Loz

*Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I looked at Keepass but the autofill bit looked > like more of an arse on the face of it, just > enough to put me off. Have they improved this now? Works fine for me. If the login/password aren't on consecutive lines you have to edit the autotype section, but it's really not difficult. But I've had it for about 2 years now and it's not changed in that time, so whatever you didn't like before may still be there. The other good thing is you can have multiple files and you can put documents in there, so I have a separate Keepass file that holds copies of pass-ports safely. I liked the look of LastPass, but trusting a cloud provider with my every single password was too risky for me. I thought there might be an issue with Keepass in that it stayed unlocked until you closed it, but I found a timeout setting, so it now locks itself up again after x minutes of non-use.

Voting to stay. I really haven't seen one good argument to leave. Having said that, all the terrible things being predicted - "Brexit will lead to an increase in terrorism", "Brexit threatens rights to maternity leave and paid holiday", "Brexit could push the Falklands closer to Argentina", "Brexit would lead to an increase in petrol prices" are really starting to annoy me.

rabbitears Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There's a lot more private landlords that are putting their kids through private school and own far less > land than Dulwich Estate! I'm guessing that you've never been a private landlord.

I use KeePass, with the datafile sitting on my OneDrive (i.e. the cloud drive that comes with your Outlook/Hotmail account). I have the program on my laptop and my android phone, both using the OneDrive file. Control-U tells the browser to open up the right page, Control-V auto fills in the login/password. All with military grade encryption. Works a treat and is free. And I know exactly where my passwords are stored (unlike LastPass).

BrandNewGuy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > > Climate change? Although 'every little helps', > > I doubt 100 or so trees will make a difference in > > the grand scheme of things. Though even this > > would be offset anyway if more were planted (as is > > promised), as growing trees take up more CO2 than > > mature ones. > > The offsetting issue is actually the key point. > Attitudes such as "I doubt 100 or so trees will > make a difference in the grand scheme of things" > have allowed for piecemeal deterioration of our > urban and rural environment in all sorts of ways. > Small changes in each of our lives can mean big > changes for everyone's lives ? for good or ill. But, as I said, surely the planting of new tree will offset (perhaps more than offset) the ones lost?

Between Honor Oak and the Judith Kerr school "playing fields", organisations will soon be learning NOT to let anything be used for a 'temporary' purpose. It just causes later anguish.

Climate change? Although 'every little helps', I doubt 100 or so trees will make a difference in the grand scheme of things. Though even this would be offset anyway if more were planted (as is promised), as growing trees take up more CO2 than mature ones.

Lowlander Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Incidentally I watched a car literally take to the > air on all four wheels as it took a speedbump on > Court Lane the other morning. Otherwise known as a 'hire car'.

And this.... http://www.beyondthejoke.co.uk/content/opinion-worlds-slowest-ever-slow-burn-gag

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You must have really gone out of your way to find that. I had to really search to find it myself. > Nobody looking at the website would ever notice it, under normal circumstances. > > I find that quite creepy, to be honest. When I learnt to drive, my father always told me that the safest way to drive was to 'assume everyone else on the road is an idiot'. The internet version of that must be 'assume everyone else on the net is a dangerous weirdo'. Or, at the very least, work on the basis that there are many, many people on the internet that are dangerous and/or weird and/or criminal.

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So because in your/Otta's opinion Newton's comments were over the top, it therefore follows > that Lewis wasn't harassing me on Twitter? I didn't say that at all, nor would. Just that Newton is doing you no favours at all. > Quite possibly. I am - I think - careful about identity theft, so there is some information I > would not put online. It really is quite scary how little information someone needs for identity theft. Or can lead to identity theft. And, as you've found, even less than that to find someone online who does unpleasant, rather stalkery things.

Otta - nailed it in one. Sue - "someone harassing a woman" might have been acceptable, but Newton didn't say that. He/she was going way OTT for effect. Remember his/her first post suggested "for women associating with Lewis, don't think that because you're not the target this week you won't be next" and *anyone* associating with Lewis "deserve to have children spit in your face on the street". As Otta said, Lewis is being a complete twunt, but as we've seen on this thread, Newton wildly overstating a case loses people who would otherwise be sympathetic. > And one has to wonder why it is only me (clearly a woman) he has singled out to focus his aggression on outside > of this forum. Obviously I can't prove this, but I suspect that you are the only person on this thread Lewis has been able to figure out a real-life name for. I actually don't think your gender entered into his limited thinking. Lewis had been angling for some time for people to post enough information for him to identify them - now we know why. I once had an object lesson in why you should guard on-line identity unless otherwise necessary. I used to be post with my real name, until one day about 20 years ago someone actually rang me at my place of work to shout at me and threaten me about something I'd said online. Since then I have been *much* more careful about what I reveal on the net. IIRC I had a similar conversation (though not with that particular anecdote) with you on here a few years ago.

joe rowntree Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I was so impressed I am now promoting the programme. Promoting? Or selling?

