# Damm pushchairs



## Hallyfella (Mar 5, 2007)

Is it me getting older and becoming a grumpy or have i just not noticed these Damm stupid dick heads especially young mums who walk around town centres and supermarkets pushing these pushchairs that have been designed by some knob jockey sat behind a desk who has no idea of what narrow means! My point is why do these women(using the term loosly)think that they have the god given right to walk in front of me two or three abreast chatting away about what they can claim for and what bingo club they will be going to tonight when all i want to do is get to my pint of milk and get out of the shop. And when you say" excuse me can i get passed" they look at you like you have just stolen their giro and pissed on the baby in the chair! . And the worst ones are the ones who approach the edge of the road and hang half the pushchair into on coming trafffic expecting you to stop to allow them to cross without any thought for the safety of little chelsea or kai (stupid names) when there is a pedestrian crossing 20 metres away. Is it me? :x


----------



## episteme (Mar 30, 2006)

the stig said:


> Is it me getting older and becoming a grumpy or have i just not noticed these Damm stupid dick heads especially young mums who walk around town centres and supermarkets pushing these pushchairs that have been designed by some knob jockey sat behind a desk who has no idea of what narrow means! My point is why do these women(using the term loosly)think that they have the god given right to walk in front of me two or three abreast chatting away about what they can claim for and what bingo club they will be going to tonight when all i want to do is get to my pint of milk and get out of the shop. And when you say" excuse me can i get passed" they look at you like you have just stolen their giro and pissed on the baby in the chair! . And the worst ones are the ones who approach the edge of the road and hang half the pushchair into on coming trafffic expecting you to stop to allow them to cross without any thought for the safety of little chelsea or kai (stupid names) when there is a pedestrian crossing 20 metres away. Is it me? :x


No idea but it's not half as annoying as one fuck off huge paragraph which clearly could be broken down into at least two or more far more readable paragraphs where while we're on the subject of grammatical presentation the odd piece of punctuation wouldn't go amiss either this would make it far easier to read and not give the impression that this tl;dr rant hadn't just leaked from your head and onto my screen with no discernible thought inbetween the two events if you follow me


----------



## John C (Jul 5, 2002)

Since when do you punctuate a rant? It's a rant, think Vicky Pollard, one continuous splurge feels better than considered prose.


----------



## CamV6 (Oct 26, 2003)

episteme said:


> the stig said:
> 
> 
> > Is it me getting older and becoming a grumpy or have i just not noticed these Damm stupid dick heads especially young mums who walk around town centres and supermarkets pushing these pushchairs that have been designed by some knob jockey sat behind a desk who has no idea of what narrow means! My point is why do these women(using the term loosly)think that they have the god given right to walk in front of me two or three abreast chatting away about what they can claim for and what bingo club they will be going to tonight when all i want to do is get to my pint of milk and get out of the shop. And when you say" excuse me can i get passed" they look at you like you have just stolen their giro and pissed on the baby in the chair! . And the worst ones are the ones who approach the edge of the road and hang half the pushchair into on coming trafffic expecting you to stop to allow them to cross without any thought for the safety of little chelsea or kai (stupid names) when there is a pedestrian crossing 20 metres away. Is it me? :x
> ...


Hahahaha, that's fookin brilliant! He flamed your flame :lol: :lol:


----------



## episteme (Mar 30, 2006)

John C said:


> Since when do you punctuate a rant? It's a rant, think Vicky Pollard, one continuous splurge feels better than considered prose.


The purpose of a rant is not to obfuscate the subject matter, it is to suggest the vitriol attributed to it. Or to put it another way, bollocks to your theory that you can just throw away basic syntactical rules (oddly enough, they exist for a reason) when ever you feel like it.

Maybe this is the result of I reading Milton while you are _watching_ 'Pollard'.


----------



## Private Prozac (Jul 7, 2003)

episteme said:


> John C said:
> 
> 
> > Since when do you punctuate a rant? It's a rant, think Vicky Pollard, one continuous splurge feels better than considered prose.
> ...


 :lol:

Quality.


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

Maclaren Techno XT. 

Great turn in and balance.


----------



## John C (Jul 5, 2002)

episteme said:


> John C said:
> 
> 
> > Since when do you punctuate a rant? It's a rant, think Vicky Pollard, one continuous splurge feels better than considered prose.
> ...


lol :wink: I even took myself by surprise, usually I am a hideous pedant! But this time 'whateva'. I'll just sit here in Paradise and feel Lost. :wink:

@ Gary - changed days, the joy of kids.


