On Sun, 08 Sep 2013 11:20:40 +0200, Martin wrote:

I was also at Tesco the other day, and I saw a dog licking his
privates. I said to his owner "I wish I could do that"
The owner said "Give him one of Davids biscuits and he will let
you"

I didn't know they let dogs into Tesco.

English isn't your first langauge. "I was also at Tesco ..." not "I
was also in Tesco ..."

Only into the butchery department?

Shh, back door only and at night.

Seeing dogs for the blind are probably admitted, they quite often are
where other dogs are banned.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 08/09/2013 11:01, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sun, 08 Sep 2013 11:20:40 +0200, Martin wrote:

I was also at Tesco the other day, and I saw a dog licking his
privates. I said to his owner "I wish I could do that"
The owner said "Give him one of Davids biscuits and he will let
you"

I didn't know they let dogs into Tesco.

English isn't your first langauge. "I was also at Tesco ..." not "I
was also in Tesco ..."

Only into the butchery department?

Shh, back door only and at night.

Seeing dogs for the blind are probably admitted, they quite often are
where other dogs are banned.

I really don't know what you are blathering about.
I suspect from your reply that English is more my first language than it
is yours.
"I was at Tesco" says I was at the site of their store, car park and
all, "In Tesco" says I was inside the store.
As for Seeing dogs, I have to assume that you are talking about dogs
that help those with impaired vision, at least you didn't refer to them
as "Blind" dogs.
In the UK we have Guide dogs for the blind,.
In the US of A they have Seeing Eye Dogs.

On Sun, 08 Sep 2013 11:37:32 +0100, David Hill wrote:

I really don't know what you are blathering about.
I suspect from your reply that English is more my first language than it
is yours. "I was at Tesco" says I was at the site of their store, car
park and all, "In Tesco" says I was inside the store.

Precisely. The comment "I didn't know they let dogs into Tesco." is
not accurate when the orginal statement is "I was at Tesco ...". The
latter could be inside the store but equally outside, it is not
specific.

As for Seeing dogs, I have to assume that you are talking about dogs
that help those with impaired vision, at least you didn't refer to them
as "Blind" dogs.
In the UK we have Guide dogs for the blind,.

I sit corrected I thought they had been "rebranded" a number of years
ago.

We are both half wrong from their website "Guide Dogs is a working
name of The Guide Dogs for the Blind Association."
--
Cheers
Dave.

Are you going to 'sit corrected' about the spelling in the Subject heading?
;-)

It's a wonder none of the experts have picked it up, or have they and I have
missed it?

Mike






"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ll.co.uk...

On Sun, 08 Sep 2013 11:37:32 +0100, David Hill wrote:

I really don't know what you are blathering about.
I suspect from your reply that English is more my first language than it
is yours. "I was at Tesco" says I was at the site of their store, car
park and all, "In Tesco" says I was inside the store.

Precisely. The comment "I didn't know they let dogs into Tesco." is
not accurate when the orginal statement is "I was at Tesco ...". The
latter could be inside the store but equally outside, it is not
specific.

As for Seeing dogs, I have to assume that you are talking about dogs
that help those with impaired vision, at least you didn't refer to them
as "Blind" dogs.
In the UK we have Guide dogs for the blind,.

I sit corrected I thought they had been "rebranded" a number of years
ago.

We are both half wrong from their website "Guide Dogs is a working
name of The Guide Dogs for the Blind Association."
--
Cheers
Dave.

"'Mike'" wrote in message
...


Are you going to 'sit corrected' about the spelling in the Subject
heading? ;-)

It's a wonder none of the experts have picked it up, or have they and I
have missed it?

Mike






"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ll.co.uk...

On Sun, 08 Sep 2013 11:37:32 +0100, David Hill wrote:

I really don't know what you are blathering about.
I suspect from your reply that English is more my first language than it
is yours. "I was at Tesco" says I was at the site of their store, car
park and all, "In Tesco" says I was inside the store.

