Jump to content

Neat summary of the EDF fave topics - The Times today (Lounged)


Recommended Posts

'Let us end this once and for all'. How sanctimonious talfourd.'Bellenden belle' (?) how dare you say "I think you see everyone on this forum as a mass gathering of some concept you hate". What a load of tosh. You do sound like a nasty piece of work. And by the way, it looks like the Forest Hill move may not be going ahead so I will remain for now off Northcross Rd.! And the 'community' of which you speak does not exist. At least in reality. Still, by your username I am assuming you live in the arguably 'regenerated' Bellenden Rd area? How lucky you are if you do...


And thank you Keef by the way.

Ganapati, I had frankly had enough of the nasty postings by a minority, and I can give as good as I get. I think you can mention the word 'contempt' to some others on here too. Still, you have always been very fair on here so I have no argument with you at all.

Spangles - surely there is nothing wrong with "ending this" by now. IS there really any merit in sustaining teh argument when it is surely going to lead to more mud-slinging


I wouldn't call the request to end it sanctimonious. I do however take issue with calling Bellenden Belle a nasty piece of work. Not only was her post articulate but it was well-balanced and made some salient points


How do I know Bellenden Belle is not a nasty piece of work? Because the community you are so keen to deny existing is real and I have met her on several occassions through this very forum


I'm glad to gave shout to Keef as well - another top person who plays no small part in the community too


Should you come to the drinks on Friday (details are near the top of the list of threads for the last couple of days) you might find it harder to refute

Ganapti, granted that is a good argument about boosting numbers of people using IVF. However, it is not that clearcut. As I have already said, IVF boosts fertility only a tiny bit 6% and wreaks potentially dreadful health risks on IVF kids.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1807351.stm

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23405208-details/IVF+children+%2527are+twice+as+likely%2527+to+suffer+poor+health/article.do


I do not consider my opinion to be 'offensive'. I consider it 'offensive' that people assume that having children is a right that should be paid for on the cash-strapped NHS. I expected my opinion to be lambasted in an area with a high IVF up take.

The highly potent drug regime of putting the woman's body into an early menopause then hyperstimulating her ovaries could cause goodness only knows what potential harmful effects. So I am not convinced IVF is the answer to increasing the population.


In short, childlessness is NOT an illness and IVF is incredibly poor value for money. It costs a fortune and the success rate is incredibly low. Having children is both a responsibility and a privilege, it is not in any way shape or form a right.

Sean, the said posting was not, in my opinion well balanced in suggesting that I 'hate' everyone on this forum. I have never suggested that, and frankly it would be an idiot who 'hated' an internet forum. I am extremely annoyed that the said poster had the gall to make such a sweeping generalisation on a personal level, which note I have not so far done.


But it is very gallant of you to come to the said poster's defence, granted.:))

why don't you get it started Ganapati. I just happened to mention that in my particular council block there were very few British people of whatever colour. I am not sure if that is typical of council blocks in general, but it certainly was of mine in Loughborough Junction. Hardly anyone could speak English. Does that matter?

Spangles30 Wrote:

'Bellenden belle' You do sound like a

> nasty piece of work.


Hee hee - I've always worried I'm too, erm, nice - so I am thrilled to be cast as "a nasty piece of work". I feel I suddenly have a whole new dimension to my character! And to think some might say the decision to live in the Bellenden Area might make me shallow!


But thank you Sean for your kind comments ...

I think we're all agreed that this world is overpopulated and not enough resources to sustain our lifestyles, so I think in complete contrast to IVF, we should actually start introducing a cull.

I suggest we begin with people with veruccas, and move on to X-Factor fans forthwith.

Sun readers can begin some time next year I reckon.


Obvioulsy my fine Halo 3 skills will deem me far too important to society to be included.

Do you suppose the covenant home worlds are actually full of council estates and people complaining about their hard earned tax klibbots being spent on a pointless war against those helpless humans?

"Not in my name" protested the purple fella actually called CWALD.