----------



## Hallyfella (Mar 5, 2007)

No idea but it's not half as annoying as one fuck off huge paragraph which clearly could be broken down into at least two or more far more readable paragraphs where while we're on the subject of grammatical presentation the odd piece of punctuation wouldn't go amiss either this would make it far easier to read and not give the impression that this tl;dr rant hadn't just leaked from your head and onto my screen with no discernible thought inbetween the two events if you follow me[/quote]


----------



## mrs coope (Mar 24, 2007)

the stig said:


> And when you say" excuse me can i get passed" they look at you like you have just stolen their giro and pissed on the baby in the chair!


 :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## episteme (Mar 30, 2006)

the stig said:


> No idea but it's not half as annoying as one fuck off huge paragraph which clearly could be broken down into at least two or more far more readable paragraphs where while we're on the subject of grammatical presentation the odd piece of punctuation wouldn't go amiss either this would make it far easier to read and not give the impression that this tl;dr rant hadn't just leaked from your head and onto my screen with no discernible thought inbetween the two events if you follow me










[/quote]

Oh dear.

You see, the original version of your post where you simply put


> I'll consider myself slapped on the wrist and told off [smiley=oops.gif]


was much better (ignoring the vastly irritating emoticon) as it demonstrated clearly that you acknowledged your barely legible post was, well, barely legible.

Quite why you've now edited it and replaced it (I notice _still_ without managing to work out that you need an opening '[.quote]' to match the closing '[/quote]' - see, syntactical rules are quite useful) with the above picture, I'm really not sure. I'm glad you have, however, as if you actually read it, the way it has been written (seemingly by someone on an intellectual par with a unicellular organism) seems to suggest that you are the gentlemen with your head wedged firmly up your arse and this explains your problem with perspective; while this is indeed accurate, I'm assuming it wasn't quite the triumph of visual comedy you were hoping for.

My advice here would probably be this: if you're going to plagiarise someone else's "gag" as you're incapable of creating your own, make sure it makes a) sense, b) your intended point and c) you not look like an idiot.

Rats. Barrel. Etc.


----------



## Hallyfella (Mar 5, 2007)

[smiley=zzz.gif]


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

John C said:


> episteme said:
> 
> 
> > John C said:
> ...


 :wink:

I thought we were gonna talk about prams , not throw our toys out of them. :lol:


----------



## episteme (Mar 30, 2006)

the stig said:


> [smiley=zzz.gif]


Aha, we have hit stage 3: "I'm being completely owned so I shall now go for the I'm above this/I am bored" approach.

This entire thread should be in a wiki under YHBT, haha.


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

episteme said:


> the stig said:
> 
> 
> > [smiley=zzz.gif]
> ...


"Owned."

How very American.


----------



## episteme (Mar 30, 2006)

garyc said:


> episteme said:
> 
> 
> > the stig said:
> ...


How very _internet_. (I assumed pwned would be too obscure)


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

episteme said:


> garyc said:
> 
> 
> > episteme said:
> ...


Correct assumption.


----------



## Hev (Feb 26, 2005)

Bloody hell............. who gives a dam about _how_ it was written, surely the point came across :?

As for emoticons, all too often comments are taken in the opposite way they were intended, a picture says a thousand words!

Hev x


----------



## episteme (Mar 30, 2006)

Hev said:


> Bloody hell............. who gives a dam about _how_ it was written, surely the point came across :?
> 
> As for emoticons, all too often comments are taken in the opposite way they were intended, a picture says a thousand words!
> 
> Hev x


Hypothetically, then, I'm assuming you wouldn't object to abolishing proper written English altogether and replacing it with 'text speak'?

i dun fink u wud lyk dat 2 much u no lol.

Ah, emoticons! Yes, who needs the myriad of descriptive words in the English language, let's replace them with ambiguous yellow faces! Let's check out how easily I can give an abridged discussion on, say, Kant's rebuttal of Hume's dumbshit views on empiricism:

[smiley=thumbsdown.gif] *(Kant thinks Hume's ideas on empiricism are a bunch of crap - he's right )*

[smiley=idea.gif] *(Kant thinks empiricism isn't intrinsically linked with knowledge - you can know stuff without observing it)*

[smiley=freak.gif] *(Kant coins the term "transcendental idealism" - this mantra is very popular with (semi-smart) ugly fat girls, as they can quickly refer you to Kant's theory following your drunken insult, essentially claiming they DON'T ACTUALLY deserve to be harpooned, it just APPEARS that way to you)*

[smiley=behead2.gif] *(Kant realises he's just given free licence to a bunch of fatties to be so, and decapitates himself. Ok, that didn't actually happen, but I wish it had.)*

Conclusion: You're right, you can indeed replace the English language with emoticons. Well done.


