Domitianus

Details please?

I hesitate to mention The Green Worm of Lordship Lane.....

Ladymuck Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Domitianus...I am extremely disappointed that you > haven't added to your extensive list "feet on > seats"...could it be because you are one of "those > people" who partake in this activity?;-) Never, and I agree with you, Mucky Lady.

SeanMacGabhann Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > > Do you know, I think it might just be. It's not > unheard of is it? And it would be A Good Thing? So > no matter how many obstacles you see in the way > (and I probably agree with you on most of them) I > would rather see the challenge head on instead of > shrugging and saying it can't be done Will we see an according reduction in Council Tax bills as we would be doing the Council's job for it?

Idiots on buses, I realise that you think you have mastered the art of inconveniencing other passengers and acting like a totally incompetent prat but, just in case your repertoire of incompetence, your palette of moronity is not yet fully complete, here is a summary of a few behaviours I have encountered on the buses that will help you lift your game: 1. If the bus is only half full and there is plenty of standing room in the standing bay half way along the lower deck - DON'T USE IT! Instead stand right beside the rear doors as this will allow you to massively inconvenience EVERYONE attempting to get off the bus. 2. Tactic 1 is particularly effective if there are two of you and you can each stand on opposite sides of the door. If you have large bags that you can set on the floor to cause additional obstruction - all the better. 3. Tactics 1 & 2 are made even more effective if you occupy these positions at least twenty stops before the one you intend to get off at. 4. Add to your stupidity by not learning in any way from people having to push past you every time the bus stops. STAND YOUR GROUND - you know it annoys and, after all, you have paid your fare and are entitled to be an anti-social a***hole! 5. If there are seats available at the back of the lower deck - DON'T OCCUPY THEM! Instead, stand in the aisle preventing anyone else moving past you to get a seat. 6. Tactic 5 is particularly effective when the standing bay has plenty of space and THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO PRACTICAL REASON FOR YOU HAVING TO STAND IN THE AISLE AT ALL! 7. As with our first tactic, points 5 & 6 are particularly effective if you occupy this position miles before you reach your stop - MAXIMUM INCONVENIENCE TO OTHERS GUARANTEED! 8. If you are occupying a free double seat, ENSURE THAT YOU SIT ON THE AISLE SIDE! After all, everyone knows that if you sit on the window seat you'll probably contract cancer, go insane, suffer claustrophobia etc etc. 9. Further to point 8, if you see people standing who might want the seat you are blocking, MAKE NO EFFORT TO MOVE WHATSOEVER! 10. Re points 8 & 9, if someone does ask to sit down, UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES MOVE OVER TO SIT ON THE WINDOW SEAT. As noted, sitting on the window side would be the end of civilisation as we know it. Swing your legs into the aisle with bad grace and insist that the other party climb over you to reach the window seat. 11. Tactic 10 is particularly effective if the other party is carrying heavy bags. 12. This one really is the coup de grace, the icing on the cake, the tactic that sorts the truly irritating, selfish tosser from the also-ran. If you can, take the aisle-side seat on the rear-facing seats at the back of the lower deck. If someone has to clamber over you (preferably with heavy bags) to access the window seat there is a very good chance that you will cause them to fall on, step on the toes of and clobber with their bags, the poor buggers sitting opposite on the forward-facing seats. Now THAT truly is a class act!

suzza22 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Just for those who actually do care here are some > details about the fire. There were in total 5 fire > engines and one fire/van. It was an upstairs flat. > The fire was started by an electrical fault in the > roof space above the kitchen in the back of the > house. The owners did get out safely. When I spoke > to them on the night to offer my help they were > hopeful that it was just the kitchen that had been > damaged. I for one am going to get at least one > more smoke alarm, double glazing hammers and maybe > another fire extinguisher and look at my family's > escape routes again. Don't forget a smoke hood.

SeanMacGabhann Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Wasn't there a time (and I could be imagining this > from too many films) where the pavement outside > shops was the shops responsibility rather than the > councils? > > Even if I'm wrong I see the council as the last > resort for this sort of thing - like a lazy > adolescent, the more the council tidies our room, > the more the public takes it for granted. > Individuals and business should take more > responsibility and be punished more harshly for > not doing so IMO Equally, SM, the more people do the Council's job for it, the less incentive there is for the Council to pull its finger out and fulfill its legal duty (assuming of course it IS the Council's duty). If everyone brushes doen their steps then Council inspectors could come along, inspect it, observe "it all looks fine to me" and de-prioritise any further cleaning. And what happens to those street areas that are not directly outside a shopfront? Who takes responsibility for that? I applaud your call to public spititedness and there is little as encouraging as seeing a proud shop owner taking a brush and bucket of water to the pavement outside their shop but is that really the way forward long-term?

Maybe he made all the police and firefighters a nice cup of tea?

I knew a lollipop lady once - she had a very thin body and a large round, sticky head.

Ladymuck Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ahhhh, BLESS! > > > Oh, and good on you HEROINE. Nice to see someone > with a bit of spunk. (No smutty jokes please - > it's a good word). I agree it is a good word - specifically because it is smutty, Mucky Lady!

Let you into a secret? It was my plane and I am going to buzz you again this weekend.

Gimme Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Was just about to post the same question. > But also - does anyone know how to stop him? Yeah, imagine a small airplane flying overhead in London. The noise must just be an intolerable intrusion in the tranquility and calm of our urban oasis. Bring back the soothing nature sounds of the helicopters, jumbo jets and emergency service vehicles.

