Sue

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > It's an interesting question about whether a work > of art should stand apart from the actions of the > artist. Indeed. Same with music, poetry, novels .....

I don't like it either.

Chthonic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm not partisan, and do not want to enter a > discussion on the Labour (or any other) party. So why did you bring Labour into it at all then? My understanding was that it was The Patch who had commissioned this mural, or else that it was done as part of the ongoing street art project in association with Dulwich Art Gallery, but if that's not the case, I'm sure somebody on the forum will know.

So we now have two threads with identical titles?

Chthonic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yep, well East Dulwich is Labour after all, so I > suppose they don't really care about this > particular type of racism. Care to expand on this supposition? I see you have just joined the forum and both your posts so far are on this topic.

My thought for the day/life: Play nicely :) ETA: Or possibly, as that seems to be a marketing agency in Bristol, Play nice :))

GrahamP Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think they drop the bands to enable them to find > their way back to the sorting office. :)) :)) :))

offspinner Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > lavender27 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > pistman > > Maybe that's the problem. :)) :)) :))

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So you believe that the primary cause of > unhappiness is always a person's thoughts about a > situation and never the situation itself. Fine. Yes. And now I really am off. Shan't be looking at this again till tomorrow.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ETA this in response to Sue > > Gosh I'm sorry, I thought it was the Lounge, the > place anything could be discussed. If people > don't want trite nonsense criticised, don't post > it. If it discourages others from posting trite > nonsense, good. > > And come on Sue, I like you but you're hardly > backwards in criticising what others say when you > don't agree with it, are you? > > Your example shows that yes, sometimes the primary > cause of unhappiness can be your thoughts and not > the situation. That doesn't alter the fact that to > say " The primary cause of unhappiness is never > the situation, but your thoughts about it" is > rubbish. Well, disagreeing with somebody can be done without being rude, lounge or not. And your first post on this thread seemed very rude to me. And I disagree with your assessment that to say "the primary cause of unhappiness is never the situation, but your thoughts about it" is rubbish. I would say that the primary cause of unhappiness is always your thoughts. Regardless of the situation. However I don't have more time to spend on this now or indeed today. Hopefully Gardenman may return to the thread to answer your comments. I'm off now.

Robert Poste's Child Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's true to some extent. The Stoics believed it > and we all discover the truth of it at times. The > new agers just put a magical thinking spin on it. > > Agree that for anyone with depression, it's about > as helpful as saying 'cheer up' or 'pull yourself > together', though to be fair perhaps you need to > have experience grief or depression to understand > how it sounds. It may not be helpful to somebody experiencing grief or depression. But that doesn't make it untrue. And it doesn't make it unhelpful in other circumstances. I say that as somebody who has experienced both grief and severe depression.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sue Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > ETA: One may not be able to change a situation. > > But if it wasn't possible to change one's > approach > > to it/thoughts about it, there would be no need > > for counsellors or therapists. > > Yes of course, but that's a highly complex and > skilled business, and it isn't reducible to glib > platitudes. I just imagine people suffering from > loss or depression looking at that trite quote - > would it really be of any use to them, or would it > just make them feel worse? I don't think Gardenman, in posting on this forum, was intending to do anything except put forward a perfectly valid and helpful concept to the readers of this forum. I have personally found it extremely helpful in the past. For example, decades ago I once found myself alone in Amsterdam in the early hours of the morning with nowhere to stay, not much money, no map of the city, places closed, very few people about, no benches in the station or anywhere else that I could see to sleep or sit on, on the edge of what appeared to be the red light district, and no idea where to go. Long story. I was very frightened and started panicking. Things changed when I realised (without the benefit of a quote from Gardenman) that instead of thinking what a bad and frightening situation I was in, I could view the whole thing as an adventure. Of course, everything worked out. I stopped panicking, asked around, and found a hostel which was open and had spaces. That is a very minor example obviously, but I think it demonstrates the usefulness of what Gardenman said. I expect he is regretting having posted now :) I don't expect anybody else will want to post a thought for the day/life on this thread for fear of being immediately attacked. Plus ca change. ETA: BTW it is unlike you to be so extremely rude to posters on this forum!

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sue Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Sorry Rendel, but despite your example (which > is > > clearly tragic) I agree with Gardenman and I > don't > > think the actual principle is either New Age > > drivel or victim blaming. > > > > He (I assume it is a he from the name) is not > > suggesting that somebody has caused their > illness > > - or any other difficult life situation - by > their > > thoughts. > > Good job I didn't say they were suggesting that > then. What they are suggesting is that if you're > unhappy about a situation, your unhappiness is > down to your thoughts, not the situation - "the > primary cause of unhappiness is never the > situation" - and in myriad cases, including the > example I've given, that is nonsense. I edited my post above while you were writing that.

