Azira

Afternoon Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I am personally more concerned about those who > spend their afternoon sitting in a pub making > judgements about the local populace. Indeed. Or perhaps those making judgments responding to questions on an internet forum.

DaveR Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- I couldn't give a toss about 124 > Lordship Lane but the level of intolerance on this > forum is just absurd. *applauds*

The fact you don't see the point as "constructive" is illuminating, Blah Blah.

That's easy CoCo- it's anything above what Blah Blah spends.

Callows is a long standing locksmith based in Grove Vale, East Dulwich. It has been highly recommended on the forum through the past few decades. Phone Number: 020 8299 4737 Email Address: [email protected] Website: http://www.callow-locksmiths.co.uk/ View full listing

The point is that need doesn't necessarily motivate theft, so the fact someone can afford groceries isn't evidence of anything.

I've been so poor I lived off nothing but porridge for several months, and funnily enough I never once felt the need to steal.

Grok Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I was told by the security guard that the basket > contained some raw steak, tea bags, and sweets. > Sounds like a basket of food a skint dad may have > taken when pushed to the limits by a Govt that is > trying to cut IN WORK benefits. You'll break your knees making that massive leap to a conclusion. You could just as easily infer that it was a terrorist, drug dealer, kleptomaniac, Father Christmas impersonator or public schoolboy. It must be satisfying being able to see evidence for your world view in any action, no matter whether there's any logical basis for that inference or not.

Indeed. It's amazing how quickly people will try to blame the government for things - particularly if their brand of political tribalism means whoever is in power are deemed to be the nasty ones.

clockworkorange Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Penguin68. Yes. > Petitions quite literally not worth the paper > they're written on without the checks you suggest. > > > Not read the docs. Somebody summarise please. Some > trees being removed because....? I'm agnostic on this issue, but in the interests of balance, how do you anti-the save "Southwark Woods" bridgade know whether the petition represents genuine sentiment? Do you know the checks on the data haven't been made? Do you know that (paraphrasing an earlier poster) people have signed this unconsidered/unresearched/thoughtlessly? There's a lot of hyperbole on both sides of this debate it would seem.

You can stay safe online without needing to resort to avoiding using credit or debit cards.

I thought this was going to be a thread about how Ken had been persuaded that the resident moggies actually add charm to his garden. Disappointed. http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?20,1577145,1577262#msg-1577262

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Familiarise yourself with parliamentary procedure > Azira. Read the bills themselves (rather than the > selctive spin the media uses in 'informing' us). > It's all there in the public domain to read, > inlcuding who donates what to which party. Wow, nicely patronising there, and a little silly to make such statements on an anonymous forum where you don't know what people do for a living. Let's assume that I am very well acquainted with parliamentary procedure and read bills on a daily basis - you still don't appear to have show any evidence for your claims. Can you point me to a link or two from a reputable source that of specific examples of this corruption of MPs? Or a break-down of the election funding of all three major parties and how you can trace that towards the introduction of specific examples of legislation during the relevant parliaments? As there is plenty of evidence, I'm sure that won't be difficult, but you can see how failing to back up your assertions might lead one to think this is a bunch of tribalistic tin foil hat theory.

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > I definitely think the tide is turning on > corporate interests. Young people especially are > very clued up on how corporations buy politicians > and legislation to serve their own interests at > the expense of everyone else. Curious as to what evidence you have of this (the assertion about corruption, not the views of the youth of today FAOD).

Ridgley Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > I ask the question because it is not just a > European problem it is a globe problem every one > has to help not just the Europe counties. I meant why do you think that a lot of these people have family in these countries? I don't know about the other countries, but that statement is not very accurate when you look at Australia at least. I'm also not sure that the size of the existing Syrian community is even very relevant. If there is a global duty to take these people in, surely it is based on what they've been through not where they are going? I'm also curious as to what you're basing the implicit assumption that non-EU countries aren't helping.

I had bilateral plantar fasciitis for three years solidly. The only thing that worked for me in the end was extracorporeal shockwave therapy. Manoj Sood treated me. It was very expensive but I had exhausted every other option (other than platlet-rich injections and surgery).

Blood Makes Noise - Suzanne Vega

Pleased you took it in the vein it was intended. This topic is one that seems to get a lot of people very defensive/aggressive and tending towards polarised views, so its refreshing to be able to have an actual discussion about it! The mob mentality thing isn't something I had considered actually. You could be right.

Big Time - Peter Gabriel

Ridgley Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Are the Americans, Australians and the Canadians > taking their fair share of migrants as quite a lot > of them have families in those countries? Why do you think that? The Syrian community in Australia is tiny - thousands less than the amount of refugees they have indicated they will accept.

Big Balls - AC/DC

I wouldn't mind betting a lot of these people have PTSD, which can make the sufferer express fear as anger. I take your point, but not sure it is fair to expect "reasonable" reactions from people who have been through significant trauma and are desperate. I'd have thought this was uncontroversial - after all, we're very good in this country at demanding stuff and appearing ungrateful when we feel miffed.

I think she's used this as a bit of a PR stunt, but she's completely right in principle. As for the tendency of women to be judged on their looks in the legal profession, I could tell you stories that would make the most hardened "It's PC GONE MAAAADDD!" type start swearing off calling people feminazis.

Heh @Johnie. Artful, my point was also that it isn't always appropriate to communicate it directly with the business if there was hostility from the business owner. In that case, I think it's perfectly appropriate to provide a negative review without further recourse to the business.

I'm not sure I entirely agree. I think people should make an effort to be objective and avoid histrionics, but what's the point in just allowing positive feedback? There's also a bit of a tendency here to shout down people who disagree with a positive majority view and accuse the person in question of not being genuine. Just because 9 out of 10 people found a business fantastic, it doesn't mean the 10th person didn't legitimately have a different experience. Indeed, I've been dissuaded from posting a negative review of a tradesperson who is extremely well reviewed on here, partly because I found his behaviour intimidating (including his manner of insistence that I say good things about him on the forum) and partly because I've seen tonnes of other people told they are lying if they don't follow the herd. I'm sure it's upsetting for businesses to receive critical feedback, but it's also upsetting to feel you've been treated poorly by someone you've paid money to. And whilst sometimes people use the netrant as the first resort of grievance, sometimes there may be good reason for not complaining to someone's face. In my case, as he'd shouted at me when I (politely and calmly) asked why he taken certain action, I wasn't much inclined to follow up with him further. Allowing positive and negative feedback at least allows the reader to make up their own mind as to how to weight the critic's views.