Damian H

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If my cafe was in an area like East Dulwich, I'd > accept that it wad par for the course. > > It's good of you to get so wound up on behalf of > the business owner. I don't believe you, simple as that. But perhaps you can give us all lessons on how to retain a zen-like unconcern and detachment when we perceive unacceptable behaviour on the part of others - or is it just another type of selfishness, "It doesn't affect me personally so I don't care"?

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The OP hasn't acted like an aggressive nutter. > > Sometimes kids cry Damian. I suspect even you did > as a nipper. Do you also believe mothers should > get off buses if their children start to cry? Let me ask you a question, Otta. If you owned a cafe wich made its greatest revenues during the lunch hour by serving the local community and you saw about thirty per cent of your capacity taken up during that time by two mothers stretching out a long lunch while their toddlers sat eating tiny portions, and you watched other potential paying customers walking out the door because they couldnt get a seat, how would you feel?

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The OP hasn't acted like an aggressive nutter. > > Sometimes kids cry Damian. I suspect even you did > as a nipper. Do you also believe mothers should > get off buses if their children start to cry? Nor have I. The facts are here on this thread in Black and white, if you care to read them. I made two objective observations which I have reposted. I was then attacked (not for the first time) by DaveR and yourself. If you look at my two initial posts you will see that they were calm and objective cpompared with the tone of the OP (well, any fai minded person would see that). I onyl responded in defence of myself when the likes of DaveR, dave_carnell, helenahandbasket and you engaged in gratuitous personal insults. Here you are...at it again..."aggressive nutter". How on earth can you be so deeply in denial of the fact that any robust responses by me are directly in response to unpleasant personal attacks by you and your partners in crime? Do I believe mothers should get off the bus when their cildren start to cry? WHy on earth are you asking a question lke that? Where have I expressed a view that children should not be allowed to cry in public? Yours is the cheapest type of Straw Man argument. You have failed to respond effectivly to nything I have said so far so now you are trying to lure me into saying something you can reasonably attack. You are exremely transparent. Of course I don't believe any such thing. As I have already expressed i this thread, however, I think it is selfish for mothers to park their prams in a small cafe at the busiest time in a way that prevents other patrons using a full five seats while they simultaneously have a leisurely lunch occupying another table for four people. This obstructs other cusomers and deprives the retiler of a proportion (perhap a small one) of his potential takings for the day. It is selish, self-centred and inconsiderate - full stop. I also observed that, contrary to the poster I was responding to, I did not see an evidence of under-idulgence of children in ED, quite the opposite, and that if any type of parenting was likely to raise children who would go out and riot (as the poster had suggested) it was more ikely to be over-indulgence and spoiling. I have no qualms at all about expressing and defending those opinions There is a world of difference between objecting to selfish, intentional and controllable behaviour that affects others that some mothers expect other people to put up with; and unavoidable, understandable behaviour that one can sympathise with such as having a crying child. Your attempt to encourage me to conflate the two is,frankly, disingenuous. Your comments on my opinions seem to redound to personal insults, misrepresentation of what I have said, woeful amateur psychoanalysing, objecting to the fact that I give thorough answers and throwing up straw man arguments. Perhaps you might find the time to address the issues instead of making ad hominem attacks?

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Did someone (or several people) refuse to have > kids with you Damian? Otta the amateur psychoanalyst. Remains shocking that you just can't get you head round the fact that some people don't like mothers with children behaving in a selfish and self-centred way as if no one else's interests matter. I guess it is easier for you to try to pathologise another person rather than reform your own behaviour. And funny you don't ask the same question of the OP.

*Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Damian H Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > It is quite entertaining to have such a motley > > crew dancing on a string. > > Yes. dancing to the tune of your big brain. > > It is a beauty though. Can I touch it, Damian? Can > I touch your really big brain? You see this is the sort of thing that alarms me, Bob. DaveR has a need to fantasise me all purple and swollen and now you want to get thrills by touching me. I am very liberal and tolerant in my views but that type of love just ain't my bag, no matter how much you may want it to be. I am sure there are plenty of clubs and bars and websites where you can find that sort of action. I think there were a couple of threads on here about the subject.

helena handbasket Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Talk about flogging a dead horse! That subject would certainly be more interesting to talk about than some of the comments on this thread. Good to see you keeping it going.

peterstorm1985 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Damian H Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > >..... some of us have bigger > > brains that produce ideas and opinions that > can't > > fit on the back of a postage stamp. > > But not big enough to realise just how easy you > were to wind up - which is just too tempting for > some.... Who is getting wound up by whom. PS? There seem to be a number of people who are getting steamed up about this and just can't let it go. Let me introduce DaveR, Otta, Bob et al... It is quite entertaining to have such a motley crew dancing on a string.

*Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Damian, perhaps if you could just give us a > definitive list of all the places where mothers > with children have annoyed you - to date, appended > by another list of all the places where mothers > with children haven't annoyed you 'yet' but > 'probably will' at some point in the future - then > you can save yourself a lot of typing over the > years to come. Perhaps if you accepted that other people have experiences, priorities and opinions that are different from yours and are as fully entitled to express them on a public forum as you are you would stop being such a jerk. Hope you don't mind the term 'jerk' - it's an observation not an insult. You could also give us a list of 'acceptable' opinions that 'permitted' people are allowed to have in your small world so we can know what not to discuss to avoid making you cry. I suggest that you could also extend your suggestion to the other people on EDF who have expressed similar views to me. You will find a number on this thread and dozens on various other historic threads. The thread on the breast-feeding incident in the MIND shop would be a good place to start. Don't thinkI contributed to that one if memory serves but people managed to get a good ding-dong barney going over the mother and child issue nonetheless. You could then collate all this information for us and use it to police the forum. We will even give you an armband and a shiny prefect badge to make you feel important. Sorry if I am 'droning' but some of us have bigger brains that produce ideas and opinions that can't fit on the back of a postage stamp. Keep trying and one day you will have one too.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > louloulabelle Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Oh please. When will the good people of dulwich > > stop labelling each other particularly us mums. > > And for the record I will go where ever I > please > > with my kids whenever it suits me. > > And you wonder why the ED mums get labelled, with > that attitude... Priceless Loz.

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Damian, those were observations, not insults. If I > went on like you do, you'd have every right to > level them at me. Otta and Bob - my 'droning on' in this thread represented two posts of a few sentences each and one single sentence post. All of them were significantly shorter than a great many of the other posts on this thread. I could easily characterise your comments as 'droning', 'tedious', 'tiresome', 'immature' etc, but I choose not to. Be honest with yourself - what you mean is that you don't agree with my opinions but can't seem to find a way to counter them so you resort to insults or patronising comments instead. And if you don't want me to 'drone on', STOP PERPETUATING THE DISCUSSION BY MAKING STUPID COMMENTS!! Or are you trying to play a game of 'The last person to speak is the coolest'?

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Just reread DaveR's post as requested. > > I can confirm that it contained no insults. Really??? "If you read carefully (go on , try!)..." (what is this if not an offensive tone?) "...but you are, as always, just making youself look ridiculous (in a > purple-faced, ultra-indignant, yet somehow comical > way)." If you don't perceive that as an insult then I truly despair but assume you will have no objection to me calling you personally ridiculous, purple-faced, ultra-indignant and comical.

northlondoner Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Damian H Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > thecaptain Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > screaming kids and ugly mums = awful combo > > > > Here's betting that this overtly and > intentionally > > offensive comment will attract less flak than > my > > calm, objective posts. > > Where are those ? I seem to have missed them . Well, open your eyes. Better idea - let me make it easy - find me an intemperate post from me on this thread PRIOR to me being insulted and attacked.

thecaptain Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I myself was on the sharp end of Damian's > literate, but being the awesome guy i am, I'm > willing to forgive and forget the rough justice he > inflicted on me. Being a military chap you are evidently able to take my savage verbal maulings with s atiff upper rather than running to mummy and saying "Damian's a nasty man, how dare he retaliate when I attack him!" Captain, I salute you. If only some others realised that when you start throwing unprovoked insults around you might get a few coming back in your own direction and that's no-one's fault but your own :-) It is really quite remarkable how some supposed adults can complain when people defend themselves against their attacks. It reminds me of the other thread on here about the mugger who tried to nick a guy's phone and then started complaining when he dropped his own and wasn't given it back.

