onewheeldave

I work in a supermarket and yes I agree it's very stupid and makes us look pedantic and ridiculous sometimes. I've had to refuse people before and I've been threatened and abused over it which was pretty scary. However, we are CONSTANTLY having training on Think 25 and what the repercussions are of us selling alcohol that end up in the hands of a minor. I would lose my job, get a massive fine that I couldn't pay and I could even face prosecution. For me, it's really not worth the risk unfortunately so I'm super cautious. I agree though it's senseless.

 

This is not true. You could sell alcohol to a 70 year old with no child in sight, and they could go home and pass it on to a child- the seller could in no way be held responsible for that.

 

Supermarkets can't expect decent parents who simply wish to exercise their legal right to purchase alcohol, yet who happen to have their child with them during their shopping, to leave their child outside- which is exactly what this policy could lead to.

Hi all

 

I'm a 49 year old man and over the last 12 months or so I've noticed I get indigestion / acid reflux after bread be it white, brown, granary, etc. I tend to carry of strip of Rennies around with me but if I've run out I really suffer.

 

Firstly, anyone have any idea what this might be or have you experienced this yourself? I don't get bloated or flatulent (although my other half might beg to differ). I'm off to the GP later this week to discuss it with them. I'm trying to remove bread from my diet but I do love the stuff so it's going to be hard....... which leads me to my second question......

 

I love a sandwich at lunchtime - and it's this meal I'm going to find the most difficult to substitute with a non-bread alternative. A salad just isn't going to cut it for me. I'm not much of a foodie so can anyone suggest an alternative that might offer the chewiness of bread that I might eat with a bit of ham/tuna salad?

 

Actually, a third question, does this sound like I might have developed a gluten intolerance?

 

Thank all,

 

D

 

Yes, I have experience of this. Up till a few years ago I ate loads of bread- a loaf of wholemeal everyday, bread with most meals, loads of sandwiches etc.

 

As it was wholemeal I assumed it was healthy. But, it isn't, certainly not in those quantities.

 

I also started getting acid reflux, and noticed that it dissapeared when I cut bread down to 1 or 2 slices a day- I also lost weight when I cut the bread down.

 

I no longer regard bread as healthy (plants, vegetables, fruit, unprocessed foods are what I regard as healthy), but it is tasty and filling, so I continue to eat it, but make sure I've got a grip on the cravings and keep the amount of bread eaten low.

 

A useful tactic for lowering bread consumption is to switch to an unfamiliar form, eg, if you alway eat white bread, next time buy a wholemeal loaf- you'll eat less cos it's not your usual- though as time goes buy, you'll get to like it (cos you crave bread) so be aware that you don't want to end up eating as much wholemeal as white and keep an eye on the quantities.

 

Also, what I'm doing now is to eat mainly 'wraps' as opposed to loaves, by packing in absurdly large amounts of leaves/lettuce/chopped veg etc, etc. So even though I know the wraps aren't particularly healthy, it's offset by the fact that it enables me to eat large quantities of super-healthy plants/veg, and still enjoy the taste and filling nature of bread.

If it means realising that nicotine is a highly addictive and dangerous drug,then hopefully,yes.

 

It's certainly highly addictive, but not highly dangerous.

 

Cigarettes/pipes etc are clearly dangerous, due to the toxic compounds they contain but actual nicotine on it's own is fairly harmless.

Sorry, thought you were referring to actual warming.

The rate of change of CO2 isn't in dispute. It doesn't prove anything though.

Yes it is, are you claiming that we understand the climate system. It's blatantly obvious that we do not. We are constantly discovering new feedback processes which damp changes, in fact the rate at which we are discovering them appears to be increasing.

 

fair point

 

So, just to be clear- you accept that CO2 has risen dramatically, but you don't think there's real evidence that it's causing a temperature rise?

 

---------- Post added 19-09-2013 at 12:02 ----------

 

Already told you why but you keep ignoring the inconvenient facts.

 

I think he's with you on the rise in CO2 levels- when he's saying there's no change currently, I think he's refering to global temperature, not co2

 

The rate of change being currently zero?? Or are we going to ignore the inconvenient lack of change for the past 15 years?

 

Not sure if you're trolling here? You previously stated that changes like we're witnessing now have happened in the past. I mentioned angos's "change in atmospheric CO2 of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years but the recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 150 years which coincides with the burning of fossil fuels." (which has not happened in the past)

 

So I'm not sure why you're bring up a "lack of change for the past 15 years"?

