How are you?

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Thu Mar 17, 2011 12:22 am

I am fine.

Andy Wilson · Post by **Andy Wilson** » Thu Mar 17, 2011 12:48 am

It's funny you should ask, i'm kind of bummed out.

Joseph Krol · Post by **Joseph Krol** » Thu Mar 17, 2011 7:17 am

Very well thank you.

James Robinson · Post by **James Robinson** » Thu Mar 17, 2011 8:50 am

Will be much better once Countdown is back on the screen.

Jon O'Neill · Post by **Jon O'Neill** » Thu Mar 17, 2011 9:05 am

Ian Volante · Post by **Ian Volante** » Thu Mar 17, 2011 12:55 pm

Just had a cake-eating session at work, so I'm pretty tired now.

Lesley Hines · Post by **Lesley Hines** » Fri Mar 18, 2011 11:14 am

When salesmen cold call and open the conversation with that I usually reply with something similar to this:
"I'm so glad you've asked that. I'm dreadful, having a terrible day. Really, really awful. But this is obviously a sign from God that you've rung as my psychiatrist says I should talk to more people, and Brother Terrance says I should evangelise more. Are you a Follower of the Light? I really feel I can talk to you." Funnily enough they normally get off the phone pretty fast. (I've joined the TPS but some still get through.)

But since it's you asking, I'm good. Knackered, busy, but otherwise good

Dinos Sfyris · Post by **Dinos Sfyris** » Fri Mar 18, 2011 2:09 pm

Larsen's hacked Charlie's account.

Dinos Sfyris · Post by **Dinos Sfyris** » Fri Mar 18, 2011 2:13 pm

In all seriousness though I'm pretty happy in a way I never expected. Thanks for asking

Also I just missed my tram stop!

David Williams · Post by **David Williams** » Fri Mar 18, 2011 4:28 pm

Lesley Hines wrote:But since it's you asking, I'm good. Knackered, busy, but otherwise good

Well, I'm well. I'm good as well, but that's well different.

Gavin Chipper · Post by **Gavin Chipper** » Fri Mar 18, 2011 6:39 pm

I think Charlie was just talking to himself "out loud".

But while I'm here, I'm fine, thanks. You?

Ben Hunter · Post by **Ben Hunter** » Fri Mar 18, 2011 7:53 pm

hee hee

John Gillies · Post by **John Gillies** » Fri Mar 18, 2011 11:40 pm

Pissed off. Just paid £17.25 for a £12 ticket to go and see the Jim Jones Revue at King Tuts soon, from the robbing bastards Ticketmaster.
£2.75 booking fee which annoys me every time but £2.50 for postage (standard delivery).
Ludicrously, it would still cost me £2.50 'postage' if I went to pick up the ticket in person from the venue!

Not exactly an expensive night out, since the support is the excellent Lewis Floyd Henry, but all these extra charges on concert tickets really makes my blood boil

Rant over.

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Fri Mar 18, 2011 11:57 pm

John Gillies wrote:Pissed off. Just paid £17.25 for a £12 ticket to go and see the Jim Jones Revue at King Tuts soon, from the robbing bastards Ticketmaster.
£2.75 booking fee which annoys me every time but £2.50 for postage (standard delivery).
Ludicrously, it would still cost me £2.50 'postage' if I went to pick up the ticket in person from the venue!

Not exactly an expensive night out, since the support is the excellent Lewis Floyd Henry, but all these extra charges on concert tickets really makes my blood boil

Rant over.

Can't really complain if you pay up.

Gavin Chipper · Post by **Gavin Chipper** » Sat Mar 19, 2011 12:12 am

Charlie Reams wrote:
John Gillies wrote:Pissed off. Just paid £17.25 for a £12 ticket to go and see the Jim Jones Revue at King Tuts soon, from the robbing bastards Ticketmaster.
£2.75 booking fee which annoys me every time but £2.50 for postage (standard delivery).
Ludicrously, it would still cost me £2.50 'postage' if I went to pick up the ticket in person from the venue!

Not exactly an expensive night out, since the support is the excellent Lewis Floyd Henry, but all these extra charges on concert tickets really makes my blood boil

Rant over.
Can't really complain if you pay up.

What?

