Moos

Exactly. When the Quiet Room becomes a Wild West saloon, as it does from time to time, and Wild Ed Citizen hits the spittoon from forty paces, that's cool. When middle-aged women let rip in Lordship Lane it's vile.

Aren't we supposed to be supporting local businesses, rather than buying imported goods with a higher carbon footprint? But disappointed by the news - I believed the helicopters to be chasing desprit criminals through the streets like on telly.

There's a difference between getting annoyed with lazy misuse of language and actually diving in to correct other people's posts. (S'allright Keef, I didn't think you were having a pop) I don't generally go in for the latter, although I have occasionally made jokes when other people's slips of the keyboard make funny reading, and I think (or hope) that it will make the poster smile rather than feel got at. I don't think I'd mind if someone did that to me, although I guess it's all in the context. Another petty annoyance - spitting in the street. When did that become OK?

One of the issues here is that we are having 2 different debates. James' original post specifically asks and he's been continuing to discuss that point. Others have taken the debate more widely to compare the levels of disadvantage and prejudice that gay people suffer as distinct from non-white people. I'm not saying that's wrong or that a thread can't change direction. But I'd say that some of the misunderstandings between posters on the thread have been caused by having a different argument from one another.

No no no not at all!! :-$ I would never do that, even if it were wrong, that would be horrible. It's (ha ha) a petty annoyance of mine IN GENERAL.

its its its its its its its its its its its its its its its its its its its its its its its its its its its its it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's

I do agree with the face-punching for anyone who lies to people about what they can afford! I believe it's because of rising prices. People have expectations about their quality of living, and when they have to compromise on the area they'd like to live in and still get faced with the prospect of calling a noisy shoebox home, it takes a very cool head not to be tempted by a huge loan that will buy them a better place to live.

I haven't got that excuse.

Yes, taking a long-term point of view, I don't think anyone would disagree that a correction in prices was necessary. My posts was in response to edited for missing word. Were people always this sloppy in written English??

Lots of people have had to remortgage with higher interest rates, and interest rates may keep going up. If in that circumstance you have to sell and retrench then you're in big trouble if you can't cover your repayment when you sell. I hope that will only be a very few people, as interest rates are still relatively under control, but it will be very painful for those people. re: your comment on renting, agreed - in some other countries renters have far more rights and the assumption is that you are in it for the long term, and may even rent for life. In parts of Germany for eg the landlord has to come up with a good reason to terminate a rental agreement, not just give notice.

It will be a problem if people are struggling to pay mortgage bills for a house that's worth less than their loan.

*hugs giggirl* Hope you enjoy it and find it a constructive outlet for your sadness. Let us know.

Going to see The Ethics of Progress at the Southwark Playhouse next week. Looks intriguing - will report back.

Nice image , TLS :-S Do you wear cardigans, leather slippers and play Barry White very softly, too?

Yes, I did, and fell about laughing. The series was also funny but not nearly as good - the songs are sublime.

'potential tars'? Funny typo from an ex-Senior Serviceman, MM!

There's the big bit at the back - maybe they'd let us have it?

. crossed with bagpuss (hello) and hers was better

Nice one Alan. But you forgot They call me the Hiphopopotamus My lyrics are bottomless [very long pause, and then with perfect comic timing resume] They call me the Hiphopopotamus ....

Agree, new thread I think! I agree with you both, but I'll play devil's advocate to get things going. It's been argued in recent years that children do better in single-sex schools. (I'm saying 'argued' because I haven't seen statistics, so if you don't agree, feel free to pitch in!) The points made are 1) girls do better without boys because boys are louder and more disruptive and take up more of the teachers' time and 2) boys do better without girls because the gap in performance between boys and girls is now becoming so prevalent that it is actually discouraging boys, and to be seen to work hard and do well is becoming 'girly'. We know that black boys overall get the lowest exam results of all groups in Britain, with Asian girls doing best. Ergo there's a gender issue, and a culture issue. So if we extend the 'boys' argument above, would black children perhaps have a better chance in schools where there is no way to end up streamed by race? Hmm. Not really convincing myself there, but I did my best. It's something of an argument but has a lot of holes and supposition, and there are unrelated counter-principles that I consider more important. Oh well. Over to you.

*blushes*

As requested!

I'm with Pierre on the 'baby on board' stickers (especially when they nauseatingly read 'princess on board' or 'little monkey on board'). Why should people drive more considerately for babies than anyone else? I didn't know the emergency thing, though, chuff. Seems a reasonable argument - but then I bet most parents who buy the stickers don't know either.

I was thinking on my commute this morning about what Jah Lush said, and I think it might be because when you are rushing around it takes a big effort to keep your antennae out and pay attention to others' needs as well as to your own. I don't know whether things have always been like this, but it seems to me that many people's lives are so packed that they spend their whole time racing from A to B, trying to do as much as possible in as little time as possible. In those circumstances, who has the energy to spare to pause and consider others, to hold back, to wait patiently, to smile and say thank you? Maybe if everyone accepted that their journey was going to be 10% longer they would be able to relax, not get so angry when other people are inconsiderate and hold them up, and not be inconsiderate to others. And in paying attention to other people, they would start to see them as real, and equal, and communicate to them with a polite nod or word. A 10% longer journey would be a pain, I know, it would make you late for work, or rush your breakfast even more, or have to get up earlier. But perhaps it would make commuting less hellish. I feel really, really old now.

I've only done it once, and it scared the life out of me, because one hand for buggy and one for baby meant none for hanging on. I don't think it's a good idea at all. Mothers with pushchairs should give way to wheelchairs, that's what the signs say. And most drivers do only allow only one or two - again, perfectly legit. I've quite often had to wait for the next bus, and I have no argument with that. But I do think that people with buggies have as much right as anyone else to travel, and it gets wearisome when able-bodied young people grumble and cast black looks at those of us who cause inconvenience to their swift journey. People are very quick to moan about the elderly, the young, the encumbered, when a little bit of courtesy and patience on all sides - and yes that certainly does include those who are being the nuisance, the Us in my argument - would make everything much more pleasant. I don't mind apologising for taking up a lot of space, or for having to ask people to move out of the way so I can get off. But I hate having to apologise for existing in my inconvenient way.