RosieH

Is Lucky 7s still on every week then? I've always meant to go and somehow never got round to it - but was thinking of it for this week - whether I'll have the cojones to attempt to play any of my own tatty 7 inches is another matter.

ronniemama Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > there's a rat in me kitchen You gonna fix dat rat?

I wanna see rats start taking down children outside Sainsburys: in the same way that there are too many rats and too many cats, some might say there are too many kids round here. Natural selection my friends - if the kid can't outrun vermin, it's going down. Parents, you've been warned - get the offspring in training now: 50 metre dash and maybe a few goes on the bat-the-rat down the arcades.

Ah, the heart Eek..! Is nice. Nah, at school I tended to dump the nice guys for the bad guys, always more exciting and eventful, but then I was also a pretentious pain in the arse and had "oh for a life of sensations rather than of thoughts" above my bed. I THINK I've grown out of that now

But Sean, will you have to take it back if I come to the next forum drinks..? (not because I am a munter you understand, but because we would have met - hmm, you got that right, *blushes*) Well obviously I have to come out now and say for me it was SeanMacGabhan - you don't by any chance have an unmarried brother do you?

Brendan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > RosieH Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > Just in case I wasn't making myself clear, I > was > > deliberately misspelling pedant in an attempt > at > > bathos > > While I realised that this was probably the case > it didn't for a moment make me feel that I > shouldn't correct you. Really belatedly, what with all the shenanigans, but I got that Brendan, and you're quite right, which is why I didn't namecheck you in my reply. S'just that Mikecg told me I'd failed, and my poor little ego couldn't take it, I don't accept spelling failure (I was in the Pacific spelling group in primary school, so named because we didn't want the guys in the 5th group to feel stoopid by calling them Last or 5th or Bottom so we called them Indian instead, which maybe is a whole other can of worms... Anyway I'm reluctant to let go the accolade). For myself, I tend to agree with Sean's summary, but maybe more harsh in my suggested punishment: Typos? Fine. Can't spell? Fine (but, you know, get a dictionary) Can spell, won't spell? Kill them with sticks

Mikecg Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- Your failed attempt at > being a pedant was highlighted by Brendan, you see > RosieH, giggirl was right it's a very slippery > slope. Failed attempt Mikecg? tell me irony hasn't also gone the way of spelling Just in case I wasn't making myself clear, I was deliberately misspelling pedant in an attempt at bathos winky winky winky (6);-) (ugh) edited many times because I'm boozy and don't want to come across as arsey

I think spelling does matter - not necessarily to a huge degree on here - but I think the English language is a rich and glorious and wonderful thing, and it pains me to see it abused. The odd typo here or there on a forum never hurt anyone and doesn't deserve to be picked on (although it is funny sometimes if pomposity can be pricked by a spelling mistake) but it really bothers me if the kids don't think spelling's important. Then again, I did once buy that travesty "Eats, Shoots and Leaves" as a "treat" for myself, so clearly I'm the pendant here.

I would appreciate a lurid light, hopefully from a mega-watt bulb, cast on many of woofmarkthedog's posts, or indeed, even his/her name - does "woof" mark the dog in the same way that "x" marks the spot? I also disagree with Brendan in that I think in the informal context of this forum, Sean's starting a sentence with a conjunction is perfectly acceptable, nay admirable, as its friendly chattiness seems entirely in keeping with same gentleman's persona. But I wouldn't do it in a business letter.

That's good to know - contrary to what my naive opinion on ?20 socks might suggest, I find myself in rather straitened circumstances currently - cheap gifts for the hordes of nieces most welcome. And you're right about the sign, it's a spectacularly fugly thing, which made me assume that the shop would be selling nothing but tat (and not the chichi Northcross Road variety, which I actually rather enjoy).

Reckon Primark kids socks also probably made by blind unijambiste kids in the Sahara somewhere. Sue, wouldn't for a second suggest that ?20 is reasonable for socks - I've no idea what would be reasonable never having bought them - just that I wouldn't expect them any cheaper from Davina Boutique. Seems to be roughly on a par with what you might pay in any of the chichi establishments in the area. They did have a very nice Longchamp bag in there, but at a few hundred pounds I decided to pass - s'why I figured socks would be quite pricey too.

