Sue

Thanks all, what a happy happy weekend I have ahead of me (not)!

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It is usually possible to refill cartridges with > ink... if you can be bothered (I can't). I checked that out once. It was cheaper at the time just to get new compatible ones. I always google to find the cheapest (depending on reviews also, obviously). And yes, life's too short to refill (plus in my case the 99% certainty that ink would go everywhere but the cartridge).

Yeh shan't be doing that again!! (buying in bulk, I mean) Pity they don't standardise printer cartridges, but hey pigs might fly :(

Thanks all, good advice. Right-clicking, I haven't had time to do anything except the very obvious, but I will have a look over the weekend. However people didn't seem to think that the Canon advice was very effective :( But deffo worth trying. What is very annoying is that I bought a whole load of cartridges in bulk (not Canon ones obviously) and they almost certainly won't fit any new printer I buy. Also very annoying that many of the sales have finished!! C'est la vie!!

My Canon MP970 printer has gone berserk. It now "prints" blank sheets of paper, after a series of error messages, one of which is apparently the cause of two class actions against Canon in the States :( http://community.usa.canon.com/t5/Personal-Printers/Call-to-Arms-for-the-dreaded-U052-Wrong-Printhead-Error/td-p/65759/page/3 There's 74 pages of that thread, starting only from September 2014 and most from November 2014:( The printer was quite expensive but also it's quite old (six years old) so not sure whether it's worth shelling out to get it repaired, assuming that it could be. I have been using compatible cartridges, but I have been since I had the printer, so I doubt that could be the problem. Does anybody know of a local-ish person who could help? Thanks. ETA: I'm a bit desperate, as I use the printer a lot :(

Mrs Y Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Thank you to those who replied with their > suggestions, I will leave the rest of you to fight > it out. Nice to have the freedom to write on such > a forum. Yes. Exactly. Some people seem to be missing that point.

StraferJack Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The best way to remember the dead and care for > families and children would be to not make the > same mistakes again and again surely xxxxxxxxx But most of us are not in a position "not to make the same mistakes (ie these particular mistakes) again and again", are we? All we can do is vote for what we think is the least horrendous option, demonstrate (if that is our nature) and make our opinions known (fat lot of good that is likely to do) and fervently hope that our elected politicians are making the right call given all the circumstances. xxxxxxxxxx > As it is it's a bit like lazy Catholics going to > confession every week and saying sorry for sins > they repeat over and over - because there is > always the "moment of reflection" xxxxxxx It is quite different, because it is not us personally who have either committed the sins or have any direct say in any sins which may be committed in the future. In any case, it depends how you define sin. When I was younger I naively told my parents that I didn't think this country should have fought the Germans, because war was wrong, and they were horrified. I now see why. Sometimes war is the lesser of two evils. xxxxxxxxxx > > Sue - how dit 9/11 change it for you? xxxxxxxxxxxx It made me realise how the world could be if nobody fought back against the fanatics who want to take it over. And what life would be like for us - assuming we hadn't been killed by said fanatics. And it made me realise what the world might have been like now if Hitler had just been allowed to get on with what he was doing. And that those who died had actually played a very great part in preventing that. xxxxxxxx > Poppies to me now signify, not the fallen from 2 > world wars, defending this country from an > invading army, but the bogus > furrowed brow of those in power, showing > themselves as thoughtful and caring when their > actions are the complete opposite xxxxxxxx Fine. Nobody's forcing anybody to wear a poppy or to have particular associations with them. Each to their own. Not sure why people are pitching in against poppies on a thread where all the OP asked was how to display one. :(

Well, maybe, but we are living in this country and so did they. Like the war memorials around the country, it's honouring our own country's dead. There are all sorts of points like that which could be made, but the fact is those poppies are remembering people who died. If you want something to remember every person on every "side" who has died in every war since time began, you would need a bloody (pun intended) large area of ground and f-ing millions of poppies. There was nothing to stop somebody having a separate project to include the dead of every country who fought in WWI, if they felt so strongly about it. I can't see how one country honouring their own dead somehow detracts from remembering the equally tragic death of people from other countries.

