woofmarkthedog

Yes but.... I am incapable of understanding the notion of introducing an analogy or parallel analogy situation notion for the purposes of clarifying or examining a common underlying principle then it is clear you need to go bac to Introductory Logical Argument 101 examining of understanding the notion of introducing an analogy or parallel analogy situation. It is a common rhetorical rhetorical rhetorical rhetorical rhetorical tool for examining the logical structure of a position, i.e. if it was different but isomorphic, would the rhetorical principle being put forward still hold water if it was examined in a different water in the context of a different but isomorphic water situation. I hope this finally makes it clears. W**F * what's up with people ?*

Wos that then ?

lenk Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'd love it if it was going to be a South London > branch of Crobar. ------------------------------------------------------ Yes if only.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm sure people may argue this (as (a) I have no > stats and (b) people do so love to argue), but I'm > willing to proffer the outrageous suggestion that, > in general, richer people spend more money than > poorer people. > > So, in the Woof Theory of Economics, should > Sainsbury's be dividing the car park into 'crap' > and 'posh' cars? Or, if you like, the > "Sainsbury's Basics" section and the "Taste The > Difference" section. You can only park here if > you're in the 40% tax bracket. > > And, of course, being the Lidl of the motoring > world, force people in Skodas to park in the > street. The P13 would be re-routed to Peckham and > the bus station converted to a valet parking > service at a fiver a pop. > > Actually, Woof, I think Jeremy Clarkson might have > thought of this first with his "better use for the > M4 bus lane" rant. ....................................................... Now this sounds like my version of a market forces utopia 40% tax bracket, Yuk that means you are an "employee" ..... Erm.... offseting is far better I find, can we have special spaces for that too. W**F

*Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Indeed. > You can also find this information a hundred years > ago, back on page one: > > > Huguenot Wrote (back on page one - a hundred years > ago: > -------------------------------------------------- Oh *Bob* now you gone an' ruined it..... ...just when I was starting to look all smart like innit an all. Hope it rains in the Barry Roadish area now......meh! W**F

Where exactly is The castle ? W**F

It could be worse Mic Mac Try this "beginning of the end"........ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CU6AVtQethw

The title of your post!...... there within lies the clue. Spooky ?

grabot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So, market forces are a transcendent expression of > natural law? Pushing us towards a perfectly > functioning Utopia. Sainsbury's executive > decision makers are infallible as market forces > dictate their decisions. All things are > justifiable if driven by market forces? ........................................................ No but a positive or grim reality driven by money, like most things. Nice day today though, you can't buy that & it wont last.......perfect! W**F

lenk Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I have enjoyed reading this thread. > > > that is all. --------------------------------------------------------- Lenk Me too & I like your spirit W**F

Unless they are cherry bakewell.....Mmmm

You do know of the old Almond/ Arsenic relationship..........do you not? It is said that the bitter almond has a "relationship" with the known deadly toxin which is "Arsenic".......neahh Beware, be very aware........a plot may be afoot. "More cake dear? go on finish up the packet my love!....why dont'cha"

Not deserve, buy. We buy more so we get treated better. It's a crass society but hey what's life without a system to play. Oh and pleaseee no, don't tell me your "shite" don't stink Lastly legs don't "technically" open, maybe you mean c*nts. Perhaps you could expand on this one ? W**F

Domitianus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > I mean > if I bought a flipping DOG I would realise that it > might cramp my style a little! And if I took it > to a car-park and took it out of a car I would > expect to be required to control it and put it on > a lead so as not to get knocked down. I would NOT > expect special parking spaces for people with > dogs! There seems, however, on some parts, to be > an expectation that having children with one > confers some instant priviledged status and that > lesser mortals (those without said sprogs) should > scurry into the gutter/cross the road/avert their > eyes/bow three times/put up with restricted > parking opportunities/patiently endure the > atrocious behavior of rowdy four year olds etc > etc, in order to smooth the regal passage of those > with progeny. Guess what? I aint gonna do it. > > And it seems that the previous generations managed > to successfully raise robust, healthy and > resourceful children without expecting everyone > else to play second class citizen in order for > them to do so. If you are taking your children > shopping/into a car park/out on the street - HOLD > THEIR B****Y HANDS! It is called PARENTAL > RESPONSIBILITY, unpopular as that term might be. > In the words of a certain boxer (name I can't > remember) who was questioned on whether in his > private life he was setting a good example as a > role model - "It ain't my job to raise your > children." _______________________________________________________________________________ Domitianus You have really missed the obvious. It's quite simple Ok, I have 2 young boys so when I go to shop I buy for 4 people each & every time, week in week out , plus Christmas presents ,birthdays & their friends Birthdays & clothes for our boys and our friends boys, plus all the parties & picnics ohh the list and occasions just grow. So quite rightly the big supermarkets just love us & our friends & our friends friends, in fact we are GOLD star customers, top of the pecking order , they cant do enough for us and quite bloody rightly so. We do & will spend more money than those who choose not to have kids. If you can't see the sound business decision a company makes by offering US the premium parking & preferential conditions then look a little harder, beyond your frothy coffee & salad for one. Those bays are wider so we can open all the doors to our massive people carriers & get all our purchases in, Lord have you not figured that one out yet,in purchase land you are out classed and out maneuvered, & out in the cold. BRRrr shut the door after you. FCOL W**F