Sorry Rendel, but despite your example (which is clearly tragic) I agree with Gardenman and I don't think the actual principle is either New Age drivel or victim blaming. He (I assume it is a he from the name) is not suggesting that somebody has caused their illness - or any other difficult life situation - by their thoughts. ETA: One may not be able to change a situation. But if it wasn't possible to change one's approach to it/thoughts about it, there would be no need for counsellors or therapists. ETA: By my second paragraph, I was not implying that anybody had thought that Gardenman was suggesting that. However, that is a concept which "New Age" or whatever people do sometimes suggest, which is why I mentioned it.

bob Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes I did contact Amazon. Good news item was > delivered to next door to day and brought round to > me. Was that the original package, or the replacement from Amazon?

bob Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Now have notification via amazon my parcel was > delivered yesterday 2.15 PM no signature no proof > no parcel do Royal mail compensate for losses. > Bob S I once had an Amazon parcel left on my wall (not by Royal Mail) and not surprisingly it was stolen. Amazon sent me a replacement, so apart from complaining to Royal Mail you should probably complain to Amazon.

Thanks all. If Bespoke is the company near the Plough, I had quotes from them in the past which were very expensive for PVC, and I didn't particularly like the styles, however I will check them out for wood. I used Scenic windows for my three existing windows, and was quite happy with them apart from the catches on the sash window, the style of which changed after I ordered them and are hideous, so I wouldn't want those catches again. Paul would replace the catches but I can't find any which would fit which are less hideous, and I wouldn't want hideous catches in my living room. If Runcent is the company in North Cross Road, it has had bad reviews on here in the past if memory serves, however I will check them out again, thanks. If anybody is happy for me to look at their windows (from the outside) could they PM me their address? Thanks!

Does anybody have any recommendations for companies for wood windows, to get costs, please? Only if you have used them yourself and would recommend them, thanks.

My bay has subsidence, has had resin injection and now has to be rebuilt. At the start of all this, and before I knew that the bay would have to be rebuilt, I told the insurance company that I intended to take the opportunity to replace the existing single glazed windows with double glazed ones. The insurance company said that they would pay for the labour in replacing the windows, since they would have to pay for replacing the original windows anyway as part of the work, but they would not pay for the actual windows as the existing windows have wear and tear and the policy doesn't cover that. I was originally told the building and redecoration work following the resin injection would take three days. This has now turned into six weeks after the builders turned up and went away again and a second surveyor turned up with profuse apologies. It transpired that the initial survey done was not done properly, and the person concerned has left the company. A stone mason has now become involved, as well as the builders. As part of the revised work, the existing windows still have to be removed, BUT apparently could not be replaced anyway as they won't fit in the new gaps after the rebuilding. Also, apparently at least two of them are likely to disintegrate on removal (though on prodding them they seem pretty sound to me). Now ...... Had it not been for the subsidence, I would not be replacing the windows. If I was keeping them, I would just get any iffy bits repaired and the frames repainted. There would be no question of disintegration on removal, as they would not be being removed. Surely if they will not fit back into the wall because the gaps will have changed after the rebuilding, that is a direct result of the bay having subsided and the actual windows should be replaced by the insurance company? And my son-in-law says that replacement windows these days have to be double glazed, under building regulations (or something). Can anybody advise? I don't want to approach the insurers (it's actually Cunningham Lindsey I am dealing with, not the insurers directly) unless I am sure of my ground.

I have one of the bog standard Edwardian/Victorian small three bed ED terraced houses (not extended in any direction :)) ). I presently have single glazed wooden sash windows in most of my house (apart from three at the back which have been replaced with double glazed PVC windows for various reasons). As my bay is collapsing and in the middle of being repaired, I want to take the opportunity to replace the sash windows at the front. I was going to have the same PVC ones as I have in my middle bedroom, which are vaguely similar in appearance to the original sash windows (though don't have a sash). I was intending to go with PVC for maintenance (and relative cheapness) reasons. A doubt has been put in my mind after a friend recoiled at the mention of PVC windows in a period house (which still has period features outside and downstairs). Years ago I looked at this and wooden double glazed windows were extortionately expensive, plus I was concerned about maintenance of wood. I've also recently read something about putting double glazing/draughtproofing into existing single glazed sash windows (though not sure mine are worth saving). Can anybody offer any useful thoughts on this? I'd be really grateful. I have another issue as well relating to the windows, but I'll start another thread to avoid confusing the issue!

