Ladymuck

SeanMacGabhann Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > LM/Declan - we've all 'ad a laff but another > reminder to keep the thread on topic please? This > ain't the Lounge (yet) *storms off to the Lounge*

Declan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- I dread how many Our > Fathers you're going to give me. So you should...the answer is on the EDF Drinks' Thread (The Lounge)...it was of paramount importance that I make an example of you. Now where is your Rosary?

SeanMacGabhann Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- . Hopefully declan > will join us too eh? I wouldn't bank on it...he's got 1000 Our Fathers and 679 Hail Marys to recite.

HAL9000 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > The Old Testament documents a number of sightings > of the God featured therein: Yep, and here's another sighting: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Crlmg1tSwaU

Declan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Shouldn't you hear my confession first? You are quite correct...I've been testing the new batch of wine today...my apologies for this minor lapse... Now, as for your confession...please go ahead... *leads Declan to a sinister looking double cupboard*

Declan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > > Well to be honest I don't know how to measure it > as I might not have known about it a number of > times. I once saw a UFO and they could have landed > and shot me in an instance. So as you can see it's > a difficult one to answer. *adopts an intellectual expression* Yes, of course - such a thought had not occurred to me. > While you are here and given the topic recently > raised on this thread of it being bad form to out > people's true identities. Might you be an Irish > priest in reality given your use of Latin? Let's just say that, as a titled Lady of means with nothing better to do all day, I dabble...wafer and a drop of wine?

brum Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You girls are such big teases. Not at all... *checks Royal Diary*

SeanMacGabhann Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > daizie - don't play the coy card any more. You're > practically a regular now > > (coming to two drinks in a row is THE bar for > "regular" status) See that Daizie...he's keeping records;-) Actually, I might come too...now, shall I?...or shan't I? hmmmmm not sure

Declan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > > Lady Muck, I'll be PM'ing you on my deathbed. Oooh, the excitement of it all! > Seems that's when it works best. Erm...how many times have you been that close to death then? Thanks for the > blessing though. It's all part of the Service. PATER NOSTER, qui es in caelis, sanctificetur nomen tuum...

Declan Wrote: for one would want to use your services > PR as I'm not a church goer but it would probably > depend on my being able to PM you before I took my > last breath. *makes Sign of the Cross and sprinkles Holy Water on Declan* In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen

What has struck me as a little unnerving, is that nobody has felt the need to comment on the extract from the Economist - no one! Just as a reminder: "Whoever the poor are, Britons care less about their plight than they did 20 years ago. According to the British Social Attitudes Survey, published on January 23rd, more now say the poor have only themselves to blame. The unemployed are particularly vilified: "laziness or lack of willpower" got them where they are today, according to three Britons in ten..." The very silence on this matter makes me extremely uncomfortable, no least because it suggests to me that the survey results may be chillingly spot on. So, whilst on the one hand we are now more accepting with regards to issues such as same-sex relationships, we are on the other, becoming hardened to the plight of the poor and, in particular, the unemployed? What does this say about us as human beings? Actually, this is really a rhetorical question as, on reflection, I believe I know the answer - it is far from palatable though. Vinceayre (above) stated with great passion: "It tells me that [the politicians] could not give a shlt about any one other than themselves, it also makes me angry and very upset that this can be allowed to happen in Britain in 2010.". Regrettably, it looks to me as though the politicians aren't the only ones not to give a... God help us all.

Brendan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > They've got 5 toes on each foot. You are telling porkie pies - aren't you? Homer, at least, has only four toes per foot! http://www.boreme.com/boreme/funny-2007/simpsons-marge-on-google-p1.php

Of course God doesn't exist...even children know that!

HAL9000 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- >...I mentioned God because, as I'm sure > you've noticed, He is the only Simpsons character > drawn with four fingers and a thumb.... Just had to dig this up. Was at a friend's last night with her two children who happened to be watching The Simpsons on DVD. It was an episode featuring God...and I absolutely collapsed with laughter when I saw that He did in fact have four fingers and a thumb (unlike the other characters) - just as you said HAL9000. The two children thought I was completely bonkers of course as they couldn't understand the cause of my hysterics. But really, fancy noticing that HAL9000.

