Jeremy

Oh I dunno... go anywhere touristy in Spain, and you will be given equally awful food.

Michael Palaeologus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dulwich Village is actually West East Dulwich. Surely it's Northern West Dulwich?!

honk, do you mean Northcross Road? But yes, rather sexist. James - I think you'd be doing well if the Alpha hasn't started disintigrating within the first year. The Audi S4 would also be a worthy addition to your list.

Maybe time to start offering more simple snacks at a cheaper price to get punters through the door!

I don't recall seeing any appeals on the BBC to help the injured, starving, and homeless as a result of our assaults on Iraq and Afghanistan. Nobody was boycotting the BBC then, were they? And anyway, the BBC has done a pretty good job of covering the destruction caused by these conflicts, so I don't understand how they can be accused of bias - particularly not in comparison with various overseas media.They are happy to defend their position, even allowing those who oppose their position to give their point of view. Good on the BBC, I say.

Take a wild guess...

I take it you don't find her amusing then, PeckhamRose? For what it's worth, I don't think Peckham's vile, but the area as a whole does have it's fair share of problems. I guess I'm pretty much a postcode purist, and I reckon East Dulwich = SE22. Of course, East Dulwich has undergone a "gentrification" of sorts, which is why some people in surrounding areas prefer to align themselves with ED. But in a way this could be taken as a good thing, because parts of Peckham, Camberwell, Forest Hill have also got a bit nicer. The northern part of Lordship Lane is definitely the centre of East Dulwich, the station is right on the border (Camberwell a couple of hundred metres to the north, Peckham a literally stone's throw to the East) and is a little out of the way. I don't necessarily think East Dulwich is "better" than surrounding areas... West Dulwich, Dulwich Village, and Herne Hill are probably all considered more desirable than East Dulwich. Camberwell has better nightlife and transport. But East Dulwich ticks the boxes for a lot of people, with mid-range family housing and lots of bars, restaurants and cafes suitable for the 30-somethings and young families. The "gentrification" process has its opponents, especially amongst long standing residents who feel that local businesses are now geared to the influx of young-ish professionals and families. I think this is an understandable (and fairly common) reaction, although partially misguided, as realistically the area was in visible decline when I first visited in the mid 90s.

Erm... shouldn't that be "where did my baby go"? Where is my mind - The Pixies

snorky Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > religion innit - when you are discussing soemthing > that doesnt exist, there cant really be a > satisfactory conclusion where everyone comes to an > agreement Very true... although I can't say that I've ever noticed a "satisfactory conclusion" to any debate on this forum!

I am all for minimal interference and red tape. But I can't say I necessarily agree with tax cuts - unless there are cutbacks in defence and bureaucracy, therefore maintaining spending in education, healthcare, public services, infrastructure, welfare, etc. But I don't see it adding up, not in this country. Anyway... don't wish to hijack the original thread with politics. I do have sympathy for your plight dulwichdoll, but basically telling a staff member "if you don't like it, you know where the door is"... well, that's kind of asking for trouble. Also, how will your employees feel if they read this, and you are calling them "lazy little shits" and the like? You could have another similar case on your hands. And one suggestion... instead of paying for new wine glasses, why not get the bar staff to pour it using a measure?

Ocean Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi, what's the Facebook group for singles' exact > name? I can't find it just putting in East Dulwich > and I'd like to join? > > Thanks. Just searched for it... it's the "East Dulwichian Social Group". Quite an old post though, not sure if it's still active! http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?9,123868,124887#msg-124887

Maybe a local pub will show it? I seem to remember The Canning was showing Hatton vs Mayweather. Although the chances are I'd fall asleep long before the fight!

Thanks for the response, Bizzy. To be honest, I would bracket your beliefs along with fundamentalist/extreme/evangelical/creationist Christianity. Your world view is so obviously, vastly different from my own. When we have people in a position of responsibility pushing a literal interpretation of the bible - e.g. teaching creationism in schools - it's really an oppression of science and reason, and therefore the advance of the human race. That's one of the reasons atheists may feel it is so important to speak up against such things, rather than just adopting a "live and let live" approach.

