On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 16:34:44 +0100, Rod Speed wrote:



"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 23 June 2016 00:58:25 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 02:34:44 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news On Sun, 19 Jun 2016 22:45:31 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news Nobody should ever have to live with a mortgage for 20 years.

Plenty do for 30 and wouldnt be able to have a house
at all without a mortgage even if they have no kids.

Just look at how much of what you pay back is interest, you could
have
bought 3 houses.

That isnt true with current interest rates.

£100K mortgage over 30 years at 4% interest = £324K paid back.

But anyone with even half a clue pays it back much more quickly than
that.

Tell em he of little clues how would you do that even
if you were lucky enough to be on teh average wage.

Even someone as stupid as you should be able to work that out.

If you're clever and have been to university ou';d have a debt of
about £30k to start with and that's before you start a mortgage.

Mate of mine's eldest has not only paid off his entire uni education
debt, he's also paying off his mortgage at a rate that will see it paid
off long before 30 years too. He's only been out of uni a few years too.

My niece has just had the house completely
rebuilt and has no mortgage at all.

Some is lucky and gets the good jobs. Most don't.

--
A worried father confronted his daughter one night.
"I don't like that new boyfriend, he's rough and common and bloody stupid with it."
"Oh no, Daddy," the daughter replied, "Fred's ever so clever, we've only been going out nine weeks and he's cured me of that illness I used to get once a month."

On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 12:18:43 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Wednesday, 22 June 2016 19:56:44 UTC+1, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 11:58:32 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Wednesday, 22 June 2016 02:34:52 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"James Wilkinson" wrote in message

You're the only person I know who bothers to use technology for such a
simple thing as supermarket shopping.

That's because you know **** all.

I know enough people to realise you're quite odd in this regard.

Wodders is quite odd in many regards ;-)


I see plenty using their phones while doing the supermarket shopping.

So do I most selecting the next track that want to listen to or checking when the next bus is and many other things people use their phones for of which shopping for groceries is pretty small.
How would anyone know that they arenlt on grindr

That's the second reference to such things in as many days. I'm thinking you know too much.

I do because I don;t have a mobile so when on public transport or in public I have so much time to look around me to see the world rather than be staring at a LCD screen hoping I won't bump in to anyone.

I have a mobile, I use it to make telephone calls, quite unusual really.

while crusing the supermarket isles. Appareny upskirt photos are taken in supermarkets too.

How many folk have you seen with a phone strapped to their shoe?

They put them in shoping bags not on their shoe, and only the minority are done without the women knowing.
It's easy enough to find out the facts if you want to.
Just type in the word upskirt into google it ain't rocket science.

Don;t get it confused with UKIRT

That would make a good image, but might be noticed by the "victim".

which I was originally looking for or UKIP of course ;-)

I've had 2 girlfriends that have liked to show their underwear off in public but only if they have control over it.

Is that like those odd women who wear a black bra and a semi see through pale top? If I was gonna show off like that I'd not wear a bra.

--
Sign on a condom machine: HELP STAMP OUT PEOPLE!

"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 24 Jun 2016 00:21:33 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 18:45:29 +0100, tim...
wrote:


"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 15:05:27 +0100, tim...
wrote:


"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 00:58:16 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:




Nope, you do. Its the povs that are too stupid to do that
or to work out how to get qualified for the decent jobs
that end up in council houses because they are that stupid.

People with enough money don't need to save 50p here and there.

I don't need to save 50p here and there but I still do.

As and example I can afford to get a taxi to/from the airport, but I
still
catch the train because I consider taxi fares to be extortionate

That would be considerably more than 50p.

well yes

but then the train fare is significantly more than 2.50p

I make the decision to bother saving money based on the amount saved and
the time taken to save it.

Me too, and the cost of getting there in the case
of Aldi which currently costs me $10 to get there
and back until they finish building the local one.

I just shop at the supermarkets once every 3 weeks. Less hassle, less
time.

Still makes a lot more sense to have an app tell you what is cheapest at the
ones that you visit every 3 weeks than fart around printing out a
spreadsheet,
scribbling on that, carting that with you when you go shopping.

Using apps to mess about working out where and when to shop is far too
much hassle

There is in fact much less hassle involved in scanning the
barcode of the stuff you use the last of and having the app
tell you as you walk in the various supermarkets you visit anyway,
which ones have the best prices for the stuff on your list.

So, I go to the kitchen and get some food, go find my phone,

Dont have to do that if you have enough of a clue to have it in your
pocket.

go back to the kitchen, scan the item..... ffs.

Much less hassle in fact than your dinosaur approach of
printing out a spreadsheet,

In a few clicks.

marking that up with what
you have decided you need to buy,

It's quicker than scanning.

Thanks for that completely superfluous
proof that you dont have a clue.

Must be why the shelf stackers in supermarkets all do it your dinosaur way.

and buying that stuff
from the place where it was cheapest at one time but
which is unlikely to be the cheapest of the supermarkets
you will be visiting on that shopping run.

Almost all stay the cheapest.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

The price is on hte list anyway, so if I happen to see it substantially
more in the shop, I go to another one next time.

Dont need to fart around like that when the app tell you what
is cheapest in that particular supermarket as you walk in.

for a few quid here and there.

To save half or more of your total shopping spend in fact
when the app keeps track of how quickly you use stuff auto
and only suggest you buy it when it is half price or better.

**** all is half price here.

That's because you 'live' where the supermarket traffic
is dominated by the council sink estate dregs.

Only things that cheap are things with 1 day left on the sellby date.

See above.

"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 16:34:44 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 23 June 2016 00:58:25 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 02:34:44 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news On Sun, 19 Jun 2016 22:45:31 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news Nobody should ever have to live with a mortgage for 20 years.

Plenty do for 30 and wouldnt be able to have a house
at all without a mortgage even if they have no kids.

Just look at how much of what you pay back is interest, you could
have
bought 3 houses.

That isnt true with current interest rates.

£100K mortgage over 30 years at 4% interest = £324K paid back.

But anyone with even half a clue pays it back much more quickly than
that.

