Jump to content

ED Picturehouse. Elitist*. (Louisa's lounged response)


Recommended Posts

Well in the 50's many people did not have a Television. We didn't .


So we went to the Cinema to see the Moving Pictures (Flicks) and Talkies..

Some were even in colour.


and after we had Fish & Chips in newspaper.(not because it was trendy) walking along the road.

No Burgers back then. No Pizza, Chinese, Curry, Takeaways.


Some Cinemas sold Hot-Dogs..


Foxy..

The world's first wireless telephone conversation occurred in 1880, when Alexander Graham Bell and Charles Sumner Tainter invented and patented the photophone, a telephone that conducted audio conversations wirelessly over modulated light beams (which are narrow projections of electromagnetic waves). In that distant era, when utilities did not yet exist to provide electricity and lasers had not even been imagined in science fiction, there were no practical applications for their invention, which was highly limited by the availability of both sunlight and good weather. Similar to free-space optical communication, the photophone also required a clear line of sight between its transmitter and its receiver. It would be several decades before the photophone's principles found their first practical applications in military communications and later in fiber-optic communications.

*bob*



Most of the time I use Google links to convey knowledge of the things I already know something about.


Usually where people have asked for info I go to the trouble of investigating and pointing them in the

right direction and also learning myself.


It's in my nature to help people. Not insult them.


Where I have used Google to find info for other people I provide a link to the source of that info

to comply with rules of etiquette concerning the author of that info.


Your last post was meaningless in the context of this thread..

Just as foxy provides links to sources online pointing people in the right direction to back up his ideas and also help people learn about things (note he doesn't have to do this, it's called being kind and generous?), I feel I provide a service to people by talking the realities of certain situations they may otherwise not be aware of. Like cinema prices for example.


Louisa.

*Bob* I believe you and I have patronised this forum for almost the exact same time as registered members. I am happy to provide my opinions about all sorts of things, if only people would ask I could tell them about many things. I'm always happy to help.


Louisa.

Louisa Wrote:

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

> Jeremy you don't have to be Jonathan Ross to have

> an opinion about cinemas. For god sakes, this is

> getting more and more bizarre by the second. Just

> for the record, I KNOW WHAT A CINEMA IS I HAVE

> BEEN IN MANY. The last one I went to was in Cromer

> in fact and again I paid under a fiver for a

> latest release in a independent pictures!

>

Gone With The Wind?

Louisa Wrote:

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


. Have you ever flown with

> Ryanair? I flew with them to Tenerife on a package

> deal some years ago and wasn't overly impressed,

> checking the size of my bag and trying to charge

> me for being over the weight and size limit etc.

>

> Louisa.


There's all sorts of fad diets that might help with that.

*Bob* Wrote:

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

> Wow! - and the best bit is you can get a cheap day

> return to East Grinstead for just ?14.90 as well.



?11.20 from Forest Hill. A day out in the Sussex countryside and a cheap flick!

Jah Lush Wrote:

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

> DulwichFox Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Problem is that *bob* is not as good as taking

> the

> > piss as he thinks he is..

> >

> > Most people that selectively take the P can be

> > funny.

> >

> > *DulwichFox*

>

> He's making me laugh.




Me too. Snorting like a stuffed pig, startling passengers on the number 12!

*Bob* Wrote:

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

> Fair enough. I'm going down the bottom of the

> garden to hit my knackers with a lump hammer.

>

>

> See you tomorrow. Same time, same place.




Heheheheheeeehaw.


*Bob*'s contribution to this thread has proper cheered me.

Just a little reminder for *Bob*. You might be 2-0 at the end of half time, but believe me, foxy and I have a star striker on the bench who's coming on in the second half and your goalkeeper better have a decent pair of gloves.


Louisa.

So why has nobody been to Peckham cinema? I rarely go, but remember taking my daughter there years ago for an occasional treat. And if I did feel like seeing a film, that's the first place I'd choose to visit.


Just to add,


ridiculing, taking the p*ss, talking bollox just to get a laugh isn't cool and isn't clever.


It's actually quite sad.

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 surprised to learn that East Dulwich Picturehouse now only screens PG-rated films for their baby-friendly showings, unlike other Picturehouse branches. Apparently, this change happened after a complaint to the council about showing films above a PG rating to infants. Afaik, this policy only applies to this  branch. As a local parent, I find this frustrating. It limits our options, especially when many of us would love the chance to watch a wider range of films while caring for our little ones. For example, during Oscar Week, only one vintage film is being shown. Are we really expected to only consume toddler-focused content, like Cocomelon? I also worry about the precedent this sets. If other institutions, like the Tate or the National Portrait Gallery, applied similar restrictions, parents could be left with only child-oriented content. Babies under one don’t fully comprehend adult themes, so shouldn’t there be more flexibility? I’d love to hear what others think—should this policy be reconsidered?
    • I am a secondary teacher in the local area and totally agree that it’s so important for teenagers to be given a space to connect and learn skills. I think it’s lovely that they’ve been able to do this organically due to the carpark being derelict but it defeats the very concept of dynamic urban living to use this as a reason to block the development of the space into something that could benefit the whole community. I would really welcome an entrepreneur bringing a proposal forward that thinks about how we could best make the space work for everyone. I’d also love to see the council engage with the kids themselves on how and where to make the skate park permanent, perhaps in Dulwich Park itself. Give them some funding to make it nicer than a space by such a busy traffic route. I also agree we shouldn’t romanticise the skate park - they’re not principals in the Royal Ballet Company. I don’t think it’s hugely affecting the community, but let’s not pretend there isn’t some underage drinking and drug use going on there. But mainly the building itself is a waste of space and it’s often depressing to see the private security company vans parked out there late at night. Let’s use it as an opportunity to engage in conversations about what this part of Lordship Lane really needs. 
    • This kind of thing? https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/286379655798?  
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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