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

[Louisa]

I guess *Bob* predictably ridiculing, mocking and scoffing for the millionth time is hilarious. Why contribute to a thread with fun facts which are informative and helpful, when you can just rip into people for the sake of it?

Louisa.

[Otta]

aquarius moon Wrote:

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

> So why has nobody been to Peckham cinema?

Why do you think nobody has been there?

[aquarius moon]

Otta Wrote:

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

> aquarius moon Wrote:

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

> -----

> > So why has nobody been to Peckham cinema?

>

>

>

> Why do you think nobody has been there?

Is it because everyone in ED has always been so well off that they can afford to watch films in the West End?

Or got giant TV's and Sky so they can watch films at home on demand?

Or got their own private cinemas at the end of their gardens?

Or are under the false impression that if SE22's mix with SE15, they'll never get out alive?

I don't know Otta. I'm on a different wavelength. Tell me.

[SLad]

Crumbs this is going to be a massive distraction from the current trend of this thread but I have been to Peckham Plex a fair bit since moving into the area in 2008. It is a little gem of a cinema for those occasions when you're feeling a bit hard up or just want to see a new movie without paying ridiculous prices. When it was on orange wednesday (buy one get one free tickets) it was insanely cheap. In more recent times, I loved going there with my baby daughter for the mum and baby screaming and had a particularly brilliant time singing along to Sunshine in Leith jiggling my sleeping daughter around in her sling.

However, you get what you pay for: the cinema is not well-appointed and rarely very clean by the evening showings. There's no bar and nowhere nice in the cinema (though plenty of places locally now) to meet up for a pre-show drink. Worst of all, the sound quality for the films themselves is not the best.

Comparing that to the Ritzy (I've not been to the ED picturehouse yet) is a false exercise: aside from the fact that both show films, the experiences are miles apart. So, in the round I would always rather pay a bit extra and go to a picturehouse (unless they're not showing the film I want to see) but think we're all really lucky having the Peckham plex on hand for a cheaper treat.

Sorry for the distraction from the bickering.

As you were.

[tfwsoll]

Despite being partial to drinking organic coffee in Islington, I frequented the Peckham Plex for a few years when it first opened. As SLad said, you get what you pay for - it was cheap with poor sound and projection quality but OK for the latest blockbuster - which was usually loud enough to cancel out the people chatting at full volume during the movie.

[Jeremy]

I go to Peckhamplex now and again. It's fine. So it's basic, the carpets are sticky, the seats are worn, and the projection and audio quality are not great - but you can still enjoy the film and you can't argue with the price.

aquarius moon Wrote:

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

> Just to add, ridiculing, taking the p*ss, talking bollox just

> to get a laugh isn't cool and isn't clever.

I disagree. Louisa's argument is ridiculous, so ridicule is a completely appropriate response. I have tried reason, and predictably got nowhere.

[aquarius moon]

Jeremy Wrote:

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

> I go to Peckhamplex now and again. It's fine. So

> it's basic, the carpets are sticky, the seats are

> worn, and the projection and audio quality are not

> great - but you can still enjoy the film and you

> can't argue with the price.

>

> aquarius moon Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Just to add, ridiculing, taking the p*ss,

> talking bollox just

> > to get a laugh isn't cool and isn't clever.

>

> I disagree. Louisa's argument is ridiculous, so

> ridicule is a completely appropriate response. I

> have tried reason, and predictably got nowhere.

That's your opinion Jeremy.

We all have our opinions and don't deserve to be ridiculed and treated like sh*t just because we think differently to others.

It's not about being popular by posting crap that some will find funny, it's about posting thoughtfully and gaining respect by what you write.

I respect so many people on here (including you!), even some that I don't get on with. But there are quite a few that I don't. Maybe they will see sense and change. I live in hope.

[Jah Lush]

Have you read the thread AQM?

Louisa complains about one cinema being more pricy than another cinema, argues for and against them, drawing ridiculous comparisons and spouting the usual relentless drivel that she is want to do like an old scratched record and then it turns out she hasn't even bothered to go to either of the venues that we've been discussing on two threads! That's no experience of either venue to draw proper comparisons with. It deserves ridicule and our withering scorn and I'm sure she's having just as much fun winding us all up as "Bob* is taking the piss out of her tired old shtick.

[Louisa]

It appears to have an opinion on this forum, you need to have tasted a burger, visited a cinema or been to franco manca. It is becoming more and more like some sort of dictatorship. Apparently, a cinema isn't just a cinema these days. A cinema is somewhere you have to go to "experience". What a load of old tosh. You go to watch a friggin film FFS. My argument is watertight (as ever), and yet people ridicule and attack me simply because "she's going over old ground again". It's pathetic. I hope you're holding you're head in shame *Bob*, I've finished off two bottles and a bit of co-op's own Pinot Grigio tonight, that's what this conversation has done to me. I'm an emotional wreck.

Louisa.

[aquarius moon]

Yes, I read it JL.

And it wasn't just this thread or just Louisa I was referring to.

It was threads in general, the picked on and the ones who get a buzz from picking. And the ones who don't care about others. It really isn't nice.

[miga]

Whatever you think about Louisa's opinions, her threads are the most popular on the forum.

[MrBen]

If only "popular" equated fresh, creative or insightful.

She's arguably the best troll "lite" the forum has produced although still so many like AQM don't see it and take it all on face value.

Whoosh.

[*Bob*]

AQ, consider this: you have to work pretty hard on here to get a ban of any sort. The admins on here (whoever they are and of whom there have been numerous) have a light touch.

Consider that in - approaching a decade of existence - with tens of thousands of regular users and god knows how many posts, the number of posters who have been banned from the main section can be counted on one hand. What this means is that you have to work pretty bloody hard to get a ban on here.

