In article , Stuffed says...

"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ll.com...
On Fri, 20 May 2005 14:16:42 +0100, Steve Walker wrote:

Yes, if they also enforced a "no accompanied breeders" area where
one could park without someone else's little darlings denting the
car doors.

FFS it's only a car.

If you lost the gem out of your beloved dearly departed great grandmother's
wedding ring, would you say it's only a ring? How about that clock your
father left you on his deathbed, does it matter if I crack the glass on the
face?

THey're things. They're only things. It doesn't matter.


--
Conor

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

In article , Mary
Fisher says...

"Adrian" wrote in message

I prefer to get the half-decent fresh fruit and veg,

I prefer to eat 100% decent fresh fruit and veg which is one reason I don't
shop at supermarkets.

Unless you buy it from a 100% organic farm, you'll still get crap in it
no matter where you shop.

...

- a dinner that I've decided to cook using
(relatively) fresh ingredients bought that day?

'Relatively fresh' is unacceptable.

Hope you live on a farm then.


--
Conor

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

In article , Mary
Fisher says...

Look, people are more important than things.We should love people and use
things, not use people and love things.

Absolutely. I work in haulage. I've seen wagons worth £100,000+ being
badly damaged. The general attitude is "ah well, that's what insurance
is for".


--
Conor

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

Mary Fisher ) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

I'm not screaming. Not having uncontrollable kids, I don't need to.

er ... ?

.... scream to make myself heard over them.

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

"Adrian" wrote in message

I prefer to get the half-decent fresh fruit and veg,

I prefer to eat 100% decent fresh fruit and veg which is one reason I
don't
shop at supermarkets.

Unless you buy it from a 100% organic farm, you'll still get crap in it
no matter where you shop.

That's why I gorw my own or buy froman organic grower.

- a dinner that I've decided to cook using
(relatively) fresh ingredients bought that day?

'Relatively fresh' is unacceptable.

Hope you live on a farm then.

Not at all, we live in the inner city. There's an organic farm within
walking distance (about a mile) and it's amazing how much I can grow in our
small garden. Our two banties fertilise it and we have the eggs too.

Mary


--
Conor

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

snip

Of course the driver will realise that his car is not roadworthy and
that he must not drive it on public roads.

So it stays in your car park longer ?
;-)
Graham

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

If not their child, what relationship *are* you to your parents?

Son, daughter?

and non-gender-specifically...?

If the supermarkets don't say what they mean on the signs, how are we
to know what they mean?

A "child" is a person under 18.

That's one definition of the word, but not the only one.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=child
You might like to check up on definition 4.

Perhaps the supermarkets should clarify?

Mary Fisher ) gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying :

I prefer to get the half-decent fresh fruit and veg,

I prefer to eat 100% decent fresh fruit and veg which is one reason I
don't shop at supermarkets.

Not all of us have that choice.

- a dinner that I've decided to cook using
(relatively) fresh ingredients bought that day?

'Relatively fresh' is unacceptable.

True, but it's the best that's readily available.

"Stuffed" wrote in message
...

"Richard Colton" wrote in message
. uk...
snip
So what? They're still generally higher spenders than single people or
childless couples. If they want to go shopping, why shouldn't they?

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.

Because
it might irritate the **** out of others, and generally be a pain.

Absolutely.

If I want
to wander around the shop singing death metal tracks at the top of my tone
deaf lungs, why shouldn't I? Because I have at least a smidgen of
consideration for others.

As do the vast majority of parents and children.

So why do couples have to take their whole evidence of procreation with
them, when all that happens is the extra stress of keeping an eye on them,
and the hassle it causes other shoppers?

I've already given you a couple of reasons in past replies, and so have
other people when they've pointed out that they don't always have a choice
whether they take the kids shopping or not.

Is there some sort of primitive instinct that instills a desire in
those
that breed prolificly to show off the spawn of their loins to the
world?