*sneaks quietly off to the Lounge to stalk 100s"

----------------------------------------------------- >...should > bring many more kudos than those people who > collect 100's and multiples thereof, don't you > think? ahem... *avoids eye contact with Declan*

Hi Queen of Dulwich, Just a precautionary note. Before heading for the small claims court, you should ideally have tried to sort the matter out beforehand. I know you say you have, but I would urge you to put this in writing purely for evidential purposes - just lay out the facts and your claim and give them a time limit in which to act (e.g. 14 days). This alone may well prompt them to settle. However, if they don't, write a second letter heading it "Letter Before Action". Not only should this set out your claim, but it should also state that you have had no response to your previous letter. If you do not do this, before taking the gym to court, the court may find that you have acted unreasonably and may penalise you by reducing (or even disallowing) the amount of your claim. Good Luck.

Declan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > > I think Admin/The Chair is/are being a bit slack > with this one. They will kick one out of the > Drawing Room sooner than you can > say............well,woof for example. How about > kicking one into the Drawing Room for a change? *attempts to look serious* Yes, in fact we could commence a "class action" against them for failing to act with due speed and diligence.

Does that mean that Admin are going to have to place a Health Warning on their site in order to avoid legal liability for Forum related suicides etc.? Just what you need eh Admin?

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > (6) *giggles* Sorry xxx

600

david_carnell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- >...what of the masses left behind in > non-grammar schools? If resources are ploughed > towards the "gifted" as some have asked for on > this thread, what of the non-gifted or normal? Can > appitude not develop or be discovered throughout > childhood and teenage years if resources are > spread throughout the schooling system evenly? Or, > perhaps even with a bias towards the lowest > achievers. They are surely the ones who need the > most help from society. Just to clarify DC, I wasn't suggesting that gifted children receive priority over the non-gifted - not at all. Both sets of children have equal but completely different needs, in my view. I ranted on a bit about gifted children in particular because whilst, I am pretty certain, most would agree with your point that the lowest achievers require additional support, it is often assumed that any additional nurturing may be dispensed with insofar as gifted children are concerned. In that sense I feel that - unless they are from privileged backgrounds - they tend to suffer a form of educational neglect. I was merely attempting to redress the balance. As alluded to in a previous post, many gifted children are bullied and actually fail in our education system. Worse, many of them go on to develop behavioural and mental health problems which can lead to social isolation in both their childhood years and later on in adulthood. My apologies if I wasn't clear. Oh, in case you were wondering...I was one of the lowest achievers (if not the lowest) in my class...thick as three planks, completely unfocussed and left state comprehensive school at 16 with one O level.

Declan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > .........and why should Woof be allowed bark on > every post? I believe this question should be transferred to the Drawing Room.

karter Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > isn't it great when the everyone is smiling and > the bitching is over.:) What? Don't you bloody well start!(6) Only jesting karter...only jesting...hee hee...yes, of course you are quite right xxxx

Magpie Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- >Perhaps a more > elitist approach should be taken to education, > with selection based on aptitude so that the > brightest or the most gifted (in any field) are > identified at an earlier age and supported > accordingly. This is not to say that we should not > see return to grammer schools, although that model > was actually pretty successful in encouraging > social mobility, but more use of streaming by > ability in schools with effort focused on the most > gifted. Interesting how many consider the issue of education to be paramount here. I agree. The inequality in schools, primarily caused by "failing schools" needs to be addressed urgently. Smaller class sizes in primary schools might be a start. This would ensure that disadvantaged children would be given more individual attention than they would otherwise receive. It would also, hopefully "catch" those pupils who, for one reason or another, risk becoming unteachable by the time they have reached secondary education. But, equally important to my mind, it would also pick up those gifted children so that they too could be given the support and encouragement they need. Gifted children often do not realise their true potential as the extra support required by them is rarely adequate to enable them to truly flourish. Worse, they often feel the need to deliberately under-perform through fear of bullying or as a mechanism to be accepted by the lesser gifted. There is evidence to suggest that the Grammar school model increased social mobility by allowing children to break out of poverty. But this increase is relatively small and the system was far from perfect, but perhaps a re-think in that direction might be the way forward? The other point I wish to bring up is the one about inequality. ????, you said: "We all get the same housing, education, wages, inheritance?". Well, with due respect, I don't think that is always the case - especially in areas of severe deprivation and/or high immigration where competition for scarce resources might be particularly tight and where access to public services might be an issue due to, for example, language problems. Perhaps we should be looking at immigration more seriously too - but I suspect this may be going off topic so I shall end here.