adonirum

Just think of the noise in the old days of twenty thousand (ish), beagle1. Whatever would you have done then. Let's see, that was about, what, 60/70/80 years ago, that is to say, the club was there before you. MORON (psychology meaning). Coming soon....beagle1 complains about police/fire/ambulance sirens affecting sleep.

Having escaped the pain of Mrs. adonirum watching this live by both of us being at Quo at the O2 on Sunday, I have just had to endure a recording of it being on (in the background as far as I am concerned I hasten to add). However, looking at segments of it, has anyone else been struck at how pitifully gaunt and emaciated Cheryl Cole (or whatever her surname now is) has become? Are we witnessing/about to witness another modern day tragedy before our very eyes along the lines of Karen Carpenter back in 80's ? That is to say, a beautiful, talented young woman, unhappy in her marriage (it is reported), "bullied/controlled" (some might interpret) at work (Cheryl by Cowell, Karen Carpenter by her brother Richard) and craving attention through some sort of misguided body dismorphia. The similarities and parallels appear to be there. What do you think?

Zapata - John Barry

Or should that have been Grammarist, Foxy.

Remember My Name - Stevie Vann Lange (Limara perfume...mmmmmm...)

PD, hope you mean Trump and Hopkins and not me and Otta !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I actually had this recently, so I thought it inaccurate as well. Some old British notes were taken in by my bank and credited to my account. A bank can no longer physically exchange them for current notes, though. I also had some old Irish notes, but these were "sent off to the BofE for a decision"(my bank's words) to see if they would exchange them, which they wouldn't, the reply being that they were to old.

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Trump and Katie Hopkins are on the same page. > Tells you all you need to know. Apparently, he's now quoted as praising her, Otta.

Happens all the time on here, jds, and robbin is correct. Best to just ignore it and wait for the sensible and genuine contribution.

Well this adaptation quickly fizzled out, didn't it, after a promising first episode I felt. Yep,????, agree about (boringly) predictable characterisations. Decided Arabella Yount wasn't based on Louisa !!!! far to nasty a character to be "our Louisa". But the big question after last night's final episode is this: does Louisa make Mr. Louisa forego Newsnight some evenings?

OF instead of HAVE WELL instead of VERY PACIFIC instead of SPECIFIC Where will it all end.......?

Perhaps you should read Status Anxiety by him, Blah Blah. No, you REALLY SHOULD read it.............................

Forget all this X-Factor crap, what about "Capital", broadcast last night on BBC1? I know it was generically set in South London, but it could almost have been a parody on current day ED, don't you think? The big question arising though, for those that saw it, is this: was the character Arabella Yount based on Louisa?

Turned into, and has become, a good, interesting, informative thread.

Yesterday - Beatles

Quite right,EDOldie. I remember way back in the 70's the shop had loads of publicity over a particular artefact, a gold crown, that the owner claimed to be "Hitler's front tooth".

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Blah Blah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Is it only me that finds an irony in someone > > spending 5k on any piece of clothing and then > > accusing others of not being charitable enough? > > > Spectacularly unnecessary post. And yes, by the > looks of it, only you. Endorsed entirely, Otta. Perhaps it was an accident that Blah Blah posted this.

No offence taken, Jah Lush. This is not a wind-up, trolling or anything else of that kind. Interesting though that you possibly feel that way in the here and now, when we have partaken in debate on here within other threads. It's an interesting concept that on this forum when some contributors have a diametrically opposed point of view to others, they are immediately dismissed in such manner (a troll) with no regard to their past history of posting, or they are ridiculed/insulted en-masse. There are a few posters that indulge like that on here, and I prefer to engage with those who might start a post with "I disagree with you because" or "I think you are wrong because". As an example, it appears that Dulwich Fox is one such "victim", coming in for a fair amount of abuse these days, when in the past he appeared to be one of the chosen few. Then again, perhaps it is just a bit of banter between people who know each other. Just picking up on the Blah Blah point of "accident", they then went on to dismiss "circumstance", thus consolidating their position of "accident", with the implication,as an accident, that it can be fixed. It's been said before on here that the only way to know is face-to-face, whereby tone of voice, facial expression, body language etc can be used to determine the actual nature of what is being said. Perhaps we are getting off course here, but then again maybe we have come full circle back to the title of the thread.

Since You,ve Been Gone - Rainbow

So Blah Blah feels that being born gay is an accident, then. Perhaps you would care to enlighten us all as to what dynamic risk assessment you would carry out to identify the circumstances of these accidents, what recommendations you would then make to minimise and ultimately eradicate all chances of a recurrence, and also what policies you would put in place to implement said recommendations. Further, I did not say that I have worked "in the equalities and diversity sector". If you are going to partake in a debate, then please do read things properly and don't just put your own preconceived mischevious interpretation on it. Do try to assess things in a controlled manner and remain calm and relaxed at all times. I don't think I would wish to see you on a public jury, for instance. You keep stating things like "I didn't..so can't comment" and then proceed to do so. I praise you and then you choose to go on the attack. Err ????? Anyway, that's it as far as I am concerned with regard to a personal rebuff. As I have stated a couple of times, I am more interested in people's points of view.

Ok, you're forgiven

Blah Blah, referring back to your post on here a few days ago. It's mostly there with reference to "....things that are an accident of birth" (accident has been replaced by circumstance nowadays)and "..cannot be changed except in certain circumstances". This is true and as a slight aside it was my privilege to know James Dalrymple who sadly passed away just shy of a year ago. You are also there with "....a way of thinking...is learned". It will have been stated many times I'm sure, but young children at nursery, primary school etc all play happily together, yet some will grow with racist/homophobic/etc views that must have been learned at some stage after this.

In fairness to James Barber, he did state "officers", and this refers to employees of council's. Councillors are known as "members" of a council. As they are elected, their names are obviously available. In my experience officers names tend not to be given out (other than executive positions) and they enjoy an almost privileged anonymity, even having their names redacted in F.O.I. requests. I suspect James B would be in breach of some rule or other should he release their names. Agreed the situation is very bad there, though.

That's an interesting viewpoint, Jeremy, "decent grounds for banning". Whilst accepting the administrators right to do so, others have argued about context and there have been suggestions of using quotes etc. You feel that users, with no previous, should be summarily banned, not even two strikes and you're out? As you saw the original post, do you feel that there are no circumstances whatsoever in which it would have been acceptable?

Let's Dance - David Bowie