopeless. They just don't seem
able to explain things using simple words and examples or have great
difficulty grasping the fact that their pupil really doesn't have a
clue what a past participle is.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

On Sun, 22 May 2005 12:26:15 +0100, Conor wrote:

A sign that says blue badge holder, would mean I could park there
because I hold my daughters, blue lapel badge?

Pedantically, yes :-)

What a dumb ****. The accompanying picture of a wheelchair not a big
enough clue?

So only disabled people who use/need a wheelchair can use the BB
spaces?

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

Dave wrote:

Conor wrote:

In article , joe
parkin says...


A sign that says blue badge holder, would mean I could park there
because I hold my daughters, blue lapel badge?

Bin there, done that. But the badge used to be Orange.
It has no authority.

Only if you want to confirm your stupidity by showing that you're
completley incapable of understanding the accompanying picture of a
wheelchair..the internationally recognised symbol for disabled.

Which has absolutely no authority. You can paint whatever you like on
private ground, it makes not a jot of difference to the law of the
land.

If I chose, I could park my car in either a parent and child, or a
cripples corner spot and the supermarket would not take any step to
prevent me. If they did, I just have to take them to court and show
that they are predgiseced against an able bodied person.

But by entering their land you have agreed to the T&C's that they have
displayed around the car park. I'd love to see you go to court and see
you reason your parking in a disabled spot when you are able bodied.

--
Michael
Hippo Keeper for the Sultan of Bling
'fot#125|twa#5|flo#10|cosoc#1|HYPO#5(temp KOTL)
Ebay items: http://tinyurl.com/3wfy8

On Sun, 22 May 2005 11:32:37 +0100, Mary Fisher wrote:

Why am not surprised, frequent child birth etc is what the female
form is "designed" for.

Indeed.

er - what's the 'etc.'?

Two subjects in the orginal comment, to much brain strain to work out
how to spell lacertion.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

On Sun, 22 May 2005 16:26:27 +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."

Ah....

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".

Ahhhh..... So we end up with:

"I had to pop out to the shop of Tesco earlier today."

Well the mud might be a tad clearer, but not a lot.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

In article . 170,
Adrian says...

No, the supermarket are guilty of *not* actually defining their meaning
properly.

Are they hell. Every supermarket I've been to that has parent and child
spaces has a clear unambiguous picture of an adult and child.

Guess you're one of the muppets they made the mistake with.

--
Conor

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

In article , Dave
says...

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.

How did someone so stupid and narrow minded get a job in aerospace?
Mind you, you could be the teaboy.

Common sense..like knowing that sticking your hand in a fire isn't a
bright idea.

And as for the problem solving, there aren't that many things which
only have a single approach to achieve the same aim.


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.

What does a teaboy get paid at BAe nowadays?


Define the following into mandatory or advisory...


Why? Incapable of working it out for yourself?


--
Conor

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

In article , Dave
says...

Which has absolutely no authority. You can paint whatever you like on
private ground, it makes not a jot of difference to the law of the land.

However when on their land you abide by their terms and conditions.

If I chose, I could park my car in either a parent and child, or a
cripples corner spot and the supermarket would not take any step to
prevent me. If they did, I just have to take them to court and show that
they are predgiseced against an able bodied person.

It's PREJUDICED you ****ing halfwit. For the love of God, how can
someone who claims to be intelligent be so incapable of spelling a
simple word? **** me, apart from the first and last two letters, you
got the whole thing wrong.

What does p**s me off, is the disabled parkings in the mother and child
slots when my dauther has to park well away from the supermarket door

What does **** me off is ****s who think they're clever because they're
the teaboy at BAe or wherever and can't even spell a simple word.

--
Conor

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

In article om, Dave
Liquorice says...

What a dumb ****. The accompanying picture of a wheelchair not a big
enough clue?

So only disabled people who use/need a wheelchair can use the BB
spaces?

Is this thread a magnet for stupid people? The sign of a white
wheelchair on a blue background is the internationally recognised
symbol for disability.


--
Conor

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

Adrian wrote:

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

I *think* I'm right in saying that it's perfectly legal to kill
****wits like that.

There might even be a reward.

--
Ben Blaney

In article ,
says...
You would have to
know exactly where it is and a stranger would not find it in a month
of Sundays and not anywhere near any through routes from A's to B's.

What an unusual place to locate a supermarket. Most of them choose
locations with easy access (it increases the odds of people shopping
there, you see).

These two where doing their weekly shop and had half a trolley full of
goods when I saw them and they where still in there when I came out
this was no quick call for a loaf of bread tea sugar and milk on the
way home from a weeks holiday or whatever .

Again, you're making assumptions. Perhaps they had other children at
home and half a trolley worth of goods was about enough to last a
day. Perhaps they were - since they were there anyway, and indeed as
I did on the trip I mentioned earlier - picking up some other items
along the way.