Precisely. The comment "I didn't know they let dogs into Tesco." is
not accurate when the orginal statement is "I was at Tesco ...". The
latter could be inside the store but equally outside, it is not
specific.

As for Seeing dogs, I have to assume that you are talking about dogs
that help those with impaired vision, at least you didn't refer to them
as "Blind" dogs.
In the UK we have Guide dogs for the blind,.

I sit corrected I thought they had been "rebranded" a number of years
ago.

We are both half wrong from their website "Guide Dogs is a working
name of The Guide Dogs for the Blind Association."
--
Cheers
Dave.

Why do the nit pickers enjoy spoiling a good thread ???

Bill

On 08/09/2013 12:40, Dave Liquorice wrote:
As for Seeing dogs, I have to assume that you are talking about dogs
that help those with impaired vision, at least you didn't refer to them
as "Blind" dogs.
In the UK we have Guide dogs for the blind,.
I sit corrected I thought they had been "rebranded" a number of years
ago.

We are both half wrong from their website "Guide Dogs is a working
name of The Guide Dogs for the Blind Association."

I was talking about "Guide dogs for the blind" as being Guide dogs for
Blind people, though they are also used by people with restricted vision
as well as Blind .
Not the training and fund raising body which is The Guide Dogs for the
Blind Association."
I worked for over 10 years as a Mobility officer for Blind and partially
sighted people, and worked with several Guide Dog instructors as well as
having had some training at their training centre at Exeter. I also had
a blind colleague who was a guide dog user as well, so I do have some
knowledge of the subject.

On Sun, 08 Sep 2013 13:20:22 +0100, David Hill wrote:

In the UK we have Guide dogs for the blind,.

I sit corrected I thought they had been "rebranded" a number of
years
ago.

We are both half wrong from their website "Guide Dogs is a working
name of The Guide Dogs for the Blind Association."

I was talking about "Guide dogs for the blind" as being Guide dogs for
Blind people, though they are also used by people with restricted vision
as well as Blind .

Which is presumably why they have been rebranded as just "Guide
Dogs". There are also dogs that guide humans in other ways as well
not just those with restricted vision. The wording on signage that
prohibits dogs but allows "guide dogs" doesn't have "for the blind"
appended.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 09/09/2013 10:13, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sun, 08 Sep 2013 13:20:22 +0100, David Hill wrote:

In the UK we have Guide dogs for the blind,.

I sit corrected I thought they had been "rebranded" a number of
years
ago.

We are both half wrong from their website "Guide Dogs is a working
name of The Guide Dogs for the Blind Association."

I was talking about "Guide dogs for the blind" as being Guide dogs for
Blind people, though they are also used by people with restricted vision
as well as Blind .

Which is presumably why they have been rebranded as just "Guide
Dogs". There are also dogs that guide humans in other ways as well
not just those with restricted vision. The wording on signage that
prohibits dogs but allows "guide dogs" doesn't have "for the blind"
appended.


These are referred to as assistance dogs and have come together as
Assistance Dogs (UK)
http://www.assistancedogs.org.uk/
Re the "Re-branding" of Guide dogs.
© The Guide Dogs for the Blind Association 2013.
Guide Dogs is a working name of The Guide Dogs for the Blind
Association. Registered Office: Hillfields, Burghfield Common, Reading,
Berkshire RG7 3YG. A company limited by guarantee registered in England
and Wales (291646) and a charity registered in England and Wales
(209617) and Scotland (SC038979)
Tel: 0118 983 5555 Email: Website:
www.guidedogs.org.uk

On Mon, 09 Sep 2013 10:38:41 +0100, David Hill wrote:

Which is presumably why they have been rebranded as just "Guide
Dogs". There are also dogs that guide humans in other ways as well
not just those with restricted vision. The wording on signage that
prohibits dogs but allows "guide dogs" doesn't have "for the
blind"
appended.