 

You've certainly not addressed the point I was raising (and which angos also raised).

 

 

 

 

 

 

If we can't predict it, even in generalities, then how can we claim to understand any effect that we have introduced?

 

It's possible to understand a system, and be unable to predict it- like I said, chaotic systems are, even in principle, impossible to predict accurately. The example often given in connection with chaotic systems is that of the famous 'mandlebrot set'

 

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

 

which, despite being produced by a very simple formula and deterministic process, the status of any given point in that set cannot, even in principle, be predicted, without going through the process and actually producing that point.

The fact that it has constantly changed in the past (not just changed, it's never been stable) is sufficient. I don't need to explain the mechanism, the evidence is that such mechanisms exist.

 

But the person you're debating with clearly stated-

 

 

A natural change in atmospheric CO2 of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years but the recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 150 years which coincides with the burning of fossil fuels.

 

a rate of change which, presumably has not occured in the past. I say presumably, feel free to put forward arguments that it may have, but, in the absence of such arguments, you're going to have to address angos's point that this kind of change has not happened in the past.

 

 

 

You understand it so well, why don't you create a model and predict the climate for the next decade.

If you're model is accurate, then I'll accept everything you've been saying.

If on the other hand you struggle to predict the temperature next week and the average temperature next month, then I'll keep my current opinion.

Weather and climate over such a short period is impossible to predict even in principle- it's a chaotic system i.e. determined but effectively random.

 

It's the ones outside the cancer wards that get me.

 

Sat in a wheelchair and with the chemo drip in their arm and they still want to have a fag

 

That's because they are seriously ill/dying, deeply stressed and also happen to be nicotine addicts. For most people, when seriously ill/terminal, giving up smoking is unlikely to be a priority, as smoking is probably one of the few things they derive some form of comfort from.

has warp speed been invented??.. IE faster than light... see people use their eyes and ears you know!!.. anyone on the roads knows that unless you can see the road you dont do anything!!

 

---------- Post added 22-08-2013 at 13:56 ----------

 

 

They we talking about making cyclist wear helmet compulsory on the breakfast program this morning.

Personally i agree, its far to dangerous (for cyclists) on the roads these days.

 

The reason most cyclist advocacy groups oppose compulsory helmet requirements is that in every country where they've been brought in, cycling injuries rise.

 

The biggest factor in making roads safer for cyclists is high numbers of cyclists on the roads.

 

Compulsory helmet laws tend to decrease numbers of cyclists- hence making it less safe for the fewer remaining cyclists.

Women look revolting with tattoos as do men who's body is very nearly covered in them. I saw a bloke today covered in them his arms his legs he even had his name Kev tattooed on the back of his neck, why? I would love to see them when they are in their sixties and seventies.

 

http://loftyfiasco.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/what-are-you-going-to-do-about-your.html

 

I have to agree with you. Tattoos are a way of stereotyping yourself - in general a man with tattoos is saying "I'm a thug" and a woman with tattoos is saying "I'm a slapper". Neither is particularly postivie impression to make on other people, particularly employers.

 

Just as, in general, people who 'think' like that are saying "I'm an ignorant prejudiced bigot"?

 

If person 'x' automatically assumes a man is a thug, soley based on the fact that they have a tattoo, that says far more about person 'x' than it does the tattooed man.

Anybody know whether GKR Karate school is any good or does anyone have experience of this school as i would like to enrol my son in karate. Thanks in advance

 

Avoid GKR like the plague- they use pressure selling and will do their best to tie you in to a long contract with outrageous charges.

 

Numerous threads in the 'sports and activities' section on this board, and lots of other critical threads easily googled on the internet.

 

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=105959

 

Sheffield has lots of decent karate clubs which allow you to pay-as-you-go, no need whatseover to be signing up to binding contracts.

Thats not the point.If people create there own currency and stop using Pound sterling.All our economy would collapse.Maybe they want it to happen The new World order and all that

 

Maybe not a bad thing. If, for example, the our economy was actually a root cause of all our problems, it's collapse might not be a bad thing.

We're talking about people who if we give them our money for their housing if left to their own devices don't use it for that. I doubt they have even heard of the word stigmatised. If they can't be trusted to spend one benefit on what it is intended for what makes you think they become models of probity where other handouts are concerned?