At any rate, none of what you've said supports your original
statement, which was that "no child of that age should be out at that
time of night/morning some parents are just not fit to have
children". It *may*, possibly, support the idea that the particular
parents you saw were irresponsible - but only possibly, since you
don't know the circumstances, and it certainly doesn't justify your
sweeping assumptions.

--
Hedgehog

"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ll.com...
On Sun, 22 May 2005 11:32:37 +0100, Mary Fisher wrote:

Why am not surprised, frequent child birth etc is what the female
form is "designed" for.

Indeed.

er - what's the 'etc.'?

Two subjects in the orginal comment, to much brain strain to work out
how to spell lacertion.

Ah, I see.

In that case yes, you're right.

What are men designed for?

G

Mary

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ll.com...
On Sun, 22 May 2005 00:42:13 +0100, Stuffed wrote:

See too attached. Not able to think of anything else to do ...

See skint,

You don't need money to entertain yourself. Stop that, you'll go
blind. B-)

Tennis elbow is quite common, I understand.

Look it up. My school was obsessed with far more important things
than the finer points of the mother tongue to bother giving me half
a clue, so the quarter I do have has been what I've taught myself
over the years, probably wrongly!

Snap. Many English teachers I find are hopeless. They just don't seem
able to explain things using simple words and examples or have great
difficulty grasping the fact that their pupil really doesn't have a
clue what a past participle is.

Dave, did you actually understand the sentence above your reply?

Mary

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

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

No, the supermarket are guilty of *not* actually defining their meaning
properly.

Are they hell. Every supermarket I've been to that has parent and child
spaces has a clear unambiguous picture of an adult and child.

So disabled spaces are only for people in wheelchairs?

In article . 170,
Adrian says...
Conor ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

No, the supermarket are guilty of *not* actually defining their meaning
properly.

Are they hell. Every supermarket I've been to that has parent and child
spaces has a clear unambiguous picture of an adult and child.

So disabled spaces are only for people in wheelchairs?

Did you read my other post where I said it was the internationally
recognised sign for disability?

--
Conor

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

If I want to take a South American rodent with me, why shouldn't I?

1. Because there's no good reason for you take it.
2. Because the supermarkets (indeed, most shops) don't permit it.
3. Because this argument is just getting (has got) plain silly.

Is it edible - what will it barbeque like?

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

No, the supermarket are guilty of *not* actually defining their
meaning properly.

Are they hell. Every supermarket I've been to that has parent and
child spaces has a clear unambiguous picture of an adult and child.

So disabled spaces are only for people in wheelchairs?

Did you read my other post where I said it was the internationally
recognised sign for disability?

So?

You're now telling us that there's only a subset of parent/child groups
allowed to park in them - while somebody else is saying that there doesn't
HAVE to be a parent included, it can be any adult, yet the sign explicitly
says "Parent and Child". Not "Adult and Child", "Under-18 and Guardian" or
anything else.

Is it any wonder we're confused?

On Sun, 22 May 2005 22:25:07 +0100, "AndrewR"
wrote:

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

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.

You were not "simply" showing that the figure was misleading, you were
attempting to use a bit of home made logic to advance your viewpoint that
we should limit procreation.

Except that isn't my viewpoint... What I said was "Personally I feel
that couples should only have two kids of their own". I wasn't
suggesting that this should be law! Notice I said "*personally*, I
feel that.."

In any case, given the figures, this would actually constitute an
*increase* in procreation!


My logic is correct in this instance, but you've now tried to
say it's gibberish by presenting a different stat!

It's not a different stat, it's the source of the stat that I quoted ...

It's a different stat my friend. If it were the same stat, then the
same logic I applied would also apply to the second stat. But it
clearly does not, as you yourself have been trying to show!!

Of course, this *also* means that your reinterpretation of the stat
was botched too. Y'see in *your* interpretation you talked of "the
average person", which includes children, people who are still of
child bearing age etc... The original stat clearly does not.


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

... which is divided by 2 to give 0.82 children per person.

Well, ignoring your assumption that the population is equally split
between male/female (which I don't believe to be the case), and the
fact that your figure appears to be out of date (it was 1.71 in the
last census) http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=951, I
should reiterate that to 'forget' the fact that the original stat was
WRT women child bearing age and to convert it into being "the
average person", or "per person", ie including many people still
child bearing age, or even kids, is to totally change the statistic.

And of course, to deduce the child bearing rate of *today* by using a
figure based on the totals of those of an age no longer able to have
children is also botched. By its very definition, the figure actually
describes the child bearing rate of a decade or two ago.


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?

To, I'm suggesting it discredits your comment of "There's still an explosion
going on" because there isn't and making up your own way to interpret stats
that you don't understand doesn't make it so.

