numbers

Zebedee Tring Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Numbers, do you have any poster in mind, by any > chance? Er...yes, is this a trick question? Otherwise my post on this thread wouldn't make sense, would it? Disclaimer: I've had a taxing day, my tiny brain is not at its best.

no its fine to ask that question KK - I just know (on a serious note, I can tell by their posting style that's all. I wasn't looking out for it or anything but something stood out and that was that, subsequent posts confirmed I just knew and couldn't not know it, more's the pity) I don't think I'd have thought anything of them registering again under a new name (and not being upfront about previous forum activity) if they hadn't tried to play the innocent 'oh but I'm NEW around here card' if you see what I mean ;-)

Iris Apfel/ Matisse. Can't do linky thing.

people who register on the forum under a new user name and pretend that they are a new poster rather than coming clean about the fact they've been around the block a few times previously. like I say, irrational. not worth getting annoyed about really but it irks me somewhat.

Gave the guy at the car wash a larger than usual tip since it was Easter hols and all. He was really pleased by this gesture and it made me happy to see. Bumped into him walking out of the bookies a few days later, he insisted on giving me some of his winnings and wouldn't take no for an answer. ?500 quid, that will do very nicely, sir.

Deleted

PokerTime Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- Also families don't all live > together anymore either. I would argue that it's > that that has suddenly presented a new demand for > more accomodation. Increasing divorce rates, > increasing numbers of people that don't marry, > longer lives, these have all risen in parallel to > new demand for certain types of housing. I already said that. Is there an echo in here? edited: cut and paste error. edited again: calling 'clique' really loses a poster any sort of credibility in my view.

amydown - typical that they didn't provide you with the check-in report on time but presented you with the check-out report pretty sharpish and a bill for the carpet! sorry to be cynical but are you sure its the landlord asking for the carpet money and not the letting agency trying to pull a fast one? def fight this tooth & nail! really hope you succeed, it certainly sounds like their treatment of you has been pretty shoddy.

mega city? More like Cursed Earth ;-)

PokerTime Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I have backed my opinions with facts...that's very > different to stating opinion as fact. All the > figures are out there and easily researched. as if anyone reading is going to spend an evening checking your figures by doing their own research. > I take exception to is the kind of playground digs > of ????. He's clearly not interested in having a > sensible discussion to explore anything he thinks > is not based in fact. If we're going to act like we're in the school playground then do let me point out 'you started it' a few pages ago when you queried whether he was angry, that was personal. quids' posting style is familiar to prolific posters on here, you've been a prolific poster, saying fooking is what he does. That's not my problem. What I do know is > that when people resort to insulting tones, it's > because they are losing the debate and know it. usually the people that come out with that line are the ones that are erm...I can hardly say 'losing' as there is nothing to lose here, its just a discussion on a forum. No-one 'wins'. Just loses interest and the will to live. I appreciate I am likely contributing to that.

It became unpleasant a few pages ago really.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ps What's got us into this mess is draconian > planning laws (the state) and ironically, tory > politicians trying to stoke pre-election booms > (the state)..... not the market was going to say (personal opinion, not saying these are hard facts) that I believe there are other, numerous, contributory factors relating to the current housing crisis in this country (as well as the policies that have been discussed): - lack of land for planning (think DaveR alluded to this earlier in the thread) - building regulations (I won't get political and say "thanks Labour") - people changing the way they live (e.g. more and more of us living alone, families being split between more than one home, people living longer, blah blah blah) - immigration afraid I agree with quids pokertime, comments of a personal nature are not welcome on this thread and detract from any argument you are trying to make. I don't doubt your knowledge on the subject seeing as you say you are doing a study on it. You're not coming across as completely unbiased however and presenting opinion as fact, well maybe, I don't know enough myself. I'm not a fan of people having second homes as I have seen this price people out of their local area, esp young families with local jobs (I am talking from years and years ago). I agree wtih penguins earlier post (except the bit about yummy mummies, why are mum's being singled out and I think that term is derogatory even if it wasn't intentionally so).

I'd have left them a note saying where the milk/sugar/teabags/biscuits were. If I knew I'd be leaving the house before they arrived. Or I'd have explained to them in person before they started the work and I handed them the keys.

interesting blog post circulating on twitter, got to say I concur with the comments. http://elliemaeohagan.tumblr.com/post/82275278284/women-who-eat-on-the-tube nigello will listen out for it on radio, ta. saturn you'd be forgiven for thinking that, of course men eat on the tube too but the creator decided to pick on women for specious reasons citing it as 'art'.

