Moos

Yes, I do understand that evolution can work remarkably quickly in response to changes in the environment, it's fascinating isn't it? Thanks vm for the peppered moth link, was very interesting to read. But I am still not seeing support for survival beyond reproductive age. Obviously survival to get to adulthood, reproduce and perhaps keep on reproducing for a few seasons for good measure is supported by evolution. However, I'd be interested to see whether there is evidence for species' evolution to support survival beyond reproductive age. I did give a speculative example in my first post, but it remains linked to the survival of the second generation - one theory why women are thought to live longer than men is that as secondary child-carers they remain functional to the family.

mockney piers Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Aaaaaaah, that's my mistake. > I just like carving pumpkins!!!!! Ooh, come over to Moos Towers for Halloween then, we love carved pumpkins! Have had some very cool ones in past years - I'll be looking to see whether I can keep the standards up. Maybe I've been lucky, but the trick-or-treating we've had has always been brilliant. Very sweet little ones from about 4pm, getting bigger and hairier (we had a good werewolf last year) up to about 10pm but always nice and polite and up for a laugh.

There's a lot of trick-or-treating, which I absolutely love. I gather houses decorated for Halloween are much more likely to be trick-or-treated so if you don't like it, stay pumpkinless.

RosieH Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But who designs them Moos? Even in the windows of > Peacocks or Ethel Austin, you'll see a nod to the > aviator jacket or the camel coat... Yes, but it doesn't matter, that's the thing. Could be the blazer or the colour puce. Wouldn't make much difference to the sales of Peacocks.

Is it? It's been a while since I read a book on evolution, so maybe I need to brush up. But that suggests an intelligent design approach, doesn't it? That genes want to somehow improve the environment by working happily within it. I thought that evolution worked on a pure and simple approach of maximum reproduction based on reproducing the traits that are good at reproduction. You have survived because you have come from genes of people intelligent enough to think up things like glasses and therefore make to adulthood, mate and reproduce. So your brain is a successful evolutionary trait, but 'the most successful people in the western world' are not necessarily successful in evolutionary terms. However, I've run out of evoluationary knowledge and will have to see what someone else can come up with.

Mildly embarrassed to be asking this, but does anyone know a newsagent that sells it? Can't find one on LL or at Sainsbury's and the current edition has mini Loftys and Dizzys and co. which my son is longing for.

Keef Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- You're planning to have so much sex, you can't walk straight? Sounds like a fecking great challenge! It is great for pain relief, when I become mentally impotent and start smacking my head against the wall, I hardly notice. Are you still talking about sex here, Keef?!

cross-posted with mockers

You're looking at it from a human perspective where you need to think like a gene. Your genes don't give a shit if you live in misery and die at the age of 30 - they define success by solely your ability to mate and reproduce. That was my point in responding to MM in the first place - he asked for a genetic explanation, but the explanation (although I think valid) basically renders him completely ineligible to be alive at all any more. So the pauper who has 15 children, 6 of whom live to adulthood, is far more successful than Bill Gates with his miserable 2 kids, or the total non-achiever Wolfgang Mozart with no children at all. Do we define success, happiness, humanity in genetic terms? Of course we don't. It's not enough.

Is that view being ascribed to me? Thank goodness I didn't get to read the pre-edited version. I'm not an 'intelligent design'-er. We have to put in the caveat that future generations may find a better explanation but at the moment evolution is the best explanation of how everything works. I just think that there's more to life and its purpose than the workings of genetics.

It's interesting that the argument (not just here but in the media) is being put both for and against working mothers and stay-at-home mothers. Some believe that the cuts are unfair to stay-at-home mothers who have chosen to stop working, as their eligibility for benefit will be based on the father's income only, whereas working couples with a joint higher income may still benefit. Others believe that working mothers are now disincentivised to work, as they may lose on child benefit on top of the cost of childcare. My initial response was very much like most others' here - that some cuts must be made, and to make them means-tested is the fairest way, however that to penalise a family earning ?45k (one earner) but not a family earning ?79k (two earners) was grossly unfair. I have, however, remembered much of the debate in recent years about benefits being lost for parents who live together... could the same argument apply to them? I believe fundamentally that benefits should be tested on all parental income - but it doesn't take long to work out the incredible complications of fairly testing families' incomes, particularly if they don't live together.

WOD, very happy to acknowledge your greater experience on this. My thoughts were largely based on my own teenagerhood (I did go to bars aged 14, occasionally drank and smoked but was too terrified to get into drugs) and those of my friends - and I'd say mine was a fairly sheltered, well-brought-up teenagerhood. My perception - but more experienced parents are contradicting this and as I said I'm happy to take their word for it - is that children are yet more exposed to alcohol and drugs today than children of my generation were. In case I'm coming across as Nico Teen here, I guess I'll have to see how it goes when my kids get there, but I don't think I'd give them booze for parties aged 14.