 

I don't "think they become models of probity where other handouts are concerned?".

 

Why would you think that I do?

 

All I'm saying is-

 

Yet with housing, giving money direct to the landlord works really well and the tenants are happy about it and don't feel stigmatised.

 

There simply isn't an equivalent for food- all proposed systems seem to be based on vouchers and people aren't happy with that, and, do feel stigmatised.

It has clearly revealed an issue. Some benefit claimants are incapable of spending the money they are given on what it's intended for. So it would be foolish not to recognise that and reinstate direct payments to their landlords. However it would also be foolish to continue to give these people any cash benefits as they won't be any more able to manage them.

 

These people clearly cannot run their own lives, giving them cash is not helping them.

 

Yet with housing, giving money direct to the landlord works really well and the tenants are happy about it and don't feel stigmatised.

 

There simply isn't an equivalent for food- all proposed systems seem to be based on vouchers and people aren't happy with that, and, do feel stigmatised.

 

...So it would be foolish not to recognise that and reinstate direct payments to their landlords...

Yes, I agree completely

Under the last government. Governments change.

 

A system which lets the claimant make the call as to whether they can be responsible or not with all the money they are given seems preferable to one which is arbitrary in telling the feckless they are responsible when it comes to cash benefits and the sensible they are feckless when it comes to rent.

 

I'm just into systems that work- rent paid direct to landlords worked well- landlords were happy, tenants were happy- it worked. Now they've changed it and it doesn't work.

Why is there no stigma attached to being judged so irresponsible that you will use money provided to keep a roof over your head on other things, but there is a stigma attached to being judged so irresponsible that you'll waste money provided for essentials on booze, fags or drugs?

 

I don't know- there just is: though the stigma I was referring to was nothing to do with 'being judged so irresponsible that you'll waste money provided for essentials on booze, fags or drugs'- it was the stigma attached to having to use food vouchers to get your food.

 

 

Either they can manage the money we give them or not, they can't have it both ways.

 

Well they can- they obviously have for the past several years.

Which makes sense to me. What I don't understand is why paying money meant for housing direct is progressive but paying money meant for food and utilities in vouchers is regressive. A more sensible system would be to ask claimants if they want to be responsible for their money or not. If not then direct hb payments and vouchers, if they do then zero recourse to public funds if they fail to manage their money and get evicted/cut off/starve etc as a result.

 

Housing payments direct to the landlord are a well established system.

 

Food vouchers/utlities is new, so an issue there. And, there is a stigma attached to it. Then the genuine issues concerning where the vouchers can be used- people want to get their food from the establishments they choose (as opposed to 'participating stores'), whether it's cos it's cheaper, or, in their eyes, more ethical etc, etc.

 

IMO, they should leave things alone- direct payments for rent work well, so don't change what works for something that doesn't, and, let people get their food from where they want.

So because people in receipt of benefits are incapable(in these cases) of managing money, it's the Governments fault.

 

Yes. Prior to their policy change there wasn't a problem (as the money, sensibly, went straight to the landlords)- now there is a problem. Why make a problem where there didn't need to be one?

The Watchdog clips actually make you SIDE with the parking companies.

 

Really?

 

They may make you side with the 'parking companies', but, to many, they've just made it clear that the advise that's been given on the internet for the past few years to not pay, is true and legally valid.

 

A lot of the public are so accustomed to simply following the demands of anything that looks vaguely like an 'official' letter, especially if it's got the kind of (empty) threats that the pcn ones have, that they just fork out, however outragously out-of-proportion the penalty is.

 

When 'Watchdog' announces that the whole thing is a scam, and that the letters have no legal standing, then it frees up a lot of people from throwing money away needlessly.

I have never stated that naturists are "sicko's that is all in your imagination...

 

I've not said you did. If you disagree, then simply quote the post where you think you saw it.

 

 

 

...what I did say is that advertising the possibilty of under 18 year olds being there on the internet could attract that kind of person.

It is no secret that these people troll the internet for information and I stand by what I said that it could happen.

 

Personally, I'm not seeing why 'sickos' would go to a naturist swim. It's not like they're going to be able to get up to anything in a public swimming baths is it? And, if they did, like I said before, they'd presumably be escorted off the premises by some of the naturists there, or by the police.

 

 

As for you going on about naturists and my opinion show me one post where I have said there is anything wrong with naturism.