Bizzy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I can give you the short answer and that is no, I > don't think there is anything morally dubious in > the Bible. Can we elaborate a little? To take the well known example of Noah's Ark... is this a story you take literally or metaphorically? Either way, do you believe that god was right to kill almost everyone on the planet (including all the presumably innocent animals) for committing such horrific crimes as "sorcery"? Do you believe that Noah then did the right thing by offering the sacrifice of an animal after the flood (maybe... God certainly seemed pleased with it). I guess I'm just trying to figure out where you're coming from with this. Does anyone really treat the bible as a moral reference point? I'm sure plenty of tales in there teach some valid values, but any well-balanced person would/should immediately recoil at some of the stuff in there.

Bizzy Wrote: > I just want to make this clear. Not all Christians > pick and choose what they want to believe. It's a > common thing and it does happen, but if this is > the only thing you have against Religion, then you > need to open your ears more and try something new. Very true. So do you pick and choose, or do you take the entire bible literally? Are there any bits in there which you think are morally dubious... any at all??

Quids... nobody is saying that moral codes aren't important, but those moral codes don't have to come from mythical sources (in fact they absolutely should not). Humanism teaches people to derive their morals from experiences and empathy (not that I necesarily wish to classify myself as a humanist, or anything else). In fact, Hitler was a Christian - and I dare say he was following his own "interpretation" of the faith. pk... "the point is that you choose the bits that you believe to be right". Well that's the problem. How do you know which bits are right? Christians would have us believe that the bible provides us with some sort of moral framework, a code of conduct if you will. But if you are selective, then that proves beyond doubt that you are using your pre-existing morals, to decide which bits you subscribe to. Therefore the book is totally, 100% useless. Bizzy... "You go for Darwins theory? I don?t get your point on that one". Are you saying that you believe in creationism over evolution? There is overwhelming evidence to support evolution, even Rowan William acknowledges this (and tries to fit his religious beliefs into that context). Creationism is an ancient myth... it's one thing when grown adults still choose to believe it, but when it is seriously suggested that it is taught in schools as an alternative to evolution, then something is seriously wrong. We can't hold back the teaching of science (and therefore the advance of the human race) by teaching myths as if they were fact!

What's the point of following a religion/church if you're going to pick and choose what to believe?

You can't understand why people would wish to insult the Catholic church? Start by taking a look at the Catholic church's offensive and outrageous views regarding homosexuality, contraception, abortion... and that's just scratching the surface. The church's position is indefensible... and the followers have to take some responsibility too.

Not really... with options you would either make a lot (potentially several times what you would with the share) or you lose the lot!

Jeremy Bates Pedro Diniz Eric Crumble Eddie "The Eagle" Edwards Princess Anne

If you think this is an all-or-nothing scenario, why not buy options instead? (I've not checked to see what's being offered though)

Cassius Wrote: > Don't estate agents provide a service and > employment as well? Frankly I have never used a > bookies, and hopefully by the time we are out of > this recession there might be a viable alternative > to Estate Agents, but both are preferable to empty > shops. Agreed on all counts... have I ever said otherwise? I just happen to have a dislike of Osbourne Stewart as a company, that doesn't mean I take any satisfaction from seeing individuals out of work.

Bizzy, in a way I respect your "heart on sleeve" attitude here. But if you can't even answer the most obvious of questions (which Snorky is asking), surely you can't have thought about your beliefs in much depth. It's healthy to question things... in science and philosophy, no progress would ever be made if we didn't have great thinkers who challenged established beliefs. So why aren't you asking questions? Why should religion be exempt from scrutiny by its followers?

And also, it seems as though Obama is more sympathetic towards stem cell research. Things seem to be starting well, let's see what happens...

Don't mean to be rude Katie, but... who are you to veto a bookies? Maybe you won't use it, and neither will I... other people possibly will. At the end of the day it will provide employment, better that than an empty shop.