Tell em he of little clues how would you do that even
if you were lucky enough to be on teh average wage.

Even someone as stupid as you should be able to work that out.

If you're clever and have been to university ou';d have a debt of
about £30k to start with and that's before you start a mortgage.

Mate of mine's eldest has not only paid off his entire uni education
debt, he's also paying off his mortgage at a rate that will see it paid
off long before 30 years too. He's only been out of uni a few years too.

My niece has just had the house completely
rebuilt and has no mortgage at all.

Some is lucky and gets the good jobs.

Nothing whatever to do with luck in her case.

Most don't.

Yeah, some like you are actually stupid enough to get
qualified in areas that there are **** all good jobs in.

On Tue, 28 Jun 2016 02:48:03 +0100, Rod Speed wrote:



"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 16:34:44 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 23 June 2016 00:58:25 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 02:34:44 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news On Sun, 19 Jun 2016 22:45:31 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news Nobody should ever have to live with a mortgage for 20 years..

Plenty do for 30 and wouldnt be able to have a house
at all without a mortgage even if they have no kids.

Just look at how much of what you pay back is interest, you could
have
bought 3 houses.

That isnt true with current interest rates.

£100K mortgage over 30 years at 4% interest = £324K paid back.

But anyone with even half a clue pays it back much more quickly than
that.

Tell em he of little clues how would you do that even
if you were lucky enough to be on teh average wage.

Even someone as stupid as you should be able to work that out.

If you're clever and have been to university ou';d have a debt of
about £30k to start with and that's before you start a mortgage.

Mate of mine's eldest has not only paid off his entire uni education
debt, he's also paying off his mortgage at a rate that will see it paid
off long before 30 years too. He's only been out of uni a few years too.

My niece has just had the house completely
rebuilt and has no mortgage at all.

Some is lucky and gets the good jobs.

Nothing whatever to do with luck in her case.

Explain.

Most don't.

Yeah, some like you are actually stupid enough to get
qualified in areas that there are **** all good jobs in.

I got qualified in the area I was good at. And you can't predict what jobs will be available.

--
Peter is in the top three most intelligent people -- Ron Tompkins, circa 2013.

On Tue, 28 Jun 2016 02:42:19 +0100, Rod Speed wrote:



"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 24 Jun 2016 00:21:33 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 18:45:29 +0100, tim...
wrote:


"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 15:05:27 +0100, tim...
wrote:


"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 00:58:16 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:




Nope, you do. Its the povs that are too stupid to do that
or to work out how to get qualified for the decent jobs
that end up in council houses because they are that stupid.

People with enough money don't need to save 50p here and there.

I don't need to save 50p here and there but I still do.

As and example I can afford to get a taxi to/from the airport, but I
still
catch the train because I consider taxi fares to be extortionate

That would be considerably more than 50p.

well yes

but then the train fare is significantly more than 2.50p

I make the decision to bother saving money based on the amount saved and
the time taken to save it.

Me too, and the cost of getting there in the case
of Aldi which currently costs me $10 to get there
and back until they finish building the local one.

I just shop at the supermarkets once every 3 weeks. Less hassle, less
time.

Still makes a lot more sense to have an app tell you what is cheapest at the
ones that you visit

I already know which is cheapest. It's in the spreadsheet.

every 3 weeks than fart around printing out a
spreadsheet,

A few clicks.

scribbling on that, carting that with you when you go shopping.

It's smaller than a phone.

Using apps to mess about working out where and when to shop is far too
much hassle

There is in fact much less hassle involved in scanning the
barcode of the stuff you use the last of and having the app
tell you as you walk in the various supermarkets you visit anyway,
which ones have the best prices for the stuff on your list.

So, I go to the kitchen and get some food, go find my phone,

Dont have to do that if you have enough of a clue to have it in your
pocket.

Why on earth would I want to carry something around with me all day? The only thing I do that with is my watch, which is strapped on. Make a phone that small then I'll do so. Oh wait, phone screens are too small as it is.

go back to the kitchen, scan the item..... ffs.

Much less hassle in fact than your dinosaur approach of
printing out a spreadsheet,

In a few clicks.

marking that up with what
you have decided you need to buy,

It's quicker than scanning.

Thanks for that completely superfluous
proof that you dont have a clue.

Must be why the shelf stackers in supermarkets all do it your dinosaur way.

Different task entirely.

and buying that stuff
from the place where it was cheapest at one time but
which is unlikely to be the cheapest of the supermarkets
you will be visiting on that shopping run.

Almost all stay the cheapest.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

Nope, just true.

The price is on hte list anyway, so if I happen to see it substantially
more in the shop, I go to another one next time.

Dont need to fart around like that when the app tell you what
is cheapest in that particular supermarket as you walk in.

I only notice it occasionally, as it only happens occasionally. And I don't even have to think about it.

for a few quid here and there.

To save half or more of your total shopping spend in fact
when the app keeps track of how quickly you use stuff auto
and only suggest you buy it when it is half price or better.

**** all is half price here.

That's because you 'live' where the supermarket traffic
is dominated by the council sink estate dregs.

Why would that stop them having half price offers?

Only things that cheap are things with 1 day left on the sellby date.

See above.

No, they do it to avoid throwing out food, because some ****wit EU legislation stops them giving it away to the homeless once it's past the date and allegedly toxic.

--
Why don't Siamese cats come in pairs?

"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 28 Jun 2016 02:48:03 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 16:34:44 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 23 June 2016 00:58:25 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 02:34:44 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news On Sun, 19 Jun 2016 22:45:31 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news Nobody should ever have to live with a mortgage for 20 years.

Plenty do for 30 and wouldnt be able to have a house
at all without a mortgage even if they have no kids.

Just look at how much of what you pay back is interest, you could
have
bought 3 houses.

That isnt true with current interest rates.

£100K mortgage over 30 years at 4% interest = £324K paid back.

But anyone with even half a clue pays it back much more quickly than
that.

Tell em he of little clues how would you do that even
if you were lucky enough to be on teh average wage.

