*Bob*

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And what do you mean by "does you no favours"? I think it means that the screechy "AN OPEN LETTER TO ADMIN" with its passive-aggressive content and general stop-what-you-are-doing-and-look-at-me-because-I-have-something-terribly-important-to-say feel is unlikely to get results.

Is the 'vote' feature working yet?

pleeeeeeease

aka PLEASE let me back in the general issues section

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > People who have nothing else in their lives.. Other than friends, money and spare time. Poor sods.

I use dictionaries 3-4 times per week and have done for 40 years.

Well Mr Fox I can only go on the post you wrote in 2013 (not, strangely, five years prior - in 2008) where you wrote that you eat in restaurants 3-4 times a week and have done for 40 years. Let's hear more about new shops and restaurants in Dulwich and Peckham and have less of this nonsense.

But - battery lovers - if you are buying rechargeables, buy the ones with the highest mAh ratings. Some of the cheaper ones with modest specs drain quite quickly. (yawn)

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I eat out in restaurant 3-4 times a week and have > done for the last 40 years or so. Always good to be chastised for eating out too much and not cooking enough.. by someone who has spent the better part of every week eating out and not cooking.. for four decades!

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So not sure what your point is?! You can't use it in any of the places that don't work. Hence, whenever you do use it - it works properly. At least on your side anyway.

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But you can't use a landline while you're going > through a tunnel or in a station, Exactly! and with a > cordless phone the battery still runs down on long > calls, at least mine does. New Batteries.

Mobiles aren't that pleasant to hold to your ear either. They're optimised for looking at, not speaking and listening on. Anything over a quick, functional conversation? Not nice. I suppose I could get a hands free, but in here London I'm concerned that people might not be able to tell whether I'm talking on a hands free .. or suffering from a mental illness.

I prefer a landline if the option is there. The simple pleasures of not going through a tunnel, having to ask someone to go somewhere less windy, being low on battery, calling someone back when you lose connection, having a train tannoy in the background, hearing someone buy chewing gum whilst talking to you .. should not be underestimated.

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Maybe I'm wrong on this one, but I just think some > long standing businesses deserve a break, after > all - they're survivors! We don't want blow-ins descending on SE22 to buy OUR plastic containers and paper plates. Keep schtumm, I say.

Time Out's annual "Best Place In London To Buy Inexpensive Plastic Food Storage Containers And Disposable Picnic Cutlery" round-up is legendary, Jeremy. I also enjoy the Guardian feature - "Let's Move To XXXXX And Buy Inexpensive Plastic Food Storage Containers And Disposable Picnic Cutlery"

Don't worry, ????, it's ok. It happens to a lot of people.

ed_pete Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "I have a massive confession. I don't really like > going to pubs anymore I was bought up in a pub > going extended family and the pub was central to > my life for most of my teenage years and the > majority of my adult life. Nowadays I can't > understand the attraction of going night after > night or staying out until the early hours in > pubs. I don't mind going out once in a while to > the pub but in general it's a boring money drain > and I'd rather do something else. There. I said > it. I feel liberated an am embracing my grumpy old > man." Leave him be, he's given up.

There was a bit of a drinking rush on LL a few years back, then it subsided. It was more of an anomaly though really, not the norm. It's reverted to its more usual quieter state, which isn't a bad thing in my book. The dreadful Adventure bar marked the high tide - and had clearly missed whatever temporary boat there was. The eateries worth their salt are busy. That's where the money's going.

Wishful thinking, Foxy. For better or for worse (depending on your point of view) East Dulwich has been sliding gently towards NorthcoteRoadification for a long time now. See those people buying the million quid plus houses? They have plenty of money to spend in overpriced eateries.. and there are more of them every year. They'll regularly drop ?100 on a school night dinner for two if the food's decent - without a second thought. They don't care how much a pint costs. Incidentally, some of us have managed to enjoy the eating and drinking in Camberwell, Peckham, New Cross - and all sorts of other places - for some time now, as well as going out on Lordship Lane. Why it has to be one or the other is a strange notion.

I did one of those 'should I get a meter' comparison things. Estimated metered bill came out at ?650. So I think I'll run a bath and forget the whole thing.

How long ago was it that Time Out ceased to have any kind of relevance? I still miss Loot, myself. As usual, they shot the wrong Beatle.

Sue's right though - there's no pushy campaign by Thames to foist a water meter on anyone (quite the opposite, I'd say) - which would be unusual for any company sitting on a sure-thing potential moneyspinner. That said, a bill for approaching ?500 is quite an incentive it itself.

A wellington boot for soup. Fried eggs - served on the back of a moving tortoise. Sunday roast - in a bagpipe.

There are some especially amusing ironic drinking vessels to be had in Pedler, if you like that sort of thing. A jam jar - which manages 'the double' of being both unpleasant to hold and to drink out of - offers nothing to the experience of having a drink.. with the added bonus of making you look like a tit.

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I seem to remember during the Cold War era reading > an article that in the event of a Nuclear attack > Croydon would be a designated target.. That would still be my thinking. Whichever side I was on. Actually I think I'd take out Stoke as well.