jrussel

SteveT Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> good

> manners as females were considered to be frailer

> than men.

The good old days!

I think I'm happy for us not to go back to those kinds of regressive attitudes, thanks.

ImpetuousVrouw Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> daizie Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Agree with you jr. Pregnancy is a choice, i

> have

> > no sympathy at all .

>

>

> Bollocks, how is it a choice?

>

> Not everyone who is pregnant, planned it.

>

> Many people get pregnant because they don't know

> how to use their contraception properly or the

> contraception doesn't always work, or for a vast

> array of other reasons.

>

> And even if they do plan it, so what?

>

> It's a natural deep seated instinctive drive in

> most people.

>

> Selfish @#$%& making excuses for being selfish

> @#$%&, doesn't stop them being selfish @#$%&.

Even if the conception is "accidental" there is (nearly) always the option of a termination. If you have some silly religious objection to abortion, then either abstain from procreational activities, or accept that it they may result in pregnancy and be prepared for the consequences.

ryedalema Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> As a Mum of two very young girls there's lots I

> could say about how out of order the OP is here.

> But actually, I wouldn't mind paying a premium on

> my travel card if it guaranteed me a seat and I

> didn't have to plead with a scowling commuter that

> actually my need was greater. It's the

> excruciatingly embarrassing standing while others

> ignore you and studiously examine their finger

> nails that depresses every day.

>

> That and serious b.o. from people who don't know

> how to use their showers while enjoying the throws

> of morning sickness.

>

> Can't wait to see what others think here...watch

> out for the Mummy massive!

> Oh and btw - who's going to look after you when

> you get old? blah etc blah.

So it's out of order to comment on people being antisocial by expecting others to accommodate their pregnancy, but not to comment on people's B.O.?

I must say, having children to make sure that there will be someone to look after you in old age is rather selfish, and certainly not fair on your children. I think anyone with a social conscience would be looking to work out how we can care for *all* of our old people, regardless of their particular situations, properly, as a society.

No-one chooses to be an old person. Or perhaps they should just terminate themselves if they haven't got a family to care for them?

Ladygooner Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> What about if someone has a leg in a plaster cast

> - would you make them stand while you sit? What

> goes around comes around it doesn't cost anything

> to do something nice for someone once in a while.

You know, it really would be polite to read all of my post, if you are going to comment. Had you done so, you would have realised this silly response was entirely redundant.

Brendan Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Should pregnant people pay a premium for

> travelcards?

>

> Only the men.

>

> Arseholes that they are.

They certainly should be expected to contribute to the extra costs taken on by their partners as a result of their actions.

HonaloochieB Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I say, I say I say. My dog's got no nose.

>

> Really, how does he smell?

>

> As transparently provocative as a Jack Russell

> post, so I just ignore the bugger.

It is a frequent source of amusement to me - when people choose to "ignore" things by telling everyone that they are doing this "ignoring"!

"Look at me, I'm not here!"

Now can we return to the point please.

Not just travelcards - use of public transport in London in general.

The tube for example is crowded enough as it is, and I count myself lucky to find a seat. Often however, I must relinquish my seat for a pregnant person. To sit there with them hovering nearby in an accusatory fashion is unpleasant.

The thing is - we both pay the same for our ticket. So why do they get priority? I understand that perhaps their feet are sore from the extra weight and all that, but was this really so hard to predict when they made themselves pregnant?

If I have a few too many drinks of a night, and wake up the next morning with a splitting headache, do I demand silence on the bus so as not to aggravate my fractuous state? No, I accept the consequences of my actions.

I suggest that pregnant people pay a 30% premium to compensate the extra strain they place on pubic transport.

I'd like to make clear that I am only too happy to give up my seat for the elderly, or those with mobility problems that are no fault of their own. In these instances I count myself lucky to have the privilege of being able to stand for the duration of my journey.

I suppose this will provoke angry responses from "new parents" (no shortage of them in these parts - clear from the number of middle class creche facilities springing up in my street) which is unfortunate but unavoidable; scientists have recently proven that the pregnant and those with newborn children have a decreased ability for empathy for unrelated strangers, and a decreased capacity for what most would describe rational thought.

I started a thread on this issue some time ago -

http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,125674,125757#msg-125757

I did get the impression that most people did not take this issue seriously. Perhaps the change of government will have some effect.

eater81 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It sickens me that this wretch has tried her scam

> in front of poor innocent children. For those

> parents who wish to bring their children up in

> peace and away from such foul elements of society,

> there is only one solution. Move out of this

> vermin infested city!

>

> No matter how many hundreds of thousands of pounds

> you pay for your detached house with garden in

> Dulwich, you will still be plagued by scum like

> this plying their deceptive and immoral trade on

> your doorstep. What kind of foul being picks their

> festering scabs in order to beg others for a few

> quid?

>

> By all accounts it seems like this particular

> piece of filth does not have long for this world.

> Another life wasted.

What you have failed to recognise is that this will be good for the children.

It has been scientifically proven that exposure to this kind of thing means that children will grow up to be more well balanced individuals.

It is people with attitudes like yours who are causing teenage pregnancies and the like.