Even someone as stupid as you should be able to work that out.

If you're clever and have been to university ou';d have a debt of
about £30k to start with and that's before you start a mortgage.

Mate of mine's eldest has not only paid off his entire uni education
debt, he's also paying off his mortgage at a rate that will see it paid
off long before 30 years too. He's only been out of uni a few years
too.

My niece has just had the house completely
rebuilt and has no mortgage at all.

Some is lucky and gets the good jobs.

Nothing whatever to do with luck in her case.

Explain.

The fact that she is a very wealthy woman has nothing to do
with luck except in the sense of the genes she ended up with.

Most don't.

Yeah, some like you are actually stupid enough to get
qualified in areas that there are **** all good jobs in.

I got qualified in the area I was good at.

And then discovered that there are **** all
jobs in that area where you prefer to live.

And you can't predict what jobs will be available.

Corse you can. It is completely trivial to predict that
there will always be plenty of jobs in medicine and
close, and in all sort of other service sector areas.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...

I just noticed, the chuckle brothers are at it again LMFAO.

"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 28 Jun 2016 02:42:19 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 24 Jun 2016 00:21:33 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 18:45:29 +0100, tim...
wrote:


"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 15:05:27 +0100, tim...
wrote:


"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 00:58:16 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:




Nope, you do. Its the povs that are too stupid to do that
or to work out how to get qualified for the decent jobs
that end up in council houses because they are that stupid.

People with enough money don't need to save 50p here and there.

I don't need to save 50p here and there but I still do.

As and example I can afford to get a taxi to/from the airport, but
I
still
catch the train because I consider taxi fares to be extortionate

That would be considerably more than 50p.

well yes

but then the train fare is significantly more than 2.50p

I make the decision to bother saving money based on the amount saved
and
the time taken to save it.

Me too, and the cost of getting there in the case
of Aldi which currently costs me $10 to get there
and back until they finish building the local one.

I just shop at the supermarkets once every 3 weeks. Less hassle, less
time.

Still makes a lot more sense to have an app tell you what is cheapest at
the
ones that you visit

I already know which is cheapest. It's in the spreadsheet.

Like hell it is. At most it might have been true years ago.

every 3 weeks than fart around printing out a
spreadsheet,

A few clicks.

scribbling on that, carting that with you when you go shopping.

It's smaller than a phone.

Pity about how long the scribbling takes.

Using apps to mess about working out where and when to shop is far too
much hassle

There is in fact much less hassle involved in scanning the
barcode of the stuff you use the last of and having the app
tell you as you walk in the various supermarkets you visit anyway,
which ones have the best prices for the stuff on your list.

So, I go to the kitchen and get some food, go find my phone,

Dont have to do that if you have enough of a clue to have it in your
pocket.

Why on earth would I want to carry something around with me all day?

Because that is handy when you need to use it.
And you dont carry it, its in your pocket.

The only thing I do that with is my watch, which is strapped on.

The phone is even easier, its in your pocket.

Make a phone that small then I'll do so. Oh wait, phone screens are too
small as it is.

Plenty big enough to show you what is
cheapest in that particular supermarket.

go back to the kitchen, scan the item..... ffs.

Much less hassle in fact than your dinosaur approach of
printing out a spreadsheet,

In a few clicks.

marking that up with what
you have decided you need to buy,

It's quicker than scanning.

Thanks for that completely superfluous
proof that you dont have a clue.

Must be why the shelf stackers in supermarkets all do it your dinosaur
way.

Different task entirely.

Nope, they are doing exactly the same thing,
scanning what is getting low on the shelves.

and buying that stuff
from the place where it was cheapest at one time but
which is unlikely to be the cheapest of the supermarkets
you will be visiting on that shopping run.

Almost all stay the cheapest.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

Nope, just true.

The price is on hte list anyway, so if I happen to see it substantially
more in the shop, I go to another one next time.

Dont need to fart around like that when the app tell you what
is cheapest in that particular supermarket as you walk in.

I only notice it occasionally, as it only happens occasionally. And I
don't even have to think about it.

But you do have to walk down every single aisle and look
at the price stickers to see what is cheapest at that time.

MUCH more convenient to have the app tell you what
is cheapest in that store that you need and have it tell
you where it is in the store too so you dont give a
damn if the store has moved it around.

for a few quid here and there.

To save half or more of your total shopping spend in fact
when the app keeps track of how quickly you use stuff auto
and only suggest you buy it when it is half price or better.

**** all is half price here.

That's because you 'live' where the supermarket traffic
is dominated by the council sink estate dregs.

Why would that stop them having half price offers?

They realise they are in the council sink estates because
they are too stupid to buy stuff where it is half priced
and that they have ****ed all their cash against the
wall on grog and drugs and so only have enough left
to buy what they absolutely have to have right now.

Only things that cheap are things with 1 day left on the sellby date.

See above.

No, they do it to avoid throwing out food, because some ****wit EU
legislation stops them giving it away to the homeless once it's past the
date and allegedly toxic.

None of the half price stuff in the catalogs
have only 1 day left till the sell by date.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
**** snipped

On Monday, 27 June 2016 23:34:39 UTC+1, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 12:18:43 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Wednesday, 22 June 2016 19:56:44 UTC+1, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 11:58:32 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Wednesday, 22 June 2016 02:34:52 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"James Wilkinson" wrote in message

You're the only person I know who bothers to use technology for such a
simple thing as supermarket shopping.

That's because you know **** all.

I know enough people to realise you're quite odd in this regard.

Wodders is quite odd in many regards ;-)


I see plenty using their phones while doing the supermarket shopping.

So do I most selecting the next track that want to listen to or checking when the next bus is and many other things people use their phones for of which shopping for groceries is pretty small.
How would anyone know that they arenlt on grindr

That's the second reference to such things in as many days. I'm thinking you know too much.

I do because I don;t have a mobile so when on public transport or in public I have so much time to look around me to see the world rather than be staring at a LCD screen hoping I won't bump in to anyone.

I have a mobile, I use it to make telephone calls, quite unusual really.