Bizarrely you seem to believe that birth rates are the only causes of
a population explosion. It's not quite so simple as that. At the other
end of things, we have pensioners living far longer than they used to,
thus maintaining the existing population whilst the births add to it.
Perhaps in your 'research', you missed this:

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=6

"The UK has a growing population"
"Growth has been faster in more recent years"

....statements which I'd like you to rationalise this with your
original claim that:

"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".

.... which would appear to be complete ********. Like I say, you seem
to think that lower birth rates = lower population, and for you to go
on to accuse me of "making up your own way to interpret stats that you
don't understand", is both ironic and rather hilarious.


However, credit where it's due, you do appear to realise that the
average age of the population is rising and that you see this as an
issue. However, to address it by suggesting we make more kids is
surely only going to increase the problem in the future. All those
extra kids are going to grow up to be extra pensioners you know! How
would you address that - even more kids?!



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.

Yes, yes, wonderful. You've been shown to be wrong so now you're trying to
discredit me.

I'm only asking you to show your research which incidentally, is in
*direct* response to you making suggestions that I had not done any.
And then you whine that I'm "trying to discredit [you]". Oh my, is
this national hypocrisy day?

However, I need not try to discredit you, your claim that "the
population is actually shrinking slightly", as a botched conclusion
from the birth-rate, despite the evidence of the National Census
(which *surely* your "research" would have included), to the contrary,
is more than enough for you to discredit yourself.


There is no population explosion. You thought there was and that you could
prove there was, but there isn't and you couldn't. End of story.

You haven't done anything to prove that there isn't. You've implied
that there's some research you've done, but when questioned *multiple*
times, you've failed to produce it, explain it, refer to it, quote it,
provide links to it or *anything*. And I'm supposed to be convinced by
this? Oh come on!


andyt

On Sun, 22 May 2005 18:49:30 +0100, Guy King
wrote:

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.

Almost half the population earn *less* than the national average, you
know! Shocking isn't it!



andyt

"Andy Turner" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 22 May 2005 18:49:30 +0100, Guy King
wrote:

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.

Almost half the population earn *less* than the national average, you
know! Shocking isn't it!

Isn't it quite a lot more than half?

cheers,
clive

In article , Andy Turner
wrote:
Almost half the population earn *less* than the national average,
you know! Shocking isn't it!

I suspect that well over half do: 1 boss x £50K; 9 workers x £10K -
average £14K - 90% earn less than this. Which is why median figures
tend to be more meaningful than averages when average = mean.

In the election the Conservatives made a lot of an IFS report that
said that average earnings had fallen in the last year. What it
actually said was that the mean had fallen because of tax/NI on higher
earners but the median had risen slightly.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm
[Latest version QSEDBUK 1.10 released 4 April 2005]

On Mon, 23 May 2005 13:38:10 +0100, "Clive George"
wrote:

"Andy Turner" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 22 May 2005 18:49:30 +0100, Guy King
wrote:

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.

Almost half the population earn *less* than the national average, you
know! Shocking isn't it!

Isn't it quite a lot more than half?

Actually, good point. It will be!


andyt

The message
from Andy Turner contains these words:

Almost half the population earn *less* than the national average, you
know! Shocking isn't it!

"Lake Wobegone - where all the children are slightly above average"

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

"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.

Yeah, and if you tried that nowadays you'd probably find a herd of social
workers, one or two court welfare officers (actually, court welfare are
usually sensible people) and any number of other opinionated (childless)
people kicking your door in and telling you what a bad parent you are.

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

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

Which has absolutely no authority. You can paint whatever you like on
private ground, it makes not a jot of difference to the law of the land.

However when on their land you abide by their terms and conditions.

If I chose, I could park my car in either a parent and child, or a
cripples corner spot and the supermarket would not take any step to
prevent me. If they did, I just have to take them to court and show that
they are predgiseced against an able bodied person.

It's PREJUDICED you ****ing halfwit. For the love of God, how can
someone who claims to be intelligent be so incapable of spelling a
simple word? **** me, apart from the first and last two letters, you
got the whole thing wrong.

What does p**s me off, is the disabled parkings in the mother and child
slots when my dauther has to park well away from the supermarket door

What does **** me off is ****s who think they're clever because they're
the teaboy at BAe or wherever and can't even spell a simple word.

Could some kind person please pass the popcorn?

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

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

What does **** me off is

everything.

Conor, you're heading rapidly towards making Victor Meldrew look like the
voice of unshakable cheeriness.

"Guy King" wrote in message
...
The message
from Andy Turner contains these words:

Almost half the population earn *less* than the national average, you
know! Shocking isn't it!

"Lake Wobegone - where all the children are slightly above average"

I've never known a parent who didn't have a bright child.

Mary

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

in . net, "Mary Fisher"
slurred :

"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

Me either. I survived for a good fraction of my first year just on toast,
made with Kwik-save's finest 18p value loaves*. Apart from a slight
tendency towards flatulence I didn't notice any ill effects.

*which go pink, rather than green, if left for long enough. Very pretty.