Louisa has worked hard - and hence she is one of those people to be counted on that one hand. She isn?t banned out of personal malice, nor from some great injustice because of not being in with some sort of clique (yawn): she is banned because amongst the people (like me) who see her tiresomely ?provocative? posts for what they are, there are also a sackload of people - perhaps not such frequent visitors - who felt that she was like a dog weeing on the carpet (on purpose) every time you let it to the front room. In addition you should also know that there are also a good number of people who have been genuinely pissed-off, upset or just plain bored to tears (enough even to leave, in some cases) by her mischief-making over the years. For mischief is what it is - and mischievous contributions demand only mischief in return.

Personally I wouldn?t see her banned from the main section, but I find it highly amusing that she is - and am enjoying watching her twist and shriek as it become all the more clear that the main supply of her ?less knowing? targets has been restricted.

I?ve never had any desire to fall out with any regular, reasonable person (such as yourself) - and there?s no need to - not when there is always a plentiful supply of pompous, snobbish, ignorant - or just plain bizarre contributions to come in on. Long may it continue.

[Otta]

Well said *bob*, spot on. I sometimes agree with things Louisa says, but in a "boy who cried wolf" way, these good points do get lost in the whole "blow-in" stuff which people have just tired of seeing.

Every good comic needs to update their act.

Although there are some posters that can't stand Louisa that I really enjoy seeing her wind up.

[steveo]

Anything on at the pictures?

[Louisa]

OK. Firstly, your observation about people who have been banned is plainly wrong *Bob*. If you go back to the thread in the main section which caused my restriction, even you with your witty retort will struggle to defend it. The likes of you *Bob*, who jump in to many a thread with sarcasm and banter could by some be considered a troll! but for whatever reason admin overlooks those contributions. The same could be said of a number of folk on here who have said far far worse than anything I have ever said. I am I opinionated yes, but if certain people don't like my style that's just simply not a good enough reason to ban me. I'm sure many on here don't particularly like your style, or anyone else you choose to mention, do they get their account restricted? Absolutely not.

I think it a bigger thing than just me. I think it is aimed at anyone who has family or heritage in ED or lived in the area long enough to remember the old days. JOHNNYBOY put up a great thread in the main section the other day - it was thrown carelessly by admin into the lounge. I politely requested information from admin via PM the other day, it's been read and I've received no response. Foxy is constantly undermined by various people on here when all he is doing is being and informative. Even edhistory was rudely interrupted the other day for politely asking why thread had been lounged.

If people can't see any of this and how it gets certain peoples back's up, then you're either ignorant to the fact or just enjoying winding up some old timers for the hell of it.

Louisa.

[*Bob*]

steveo Wrote:

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

> Anything on at the pictures?

Cabaret, The Last Laugh, Sabotage, The Muppet Movie, Eyes Wide Shut, Intolerance, Fight Club, Performance, The Good The Bad and the Ugly and Trouble In Paradise.

[red devil]

I thought it was blindingly obvious that Louisa was a...let's be kind...exagerrated character. Fairly harmless, 'she's' not racist, homophobic, threatening etc. The forum does a pretty good job of self-policing itself, and anyone posting along those lines soon gets short shrift. I always saw her character as either a deliberate alter ego set-up by whoever created Dulwich Mum, or someone trying to muscle in on DM's popularity. DM was funny, but as Ots implies, over time it eventually becomes hackneyed.

AqM, do you know why Louisa was banned?...

[*Bob*]

Louisa Wrote:

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

> OK. Firstly, your observation about people who

> have been banned is plainly wrong *Bob*. If you go

> back to the thread in the main section which

> caused my restriction..

I know you only heard the leaky tap dripping last night, but it's actually been dripping for quite a while.

[Louisa]

I also think it's a little bit rich of *Bob* to take the moral high ground over the likes of me and my 'trolling' when he's been doing something very similar since day one! Pot-kettle-black!

Louisa.

[steveo]

Isn't Too Much Free Time on their Hands showing?

[miga]

I don't think Louisa is a troll in the classic sense.

She seems self aware enough to play up to her image by starting threads such as this, but when the argument deepens that mask of lightheartedness seems to disappear and the 'trolling' no longer feels like deliberate baiting and antagonism for lulz, but desperate defence of a genuinely held position.

In this thread, it was *Bob* who did a relatively amusing job of trolling Louisa in the classic sense.

I think Louisa should be reinstated elsewhere - she needs it.

[*Bob*]

miga Wrote:

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

> I don't think Louisa is a troll in the classic

> sense.

I'd agree with that.

The interesting thing (to me, anyway) is that Lou's restriction to the lounge has really exposed the one-dimensionality of the contributions - when starved of the regular supply of oxygen they?ve enjoyed up to now.

The usual class-based button-pressers now fall upon ears who've heard it all too many times and lack any real motivation to engage - and all we're left with are these lame, manufactured ?I was in my garden the other day drinking Lambrini? type offerings, which read like a sixth former's first attempt at a theatrical farce.

[miga]

*Bob* Wrote:

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

> and all we're

> left with are these lame, manufactured ?I was in

> my garden the other day drinking Lambrini? type

> offerings, which read like a sixth former's first

> attempt at a theatrical farce.

I'm not sure if this is too much credit, or not nearly enough.

And perhaps that's the rub - the conscious brain calls nonsense, yet still plenty of buttons are pushed as witnessed by the popularity of threads such as this.

[Louisa]

*Bob* are you a real life failed comedian, who took the act online to get a rise out of the nasty world that didn't give him a gig?

It would appear so.

If my record has skipped a beat half a dozen times, your's has been skipping one for over 8 years. And yet, I'm the troll? Clever move though, take the emphasis off of your own same old tired repetitive misgivings.

Louisa.