I have a land line for that I do have a unsmart mobile that's been used for SMS texts a few times but that's it.


while crusing the supermarket isles. Appareny upskirt photos are taken in supermarkets too.

How many folk have you seen with a phone strapped to their shoe?

They put them in shoping bags not on their shoe, and only the minority are done without the women knowing.
It's easy enough to find out the facts if you want to.
Just type in the word upskirt into google it ain't rocket science.

Don;t get it confused with UKIRT

That would make a good image, but might be noticed by the "victim".

Might be but unlikely in most cases.


which I was originally looking for or UKIP of course ;-)

I've had 2 girlfriends that have liked to show their underwear off in public but only if they have control over it.

Is that like those odd women who wear a black bra and a semi see through pale top? If I was gonna show off like that I'd not wear a bra.

Not sure myself, but then again some wear makeup too, but not always for the same reasons.

exibitionist, voyuers,show offs, shy people....
I don't understand them all.

On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 12:24:08 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Monday, 27 June 2016 23:34:39 UTC+1, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 12:18:43 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Wednesday, 22 June 2016 19:56:44 UTC+1, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 11:58:32 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Wednesday, 22 June 2016 02:34:52 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"James Wilkinson" wrote in message

You're the only person I know who bothers to use technology for such a
simple thing as supermarket shopping.

That's because you know **** all.

I know enough people to realise you're quite odd in this regard.

Wodders is quite odd in many regards ;-)


I see plenty using their phones while doing the supermarket shopping.

So do I most selecting the next track that want to listen to or checking when the next bus is and many other things people use their phones for of which shopping for groceries is pretty small.
How would anyone know that they arenlt on grindr

That's the second reference to such things in as many days. I'm thinking you know too much.

I do because I don;t have a mobile so when on public transport or in public I have so much time to look around me to see the world rather than be staring at a LCD screen hoping I won't bump in to anyone.

I have a mobile, I use it to make telephone calls, quite unusual really.

I have a land line for that I do have a unsmart mobile that's been used for SMS texts a few times but that's it.

I removed my landline for two reasons:
1) It's cheaper to make calls from the mobile.
2) There are 100 times more salesman calling me on my landline. For some reason they don't call mobiles - maybe they're more likely to be revealed as withheld number.

while crusing the supermarket isles. Appareny upskirt photos are taken in supermarkets too.

How many folk have you seen with a phone strapped to their shoe?

They put them in shoping bags not on their shoe, and only the minority are done without the women knowing.
It's easy enough to find out the facts if you want to.
Just type in the word upskirt into google it ain't rocket science.

Don;t get it confused with UKIRT

That would make a good image, but might be noticed by the "victim".

Might be but unlikely in most cases.

How would something this size not be noticed?
http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/coma/im...kirt_image.jpg

which I was originally looking for or UKIP of course ;-)

I've had 2 girlfriends that have liked to show their underwear off in public but only if they have control over it.

Is that like those odd women who wear a black bra and a semi see through pale top? If I was gonna show off like that I'd not wear a bra.

Not sure myself, but then again some wear makeup too, but not always for the same reasons.

Because they think they're ugly and the makeup makes them look better. It doesn't.

exibitionist, voyuers,show offs, shy people....
I don't understand them all.

All but shy make sense.

--
Save the whales. Collect the whole set.

On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 12:24:08 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Monday, 27 June 2016 23:34:39 UTC+1, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 12:18:43 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Wednesday, 22 June 2016 19:56:44 UTC+1, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 11:58:32 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Wednesday, 22 June 2016 02:34:52 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"James Wilkinson" wrote in message

You're the only person I know who bothers to use technology for such a
simple thing as supermarket shopping.

That's because you know **** all.

I know enough people to realise you're quite odd in this regard.

Wodders is quite odd in many regards ;-)


I see plenty using their phones while doing the supermarket shopping.

So do I most selecting the next track that want to listen to or checking when the next bus is and many other things people use their phones for of which shopping for groceries is pretty small.
How would anyone know that they arenlt on grindr

That's the second reference to such things in as many days. I'm thinking you know too much.

I do because I don;t have a mobile so when on public transport or in public I have so much time to look around me to see the world rather than be staring at a LCD screen hoping I won't bump in to anyone.

I have a mobile, I use it to make telephone calls, quite unusual really.

I have a land line for that I do have a unsmart mobile that's been used for SMS texts a few times but that's it.

I removed my landline for two reasons:
1) It's cheaper to make calls from the mobile.
2) There are 100 times more salesman calling me on my landline. For some reason they don't call mobiles - maybe they're more likely to be revealed as withheld number.

while crusing the supermarket isles. Appareny upskirt photos are taken in supermarkets too.

How many folk have you seen with a phone strapped to their shoe?

They put them in shoping bags not on their shoe, and only the minority are done without the women knowing.
It's easy enough to find out the facts if you want to.
Just type in the word upskirt into google it ain't rocket science.

Don;t get it confused with UKIRT

That would make a good image, but might be noticed by the "victim".

Might be but unlikely in most cases.

How would something this size not be noticed?
http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/coma/im...kirt_image.jpg

which I was originally looking for or UKIP of course ;-)

I've had 2 girlfriends that have liked to show their underwear off in public but only if they have control over it.

Is that like those odd women who wear a black bra and a semi see through pale top? If I was gonna show off like that I'd not wear a bra.

Not sure myself, but then again some wear makeup too, but not always for the same reasons.

Because they think they're ugly and the makeup makes them look better. It doesn't.

exibitionist, voyuers,show offs, shy people....
I don't understand them all.

All but shy make sense.

--
Save the whales. Collect the whole set.

On Thursday, 30 June 2016 15:37:37 UTC+1, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 12:24:08 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Monday, 27 June 2016 23:34:39 UTC+1, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 12:18:43 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Wednesday, 22 June 2016 19:56:44 UTC+1, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 11:58:32 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Wednesday, 22 June 2016 02:34:52 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"James Wilkinson" wrote in message

You're the only person I know who bothers to use technology for such a
simple thing as supermarket shopping.