The observations about testing for obesity or overweight issues are perceptive. The BMI tables (based upon an assessment of gender, age, bodyweight and height) are indeed potentially misleading as they assume that all individuals have similar patterns of muscle compared to bodyfat. Obviously someone who trains hard and carries a lot of muscle may seem to be overweight due to their bodyweight (muscle is approximately twice the weight of fat although it has roughly half the calorific value of fat which contains around 3,500 calories per pound) whilst they are actually very lean and carrying minimal amounts of fat. Possibly the simplest and most widely used method of more accurately assessing body composition (although still nowhere near 100% accurate) is through skin fold measurement using calipers. This was popularised and diluted into drivel through the breakfast cereal marketing nonsense a couple of decades ago about being able to "pinch an inch" but, properly used, is a good rule-of-thumb guide. As has correctly been observed, however, the present absurd hysteria about child protection means that many schools in the UK and even more so in the US simply WON'T carry out routine skin fold measurements of children due to the fact that it requires a degree of physical contact between measurer and subject! What degree of touch does it involve? Touching their bums? NO! Touching their breasts? NO! Inner thigh? NO! It requires simple, gentle pinching of a skinfold on the back of the upper arm, front of the upper arm, under the shoulder blade and at the waist. Other possible locations CAN be the chest, calf or frontal thigh but these are not necessary. Because we have created such a hysteria around child abuse such simple and potentially long term life saving measurements (could allow interventions to protect against type 2 diabetes, heart disease, bone and joint damage etc etc etc, to say nothing of self-esteem issues) are ruled out in much of our current education system where they could most easily be applied. I wonder if future generations of children will listen with much sympathy as their parents tell them (as they are in a cardiac ward bed from their second heart attack, or recovering from an operation to have a gastric band put in, or are taking their medication for their preventable type 2 diabetes) "Yes, we knew you seemed rather chubby as a child but we and all the other hysterics campaigned against any programme to tackle it just in case your sports teacher was a kiddy-fiddler and got off from touching your shoulder blade." Other wonderful examples of how this paranoia has spread include youth groups. A friend of mine (a mother with several grown up children of her own) told me some years ago that as a Cub Scout leader she had been told that the policy was not to touch any children in the pack, even to offer comfort to an obviously distressed child. What type of message is being sent to children nowadays when physical comfort is being witheld when it is required due to some sort of absurd millions-to-one 'precautionary principle'? What sort of fear-laden mind-set are we creating in our children when we frighten them into perceiving every strange adult as a potential abuser and label even the most innocent physical touch as something to fear? Answer? We create conditions that are a breeding ground for childhood anxiety disorders and anxiety in children is shown to be probably THE single most accurate predictor of depressive illness later on - on average preceding depression by about eight years. I believe that in decades to come the current level of dread and panic over child abuse (which should OF COURSE be tackled and dealt with where it exists) will be viewed in the same way as the Macartyism and 'Reds under the beds' scares of the 1950s in America are now - as an unpleasant social hysteria that caused more harm than good. As has been correctly observed the precautionary principle of OVER-protecting very small numbers of children against low probability of abuse inherently exposes VAST numbers of children to HIGH risk of physical and emotional problems later in life.

iaineasy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Im not sure any alien would be tempted by anything > in that harvester its probably some of the worst > food available in Dulwich in my opinion. But that might sit perfectly on an alien stomach.

Claire29 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I still think, humour them or just ignore them > surely they can't be that offensive can they? The > man who works in Le Garage on Whateley Road, > leer's at anything in a skirt that walks past, I > just ignore him or keep ear phones in then dont > even hear what he's saying! I certainly don't lose > any sleep over it, sorry if that seems a bit > harsh! Why is there an apostrophe in the word 'leer's'?

clyed Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > They are out looking for attic Cannabis farms, > it's the heat from the ultra violet lamps, the > nightvision camera makes it easy to spot the > brightest house in the street with a heat > signature of the Bahamas. So we can expect a major drug squad raid on Foxtons then?

edited due to misunderstanding

Bellerophon Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > PeckhamRose, I too have spoken informally to KCH > staff who inform me that they are fast becoming a > centre of excellence in the treatment of gunshot > wounds, to rival those of BCH and Musgrave Park at > the height of the troubles in NI > > At the same time impressive, yet deeply depressing let us not forget Belfast's Royal Victoria Hospital as well as Belfast City Hospital and Musgrave Park - equally a centre of excellence in trauma care due to experience gained during the Troubles. Was also the hospital that invented the heart defibrilator which has probably saved hundreds of thousands of lives world wide.

I just wanted to log in and say that I think this forum is great. I really do.

BQC Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Qu'est que ce? I have seen people getting 10% off > at various shops but never really looked into it - > how do you go about getting one, what does it > entitle you to? Apparently it entitles you to 10% off at various shops?

I was wondering whether to have spuds or potatos for dinner tomorrow. What do you all think?

Peckhamgatecrasher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Why should they aspire to change a tyre? Surely > they are hoping for world peace! And I believe they are aspiring to improve provisions for the welfare of small children and good-looking animals.

I would like to volunteer my services as a judge. And I can assure you that my decision will be based upon the personal character of the contestants, rather than a crude and lecherous assessment of their looks. To show that we have moved forward and are not a bunch of crusty, sexist old dinosaurs I propose that we should allow these tarts to show they have brains as well as beauty by having a section of the contest based upon the ability to change a tyre. In the unlikely event of any totty beng able to complete such a task it will show that these beauties are not as thick as s**t fter all.

No, let's speculate until we are proven wrong. If people didnt speculate about half of the content of this board would vanish. And it's not as if anyone is a material witness whose comments here are liely to compromise an official investigation.

When I visited Madrid a couple of years ago, ANY journey on the Metro, no matter how long, cost ONE BLEEDING EURO!!! (about 75p at the time, changed since then obviously). Furthermore the Metro was clean, well maintained, brightly lit and seemed very safe. Why in the name of all that is holy, can the English not manage something even halfway comparable?