----------



## episteme (Mar 30, 2006)

garyc said:


> episteme said:
> 
> 
> > garyc said:
> ...


http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Pwn (VNSFW)


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

episteme said:


> garyc said:
> 
> 
> > episteme said:
> ...


<<A euphemism for "I am a raging Internet ****** who has forever lost the ability to communicate with humans.">>

Fair enough. :wink:

Anyway, who _owns_ a nice pram?


----------



## episteme (Mar 30, 2006)

garyc said:


> http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Pwn (VNSFW)
> 
> <<A euphemism for "I am a raging Internet ****** who has forever lost the ability to communicate with humans.">>
> 
> Fair enough. :wink:


http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Irony :wink:



garyc said:


> Anyway, who _owns_ a nice pram?


Huh?


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

Soz, i forgot, you have yet to make a post on this thread that is vaguely connected with the subject matter of the original post. I think in _internet speak_ that means you are Off Topic. Have you been owned? :wink:


----------



## episteme (Mar 30, 2006)

garyc said:


> Soz, i forgot, you have yet to make a post on this thread that is vaguely connected with the subject matter of the original post. I think in _internet speak_ that means you are Off Topic. Have you been owned?


Subject matter? What? Maybe you need to also look up what the "tl;dr" means; clearly present in my initial response. If I didn't read it, how would I know what it was about? I'm sensing a pattern here, so link: http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/TLDR - While you're reading that, I'll read the post so I understand your razor wit better.

I've now read it in its entirety (and now have a headache). Right, I get it, something about prams. Even armed with this new information, that still doesn't explain how "Anyway, who _owns_ a pram then?" really suggests being off topic. Fuck it, I'll humour you, "HAHAHAH VERY GUD!!".

Jamie wishes people would read things properly so they don't make arses of themselves.


----------



## Hev (Feb 26, 2005)

FFS!


----------



## episteme (Mar 30, 2006)

Hev said:


> FFS!


LOL! (go go initialism war!)


----------



## marko (Feb 27, 2006)

Looks like we have an amateur academic on the forum. Kant indeed!

It will be Foucault next.


----------



## episteme (Mar 30, 2006)

marko said:


> Looks like we have an amateur academic on the forum. Kant indeed!
> 
> It will be Foucault next.


Kant hardly qualifies as a foray into academia.

Foucault sucks, had you said Deleuze, that may have produced a smile.


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

episteme said:


> garyc said:
> 
> 
> > Soz, i forgot, you have yet to make a post on this thread that is vaguely connected with the subject matter of the original post. I think in _internet speak_ that means you are Off Topic. Have you been owned?
> ...


You obviously have a very short attention span then. The subject matter was clearly the thread title "Damned Pushchairs". Probably confused you a little. The title was, after all, rather long. Understandable. It was also in plain English . Most others seemes to haved grasped it.

You may choose live your virtual life via an on line dictionary of interesting acronyms. I don't need to look up anything. Touchy kid. :roll:


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

marko said:


> Looks like we have an amateur academic on the forum. Kant indeed!
> 
> It will be Foucault next.


Or Fuckwit even. :wink:


----------



## episteme (Mar 30, 2006)

garyc said:


> episteme said:
> 
> 
> > garyc said:
> ...


Actually it was "Damm [sic] pushchairs" which rather nullifies your whole point about short attention spans and being confused with long titles. Oops on your part. Anyway, let's not split hairs.

You also seem to claim that from the subject line of "damm pushchairs" I'm supposed to draw some sort of conclusion as to the purpose of the post. I know, I'll post a thread in the main forum entitled "damm car" and let's see how enlightened people are by that. Ambiguous is under "A".

Moving to the latter half of your latest post, I knew you'd crack eventually and bring out the"OMG IF U WERENT SUCH AN INTERNET NERD..." aka "I've actually realised I have no valid point in any of my retorts" stage; it is flame stage 4. You also contradict yourself spectacularly by berating me for using "interesting acronyms" (it's not an acronym, it's an initialism; I'll forgive you that one, common mistake) which you evidently don't need to look up, but yet berate me for not reading someone's post (_had _you looked up tl;dr you would have known in the first place I hadn't read it, and saved yourself all the bother of your moot point).

Oh, and nice touch with "kid"; a textbook attempt at someone clearly not in the ascension, trying to be condescending. Quite why you think I'm "touchy" I'm not sure.

I am now off to the pub to discuss the merits of private education with my peers and have The Girl ferry me guiness. TTFN (you can't claim that one is geeky, Tigger coined it)


----------



## foojeek (Nov 22, 2004)

episteme lots, original poster ( way too bored to look this up now) minus lots.