Yes, it's called pride - something I'm guessing your parents didn't have
in
you, hence the vitriol.

So you are in fact saying you agree parents should ignore the convenience
of
all others out of pride,

Not at all.

a selfish desire to show the world how great they
are at shagging and birthing? Congratu****inglations, you have managed
what
countless millions of other, simpler organisms do every day.

Don't be so bloody melodramatic. At the end of the day, whether you like it
or not, children are the future and they will be the ones supporting you
both financially and physically when you get older.

Thank you for
shoving it in my face when I want a bag of mushrooms and bottle of plonk,
my
day just got so much better.

Well, I'm so sorry that you believe a large proportion of society should be
inconvenienced for your pleasure. Get over yourself.


Do
they take some sick pleasure in getting on everyone elses tits?

Everyone? No,we just enjoy annoying the mental minority. ;-)

You mean those who choose not to force little olfactory assailants on the
unwilling?

No, I mean those of you who are in so much of a rush you believe everyone
should conform to your beliefs and everyone should get out of your way.
It's strange how those people who seem to be in so much of a rush have hours
to bitch and moan about minor problems though.

snip

Excuse me, but that's not what I said. I actually said that they have
just
as much right to be there as you do, and that stores will generally value
their business more highly due to their (generally) higher spend.

I don't deny people their right to shop (although I do often question the
automatic right to breed), I just wonder quite qhy some feel the need to
excersize that right aggressively on others.

Thank you, finally you admit that it's SOME people. As there are
inconsiderate parents, there are also inconsiderate singles.

snip

Right, and parents so the supermarket shopping because it's "fun". Yeah,
right.

So why then? Pride? Fun? The house is on fire between the hours of 7 and
8pm?

No, because they need to do some shopping.


The only anything like sensible reason someone gave last time this
argument
came up is it helps his toddler shut up and get to sleep from time to
time,
or something like that. Still annoying, but at least there's a proper
reason
behind it, not some double edged show off whilst torment the children
idea.

Personally I've always taken my children shopping because they're not a
problem to take with me, because I have no alternative, or because I need
them there at that particular time. Having said that, my children know how
to behave and are helpful in the extreme.

snip

No, I wouldn't. Mind you, I can't remember ever seeing a human child
****ing in the bread section either, so what's your point?

I'm very proud of my animals. By some miracle, when they have sex, there's
often more of them a few months later.

No! Really? ;-)

I want to show them off to the world,
and though a supermarket would more than likely frighten and disturb them,

It probably wouldn't do much for most other people shopping there either. I
think you'll also find that most supermarkets would take a dim view of it as
well..

I
feel everyone shopping should winess the unique miracle of their
existence.
But that wouldn't go down too well with a fair number of shoppers, so I
don't do it.

Thank you for that, I'm sure we all appreciate your restraint.

I don't want to trip over your uncontrolled child,

I don't and never have had an uncontrolled child.

or be assaulted with
their deafening screams,

All three of my children have created once and once only when shopping.
They now know better than to do it again. I'm pretty sure your parents
would have had the same problem with you at some point in your life - or did
you just spring into existance fully grown?

or be nauseated by their foul odour (OK, that's a
minority, but it still happens),

Yes, it is a minority. Most are well behaved, well looked after and clean.

so I don't go to the places created and
maintained with children in mind. Yet I still have to suffer them, which I
will do without complaint,

Excuse me? Without complaint! That's your funniest line yet.

snip

Again, not a problem I've ever had. My children know how to behave.

That is certainly not the case for the majority around here

Well, if it bothers you that much, you could always consider moving (I know,
why should you have to etc.). I can only speak from personal experience,
but I find that the majority of children are well behaved and well balanced.
Now, living in Rotherham, that's nothing short of a miracle, but I do feel
that things are going downhill with regards to officialdom taking a dim view
of parents disciplining their children.

You really are quite a bitter and twisted person. If parents and
children
wish to go shopping together, there's no reason why they shouldn't. The
children should be kept under control, but that's simple good parenting.