Over a parking bay............sheez

LOOK again it's getting better all time!

jimmy two times Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As long as you post me you're picture first Woof > so I can run you over just before you carve me > up. > > Ding-dong? ------------------------------------------------ I was slightly disturbed when reading this until I got to the faintly arousing sign off "Ding-dong" Jimmy in my mental picture is a cross between a Tattooed Glaswegian brickie & Terry Thomas ...... "Heellooo" W**F *I'm easy to spot, large dog riding a bike......Nuueruh*

jimmy two times Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Has anyone noticed the new posters put up by the > Mayor's office promoting cycling? In none of them > is a cyclist wearing a helmet. In fact in one of > them a cyclist is riding through a park, which I'm > sure is not allowed. Maybe Boris is keeping it > real, in which case why doesn't he show them > mounting the pavement, jumping red lights and > recklessly weaving in and out of traffic ? ---------------------------------------------------------- Jimmy, do your home work! It's boring otherwise, many parks allow & encourage cycling. Ting - a- ling Post me your picture so next time i see you and I am on my BIKE I can "carve you up" somewhat. Must dash....traffic to dodge...lights to jump...OOOOHH JOY

immaterial Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > but tell me > how long have you been suffering from this > pathological urge to over-exaggerate? ..................................................................... Ages & ages.....& them some...why?

Well said Jezzer..... Some people just don't get it & there is a safety issue like it or not W**F

Oh silly me

PROSouthwark Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Anyone who shops at the big supermarkets cares > nothing for our children, our planet and our > collective future. ------------------------------------------------------------ No, we're a reckless feckless lot, still the booze is cheap !

Tony.London Suburbs Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > woofmarkthedog Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > gallinello Wrote: > Apologies for the length of this, Brown, > > "But other than that...... she was alright!" "Go > on Mag's.....break a leg!" > > I waded through the whole text of the above that > you repeated chapter and verse for a "One-Liner" > at the end??...:)) ----------------------------------------------------------------- Oh but what a one liner eh TLS.......Only you could wade so far, for so little, for so few. We salute you W**F