StraferJack Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The women who eat on the tube thing (esp the > comments) is a window into an uglier place > entirely This!!! (x-posted with SJ)

whoa sorry I think we are talking about different things here, I wasn't clear in my original post. I am not complaining about an article in the Guardian or wherever, its the open Facebook group that the person has set up specifically to point and shame at women whilst they happen to be eating on public transport. The comments are along the lines of 'forbidden fruit' 'little pigs' 'guilt' 'shame' and this gem... 'and no matter how hard she tried she just couldn?t stop jamming those party wafers in her mouth'. It is all about how shameful it is that these women are eating, not just on public transport but women....eating. Its not the same as complaining about e.g. antisocial aspect of eating on public transport/playing loud music/applying make-up/sitting with your legs stretched across two seats. The contempt shows through and it disgusts me. Not to mention the fact that those photos have been taken and posted online without the knowledge or consent of the people photographed as well as the sinister school boy commentary. Sickening. It would be just as bad if someone had set up a facebook group to point and ridicule men eating on public transport.

to be fair Loz, I just picked the first article that came up on a search, had seen plenty others from various sources circulating on twitter beforehand.

The fact LM got a 500 on this thread :))

The person who started it up clearly has 'ishoos' of his own, no? Link to one of many articles about it. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/07/women-who-eat-on-tubes-photos-women-eating-social-media Loathe to draw any more attention to it but its everywhere now, would like to hear what edf-ers think. This from their tumblr "Everywhere I go I see women eating on tubes. Like little mice hiding packets of crisps and biscuits in their bags and purses. Slowly, secretly, guiltily raising each bite-sized morsel to their salty lips in the hope that no one?s watching. Well, I?m watching. And I?m photographing, documenting the fascinating world of the Women Who Eat on Tubes." creepy and disturbing IMO.

Yes, ZT, I do now agree about that particular point. I've since discovered that I gave the wrong dates yesterday, it was 1968 apparently, during Horace Cutler time as PokerTime had already explained. I do not attribute the blame to one single policy though, there are numerous contributing factors which should really have their own thread in another part of the forum. I don't think even I could blame a Government (of any political persuasion)as responsible for building crappy concrete structures that wouldn't last.

no its not your fault rah rah, my posts are quite incoherent today. I don't want to even read them back as I will cringe as I know I'm not putting my point across properly I know that. sorry everyone reading this thread, I will shut up... for a bit x

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @ numbers - You have quoted my post and then > paraphased an arguement (not made) that people > should have 'known their place'. You are inferring > that I have criticised those taking up the Right > to Buy. I have explicitly stated the opposite. > That is not engaging with the arguements made. I wasn't paraphrasing you, apologies if my post wasn't clear. I will say that I wasn't inferring that you were criticising those taking it up. I was actually using the 'knowing their place' to make my own point, using quids earlier words which is how I feel about it.

ZT - okay it was 1983 I was old enough to know my history but not old enough to vote then but as I said the policy was started by Labour which was where they first heard about it. Also from Harlow and Harold Hill I believe. Not Labour voting council tenants but working class Tories. Still good to see people on here finding excuses for a Labour government coming up with the policy in the first place which then paved the way for Thatcher's 'flagship' policy and which was not removed by....Labour when they got into power again. No surprise there.

PokerTime Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- This was NOT happening before 1980, no > matter how many people you know who were allowed > to purchase before 1980. Just to be clear - I never said that I knew people who purchased pre-1980. It was a Labour government, early 80s. As an aside, from reading some comments on this thread (not directed at you btw), you'd be forgiven for thinking that those who managed to buy a council property had it handed to them without them having to do any work in order to achieve it. No-one I know who bought back then was 'lucky enough to be given a windfall'. Incredulous that people think it was in any way easy. Maybe they should 'known their place' and done fuck all about it. Blair & Brown... New Labour shocker re not removing policy when they were in power. edited to add: govt

lets just correct what exactly, pokertime? Labour did start it and the people I know personally who bought their council houses in the east end of London did so under a Labour government. I never "tried to pretend that Thatcher was not instrumental in .........". interesting that the fact 'there has always been conditions under which LAs could sell property" was not mentioned earlier in the thread before the predictable Thatcher blaming. Wikipedia is not your friend here either due to its inherent factual inaccuracies.