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Sat Mar 19, 2011 12:34 am

Gavin Chipper wrote:
Charlie Reams wrote: Can't really complain if you pay up.
What?

I hate this terrible rip-off! Anyway, here's my £17.25.

Soph K · Post by **Soph K** » Sat Mar 19, 2011 1:04 pm

Extremely random thread. Well, I'm here now so I may as well answer your question... I'm fine thanks.

Soph K · Post by **Soph K** » Sat Mar 19, 2011 1:06 pm

Dinos Sfyris wrote:Larsen's hacked Charlie's account.

OR MAYBE Jason Larsen and Charlie...Charlie Thingy...are twins!!!

Soph K · Post by **Soph K** » Sat Mar 19, 2011 1:07 pm

Soph K wrote:
Dinos Sfyris wrote:Larsen's hacked Charlie's account.
Charlie...Charlie Thingy...

Oh yeah it's Charlie REAMS. i have the memory of the goldfish. is it true that goldfishes dont have 3 second memories: they have no memory...??

Gavin Chipper · Post by **Gavin Chipper** » Sat Mar 19, 2011 1:40 pm

Charlie Reams wrote:
Gavin Chipper wrote:
Charlie Reams wrote: Can't really complain if you pay up.
What?
I hate this terrible rip-off! Anyway, here's my £17.25.

Yeah, but it's not just that it's a rip-off - it's that they're deceptive about the price. Online things are often like that so unless you want to take a stand and miss out on loads of things you want to see and have a more boring life, you have to pay the prices.

Mike Brown · Post by **Mike Brown** » Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:45 pm

Soph K wrote:
Soph K wrote:
Dinos Sfyris wrote:Larsen's hacked Charlie's account.
Charlie...Charlie Thingy...
Oh yeah it's Charlie REAMS. i have the memory of the goldfish. is it true that goldfishes dont have 3 second memories: they have no memory...??

Sadly (but perhaps not for the goldfish) it isn't true. They've done experiments which prove that goldfish can remember complex mazes in order to get food. Or something like that... I forget the details.

Soph K · Post by **Soph K** » Sat Mar 19, 2011 5:09 pm

Mike Brown wrote:Sadly (but perhaps not for the goldfish) it isn't true. They've done experiments which prove that goldfish can remember complex mazes in order to get food. Or something like that... I forget the details.

Oh. How long is a goldfish's memory, then?

Mike Brown · Post by **Mike Brown** » Sat Mar 19, 2011 9:00 pm

Soph K wrote:
Mike Brown wrote:Sadly (but perhaps not for the goldfish) it isn't true. They've done experiments which prove that goldfish can remember complex mazes in order to get food. Or something like that... I forget the details.
Oh. How long is a goldfish's memory, then?

From Wikipedia: Goldfish have a memory-span of at least three months and can distinguish between different shapes, colors and sounds. By using positive reinforcement, goldfish can be trained to recognize and to react to light signals of different colors or to perform tricks, such as the limbo, slalom, fetch, and soccer. Fish respond to certain colors most evidently in relation to feeding. Fish learn to anticipate feedings provided they occur at around the same time everyday.

And just to get back on topic (in this off-topic thread), I'm fine.

Adam Gillard · Post by **Adam Gillard** » Sat Mar 19, 2011 9:37 pm

Soph K wrote:Extremely random thread.

It's Purim, one of the happiest days of the Jewish calendar year, so I'm very happy indeed. Thank you for asking.

Ryan Taylor · Post by **Ryan Taylor** » Sat Mar 19, 2011 10:14 pm

Slightly drunk.

Andy Wilson · Post by **Andy Wilson** » Sun Mar 20, 2011 12:15 am

Gavin Chipper wrote: Yeah, but it's not just that it's a rip-off - it's that they're deceptive about the price. Online things are often like that so unless you want to take a stand and miss out on loads of things you want to see and have a more boring life, you have to pay the prices.

Agreed. For that Arcade Fire one in Dublin I tried to book tickets directly off the band's own website where they had a handling fee, but it was smaller than ticketbastard's (can't remember the figures) and they were only charging it once, even though I was trying to book four tickets. I couldn't in the end as they didn't accept my laser card. Ticketbastard will charge you four handling fees for one bloody transaction if you're booking four tickets, even if you're booking online and choose the e-ticket option, where they don't even have to print a ticket and post it.