I don't see the poppies as some sort of political statement. Each poppy which was "planted" at the Tower represented one person who was killed. Each evening (I think at sundown) a list of names of those people was read out, finally ending on the last day of "planting". Those people were people like your family, friends and neighbours who died before they "should" have, in many cases in horrific circumstances and in great suffering. You can choose to diminish (in my opinion) the remembrance of those deaths by letting the poppies remind you of what/who ultimately caused the deaths, and that the war (or other wars) should never have happened, or the smugness of some of those who wear them, or whatever. But at the end of the day they are a reminder of what those individual people did, and what we owe to them now. And for the avoidance of doubt - I have never voted Tory in my life and I can't stand the smugness of many politicians either, but I think it's very easy to stand on the sidelines and say you wouldn't involve a country in war when a) you are not placed in that position and have to make an absolutely awful decision which you know in advance is going to cause bloodshed b) are not privy to all the relevant facts. As indeed you might not even be if you had to make the decision, though you might think you were. By all means diss the poppies and don't wear one, but maybe take a moment to look beyond the political (for want of a better word) issues and see the connection with the individuals who they are honouring. I didn't wear one for years, for similar reasons to those who still don't probably, but 9/11 brought home to me what was at stake and it was the first time I really "got" what the poppies were about.

StraferJack Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You see. I ask simple questions. No name calling. > No attacking. > > But the accusations come - "attack me further" > > > You asked for El pibe to repost his comments and I > linked to the original thread. How have I > attacked you? This post crossed with mine. I'll let somebody else answer. I'm sure they will. Goading can be quite subtle, can't it, or maybe your ideas are akin to El Pibe's on what is and is not remotely offensive. I'm off. Although I see somebody else has posted, but I'm not going to read that one.

StraferJack Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sorry. What case is that? > > You say you won't discuss it on here so i am > politely asking if you keep abreast or even > discuss it anywhere. The case I'm resting is that certain forum posters, including evidently yourself, like to goad people. "Politely asking" - yeh, really relevant question, isn't it, after I've just said I won't continue to discuss the McCann case on here. Or maybe you missed that bit. I'm not looking at this thread again, so feel free to continue to goad. And I'm sure that mods will be able to tell if I have looked, so - I shall keep my word.

StraferJack Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Is that McCann forum still going sue? > > Do you still spend hours on it? Or even visit for > a peek? I rest my case. I think you're rather proving a point. But by all means use this thread to attack me further. I'm off it.

StraferJack Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So... That original thread from which el pibe > quoted. > > http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?2 > 0,587735,page=1 > > His comments which several people think crossed a > line come 4 or 5 pages in > > But if you read that far and think HIS comments > are the worrying aspect of that thread... > > PS 4+ years later and despite sue furnishing the > world with her evidence, still no child. It's not "my" evidence. It's evidence from the original police investigation. And so it continues. ETA: Which is why I won't discuss this case further on here.

El Pibe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > . > > dotted by request. > > Sue an apology of sorts was offered, though i > still don't think it remotely offensive if you > read it in context. > > transcript available on request. Who requested you to dot it? Not me. I don't recall "an apology of sorts" being offered. Why "of sorts"? There should have been a full and proper apology if you felt that one was necessary, though if you didn't think it "remotely offensive" then I don't know why you did. Frankly, if you don't find something like that remotely offensive, I find it quite worrying.

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm confused. We're you having a go at EP or > Steveo? > > Didn't EP post that at Sue's request? I think EP > was pretty much on the line or maybe a bit over > it, but context is everything, and the Macann > thread was pretty ghoulish. Yes EP did post it here at my request. If he removed it, then I think he should repost it so that everybody can see it and make up their own minds. If a mod removed it, then it would seem that they also consider it offensive. "Context is everything"? Personally I cannot see a context which would reduce the offensiveness of that particular post, but perhaps you could explain. "The McCann thread was pretty ghoulish"? I posted factual information about an ongoing case in which I had a long-term interest. I was then attacked on a personal level by a number of people who apparently had not even bothered to check whether what I posted was true (as evidenced by police files in the public domain rather than the rubbish printed in the mainstream media). Let's see what the outcome of the Scotland Yard/Portuguese investigation is, shall we? I have said that I don't intend to post about the case again on here until such time as (hopefully) somebody/some people are prosecuted, and I am sticking to my word. No idea if it was a clique involved in the attacks on me, but it wasn't very nice and it included several prominent forum members.

red devil Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Doesn't the acidity of the soil affect the colour, > like it does with Hydrangeas?.. No

Robert Poste's Child Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- Will try planing my own next time. I think you will find that may make matters worse :))

Davis, if you want to start a thread or threads on conscientious objectors, or the nature and futility of war, or the many civilian deaths in war, or the ways in which society, its laws and accepted behaviour change over time, or any other related matters, I'm sure there are plenty of people on here willing to take part in discussion, but I don't think this thread is the place to do it. Just my view, however.