Santerme Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > gallinello Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Apologies for the length of this, but lest we > > forget all HER 'achievements': > > > > Margaret Thatcher presided over the destruction > of > > more industry in Britain than that destroyed by > > the Luftwaffe in the Second World War. She > plotted > > to smash the National Union of Mineworkers and > to > > dismantle the welfare state and all the reforms > > that had been fought for over decades by the > > working class. She slashed welfare payments, > > attacked the old and the sick and basically > > co-ordinated a one sided civil war against the > > British (and Irish) working class. There were > many > > people in Britain whose lives were cut short by > > unemployment, by sickness and poverty as a > result > > of the politics of Thatcherism, many families > that > > fell apart, many children who went hungry. Yet, > > she was admired by Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, > > who wants her to have a state funeral, the sort > of > > event normally reserved for royalty. > > > > Thatcher represented a new brand of Toryism, > > ostensibly more middle class and "ordinary" > than > > many of their predecessors. Thatcher and Norman > > Tebbit - the Chingford Skinhead - sought to > appeal > > to the backward prejudices of the middle class > and > > to layers of the most backward workers. > Thatcher > > was heralded as possibly the first woman Prime > > Minister. She would understand therefore the > needs > > of ordinary women and so on. Hardly a day went > by > > without her appearing on telly armed with a > > shopping basket bemoaning the lot of the > "little > > people." The fact is however that she was > anything > > but ordinary. Married to oil millionaire Dennis > > Thatcher, she represented the most vicious and > > small minded layers of the bourgeoisie. > > > > The ideas of class compromise and a formal > > commitment to the goal of full employment that > > were dominant in both big parties during the > > period of the Post War boom and were based on > the > > theories of Keynes were abandoned. Thatcher > > embraced monetarism and neoliberalism. Her > > ideology was a ragbag of reactionary prejudices > > and crackpot economic theories, but they > > represented a coherent set of ideas and > programme > > to attack the working class with. > > > > It's no surprise that the dominant economic and > > political ideas that Thatcher and Reagan > supported > > were those of the Chicago school of economics - > > ideas known as monetarism - that had been > promoted > > by the likes of Milton Friedman and Hayek. > These > > ideas had been tried before of course. They had > > been put into practice in Chile under the > > murderous military regime of General Pinochet. > > There the 'Chicago Boys' had advocated tight > > monetary controls ostensibly to reduce inflation > - > > which means smashing up the public sector, mass > > privatisation and attacks on the poorest in > > society. > > > > This was combined with a political programme to > > advocate self help, standing on your own two > feet, > > and all the other alleged petty bourgeois > virtues. > > Thatcher went as far as to say that there was > no > > such thing as society. This was the green light > > for a massive onslaught on the working class, > > their communities and their organisations. This > > onslaught wasn't restricted to Britain either. > It > > generated a programme of liberalisation and > > deregulation, that was ruthlessly applied by > the > > IMF and the World Bank across the ex-colonial > > countries. Thatcher dressed up this reactionary > > programme as the logic of commonsense and > thrift, > > armed only with a handbag (and a small onion > for > > when she needed to shed a tear - according to > > Private Eye) she set off to put the world to > > rights. > > > > Thatcher's programme of privatisation and so > > called "popular capitalism" was wrapped up with > > the idea of a "property owning democracy", > where > > everyone owned their own council house and had > > shares in the gas board and the electricity > board. > > They would travel to work on privatised buses, > or > > privatised tubes and trains. Because everyone > was > > thereby "standing on their own feet" they would > > forget about the evil ideas of socialism and > > accept the god of "market forces". The fact is > > though that the assault on the public sector > had > > much more to do with providing productive > fields > > of investment for the bosses. Compulsory > > competitive tendering and the internal market > > within the health service served to batter down > > wages and conditions across the public sector. > In > > the ?service? sector the vast majority of costs > > are in wages. The logic of compulsory > competitive > > tendering meant that private companies could > > undercut council services, by the very > > straightforward policy of cutting wage levels > and > > staff numbers. Thus, once they had also built > > their percentage profit into the equation, > > resulting in a massive growth in the > exploitation > > of some of the poorest sections of the working > > class. Of course Thatcher also opposed the > minimum > > wage as it would ?harm industry?. > > > > The recession between 1979 and 1981 had a huge > > impact on the working class. Unemployment shot > > through the roof as millions lost their jobs. > What > > was the Tory answer? These, they said, were > weak > > old fashioned industries that were > uncompetitive > > and overstaffed. In other words they took the > same > > attitude as their Victorian predecessors; they > > introduced ?laissez faire? capitalism. In other > > words Thatcher did absolutely nothing; the > Tories > > just let the industries fold with calamitous > > results for working class communities up and > down > > the country. What about the unemployed? Well, > they > > were lazy, layabout shirkers, ?moaning minnies? > > and scroungers. The Tories slashed the number > of > > tax inspectors and took on hundreds of people > to > > police the benefit system. There were huge tax > > cuts for the rich while benefits were cut and > > people were encouraged to ?get on their bikes? > and > > look for work. > > > > Did the medicine work? Monetarism meant that > > unemployment went higher sooner in Britain than > in > > any other major capitalist country. Neoliberal > > policies didn?t solve anything. They are now > > totally discredited and the policies introduced > by > > Thatcher in the 1980s are seen as being a > factor > > in the present crash. > > > > One of the biggest factors in the victory of > the > > Tories in the general election was the > Falklands > > war. Out of the blue, or at least it appeared > to > > be, the Argentinean army invaded the Falklands > > Islands or Malvinas a small bleak and utterly > > inhospitable group of islands with a tiny > > population massively outnumbered by sheep, > > penguins and elephant seals. The Argentinean > > Junta?s invasion unleashed a wave of jingoism > on > > behalf of the press, which Thatcher used to > > present herself as a great war leader, casting > > herself as the successor to Winston Churchill, > > Joan of Arc and of course Britannia. The Tories > > sent a task force to the South Atlantic to > retake > > the islands in what was essentially the most > > expensive election campaign in history. It?s > clear > > that the Argentine military were surprised by > the > > level of the response from the British. > > > > But for Thatcher it was too good an opportunity > to > > miss, an opportunity to play on all of the long > > faded traditions of the British Empire, Rule > > Britannia and so on by showing ?the Argies? who > > was boss. > > > > Thatcher has always been portrayed as a strong > > leader. She was certainly dogmatic, stubborn > and > > inflexible, but her longevity in power was > > achieved in part as a result of accident and in > > large measure as a result of the absolute > > incapacity of the Labour and trade union > leaders > > to seriously challenge the Tories. Weakness and > > prevarication invite aggression and the Labour > > Leaders helped to create the conditions whereby > > the Tories were able to lay in to the working > > class for over a decade. Thatcher was no great > > thinker either. Her social base within the Tory > > Party was the nouveau riche, the petty > bourgeois > > upstarts and the yuppies, the city slickers and > > the wide boys, the very same people who brought > us > > the credit crunch. Large parts of the country > were > > decimated, whole industries wiped out of > > existence. Dogmatic monetarism drove the > Tories? > > politics and it was the working class that > > suffered. > > > > Viva the grocer's daughter! > > Isn't it protocol to attribute pieces here to the > original writer of the piece?? YOUR NAME HERE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ok Go on then Santerme beat me with the protocol stick then but make it brief as you can, beatings were so regular at my bourgeois fee paying boarding school that I may well fall asleep whilst you do it. W**F

Don't worry you will soon recognise the familiar B.O you're used to.