Forum Sponsors

http://www.gardenia-gardens.com

www.nannycentral.co.uk

www.advancedpainters.co.uk

Advertise here

The East Dulwich Forum
Which pubs, bars, restaurants and take-aways do you avoid?
Goto Page: Previous12
Current Page: 2 of 2
messageRe: ‘Banning’ things thread.
Posted by JohnL November 05, 10:58AM

uncleglen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Anthropomorphism should be banned

But how does 'His dark materials' work then ?

messageRe: ‘Banning’ things thread.
Posted by Bob Buzzard November 05, 08:03PM

Bob Buzzard (according to Mrs Bob).

messageRe: ‘Banning’ things thread.
Posted by Seabag November 06, 10:32PM

Ban sliced white bread

And isn’t ‘incomers’ just short for ‘blow incomers’?

We know that phrase is definitely on the ’banned’ list already.

messageRe: ‘Banning’ things thread.
Posted by Loutwo November 07, 12:01AM

Can we ban foreign mustard now Brexit is within eye poking distance? Can’t stand the bland, vinegary tasteless muck people eat as a inferior alternative to proper English mustard.

I was once fingered out in a restaurant by a friend for requesting it with my steak. At no stage in my existence have I ever felt so protective of this wonderfully spicy condiment. My friend suggested I have some fancy French crap instead, from that day to this I have remained loyal to Colman’s.

Louisa.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit was november 07, 12:02am by Loutwo.

messageRe: ‘Banning’ things thread.
Posted by Spartacus November 07, 12:10AM

Louisa wrote:
----------------.-
> I was once fingered out in a restaurant by a
> friend
> Louisa.


WOW

messageRe: ‘Banning’ things thread.
Posted by rahrahrah November 07, 09:43AM

fishbiscuits Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I accept your point. But I think a crackdown on
> vehicles should probably be emissions based (or
> maybe by size/weight?). A large saloon or estate
> could be heavier, and more polluting, than a small
> to mid-size SUV.

SUVs are generally heavier / less aerodynamic and so more polluting than similar, non-SUV models. They also pose considerably more risk to pedestrians as their increased height causes more upper body injuries even at relatively low speeds and they can easily mount pavements / ride through barriers when out of control. There is no need for people to adopt pseudo military vehicles in the city - we used to mock the US for driving around in these things, now (sadly) Europe seems to be adopting them.

They are heavily marketed of course, as the margins are much bigger than on smaller cars.

Interesting article on it in the FT this morning: [www.ft.com]



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit was november 07, 09:45am by rahrahrah.

messageRe: ‘Banning’ things thread.
Posted by SpringTime November 07, 10:04AM

Spartacus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Louisa wrote:
> ----------------.-
> > I was once fingered out in a restaurant by a
> > friend
> > Louisa.
>
>
> WOW

We shouldn't ban fingering in restaurants. This is a fun and wholesome activity. You don't need to be Richard Gere to do it either. [www.youtube.com]

I'd avoid mustard though. You'll get complaints.

messageRe: ‘Banning’ things thread.
Posted by fishbiscuits November 07, 10:33AM

rahrahrah Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> SUVs are generally heavier / less aerodynamic and
> so more polluting than similar, non-SUV models.
> They also pose considerably more risk to
> pedestrians as their increased height causes more
> upper body injuries even at relatively low speeds

Yes. Generally. But not in all cases. Restricting specific attributes of vehicles makes more sense than just saying "SUVs". It may sound like I'm splitting hairs, but many SUVs are hybrid... and some are actually quite compact..

messageRe: ‘Banning’ things thread.
Posted by JohnL November 07, 10:54AM

Loutwo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Can we ban foreign mustard now Brexit is within
> eye poking distance? Can’t stand the bland,
> vinegary tasteless muck people eat as a inferior
> alternative to proper English mustard.

> Louisa.

The EU already banned Colmans French Mustard for you back in 2001.

[www.campaignlive.co.uk]

messageRe: ‘Banning’ things thread.
Posted by peckham_ryu November 07, 12:44PM

Is it just me or has Coleman’s got a lot tamer in recent years? But if any mustard needs banning, it’s that limp dribbling American kind. Ugh.

messageRe: ‘Banning’ things thread.
Posted by DulwichFox November 07, 01:03PM

Ready made Coleman's is not that nice..

Mustard needs to be made fresh from Powder and cold water.

It should be made 10 - 15 mins before use.

DulwichFox

messageRe: ‘Banning’ things thread.
Posted by TheArtfulDogger November 07, 05:40PM

SpringTime Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Spartacus Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Louisa wrote:
> > ----------------.-
> > > I was once fingered out in a restaurant by a
> > > friend
> > > Louisa.
> >
> >
> > WOW
>
> We shouldn't ban fingering in restaurants. This is
> a fun and wholesome activity. You don't need to be
> Richard Gere to do it either.
> [www.youtube.com]
>

Say yes yes yes if you think Louisa was the insperation for Sally meeting Harry ?

messageRe: ‘Banning’ things thread.
Posted by Seabag November 08, 12:39AM

Good Dijon mustard is worthy of its place at the table, along side a good English mustard.

But I don’t mean the aberration that is ‘French (but not really) French mustard’ all brown and unpleasant.That stuff is banished to ‘Banished Condiments Island’ along with sweet mint jelly.

However, please don’t treat this thread as a sharking pond for your anti-French nonsense. I like the French, even the awkward ones.

Goto Page: Previous12
Current Page: 2 of 2

Back to top of page
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Donate                   Terms of use                  Help & FAQs                   Advertise               RSS rss feed               Copyright 2006 - 2018 East Dulwich Forum