We've got 'tickets.ie' now here, which seems to be used by a lot of the smaller venues and independent festivals and they don't seem to charge a handling fee, unless you get em posted, which is €1. There is a handling fee option but it's come up as €0.00 whenever I've checked for tickets on it, so I assume it's only there for them to slap on a commission if they're not getting enough of a cut off the promoter. Which begs the question, if small venues can afford to pay this website a commission for ticket sales (unless they're just making money off web ads) then why do we have to be raped by ticketbastard when they're selling thousands upon thousands of tickets at much higher prices each week in Ireland alone?

The 'big' gigs are generally hosted by the two major promoters here, Aiken and MCD, who seem to have a contract with ticketbastard giving them a monopoly on ticket sales. Not cool. Then you get to the gig and all you can get for an alcoholic drink is a pint of crap mass produced lager in a plastic cup and it costs a quid more than in your local. I'd like to see some major bands taking their own initiative and running their own gigs but I guess it's too much effort. Rant over.

Actually, no, hang on, £17.25 for a £12 ticket though, that's almost 50% extra. They shouldn't be allowed to do that. It should be a small percentage, 5 or 10 per cent. A fiver on a 50 quid ticket you wouldn't be too p!ssed about. Ok. Rant now over. I'm fine by the way. Bit annoyed I forgot to change my fantasy team before I left the house this morning and left Charlie Adam on the bench, but sure you'll have that.

Phil Reynolds · Post by **Phil Reynolds** » Sun Mar 20, 2011 10:09 am

Andy Wilson wrote:Ticketbastard will charge you four handling fees for one bloody transaction if you're booking four tickets

AKA the Ryanair Effect. I find it mildly annoying that Mr O'Leary's mob are able to get away with quoting headline prices that are one-way only and exclude taxes, baggage charges etc. But where they really take the piss is in slapping on a £5 fee for paying by credit card, not once, but per person, per flight. So for two of us flying to Dublin, that's an extra twenty quid for using what's usually the only available payment option. Or, in the words of the utterly brilliant Fascinating Aida, "How the feck are you s'posed to pay if not with feckin' plastic?"

Soph K · Post by **Soph K** » Sun Mar 20, 2011 10:13 am

Mike Brown wrote:
Soph K wrote:Oh. How long is a goldfish's memory, then?
Goldfish have a memory-span of at least three months and can distinguish between different shapes, colors and sounds. By using positive reinforcement, goldfish can be trained to recognize and to react to light signals of different colors or to perform tricks, such as the limbo, slalom, fetch, and soccer. Fish respond to certain colors most evidently in relation to feeding. Fish learn to anticipate feedings provided they occur at around the same time everyday.

Oh, right. That's quite interesting, actually.

David Williams · Post by **David Williams** » Mon Mar 21, 2011 9:36 am

Phil Reynolds wrote:AKA the Ryanair Effect. I find it mildly annoying that Mr O'Leary's mob are able to get away with quoting headline prices that are one-way only and exclude taxes, baggage charges etc. But where they really take the piss is in slapping on a £5 fee for paying by credit card, not once, but per person, per flight. So for two of us flying to Dublin, that's an extra twenty quid for using what's usually the only available payment option. Or, in the words of the utterly brilliant Fascinating Aida, "How the feck are you s'posed to pay if not with feckin' plastic?"

I've never understood why they do some of these things. A while back I was very resentful about paying £112 of extras on a basic fare of £0.00 for two of us to go to Pau, in southern France. But if they'd offered me an all-in fare of £30 one way I'd have thought it was a bargain. Anyway since then I've acquired a free FairFx pre-paid Mastercard. Going to Seville on Thursday. Price advertised on the Ryanair website as "from £20.99". I've paid £83.96 for two return flights. Is this a record?