Dont really care either way but a mildly amusing way to spend losing a few minutes waiting for the kids..

ambivilance rules

actually i'm not sure it was worth the time.


----------



## foojeek (Nov 22, 2004)

Oh yes almost forgot; I hated buggies/pushchairs/strollers too untill my little darlings were born.

Then I still hated them.

Still hate them now.


----------



## Hallyfella (Mar 5, 2007)

garyc said:


> marko said:
> 
> 
> > Looks like we have an amateur academic on the forum. Kant indeed!
> ...


Ok ive got to agree with you but the more we all rise to this form of dross we become the same as him!! lets move on and forgive him for being a KNOB JOCKEY! see ive lowered myself again. But not as low as him! :roll:


----------



## Yodah (Sep 26, 2005)

And I hate kids in roller blades too, especially in super markets :evil:


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

episteme said:


> garyc said:
> 
> 
> > episteme said:
> ...


You have peers Mr Logic? I bet Bamber Gascoigne is good fun after a few scoops.

Your youthful verbosity is charming. Sweet even. But at least you now admit that the title of the thread was confusing to you. It does appear that you were the only one that struggled with the underlying meaning and possible subject tbd.

To most bar the borderline aspergic, acronyms and initialisms are considered one and the same. Even in your beloved online dictionaries.

So, ai.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr_Logic


----------



## episteme (Mar 30, 2006)

garyc said:


> episteme said:
> 
> 
> > garyc said:
> ...


2:48am: Now that's dedication, I'm impressed! (I'm not being sarcastic in this instance)

Firstly, I don't recall saying the title of the thread was in anyway confusing; maybe you could point me to that? I _did_ say it was ambiguous, that's not quite the same thing. (you see, that's the reason we have different words for things in the English language - not all the words mean the same thing)

On a related second point, I would somewhat beg to differ that an acronym and an initialism are the 'same thing'. The term acronym is commonly (and wrongly) used as a catch all term (as I said previously, a common mistake) but the fundamental difference between the two is that an acronym can be enunciated in a phonetically plausible manner; To use to rather apt examples "LOL" as in "LOL YOUR [sic] AN IDIOT" would be considered an acronym, where as "YHBT" as in "WHEN WILL YOU REALISE YHBT??" is an initialism; i.e. it is impossible to enunciate. You see, it's quite simple really. If that was hard to grasp though, God help you should you ever encounter a recursive acronym (such as GNU)

Anyway, who am I kidding? No doubt all of the above is wasted as I would imagine you are someone who would equally argue that an ellipsis (...) is actually the same thing as three full stops (it isn't, for future reference, but I can see how the ill-educated could reason so). "YEA BUT IT IS!! ITS 3 FULL STOPS U MORNON CANT U REED??!!!!!" Yes dear, it's three full stops.

Thirdly, I don't believe I've referred you to any 'online dictionaries' so why they are "mine" I don't know. I've referred you to a (fairly obviously) tongue in cheek encyclopedia of all things _internet_, if that's what you're referring to, although evidently that has whistled over your head. I didn't actually mean the internet to become the point of reference for all your grammatical needs. I would be extremely wary gaining an education using Google, as you will quickly (as is being demonstrated) be humiliated and lambasted by people like me.
*
Jamie's pro tip: Find your intellectual plateau and attempt to argue with someone on that.*

Finally, re: the 'aspergic' comment, I wouldn't say that's true. Border line _acerbic_ maybe. (although I wouldn't consider myself border line)


----------



## episteme (Mar 30, 2006)

foojeek said:


> episteme lots, original poster ( way too bored to look this up now) minus lots.
> 
> Dont really care either way but a mildly amusing way to spend losing a few minutes waiting for the kids..
> 
> ...


Ambivalence does indeed rule, well said sir. Gladly, so does ignorance, stupidity and aliteracy meaning a world of amusement for me.

And yes you're right, it's never worth my time, but it it's most certainly worth the company's. Heh. (that's not an acronym or an initialism gary c)


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

episteme said:


> foojeek said:
> 
> 
> > episteme lots, original poster ( way too bored to look this up now) minus lots.
> ...


And neither is 'twat', Mr Logic.


----------



## episteme (Mar 30, 2006)

garyc said:


> episteme said:
> 
> 
> > foojeek said:
> ...


Aha, a startling return to form. Come on dude, you didn't too badly in your penultimate post, chin up!


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

Good, that's encouraging. Was looking for an intellectual plateau.


----------



## John C (Jul 5, 2002)

Yes, yes, yes, this is all very well, however, if we were all down the pub Brett would still talk us all into submission.