Spangles,


I find your riposte about as confusing as the many clumsy comments you have already made. you are now criticising this treatment for its poor economic worth, burden on the NHS and lacking results, whereas a moment ago it was because it was ethically reprehensible. So supposing you are wealthy, prepared to take the risk at your own expense imply that you should be entitled to assistance in having children, whereas the less wealthy aren't, how egalitarian. In this way I now understand you thinking it is a privilege (of the rich) rather than a right.

As I mentioned, it was not your opinion per-se that I minded, although I did disagree with it, it was your lofty, ill considered and generalised judgements regarding the circumstances of infertility and their 'merits' as to whether you would allow a flippant gamble on an unborn childs health. If you think IVF is wrong, then fine, but confusingly you think that there are circumstances that warrant this dangerous, selfish treatment. As Ganapati cleverly parrallelled, you are only one step removed from banning people with potential genetic pre-dispositions from having children, and I quote you on this very matter - " Is it fair to bring a child into the world who has a higher incidence of illness because they were conceived in this way? No, it is selfish."......perhaps if there is a chance then they should be aborted, how Christian.


So there we are (again), it is your deeply flawed argument that I dislike, not your right to have it.


Bellenden Belle, for my money you sound lovely and I wouldn't listen to the one off opinion of a clearly angry Spangle.

Spangles, you wrote:


'Let us end this once and for all'. How sanctimonious talfourd.'Bellenden belle' question mark how dare you say "I think you see everyone on this forum as a mass gathering of some concept you hate". What a load of tosh. You do sound like a nasty piece of work.


Can I just ask why you felt it necessary to jump in with that completely unwarranted personal attack on Bellenden Belle? I'm sure you're aware of the phrase ad hominem (and if not, that's what google's for). This is a prime example of why I, and I would imagine many others, will put very little store in what you have to say. That and the inconsistent arguments of course, as has already been pointed out by many other posters.


You can spout as much half-baked logic as you like but the snide personal attacks are not acceptable.



Edit: After reading back I see Bellenden Belle's already replied herself, but the point still stands. This isn't the first time you've been quick to get personal.

Yeah good work Sean & Mockers!


Bellenden Belle Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Hee hee - I've always worried I'm too, erm, nice - so I am thrilled to be cast as "a nasty piece of

> work". I feel I suddenly have a whole new dimension to my character!


Damn it, I want to be nasty... In a completely unperverse way you understand... :-S Er... I'm off again.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • I was also woken by this. It happened in two bursts, which felt even more anti social.
    • Surprised at how many people take the 'oooh it's great it got approved, something is better than nothing' view. This is exactly Southwark council's approach, pandering to greedy developers for the absolute bare minimum of social and affordable housing. It's exactly why, under their leadership, only a fraction of social and affordable housing has been built in the borough - weirdly Mccash chose to highlight their own failures in his 'near unprecedented' (yet unbiased 😆) submission. All the objectors i have met support redevelopment, to benefit those in need of homes and the community - not change it forever. The council could and should be bolder, demand twice the social and affordable housing in these schemes, and not concede to 8 storeys of unneeded student bedsits. If it is a question of viability, publically disclose the business plan to prove how impossible it might be to turn a profit. Once the thing is built these sites can never be used for social or affordable housing. The council blows every opportunity, every time. Its pathetic. Developers admitted the scale was, in this instance, not required for viability. The student movements data seemed completely made up. The claim that 'students are taking up private rentals' was backed up with no data. There is empty student housing on denmark hill, needs to be fixed up but it's there already built. The council allows developers years to build cosy relationships with planners such that the final decision is a formality - substantiated objections are dismissed with wooly words and BS. Key meetings and consultations are scheduled deliberately to garner minimal engagement or objection. Local councillors, who we fund, ignore their constituents concerns. Those councillors that dare waiver in the predetermination are slapped down. Not very democratic. They've removed management and accountability by having no nomination agreement with any of the 'many london universities needing accommodation' - these direct lets MAKE MORE MONEY. A privately run firm will supposedly ensure everyone that those living there is actually a student and adheres to any conduct guidelines. There's no separation to residents - especially to ones on their own development. Could go on... We'll see how many of the 53 social/affordable units that we're all so happy to have approved actually get built. 
    • I am looking for 1 unit which is working for £50 cash. Thank you
    • Can’t recommend the company enough, great service. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...