Not quite, *incredibly* bitter and twisted. It's a hobby

But, you're so good at it. You must spend an awful lot of time practising
your hobby ;-)

I'll admit that I've seen my fair share of badly behaved kids in
supermarkets, but they are in a minority.

Really, they aren't around here. And even if they were, I still can't see
the point.

The point is that sometimes you need the kids with you, sometimes you have
no alternative, and sometimes you just happen to be passing, need some
shopping and the kids just happen to be with you. There's a multitude of
reasons why they should be there, but I can only think of one why they
shouldn't - because it might inconvenience you.

A busy supermarket is not what I would've thought of as an ideal
place for a child, hell, they can be confusing enough for adults when the
staff decide to move everything around while you're halfway through the
weekly shop!

Don't get me started on that one! I spent several years in retail many
moons ago, and my sales figures said that shifting stock around purely to
force people to look for it was counterproductive. It didn't increase sales
in different areas, but it did severely **** off regular customers to such
an extent that they chose to shop elsewhere.
--
Unlock Your Phone's Potential
www.uselessinfo.org.uk
www.thephonelocker.co.uk
www.gsm-solutions.co.uk

I had this problem when I was staying at a friend's flat in France. His
car
space was always used up. I used to park my car tight up behind the
offender
so he had to find me to get it out. This obviuously only works if you
have
enough space to do this without encroaching on the highway or someone
else's
land.

I worked a few months in France and found the locals would park
with their cars touching each other, and would then just shunt
them forwards and backwards to create a space to get in/out.

C'est normal en Paris.

And Rome. Reminds me exactly of the streets of Rome, judging from the state
of the parked cars I saw there.

--
Peter
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ =+=+=
your own email address at
what..a.load...of......********....dot....co.....d ot.......uk
(or ....dot......net) for just 10 quid a year.....
get circumcised to email me for more info

"Adrian" wrote in message
. 244.170...
big old snip
Never said otherwise. It's just all the repulsive screaming fighting brats
that seem to be dragged round the supermarket. Maybe they wait to watch me
heading towards the door, specially to torment me?

Now, I think you might have a good point there. You don't have to be
paranoid for them to be actually out to get you.

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

"Richard Colton" wrote in message
. uk...

"Stuffed" wrote in message
...

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.

Someone has to look after it just like kids.

2. Because the supermarkets (indeed, most shops) don't permit it.

I have seen plenty of no dogs except guide dog signs but never a no rodents
sign.

3. Because this argument is just getting (has got) plain silly.

Welcome to Usenet.

Richard Colton wrote:
"Stuffed" wrote in message
...

I don't deny people their right to shop (although I do often
question the automatic right to breed), I just wonder quite qhy some
feel the need to excersize that right aggressively on others.

Thank you, finally you admit that it's SOME people. As there are
inconsiderate parents, there are also inconsiderate singles.

Let's not forget old people ... what a nuisance they are, wandering around
so slowly, taking ages to count out their change, even longer to put things
in bags, walking three abreast down the aisles.

Oh and the disabled, they're always getting in the way as well with their
walking sticks and little electric trolleys (and they still manage to be
slow).

And then there's poor people, trying to tot up how much they're spending,
hunting around for the cheapest stuff, counting out piles of vouchers are
the checkouts. Or getting in the way at the fag counter as they queue up to
buy their lottery tickets.

Let's not forget the gays, ******s and jews - I mean, it's just not right
that their sorts should be allowed to shop with decent, normal people, is
it? Are there any queers in the theatre tonight? Get them up against the
wall! That one in the spotlight, he don't look right to me, get him up
against the wall! And that ones looks jewish and that one's a coon, who let
all of this riff-raff into the room? There's one smoking a joint! And
another with spots!

If I had my way I'd have them all in a SHOT!

*WARNING* This post may contain traces of sarcasm, humour, irony and 10%
Pink Floyd lyrics (by volume).