Nah, I think Twitter can be a really valuable tool, but more professionally than personally. Great for campaigning and great for sharing genuine news. But you're right on the subject of tedious ego-updates: no one cares that you're making Thomas a fricking baked potato.

Sue, I think it's a matter of expectations. I wouldn't expect to get Camper shoes for much less than ?80 and I wouldn't expect to get a box of socks from Davina for much less than ?20. If I were buying baby socks because I needed them rather than thought this particular box was very cutesy and would make the perfect gift, I'd be heading to H&M or Tesco (or round here, probably Sainsburys)

Lizziedjango, I always find this interesting, that people might expect to be able buy everything they need right here in East Dulwich. It would just never occur to me that I ought to be able to get everything right here - I wouldn't expect to get a new outfit (although I might have a look), or get my moisturiser, certainly not shoes, homewares, god most things. I expect to be able to get my groceries but I don't think it's geared up for catering to the area's needs like a town centre high street. That said, it is terrifically good for presents. Also, on the subject of expensive socks, I didn't think ?20 was that outrageous - more a present box of socks than a needs must? I was shopping online today and came across a box of Stella McCartney days of the week pants for the bargain price of ?140. Now there I'd think about drawing the line.

Brilliant, what are we going to mob? The William Rose queue?

It might just be me, but I'm not convinced that it's that difficult a position to say, "look love, think it's best you go home and sleep it off, why don't we call you a cab?" Or is it?

*Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > RosieH Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > if she'd just been a > > munter or a fascist then fair enough > > .. or a TORY if you read carefully *bob*, I think you'll find that I covered the Tory scenario in the above

SteveT Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hold hard there Rosie, she arrived in that > condition, and proceeded to dump herself on to a > sober male. sure she did and her behaviour was terrible, but I'd like to think a damsel in distress, hell anyone in distress, might get a helping hand. I think it was a bit caddish to pretend to go to the toilet and do a runner - if she'd just been a munter or a fascist then fair enough - but in the state she was in, she could have ended up in a right mess. I was once on my way back from a concert. There was a girl lying on the floor in the middle of the pavement absolutely blind drunk, skirt ridden up with round her waist, and people were literally tripping and stepping over her and walking on. She had no bag, no phone. We helped her up and it wasn't pretty and there was a lot of snot and tears and she fully admitted to having brought it on herself. But gave her a lift home because her friends had gone and she had no way of getting in touch with them. I hate to think what might have happened if we hadn't helped. She wasn't his responsibility. But I'd just like to think that if I, or anyone I knew, was ever in that kind of state, whether self-inflicted or not, someone might just be nice enough to lend a helping hand. To my mind, making a funny story out of leaving her in the lurch is neither gentlemanly nor samaritanly.

Off to investigate

no high horse, I just think people should try to be a little kinder to each other. You were decidedly unkind and I don't think that's anything to show off about Actually that does sound a little high-handed, sorry. it isn't meant to - I love hilarious dating stories - but in this instance, it sounds like you left a vulnerable woman in a potentially dangerous situation and that doesn't strike me as very funny

I've been away a few days, Mike, has dulwichmum wronged you?

I'm so going to the Magnolia - been working up to it for a while, but now I'm there for sure

Mikecg Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > We can all preach, but in the height of shame the > only thing to do is, "Abandon Bitch" Wow that's harsh - I guess we're all out of gentleman and good samaritans these days - poor girl. And jaybee, sorry but your behaviour was p1ss poor - going to the toilet excuse?? May I recommend before your next date that you join the world of the vertebrates. Or did you not tell her straight because you thought she was so drunk that she wouldn't understand, in which case examine your conscience young man that you deserted her in that condition.

Yeah, me too, I thought I was gonna get me some charming action

FelicityNormal Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It involves an individual purposely spreading a > life-threatening STD, among other things. I think reckless or intentional transmission are criminal offences, so the police could be involved. If that's the case, better to involve them and do something to put a stop to it than scaremongering on a forum surely...