ianr

Is this what they teach the kiddies in Business Studies courses nowadays?

>hannah blades email address is [email protected] "Marketing and advertising: [email protected] " (from http://www.butterflynannies.co.uk/contact-us/)

The http://www.butterflynannies.co.uk site is literate, educated, and well presented. Eva Verissimo says she is educated to the equivalent of Master's degree level. I think her agency is being very badly let down by both the style and content of Samantha's post. Is there any certainty that Samantha truly is writing on behalf of the agency? Someone wanting to deliberately harm them could well have done worse than to write in similar mode.

I can't find any entry for Butterfly Nannies on the Companies House website.

London Wetland Centre http://www.wwt.org.uk/london? Not sure if there's a best time of year to go. I've not been there yet.

Thanks, David. I now find myself reflecting on all the possible benefits of a random thread curtailment policy. This one I'm forgoing voluntarily. I have some CBeebies programmes to watch.

Footnote: This thread is substantially shorter than it was twelve hours ago. I distinctly remember putting in a holding response to a third post by Lee - I think PR's post was another of the resulting responses - and have just come back to think about making a fuller reply. I'm not quite sure now whether I'm miffed or relieved. Can I be both?

"vommit" [sic] would do.

> Ianr, I've thought about the squirrel situation, and I think they must have been chasing each other at speed Karrie, yes, I can't think of anything more likely. I shall have a look next time I'm there for any sign of a nest above the spot, but I think it's very unlikely. And, though I didn't examine closely, no obvious sign of any action by a predator. Quite bizarre really. On a pleasanter note, I was interested to see the goldfinch reports. I saw some in Greendale, near the railway line, on 1 June. I don't remember ever having seen one before. They're very attractive creatures.

[deleted]

>Fair use (US law) explicitly includes commercial use I didn't know that. Thanks. It will be interesting to see its scope. In my set of conceptual pigeonholes: "fair use" - a general term, referring to the set of provisions, however named, in any legislation, that permit the use of material otherwise protected by copyright. It turns out that US law uses the same phrase as its specific legal term; hence a possible confusion. I'd have used "fair dealing" if I'd remembered it at the time, as I don't like causing confusion. I think the article's ok'ish. Writers have to deal with other legislations as well. And if you manage to get to para 6 before erupting, you're firmly in UK territory. :) I hope everyone reads at least the "fair dealing" summary that it links to, as I feel there's a lot of misunderstanding here. In my unauthoritative opinion, JR or anyone is fully justified in using any words we've writ here, without our permission, if s/he wants to perform research or produce any analytic or critical review or commentary thereon. And an absolutely vital and necessary provision that is. Notwitstanding that right of fair dealing, each of us retains the copyright in our own wordy emissions. Not even the forum admins have the right to assign copyright in them to, or license their use by, anyone else. If JR's product turns out to be wonderful, we can quote and extol it. If rubbishy, we can quote and ridicule it. If it grossly misrepresents, we can seek correction and complain to its publisher and/or any relevant regulatory body. If it defames any of us, we can spend our life savings on seeking redress through the courts, and ask that JR be banned from the forum. And if it doesn't appear at all, we can be very very rude to him. BTW, whatever happened to investigative journalism?

louisiana Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ianr Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Mark, if it's verbatim reproduction (which is > > different from "fair use" quotation) > > Ahem, "fair use" is a US legal concept which does > not exist in English law. I am indebted for that interjection. For "fair use", please read "fair dealing" (the term used in the Copyright etc Act 1988) passim. In defence of my use of the former term, I refer to the example (there are others) of its use at http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p09_fair_use .

>all of the vommit looks suspiciously similar For investigatory or evidential purposes, you should get samples and commission DNA profiles.

Mark, if it's verbatim reproduction (which is different from "fair use" quotation) you're concerned about, have you any views on http://www.mydulwich.co.uk/news/ (also accessible via http://www.myvillage.com/)?

>slightly worrying that melbourne grove referred me to Kings when they dont seem to provide an >audiology service. I will get on the case. I've been looking up all the InHealth companies and their public website http://www.inhealthnetcare.com. They describe themselves as the London NHS Diagnostic Service, and display the NHS logo on every page, despite also describing themselves as "an independent sector healthcare provider." They even include the Melbourne Grove Medical Practice - itself run by Concordia Health Ltd (previously The Medical Shop Ltd) - as one of "our London Sites." http://www.londonnhsdiagnosticservice.com/GP_and_Practice_Managers/London_Sites.asp , so the two enterprises clearly know of each other. ]

"Dear Marje, my best friend swears she got pregnant using a pot of yogurt to treat thrush. Pleeze tell her this is rubbish."

Prolegomenon: Oo er, missus (reprise). The rest is laters (busy watching 3rd & Bird).

William of Ockham There's only one William of Ockham Wiliam of Ock - ham ...

Lady M, you should have woken your amanuensis.

Oo er, missus, can't be dealing with many of them type of remarks. Gets me all anxious and deconstructiing. ;) I chose that post btw (Mikhail's specifically) because it was easier than preparing one myself; though might follow up later. Just to say, though, that I'm a bit suspicious of the "the closest we can now ever come" in the OP. How could one know that? And if one can know it, why can't one come closer?

Ladymuck Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Mick Mac - I thank you! > > Big fat hug and a few of these (just to keep > Narnia guessing...hee hee) > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (there are 53 of them) > 52, but who's counting? :)

Lee, what are your thoughts about what a post such as http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100516092020AAUdcOM says about resemblances?

How about trying Southern's own timetable preparation page? http://www.southernrailway.com/your-journey/timetables/create-your-own-timetable/

Looks like a change of plan then. The IoW start differs from the full route shown in the RAF's PDF file that's referred to in my link in the OP.

No local sightings at all then? I certainly didn't see anything to the west. It was probably a bit naive and wishful to assume they'd take a totally direct route.