That's because you know **** all.

I know enough people to realise you're quite odd in this regard.

Wodders is quite odd in many regards ;-)


I see plenty using their phones while doing the supermarket shopping.

So do I most selecting the next track that want to listen to or checking when the next bus is and many other things people use their phones for of which shopping for groceries is pretty small.
How would anyone know that they arenlt on grindr

That's the second reference to such things in as many days. I'm thinking you know too much.

I do because I don;t have a mobile so when on public transport or in public I have so much time to look around me to see the world rather than be staring at a LCD screen hoping I won't bump in to anyone.

I have a mobile, I use it to make telephone calls, quite unusual really.

I have a land line for that I do have a unsmart mobile that's been used for SMS texts a few times but that's it.

I removed my landline for two reasons:
1) It's cheaper to make calls from the mobile.

for you maybe but not for me.
I do not have a deal that allows me to to phone anyone in the universe for £30 a week.
I pay about £9 a month, I 'charged' up my mobile in oct. 2014 with £10 credit haven;t needed to top it up yet.

2) There are 100 times more salesman calling me on my landline.

I thought you said you go rid of teh landline.

For some reason they don't call mobiles - maybe they're more likely to be revealed as withheld number.

sounds crap to me I know peole with mobile whio get cold called far more than I do on my landline.


while crusing the supermarket isles. Appareny upskirt photos are taken in supermarkets too.

How many folk have you seen with a phone strapped to their shoe?

They put them in shoping bags not on their shoe, and only the minority are done without the women knowing.
It's easy enough to find out the facts if you want to.
Just type in the word upskirt into google it ain't rocket science.

Don;t get it confused with UKIRT

That would make a good image, but might be noticed by the "victim".

Might be but unlikely in most cases.

How would something this size not be noticed?
http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/coma/im...kirt_image.jpg

I've just looked out my window and I havent; noticed it
and I'm not sure what a victim would be in this case who would be victimised by this image.


which I was originally looking for or UKIP of course ;-)

I've had 2 girlfriends that have liked to show their underwear off in public but only if they have control over it.

Is that like those odd women who wear a black bra and a semi see through pale top? If I was gonna show off like that I'd not wear a bra.

Not sure myself, but then again some wear makeup too, but not always for the same reasons.

Because they think they're ugly and the makeup makes them look better. It doesn't.

For me that would depend how it's done and for what reason.


exibitionist, voyuers,show offs, shy people....
I don't understand them all.

All but shy make sense.

Shy seems to be the a sign or previous traumer or 'bullying'

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 30 June 2016 15:37:37 UTC+1, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 12:24:08 +0100, whisky-dave
wrote:

On Monday, 27 June 2016 23:34:39 UTC+1, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 12:18:43 +0100, whisky-dave
wrote:

On Wednesday, 22 June 2016 19:56:44 UTC+1, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 11:58:32 +0100, whisky-dave
wrote:

On Wednesday, 22 June 2016 02:34:52 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"James Wilkinson" wrote in message

You're the only person I know who bothers to use technology
for such a
simple thing as supermarket shopping.

That's because you know **** all.

I know enough people to realise you're quite odd in this
regard.

Wodders is quite odd in many regards ;-)


I see plenty using their phones while doing the supermarket
shopping.

So do I most selecting the next track that want to listen to or
checking when the next bus is and many other things people use
their phones for of which shopping for groceries is pretty small.
How would anyone know that they arenlt on grindr

That's the second reference to such things in as many days. I'm
thinking you know too much.

I do because I don;t have a mobile so when on public transport or in
public I have so much time to look around me to see the world rather
than be staring at a LCD screen hoping I won't bump in to anyone.

I have a mobile, I use it to make telephone calls, quite unusual
really.

I have a land line for that I do have a unsmart mobile that's been used
for SMS texts a few times but that's it.

I removed my landline for two reasons:
1) It's cheaper to make calls from the mobile.

for you maybe but not for me.
I do not have a deal that allows me to to phone anyone in the universe for
£30 a week.
I pay about £9 a month, I 'charged' up my mobile in oct. 2014 with £10
credit haven;t needed to top it up yet.

2) There are 100 times more salesman calling me on my landline.

I thought you said you go rid of teh landline.

For some reason they don't call mobiles - maybe they're more likely to be
revealed as withheld number.

sounds crap to me I know peole with mobile whio get cold called far more
than I do on my landline.


while crusing the supermarket isles. Appareny upskirt photos are
taken in supermarkets too.

How many folk have you seen with a phone strapped to their shoe?

They put them in shoping bags not on their shoe, and only the
minority are done without the women knowing.
It's easy enough to find out the facts if you want to.
Just type in the word upskirt into google it ain't rocket science.

Don;t get it confused with UKIRT

That would make a good image, but might be noticed by the "victim".

Might be but unlikely in most cases.

How would something this size not be noticed?
http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/coma/im...kirt_image.jpg

I've just looked out my window and I havent; noticed it
and I'm not sure what a victim would be in this case who would be
victimised by this image.


which I was originally looking for or UKIP of course ;-)

I've had 2 girlfriends that have liked to show their underwear off
in public but only if they have control over it.

Is that like those odd women who wear a black bra and a semi see
through pale top? If I was gonna show off like that I'd not wear a
bra.

Not sure myself, but then again some wear makeup too, but not always
for the same reasons.

Because they think they're ugly and the makeup makes them look better.
It doesn't.

For me that would depend how it's done and for what reason.


exibitionist, voyuers,show offs, shy people....
I don't understand them all.

All but shy make sense.

Shy seems to be the a sign or previous traumer or 'bullying'

Nope, some people are born that way.

On Friday, 1 July 2016 11:00:58 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message

All but shy make sense.

Shy seems to be the a sign or previous traumer or 'bullying'

Nope, some people are born that way.

How do you know that.

How can you tell whether a baby is shy or not ?
At what age do you test your theory.