Jon O'Neill · Post by **Jon O'Neill** » Mon Mar 21, 2011 9:54 am

David Williams wrote:
Phil Reynolds wrote:AKA the Ryanair Effect. I find it mildly annoying that Mr O'Leary's mob are able to get away with quoting headline prices that are one-way only and exclude taxes, baggage charges etc. But where they really take the piss is in slapping on a £5 fee for paying by credit card, not once, but per person, per flight. So for two of us flying to Dublin, that's an extra twenty quid for using what's usually the only available payment option. Or, in the words of the utterly brilliant Fascinating Aida, "How the feck are you s'posed to pay if not with feckin' plastic?"
I've never understood why they do some of these things. A while back I was very resentful about paying £112 of extras on a basic fare of £0.00 for two of us to go to Pau, in southern France. But if they'd offered me an all-in fare of £30 one way I'd have thought it was a bargain. Anyway since then I've acquired a free FairFx pre-paid Mastercard. Going to Seville on Thursday. Price advertised on the Ryanair website as "from £20.99". I've paid £83.96 for two return flights. Is this a record?

I think this is a record for any offer that's ever said "from". "Save up to" is the same.

Has anyone seen that advert for Confused.com that says something like "80% of customers could save up to £200!".. does that mean £200 is the maximum saving?

From their website: "10% of Confused.com car insurance customers could save up to £628.53, and 97% of Confused.com car insurance customers could achieve a saving." - why can't they just say 97% could save up to £628.53?

NOW I AM CONFUSED.COM LOL!

Marc Meakin · Post by **Marc Meakin** » Mon Mar 21, 2011 11:44 am

under the circumstances im grand.
just moved to margate no furniture but i got me a nice crib.
just gonna find where Whitstable is so i can stalk Sue Sanders lol.

Jon Corby · Post by **Jon Corby** » Mon Mar 21, 2011 11:47 am

Marc Meakin wrote:no furniture but i got me a nice crib.

DOES NOT COMPUTE

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Thu Mar 24, 2011 1:40 pm

Jon O'Neill wrote: From their website: "10% of Confused.com car insurance customers could save up to £628.53, and 97% of Confused.com car insurance customers could achieve a saving." - why can't they just say 97% could save up to £628.53?

NOW I AM CONFUSED.COM LOL!

Got a nice one of these today. Domino's dropped a sheet of 2-of-1 vouchers through the door, proclaiming "up to £350 savings!". To actually attain the £350 saving you'd have to buy 44 of their largest and most expensive pizzas, 3 litres of coke, 2 garlic breads, two chicken combos and two Strippers (yes, really), and all in the two weeks before the vouchers expire. What a deal!

Oblig:

Jon O'Neill · Post by **Jon O'Neill** » Thu Mar 24, 2011 1:45 pm

I never understood the last panel in that one. As you said in your post, you have to spend a lot to save the maximum.

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Thu Mar 24, 2011 1:50 pm

Jon O'Neill wrote:I never understood the last panel in that one. As you said in your post, you have to spend a lot to save the maximum.

The confusion is created because of the double meaning of "saving" as in spending less than you expected and "saving" as in not spending at all. I think the comic is suggesting that advertisers want to make you think of the second one when really it's the first one.

Jon O'Neill · Post by **Jon O'Neill** » Thu Mar 24, 2011 1:53 pm

Charlie Reams wrote:
Jon O'Neill wrote:I never understood the last panel in that one. As you said in your post, you have to spend a lot to save the maximum.
The confusion is created because of the double meaning of "saving" as in spending less than you expected and "saving" as in not spending at all. I think the comic is suggesting that advertisers want to make you think of the second one when really it's the first one.

Oh yeah, I was being silly. Maybe I fell for it.

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Thu Mar 24, 2011 2:15 pm

Jon O'Neill wrote: Oh yeah, I was being silly. Maybe I fell for it.

Basically if you don't get xkcd then you're just a corporate slave, working for The Man.

Marc Meakin · Post by **Marc Meakin** » Sat Mar 26, 2011 10:34 am

Jon Corby wrote:
Marc Meakin wrote:no furniture but i got me a nice crib.
DOES NOT COMPUTE

Can you ride tandem?
Subtle joke.
BTW. got me a table but no chairs any advice on free furniture that doesn't involve breaking the law.
Im a re-formed criminal (I ONLY COMMIT ACTS OF VIOLENCE LOL)

Lesley Hines · Post by **Lesley Hines** » Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:23 pm

Marc Meakin wrote:BTW. got me a table but no chairs any advice on free furniture that doesn't involve breaking the law.

There's obviously Freecycle where people offer stuff they don't want for free.