--
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 ****.

FFS it's only a car.

Yes, quite, and damaged bodywork only costs money when you come to
sell it, which is obviously totally unimportant.

Correct. I've owned 4 cars, in 25+ years of driving (just taken on the
4th). Of the three others, 2 died in accidents, the third was part
exchanged (guaranteed £1000) before it fell apart from the ravages of
the iron moth catapillar.

Anyone part-exchanging a car for a guaranteed £1000 is getting monumentally
ripped off in the price of the car they're buying. No-one would just give
£1000 for a car worth £50 out of the goodness of their heart.

--
Peter
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ =+=+=
your own email address at
what..a.load...of......********....dot....co.....d ot.......uk
(or ....dot......net) for just 10 quid a year.....
get circumcised to email me for more info

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

"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ll.com...
On Fri, 20 May 2005 14:16:42 +0100, Steve Walker wrote:

Yes, if they also enforced a "no accompanied breeders" area where
one could park without someone else's little darlings denting the
car doors.

FFS it's only a car.

If you lost the gem out of your beloved dearly departed great
grandmother's
wedding ring, would you say it's only a ring? How about that clock your
father left you on his deathbed, does it matter if I crack the glass on
the
face?

THey're things. They're only things. It doesn't matter.

OK, I'll pop round and **** in your PC. It's only a thing, and I'm sure the
damage will be fairly inexpensive to repair.

On my way, I'll pop into HMV and take a hammer to the CDs. They're only
things.

Some people attach sentimental value to just things, others do have a
financial interest that they would rather not have inconsiderate arseholes
damage. Is it really too much to ask others to try and have some respect for
property?

Richard Colton ) gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying :

big old snip
Never said otherwise. It's just all the repulsive screaming fighting
brats that seem to be dragged round the supermarket. Maybe they wait
to watch me heading towards the door, specially to torment me?

Now, I think you might have a good point there. You don't have to be
paranoid for them to be actually out to get you.

That's *precisely* why I always make sure to wear my tin-foil beanie hat
whenever I leave the house.

"Depresion" wrote in message
...

"H" wrote in message
...

We have the same 'illegal' parking issues as the OP, and so far polite
notices tucked under the windscreen (with veiled threats of prosecution
for trespass)

It's only civil trespass, prosecution would prove rather difficult in
these circumstances. Thankfully for you most people are unaware of the
fact.

Indeed, that's what I'm relying on :-)

I live in a block in S London, in pretty much exactly the same situation
as
the OP. I am also a director of the management company, and we have
discussed a barrier or remote gates etc. The cost of something that looks
even remotely in keeping with the block and doesn't make it look like the
entrance to a factory, is prohibitive (i.e. £12K plus).

When we looked at automatic gates, we had to also consider access for
legitimate visitors such as the milkman, postman, delivery drivers etc, as
well as doctors and emergency vehicles, and legitimate residents'
visitors.
The only answer to that was an entryphone system wired to every property
(in
our case 9 flats plus 6 houses). Very, very expensive. Then there was the
fairness issue - should residents without cars have to pay? What about the
annual maintenance? What about the people who rented garages in the block
which are no longer 'attached' to the numbered property they originally
went
with? It was insoluble.

How much would it cost to simply install an automatic barrier that opened to
anyone driving up to it (which some sort of failsafe system meaning it could
be manually opened if something went wrong) ? You could wire this up to a
CCTV system, which would only activate when someone activated the barrier,
thus only having videos to watch through for times when people actually
drove in. The security video could be sped up, just so someone could watch
it each day to check that each car parked contained someone actually going
into the flats. Would probably take 2-3 minutes max each day, and you could
probably have some sort of rota system. Ok, it wouldn't prevent people
coming and parking, but you'd easily know which ones were the ones that
didn't have a right to be there.