 

No. We've already established that you reject any of the answers I've tried to provide, so, I'm not going to waste my time writing more on that.

 

However, a quick look through my previous posts will show several of your quotes that I've selected, as, IMO, they indicate that you clearly find something wrong with naturism.

 

Clearly, your opinion is different to mine on that one, but, I have on those posts gone into detail about why, IMO, you have a problem with naturism.

 

 

 

 

 

 

As far as my post saying naturists like to see other people naked I think that is an unaviodable fact otherwise they would practice their pastime alone.

 

 

I'm sure they do go naked when alone. They also like to socialise, and, being naturists, where possible, they'd naturally be naked when doing so.

 

And, if one was to develop blindness, I'm pretty sure that they'd still, where possible, attend naturist meets- even though they can't see

 

Thing is, I've never denied that naturists like to see other naturists naked, with it being such a natural state to be in, plus, of course, as we live in a world where petty minded bigots take it upon themselves to remove the rights of people to be naked as far as they can, I imagine that those rare occasions where it is permitted, must be very pleasant.

 

Other groups who face such harse repression, would, similarly feel pleasure when they get a rare chance to relax with others who also enjoy that activity e.g. a cross dresser would find it pleasant to socialise with a group of other cross dressers- it's a chance for them to 'be themselves' in a world which unfairly condemns them as being deviant.

 

However, you:

 

I was with four beautiful women so yes I did enjoy it.

 

Well all I can think of is people prefer to swim naked to either look at or be looked at by others otherwise why not wear swimwear?

 

 

seem to be thinking of an altogether different type of pleasure. And you need to face up to the fact that naturists enjoy being with other naked people for entirely different reasons.

 

 

 

 

Having just seen your post above please highlight my prejudicial posts.

 

OK

 

I was with four beautiful women so yes I did enjoy it.

 

Well all I can think of is people prefer to swim naked to either look at or be looked at by others otherwise why not wear swimwear?

 

 

 

 

 

Well the way I see it is this advertised event stating under 18 year olds may be there and it is open to everyone gives the possibility of any sicko turning up....

I would have thought some kind of checked membership more suitable.

 

(you must be getting sick of seeing these by now )

 

 

 

 

 

Edit.

 

One simple question "why do people prefer to swim naked than in a swimsuit" and you go ranting about people being prejuciced.

 

No- one question then a steadfast refusal to take a perfectly good answer seriously, then a series of comments attempting to ridicule that sincere attempt at an answer, then a series of insinuations that the only possible motivation for people going naked in a group is to ogle naked bodies, in conjunction with a rather annoying habit of 'loopy' smilies whenever I attempt to clarify things for you etc, etc.

 

I've done my best to give you some insight as to why naturism is not, as you have said, soley about looking at other peoples naked bodies.

 

Surely we can agree on one thing- that there's no point in you and me further discussing this?

 

So, how about we accept that, and then come up with a mutually agreeable exit strategy from this thread, cos, I've come to the conclusion that our disagreement is not only not helping you or me, but, is also detrimental to this thread.

Voyeurism look it up.

Don't need to- it means people getting a kick out of watching other people being naked: the kind of thing that is utterly alien to practisiing naturists, but which, from your previous posts, seems to be the only reason you can conceive of for people choosing to be naked in a group-

 

 

I was with four beautiful women so yes I did enjoy it.

 

Well all I can think of is people prefer to swim naked to either look at or be looked at by others otherwise why not wear swimwear?

 

 

They're your posts- not mine.

 

What perversions are you speaking of here?

 

I wasn't- it was you who first mentioned 'sickos' in connection with this-

 

 

Well the way I see it is this advertised event stating under 18 year olds may be there and it is open to everyone gives the possibility of any sicko turning up....

I would have thought some kind of checked membership more suitable.

 

It might come as news to you, but many people, and probably all naturists, think of nudity as a perfectly natural thing, and don't associate it with 'sickos', or with whatever you got out of your swim when you were on about-

 

I was with four beautiful women so yes I did enjoy it.

 

 

 

Your rants are becoming more and more personal, be careful.

 

All I've done is try to answer your question (long since left that behind though ) asked you a couple of questions (no reply, so I've given up on that too), then just posted a few of your own quotes.

:loopy: (as you seem to like the smilies so much)

 

 

....be careful.

???

