May I robustly confirm that I am bothered by Tesco's and neighbours and judging from this site who isn't. As for the comma's I'm not aware of any requirment for formal punctuation on SG.org although I am aware that starting a sentence with a But is very bad form. Perhaps you are the chap who berated the owner of Home for using the wrong font on his N4 bags? If so you should know that Karmenz/K1 have misspelt Restaurant on their sandwich board.
As for that salad are we talking the pre-packed variety? I think 'foreign bodies' in these have even been reported in purchases from Sainsbury's, Waitrose et al. As for slugs they are masters of disguise aren't they? The way they assume the appearance of mixed leaves,it's enough to make you chop your own salad!
Tosscat my parking reference was in response to your earlier post on Woody's thread about '..people who drive to Tescos..' or somesuch phrase. Sorry to shoehorn it in to a different rant but you get the point I hope?
@Twinspark
George Orwell, Politics and the English Language, 1946
*Now, it is clear that the decline of a language must ultimately have political and economic causes: it is not due simply to the bad influence of this or that individual writer. But an effect can become a cause, reinforcing the original cause and producing the same effect in an intensified form, and so on indefinitely.*
*But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought. A bad usage can spread by tradition and imitation even among people who should and do know better.*
See what he did there?
Dear Twinspark - my contribution to this thread is listed below (I felt I had to review it to clear my name):
Invitation to treat, analogue cheese, a cute rat, a reference to a 25 year old #1 hit, and probably some other drivel; my sole relevent post seems to be 'Yes, let's wait and see.'
But as you dragged it up, why the fuck would anyone drive to Tesco? If *you* are encumbered by x children then surely you can get your arse in gear to do some sort of online order? Stop ranting online and start shopping online, you'll feel much more relaxed.
I'd like to extend tosscat's comment to cover other types of shopping. Why on earth would anyone go, much less drive, to Oxford St? Between the shoppers, the tourists and the god-botherers, it took ages to walk from Oxford Circus to Bond St, and most of that was off the pavement.
Why go there when you can buy most things online? And if you absolutely have to try on stuff, High Street Kensington is much less mental and has many of the same shops.
@Tosscat - The reference I saw must have been on another thread then, you're quite prolific on here after all, I didn't respond immediately as I didn't have time then I was reminded of it when posting above but it wasn't an accusation more a practical p.s. to say sometimes you need a car when you shop. Online shopping is bit restrictive for food I've always thought but has been offerered comfort to some for the relatively short time it's been available.
[Lucky there were not many other posts in the interim so your reply sits neatly in sequence]
@rainbow-carnage - Why would you buy something to wear without trying it on. Nobody walks down Oxford St. as there are quiet parallel routes to the north or south but the stores in Oxford St. also tend to have branches elsewhere - you can often find the locations online then visit a quieter spot [Westfield perhaps?] High St. Ken seems a bit frying pan/fire to me, just a different type of shopper,tourist, god-botherer.
Shall we get back to wondering about Woody's? - I might buy it and turn it into cinema, entrance by successful interview only.
If Woody's isn't actually going anywhere - anyone else think that this could be a rumour started up by Woody's themselves to drum up a bit of business?
@twinspark - Normally I'd agree with you, but I was running late for a haircut, and taking a side street seemed like it would take longer.
As far as trying things on, it's not terribly difficult to look at a picture and imagine how the garment would look on you. Also, it helps to know your size for different labels. I buy most of my clothes online. Maybe 5-10% don't fit, but you can always return them.
@tosscat - Can we blame all of the closings on Medi? I bet he's responsible for Los Guadales going under.
I work in the wild West End - nothing would induce me to battle my way down Oxford Street for shopping.
Brent Cross is a half hour jaunt on the 210 bus from Stroud Green. As long as you don't try to do anything mental like go there on a Saturday afternoon, you'll have a much better shopping experience. There's John Lewis and Waitrose, Fenwicks, an Apple shop to park accompanying men in (should you be foolhardy enough to bring them), stacks of fashion shops and is open 'til 8pm.
And if one is of the 'I can't possibly use the bus with my tribe of children, 10 pushchairs, oodles of bags and a dog' persuasion they have about 60 million parking spaces. And no god botherers!
I see that [Liberty Estate Agent](http://www.libertyestateagents.com/default.aspx) is also marketing the leases of Kebabilicious, Mari e Monti and the chicken/pizza place next door.
Never been to Mari e Monti. Worth going before its too late?
@matt Drat. Hadn't realised you're meant to wear a vest when going there. I feel a fool now. Not sure I dare show my face there again. But if I do, trust me. I'll have a vest.
Lottery tickets? They're only a quid, you've got about the same chance of success as you do with a job application these days, the effort involved is far less and the potential reward is so much greater.
Historically, economists have evaluated lottery tickets as investment products. The returns, from an investment perspective, are rubbish and make no sense.
So economists have struggled to understand why people do it.
Recent work more properly puts lottery tickets in the category of consumer purchase, equivalent to a mars bar or a cup of coffee.
The consumer isn't buying an investment. They're buying the right to daydream about a jackpot.
Which goes to prove that economists often struggle to operate in the world of real people.
Tesco rang me to say they would be putting my complaint to the store manager and asking for their response. I said, inter alia, that it was not only the worst Tesco in Britain, but the worst supermarket I'd ever been to anywhere, including the Third World and that there wasn't much point in telling the store manager because they would already be aware of it because it's their responsibility.
I didn't mention that the salmon in my salmon and pasta salad was stuck to the salmon skin.
A disproportionate amount of the money gambled on the lottery comes from the unemployed and people on low incomes, approximately 82% of it.
I think this proves Andy's point that it is a daydream that people are buying in to as most of these people don't have any expectation that they might recieve bonuses, or get huge pay rises, or wait for their parents to die and leave them money and a big house, or indeed earn lots of money for themselves.