OK, so I left it for a few hours in order to seem more interesting. Anyone? Anyone? The riposte is: And here I am wearing the sweater that you think Oscar de la Renta made me wear. But mysteriously, blue sweaters are sold in their tens of thousands every day of every year entirely regardless of what the current dictates of the self-regarding twirling of the fashion world. Because the reality of the clothing industry is that the vast majority of people couldn't care less what Oscar de la Renta thinks, can't spell Yves Saint Laurent and simply go on wearing the same sort of clothes season after season, buying what they like or can afford. Take them away, and replace them with some other designer names, and the world continues to spin on its axis. The geniuses of the fashion world believe that they somehow own the wardrobes of ordinary people, but actually they are quite irrelevant.

Thanks Molly - the alphabet beanbags sound lots of fun, where were they from?

We recently bought our 3 yo his first duvet, and were interested to read c/o John Lewis that 'When choosing a full-sized duvet for a child, unless their bedroom is very cold, it's best to stick with a lighter weight duvet between 4.5 and 9 tog. As children are smaller it means that their duvet traps more air and increases the level of warmth over and above that experienced by most adults. A heavier 13.5 tog duvet may well prove uncomfortable, and is not recommended' No idea what research that's based on but in general my son still seems to like and be happily warm in lighter bedding than his parents.

Apologies all if my post was unclear or has caused arguments. I do believe that it's very likely that a child of 14 will find herself at parties where drugs or alcohol are available. I don't believe it's inevitable that she would drink or take drugs. I shouldn't speak for Fuschia, but I think she meant the same thing - that to come across alcohol is inevitable, the question is whether to choose to drink.

Argh, that scene! There's such an obvious riposte, and I was urgently rooting for Anne Hathaway to make it, but of course the plot required her not to. Bah. But it was beautifully delivered, Meryl Streep was amazing in the whole (slightly shabby) movie.

Everyone has said it well, but Jah in particular expressed it for me. I don't go to the drinks any more, but in the time when I used to go it was always a lot of fun and a great crowd. Thank you so much, Georgia, for organising so mnay drinks so smoothly and pulling together an online community into a real one. Superstar.

What if people are hunting and eating animals that will become extinct as a result?

SW, I don't have children your daughter's age so perhaps you're looking for advice from someone in a comparable position, but for what it's worth I'd say your respect of your daughter's privacy on FB is the right approach. I think a girl of 14 should have some privacy and she will only change what she puts on FB if you push her. With regard to the party, it's inevitable that she will be going to parties with alcohol and possibly drugs at her age. I know it's absolutely not what you want, but perhaps following up with regard to this particular party (what happened, who was in charge) and continuing your discreet oversight via the mums' network, especially making sure parties she goes to have some adults in the vicinity who can step in if there are any problems would be a good idea. Really good luck resolving.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi Moos, > Apologies I didn't see your post in this thread. > It is expected for people to put bins out ready > for the bin people on collection days. > Occassionally when I've forgotten this they have > fetched them but I wouldn't expect them to put > them back. > If the pavement is narrow I would expect the bins > to be placed at the mouth of any homes footpath > and be placed back there after being emptied. > Hope that answers your question. Hi, thanks for getting back to me. I will put my bin out in future. However, my point was more a concern with regard to the replacement of the bins. When a bin is left in the footpath of the house blocking the way to the front door, it clearly indicates that the house is empty. Should the bin men not replace bins in the storage areas, or at least tidily to the side?

Moos Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > James, could you please advise what the agreements > are with the bin men and recycling men in > Southwark? On our street, no-one puts bins out > (are we supposed to?) so the guys have to come > into the yards and get them, but they don't put > them back. The guys don't look as though they > have much time, they race through the streets, so > I can understand that asking them to put bins back > where they find them may mess up their timetable > but the trouble is that bins left in the middle of > the front yard path or skewed in the street make > it very clear twice a week whether a house is > empty during the day. Would it be possible to > address this security concern? Hello James Not sure whether my post may have been overlooked - however, if you're not the right person to be asking I'd be grateful if you could point me in the right direction. cheers Moos

What? Did I kill this thread? Oh well. That'll teach me. I'm going back to frivolity where I belong.

Marmora Man, from a purely, coldly, soulless evolutionary point of view, nothing about you serves any purpose. Your purpose was to provide your genes to your offspring, and protect them until they were old enough to protect themselves. (In contrast, Marmora Woman retains a purpose - she will be able to lend her expertise to her sons' women-folk as they raise small children, although she is less useful than their own mothers would be as she will not be quite as certain as they will be that they are protecting their own genetic descendents) Your loss of head hair is a by-product of the testosterone that made you a desirable mate in the first place. Your hair is no longer needed, as your genes no longer care if you catch a cold and die, so the retention of head hair is no longer important. I believe (but am reaching here) that the ongoing growth of your body hair is the leftover secondary sexual characteristic that again marked you out as manly in the first place. All of this is why I like to think there is more to life and its purpose than the purely genetic explanation.. but that's for another discussion. Needless to say, I don't share your genes' view on your obsolescence.

silverfox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hang on, my leaflet says I've been provided with > 50 compostable food waste bags. Why should you get > 150 if I've only got 50 (and I bet if I count them > there's only 49!). Is it becuase you come from > Peckham? What is this blatent discrimination > against East Dulwich residents? I'm going to > withhold my council tax until I get 150 bags like > you. It's nothing personal silverfox. It's just that we are better than you.