pk

Domitianus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > If you are incapable of understanding the notion > of introducing an analogy or parallel situation > 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. It is a common rhetorical tool for examining > the logical structure of a position, i.e. would > the principle being put forward still hold water > if it was examined in the context of a different > but isomorphic situation. i said that you made a comparison, you said you didn't, are you now agreeing that you did?: analogy noun [C or U] a comparison between things which have similar features, often used to help explain a principle or idea: Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary edited for typo

Domitianus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > pk Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > > > but out of interest, do you really think that > > having a dog and having a child are comparable? > > > I was just wondering which wally would leap in > with the "Domi is saying that chilren are the same > as dogs!" interpretation. It was inevitable that > some tube would do so. I guess you have answered > the question for us. Anyone who can even orignate > such a daft interpretation is in no position to > call me "hard of understanding." except that i didn't suggest that you said 'children are the same as dogs' i said you compared having a dog to having a child (please see above) - can you understand that there is a difference? and you did in fact compare having a dog to having a child, so perhaps you even struggle to understand yourself?

Domitianus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > A little more skill in constructing your sentences > would not be amiss and would make your point > clearer. i'll try to be more considerate to the hard of understanding in the future i used to not be a parent myself and never felt any of the anger/bitterness/victimisation that you seem to, i certainly didn't feel hard done by that i couldn't park in the special parking places (i seldom do even now that i can). why is this? i guess that i'm just more tolerant, less uptight and would rather just get on with things than moan (on and on) about how i was suffering so that others could do what people have always done and always will do but out of interest, do you really think that having a dog and having a child are comparable?

Domitianus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > pk Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Domitianus Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > I can assure you, DaveR, that my parents > didn't > > > expect the world to be turned on its head to > > > accomodate that choice. I think they had > > > sufficient grasp on reality to appreciate > that, > > > kids or not, they would prolly have to use > the > > > same parking spaces as anyone else and, you > > know > > > what, they raised three sons without any of > us > > > getting trapped in cars whose doors they > > couldn't > > > open fully or having us turned into > strawberry > > jam > > > after having to walk the length of urselves > > > through a car-park. By God, we were > sometimes > > > even allowed to cross busy roads by > ourselves. > > > > what point are you actually making here? > > > > is the world on it's head? and because you > can't > > park in the place closest to the supermarket? > what > > other unreasonable adjustments has society made > > when trying to be considerate to other that > have > > turned it on it's head? (and when it was on > it's > > feet were those without children rightly the > > priority?) > > > > was the world a better place when you were a > > child? > > > What point am I makijng? What point are you > making? I don't understand a word of this post. i wasn't making a point, merely trying to understand if you were - hence the question 'what point are you making?' a question that you now say that you don't understand, so i guess i'll give up and assume that you don't know what, if any, point you were making the world on it's head bit is in relation to the bit in now in bold above where you imply that the world is now on it's head and that this somehow relates to parent and child parking spaces it's not hard you know

DaveR Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "and say what must be said instead of being > polite." > > Alright then - f&ck off and don't come back. i don't really know whether it's deserved as i ain't followed PROS, but that's very funny

*Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Soup is very dangerous so it would seem, and it would seem appropriate that steps were taken to assess and minimise the danger, no? or should they not bother trying to avoid future accidents? same true for aeroplanes? and car parks? what i really don't get is what your and e.g. lenk's problem is - is it really that bad that you can't park right next to the shop?

Domitianus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I can assure you, DaveR, that my parents didn't > expect the world to be turned on its head to > accomodate that choice. I think they had > sufficient grasp on reality to appreciate that, > kids or not, they would prolly have to use the > same parking spaces as anyone else and, you know > what, they raised three sons without any of us > getting trapped in cars whose doors they couldn't > open fully or having us turned into strawberry jam > after having to walk the length of urselves > through a car-park. By God, we were sometimes > even allowed to cross busy roads by ourselves. what point are you actually making here? is the world on it's head? and because you can't park in the place closest to the supermarket? what other unreasonable adjustments has society made when trying to be considerate to other that have turned it on it's head? (and when it was on it's feet were those without children rightly the priority?) was the world a better place when you were a child?