IMHO.

Come to think of it I can actually say IMHO. I sound like a Navajo Indian calling his favourite horse, however, it can be said. Does this make it an acronym or an initialism?

Hrmmmmm? Oh, now what's 'Hrmmmmm' called?

Help me sages, please help...


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

Doubtless Mr Logic will dig deep into his verbage and oblige.

Do you mind being 'owned'? :wink:


----------



## John C (Jul 5, 2002)

Love it, whip me baby, whip me...

:wink:


----------



## episteme (Mar 30, 2006)

John C said:


> Come to think of it I can actually say IMHO. I sound like a Navajo Indian calling his favourite horse, however, it can be said. Does this make it an acronym or an initialism?


Which part of:



episteme said:


> ...but the fundamental difference between the two is that an acronym can be enunciated in a *phonetically plausible *manner


was confusing? You'd just have to swing the next argument debating if sounding like an Navajo Indian is phonetically plausible or not. (to people other than Navajo Indians.)



> Hrmmmmm? Oh, now what's 'Hrmmmmm' called?


A verbal mannerism, since you ask.


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

...I think the question was possibly posed for rhetorical effect, rather than to receive an answer.


----------



## episteme (Mar 30, 2006)

garyc said:


> ...I think the question was possibly posed for rhetorical effect, rather than to receive an answer.





garyc said:


> ...I think the question was possibly posed for rhetorical effect, rather than to receive an answer.


You thought I wouldn't answer them? Now, where's the fun in that?

Those questions are posed for 'rhetorical effect' (maybe you mean 'for the purpose of rhetoric') by the way; so I shall be surprised at any reply.


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

episteme said:


> garyc said:
> 
> 
> > ...I think the question was possibly posed for rhetorical effect, rather than to receive an answer.
> ...


No. Wrong. Maybe you should have checked first? You usually do. Tut tut.

Rhetorical:
1 a: of, relating to, or concerned with rhetoric b: employed for rhetorical effect; especially : asked merely for effect with no answer expected

Oh, and in case you were considering dazzling us with your knowledge of the sophists, I wouldn't bother.


----------



## John C (Jul 5, 2002)

episteme said:


> Which part of:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


None of it, all perfectly clear thanks, but Gary was right. It was retorical.



episteme said:


> You'd just have to swing the next argument debating if sounding like an Navajo Indian is phonetically plausible or not. (to people other than Navajo Indians.)


With a Scottish accent? Tricky!



episteme said:


> > Hrmmmmm? Oh, now what's 'Hrmmmmm' called?
> 
> 
> A verbal mannerism, since you ask.


Learn something new every day. So would 'Herrrrrrrrr' be a verbal womanerism?



episteme said:


> You thought I wouldn't answer them? Now, where's the fun in that?


Exactly, when we're in here being cunning linguists we're not out breaking windows and starting fires.



garyc said:


> Oh, and in case you were considering dazzling us with your knowledge of the sophists, I wouldn't bother.


Ahhh well, the sophistry in this thread is oozing out of every post!

Who's next?


----------



## episteme (Mar 30, 2006)

garyc said:


> episteme said:
> 
> 
> > garyc said:
> ...


Once again the argument in favour of state schools falls flat on its face.

There is a reason that grammar isn't taught from dictionaries and you have just highlighted it. Do not make the mistake of "because it's published somewhere, it must be correct". There are a world of publications which contain horrendous grammatical (and indeed factual) errors. Admittedly overlooked by most but that's more down to one's level of education. However, that can not be held against you I suppose, so for the purposes of lucidity I shall explain.

The word "rhetorical" in itself implies that is effectual, bearing mind it is an adjective derived from the noun "rhetoric". It can be used to describe something (such as a question), i.e. a question possessing the property of rhetoric, but using it to qualify an "effect" is similar to saying something like "it's the butterfly effect effect". The effect it has is intrinsic to its meaning and therefore the qualification of it having an effect is not required.

As for the Sophists, blah. Greek literature, all wars and homos. (My somewhat coarse but accurate review of didn't go down too well in Classics as I recall; girls found it funny though...)


----------



## episteme (Mar 30, 2006)

John C said:


> Learn something new every day. So would 'Herrrrrrrrr' be a verbal womanerism?


That shouldn't have made me laugh, it was awful.


----------



## digimeisTTer (Apr 27, 2004)

I only speak basic English

FUCK OFF YOU TWAT!

Hijacking someone's thread to prove what a monumental grasp of the English language you have - bravo - Pencildick!


