Sue

dontpanic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- On > further discussion I realise that there are > appointment pre-bookable, if you ask specifically > - after 6.30pm and early morning, but obviously > only for those people who presistently ask or moan > on being told 'no appointments bookable' > > Its inconsistent and not fair if you aren't the > type to get upset down the phone xxxxxx Completely agree, but complaining on here won't give you a snowball's chance in hell of getting things changed, maybe complain to DMC or to the place given in a post above as well?

Excellent dontpanic, hope you'll post future gigs on the forum?

the-e-dealer Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well I hope they have gone home by now. There I > said it! xxxxx Eh? Who?

Roundabout Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Going back some 45 years: xxxxxx Ah, Ok, you've beaten me by 20 years! :) ETA: But freezers were quite a new development 45 years ago, I think!

Roundabout Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And before them ? It was a Sainsbury?s freezer > centre: xxxxxx Are you sure? The Bejam store sold freezers as well as frozen food. I think I actually bought one there. ETA: I've never heard of a "Sainsbury's freezer centre", but I stand to be corrected!

Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > A 'friend' of mine (ex work colleague) posted two > pictures of herself on FB on NYE. She asked which > dress should she wear out? She had her hair > arranged differently in each too. I decided to > impart my view about the dress and the hair. This > opinion soon got two 'likes' from her multitude of > 'friends'. I was somewhat surprised to find she > had hidden my post soon after.Should I unfriend > her? xxxxx :))

El Pibe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Luckily I'm moving somewhere that people don't > really associate alcohol with social occassions > and environments..... :/ xxxxx Blimey, where's that?

dulwichmum Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If feel so at home on Lordship lane now, I am > quite simply, no longer that unusual. Am I? xxxxxx Sadly, no :))

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sue I think it contravenes the contract you have > with your bank if you share the passwords for your > accounts' access. xxxxxx Oh dear, really? Ooops :))

Dopamine1979 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Lucky sod. > > Make sure you give them your full name and home > address so they know where to send the 1,000 cans. > > > :) xxxxxx Yeh, and I threw in my bank details and passwords too, just in case they needed them :)) ETA: And I've cleared out all my cupboards, so I have somewhere to store the cans :))

StraferJack Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sue. You're disproving your own point > > Things that could once have been considered > supernatural (television etc) aren't supernatural. > They are scientific. There is zero supernatural > about them. So the people who might once have > thought them supernatural would have been wrong xxxxxx What is "my own point" which am I disproving? What I was attempting to say, albeit possibly very badly (blame the fact that I'm ill), was that things are only considered "supernatural" (which is a stupid word anyway) by some people when they can't be explained. Once they are explained they are no longer considered "supernatural". So psychic phenomena which some people presently call "supernatural" may be capable of explanation in the future and therefore will no longer be considered to be "supernatural". I'm in no state for a philosophical/linguistic/scientific discussion, however. Am starting 2014 in a droopy sorry-for-myself heap :( So probably none of the above makes sense either :))

Kailyn Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It always amazes me the things people post. They > seem to go straight to facebook as soon as someone > dies, that's just awful. xxxxxx I recently found out about a tragic (51 year old) Christmas Eve death via Facebook. My initial reaction too was to find it strange that someone would choose to let people know about it in that way, but then on reflection I thought that everybody deals with things differently. In this case the bereaved person apparently gained a lot of comfort from people's posts of condolences. And Facebook is probably the easiest way to let friends know, especially if you have a lot of friends (real friends I mean, not "Facebook only friends"). Though half past one in the morning on Boxing Day wouldn't have been my personal chosen time to do it ......

Help-Ma-Boab Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > On Jools Holland, Over foamed with The > Proclaimers. Now Ray Davies...wee nod to Strafer, > me in a wig eh!.. xxxxxxx Ray Davies was embarrassingly bad. Not even nostalgia could make it better. All Day and All of the Night was bad enough, but I had to go out of the room when Lola started. Made a miserable NYE stuck at home feeling ill worse :( If you can't sing any more, then you shouldn't sing in public :(

Is that the DIY shop on Lordship Lane near Goose Green? I agree their service is good, but it makes me laugh that whatever small item I buy there always seems to cost exactly the same amount! And I've been behind other customers also being charged that amount! Not complaining as their pricing is not excessive, maybe it just makes it easier for them!