It's probably worth asking your local council if they have any sort of furniture recycling scheme in place. In Worcester there's a scheme called Armchair - people offer furniture they're not using any more / have replaced, which is collected if it's suitable (they don't take crap) and then redistributed to people in receipt of benefits who can't afford to replace furniture. Referrals are done via the benefits office / Worcestershire Hub / Social Services etc. It works well and has several benefits - it was estimated that every item of furniture if bought new from the cheapest Argos price would have cost the council £130,000 to provide to people, there's the obvious saving in landfill costs for furniture that doesn't need dumping cos it's in good nick, it creates employment for the delivery lads, it's funded by donations and grants and everyone's a winner. If your local council doesn't do it speak to your local councillor and suggest it as it works very well here.

HTH

Mark James · Post by **Mark James** » Sun Mar 27, 2011 2:18 am

I'm annoyed that we're still doing this whole clock going forward business. Instead of putting it forward an hour now and then back an hour in the autumn just put it forward half an hour now and never do it again.

Ian Volante · Post by **Ian Volante** » Sun Mar 27, 2011 11:09 pm

Mark James wrote:I'm annoyed that we're still doing this whole clock going forward business. Instead of putting it forward an hour now and then back an hour in the autumn just put it forward half an hour now and never do it again.

Nah, I like to get up in daylight for more than half the year.

JackHurst · Post by **JackHurst** » Sun Mar 27, 2011 11:13 pm

I was reading through this thread, and I was in a really good mood until the posts started to get longer then 5 lines. At this point, I started skipping a lot of stuff, vaguely trying to keep track of it all, and I got a tiny bit stressed but I think I am ok again now.

I am a little worried that Dinos might have been raped after a long walk home due to him missing his tram stop.

Michael Wallace · Post by **Michael Wallace** » Sun Mar 27, 2011 11:21 pm

The thing about the clock changing is that it's great in autumn when you get an extra hour's sleep, but rubbish in spring when you lose an hour's sleep. Solution? Let's just put the clocks forward an hour every week.

Brian Moore · Post by **Brian Moore** » Sun Mar 27, 2011 11:39 pm

Michael Wallace wrote:The thing about the clock changing is that it's great in autumn when you get an extra hour's sleep, but rubbish in spring when you lose an hour's sleep.

In the Autumn the clocks go back, so go to bed at the normal time and you get an hour's extra sleep. In the Spring, the clocks go forward, so go to bed an hour earlier (i.e at the new time, if you put your clocks forward before you go to bed), and the ratio of waking to sleeping time is reduced. You win both ways.

BTW, I'm fine, I think, thanks Charlie.

Ca va?

Liam Tiernan · Post by **Liam Tiernan** » Mon Mar 28, 2011 2:47 am

Lesley Hines wrote:
Marc Meakin wrote:BTW. got me a table but no chairs any advice on free furniture that doesn't involve breaking the law.
There's obviously Freecycle .......

HTH

I don't think Marc wants anything more to do with free cycles for a while.

Jon Corby · Post by **Jon Corby** » Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:40 am

Liam Tiernan wrote:I don't think Marc wants anything more to do with free cycles for a while.

Hahaha

Marc Meakin · Post by **Marc Meakin** » Mon Mar 28, 2011 9:17 am

Jon Corby wrote:
Liam Tiernan wrote:I don't think Marc wants anything more to do with free cycles for a while.
Hahaha

I was going to come up with something witty and eloquent as a retort.
But I cannot do any better than'fuck off monkey boy, and go shift that piano'

Chris Corby · Post by **Chris Corby** » Mon Mar 28, 2011 9:45 am

Michael Wallace wrote:The thing about the clock changing is that it's great in autumn when you get an extra hour's sleep, but rubbish in spring when you lose an hour's sleep. Solution? Let's just put the clocks forward an hour every week.

I was sat next to a bloke on a course a few years ago and I happened to see that his watch was an hour slow even though we had gone to BST about three weeks previously. I pointed this out to him. He said, "Nah, it's only for six months, doesn't seem worth it."