These are referred to as assistance dogs and have come together as
Assistance Dogs (UK)

Hum, so an "assistance dog" would not be allowed access where a
"guide dog" would be? If the signage wording was "No Dogs except
Assistance Dogs" both could pass.

Guide Dogs is a working name of The Guide Dogs for the Blind
Association. Registered Office: Hillfields, ...

Yes I posted that earlier. B-)

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Sun, 08 Sep 2013 12:21:29 +0200, Martin wrote:

I was also at Tesco the other day, and I saw a dog licking his
privates. I said to his owner "I wish I could do that"
The owner said "Give him one of Davids biscuits and he will let
you"

I didn't know they let dogs into Tesco.

English isn't your first langauge. "I was also at Tesco ..." not
"I
was also in Tesco ..."

Try doing the attribution/snipping correctly to avoid criticising the
wrong person

Count the 's you will see that the lines you are complaining about
have than one so are, as is normal usenet quoting convention, not
necessarily attributable to the entity at the top. They might be
though depending on how the thread and quoting has developed.

I note that you don't complain about this bit:

begin
Only into the butchery department?

Shh, back door only and at night.

Seeing dogs for the blind are probably admitted, they quite often are
where other dogs are banned.
end

So you are obviously half aware of how quoting works.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Mon, 09 Sep 2013 10:27:35 +0200, Martin wrote:

I didn't write what you attributed to me.

Count the 's. Only the lines with one are directly attributable to
the the person named at the top, as has been the case in usenet for
donkies years.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 2013-09-09 09:55:12 +0100, Dave Liquorice said:

On Mon, 09 Sep 2013 10:27:35 +0200, Martin wrote:

I didn't write what you attributed to me.

Count the 's. Only the lines with one are directly attributable to
the the person named at the top, as has been the case in usenet for
donkies years.

PLEASE can we not start this here. It already happens on another group
with someone who refuses to attribute as most people do and every so
often, 'quote wars' break out, as a result. Just leave in the name of
the person who wrote whatever you are quoting directly under their
name. NOBODY has the time to count indentation marks, surely!
--

Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.com
South Devon
www.helpforheroes.org.uk

NOBODY has the time to count indentation marks, surely!

Far better to remove all attribution than have pages of badly
formatted line wrapped attributions to scroll through hiding the
quotes.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 2013-09-09 22:41:04 +0100, Dave Liquorice said:


NOBODY has the time to count indentation marks, surely!

Far better to remove all attribution than have pages of badly
formatted line wrapped attributions to scroll through hiding the
quotes.

Dave, when I first joined this group about 15 or 16 years ago, I got
shouted at very, very loudly for not snipping enough or doing it badly
and thus messing up attributions. That happened more than once until I
cleaned up my act. I was absolutely new to the whole newsgroup thing
and very nearly gave up at that point. But as I felt I needed help
(being newly arrived in England and with a garden that needed taming) I
persisted, learned to snip and tried to ensure I was attributing
correctly. It's not very hard, though it takes a tiny amount of
concentration at the time and indeed, any of us can get it wrong. But
while, most of the time, it doesn't matter at all, it can be very
galling to see views or beliefs to which one is diametrically opposed,
attributed to one's name! It is equally embarrassing to see someone's
else's brilliant answer to a tricky question, given under the wrong
name. Perhaps this isn't a subject worth pursuing too far, however?
--

Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.com
South Devon
www.helpforheroes.org.uk

On Mon, 09 Sep 2013 11:24:08 +0200, Martin wrote:

when you should have addressed your comment to whoever wrote
" I didn't know they let dogs into Tesco."

It is, count the 's. They aren't named but who cares, it's not
important. And as the comment is plainly not about *your* (single )
precious content getting in a strop is remarkably pointless.

This is a broadcast medium, The equivalent of standing in the middle
of a busy public space and using a loud hailer. Every body hears
everything but won't have a clue who said what after 30 seconds.

--
Cheers
Dave.