Davis Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Your hyacinths may be flopping due to an acidic > environment. Eh?

El Pibe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Paranormal thread you did all the name calling in > the face of simple requests for facts*, so > delicious irony there. > > In the mcann thread, yes it was me, it was a > humourous parody of your obssesive inability to > let go of the figurative bone long after you'd > been politiely advised, by about 50 posters, that > it was painful reading and please let it drop. > > Again, it's all about perception isn't it. > > Offence is such a meaningless word these days and > should be the start of debate, not a means to shut > it down. > > *still waiting.... What name calling did I do? Examples please. And what facts are you waiting for? Examples please. And perhaps you'd like to post your "humorous parody" here so that we can all decide whether it was "humorous" or, as I (and my partner) found it, extremely offensive. In fact probably the most offensive and personal post I've ever read on this forum. And who were these "about 50" posters exactly? Edited for spelling. ETA: I've got other things to do now, so don't take my immediate lack of response to whatever your answers are to the above as meaning I'm not going to reply. Anyway, I guess it will take you a while to find those answers ......

How awful. Which shop is that? I hope the shop owner recovers quickly - and will get compensation from whoever is responsible, surely?

A short length of stick and some string may help to prop them up, though admittedly doesn't look very good. I think some hyacinths have sturdier stems than others so it may be worth trying a different variety next year. But if they were bought already in pots, they have probably been forced for early flowering, and I suspect that may make them weak. http://www.bbc.co.uk/gardening/basics/techniques/houseplants_hyacinth1.shtml ETA: http://www.gardeningknowhow.com/ornamental/bulbs/hyacinth/hyacinths-falling-over.htm

LadyDeliah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And for what it's worth, I don't think there are > cliques, I think there are people who put forward > unpopular views but then can't handle it when they > are challenged by more than one poster at a time. There are ways and ways of "challenging" people with "unpopular" views.(I assume by "unpopular" you mean differing to the views of some vocal forum posters). There is putting your case objectively based on facts you can provide. And then there is personal attack based on what sometimes comes across as just based on nothing very much at all. It also seems that a specific person putting forward a particular viewpoint may be "challenged" by several people, but when another person posts what would appear to be confirmation of that viewpoint, they aren't challenged, and in fact there may be a resounding silence. The SMBS thread was one thread in which that happened. Not sure what you mean by "can't handle it". Not sure how one is supposed to "handle" going round in circles with people who deliberately or not cannot seem to respond straightly or logically to points made, and again in some cases resort to personal attack. One of the McCann threads was one of those. And one of the most offensive and personal posts was by somebody who I now know to have been a mod.

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > On the subject of Sue, the thread I was thinking > about was in reference to paranormal events I > think. I'd be interested if Sue could join in here > and clarify if how I perceived reactions to her > posts at the time, were taken to heart by her or > whether it was just forum banter. Sometimes the > line between banter and clique is a fine one. > I don't recall exactly what was said on that thread, but I have a vague recollection of just feeling "oh I can't be arsed continuing with this" and stopping posting on it. I'm pretty sure I didn't "back down", as you said in a previous post above. Perish the thought! However, on other threads I have sometimes felt like I was being verbally attacked by the forum equivalent of a gang of playground bullies. (ETA: However, to the best of my knowledge I have never accused anybody of bullying me on the thread itself. I can imagine what would have been the reaction to that.) On another point above, I am pretty sure that DJKQ and Pokertime were/are the same person, not least because DJKQ used to run a poker evening, and possibly still does. Also the content and style of their posts were very similar (though I have to say I wouldn't have picked this up if somebody hadn't pointed it out to me). DJKQ also posted as Angetastic until she was outed, when she attempted (unsuccessfully) to delete all evidence of her Angetastic incarnation. Oh, and my first attempt at writing this post completely disappeared into the ether - the whole page just disappeared and never came back - spooky, eh?! :)) ETA: Louisa, you asked where was my response - I have been out most of the day and a large part of the evening, and frankly reading this thread was the last thing on my mind ....

Davis Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > > Why you would buy a poppy? What is it that you > think you are supporting? Maybe you like to remember the number of young men and women who died (mainly) fighting for their country in a war (and other wars) they had no choice in? Maybe you like to occasionally remember to be grateful for the relative freedom we have in our lives, thanks to people like them who did not have much of a life, and the little they had was short? Just a thought. I found the Tower installation very moving, and I would have bought a poppy, but by the time I looked they were sold out.