Horsebox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I saw a police car driving down Lordship Lane > earlier on at a non specific time. > > Does anybody know what was going on or why they > were there? well i was at Kings and there was a lady looking unwell and upset - does anyone know what was wrong with her? why haven't i been told? surely it's my business to know (and to be nosey)

louisiana Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ?100m on the launch? - to which both regular journalists > and bloggers were invited. so how many people did they invite? by my sums if they invited e.g. 1,000 journos/bloggers then that'd be ?100,000 a head!

i like the palmerston and think the food is good and the prices steepish but tolerable i've said it before on here but i've been let down by the food at the herne more than once and think that that one's overpriced - if it wasn't for the garden i don't think that i ever go

what's making me chuckle is the thought of 'the shop' going to the police to report the 'theft' saying: I might have had something stolen (or i might not), but if i did i don't know when i got it, what it was or when it was taken and i would not be able to identify it if you retrieved it (and even if i could i may or may not want it)

RosieH Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Erm, what is this if it isn't rubber necking, > albeit of an altogether more digital nature? > > Odd, very very odd. i agree

Keef Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > but the charity has said that they don't want > stuff left on the pavement > > Yes, that's because they know that there are > scumbag thieves around! but also because they don't want just any old rubbish, they want things of saleable standard only not garbage that they will have to go to the hassle of disposing of

Domitianus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > pk Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Domitianus Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > Of COURSE it is theft. The clear intention > (and > > it must have been > > > known to the culprit) was that ownership of > the > > > goods concerned (absurd to call it litter) > was > > > being passed over to MIND. > > > > but the charity has said that they don't want > > stuff left on the pavement - as i said earlier, > if > > i come and leave my junk outside your house, > does > > it become yours and your problem? the intention > of > > the owner is surely not enough, does the > recipient > > not need to agree that they want it? > > Irrelevant! Possession is still that of MIND. I > didn't want my parcels left out in the street but > I sure as h**l wanted my parcels! The fact that > they had been deposited contrary to my > instructions didn't entitle anyone to come along > and pinch them. Same goes for MIND. but possession was not that of mind - presumably these things were on the street? the mail analogy really doesn't work also, as you say you wanted your parcels (thus surely agreeing that the intent of the recipient is important) , mind have stated that they do not want stuff left on the street as i asked above, if i came and left my junk at your house (say in the same place as your parcels) would it become yours?

Domitianus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Of COURSE it is theft. The clear intention (and it must have been > known to the culprit) was that ownership of the > goods concerned (absurd to call it litter) was > being passed over to MIND. but the charity has said that they don't want stuff left on the pavement - as i said earlier, if i come and leave my junk outside your house, does it become yours and your problem? the intention of the owner is surely not enough, does the recipient not need to agree that they want it?

4hw Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Just thought I might stick up for the self scans a > bit - I don't see why we can't have the choice. > .....Authorisation for alcohol is > obviously necessary so I'm not sure why it's the > source of a complaint. i think it's just the 'i don't like it and therefore it's rubbish/shouldn't exist' attitude that applies to so much on here, the fact that others do like e.g. iceland, bars for young people, bookies, etc, etc doesn't seem to matter to some if they don't like it themselves

macroban Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > They are not technically stealing > > The 1968 Theft Act has changed since I last read > it? but who are they stealing from? if the shop says that it doesn't want stuff left on the street surely it isn't theirs and if the person leaving it doesn't want it they don't want it to be theirs, so it's effectively abandoned or flytipped by the leaver if i come and leave my junk outside your house it doesn't make it yours for the record, i don't think that either leaver or taker have behaved well but i don't think that the police should waste much time on this sort of stuff

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'd like to know why Sainsbos have stopped > doing their own label Chai and also their own > label Assam tea, both of which used to be staples > of mine. > > And I have a vague memory that they used to have > own label Decaf tea and don't know. > > Also why have the cheapo tinned chopped tomatoes > for mean/skint customers just about quadrupled in > price?? > i reckon that the answer to all the above is that they decided that the items were profitable enough

Shaw74 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I might be going against the grain here on the > issue of charging for a trolley, but I thought it > was a good idea, and it's not really even 'charging' as you get your money back at the end (don't you?) i read some of the posts on here and it's like people think that sainsburys is a public service!

there's the lynn club on wells way in burgess park

there's the lynn club on wells way in burgess park

jimmy two times Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think when providing a description of someone it > should be kept as simple as possible. Skin colour, > height, age, hair colour, male or female, colour > and type of clothing. i don't get why simple is good. what use would e.g. white male, medium height, 20s, brown hair, jeans be? surely a good description has features that allow you to distinguish the persons described from others?

James Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I read a description of three female muggers on > here a while ago. I remembered it and looked out > for them. Thankfully I didn't encounter them. it must've been a hell of a description for you to be able to look out for them and be sure that you didn't encounter them - detailed enough to reliably identify an indvidual (or several individuals) i'd certainly agree that such a reliable and accurate description is useful

SteveT Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Anyone seen the movie 'Super size me' > > I thought it deserved an oscar for the information > it gives on mcD food, and it's effects on the > body. > > I have never been in to a mcD since watching it. you were surprised that if you ate mcdonalds for every meal that it wasn't good for you? as with the bookies, icelands, poncey shops, etc, etc - there are plenty of units on LL so if there's demand i don't have an issue

Lizziedjango Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I grew up in Australia but have been here since > childhood. I lived back there and worked as a > newspaper journalist on the Sydney Morning Herald > so know the place very well. Eh?