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Damian, you started calling people autistic, > because they disagree with your viewpoint. That is > offensive. > > The fact that you may have been calm, not angry, > is kind of worse, as it shows you really thought > about what you said before saying it. Oh, and I didn't call DaveR that because he disagreed with me - I said it because he had made a very patronising and insulting comment about my broadening the narrow confines of the OP. I don't insult people because thy disagree with me - I discuss points of disagreement. But when the likes of DaveR et al attack and insult me when I express an opinion that differs fromtheirs I will defend myself in kind. Perhaps a re-reading of the thread will show who was responsible for starting a trading of insults.

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Damian, you started calling people autistic, > because they disagree with your viewpoint. That is > offensive. > > The fact that you may have been calm, not angry, > is kind of worse, as it shows you really thought > about what you said before saying it. You are quite correct, Otta, I did say that - in response to offensive comments from DaveR. Perhaps you should re-read the thread and see who kicked off the trading insults. Very, very strange that you call me on that but make no criticism of DaveR and david_carnell who started flinging insults around before I responded in kind.

Let me guess, Skipper, you are like one of those noble RAF pilot who makes a decoy run to draw off the flak while another pilot drops the bomb? Personally, I think there are also a great many very attractive mothers in ED (some even beautiful) but that is not the issue for me.

thecaptain Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Damian it wasnt intentional, it was merely an > observation oldboy. Skipper, not making a criticism of your decision to post your view - just observing that you will prolly get an easy ride whereas a more reasoned and argued post from myself seems to get the hornet's swarming. Ironic.

thecaptain Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > screaming kids and ugly mums = awful combo Here's betting that this overtly and intentionally offensive comment will attract less flak than my calm, objective posts.

edcam Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Those with kids will always get defensive, those > without will always be pissed off that those with > kids think they're more important. Tis the way of > the world, so calm down people. Edcam, if this was Facebook, I would have 'Liked' your post :-)

Interesting to note that it is fine for people like DaveR to issue insults against me and make provocative and offensive comments when I report an incident I observed in objective terms yet when I respond to him I am a jack@xss and a troll. Let's have a look at the respective posts on this thread. Me: "I was recently in MPC on LL and there were two > mothers in with prams and children. The two prams > had been stowed in the narrow aisle by the seats > in the window, meaning that five seats were > completely unaccesible during the profitable > lunch-time. The mothers obviously were sitting > elsewhere and from what I could see while I was in > looked like they were there for the duration. > The staff were commendably patient but I thought > it selfish beyond belief of the mothers. MPC has > perhaps 30 covers inside maximum and two mums were > taking up about one third of their capacity for > two adults and two kids at their busiest time of > the day. > > That is the sort of attitude that leads to the > OP." Factual, measured, making a point consistent with the theme of the thread and no insults or derogatory terms. > > "I have yet to notice an attitude in ED that > children are less than indulged and allowed to do > as they please whenever and wherever they please. > That, I think, is the experience that those who > are 'intolerant' of children have noted and > objected to, and this unrestrained indulgence at > the expense of others would, I suspect, be much > more likely to create self-entitled rioters with > no concept of boundaries." Exactly same qualities as the first post above, responding directly to a point made by another poster. Let's look at DaveR's response: "If you read carefully (go on , try!) you will find > that the OP was complaining about children in pubs > - places many people go in the hope that they are > primarily catering for adults, what with the > boozing, swearing etc. Not cafes, at lunchtime. > I have some sympathy with the OP, but you are, as > always, just making youself look ridiculous (in a > purple-faced, ultra-indignant, yet somehow comical > way). Offensive, personally insulting and irrelevant to the issue under discussion. Let's look at david_carnell's comment: "Purple faced? I'd suggest purple headed. Like a womb ferret." Personal, offensive and utterly irrelevant to the discussion. Yet I am the j**kass and the troll???????? RIght!!!!!!