On Fri, 01 Jul 2016 10:27:21 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Thursday, 30 June 2016 15:37:37 UTC+1, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 12:24:08 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Monday, 27 June 2016 23:34:39 UTC+1, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 12:18:43 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Wednesday, 22 June 2016 19:56:44 UTC+1, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 11:58:32 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Wednesday, 22 June 2016 02:34:52 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"James Wilkinson" wrote in message

You're the only person I know who bothers to use technology for such a
simple thing as supermarket shopping.

That's because you know **** all.

I know enough people to realise you're quite odd in this regard.

Wodders is quite odd in many regards ;-)


I see plenty using their phones while doing the supermarket shopping.

So do I most selecting the next track that want to listen to or checking when the next bus is and many other things people use their phones for of which shopping for groceries is pretty small.
How would anyone know that they arenlt on grindr

That's the second reference to such things in as many days. I'm thinking you know too much.

I do because I don;t have a mobile so when on public transport or in public I have so much time to look around me to see the world rather than be staring at a LCD screen hoping I won't bump in to anyone.

I have a mobile, I use it to make telephone calls, quite unusual really.

I have a land line for that I do have a unsmart mobile that's been used for SMS texts a few times but that's it.

I removed my landline for two reasons:
1) It's cheaper to make calls from the mobile.

for you maybe but not for me.
I do not have a deal that allows me to to phone anyone in the universe for £30 a week.
I pay about £9 a month, I 'charged' up my mobile in oct. 2014 with £10 credit haven;t needed to top it up yet.

For £5 a month, Virgin Mobile give you 4 hours of calls to anything a month, as many calls as you like to Virgin mobiles and freephone numbers, unlimited texts, and a load of internet data.

For £8 a month, it's 16 hours.

For £12 a month it's unlimited calls.

I used the £5 for personal use, then upped it to £8 when I started using it as a business phone.

2) There are 100 times more salesman calling me on my landline.

I thought you said you go rid of teh landline.

I used the wrong tense, so sue me. There WERE 100 times.....

For some reason they don't call mobiles - maybe they're more likely to be revealed as withheld number.

sounds crap to me I know peole with mobile whio get cold called far more than I do on my landline.

About a few years ago I'd get pestered by a few companies on my mobile. EON being one of them. I simply marked the number on the phone so it came up EON. Then depending what mood I was in, I'd either cancel the call, pick up and be quiet till they got fed up, or pick up and be abusive to them. After a few abusive rants, they ****ed off, and I stopped getting calls from others too. Maybe you can get a black mark on a salesman list?

while crusing the supermarket isles. Appareny upskirt photos are taken in supermarkets too.

How many folk have you seen with a phone strapped to their shoe?

They put them in shoping bags not on their shoe, and only the minority are done without the women knowing.
It's easy enough to find out the facts if you want to.
Just type in the word upskirt into google it ain't rocket science.

Don;t get it confused with UKIRT

That would make a good image, but might be noticed by the "victim"..

Might be but unlikely in most cases.

How would something this size not be noticed?
http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/coma/im...kirt_image.jpg

I've just looked out my window and I havent; noticed it
and I'm not sure what a victim would be in this case who would be victimised by this image.

I assumed the telescope was being used to peer up skirts.

which I was originally looking for or UKIP of course ;-)

I've had 2 girlfriends that have liked to show their underwear off in public but only if they have control over it.

Is that like those odd women who wear a black bra and a semi see through pale top? If I was gonna show off like that I'd not wear a bra.

Not sure myself, but then again some wear makeup too, but not always for the same reasons.

Because they think they're ugly and the makeup makes them look better.. It doesn't.

For me that would depend how it's done and for what reason.

There are different reasons?

exibitionist, voyuers,show offs, shy people....
I don't understand them all.

All but shy make sense.

Shy seems to be the a sign or previous traumer or 'bullying'

What a load of psychobabble. Non-physical "abuse" is simply forgotten by anyone with half a brain.

--
Jazz is what you get when you push a blues quartet down a long flight of stairs.

whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote

All but shy make sense.

Shy seems to be the a sign or previous traumer or 'bullying'

Nope, some people are born that way.

How do you know that.

Been studied for many years now, and pretty
obvious with kids to anyone with even half a clue.

How can you tell whether a baby is shy or not ?

Wait till they are only a little bit older and see how
they react with a visitor they haven't met before etc.

At what age do you test your theory.

You can do it with babys only a few
weeks old and that has been done too.

On Friday, 1 July 2016 16:06:01 UTC+1, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Fri, 01 Jul 2016 10:27:21 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Thursday, 30 June 2016 15:37:37 UTC+1, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 12:24:08 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Monday, 27 June 2016 23:34:39 UTC+1, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 12:18:43 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Wednesday, 22 June 2016 19:56:44 UTC+1, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 11:58:32 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Wednesday, 22 June 2016 02:34:52 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"James Wilkinson" wrote in message

You're the only person I know who bothers to use technology for such a
simple thing as supermarket shopping.

That's because you know **** all.

I know enough people to realise you're quite odd in this regard.

Wodders is quite odd in many regards ;-)


I see plenty using their phones while doing the supermarket shopping.

So do I most selecting the next track that want to listen to or checking when the next bus is and many other things people use their phones for of which shopping for groceries is pretty small.
How would anyone know that they arenlt on grindr

That's the second reference to such things in as many days. I'm thinking you know too much.

I do because I don;t have a mobile so when on public transport or in public I have so much time to look around me to see the world rather than be staring at a LCD screen hoping I won't bump in to anyone.

I have a mobile, I use it to make telephone calls, quite unusual really.

I have a land line for that I do have a unsmart mobile that's been used for SMS texts a few times but that's it.

I removed my landline for two reasons:
1) It's cheaper to make calls from the mobile.

for you maybe but not for me.
I do not have a deal that allows me to to phone anyone in the universe for £30 a week.
I pay about £9 a month, I 'charged' up my mobile in oct. 2014 with £10 credit haven;t needed to top it up yet.

For £5 a month, Virgin Mobile give you 4 hours of calls to anything a month, as many calls as you like to Virgin mobiles and freephone numbers, unlimited texts, and a load of internet data.