--
Peter
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ =+=+=
your own email address at
what..a.load...of......********....dot....co.....d ot.......uk
(or ....dot......net) for just 10 quid a year.....
get circumcised to email me for more info

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

The problem is that there is virtually no free on street parking in the
borough where I live, and the problem is going to get worse.

THen move somewhere else. Someone who lives in London and cannot accept
the parking situation is a bloody fool.



What a stupid suggestion: "move somewhere else"! Like people can just do
that on a whim.

I didn't say I couldn't accept the parking situation; my parking situation
is fine thank you very much. I'm merely pointing out that because there is
no free parking nearby, selfish people will try and take advantage of the
open access to our private property, and we are - as the OP is too - trying
to find a way around that.

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

Which day is "I just want to buy a pint of friggin' milk and some
potatoes because I've run out" day?

I don't know, I can't find friggin' milk on the Tesco website.
Skimmed, semi-skimmed, Jersey, long life, soya, chocolate milk, ... no
friggin' milk though.

And that, Children, is why on-line supermarkets are so crap.

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
. net...

"Stuffed" wrote in message
...

Probably - jewellery is unimportant.

How about that clock your
father left you on his deathbed, does it matter if I crack the glass on
the
face?

No.

Fair nuff, you don't worry about someone carelessly breaking your property,
and you don't assign value to objects. But try and think of others that do.
(OK, you probably do, but a lot of people only worry about not damaging
their own things, and couldn't care less what they do to others items)

How about if I shred a Rembrant, or take a chisel to the odd statue or two?
They're only things, I'm sure people wouldn't really miss them.

It could be an heirloom. It could be a hire or lease. It could have deep
sentimental value. It could simply be worth ****loads. It often,
however,
is
not only a car. So if you or your offspring ever dent my door, at the
very
least you will pay the full amount to professionally repair it.

And will you have the repair done or just pocket the cash with a smirk?

Yes, I would have the repair done. I happen to drive a slowly appreciating
classic. It's not in good condition, but I'm doing my best to improve it.
I'd rather not have my hard work ruined by someone who can't be bothered to
show a little more care.

Look, people are more important than things.We should love people and use
things, not use people and love things.

More important, yes (usually). But that's a reletive, it doesn't mean that
things are without any importance whatsoever, does it?

I once reversed into a very low bollard and dented the rear bumper on our
car. It had no effect whatsoever on any of the functions of the car - to
go,
stop and carry things. It didn't even have an effect on the subsequent MOT
test.

I've done the same, but it's my property, and my stupidity. If I reversed
into someone elses car, or borrowed a car and reversed into a bollard, I
would expect to have to pay for the repairs.

What upset me was that when I went indoors and dramatically told Spouse
that
I'd crashed into something his response was to ask how much damage there
was
to the car, he didn't ask if I was injured.

I can't possibly comment on this without sounding like an utter *******, so
I won't!

In article , Stuffed says...

OK, I'll pop round and **** in your PC. It's only a thing, and I'm sure the
damage will be fairly inexpensive to repair.

Feel free. You may already notice the stains from when it was sat in a
cupboars and a waterpipe burst.


Some people attach sentimental value to just things, others do have a
financial interest that they would rather not have inconsiderate arseholes
damage. Is it really too much to ask others to try and have some respect for
property?

Respect is one thing and on that I agree. Physically harming a human
being because they accidentally cause damage to an inanimate object is
another.


--
Conor

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

Mary Fisher wrote:
"Steve Walker" wrote in message
...

In message om, Dave
Liquorice writes

On Fri, 20 May 2005 14:16:42 +0100, Steve Walker wrote:


Yes, if they also enforced a "no accompanied breeders" area where
one could park without someone else's little darlings denting the
car doors.

FFS it's only a car.

Yes, quite, and damaged bodywork only costs money when you come to sell
it, which is obviously totally unimportant. You won't mind if I rifle
through your wallet then?


sigh

A car is for going, stopping and carrying. That's all. You can keep it until
it dies then get another. You don't HAVE to sell it.

