*Bob*

Can someone please help me get that chip off AllForNun's shoulder? It must be awfully heavy.

I loved the bit about the house which used to belong to an old friend - an taxi driver's son. A one bed fleapit hovel, built on the crappiest street in town - now on sale for EIGHTEEN MILLION POUNDS would you believe it?! Oops, I exaggerated. You know - so it sounded a bit more spectacular.

The Conservatives did offer forth a magnificent inheritance tax bribe, and lo!.. a couple of million people did decide "hey.. maybe that Dave bloke might just be the right man for the top job after all". Labour will now up IHT themselves - hurrah! Looks like I won't be needing to make an emergency trip down the registry office after all.. for a little while anyway.

I wouldn't say 'grilling'.. just interested. Does a bone marrow transplant patient not undergo (as you put it) "as an operational objective to be achieved by the application of technical means?" I think your position is muddled. Perhaps the religion aspect has done the muddling (it usually does). If you had said, no IVF under no circumstances then it would have been easier to understand. But by saying that you think it "should just be for women who have undergone illnesses like cancer making it hard for them to conceive naturally" - you are already adding an element of 'deserving case' to the mix. ie if you're unlucky enough to get cancer, you should be lucky enough to receive IVF. However, if you're unlucky enough just to find it hard to conceive.. tough luck!

And having a child is neither a privilege nor a right. It is a biological occurrence. I find it odd that almost everyone who decries IVF seems perfectly happy to accept every other kind of death-defying, life-preserving, natural selection-evading medical treatment on offer. But when it comes to conceiving - well, you've either got it or you aint - and you've just got to live with it.

Spangles, they may be desperate for a baby, but (occasional headline-grabbing case aside) the majority of women who have IVF are not in their 40s, 50s or 60s. I think the religion point can be discounted (if it's against your religion, then it's against your religion, terminally ill or not) so all we have left is 'you waited too long to deserve to have a baby'. So, if women are most fertile in their early twenties, at what point have they waited too late and therefore do not deserve IVF? 27? 32? 36?

Well said, Ganapati. To that, I would add: anyone who seriously believes that some women consider IVF to be some sort of 'lifestyle choice'.. is seriously misinformed.

Spangles30 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Mattham, since you ask, I don't agree with IVF to > conceive due to older age - but that is my opinion > and I am entitled to it. A woman's fertility peak is in her early twenties. So at what age do you think IVF should be withdrawn as an option?

I wonder if I could be a journalist for The Times? It seems that all I need to do is lazily thumb-through some online pages of my local internet talking-shop, grab the bleeding obvious bits and hope that, in conclusion, my piece seems to be making a wider point about society in general.

And as you said (of the above) in the other similar thread: "Janice Turner pretty much sums up why I am moving to Forest Hill" But I have to say you seem a little confused. Only a week or so ago, with your 'where to move' thread, you said a number of times that you loved ED and you'd love to stay here - and it was only the fact that property cost so much and that you wanted more space which was driving you away. You are, I would say, exhibiting all the signs of someone who has suddenly decided they don't like an area so much because they can't afford to buy what they want there. (I assume by the time you do arrive in Forest Hill you'll absolutely detest ED)

I remember Gerry did make himself 'known' some time back.. http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?9,51434,51434#msg-51434 http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?9,50802,50802#msg-50802

Hook, Line & Sinker

Having very young children and not having a car.. hmmm. You may not 'need' one, but only in the same way that you don't 'need' a television, shoes or beer.

sorry, Admin.. I'm not that surprised by the Chanders review. We've only been in once but they don't quite seem to know what they're doing just yet. And it didn't feel like they'd quite worked-out what kind of a place they are, either. But it's early days. Will try again in a few months probably.

The modern day equivalent is the 'no shoes' policy as adopted by some bars and nightclubs (ie we don't want people who've left the office at 5pm on Friday and pissed it up for four hours solidly coming into our bar and being an a*sehole)

My reading (ie guess) was that the first wave of shops and eateries that opened-up in the wake of regeneration were aimed at those at the more fantastic end of the fantastic housing stock, and either they weren't supported or there weren't enough supporters. The second wave of shops feels more realistic, genuinely local - and the timing is better.. I'm sure it will be different this time around. And Bellenden dwellers have Ganapati, so you already have one up on the whole of SE22, you lucky, lucky people.

Keef Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I remember them, they used to sing on Rainbow when > I was little. Did they do other stuff before? It used to be Rod, Jane and Matt(hew Corbett). But when Matthew 'inherited' Sooty, he split the band, man. And that's where Freddy got his shot at the big time.

Rod, Jane & Freddy

You've gotta laugh. This forum has been fit-to-bursting with all manner of factless estate-agent cussing of the most unpleasant kind, especially since Foxtons appeared. But then the instant an actual real live estate agent makes themselves known and then someone levels some actual real facts against them - they get a welcome pack and a warm handshake!

Just out of interest.. Are estate agents well-paid?

I hear a travelodge room is very competetively priced

Ok.. you be fat, I'll be irritating. We'll make a mint.

lozzyloz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Any chance you two could apply for the Radio 1 > Breakfast slot when Moyles moves over? I can't speak for Alan, but I'm not fat and irritating enough. Not yet, anyway.

ok Alan.. let's do the musical number and finish the show asap. I'm sure everybody's bored to tears by now.

Hee Hee Oh well - at least you got a new cyber-friend out of it, Alan. I'm happy for you. All that remains is for you to turn him against you, post by post, with one of your endless ramblings about SE5, inflation, house prices etc etc