Otta

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Otta, I do think you may inadvertently cause > offence, because some branches (probably the wrong > word) of Christianity do believe exactly that. Well I don't think people should be offended by someone not believing the same things as they do. That's being closed minded. And if I get buried (I won't, but just in case) and 200 years later judgement day comes along, I am going to be pretty fed up that I'm stuck with this body. Minus all it's flesh and internal organs.

Totally agree, that's what I meant when I said "I have some friends who were real fans, just like sanity girl obviously was/is. And I totally get that they would feel a genuine saddness and maybe a sense of loss (possibly for the youth that he was so influential on)."

Haha, I love that even when you're flying pretty high you're still measuring things by how many points you need to be safe.

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Bit of a cold analysis Otta... yes, people die in > more tragic circumstances every day. But those who > felt a connection with his music felt a connection > with him.. so a sense of loss is inevitable. > > As for me... I felt no genuine sadness as I never > had that connection. Nevertheless, I greatly > admire what he acheived and the way he went about > his life. Your second paragraph sums up my personal feelings about it. But to be clear, I have some friends who were real fans, just like sanity girl obviously was/is. And I totally get that they would feel a genuine saddness and maybe a sense of loss (possibly for the youth that he was so influential on). But those firends of mine have not gone OTT. It's the outpouring of grief that winds me up. One friend on facebook actually said on Monday something like "I was never a big fan of his music, but I always liked that he was somehow different" (fair enough). He then spent the whole day sharing his music and lamenting that we'd never hear the like again. Imagine if facebook and twitter had existed in August 1997!

Indeed. As I said about Bowie, I was born 15 / 20 years too late. Think I'd have actually been better suited to that generation. And I'd be way closer to retirement.

But you still have his music, nothing has changed. And I very much suspect Steveo is right, there will be future releases.

God, you OLD bastards! ;-)

Plenty of people are RD. And it's not just The Sun is it? And lets not forget it's only quite recently that a lot of people have been so against The Sun, for quite a long time "the nation" loved it.

That was very funny, but the point is the world is still exactly the same as it was on Sunday (well not really, some people are dead in Istanbul because of actual tragic stuff that's happened). I hate all this "the world just got a bit darker" bollocks, it makes me want to bash people around the head with a lamp.

I am not trying to offend here by the way, but I just read this "The care with which we bury the dead expresses our faith in the victory over everlasting death which Our Lord Jesus Christ has won in our human nature by His own Death and Resurrection. We bury the dead in the sure hope of the resurrection of the body, when their mortal bodies will share fully in the glory of the Risen Christ." But we KNOW the body decomposes, so this makes no sense. And it's a bit harsh on anyone that dies in such a way that their body is not in one piece. Religion is one thing, but you can't surely believe that on judgement day we're all going to reenact the Thriller video and climb out of our graves.

Harsh perhaps, but honest. I actually went to my first burial recently and as I watched thecoffin lowered in to the hole I just stood there thinking "what's the bloody point"? But rational thought goes out the window as soon as religion gets involved.

It's funny. The man didn't release an album for 10 years between 2003 and 2013. Not once in that time did I hear anyone say it was like there was a giant hole in the world.

It's as newsworthy as David Bowie kicking the bucket. One could easily argue that Murdoch is much more influential in our world than Bowie ever was.

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'd argue that the final "resting place" doesn't > need to be a grave though. For example, many > people are cremated then the ashes are burrid in a > particular place, marked with a plant or > something. > > That's exactly right, for those for whom such an > action would meet their needs - for others, > however, the formality of a grave (and the burial > of the 'whole' body, not ashes) provides greater > levels of comfort. It's of course a personal (and > cultural) thing - but it is 'our' (people in the > UK) culture - even though your alternative also > works for some. I know what you're saying, but for the sake of argument, couldn't these cultures be changed by simply saying "we're not doing burials in this country anymore"? Some might not like it, some would no doubt claim it was removing their human rights (although the removal of being alive would rather negate that IMO). But in time (probably quite a short amount of time) it would be accepted as the norm and we'd stop wasting land.

dbboy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Penguin68 - an excellent post. > > I lost a very, very close relative in the last > twelve months. Going to their grave is both a way > of trying to cope with their death whilst also > showing respect. Only when you have lost someone > so so close do you realise how important visiting > their final resting place is. Sorry for your loss. I'd argue that the final "resting place" doesn't need to be a grave though. For example, many people are cremated then the ashes are burrid in a particular place, marked with a plant or something.

alice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rose is close Shows how often I get out these days. So is it just sitting empty then?

LondonMix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Junior doctors do make a lot more than their base > pay. On average junior doctors make 40k including > the bonus pay for weekend and evening work in the > early years of training and on average 56k in the > later years of training including bonuses and > supplements. Junior doctors in certain > specialties make between 53k and 70k including > bonus pay and as seniority progresses. > Consultants make up to 100k. > How many hours a week do they need to work in order to earn these amounts? And how many of those hours are during the night or at weekends? Personally I am not 100% behind the JD's striking, and a dislike the emotive arguments being used to support them. BUT I do think the offer that is on the table is shot.

edborders Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Why this is important: > > People who have a family member buried in the > Cemeteries may want to know that the council is > going to be digging up their loved one's grave - a > plot they bought for eternity. If a body has been there 75 - 100 years, they are very unlikely to have any living "loved ones". > If Vodafone sold you a plan with "unlimited > internet forever" and much later told you they > would be stopping that, you would scream bloody > murder. That is what the Council is doing here > with the graves of your loved ones. Again, they people in the graves won't have any loved ones alive to care. Plus, if Vodafone sold me a service it would end when I died. The people that paid for these graves 75+ years ago will be dead now. > And everyone who wants to get buried there may > want to know that they won't be resting in peace > forever. Their body will be dug up in 75 years and > the plot sold off to someone else. By which time they'll be long dead and won't be able to care. I must say that I think burial is a ridiculous thing to do with dead bodies, and would happily see it banned. I would also prefer to see the cemetary undisturbed. But your arguments are a nonsense, and the "Southwark Woods" you describe has never existed.

LadyNorwood Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm amazed at the level of > vitriol levelled at both of them Both of them? Really? Jerry Hall probably doesn't deserve some of what is being said about her, but Murdoch deserves a hell of a lot more. Nasty human that he is.

I too haven't watched it with any regularity for a long long time, and hadn't seen an episode for a good couple of years. However, I watched it on Christmas night and was quite shocked that I knew so many characters. Phil, Sharon, Ian, Kathy (didn't she die?!?!?), Kat and Stacy Slater... There were new people aswell, but as *bob* says they just seemed to fill gaps left by former characters. There has always been the token asian family for example. A real reflection of the east end would feature a hell of a lot more asian families! And some eastern europeans.

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > They want the kudos and the potential > ?75,000+ for being a consultant then they have to > take the rough with the smooth. Bit like teachers really. Do you really think a teacher is worth more than a doctor?

Not feeling too hopeful about LFC's chances against Arsenal tonight. But apparently we have some players back, so you never know...

I do like tattoos, and I keep meaning to watch this, but as yet have failed.

I don't know much about Jerry Hall. I do remember feeling sorry for her when it turned out her "marriage" to Mick Jagger had been a sham. But Murdoch is no muppet, it's not like there won't be a pre-nup in place if they do get wed. I agree Louisa that an older woman should be free to find love, but why doesn't she go down the Babs Windsor route and get herself a younger man?

There used to be one at The Rose, not sure it's still going though.