Most of the regular punters play 3 lines a week making their yearly spend just over £150 per year.
In the days where there were decent interest rates on savings lottery punters would have made more on saving this money than they would have any chance of winning on the lottery (I can't bring myself to call it Lotto). Now that our glorious leaders have completely removed any incentive for people to save I guess that the lottery is as good a bet as anything else.
I used to work with someone who bought a scratchcard every morning on the way to work then scratched it off just before he went to bed so he had all day with the possibility he had a winning ticket.
I came in one Monday morning to find out he had committed suicide.
I really don't care whether the interest rates are raised or not as I fritter away all my spare cash on shoes, handbags and holidays thus doing my little bit for boosting the economy here and overseas.
I don't have any savings either. I resent people with savings. When I've sold my flat, I'll have a lump sum to stick somewhere. I'm thinking a nice portfolio of equities and bonds.
Surely the problem with the economy was that the economists and allegedly brilliant bankers were all about making money with crazy risks, while telling the mug punters that nonono, it's all perfectly safe, nothing can go wrong?
Result: lots of people lose their savings, their houses, their jobs. And the responsible parties get bailed out. Which incorporates a tax on stupidity but also factors in a tax on honesty.
Conversely, bobody loses more than however many quid they choose to spend per week on the lottery (and it does baffle me that some people buy more than one ticket per draw, because the increase in chances is so minimal - whereas going from no chance at all to 1/14m is a massive jump, and quite enough on which to pin a dream). And I'm sure the people who do win millions on it - and that's what, at least one person per week now? - are crying all the way to the bank when you tell them about the odds and how foolish they were to play.
Comments
May I robustly confirm that I am bothered by Tesco's and neighbours and judging from this site who isn't. As for the comma's I'm not aware of any requirment for formal punctuation on SG.org although I am aware that starting a sentence with a But is very bad form. Perhaps you are the chap who berated the owner of Home for using the wrong font on his N4 bags? If so you should know that Karmenz/K1 have misspelt Restaurant on their sandwich board.
As for that salad are we talking the pre-packed variety? I think 'foreign bodies' in these have even been reported in purchases from Sainsbury's, Waitrose et al. As for slugs they are masters of disguise aren't they? The way they assume the appearance of mixed leaves,it's enough to make you chop your own salad!
Tosscat my parking reference was in response to your earlier post on Woody's thread about '..people who drive to Tescos..' or somesuch phrase. Sorry to shoehorn it in to a different rant but you get the point I hope?
[Lucky there were not many other posts in the interim so your reply sits neatly in sequence]
@rainbow-carnage - Why would you buy something to wear without trying it on. Nobody walks down Oxford St. as there are quiet parallel routes to the north or south but the stores in Oxford St. also tend to have branches elsewhere - you can often find the locations online then visit a quieter spot [Westfield perhaps?] High St. Ken seems a bit frying pan/fire to me, just a different type of shopper,tourist, god-botherer.
Shall we get back to wondering about Woody's? - I might buy it and turn it into cinema, entrance by successful interview only.
Perhaps a touch cynical...
@rainbow_carnage
I work in the wild West End - nothing would induce me to battle my way down Oxford Street for shopping.
Brent Cross is a half hour jaunt on the 210 bus from Stroud Green. As long as you don't try to do anything mental like go there on a Saturday afternoon, you'll have a much better shopping experience. There's John Lewis and Waitrose, Fenwicks, an Apple shop to park accompanying men in (should you be foolhardy enough to bring them), stacks of fashion shops and is open 'til 8pm.
And if one is of the 'I can't possibly use the bus with my tribe of children, 10 pushchairs, oodles of bags and a dog' persuasion they have about 60 million parking spaces. And no god botherers!
Love it or hate it, you'll miss it when it's gone...
Why do people queue up at the cigarette counter to buy lottery tickets? You can buy lottery tickets anywhere and the price is the same.
In fact, why do people buy lottery tickets?
It's like betting on Hull to win the Premier League five years in a row.
So economists have struggled to understand why people do it.
Recent work more properly puts lottery tickets in the category of consumer purchase, equivalent to a mars bar or a cup of coffee.
The consumer isn't buying an investment. They're buying the right to daydream about a jackpot.
Which goes to prove that economists often struggle to operate in the world of real people.
I didn't mention that the salmon in my salmon and pasta salad was stuck to the salmon skin.
I think this proves Andy's point that it is a daydream that people are buying in to as most of these people don't have any expectation that they might recieve bonuses, or get huge pay rises, or wait for their parents to die and leave them money and a big house, or indeed earn lots of money for themselves.
Most of the regular punters play 3 lines a week making their yearly spend just over £150 per year.
In the days where there were decent interest rates on savings lottery punters would have made more on saving this money than they would have any chance of winning on the lottery (I can't bring myself to call it Lotto). Now that our glorious leaders have completely removed any incentive for people to save I guess that the lottery is as good a bet as anything else.
If you're not happy with savings rates, buy bonds.
The idea of making money without risk is what screwed the economy up in the first place.
As are most things that cost a pound. This is also true of mars bars, carrots and newspapers.
Result: lots of people lose their savings, their houses, their jobs. And the responsible parties get bailed out. Which incorporates a tax on stupidity but also factors in a tax on honesty.
Conversely, bobody loses more than however many quid they choose to spend per week on the lottery (and it does baffle me that some people buy more than one ticket per draw, because the increase in chances is so minimal - whereas going from no chance at all to 1/14m is a massive jump, and quite enough on which to pin a dream). And I'm sure the people who do win millions on it - and that's what, at least one person per week now? - are crying all the way to the bank when you tell them about the odds and how foolish they were to play.