I have actually given this poor "con" woman money on two occasions to encourage her to stay in East Dulwich as education for some of the insular and overcosetted persons who live in this area.

louisiana Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> As Sean says....

>

> Really, what is the harm in talking to the ppl?

> They are human beans, non?

> There are many properties that are empty for quite

> literally years (12+) and individuals are not to

> know what the situation is of any particular

> property. Just speak to them.

>

> It's easy enough to get a court order in the

> 'county court', just takes a few weeks, quite

> hassle free really.

I don't really know how to talk to these kinds of people; like I said I don't want to provoke a confrontation without some sort of backup especially if it's likely there will be drugs and stuff involved. Once I had some problems with some drugs people who defecated in the communal stairway of a tenement building I lived in in Glasgow. As well as leaving various paraphenalia lying about. My upstairs neighbour tried to reason with them but they became agitated and threatening and she was then scared to come back to her flat after dark. There are various things in the property that have my home address on them so it would not be difficult for them to find out where my home is.

I heard on the radio just the other day that violent crime is up in London and I just don't want to take any risks. Not with the sort of people who are bold enough to take up residence in someone's house without permission.

Some months ago I purchased a property, which, for reasons I shall not go into, has stood empty for a period of time.

Earlier this week I visited it to take some measurements for a new kitchen I will be having installed and was a little alarmed to find that one of the locks on the door had been changed. From looking through the windows, it was clear that there was a person/people living in there; I could see a sleeping bag and various other items. It did not seem that there was anyone actually in there at the time although I did not make much effort to find out as I did not want to risk a confrontation with those kind of people.

I am now unsure of what steps I should take to reclaim my property, and was wondering if anyone has some advice for me. Is this a problem frequently encountered in London?

Should I contact the police? Will they be willing to accompany me on a return visit?

For your information there are no Class 03 shunters operational on the main line these days and certainly not anywhere near Clapham Junction. Also, there have been virtually no mixed freight trains running in the UK since the late 80s or early 90s. Again, certainly you would not see this at Clapham Junction.

Finally, are you American? The correct UK terminology for a "box car" is a "goods van", for your future reference.

It is clear that everything you have written on this thread is a falsehood. But if it has given you pleasure to mock the harmless leisure activities of others, then why should anyone object?

Ted Max Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> This is good stuff, jrussel. But I spot a flaw.

>

> I think you are forgetting that tight lycra, which

> raises body temperatures in crucial areas, coupled

> with too much time spent on an exercise bike, is

> likely to lead to mass infertility amongst the gym

> rats - so these hormone-addled addicts will die

> out eventually, leaving their empty gyms as

> decaying reminders of a hubristic past where the

> search for perfection brought about only ruin.

>

> In short, don't mess with nature, even if it's

> wearing lycra and digging the views of Adam

> Boulton.

This is unproven nonsense peddled by those who want you to believe it. Now I wouldn't want to make any statements about certain people's motivations, but suffice to say that the health centre industry is a profitable one.

Can you provide a link to a peer-reviewed study that supports your claims?

Brendan -

You do not seem to understand that it is the "closed doors" that are at the root of the problem. It is the fact that they are all cooped up together in those sweaty rooms that concerns me. If exercise is taken in the open air, the odours and hormones produced are able to dissipate as God/evolution intended. In a confined area, we find a dangerous feedback situation arising, where the hormonal/neurological pathways become overwhelmed with the over-saturated air, making everyone in the room pedal yet more furiously and futilely creating a yet more saturated atmosphere. There are scientific tests which have definitively demonstrated this. As I say, this is not what evolution intended, which is why we see so many injuries and activities such as watching Sky news or listening to unsophisticated music.

You will notice that people who do actual, productive work do not dress in the lycra that you mention. For example, builders, or miners. Why is that? Because there is no need, of course. Why do these gym addicts dress in these ridiculous garments? Is it to make them more aerodynamic as they cycle at speeds of up to zero miles per hour? Of course not. There is no reason - it is a madness and just one of the symptoms of the brain-rot that I am trying to warn about.

You might want to keep them confined in their fitness institutions, out of sight and out of mind, huh? Well, just wait until their numbers multiply until there are more of them than us. Then you will wish you had heeded the warnings while there was still time to do something.

By the way, have you ever seen a fitness centre where the standard of interior design, in aesthetic terms, is anything greater than mediocre? No. Another illustration of the brain-rot fostered in those places.

Xena: Worried prince Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I hope to see a Diesel Shunt tomorrow as they

> normally have a long following of carriages, each

> branded with different goods

>

> I also heard that the Orient Express sometimes

> goes through Clapham Junction, or was it a

> restaurant called "The Orient Express Noodle Bar"

> Near Clapham Junction

>

> What is the best way to get there ? is the East

> London Line working yet ? ohh the possibility of

> taking the number of the train I am traveling on

> to spot trains and to get their numbers is just

> too exciting for words... I hope that I have just

> dropped Egg Mayonnaise down my trousers and not

> something else.

>

> I too have an Air Rifle, but can't see the

> relevance to spotting trains ? Maybe I need to

> take my Bulldog with me

Does it make you feel big, to mock the hobbies of others?

