jrussel

I would be interested to know what your definition of a "parasite" is. snorky Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > tragic fr the family, yes Im sure. > > Tragic for me as well - they cancelled the > Newcastle / Liverpool game because of it > > Tragic for the country, as it reinstated these > parasites as national treasures, juset when people > were begining to see what they really were. > > But this isnt exactly ED related

I don't really think that a tragic car accident is the sort of thing to be making jokes about, regardless of one's views about the monarchy.

Maybe someone who recognises the right of people to enjoy themselves despite the grumblings of NIMBY local residents. If you can't deal with a bit of noise now and again, why are you living in one of the world's biggest and busiest cities? I suggest you should go and stagnate in your cardigan and slippers somewhere in Zone 6.

I am fed up with people complaining about footpaths. What exactly is the problem? If there are serious defects, eg. paving stones lifted substantially by tree roots, then I agree something needs to be done. But if people are going to get all het up about a little bit of broken something here and a small hole there, they really need to look at their priorities. It is disgusting to see people making a fuss about such trivia when there are so many other issues to be dealt with, that no-one has the courage to confront. Apart from anything else, if we make pavements too smooth, then people will forget how to walk over uneven surfaces, and then one day they will go somewhere where everything is not perfectly paved (e.g. abroad, or the countryside) and will trip up over everything in sight and end up seriously injuring themselves at great cost to the taxpayer (possibly even a foreign taxpayer in a country less wealthy than ours). Don't forget that a mountain rescue helicopter is more expensive than a taxi from East Dulwich to King's College Hospital. People should learn to negotiate difficult surfaces in locations convenient to medical care.

Replacing car parking spaces with trees would be an acceptable use of street space. It is when we try to accommodate both that there are problems. LuvPeckham Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > See another useful thing about trees is that they > help to absorb the sound of car alarms going off > in the middle of the night Mr JRussel, just > imagine how loud and echoie* they would be with no > trees to deflect and absorb the sound... > > Can I suggest planting more trees along our roads > to help curb the menace of car alarms at night... > > > *is this a real word ??

They serve no useful purpose, other than to highlight the selfishness of car owners who are already polluting our air with their fumes and cluttering our streets with their ugly metal boxes. One is currently going off, repeatedly, in my street and is sure to disturb me for most of the night. If ever there were an example of anti-social behaviour, it is leaving a contraption making an almighty din parked in a residential area. This does really quite anger me.

It is absolutely true that the Futurists understood the negative effects of pasta, and its lack of nutritional value: http://www.idst.vt.edu/modernworld/d/Pasta.html

What a stupid comment. In any case, I am only talking about the situation in this country. If you think that TV entertainment is more important than people's health, and want to promote criminality, well, good for you. You can still have these things at an arms length if we confine any measures to our own country. HonaloochieB Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Without pasta, no Mafia. No Mafia, no Sopranos. > > No Sopranos, BIG hole in my DVD collection. > > J Russell you've not thought this through at all. > > Maron!

PeckhamRose Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's just flour and water, right? Yes, exactly. I think egg too in more expensive types but even then the amount is so small its nutrition value is negligible.

I have become increasingly aware of the fact that many people, younger ones particularly, seem to exist on a diet almost exclusively made up from pasta. Or at least, a mixture of that and fried chicken takeaway type meals when they are not at home. Why so? I suspect the reasons are: - It's easy to cook. Any fool can cook pasta. - It is easy to store. Meaning no organisation is required in terms of planning ahead, unlike other foodstuffs such as vegetables which tend to go off. - Many people probably do not realise that the different shapes of pasta are in fact all the same thing. They think they are getting a varied diet but they aren't. - Romantic associations attached to pasta: sunny Italian villages and suchlike. - Aggressive advertising by pasta sauce manufacturers. The only variance in a pasta-based diet is to be found in the accompanying sauces. But invariably these are heavily processed substances from tubes or cans. Of course some problems could be avoided by cooking nutritious homemade sauces and side dishes to go with the pasta but this is only a sticking plaster solution and in any case, the kind of people I am talking about are not capable of this. I don't know why these people can't sometimes try, for example, potatoes. A much less heavily processed foodstuff which will help them to understand that our food comes from the land, not a plastic wrapper. And good for you too. Not to mention the variety of ways it can be cooked. You only have to look at countries whose diets rely heavily on pasta to see that such a monotonous diet does not have a good effect. Fascism, dictatorships and corruption emerge periodically in such societies. I know that this can not be definitively linked to diet but I do suspect there is a connection. I should add that there are economic/strategic disadvantages to relying on a foreign foodstuff as well. I think that it is about time the health authorities in the UK looked at ways of swinging the balance away from pasta and towards other options. Whether this is through tax or health education I don't know. But I do think that the nation's diet, particularly that of young people who as we know are becoming increasingly disruptive, must be taken more seriously. Our obsession with pasta may only be part of the picture here, but a significant part nonetheless.