 

---------- Post added 24-02-2013 at 17:33 ----------

 

I hate to say I told you so, but …

 

Thanks for the tip To be honest, I suspected from the start that this person wasn't going to be taking any answers seriously.

 

While I'm not a naturist myself (England being a tad too cold IMO) I did long ago spend some time in a commune where nudity was the normal thing on hot days, and so know it's no big deal, and, perfectly natural.

 

So when I see threads being brought down by those who clearly do not see it as natural, clearly do not understand it, and yet insist on insinuating that it's somehow motivated by the grubbier aspects of human nature, I'm inclined to challenge that.

 

And IMO, there's no better way to challenge their prejudices, than by throwing their own words and implications back at them- in the hope they'll see how they sound to those of us who don't have issues with nudity.

 

Anyway it seems no naturists on this thread are either willing or capable of answering the question so best to leave it unanswered and move on although I suspect the person who is really posting for arguments sake will not do this.

 

They've probably decided there's no point entertaining you

 

It's clear from your own posts that the only reasons for nude swimming that you would take seriously are based on voyeurism or perversion

 

 

 

I was with four beautiful women so yes I did enjoy it.

 

Well all I can think of is people prefer to swim naked to either look at or be looked at by others otherwise why not wear swimwear?

 

 

Well the way I see it is this advertised event stating under 18 year olds may be there and it is open to everyone gives the possibility of any sicko turning up....

I would have thought some kind of checked membership more suitable.

 

Naturists have to face bigoted and prejudiced opinions all the time, I'm not surprised if they choose not to engage with people who come across as utterly incapable of seeing any reasons for naturism then those based on voyeurism or perversion.

Your using having a bath as a comparison to groups of people swimming naked in a swimming pool is at best a pathetic attempt.:roll:.

 

I never said I prefer to swim wearing swimwear.

 

Regarding your answer "because they like it":roll: no answer at all to the question.:hihi:.

 

You've had my answer- if you don't like it, fair enough.

You really are failing in your chance to promote this pastime to new people.

I'm not trying to promote it- it's the op's responsibility to promote their event.

 

---------- Post added 23-02-2013 at 23:07 ----------

 

So in your words people like to swim with no clothes because they are naturists and like being naked...A pretty bland answer.

 

You still fail to answer the question of why people prefer to swim naked rather than in swimwear.

 

We know they are naturists and we know they like it but the question is, WHY DO THEY LIKE IT AND PREFER IT?

 

What do they get from it that they could not get by wearing swimwear?

 

You really are failing in your chance to promote this pastime to new people.

'Bland' it may be, but, as you yourself have just admitted, it is an answer.

 

How about you now answer my questions?

 

 

Why do you not get that people who like being naked would want to swim without clothes.

 

What other possible motivation could they have, other than the fact that they like being naked?

 

(obviously there can be other reasons in addition to liking being naked, such as more political ones based around challenging the widespread public opposition to people choosing to not wear clothes etc).

 

After all, when you have a bath/shower, it would be perfectly feasable, would it not, for you to wear some swimwear? Yet you choose not to. Why?

 

Yet you then question why a group of naturists- people who by definition, prefer to not wear cloths when possible, given a choice between swimming in swimwear, or, swimming without swimwear, would choose the latter.

 

You could go along to events like this and swim naked. Why do you choose instead, to swim wearing swimwear?

Surely even you can see the difference between this event and the highlighted ones above.

The difference is that this event involves people without clothes. If that doesn't make it clear, then simply tag on an event involving swimming- say, a swimming meet. That's identical in every way to this event, with the exception of the clothing element.

 

Getting to your point- a standard swimming event does not require registered membership- so, why should this one, when the only difference is the absence of clothing?

 

 

That doesn't answer the question we all know they are naturists the question is why do they prefer to swim naked than with swimwear on what makes it a better experience for them?

 

You asked a question, and, my reply is an answer (one answer- others may have different answers).

 

Did you read the link?

 

It explains the various motivations of naturists-

 

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

 

if you do know what naturism is about, then it should pretty obvious that they like to swim naked because they like being naked.

 

I find it really bizarre that you're asking why people who like being naked, want to swim without clothes.

 

Why do you not get that people who like being naked would want to swim without clothes.

 

What other possible motivation could they have, other than the fact that they like being naked?

 

(obviously there can be other reasons in addition to liking being naked, such as more political ones based around challenging the widespread public opposition to people choosing to not wear clothes etc).