----------



## episteme (Mar 30, 2006)

digimeisTTer said:


> I only speak basic English
> 
> FUCK OFF YOU TWAT!
> 
> Hijacking someone's thread to prove what a monumental grasp of the English language you have - bravo - Pencildick!


So, you've now hijacked the thread for the purpose of berating me for hijacking it; that's any weight your "point" may have carried lost.

In fact, I didn't hijack anyone's thread. I posted the first reply in it and left it at that (notably until the silly sausage made a poor attempt at being funny). That hardly qualifies as a "hijacking". You see, if people had the attitude of "ooooh i feel so edified!!! OMG THX EPISTMET!!!" none of this would ever happen.


----------



## John C (Jul 5, 2002)

episteme said:


> John C said:
> 
> 
> > Learn something new every day. So would 'Herrrrrrrrr' be a verbal womanerism?
> ...


<drum roll, symbol crash>

I thank you very much...


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

episteme said:


> garyc said:
> 
> 
> > episteme said:
> ...


Quite.


----------



## GRANNY (Jun 18, 2002)

For the flame room there are some flippin posh word's knockin about.
Or to put it another way," Bugger Me".
Flame Room's goin posh. [smiley=end.gif]


----------



## GRANNY (Jun 18, 2002)

Just to put this thread back on track.
My daughter is after a new pushchair for the twins.
Have you seen the width of those bugger's the tandem ones arnt so bad but the side by side ones, you cant get them through most shop doors.
Then you get shopkeepers saying to mothers, please could you leave your pram outside!!! Yes of course you can but dont expect it to be there when you go back out.


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

...double decker?

BTW the Posh One knows bugger all about prams. :wink:


----------



## Yodah (Sep 26, 2005)

GRANNY said:


> Just to put this thread back on track.
> My daughter is after a new pushchair for the twins.
> Have you seen the width of those bugger's the tandem ones arnt so bad but the side by side ones, you cant get them through most shop doors.
> Then you get shopkeepers saying to mothers, please could you leave your pram outside!!! Yes of course you can but dont expect it to be there when you go back out.


Good evening Gandma, puschair you want? Mothercare you need to visit, hm-hm


----------



## John C (Jul 5, 2002)

Annoying syntax he has.


----------



## cuTTsy (Jan 31, 2003)

GRANNY said:


> Just to put this thread back on track.
> My daughter is after a new pushchair for the twins.
> Have you seen the width of those bugger's the tandem ones arnt so bad but the side by side ones, you cant get them through most shop doors.
> Then you get shopkeepers saying to mothers, please could you leave your pram outside!!! Yes of course you can but dont expect it to be there when you go back out.


This is what you need


----------



## GRANNY (Jun 18, 2002)

Hi custty, and thanks for the info.
We went to look at the phil & ted pushchair at mothercare yesterday.
My daughter already has a Jane power twin tandem, but hers is the complete package i.e baby car seats, pushchair,etc, now the girls have got to big for the 1st size car seats, she wondered wether to sell the whole lot and just get a twin pushchair or not. Anyway we test drove the p&t but didnt really like the idea of the back baby not being able to see anything.
She (daughter) has now decided to listen to mother ,for once, and keep the Power Jane. then sell it later.
The only thing i dont like about both of these 2 prams is they both have soft tyres. We have allready had 2 punctures. I wondered about getting some of that tyre inflater foam.


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

...room for a space-saver? Or just join RAC and call them out if you get a flat. :wink:


----------



## cuTTsy (Jan 31, 2003)

GRANNY said:


> Hi custty, and thanks for the info.
> We went to look at the phil & ted pushchair at mothercare yesterday.
> My daughter already has a Jane power twin tandem, but hers is the complete package i.e baby car seats, pushchair,etc, now the girls have got to big for the 1st size car seats, she wondered wether to sell the whole lot and just get a twin pushchair or not. Anyway we test drove the p&t but didnt really like the idea of the back baby not being able to see anything.
> She (daughter) has now decided to listen to mother ,for once, and keep the Power Jane. then sell it later.
> The only thing i dont like about both of these 2 prams is they both have soft tyres. We have allready had 2 punctures. I wondered about getting some of that tyre inflater foam.


No problem, we are expecting our first anytime now, It's amazing how you can become informed about something only nine months ago I had no interest in at all. We ended up with a Quinny all in one system similar to the Jane. The P&T seem like a good investment if you are having two quickly... (The buggy cost more than my first car :roll: now there's a flame on its own).


----------



## Carlos (May 6, 2002)

Episteme. Episteme.

It sounds familiar.

Isn't it related to women and childbirth - you know, "put an extra stitch in for me Doctor"?

Or am I getting mixed up?


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

Carlos said:


> Episteme. Episteme.
> 
> It sounds familiar.
> 
> ...