I'm a bit torn on this one - on one hand, people are correct in that this thread is keeping a rather dead topic (badum-tish) breathing. On the other hand, Lewis's tweets show that the thread annoys the hell out of him.

Newton Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > In the interests of keeping this thread focussed on the original issue > > Nice way of sounding high minded whilst supporting a known, unrepentant harasser of women. Honestly, Newton, you are starting to sound as over-emotional and over-exaggerating as Lewis and the SSW. And if we've learnt anything from this thread it is that we know that shrill level of argument turns people right off.

edhistory Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Does this mean the Ivy House has this information for any charity event held on 14th February? I suspect that if the event's proceeds didn't go to a registered charity, the taxman might just be verrrry interested in where it actually did go.

James Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > More and more people are cutting down on meat. 'Flexitarianism' (being a part-time vegetarian) is > on the rise, as evidenced by restaurants like Ottolenghi and meat-eating celebrity chefs like > Hugh Fearnley W bringing out vegetarian cookbooks. All the evidence says we eat too much meat as a > nation - both for health and sustainability reasons, let alone animal welfare. But of course, > there will always be those who choose to turn a blind eye to all of this. That's all true, but people eating vegetarian/vegan are still in a very small minority. I'm not saying that targeting a business at the niche 10% can't be profitable, just that market economics will always have the majority of business targeting the majority of consumers.

Can't say, as a) I'm not a follower and b) I don't fully understand twitter either!

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ... to have our Twitter page tainted by this totally irrelevant stuff which is giving our > followers a wholly inaccurate version of my views is not unimportant to us. If it is any consolation Sue, looking at the Goose's twitter feed as a non-follower, you cannot see any of Lewis's crap tweets, as you can only see what you personally tweet/retweet.

James Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Bit of a shame it's another meat-obsessed restaurant. Seems out of step with the times. Considering that well over 90% of the UK are meat eaters, I'd say it is well in step with the times.

Shooting yourself in the foot tweet of the day by SSW... "You know you're on to a winner when you got some serious haters.". They are, of course, talking about this thread, but it could be equally applied to the SSW and it's hated of Southwark Council. Have SSW just inadvertently said the council is onto a winner here?

And you've based that on three tweets? Well, I'm glad you're not prone to a quick over-reaction. Some might say that someone saying that someone "deserves to have children spit in your face on the street" hardly makes them a bastion of pleasantness, joy and enlightenment. But you obviously have strong feelings on this, for reasons I don't know as yet. Look, if you have read the thread you'll know that I have less time for Lewis than just about anyone on here, but let's not jump to conclusions. Lewis is obviously way too passionate and he completely crossed a line, but let's not expel him from society just yet. Very little in life actually is black and white: most things are actually shades of grey. Some dark, some light - but shades of grey they are. PS And stop making me defend Lewis. It makes me feel strange and uncomfortable.

Just goes to show - even if you have a rifle, animals are still bigger, faster and heavier.

Not sure Scully needs to top up her pension pot - she seems to be in everything of late.

Look, we can argue, guess and whatever about the incident until the cows come home. The point remains is that most people would agree that men cop it much harder for this kind of thing than women do. I think even you would grudgingly admit that. And that is a double standard. Some may try to justify the double standard, but that is a dangerous ground to tread. I've come far too close to making it look like I'm defending Gayle's actions, which I'm not. I don't even much like the guy. but I believe in fairness - hell, I even found myself sort of defending Lewis S over in the Save Southwark Woods (SSW...!) thread last night, and I think anyone who has popped their nose in there know I have little time for him, either. So, I still think Gayle's punishment was way out of line for the 'crime'. He made himself look very stupid and, yes, he very much owed Mel McLaughlin an apology, but I really can't believe that anyone truly thinks that is 10 grands worth of offence or that any women caught doing the same thing would be treated in the same way.