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Damian H Wrote: > > > Until then you will just have to put up with > your > > little foot stamping tantrums and purple "I'll > > hold my breathe until I die!" tizzies and deal > > with them by projecting them onto other people. > I > > think I saw you the other day in MPC actually. > > You were the one with the runny nose in the > high > > chair and you were crying because mummy had > taken > > your rattle away weren't you? Bless! Everyone > > was laughing at you....again. > > xxxxxx > > I think it's you who needs to grow up, judging by > this post. Sue, I think you'll find if you read DaveR's previous post to which I replied that my response matched the tone of his and was a response to it. Nothing quite like making a fool of yourself by coming into the middle of a tread wihout reading back, is there?

Oh, and DaveR, I think you'll find that most grown ups find that a discussion can evolve to include similar themes and circumstances. So a discussion of prams and buggies taking up space in pubs can quite easily expand to talking about prams and buggies taking up spaces in other hostelries. Your literalism and inflexible thinking is a little alarming - have you been assessed for presence on the autistic spectrum at all?

DaveR Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "I was recently in MPC on LL and there were two > mothers in with prams and children. The two prams > had been stowed in the narrow aisle by the seats > in the window, meaning that five seats were > completely unaccesible during the profitable > lunch-time. The mothers obviously were sitting > elsewhere and from what I could see while I was in > looked like they were there for the duration. > were commendably patient but I thought > it selfish beyond belief of the mothers. MPC has > perhaps 30 covers inside maximum and two mums were > taking up about one third of their capacity for > two adults and two kids at their busiest time of > the day. > > That is the sort of attitude that leads to the > OP." > > "I have yet to notice an attitude in ED that > children are less than indulged and allowed to do > as they please whenever and wherever they please. > That, I think, is the experience that those who > are 'intolerant' of children have noted and > objected to, and this unrestrained indulgence at > the expense of others would, I suspect, be much > more likely to create self-entitled rioters with > no concept of boundaries." > > Damian, I sense you're getting outraged again. So > which is worse, and more invasive of your human > rights - parent and child parking spaces or mums > in cafes? > > If you read carefully (go on , try!) you will find > that the OP was complaining about children in pubs > - places many people go in the hope that they are > primarily catering for adults, what with the > boozing, swearing etc. Not cafes, at lunchtime. > I have some sympathy with the OP, but you are, as > always, just making youself look ridiculous (in a > purple-faced, ultra-indignant, yet somehow comical > way). Dave, you are unintentionally hilarious. You just cant get rid of your need to hallucinate things that fit your fantasies can you? Let it go. Grow up. Accept that the world is bigger than your personal prejudices. It is usually by the time most people are three or four that they have learnt the concept that there are other perspectives on the world that are different from their own and just as (perhaps more) valid. It's called developing Theory of Mind. Look it up on Wikipaedia. Until then you will just have to put up with your little foot stamping tantrums and purple "I'll hold my breathe until I die!" tizzies and deal with them by projecting them onto other people. I think I saw you the other day in MPC actually. You were the one with the runny nose in the high chair and you were crying because mummy had taken your rattle away weren't you? Bless! Everyone was laughing at you....again.

BB100 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Fab David :)) > > It's just another example of how many people are > intolerant of children. No wonder when they get a > bit older they feel justified to go riot when > society keeps telling them to shut-up and go away. I have yet to notice an attitude in ED that children are less than indulged and allowed to do as they please whenever and wherever they please. That, I think, is the experience that those who are 'intolerant' of children have noted and objected to, and this unrestrained indulgence at the expense of others would, I suspect, be much more likely to create self-entitled rioters with no concept of boundaries.

I was recently in MPC on LL and there were two mothers in with prams and children. The two prams had been stowed in the narrow aisle by the seats in the window, meaning that five seats were completely unaccesible during the profitable lunch-time. The mothers obviously were sitting elsewhere and from what I could see while I was in looked like they were there for the duration. The staff were commendably patient but I thought it selfish beyond belief of the mothers. MPC has perhaps 30 covers inside maximum and two mums were taking up about one third of their capacity for two adults and two kids at their busiest time of the day. That is the sort of attitude that leads to the OP.