Pray don't arouse the forum's hosted sleeping intellectual leviathan Carl. You will only get 'owned' (n.b. this is not an Americanism, it is an internetism, 'cos they are quite different) in a quite aspergic fashion. I know. :wink:


----------



## digimeisTTer (Apr 27, 2004)

garyc said:


> Pray don't arouse the forum's hosted sleeping intellectual leviathan


Indeed, or put another way, the forum member you'd least like to invite to a dinner party, i bet he's a scream in real life :roll:


----------



## Hallyfella (Mar 5, 2007)

Do you ever get the feeling that sometimes you wish that you had kept it all to yourself!! :roll:


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

the stig said:


> Do you ever get the feeling that sometimes you wish that you had kept it all to yourself!! :roll:


Well perhaps you should have thought of that, _before_ you made that, oh-so-hard-to-understand' (Epi may prefer to use terms 'oblique' and 'ambiguous') first post regarding pushchairs.

:wink:


----------



## WozzaTT (Jan 15, 2006)

Carlos said:


> Episteme. Episteme.
> 
> It sounds familiar.
> 
> ...


Pissy-Teen I used to call him when he first appeared on the forum months ago. Quite fitting I thought.

I have to admit I quite like him - he's entertaining at least.


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

He is sometimes amusing and almost interesting (ai). :wink:

As is:

_<<Mr Logic is a character in Viz magazine who is humourless, friendless and emotionless. He takes everything said to him totally literally and is entirely unaware of what is intended when a metaphorical statement is made. He also is unable to understand puns, for example he reads a joke from a christmas cracker which says 'what is the differance between a buffalo and a bison? (you can't wash your hands in a buffalo)', to which he replies 'you can't wash your hands in a bison either'. *His only purpose in life is to correct people in their grammar, knowledge or intention when they speak*, often resulting in a violent reaction.

Here is an example; Mr Logic is in charge of the till at the local off-licence (liquor store):

Armed Robber: No nonsense. Just give me all your money.

Mr Logic: I shall commence by pointing out to you that my demeanour is not one which could be described as nonsensical. Consequently I can attest you have no cause to reprimand me on your first point. On to your second point: Bearing in mind the potentially lethal situation in which I find myself, to wit: your presence in conjunction with the presumably loaded firearm which is presently levelled at my cranium, I will comply with your request comprehensively, albeit reluctantly. Here, twenty-seven pence.

Armed Robber: Twenty-seven pence? Fuck off. There's more than that in the till.

Mr Logic: Indeed, undoubtedly so. However your request was for *my* money. The currency in the till belongs to a third party and is therefore not "my money". However, if you are still desirous of said money I would suggest that you re-phrase your original statement to recognise and incorporate this important distinction.

In a similar episode, Mr Logic visits a post office and asks if they sell postage stamps. When the woman working there answers, "Of course, how many would you like?", Mr Logic corrects her by informing her that he only wants to know if they sell stamps, and that a purchase does not have to follow. He then proceeds with telling her that he does "at present require a First Class stamp."

In another episode Mr Logic was onboard a flight where the Captain announced that "If you look out of the window to your left, the Swiss Alps are below us." Mr Logic responded by pressing the attendant call button and informing the stewardess that "The physical presence (or indeed absence) of a mountain range does not ipso facto depend on whether or not one looks out of the window." As a result, the pilot jumps out of the plane rather than having Mr Logic point out another inaccuracy in his words.

He lives at the Fulchester Community Housing For The Differently Tempered, and has had various housemates, all of whom have had severe anger management problems. For instance, one of his housemates threatened to "break every bone in [his] body", causing Mr. Logic to point out that given the number of bones in the Human body, it would be impossible for the housemate to carry out his threat. The housemate then proceeded to prove him wrong. Another strip saw him go on a date with one of the female residents of the facility. Inevitably Mr. Logic managed to set her violent tendencies off with his behaviour, resulting in her murdering him (though it wasn't the first or last time he was killed at the end of a strip).

Mr. Logic was inspired by Chris Donald's own brother, Steve, who was much later diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome. His first name was also given as Steven in an early strip, though it later changed to Lawrence_.>>

Familiar?


----------



## John C (Jul 5, 2002)

Or perhaps to put more succinctly, and to use the words of the well known literary genius character 'Boss Hogg' from 80s 'Drama' <cough> Dukes of Hazard...

"Speak English Boy!"


----------



## spain (May 28, 2005)

Funny thread though, even if it did go a bit off track for no reason whatsoever - well thatÂ´s a lie, it was Mr Logic.

Anyway, prams are really a pain in the arse.


