Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Im not sure why you are claiming Franklins, EDT and Beuberry House havent served foie gras?


I have a copy of EDTs old menu showing it served foie gras if you would like it? Why would I make false claims, seems rather silly as I raised the campaign to stop FG?


Im not sure how I can 'step up' the protest other than writing letters. emails and contacting the press? I have a fulltime job so you wont be seeing me outside Le Chardon with a protest board anytime soon!


Yes Blue Brick Cafe is a vegan veggie cafe - in fact we have a meeting there tonight at 7.30pm if you are interested!


Thomas

I thought ponce meant someone with an unjustified or false air of sophistication and that seems to be the usage Ted is aiming at.


You really are bloody tedious sometimes ThoughtPoliceLady, I'm only just recovering from being told that my dislike of modern R&B is because I'm prejudiced only to discover I'm now homophobic too, I best let my mum and her wife know that's the case, they'll be most upset.

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

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

> (the word only has two dictionary definitions)


Not true. The Oxford dictionary has a number of definitions:


Noun

1 [derogatory] an effeminate man.

2 a man who lives off a prostitute's earnings.


verb

1. live off a prostitute's earnings.

2. [with object] ask for or obtain (something to which one is not strictly entitled):I ponced a cigarette off her


Phrasal Verbs

1. ponce around/about - behave in a ridiculous, ineffective, or posturing way:I ponced around in front of the mirror


Proper Noun

1. a city and a municipality in the southern part of Puerto Rico


Plus, of course, there is the general slang use of the word, which as SJ pointed out is "An individual who attempts to fake having intelligence, class, or culture." I have to say, that has always been my understanding of the most widely accepted meaning of the word.


The etymology is interesting:


1872, slang term, chiefly British, originally "a pimp, a man supported by women" (pouncey in same sense is attested from 1861), of unknown origin, perhaps from Fr. pensionnaire "boarder, lodger, person living without working." Meaning "male homosexual" first attested 1932 in Auden.


WH Auden! Who'd have guessed?

mockney piers Wrote:

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

> An awful lot of 'foie gras' out there is actually

> just good quality liver pate, particularly in pubs

> that ponce up their menu a bit.


To be honest I'd be surprised if that were true, although a foie gras pate/parfait/terrine might contain plenty of other stuff (e.g. pigs liver) as well as the FG.


A piece of foie gras has a completely different taste and texture to regular liver. Served cold it is buttery and spreadable, served warm it is soft and melting.

I know what fg is thanks Jeremey.

I never ate it at the EDT and wasn't accusing them, but I have definitely ordered it on a couple of occasions elsewhere in the past only to be sorely disappointed; I would never order it in a gastro pub these days, although it looks like I may never get the chance to regardless!!

mockney piers Wrote:

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

> I know what fg is thanks Jeremey.

> I never ate it at the EDT and wasn't accusing

> them, but I have definitely ordered it on a couple

> of occasions elsewhere in the past only to be

> sorely disappointed; I would never order it in a

> gastro pub these days, although it looks like I

> may never get the chance to regardless!!




The Prince Regent gastropub on Dulwich Rd are serving a foie gras, rabbit and pigeon terrine with beetroot and horseradish relish today - http://theprinceregent.co.uk/




just don't tell anyone.

Just to re-re-wind a but, I have never heard the word ponce used as a homophobic jibe.


Equally, Ted apologised for any offence caused, but explained what he had actually meant, which clearly was not homophobic so perhaps as well as accepting his gracious apology, it might also be polite to aknowledge that you misunderstood his post.

I think we can be quite clear what 'ponces at the Victoria' meant....and it's always the same suspects, the rubbbish you tolerate on this foum and then try to reason it out with smarmy psuedo semantics. It was meant as a dig at the owners of the Victoria, and most people that use the word pomce mean it in two ways - one as a description of something effeminate and gay - the other as someone that scrounges/ lives off others......Ted has apologised for all the right reasons...geez can we leave it that.

You seem outnumbered in your interpretation of the word, everyone is clear and you have a different understanding, hardly surprising when you seem to struggle with the difference between imply and infer.

Once again you seem to be mistaking your opinion for fact.


Generally if everyone else seems to think something is quacking it's a bit pointless to maintain that it's not actually a duck, can we all be clear on this and I hitherto ban the mentioning of ducks.

No. You MP, Sean and your little gang of mates prefer to back each other up rather than see what the intention of the word really was, because with you guys, it's not about an objective and fair appraisal but ganging up when the fancy takes you on whoever the next shooting target is. A right little clique of bullies amongst several on this forum.


Bweing outnumbererd doesn't mean I am wrong. It was intended to insult/ slur and if you can't see that then you need your head testing..

Don't cry victim, that's pathetic. I've argued with Strafer on this forum more times than I could count. I've also agreed with him about things, including this.


Ted Max has been posting on here a long time, and I've never known anyone accuse him of being rude / homophobic / racist or anything else.


And no, I've never met Ted, or even shared a PM with him, except possibly a group PM.


You've taken something the wrong way, and fair enough, if you say it's sometimes used as a homophobic word, I'll bow to that and take your word for it. However, several people told you you'd gotten it wrong here, but rather than saying "fair enough, my mistake", you've said everyone is ganging up on you, and started getting aggressive and personal.


Have a fucking word with yourself, you are wrong on this one!

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 went to France recently and in the city I visited there were large billboards on the main streets urging people to stop their dogs from messing on the streets and in a little park a sign said something to the effect that this park was built for your enjoyment not as a dumping ground for dog mess. There were also big signs about not fly tipping. I wonder if councils are too worried about offending dog owners by making a fuss about this major problem. I was a dog owner for many years, got free bags from the council and there were even bins around then.
    • 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
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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