Moos

Does it perhaps mean 'come by here'? As in, please grace us with your presence?

To me the distinctive things about wrens is that they are remarkably tiny in comparison with other small birds, and their bodies are very deep, if that's the right way of putting it - very round bodies, as Sue said. Pied wagtails are black and white and not so small, so perhaps not? Anyway, here are some pics

Southwark News in Journalist Lifts A Story Straight From The EDF Shocker

From the 'What Paper Do You Read' thread (which, amazingly, I had to resurrect from page 5!) Laughed out loud several times.

As if I'd call my own children 'sockmunchers'! The very idea.

*sweetly* Looking at you, dear heart, I'd say you can.

Daizie, may I offer you the words 'fuck off you tossers' for only a small fee? You may find them useful at this point. I could even add in 'I wouldn't touch either of you with a bargepole, crater-faced sockmunchers' but that would have to be extra.

Thing is, though, that some people use 'chav' to describe what daizie is saying in the post above, but on first glance - so for people in a pub, or on a street. They're assuming that the people are doing all of those things but based on the way they dress, or how they sound. And that's snobbery plain and simple. So for me, that's when calling someone a chav is out of order.

Now I know I'm grumpy today, but posters who quote an entire long post only to add a short comment at the end, or even just a smiley drive me crazy. Could you not just quote a section of the post? Or not at all? Delicately worded answers only to Monster Moos Central.

*Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I believe you're only liable to be up before a > magistrate 'if it leaves a mark'. > > Yet another pointless piece of legislation to go > in the bag with the foxhunting guff. I'm not the best at searching on the internet (where's Huguenot when you need him?) but here's the definition I found: "The official legal position is you can smack your child but not around the head, not with a weapon (slipper, wooden spoon, cane whatever) and you mustn't leave any marks or bruises" which seems reasonable to me if parents MUST smack.

*thinks* perhaps chav (like pikey) implies background, whereas oik implies behaviour.

Think smacking is already illegal, Mick Mac. Happened about a couple of years ago?

mockney piers Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Apologise that my point was so obvious it didn't > require stating, as a non-parent I shall butt out > this thread as clearly out of my depth *retires > and licks wounds from non-violent disciplining* Sorry if was sharper than intended, am in bad mood today. However, wasn't at all intended to imply that non-parents shouldn't have a view - as you said, your own views were formed by the actions of your parents, what you see around you, and what you read. I do think it was valid for me to put in what I have found from being a parent (although I'm a very inexperienced one) but it's only one facet of why I think what I think. I wasn't playing the ace, so don't play the joker.

Without the tedious cut-and-paste classwar swipe, what snorky said.

Pshaw.

At the risk of sounding moronic, Mockney - duh. If it was my post that sounded as though I was advocating a blissful life of encouragement and love as the be-all and end-all of parenting, then allow me to clarify. (I'm a little surprised that a disavowal of physical punishment could be equated with an absence of discipline, but hey ho.) I think that even very young children need boundaries, clearly laid out and consistently applied - my personal experience - so far!!! - suggests that this is needed from under a year old.

Gosh. Well, that's one way of looking at it. As distinct from - for example - just chucking unwanted stuff in the bin? I'd agree there's a scale of things, let's say - 1) funding new wing of King's - 2) buying ?100/worth of eggs - especially if it's a brand you really, really like yourself, for extra sacrifice points - and walking them through the snow to King's. From Edinburgh. - 3) pausing for a minute to think - hey, I don't want these rather nice eggs, but I wonder whether some kids might. - 4) just chucking unwanted stuff in the bin. I'd say normal selfish human behaviour is more 4) and RosieH did a nice thing. Living in a glass house, as I do, I prefer not to throw stones at others. You?

I agree with Mick Mac. A very small child has no understanding whatsoever of cause and effect. If, for example, your child bites someone and you bite the child to 'show them what they've done' (as I've heard of more than one parent doing), all the child will understand is that you've hurt it, and it won't understand why. If you smack an older child then you are teaching it that an appropriate response to bad behaviour is to offer physical violence. Yes, there's a lot of difference between a slap and a punch, but it's the same ballpark.

If I buy a paper, which is unusual for me, it'll be the Times (with associated Murdoch guilt) or the Independent. Independent is especially good at the weekend. I really don't like the Guardian style much, and the Telegraph is dull. That's the trouble with any paper, if you keep reading it you start to re-read articles and views that you saw months before and the tone starts to get same-y. Agree with Mr. Ben re: telling one's liberal friends about not reading the Guardian - it's akin to saying you don't like reading. I get a shocked look and then an expression of pity. I like the Economist and rather shamefully regularly read the Week, which helps me keep on top of the news even in times when I haven't got time to read any other printed news, erk. Oh yes, and InStyle.. Online I like the BBC, and sometimes the daily mash. I used to read the Onion but got bored of it.

daizie Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > typical.. Typical of what and in what way?

Put those teeny weeny pants away, TLS.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Something classical? Bach?...er dunno Well quite.

I don't think so, thebeard. You've got your cause and effect mixed up.

*thinks*

A truly immoral man.