edcam

They might expect to be recognised, of course but for an employee of a shop they visit to report this on a public forum is not acceptable. Mick Mac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's what a celebrity comes to expect surely. > Unless of course they were buying a sofa for their > secret lover and have been famously outed. Sliding > doors and it could all so easily have been so > different.

It's still very indiscreet and inappropriate for someone who works in a shop to do this.

Rather indiscreet, talking about who your well-known customers are, isn't it? Or is it an Oliver Bonas policy? If I were in their shoes it would make me feel a tad uncomfortable.

voltore Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Willard Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Flying Fish Camberwell > > Seconded. Surprised I hadn't seen a mention of it > earlier. > Consistently spot on. Used to eat here when I > lived in Cambers but will happily go out of my way > now I'm in ED. > > Just don't ask if they have anything 'ready'.. ! > The owner will take offence (saw a guy get his ear > chewed off!) Agree completely. We never returned to the Sea Cow after we discovered The Flying Fish.

Administrator Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Despite a warning to behave, Edborders has now > been banned. Thank goodness. Although it has to be said that several regular posters have behaved appallingly on this thread.

Time this thread was locked and consigned to comedy forum history? I defended Lewis earlier but now I think you're all mad.

Surely it's simpler just to pay the fine and move on?

I have to agree that while I'm not sure if Lewis's energies are entirely justified, he has every right to fight for what he believes in. This thread has become rather uncomfortable now, and it feels a little bullying in tone. It's comforting sometimes to remind ourselves that this forum doesn't represent the world at large.

miga Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'd like to see some figures on how many cyclists > actually ride on the pavement or run red lights. > Often, discussions on cycling infrastructure etc. > get sidetracked by people generalising based on > the behaviour of a handful. > > I cycle ~20 miles a day, and in that distance, > sometimes with a lot of road congestion, I see all > manner of rules broken, incl. by cyclists. But, in > my experience, most cyclists are courteous and law > abiding. > > On the other hand, being alert saves me from being > squashed, cut off, running into dozy pedestrians > crossing a red light (which I know is legal), > coming a cropper on poorly thought through bike > infrastructure etc. daily. > > This, of course, is anecdotal, just as the > exaggerated experience of the red light running > bike lunatic is. It's funny how alive that > stereotype is for a lot of people though, even > with the thousands of quite normal, quite law > abiding commuters in hi viz forming the vast > majority of London's cyclists. Of course it's impossible to give statistics on how many cyclists jump red lights but in my experience it's a significant minority. I cross Farringdon Road every day and one week recently, I decided to mentally log how often it happened. Crossing the road Mon-Fri morning and evening, in one week I counted 23 cyclists and 6 motorists jumping the lights.

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What I'm trying to > point out is that if it's the middle of the night, > cold and pouring with rain, a cyclist may feel > it's ok to keep going if there is no traffic > about. They may feel that but that feeling wouldn't be a justification.

I applaud you Louisa for at least having the decency to backpedal, even if it is only a little bit. See - not hard to see the error of your ways, is it?

Louisa Wrote: > And how can you prove or disprove it is foolish > edcam? Are you suggesting EVERYONE who eats > expensive or status symbol food is doing so > because they genuinely enjoy it? Or could there > perhaps be some underlying class related issue > going on here? Take a horse to water and well, you > know the rest. I don't need to prove it. It clearly is foolish to generalise about people in the way you do. You've been shown that oysters are not always expensive or "status symbol" food, yet you carry on making a fool of yourself because you are too proud to back down, grow up and admit that you are wrong. >I am not patronising or insulting anyone, just >calling them up on why they like certain things, >as THEY do to me. You are though. That's abundantly clear in your posts on the subject. > "Why does Louisa shop at that dreadful Iceland > buying cheap nasty food?" Etc etc I haven't said that, yet you seem to be perfectly happy bundling me in with the perceived food snobs that you think those who eat oysters are. > Maybe myself and others shop there because they > have to, maybe they genuinely enjoy the decent > value for money prices. MAYBE they shop there > because they have a chip on their shoulder and > want people to think they're working class so they > can fight against the system and be down with the > commoners. Who knows??? I don't care where you shop or what you eat to be honest. > Louisa. As someone said above, you can be highly amusing on this forum and many of your posts are fun to read but when you behave like this, I'm afraid you just come across as a troll or an idiot.

Louisa, I have tried to rise above it but the fact that you're criticising people for liking something but trying to imply that there are "underlying" reasons for someone liking a particular foodstuff is, frankly, foolish. Why do you think it's ok to patronise and insult people and then play the victim? Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Edcam it really is lamentable hearing yet another > regular play the 'trolling' card, simply because > you refuse to appreciate someone's honest > reflection on the underlying reasons for others > liking certain things. I'm disappointed in you. > You imply I am a fool for these beliefs, and yet > others who have similar opinions in role reversal > are congratulated on their opinions. If I and foxy > were not consistently goaded perhaps we could have > these adult debates without them being taken back > to the bare bones, every single time. It really is > just plain consecending, and boring. > > Louisa.

Signed. Thank you.

Well said Sue & Seabag. Yet another thread succumbs to Louisa's trolling. I can't believe that she is really so incredulous that other people might like something that she doesn't. Only a complete fool would subscribe to that opinion. She does love a wind-up, yet wonders why she is corralled for her own safety.

If Louisa and Dulwich Fox don't like something, you can almost certainly guarantee they're worth trying!

Love oysters!

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The SWW people have proposed Kemnal Park cemetery > in Bexley as an alternative. It's about a 90 min > trip each way by public transport from ED. Add in > the time spent in the cemetery, that would be > about a four hour trip just to put flowers on a > grave. > > I think this is unacceptable. Would the pro-SSW > people on here like to comment? Cremation is the way forward.

It's about time we realised that burial isn't viable, especially in cities. Whatever your beliefs, the fact that it's now pretty much guaranteed that you're eventually you're going to be dug up again makes a nonsense of burial.

Alcohol-free beer is vile.

Oh yes - Cave De Bruno - that's great. Very helpful & friendly and good wine advice.

I'm not sure that any of them are hugely noteworthy except for William Rose, which I know divides people on here but they do sell some quality stuff.

Foxy was a Morris dancer. This forum is complete!

That's not another angle, Mick Mac - that's what's being discussed (apart from the digression into badly behaved children and parents who don't care who they piss off.)

See this thread in the Lounge: http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?20,1626921