Thank you for the replies. I will write a letter to the council and copy my neighbour in on it, I think.

There are usually people smoking drugs at this event, with little or no action being taken by the authorities.

Yes, it would seem to be true, on the basis of the information given, to say that in the context of how they make you feel, there is no difference between the orange and Celine Dion. So? What is your point? *Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > jrussel Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > You need to try a bit harder with your analogy. > To > > start with, you need to explain the context of > > your disagreement. Otherwise I cannot comment > and > > you are really just wasting everyone's time. > > I shall expand. > > I don't like oranges (excluding Satsumas & > Clementines), as I find them difficult to peel and > they make my fingers all sticky. > I don't like Celine Dion, as she is difficult to > peel and makes my fingers all sticky. > So, whilst I am happy to recognise that there are > differences between Celine Dion and oranges, in > the context of how they both make me feel - ie > angry - there are no differences between Celine > Dion and oranges (excluding Satsumas & > Clementines) > > I hope this is now clear enough for you.

Oh, a humourous copycat thread. Anyway - to address the question posed: The fundamental difference is the geographical origin of the two peoples. However, in certain contexts, this difference is irrelevant. For example, if we are examining a person's entitlement to a British passport, then whether they are Welsh or English is of no significance whatsoever. To the best of my knowledge.

If my neighbour's hedge is getting out of control and hanging messily and extensively into the way of the public footpath, whose responsibility is it to trim it back? Is it my neighbour's duty, or is it the duty of the council to maintain a safe footway? I am starting to get a little fed up with it. Not only does it inconvenience pedestrians but it makes the vicinity of my front garden look unkempt and messy.

*Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I see what you're getting at now, jrussel. > > If I may present my own parallel experience: > > The other day I had a disagreement with an orange, > who I accused of behaving exactly like Celine > Dion. I understand that there are differences > between oranges and Celine Dion (geographical > origin, accents, cruel thin nose etc) but in the > context of our disagreement - first and foremost - > and without (herewith) no further ado, I, er.. > > And other nonsensical made-up stuff. You need to try a bit harder with your analogy. To start with, you need to explain the context of your disagreement. Otherwise I cannot comment and you are really just wasting everyone's time.

The gentleman I had the disagreement with, which provoked my OP, had been behaving in a way that I consider "typical" of many Australians living in London. Not all Australians, of course. I recognise that not all members of a nationality behave in the same way. Obviously. Nonetheless, tendencies can often be observed. Call them stereotypes if you will. Many (not all) stereotypes are based on an actual tendency, like it or not. Anyway, the point is, that the young gentleman was behaving in a way which I consider to fit this stereotype. My stereotype of young Australians living in London. I therefore told him as much. He told me I had no right to accuse him of behaving like an Australian, because he was in fact a Kiwi. He said he was very offended. I told him I didn't really care. I said something along the lines of "Aussie/Kiwi - whatever, you are conforming to an Aussie/Kiwi stereotype". Which seemed quite reasonable as he was, as far as I was concerned, and as far as I am concerned there is no distinguishable stereotypical behavioural differences between Aussies/Kiwis in this particular regard. Whereas there is, say, between an Aussie/Kiwi and a Japanese person. Again, talking about stereotypes here. I quite like Japanese people but that is by the by. Anyway - he got in a big huff and said that I can't just bundle Aussies and Kiwis into one big stereotype and i tried to ask him exactly what the differences were and he stomped off. So I thought maybe someone here could give me an explanation. I think the fact is, there isn't. I was right and he was wrong and being irrational because he felt bad about what I had just pulled him up about.