----------



## episteme (Mar 30, 2006)

John C said:


> Annoying syntax he has.


Haha, that's two out of two.


----------



## episteme (Mar 30, 2006)

garyc said:


> the stig said:
> 
> 
> > Do you ever get the feeling that sometimes you wish that you had kept it all to yourself!! :roll:
> ...


No "Epi" wouldn't as neither of those words are suitable words to describe something "oh-so-hard-to-understand". 

Fail.


----------



## episteme (Mar 30, 2006)

Carlos said:


> Episteme. Episteme.
> 
> It sounds familiar.
> 
> ...


Oddly enough, I'm not surprised that you'd struggle with the word "episteme" considering its meaning.


----------



## episteme (Mar 30, 2006)

garyc said:


> He is sometimes amusing and almost interesting (ai). :wink:
> 
> As is:
> 
> *His only purpose in life is to correct people in their grammar, knowledge or intention when they speak*, often resulting in a violent reaction.












I live with constant optimism that my berating people may, MAY, spur them to better themselves.

While this may sound somewhat arrogant, rest assured I'm not arrogant, I'm just better.


----------



## Widget (May 7, 2002)

episteme said:


> While this may sound somewhat arrogant, rest assured I'm not arrogant, I'm just better.


Brilliant.


----------



## digimeisTTer (Apr 27, 2004)

episteme said:


> I live with constant optimism that my berating people may, MAY, spur them to better themselves.
> 
> While this may sound somewhat arrogant, rest assured I'm not arrogant, I'm just better.


Define better


----------



## episteme (Mar 30, 2006)

digimeisTTer said:


> episteme said:
> 
> 
> > I live with constant optimism that my berating people may, MAY, spur them to better themselves.
> ...


Me.


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

Delusions of adequacy.


----------



## spain (May 28, 2005)

Is this still going on?Â¿ What happened to the thread?

Episteme, if you are better than everyone else maybe you shouldnÂ´t rise to the bait in the first place?


----------



## John C (Jul 5, 2002)

episteme said:


> John C said:
> 
> 
> > Annoying syntax he has.
> ...


Â£10 per chuckle, that's Â£20 please, double if your better...


----------



## episteme (Mar 30, 2006)

spain said:


> Is this still going on?Â¿ What happened to the thread?
> 
> Episteme, if you are better than everyone else maybe you shouldnÂ´t rise to the bait in the first place?


Uh, I think you may be missing...


----------



## Hallyfella (Mar 5, 2007)

Ok lets stop now its getting boring!! :roll:


----------



## episteme (Mar 30, 2006)

the stig said:


> Ok lets stop now its getting boring!! :roll:


OMG OP!!!!!!!!!!111111ELEVEN - it's quite amusing that you've probably said the least in what is your own thread.


----------



## Hallyfella (Mar 5, 2007)

episteme said:


> the stig said:
> 
> 
> > Ok lets stop now its getting boring!! :roll:
> ...


 [smiley=zzz.gif] [smiley=zzz.gif] [smiley=zzz.gif] [smiley=zzz.gif]


----------



## nilanth (Mar 30, 2007)

I just want to say thank you to all you were involved in the post. It kept me amused for a good 40 minutes aat work....fucking quality laff!!!


----------



## episteme (Mar 30, 2006)

nilanth said:


> I just want to say thank you to all you were involved in the post. It kept me amused for a good 40 minutes aat work....fucking quality laff!!!


Haha, that is indeed what it's all about sir!


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

digimeisTTer said:


> episteme said:
> 
> 
> > I live with constant optimism that my berating people may, MAY, spur them to better themselves.
> ...


Were Epi's English better he would have course have written 'better _than... _blah blah' (inserting some vague construct or concept that had meandered across the limited landscape of his mind)

Maybe he is just 'better', as in no longer ill. Although I don't think Asperger's clears up that easily.

One is for sure - he knows fuck all about prams. :lol:


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

nilanth said:


> I just want to say thank you to all you were involved in the post. It kept me amused for a good 40 minutes aat work....fucking quality laff!!!


Quite surprised that the ever-vigilant Epi allowed your mistakes to pass him by, without ticking you off. (or as to use his style, firming lambasting you and and berating your poor grammar as an indictment of your low intellect)

:wink:


----------



## GhosTTy (Oct 10, 2007)

episteme said:


> nilanth said:
> 
> 
> > I just want to say thank you to all you were involved in the post. It kept me amused for a good 40 minutes aat work....fucking quality laff!!!
> ...


episteme - Your bullshit prose is about as interesting as searching for a dropped stitch in a half-knitted pullover. Yawn.


----------