Someone once claimed that I'd scraped his bumper (!) in a car park and that
it would reduce the re-sale value. I said that if he was as hard up as that
I'd pay him for the repair and gave him a cheque there and then. I have no
respect for that attitude.

If your car is contract hired, then you get a bill at the end for any
damage to it.

Sorry, but one of the fundamental problems with modern parenting is this
lack of respect for other people's property. I don't care if it's only a
car, it's /my/ car, and if you have through carelessness or willful
action caused damage to it, that is disrespectful, and you're paying for
it, one way or another. If someone gives me the "It's only a car"
attitude then I assume their own car matters little to them, and they
will earn a bloody great bootprint in the door (my boots weigh something
like 7lbs per foot and can inflict one hell of a dent).

Now, I take every precaution against selfish little ****s like that - I
park as far away from the supermarket as possible, I will not park
beside people carriers or anything with a baby seat in (partly because I
know how difficult it is to get kids into the seat whilst keeping the
door within the meagre allocation of space), and I do everything I can -
even in the Supra which has immense doors - not to bash other people's cars.

Damage my property and pay. Assume it's your right to damage my property
because, hey, it's just property, then pay /and/ get no sympathy.

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

In article , Mary
Fisher says...

Hope you live on a farm then.

Not at all, we live in the inner city. There's an organic farm within
walking distance (about a mile) and it's amazing how much I can grow in our
small garden. Our two banties fertilise it and we have the eggs too.

That's as near to a yes as you can get then. I live out in the country
and my nearest farm is about a mile away. No use though as its oilseed
rape ATM.




--
Conor

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

Mary Fisher wrote:

What upset me was that when I went indoors and dramatically told Spouse that
I'd crashed into something his response was to ask how much damage there was
to the car, he didn't ask if I was injured.

You clearly weren't injured. You were telling him what had happened.

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

"Owain" wrote in message
...
Adrian wrote:
Which day is "I just want to buy a pint of friggin' milk and some
potatoes because I've run out" day?

I don't know, I can't find friggin' milk on the Tesco website. Skimmed,
semi-skimmed, Jersey, long life, soya, chocolate milk, ... no friggin'
milk though.

It was new to me too but I don't claim to know everything, especially about
supermarkets.

Perhaps it was a typo for frigid, i.e. frozen milk?

Mary

Owain

"Adrian" wrote in message
. 244.170...
Mary Fisher ) gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying :

I prefer to get the half-decent fresh fruit and veg,

I prefer to eat 100% decent fresh fruit and veg which is one reason I
don't shop at supermarkets.

Not all of us have that choice.

You do, it would take a bit of effort,that's all.

- a dinner that I've decided to cook using
(relatively) fresh ingredients bought that day?

'Relatively fresh' is unacceptable.

True, but it's the best that's readily available.

Not true.

Mary

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

If not their child, what relationship *are* you to your parents?

Son, daughter?

and non-gender-specifically...?

No idea. Know any non gender human beings?


If the supermarkets don't say what they mean on the signs, how are we
to know what they mean?

A "child" is a person under 18.

That's one definition of the word, but not the only one.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=child
You might like to check up on definition 4.

Perhaps the supermarkets should clarify?

Perhaps people should stop confirming their stupidity and exercise
common sense. There's always an accompanying picture to the signage
either clearly showing a pram or an adult and child".


--
Conor

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

Depresion wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
. ..

Howard Neil wrote:
you would cause the owner to take an action
that he would not have otherwise have had to do and, therefore, would be
committing an offence under the Criminal Damage Act 1971.


Blimey.

So if you are coming down the road and a car is coing toward the main road
from a side turning, you are commiting criminal damage, by forcing him to
stop, which he otherwise would not have had to do?


Are you being deliberately obtuse or did you have a very strong liquid lunch?


No. Merely extrapolating the implications of the statement that implies
that any action whatsoever taken by party A that causes party B to do
something they would not otherwise have had to do, constitutes an act of
Criminal Damage by Part A against party B.