Actually, your posts on this matter are truly hilarious. The best comedy is always that with an original take on an original and unexpected subject. And truly, few people have trod this path before, the ridicule of train-spotters.

Brendan Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> So, so far we have had a call for the abolition of

> urban greenery an assertion that there is no

> reason to acknowledge the separate national

> identities of New Zealand and Australia and now a

> call for the abolition of Gyms. I can?t wait to

> see what this chap comes up with next.

>

> jrussel, are you actually the similarly named

> ex-England wicketkeeper known for his floppy hat,

> moustache wearing, painting and for generally

> being a nut job?

No I am not. I have not heard of him. I do not follow cricket.

woofmarkthedog Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

all the machines have flat

> screen t.v so you can plug in watch Sky & keep up

> with current affairs,

Well. I need say no more. "Keeping up with current affairs" via the medium of Sky? Just the kind of brain-rot these places foster.

That is the mind-set. Neon lights, pointless toil and Sky News.

Why don't you keep up with current affairs by engaging in the real world? Volunteer at a local park or something and get fit in the fresh air whilst exchanging views with real poeple

I wonder how many people are aware of the level of illness and injury that can be directly caused by over-use of gym facilities.

Eg

The very equipment you are using at the gym is either directly or indirectly helping you develop your muscle imbalances and setting you up for future problems.

Let me give you some examples. You cannot help but develop raw quad strength when you use the leg extension machine. As I asked you before, do you stick to exercises that you like to do? Let's face it, everyone hates to work the hamstrings because they are weak and it is hard to do. So most people overwork their quads and under-work their hamstrings.

Another example is the calf raise machine. Again, the calf muscle will always be stronger then the muscles in front of the shin, but when you blast your calves and do not work the muscles in the front of the shin you are setting yourself up for planter fasciitis, heel spurs, Achilles tendonitis and even knee problems.

Let me recap. Working out with gym equipment puts enormous unnatural force through the joint, restricts movements to linear motions and can very easily overdevelop muscle groups. This combined with the development to muscle imbalances?is a hidden root cause of most if not all physical injuries at the gym.

http://www.disabled-world.com/artman/publish/gym-workouts.shtml

The fact is that societal pressures are forcing people to go to these places in desperate attempt to conform to the perfect body image that they will never attain. They overstretch themselves and bingo, they do their back or leg or arm or foot or neck or toe or goodness knows what else a chronic injury.

If they had taken their excercise in a productive natural way like gardening or voluntary wall building or this sort of thing they would be happier healthier and ultimately more useful to society as people.

Someone

bignumber5 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> riiiight...

>

> Are you rather fat and unhealthy? Or recently been

> dumped by an aerobics instructor? minor case of

> OCD in the matter of other people's sweat?

>

> Don't be shy, talk to us. This is a safe space.

Why do you suspect that I am "fat and unhealthy"? I am making a comment on the societal climate that makes these places so popular. I do not see why my own weight or health situation are relevant.

Gyms, health spas, fitness centres, call them what you will. What I am talking about here is the institutions to be found in urban areas, where city dwellers toil away on exercise bikes that go no-where, lift weights only to put them down again and punch lifeless bags of I don't know what hanging from the ceiling. And these are are the least bizzare and meaningless activities that go on in these places.

How disgusting those neon-lit rooms filled with the evaporated sweat of the multitudinous fools within. But this is not the point. what does this do to the brains of these people?

Why can they not expend their energy in a more productive way?

I suggest that these places be outlawed or at least subject to some kind of controls, perhaps a maximum time per person per week in these places to be specified and enforced.

I'm not accusing anyone of defrauding the market ... just wondering if some blame shouldn't be attributed to those who borrowed beyond their means. I mean everyone knows that interest rates can go up as well as down, don't they? Shouldn't we expect people to be intelligent enough to realise this?

You could argue that ultimately, what will happen to someone who has taken on too large a mortgage, will have to sell back their house and go and live somewhere smaller/not as nice. Which is where they would have been living anyway if everyone had been a bit more realistic about things over the past few years.

"When people borrowed money at these rates they could afford it, and expected (and were supported by financial companies in collusion with this belief) that the positive financial outlook would continue."

Of course, they were in collusion with the financial companies in these beliefs. What I am really saying, is that if we are going to blame the bankers for being deluded, then why should different rules apply to the borrowers? The only defence is that bankers "ought to know better". But at the same time, we currently have lots of people saying it was obvious that it couldn't last and taking a "told-you-so" attitude. Well, if it was so obvious, why did so many people take out big ,mortgages?

And if so, do you feel guilty now?

Everyone is blaming the bankers for the credit crunch and fair enough, they should take some of the blame for lending to people who were not intelligent enough to understand their ability to repay their debts, and taking advantage of them, but surely some of the blame must be taken by people who were just greedy and borrowed more than they could afford?

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ...where do we start? Perhaps it would be easier

> if you could say what Prince Charles

> contributes....

Well, as you are the one making the unpleasant accusations against him, I think the onus is on you to back them up with something.

What exactly do you mean by "contributes"? It's hard to answer the question without knowing. Do you feel he "contributes" less than the average person in this country?