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- To make a case backed by survey > research the sampling must be robust, the > questionnaires must be well designed, and the > metadata sufficient for a sample result to be > extrapolated to a whole population. Ideally it > should be independently conducted and analysed. > > My 'agenda' is about professional conduct of > research. Nothing more. And the money to ensure all that that will come from where? At present, the "evidence" that there are problems with local postal deliveries is (to the best of my knowledge) from people posting on this forum, plus individual complaints which may have been made to Royal Mail, either locally or centrally. Which may or may not have been logged. Most people who have had issues will probably not have bothered to complain, unless they are aware of something vital which has gone missing completely or they have had to queue for hours in Peckham. A survey will at least indicate whether more people than have actually already complained have had/are having problems with their post. We presently have a Royal Mail manager who is publicly stating that he is not aware of any ongoing issues with deliveries in this area!

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > How do they use the surveys as "recruitment > vehicles for membership etc"? > > The local Labour party have been very involved in > the mail problems right from the outset, including > demonstrating in Sylvester Road at a time when the > decision to close it might still have been > influenced. > > Our MP Helen Hayes was there. Hardly any local > residents were, despite it being advertised on > here. > > Helen has also attended all the local meetings > about it, both before and after the move to the > Peckham office. > > I absolutely agree that Helen Hayes has worked > tirelessly on this, as have many local labour > people. My experience of Labour ward 'research' is > that the questions are poorly designed, with no > attempt to acquire metadata to support any > analysis, and inevitably with requests for contact > information, which will be used in campaigning and > to attract support. Because of this some residents > chose not to complete and return such surveys. I > have no problems with local parties doing this, > merely with them doing this 'under the guise of > research'. If this survey, which I have not seen > as I'm not part of that ward is any different, > then I apologise. ['Real' market and social > research is required generally NOT to disclose the > names of individual respondents to the research > commissioners] > > But I will note that if it's titled as this thread > is ('SE22 Royal Mail Postal Survey') then it is > not being issued to constituents in the wards that > cover that postal District (SE22) but only in one > of them, and I would hope would not publish any > results which purported to represent SE22 > residents as a whole. You are making a few assumptions here, aren't you? You haven't seen the survey, but assume that the questions will be "poorly designed." If previous surveys have been "poorly designed", perhaps they can't afford to employ somebody to put together a "well designed" survey? Not everybody has the necessary expertise. But you haven't even seen the questions on this one! You say that they are trying to "attract support" "under the guise of research." The local Labour party is very proactive in trying to attract support. I know, I am a member of it and sometimes deliver their leaflets locally (nothing to do with any survey). Why would they go to the trouble of putting together a survey on a particular pressing local issue purely in order to "attract support" ? Why do you say it's "under the guise of research"? They are already taking many steps to attract local support, including quite recently having stalls on Saturdays in Lordship Lane. You "hope" that they will not publish any results which purport to "represent SE22 residents as a whole". But you have no grounds at all to think that they will, have you? If the survey is only in one ward, which at present I don't know (and BTW I live in that ward but have not yet received a survey), so what? Are you suggesting that the postal problems in SE22 may be bad in one ward but non-existent everywhere else? Are you suggesting that if they aren't able to cover the whole of SE22 then they shouldn't do the survey at all? Quite why you are trying to put people off filling in a survey the results of which could well help improve our local postal delivery service is rather hard to understand. What is your agenda, exactly?

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- The Party tends to use > these surveys as recruitment vehicles for > membership etc. so those not wishing to play that > game may choose not to complete the survey How do they use the surveys as "recruitment vehicles for membership etc"? The local Labour party have been very involved in the mail problems right from the outset, including demonstrating in Sylvester Road at a time when the decision to close it might still have been influenced. Our MP Helen Hayes was there. Hardly any local residents were, despite it being advertised on here. Helen has also attended all the local meetings about it, both before and after the move to the Peckham office. She has also been extremely proactive in raising this issue directly with Royal Mail, including at CEO level. Are you really suggesting that people shouldn't fill in this survey because it is being sent out by Labour? That's rather shooting themselves in the foot if they want an improved postal service locally, don't you think?

budleigh Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Officially going to be a Boots. Overheard the > builders. I'm very surprised if that is true. I sincerely hope not. Many of the Boots stores seem to be horrible soulless places, and I've never been able to understand how the chain struggles on :(

eastdulwichavenger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > She still nicely scanned them and was so polite > despite you screaming in her face. All the staff in M&S are lovely, in my experience.