AstraVanMan wrote:

Anyone part-exchanging a car for a guaranteed £1000 is getting monumentally
ripped off in the price of the car they're buying. No-one would just give
£1000 for a car worth £50 out of the goodness of their heart.

Heh, our local Proton dealer is offering £3000 minimum trade in on the
£11,000 Impian. My dad, I hope being sarcastic, suggested trading in the
Subaru for one. I pointed out the Impian has a stupid name and the Ignis
4Grip seems like the best crappy little car to buy right now, and then
said: "But, if you want to take that deal, give me the Subaru and I'll
trade in the Volvo 740 - it's still got 2 weeks tax and a few month MOT
and I think it'll make it..."

So today we're test driving the Ignis.

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

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

If not their child, what relationship *are* you to your parents?

Son, daughter?

and non-gender-specifically...?

No idea.

I don't believe you. But I'll help you out. You and any siblings are their
children. Even though you're all growed up now.

Know any non gender human beings?

So why don't they say "Grown-ups and boys & girls"?

Perhaps people should stop confirming their stupidity and exercise
common sense.

Wooo... That's asking one *HELL* of a lot of the average supermarket user..

Taz wrote:

"Stuffed" wrote in message
...


**** you Stuffed, or maybe Stuff you ****ed.
If I want to take my kids shopping with me, I bloody well will. They are
better behaved than your display of throwing toys out of a pram. Imagine
shopping with your kids at home wondering if they are safe, wondering if
they would like the tee shirt you are looking at for them, wondering if they
would prefer a pizza or a Chinese, wondering if they would like that video,
toy, etc.etc. Kids shop too ya ****wit, and if their parents are with them,
well, you can temper the excesses that kids have. If I let my kids shop
without parental control, we would have more widescreen tellys, game
consoles, etc. than you could shake a stick at.


Ah. You are probably teh peson with the unpleasant spoilt brat behind me
in the supermarket queue that I always reduce to a fit of screaming
tears by secretly pulling the most awful faces at, when they irritate me.

"What EVER is the matter, little Johhny?"

I smile secretly, and wheel my shopping away.

In article , Hamish
Walker says...

What a stupid suggestion: "move somewhere else"! Like people can just do
that on a whim.

Course you can. Whether or not you have the motivation is another
thing.

I didn't say I couldn't accept the parking situation; my parking situation
is fine thank you very much. I'm merely pointing out that because there is
no free parking nearby, selfish people will try and take advantage of the
open access to our private property,

So it isn't fine then?


--
Conor

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

Mary Fisher ) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

I prefer to get the half-decent fresh fruit and veg,

I prefer to eat 100% decent fresh fruit and veg which is one reason I
don't shop at supermarkets.

Not all of us have that choice.

You do, it would take a bit of effort,that's all.

There are no greengrocers around here that I'm aware of. The nearest
saturday market is dire, and the occasional farmer's markets (perhaps one
or two a month) are small, irregular, poorly advertised and on weekdays. My
back garden is small, paved and very heavily shaded. I don't have the time
to work an allotment.

'Relatively fresh' is unacceptable.

True, but it's the best that's readily available.

Not true.

I await your recommendations as to alternative sources. I'm on the
Herts/Berks border, edge of the Chilterns.

In article , RichardK says...
Mary Fisher wrote:

What upset me was that when I went indoors and dramatically told Spouse that
I'd crashed into something his response was to ask how much damage there was
to the car, he didn't ask if I was injured.

You clearly weren't injured. You were telling him what had happened.

When I ran my grandads car into a lampost at a fairly substantial
speed, the only thing he was worried about was that I was OK. I was
obviously extremely upset at the state the car was in to which his
reply was "its only a mewtal box. You're OK." This coming from a man
who had very little to live on and it was the newest car he'd ever had
purely because he got it on Motability.