I'd have to check if I could get that deal and get rid of the landline.
But last I heard that wasn't avaible.



For some reason they don't call mobiles - maybe they're more likely to be revealed as withheld number.

sounds crap to me I know peole with mobile whio get cold called far more than I do on my landline.

About a few years ago I'd get pestered by a few companies on my mobile. EON being one of them. I simply marked the number on the phone so it came up EON. Then depending what mood I was in, I'd either cancel the call, pick up and be quiet till they got fed up, or pick up and be abusive to them. After a few abusive rants, they ****ed off, and I stopped getting calls from others too. Maybe you can get a black mark on a salesman list?

Deosn't worry me if I get home to find 1 or 2 numbers have cold called me.
I find it quite amussing that they should keep trying for the last time.
I'd rather them phone me at home on a landline when I';m not there than to destrube me from what I;m doing when I have a mobile on me.




while crusing the supermarket isles. Appareny upskirt photos are taken in supermarkets too.

How many folk have you seen with a phone strapped to their shoe?

They put them in shoping bags not on their shoe, and only the minority are done without the women knowing.
It's easy enough to find out the facts if you want to.
Just type in the word upskirt into google it ain't rocket science..

Don;t get it confused with UKIRT

That would make a good image, but might be noticed by the "victim".

Might be but unlikely in most cases.

How would something this size not be noticed?
http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/coma/im...kirt_image.jpg

I've just looked out my window and I havent; noticed it
and I'm not sure what a victim would be in this case who would be victimised by this image.

I assumed the telescope was being used to peer up skirts.

That's the wrong sort of telescope (being IR), you need a periscope not a telescope.




Not sure myself, but then again some wear makeup too, but not always for the same reasons.

Because they think they're ugly and the makeup makes them look better. It doesn't.

For me that would depend how it's done and for what reason.

There are different reasons?

of course.
You can't say that Elvira, hilary clinton and paris hilton wear make-up for the same reasons for the same effect.


exibitionist, voyuers,show offs, shy people....
I don't understand them all.

All but shy make sense.

Shy seems to be the a sign or previous traumer or 'bullying'

What a load of psychobabble. Non-physical "abuse" is simply forgotten by anyone with half a brain.

Obviouly you have no idea here.

On Saturday, 2 July 2016 00:22:18 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote

All but shy make sense.

Shy seems to be the a sign or previous traumer or 'bullying'

Nope, some people are born that way.

How do you know that.

Been studied for many years now, and pretty
obvious with kids to anyone with even half a clue.

But you have far less than even half a clue.

Mercury poisening has also been found to cause shyness.
In fact thre are many possibilities.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shyness

Genetics and heredity
Shyness is often seen as a hindrance on people and their development. The cause of shyness is often disputed but it is found that fear is positively related to shyness,[3] suggesting that fearful children are much more likely to develop being shy as opposed to less fearful children. Shyness can also be seen on a biological level as a result of an excess of cortisol. When cortisol is present in greater quantities it is known to suppress an individuals immune system, making them more susceptible to illness and disease.

Prenatal development
The prevalence of shyness in some children can be linked to day length during pregnancy, particularly during the midpoint of prenatal development.[11] An analysis of longitudinal data from children living at specific latitudes in the United States and New Zealand revealed a significant relationship between hours of day length during the midpoint of pregnancy and the prevalence of shyness in children. "The odds of being classified as shy were 1.52 times greater for children exposed to shorter compared to longer daylengths during gestation."

Low birth weights
In recent years correlations between birth weight and shyness have been studied. Findings suggest that those born at low birth weights are more likely to be shy, risk-aversive and cautious compared to those born at normal birth weights.

Intelligence
No correlation (positive or negative) exists between intelligence and shyness.[34] Research indicates that shy children have a harder time expressing their knowledge in social situations (which most modern curricula utilize) and because they do not engage actively in discussions, teachers view them as less intelligent.



How can you tell whether a baby is shy or not ?

Wait till they are only a little bit older and see how
they react with a visitor they haven't met before etc.

and it's been proved that it doesn't matter whether they know the visitor or not. The older you get the worse it gets too this is how racism starts.
It's how you traion dogs to attack they donlt have to know the person before attacking the trick is that you make sure they dont know them that;s the whole point.




At what age do you test your theory.

You can do it with babys only a few
weeks old and that has been done too.

whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote

All but shy make sense.

Shy seems to be the a sign or previous traumer or 'bullying'

Nope, some people are born that way.

How do you know that.

Been studied for many years now, and pretty
obvious with kids to anyone with even half a clue.

Mercury poisening has also been found to cause shyness.

Irrelevant to why those who dont have mercury poisoning are shy.

In fact thre are many possibilities.

I said SOME for a reason, ****wit.

How can you tell whether a baby is shy or not ?

Wait till they are only a little bit older and see how
they react with a visitor they haven't met before etc.

and it's been proved that it doesn't matter whether they know
the visitor or not. The older you get the worse it gets too

Even sillier than you usually manage. Many kids who
are quite shy when they are young kids get over that.

this is how racism starts.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

It's how you traion dogs to attack

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof than you have
never ever had a ****ing clue about anything at all, ever.

they donlt have to know the person before attacking the trick is
that you make sure they dont know them that;s the whole point.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof than you have
never ever had a ****ing clue about anything at all, ever.

At what age do you test your theory.

You can do it with babys only a few
weeks old and that has been done too.

On Mon, 04 Jul 2016 11:07:52 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Friday, 1 July 2016 16:06:01 UTC+1, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Fri, 01 Jul 2016 10:27:21 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Thursday, 30 June 2016 15:37:37 UTC+1, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 12:24:08 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Monday, 27 June 2016 23:34:39 UTC+1, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 12:18:43 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Wednesday, 22 June 2016 19:56:44 UTC+1, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 11:58:32 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Wednesday, 22 June 2016 02:34:52 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"James Wilkinson" wrote in message

You're the only person I know who bothers to use technology for such a
simple thing as supermarket shopping.