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > If you hear funny noises, or things go missing, or > writing appears on a steamed up window, or there > are cold spots in a room... there are of course > rational explanations to all of these, xxxxxxx Does anybody have the link to the thread that KidKruger (I think) started some time ago? Can't remember when, so it may have been zapped in one of the forum clean-ups. There were several incidents on there that I think you'd be hard put to find "rational" explanations for using our present knowledge of "science". Including some of mine. Many things could be considered "supernatural" before they were explained. Television, telephones, man-made flight, electricity. Or, thunder, lightning, eclipses of the sun and moon, etc etc.. Edinburgh University certainly considers parapsychology a subject worthy of serious study: http://www.koestler-parapsychology.psy.ed.ac.uk/index.html I knew John Beloff (now sadly dead), one of the original lecturers in the unit, because he was married to Halla Beloff, who supervised my undergraduate thesis. He certainly was no fool.

Hey, it's not Twelfth Night yet!

There is a notice pinned to a front door in Goodrich Road. At a strange angle, despite being pinned top and bottom. After the usual "No circulars, no takeaway leaflets, no breathing within a mile of my front door", it says "No doorstop sellers." Doorstop sellers? Anybody spotted people with very strong arms knocking on doors round here, laden with doorstops? :)) Oh, and I found this in my inbox this morning: "Dear Sue , Congratulations! You are our possible winner of 1,000 cans of your favourite soda! confirm here" Unmissable opportunity, eh? I particularly like the "possible".

red devil Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sue Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > Some people are sensitive to psychic phenomena > > which others can't perceive. Telling them that > > they are talking bollocks just because you are > not > > so sensitive is closed-minded. > > Maybe, but does a mad man always know he is > mad?... xxxxxx I'm not talking about psychosis .... ETA: Anyway, I'm not feeling well and I'm going to bed, so feel free to return to slagging off things you don't understand :)

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ...er, and a big scientific paradigm shift was > when people started believing in science not > fairies/ghosts/goblins etc xxxxxxx "Believing" in science??? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Popper and Kuhn must be cheering from on high at > the standard of scientific debate on the EDF xxxxxx Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it Kuhn who wrote about paradigm shifts? Quite relevant to the discussion if so, I would say.

taper Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > The burden of evidence is on you and yours. V > difficult to prove a negative. xxxxxx Indeed. So better not to make statements which you can't prove :) Some people are unable to distinguish between certain colours. Other people (I knew one) can only see things in shades of black and white. No amount of others telling them they were "wrong" could convince them that colour "existed", if they had a mind to doubt it. Some people are sensitive to psychic phenomena which others can't perceive. Telling them that they are talking bollocks just because you are not so sensitive is closed-minded.

taper Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I am very happy to give the OP the assurance that > there is no such thing as paranormal activity. xxxxxx Evidence for your statement, please?

Yes Dulwich Hospital still doing blood tests, according to my GP (memo to self: stop putting it off ....)

Kathleen Olander Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I have heard this many times regarding the > haunting of the Kings Arms PH and ghosts singing > WW2 songs in the bar. > > Only a little research is needed to find that > no-one died in this pub during the second world > war. xxxxxxx Not sure you necessarily need to have had a death there for people to experience things like that?

ruffers Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Kind of depends what you think the purpose of a > charity shop is - raising maximum funds vs > providing a cheap place to shop for those with > less money, or how far either way you lean on > that. See this piece from the Guardian on exactly > that point from this week > > http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/dec/29/cha > rity-shops-pricing-items-bargains xxxxxxx I saw that article, and this bit is interesting: 'One explanation for the rise in prices is that there is an increase in the number of dealers making excessive profits out of charity shops. One manager of a charity shop said: "We are trying to do what is best for everyone. We don't get it right every time, but we get it far more right than wrong. It has to be fair for the customer, for the donor and for the charity." ' I have in the past bought things myself from charity shops which were well underpriced, and if I had had the inclination I could have sold them on for a profit. I think it is reasonable that certain things eg second hand designer clothes or on trend furniture are sold at the going rate to raise money for the charity, rather than to raise money for dealers. More run-of-the-mill clothing, though, should be sold at lower prices. I too have seen (in the Mind shop, for example) clothes from cheap shops like Primark being sold at prices which were the same - or even more - than you could buy them new, which is just taking the piss.