--
Conor

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

"Stuffed" wrote in message
...


Fair nuff, you don't worry about someone carelessly breaking your
property,
and you don't assign value to objects. But try and think of others that
do.
(OK, you probably do, but a lot of people only worry about not damaging
their own things, and couldn't care less what they do to others items)

How about if I shred a Rembrant, or take a chisel to the odd statue or
two?

It's been done.

They're only things, I'm sure people wouldn't really miss them.

Would you? While Rembrandt painted some of the pictures which have given me
most pleasure I doubt that I would really miss them if that happened. If he
hadn't painted them I wouldn't have known about them in the first place. I'm
never likely to see them again - and prints are no substitute (I used to
think they were until I saw them in the flesh, as it were).

But you're talking about one-offs there, unique items, not mass produced
ones. They can't be reproduced 100%, a car door can. A clock can, a ring
can. Sentimental value is meaningless, if an identical item was substituted
for the clock or ring I doubt that it would be noticed.

I still firmly believe that people are more important.


And will you have the repair done or just pocket the cash with a smirk?

Yes, I would have the repair done. I happen to drive a slowly appreciating
classic.

We've done that, been there, they aren't as efficient as the car we drive
today. They caused more damage through pollution (to humans), were less
efficient and didn't have the carrying capacity we need.

But you might be interested in a long run of Practical Classics (from No 1)
we have cluttering the house. You probably already have them, if not they're
yours for the carriage or collection.

It's not in good condition, but I'm doing my best to improve it.
I'd rather not have my hard work ruined by someone who can't be bothered
to
show a little more care.

Have you never been careless? Have you never - in your whole life - caused
any damage to others' possessions or themselves, whether maliciously or not?

Look, people are more important than things.We should love people and use
things, not use people and love things.

More important, yes (usually). But that's a reletive, it doesn't mean that
things are without any importance whatsoever, does it?

The second sentence is the important one.

I once reversed into a very low bollard and dented the rear bumper on our
car. It had no effect whatsoever on any of the functions of the car - to
go,
stop and carry things. It didn't even have an effect on the subsequent
MOT
test.

I've done the same, but it's my property, and my stupidity. If I reversed
into someone elses car, or borrowed a car and reversed into a bollard, I
would expect to have to pay for the repairs.

You'd leave a note with your contact details I suppose.

What upset me was that when I went indoors and dramatically told Spouse
that
I'd crashed into something his response was to ask how much damage there
was
to the car, he didn't ask if I was injured.

I can't possibly comment on this without sounding like an utter *******,
so
I won't!

Says it all, really ...


Mary

Conor wrote:

In article o.uk,
Andy Tillbrook says...


Then the owner of the car must be equally guilty of Criminal Damage, as
by parking in a private parking space he is causing the rightful
occupant to have to find an alternative, which he would not otherwise
have had to do.


Err no. Not too bright are you?


Failry logical though, given the original assertion.

"Stuffed" wrote in message
...

"Conor" wrote in message

THey're things. They're only things. It doesn't matter.

OK, I'll pop round and **** in your PC.

Why?


On my way, I'll pop into HMV and take a hammer to the CDs.

Why?

Some people attach sentimental value to just things, others do have a
financial interest that they would rather not have inconsiderate arseholes
damage. Is it really too much to ask others to try and have some respect
for
property?

er - your earlier threats put you in that category (inconsiderate ... ).

Mary

Bob Eager wrote:

On Fri, 20 May 2005 22:57:06 UTC, wrote:


The sign says "Parent and Child", he's with his parent. Where's the
problem?

Exactly the sign says parent and child not parent and young child .


So, do you define anyone (even you) who has a living parent as a
'child'?

Technically, that is correct.

Stuffed wrote:

"AndrewR" wrote in message
...


What is irresponsible, having children, taking them to the supermarket or
failing to realise that you are the most important person there and that
your wishes are paramount?


The two aren't always mutually exclusive...


Three.