Sue

fl0wer Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- >> > A grant was made available in one London district > if paved areas were converted to permeable > surfaces, I think that project has finished now. > But it did help, a lot. xxxxxx Yes, I think it may have been Islington. I used to work for Islington Council and was indirectly involved with that project, or something very like it. ETA: But I believe it was only front gardens, whereas I am talking about people round here increasingly paving or concreting their back gardens.

El Pibe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > definition of crass: "adjective - showing no > sensitivity" > I submit "If you don't like my comparison with > cancer research, then tough." as evidence m'lud > > Definition of explanation: "noun - a statement or > account that makes something clear" > > I submit "If those events are subsequently (even > many years later) shown to have had a cause which > was not "supernatural", that has no bearing > whatsoever on any other unrelated event." as > evidence m'lud. > > Advice, stop digging. xxxxxxx Yes - that would be my advice to you. Plus to learn some elementary logic and then to apply it to what you write on here.

ed_pete Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This column in Time Out amuses my family each > week. > > Best of for 2013 here: > > http://now-here-this.timeout.com/2013/12/20/overhe > ard-in-london-the-best-wordonthestreet-of-2013/ xxxxxxx They are funny, but I think they are probably mostly just made up.

firemalc Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- You will have > noticed that the Mary Portas shop only makes a > small percentage contribution to Save the > Children. xxxxxx Is that true? Where does the rest of the money go? Where is this made clear in the shop itself? ETA: Fair enough point re the Mind shop, btw, however most items of clothing have labels in them which make it clear when they are from Primark or whatever, so that is not at all the same as something like a mirror, which doesn't.

Everywhere round here, it seems, people are concreting their gardens. It feels like I'm one of a dwindling few making a stand for wildlife with an "overgrown" (and much loved) garden which is planted for wildlife. And for my being able to have a leafy/flowery environment to sit in and enjoy. An estate agent recently told me that when someone bought my house they would "landscape" the garden. He didn't mean what I would mean by "landscape". He meant - concrete or pave it. All of it. Except maybe retaining a narrow strip of soil with a few "low maintenance" shrubs. Shouldn't the government be looking into this as well? Quite apart from the implications for biodiversity, it also has implications for flooding because it reduces the surface area where rainwater can drain away. On a completely separate issue: I hung up for the birds a large lump of fat from a ham my sister had cooked and brought. It was hung securely (I thought!) from a string high up on a pole away from anywhere cats etc could reach it. In fact I saw several cats attempting and failing to get anywhere near it. Then one morning the ham had completely disappeared - nowhere in the garden. Must have been a fox, but how ON EARTH could it have reached it? Can they jump that high?

John Otway gig now sold out ....

El Pibe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Imagine a scenario, you're in your tenth story > flat. Whilst asleep you are awoken by sharp > tapping on your window. > There's no way anyone could get there, there's no > hail, no tree tall enough to reach. > Suddenly you remember it's the anniversary of your > dad's death. He was an old salt who taught you > morse code on his knee. > Maybe he was trying to get in touch, you feel it > could be true. > You get a spiritualist in who is able to give you > his name without you telling home anything "I > sense a b, no a p, no maybe a t, tommy..." > "Well he was a sailor, that's a bit like a > soldier, and his name was Pete...uncanny" > > There you have an unexplained phenomenon, but > you're satisfied that it was a supernatural > event. > > Of course the next day when Noreen from the block > of flats opposite drags little bob over by his ear > to apologise for shooting at your windows with his > gat gun, it becomes explained, but in between the > unexplained occurrence and the explanation it was > always explicable. > > I could carry on, you know, patronising you a bit > more if you like...duh. xxxxxx Yes, it is extremely patronising. Some events which are apparently "inexplicable" at the time may be given by one or more people a "supernatural" explanation. If those events are subsequently (even many years later) shown to have had a cause which was not "supernatural", that has no bearing whatsoever on any other unrelated event. And what does "inexplicable" mean, anyway? Everything ultimately has some kind of "explanation". Definition of explanation: "noun - a statement or account that makes something clear" If you don't like the explanation because it involves things you don't want to think exist, then that's something else entirely. And concerning the research - my point was in response to someone suggesting I post on here "when they (ie Edinburgh University) have found something" (or words to that effect), the implication being that they would never find anything, and that therefore there was no point continuing with the research. My point was that all research finds nothing - until it does. But nobody embarks on (or indeed funds) research unless they have an expectation of being able to find something, surely. And that applies equally to research into so-called paranormal phenomena, research into cancer or research into anything else. If you don't like my comparison with cancer research, then tough. I have had close relatives die of cancer, have had cancer scares myself, and have only recently donated to cancer research in memory of a friend's wife who died aged 51 on Christmas Eve. Don't preach to me about making "facile comparisons", or whatever it was. And learn some elementary logic, all you patronising people mocking things you clearly have no experience of.

It wasn't exactly a high profile shop or on the beaten track, was it?

El Pibe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- there are tons of unexplained > events, but most of them are explicable. xxxxxxx Eh? If they're "explicable", then they aren't "unexplained", are they? Duh! xxxxxxx People > deciding it's the paranormal, unwilling to accept > more mundane (and far more plausible) explanations > are the ones with the closed minds. xxxxxx "...are the ones with the closed minds" ?!?! Closed minds aren't limited to people believing one thing or its opposite. Anybody who makes up their mind about something without actually having objectively looked at the available facts is closed minded. That includes people who prefer some sort of "supernatural" explanation where it has been clearly demonstrated that there is another explanation. Obviously.

El Pibe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It was a facile and crass point Sue in all > fairness, xxxxxx What point, exactly, do you think that I was making? Because if you thought it was facile and crass, then I don't think you are talking about the point that I was in fact making. But please explain what you thought it was, just so I can check. In all fairness, as you say. Thanks.

