RosieH

I'm feeling a bit torn. I've just sold something on ebay for more than ?10 more than it costs in the shops. I was transparent about what it was and the cost of it at retail, yet the bidding went a bit mad towards the end and someone chose to spend ?37 on something they could buy elsewhere for ?25. I can't help but think she must think it's something else and feel bad taking the money. Is it a case of caveat emptor (been reading that a lot on here this week) and should I shut up and spend my ill-gotten gains on some fabulous Diptyque candles from CharlieCharlie, or should I give her some money back to soothe my pricked conscience?

david_carnell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hmmm....I'm worried Huguenot. Your therapy doesn't > involve the consumption or use of dihydrogen > monoxide like homeopathy does, does it? Because > there are some things you should be aware of: > > Dihydrogen monoxide: > > is also called "hydroxyl acid", the substance is > the major component of acid rain. > > contributes to the "greenhouse effect". > > may cause severe burns. > > is fatal if inhaled. > > contributes to the erosion of our natural > landscape. > > accelerates corrosion and rusting of many metals. > > > may cause electrical failures and decreased > effectiveness of automobile brakes. > > has been found in excised tumors of terminal > cancer patients. > > Beware. Dihydrogen monoxide is used extensively in > homeopathic treatments. As you can see it is > incredibly dangerous. Ban dihydrogen monoxide > before it's too late! David, you didn't mention that it's also routinely used in both animal testing and human torture. Why is this not talked about? What have the homeopaths got to hide?

Waitrose and M&S sell fish too - I smell a conspiracy

If e were northern, twould a bin Al E But - they can't pronounce their Haitches them bloody northerners

Lisby90 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > i was being serious, but no one is taking it > seriousally and we would have to get some PROPER > judges not guys from the pub Ignore them Lisby - I think the problem you're facing here is that you've posted this on a forum full of middle aged blokes (from the pub) who'd probably quite like to see a bevy of gorgeous young things in swimsuits. However, I'm sure you're quite quite lovely looking, but I'd like to lend you my copy of The Female Eunuch to peruse before you let any of them see you in your scanties.

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > jimmy two times Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I'm confused. The woman behind the check out in > Sainsburys called me 'love' today. > > Good point. Plenty of women call men "love", > "darling", etc. I don't think it's a sexist thing, > just a common turn of phrase in some circles. I > can kind of see Sue's point, but sometimes you > just need to take things in the manner they were > intended. I agree that sometimes 'love' is employed with no hint of insult (I'm northern, I use and hear it all the time when I go home), but I think Sue was right to flag it if she felt it. Often with sexist (or other kind of "ist") comments, it's the casual nature that makes it so insidious. What I took issue with was Sue's saying she was offended by it, then Iain and JTT both saying it again, like Sue's feelings on the matter didn't count. In some circles cunt is considered a term of endearment, but if someone didn't like it, I wouldn't call them a cunt for not liking it...

Ah, Nuts boys - never breast fed, to a man

Dylan Moran's on the telly just now...

jimmy two times Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rosie your talking complete and utter twoddle > > > hugs :) How's that then? Sue told iain she's offended, so you repeat the offence. I may be talking twaddle, and you're doing what exactly, deliberately offending people?

Sue just told you that she finds your calling her "love" offensive, and your response is basically "suck it up love" but with the added hypocrisy of a "hugs": basically you're deliberately going to offend you but by saying hugs at the end, you negate the other person's right to be offended. Hence passive aggressive.

iaineasy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > OK sorry Sue pikey is a little offensive to some > people and i have edited accordingly, but I > reserve the right to call a women love as it is > just a freindly term and means no harm. sorry your > offended love.;-) > > hugs hugs???? passive aggressive more like.

Ah yes, doh! Quite so. Am idiot of gastronomic proportions this evening.

What is this billy goats gruff of which you speak Moos?

Cock of the walk? Pop Idol? Montagues and Capulets?

Competing for Roll Deep's affections? Edited for unbecoming levity as my English teacher once phrased it.

I heard there's the perfect place over in 1979.

Well Karter, I do go ape from time to time. If that makes me bananas then so be it.

Or has thrush..? ;-) (only kidding LM)

Jah Lush Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I hope that's not a cue for five pages of Carry On > style "saucy" inuendo from the usual culprits > *Bob*. Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Sweet mary, mungo and midge - this fucking forum's fucking gone to the dogs, mother fucker I hope you're all very proud of yourselves - I'm off down the Women's Institute

innit

Mick Mac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Lisby90 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > lol > > i hope it will happen then , i would love to > take > > part > > > > Something tells me Lisby might be a bit of a > looker. Something tells me Lisby might be a man

What Moos said. A lot. Now please can we let this tedious "inner circle" bullshit drop? There are plenty of circles on here, and they don't all involve moderators by quite a long chalk. There's a Conspiracy Theories thread in the Lounge I think, if people would care to indulge. Edited to agree with Quids, who is altogether more rational and less exasperated than me.

Sorry to disagree with you HAL, but I don't think just because someone's a moderator it should mean that they don't get to have an opinion. It's human nature to defend someone you like whom you feel has been misunderstood, and god knows, there have been rampant examples of people leaping to their friends' defence over perceived slights recently, so I think Mockney is more than entitled to voice his feelings on the matter.