Jon O'Neill · Post by **Jon O'Neill** » Mon Mar 28, 2011 10:37 am

Chris Corby wrote:
Michael Wallace wrote:The thing about the clock changing is that it's great in autumn when you get an extra hour's sleep, but rubbish in spring when you lose an hour's sleep. Solution? Let's just put the clocks forward an hour every week.
I was sat next to a bloke on a course a few years ago and I happened to see that his watch was an hour slow even though we had gone to BST about three weeks previously. I pointed this out to him. He said, "Nah, it's only for six months, doesn't seem worth it."

What a guy! Though if you'd ever tried to change the time on some of the clocks in my house, you might be of the same inclination.

Clive Brooker · Post by **Clive Brooker** » Mon Mar 28, 2011 10:52 am

Chris Corby wrote:I was sat next to a bloke on a course a few years ago and I happened to see that his watch was an hour slow even though we had gone to BST about three weeks previously. I pointed this out to him. He said, "Nah, it's only for six months, doesn't seem worth it."

I hope you told him it's actually 7 months.

Ben Wilson · Post by **Ben Wilson** » Mon Mar 28, 2011 12:50 pm

Liam Tiernan wrote:I don't think Marc wants anything more to do with free cycles for a while.

If ever there was an excuse to fix likes, this is it.

Marc Merkin wrote:I was going to come up with something witty and eloquent as a retort.
But I cannot do any better than'fuck off monkey boy, and go shift that piano'

...And if ever there was an excuse NOT to fix likes, this is it.

JimBentley · Post by **JimBentley** » Mon Apr 04, 2011 4:36 pm

Jon O'Neill wrote:Has anyone seen that advert for Confused.com that says something like "80% of customers could save up to £200!"

This has just been on the telly - it's actually "45% of customers could save up to £200!". But what does this mean? If 45% of customers could save up to £200, then presumably 55% of customers can't save up to £200 no matter what. But if the lucky 45% of customers only could save up to £200, then that doesn't necessarily mean that they will save up to £200, just that there's the potential for them to do so. So the % of customers who will save up to £200 could potentially be 0%. And since "up to £200" could equally mean £150, £50 or 1p, then the statement really means "between 0% and 45% of customers will save between 1p and £200".

Fucking pricks.

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Mon Apr 04, 2011 4:54 pm

JimBentley wrote: the statement really means "between 0% and 45% of customers will save between 1p and £200".

Fucking pricks.

Or it could be nothing at all. Such is the magic of "up to"!

David Williams · Post by **David Williams** » Mon Apr 04, 2011 6:13 pm

My wife is currently enjoying a year's fully comp, including breakdown cover, for £104 thanks to confused.com, so I can't get too upset about them.

I thought these things were pretty rigorously policed. And comparison sites do save you money in my experience. They usually ask you to state your renewal premium, and if everyone only used them at renewal, and could be relied on to put an accurate figure in, they could compare that to the best quote and make more precise claims. But with only incomplete data they surely have to hedge a bit?

Lesley Hines · Post by **Lesley Hines** » Mon Apr 04, 2011 7:51 pm

Charlie Reams wrote:
JimBentley wrote: the statement really means "between 0% and 45% of customers will save between 1p and £200".

Fucking pricks.
Or it could be nothing at all. Such is the magic of "up to"!

And that's likely to be the mode. It was in my case, anyway.

Ryan Taylor · Post by **Ryan Taylor** » Mon Apr 04, 2011 10:21 pm

I'm ill. Again. With tonsilitis. Again.

James Robinson · Post by **James Robinson** » Mon Apr 04, 2011 10:55 pm

Ryan Taylor wrote:I'm ill. Again. With tonsilitis. Again.

Goodness, you get no luck mate.

Karen Pearson · Post by **Karen Pearson** » Tue Apr 05, 2011 7:38 am

Ryan Taylor wrote:I'm ill. Again. With tonsilitis. Again.

James used to get tonsilitis all the time before we met and when we first got together. However, changing to a decent diet has worked wonders and he's only had it once in the last 12 years!

Matt Morrison · Post by **Matt Morrison** » Tue Apr 12, 2011 8:13 am

Sorry to bring up Ticketmaster again, but saw this on Digg today and thought it was relevant enough:

Charging for sending someone an e-mail is just horrible.

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Tue Apr 12, 2011 8:49 am

You lot seem to have a weirdly innocent view of how capitalism works.