Jump to content

Recommended Posts

giggirl Wrote:

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

> No, you didn't need to ask, you could have just

> let it slide. As it is, you're being

> self-righteous with someone you know nothing at

> all about. You don't know the lady or her partner

> or their lives, so let it go and don't ask her to

> explain herself to you. Give the benefit of the

> doubt. No wonder people don't post. These

> pointless digs are not only ugly but they're dull

> reading too.


Wow, you got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning.


Actually, I think I'm more than entitled to ask. If someone posts a anecdote on a public website that obviously leads to such a question, then they should not be too surprised if it is asked.


So you can pop down off your high horse now, GG.

Sue Wrote:

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

> Mick Mac Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Personally Sue I think you should apologise for

> > saying the OP was racist.

>

> xxxxxx

>

> Eh? Where did I say the OP was racist?


Sue is, of course, correct. She definitely did not say the OP was racist. She might have suggested, hinted, indicated, offered, prompted, propounded, connoted and implied it. But Sue definitely did not say it.


(This post has be brought to you by thesaurus.com)

Countrlass22 Wrote:

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

> Loz i suggest you get out side bed right

> side..........side if kindess and no wasnt comment

> requesting suggestions of such rude judgmental

> behaviour and your way off thread topic.

>

> suggest read rules.refresh


Read my post again - I judged absolutely nothing.

Loz Wrote:

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

> Sue Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Mick Mac Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > Personally Sue I think you should apologise

> for

> > > saying the OP was racist.

> >

> > xxxxxx

> >

> > Eh? Where did I say the OP was racist?

>

> Sue is, of course, correct. She definitely did

> not say the OP was racist. She might have

> suggested, hinted, indicated, offered, prompted,

> propounded, connoted and implied it. But Sue

> definitely did not say it.

>

> (This post has be brought to you by thesaurus.com)


xxxxxxx


Christ almighty.


Have you actually bothered to read my post where I explained my objections to the OP's describing the person who scratched her car as an asylum seeker?


It's nothing to do with race - except perhaps in your mind, as perhaps you imagine that all asylum seekers must be a different race to you?


Jesus Christ. Do feel free to continue to deliberately misinterpret what I say. It keeps Jeremy amused, anyway :))

Yes Sue, I read your post, especially the bit where you said "I can't think such statements can be doing your "French fashion consultant" business (or whatever it is) any favours, except amongst the more right wing readers of the forum".


What did you mean by that exactly?


And "you imagine that all asylum seekers must be a different race to you"? Well, kind of, as by definition they are not British. Ergo, they are a different nationality and therefore covered by the Race Relations Act, which is why saying nasty things about the French or the Irish is, indeed, racist.

Loz Wrote:

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

> Yes Sue, I read your post, especially the bit

> where you said "I can't think such statements can

> be doing your "French fashion consultant" business

> (or whatever it is) any favours, except amongst

> the more right wing readers of the forum".

>

> What did you mean by that exactly?

>

> And "you imagine that all asylum seekers must be a

> different race to you"? Well, kind of, as by

> definition they are not British. Ergo, they are a

> different nationality and therefore covered by the

> Race Relations Act, which is why saying nasty

> things about the French or the Irish is, indeed,

> racist.



Xxxxxx


The Race Relations Act covers discrimination on the grounds of various things including both race AND nationality.


Race is not the same as nationality.


And since the posts leading up to mine have now been deleted, I have no intention of continuing any discussion out of the context of those posts.


If I think somebody is making racist comments I will say so outright, as I have on this forum in the past. If I had thought the OP was racist I would have said so. I didn't.


I am not posting any more on this thread. As far as I am concerned I have made my views quite clear so if anyone claims not to understand them, that's too bad.

Sue Wrote:

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


> Race is not the same as nationality.


Technically and semantically correct, but in terms of day to day usage of the term 'racist', then no. Unless you somehow think that those old "No Irish" signs weren't at all racist?

Loz Wrote:

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

> Sue Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

> > Race is not the same as nationality.

>

> Technically and semantically correct, but in terms

> of day to day usage of the term 'racist', then no.

> Unless you somehow think that those old "No Irish"

> signs weren't at all racist?


Xxxxx


As I have said, I am not continuing this discussion here.


If you want to go down this road, which has nothing to do with the OP which in any case has been deleted by the poster, then start a thread in the lounge.


Then you can argue about definitions all you like :)

Sue Wrote:

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


> If you want to go down this road, which has

> nothing to do with the OP which in any case has

> been deleted by the poster, then start a thread in

> the lounge.


Hang on, you were the one that derailed it from the OPs original point in the first place! You know - the bit where you sort-of-but-not-quite called her a racist...

withhout a doubt ,way out line this person did this that person said that reading into what isnt written arrogance,lack.of care to read replies ignorance is bliss to the offender not to the reciever.

no desire keep to thread topic blantant disreguard of forum rules.

pleasure seeing members leave so you can be feeling a passion.of "im right "your all doingthis or that.

Loz Wrote:

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

> Sue Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

> > If you want to go down this road, which has

> > nothing to do with the OP which in any case has

> > been deleted by the poster, then start a thread

> in

> > the lounge.

>

> Hang on, you were the one that derailed it from

> the OPs original point in the first place! You

> know - the bit where you sort-of-but-not-quite

> called her a racist...


Xxxxxx


You appear to be just stirring.

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

    • Hi if anyone has one pm me cheers 
    • You can always check when they registered on the forum, if you are suspicious. But I recommended Aria, and it certainly wasn't my only post on here, and it was a genuine recommendation. ETA: And he didn't ask me to make it, to the best of my recollection. But even if he had, many local tradespeople ask people to post on here if they are happy with the work that has been done.
    • I am not a patient at this practice, but surely it is more sensible to have an initial  phone discussion, as often the GP wouldn't need to see someone face to face unless they actually needed to physically examine them? This then leaves the available face to face appointments for patients who need them. And if during  the phone call the GP felt you needed examining, then arrangements could be made for a face to face. If you feel your ailment is such that you will definitely need to be physically examined, can you not explain that to the receptionist?
    • Give Labour a chance, they've only been in government for a short time, and they inherited a mess! As regards the notice boards, to the best of my recollection they were originally intended as community notice boards, and certainly not for advertising local businesses (who would decide which businesses  should have the limited space on the boards, anyway?) East Dulwich may have become more gentrified since the boards were first introduced, but that surely doesn't mean they should now be completely  taken over for the benefit of  the "middle classes", to the exclusion of everybody else? As  NewWave says, surely these people have other ways to find out about groups and events of interest to them, which the "non middle classes" may not have access to, and even if they did may not be able to afford them. Several people including myself have complained to councillors about the state of the noticeboards in the past.  I think one of the issues is that they were originally maintained by local volunteers, who may have either moved out of the area or lost interest - or given up in despair when the boards were flypostered and/or vandalised. I completely  agree that the boards should be used for information about not for profit organisations in the area, but if regular maintenance can't be provided and/or they continue to be vandalised, then I think it would be better if they were removed altogether.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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