Dopamine1979 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Too soon, Sue and Salsaboy. > > Too soon. > > http://www.thecoli.com/styles/default/xenforo/smil > ies/smh.gif > > That type of insensitive humour is too close to > the bone. xxxxxx :)) :)) :)) Nearly posted it on the actual lost dog thread, but had a rare moment of sensitivity and thought better of it :))

StraferJack Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Look. Cancer is a disease. Like so many in > history. It is recognised and horrible. No one can > compare someone with cancer (ie f@@@ing real and > horrible symptoms) with someone with " a ghost" xxxxxxx Nobody was comparing someone with cancer with someone with "a ghost". That was obviously not the point. xxxxxx > Words in steamy mirrors? Grow. Up xxxxxxxx You were there, were you, and saw that it didn't happen as the poster said? If not, then Shut. Up.

http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1245261 Thread about lost dog. The police "have a lead." :))

Jeremy Wrote: > > And even if a bunch of academics were open minded > about ghosts and ghouls, why does that mean I > should also be? After all, plenty of people study > theology at University.. and even homeopathy... xxxxxx I guess you'd have been a flat-earther then .....

StraferJack Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That Edinburgh dept? > > Good luck to em but please do post when they > actually achieve ANYTHING xxxxxx So the people who have been researching for years but have not yet found a cure for certain diseases (eg some cancers) should just be mocked and told not to bother because they haven't yet "achieved" anything? Some people's thinking on here is just muddled. And I'm pretty sure it's not mine (when I'm sober, anyway :)) )

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Adventure Bar was Cheltenham Building Society.. > xxxxx It was indeed. I used to have an account there. And ToastEd went through several incarnations before Green and Blue, including a brief period as a strange sort of bistro with red checked tablecloths, which never looked very inviting really.

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sue, I think you're getting confused between the > study of paranormal beliefs, and study of > paranormal phenomenon. xxxxx If you look at the website I linked to, they study both in Edinburgh. For example, there is somebody researching precognitive dreams, and John Beloff (R.I.P.) used to do research into ESP. The quote itself referred to a study of paranormal beliefs but made reference to the fact that some of those arose from the fact that certain phenomena could not otherwise be explained.

So - who is going to tell the University of Edinburgh that their Unit of Parapsychology is completely wasting its time and money on employing lecturers to teach and research a load of hokum and garbage? http://www.koestler-parapsychology.psy.ed.ac.uk/research.html ETA: An extract from the website: "The history of belief in psychic phenomena shows that one cannot simply dismiss such beliefs on the basis of gullibility and wishful thinking (Lamont, 2006). Rather, they were shaped not only by cultural stereotypes (Lamont & Bates, 2007) but also by an absence of alternative explanations (Lamont, 2004b). Similarly, the experimental investigation of such phenomena cannot simply be dismissed as ?pseudo-scientific?." But hey, I'm sure you people so sure of yourselves on here are far more knowledgeable on the subject than academics who have studied it :))

Jah Lush Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Agree the interior design definitely needs > tweaking. Looking on the dining area from the bar > it appears to me a bit like a school dinner hall > or works canteen. xxxxxx Is the restaurant part laid out like the Mag(nolia) was, then? Because that always seemed like a quite bare and characterless eating area to me.

taper Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Good if long article on closed-mindedness and > scepticism, including briefly on ghosts. > > http://skeptoid.com/mobile/4134 > > "So don't focus on buzzword labels like "closed > minded" or "true believer". You can be both of > those things and still be able to properly analyze > evidence and draw a supported conclusion. " > xxxxx So - have you "properly analysed evidence" and "drawn a supported conclusion" ??

Twirly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If the technicalities won't let you do exactly > what you want, can't you just view/use both > calenders at once? I have my own one, but then > also access to several clinic ones and I can view > them all at once both on PC and phone (though I > have to keep an eye on how I enter things on my > phone as I sometimes end up with stuff on the > shared diary by mistake). xxxxxx Yes, thanks, I can view/use both calendars at once and have been, but it's a nuisance. I'd rather just have one!

Chick Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This whole thread is barking. xxxxxx Charming as always. Closed-minded as always. Prejudiced as always. :( ETA: Guess you had to have another dig as nobody bothered to comment on your station "joke" on the first page?

unlurked Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Leaving pubs that charge too much also adds to > gentrification and loss of a native community. xxxxxxxx That's true, but also there comes a point when you (meaning I) don't want to drink in certain places because of the gentrification. > Make a stand. The fools with the cash also accept > crap service and quality in these pubs. xxxxxxxx True - but then why would you want to drink there too and accept crap service and quality at inflated prices?

shaman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > what I am saying is that there are many things in > the world we don't understand but also a lot we > do, but fear and prejudice make us fearful of the > unknown and the known. xxxxxx Yes, well said. Particularly prejudice, perhaps.

OK, so I created a new combined calendar and (after a bit of faffing about) imported the contents of my existing two calendars into it, expecting then to be able to delete the old ones and just use the new one for 2014. Because it was all getting a bit complicated with two, even though I could see one from the other. BUT It appears the two existing calendars are both by default designated "primary" calendars - one for my Goose email address and one for my Sue email address. Even though they're both under the same name. And having googled blah blah, found that: "Note: It is not possible to delete your primary calendar. Instead, you can clear all the events, rename it, and schedule new events to effectively replace your original primary calendar." SO, it seems that I can't just have one calendar which I can put stuff into from both email addresses? Which is a bit useless? Also other people need to be able to view it/them and it would be a lot easier if there was only one. Advice please? And then I've got to find out how to access it/them from my phone, AAAARRRRGGGGHHHH :(