That's because you know **** all.

I know enough people to realise you're quite odd in this regard.

Wodders is quite odd in many regards ;-)


I see plenty using their phones while doing the supermarket shopping.

So do I most selecting the next track that want to listen to or checking when the next bus is and many other things people use their phones for of which shopping for groceries is pretty small.
How would anyone know that they arenlt on grindr

That's the second reference to such things in as many days. I'm thinking you know too much.

I do because I don;t have a mobile so when on public transport or in public I have so much time to look around me to see the world rather than be staring at a LCD screen hoping I won't bump in to anyone.

I have a mobile, I use it to make telephone calls, quite unusual really.

I have a land line for that I do have a unsmart mobile that's been used for SMS texts a few times but that's it.

I removed my landline for two reasons:
1) It's cheaper to make calls from the mobile.

for you maybe but not for me.
I do not have a deal that allows me to to phone anyone in the universe for £30 a week.
I pay about £9 a month, I 'charged' up my mobile in oct. 2014 with £10 credit haven;t needed to top it up yet.

For £5 a month, Virgin Mobile give you 4 hours of calls to anything a month, as many calls as you like to Virgin mobiles and freephone numbers, unlimited texts, and a load of internet data.

I'd have to check if I could get that deal and get rid of the landline..
But last I heard that wasn't avaible.

It is. I was on it until last month when I changed to the £8.

For some reason they don't call mobiles - maybe they're more likely to be revealed as withheld number.

sounds crap to me I know peole with mobile whio get cold called far more than I do on my landline.

About a few years ago I'd get pestered by a few companies on my mobile. EON being one of them. I simply marked the number on the phone so it came up EON. Then depending what mood I was in, I'd either cancel the call, pick up and be quiet till they got fed up, or pick up and be abusive to them. After a few abusive rants, they ****ed off, and I stopped getting calls from others too. Maybe you can get a black mark on a salesman list?

Deosn't worry me if I get home to find 1 or 2 numbers have cold called me.
I find it quite amussing that they should keep trying for the last time.
I'd rather them phone me at home on a landline when I';m not there than to destrube me from what I;m doing when I have a mobile on me.

Virtually never happens on the mobile.

while crusing the supermarket isles. Appareny upskirt photos are taken in supermarkets too.

How many folk have you seen with a phone strapped to their shoe?

They put them in shoping bags not on their shoe, and only the minority are done without the women knowing.
It's easy enough to find out the facts if you want to.
Just type in the word upskirt into google it ain't rocket science.

Don;t get it confused with UKIRT

That would make a good image, but might be noticed by the "victim".

Might be but unlikely in most cases.

How would something this size not be noticed?
http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/coma/im...kirt_image.jpg

I've just looked out my window and I havent; noticed it
and I'm not sure what a victim would be in this case who would be victimised by this image.

I assumed the telescope was being used to peer up skirts.

That's the wrong sort of telescope (being IR), you need a periscope not a telescope.

I'm sure her naughty bits give off IR.

Not sure myself, but then again some wear makeup too, but not always for the same reasons.

Because they think they're ugly and the makeup makes them look better. It doesn't.

For me that would depend how it's done and for what reason.

There are different reasons?

of course.
You can't say that Elvira, hilary clinton and paris hilton wear make-up for the same reasons for the same effect.

It's always to improve looks.

exibitionist, voyuers,show offs, shy people....
I don't understand them all.

All but shy make sense.

Shy seems to be the a sign or previous traumer or 'bullying'

What a load of psychobabble. Non-physical "abuse" is simply forgotten by anyone with half a brain.

Obviouly you have no idea here.

It's pathetic to dwell on a memory.

--
I loathe people who keep dogs. They are cowards who haven't got the guts to bite people themselves.

On Monday, 4 July 2016 11:43:24 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote

All but shy make sense.

Shy seems to be the a sign or previous traumer or 'bullying'

Nope, some people are born that way.

How do you know that.

Been studied for many years now, and pretty
obvious with kids to anyone with even half a clue.

Mercury poisening has also been found to cause shyness.

Irrelevant to why those who dont have mercury poisoning are shy.

But only to those.... but how do you tell them apart ?


In fact thre are many possibilities.

I said SOME for a reason, ****wit.

which means as usual you have **** all idea.


How can you tell whether a baby is shy or not ?

Wait till they are only a little bit older and see how
they react with a visitor they haven't met before etc.

and it's been proved that it doesn't matter whether they know
the visitor or not. The older you get the worse it gets too

Even sillier than you usually manage. Many kids who
are quite shy when they are young kids get over that.

while others don't.


the rest of yuor **** flushed where it belongs.

whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote

All but shy make sense.

Shy seems to be the a sign or previous traumer or 'bullying'

Nope, some people are born that way.

How do you know that.

Been studied for many years now, and pretty
obvious with kids to anyone with even half a clue.

Mercury poisening has also been found to cause shyness.

Irrelevant to why those who dont have mercury poisoning are shy.

But only to those....

Wrong, as always.

but how do you tell them apart ?

Trivial to test whether someone is suffering from mercury poisoning.

In fact thre are many possibilities.

I said SOME for a reason, ****wit.

How can you tell whether a baby is shy or not ?

Wait till they are only a little bit older and see how
they react with a visitor they haven't met before etc.

and it's been proved that it doesn't matter whether they know
the visitor or not. The older you get the worse it gets too

Even sillier than you usually manage. Many kids who
are quite shy when they are young kids get over that.

while others don't.

**** all dont.

On Monday, 4 July 2016 20:05:38 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote

All but shy make sense.

Shy seems to be the a sign or previous traumer or 'bullying'

Nope, some people are born that way.

How do you know that.

Been studied for many years now, and pretty
obvious with kids to anyone with even half a clue.

Mercury poisening has also been found to cause shyness.

Irrelevant to why those who dont have mercury poisoning are shy.

But only to those....

Wrong, as always.

right as always.


but how do you tell them apart ?

Trivial to test whether someone is suffering from mercury poisoning.

How do you do it then.