Some interesting points being made on this thread. Not particularly relevant to my question, but I have given up on anyone responding to that in a sensible manner.

Floating Onion Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Oh yeah, a quick measurement put it at just over > 1,000 miles. Jah was closer. > > It obviously depends where you measure from. My measurement was from the centre of Australia and was correct.

Floating Onion Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As a foreigner I'm rather curious what a peron's > nationality has to do that person's "activities > and behaviour" in London. Also what sort of > people "tend to come to London"? > > Regards, > Mr. Gets Offended Being Called The Wrong > Nationality Too > > jrussel Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > As yet no-one has been able to answer my > question: > > how are the two nationalities to be > distinguished > > with regard to their activities and behaviour > > whilst living in London? Why exactly do you get offended by being called another nationality? Do you consider your nationality superior to others?

Mark Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > jrussel Wrote: > > > how are the two nationalities to be > distinguished with regard to their activities and > behaviour whilst living in London? > > You can't, they do the same activities and they > behave the same. Thank you. In which case, the fellow who I spoke to this morning, and who I told was behaving just like most people would expect from an Australian, had no reason to get all uppity with me on the basis that he was a "Kiwi".

Jah Lush Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The opening post is obviously written by an > ignoramus. Anyway your answer is about 400 miles > at a rough guess. Oh, and, if your "400 miles" response is to be taken seriously: it is actually more like 2,500 miles. And maybe you would like to bear in mind the fact that Australia is itself about 2500 miles wide. Just some little educational facts for you. Although they are entirely irrelevant to the discussion here.

Jah Lush Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The opening post is obviously written by an > ignoramus. Anyway your answer is about 400 miles > at a rough guess. You only mark yourself out as the ignoramus here. I specifically made a statement in my opening post to avoid people coming back with this kind of stupid response. Here it is bolded for your benefit: ----------- his morning a "Kiwi" got all offended when I referred to him as Australian and when I was then quite indifferent about my "mistake". I understand that they come from different countries, obviously, and that they speak with slightly different accents, but for London purposes, does it really matter? We all know what kind of Aussies/Kiwis tend to come to London and the way they behave, so making a distinction between the two seems quite academic. It would be a bit like complaining about calling someone a "hoodie" when in fact they weren't technically wearing a hooded top but perhaps had a large collar and a large hat on instead but still with the intention of disguising their identity. Obviously the context in which you refer to someone as "Australian" or "Kiwi" has some bearing on whether the distinction is relevant but if the context is discussing their impact on London, or the activities they engage in, then I really don't see the problem. -------- If you don't understand the subtlety of the question, why do you bother trying to derail the discussion with personal attacks? As yet no-one has been able to answer my question: how are the two nationalities to be distinguished with regard to their activities and behaviour whilst living in London? Has the question now been stated clearly enough?

I don't understand why you ask whether French twenty-somethings are similar to German or Spanish? david_carnell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Don't know any French twenty-somethings. > > Are they similar to the Germans and the Spanish > though. > > Why do you even care? Are the Aussies and Kiwi's > particularly vociferous in their objections to you > cutting down trees?

Are you going to pretend that it would not be possible to distinguish between, say, French twenty-somethings in London, and Aussie/Kiwi twenty-somethings? david_carnell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I know I'm gonna regret this but.... > > ...your opening assumption is wrong. The > stereotype of Aussie/Kiwi bar workers is just > that. Sure, they exist, but to imply the entire > diaspora as lager-swilling idiots is simply > naive. > > So the difference between them is moot. What's the > difference between any bunch of young-twenty > somethings with money in their pockets away from > home and up for a good time? Regardless of > nationality.