indiepanda

Richard Hammond from Top Gear. I know he very short, but all that enthusiasm, he's so cute. And as I will never met him it is ok to fancy him despite him being happily married.

I don't think I could get a crush on someone purely because of the forum - there's got to be that physical chemistry to go with the personality and intelligence. Hard to define what "chemistry" is - but I definately know when it is not there. Plus lots of the guys who make a good impression on me here are if not married, at least have partners, and I really try avoid having crushes on people who aren't available. Ok, my crushes rarely lead anywhere (seem to have a knack of being attracted to guys who at best think of me as a friend only), but I'd rather not start with a definate no hope.

I think Sean must be a very fast walker - according to www.walkit.co.uk from my flat to Blackfriars (I am near the CPT) it's a 4.6 miles. At my walking pace that would be well over an hour - more like an hour and half.

Let's get real. House prices have been and probably still are overinflated when one considers affordability. The only thing that justifies prices is the level of demand for the house, and that has been made articially high by banks lending people ridiculous sums of money that a lot of them can't afford to pay back in the long run. It's hardly preditory to want to buy a house for less than someone wants to kid themselves it is really worth now the credit market has changed. If someone was naive when they bought their house and paid more than was sensible, should I be kind and offer them more than I think it is worth just to keep them happy? Call the banks preditory for making huge profits out of people who they shouldn't have been lending so much money to, but to assume all buyers are preditory just because they don't want to make the same mistakes as the people who bought at the top of the market seems a bit harsh. Anyway, most people wanting to sell bought long enough ago they are still going to make a profit, it's just its not the profit they were counting on when the market was higher. When prices were racing away ahead of salary inflation people seemed happy to think of that as real, but now the boot is on the other foot and prices are falling they don't want to accept it. Personally I am keeping out for the forseeable future, we're just slipping into a recession and who knows how low prices will go in a recession with lots of city jobs going (for all I know mine could go so really daft to buy). I think with all the major commentators thinking prices will go a lot further, it's likely to be a self fulfilling profesy because there will be plenty of people like me who could buy but don't have to and will stay out till things have settled.

What happens on the 22nd?

Moos Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well said IP. One does need a cast-iron stomach, > what with generously-scented fellow passengers and > the lurching, but for me the journey is 20 > precious minutes before work and 20 after when I > can read my book and be all alone. (in a crowd) Yes, I like having time to stick my nose in a book too. And for all their faults bus is still less stuffy and smelly than the tube can be in summer. I moved here from SW London and the district line in rush hour could be horrible if you didn't get a seat, which at least half the time I didn't being a couple of stops up from the start of the line. Cycling certainly doesn't appeal - quite apart from the logistical headaches of getting a smart suit to work without crumpling it in a backpack, I think I'd be terrified by the buses, especially the bendy ones.

Moos Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Some of them need a better understanding of the > word 'wash'. so true. I had to get the bus to Waterloo on Monday morning and the chap I sat down next to was none too fragrant. I wanted to move to another seat but felt it would look too rude so I gritted my teeth and tried not to breathe too deeply! Still while buses can be a pain, on the whole having been used to living outside of London where buses outside of rush hour are rarer than hen's teeth, I think the service really isn't that bad.

I have to agree with Tony here. I would never consider for a minute deliberately having children on my own, courtesy of sperm doner or poor unsuspecting male on one night stand or whatever. For me choosing to have a family without a father involved would seem like a selfish choice all about me and not about the child at all. It's such a huge job to take on - plenty of people find themselves having to go it alone and some do well at it, but I don't think it should be a deliberate choice from the start. I have always been concerned about how I would cope with post natal depression (my mum got it very badly, though perhaps doctors are better at treating these days) - certainly wouldn't choose to risk that without having a husband to help out when it was getting a bit much. In any case, I think pretty much everyone wants to know who their real parents are - if I ever have a child I want them to have a good chance of growing up living with both of theirs, not having to track them down through some donor register. And yes, I know there is more to being a parent than being biologically related. But I think nature / genes still has quite a big impact on what you grow up like, nuture can only help develop latent talents that already exist.

I'm sure there is more than a grain of truth in that comment Moos. The friends who seem most stressed in their life choice always seem to be the ones who are quicker to put down my choices. The ones who are happy with their lot, despite it being very different from mine, never seem to be so judgemental. Unsurprisingly, I choose to spend more time with the latter. Also find I like their children better, because I am not automatically expected to be interested in them.

The district line when there is signalling problems at Earls Court. Again. (This is why I moved from SW London to ED)

Moos Wrote: > IndieP, you say "I'm not sure I agree with the > notional that having children is a fundamental > part of life." I hope you mean what I have just > redefined above. If, however, you mean that you > believe it cannot be a fundamental part of a > person's life I will say with respect that it is > for the parent to make that definition for > himself. You have argued with passion and > eloquence that others should not define and judge > your choices. It has to work both ways. Nope, I meant it the way you redefined it. I am more than willing to believe that for some people having children was the most magical and rewarding thing they ever did (if also challenging and tiring at times I expect!). I just don't appreciate when some people see me as somehow damaged or deluded for not being keen on the idea, implying I am less of a person because I don't have children. (and for clarity, I am not suggesting that you are such a person!)

Agree men don't really have the option to be a parent alone, but at least they don't seem to suffer people going on at them about when they are going to have kids. I may be mistaken, but people seem to take a dimmer view of women who don't want to be mothers than men who don't want to be fathers. I'm not sure I agree with the notional that having children is a fundamental part of life. I think that sort of thinking is what leads some people with children to look down on those that don't as being somehow less complete, which I find somewhat patronising. And if one wants children but can't for whatever reason, to have to deal with that disappointment and then have some people thinking you are somehow incomplete as a result can only make you feel worse. I am happy to believe it's a great experience for some (not all) but I don't believe, or think it is helpful to beleive it is fundamental. The simple fact is, we don't need everyone in the world to reproduce any more. I read somewhere that everyone in the world consumed at the rate we do in the UK, we'd need 3 planets to provide the necessary resources, and it's much worse if it were at the rate in America. Sure, go back a few centuries, and with rates of infant death and short life expectancy, it was pretty much necessary for people to have children, and in large numbers for society to survive. But the world has moved on since then, it's just not necessary for all of us to breed. BB, I know what you mean about the "things happen when you are older" thing - I get told it's not too late for me to find someone and have a family, but at 36 it does seem kind of late by the time you allow for spending some time dating, then moving in together, then getting married before starting a family (I'm a bit old fashioned in wanting to be married first I expect). I'm not quite old enough to say never, but I'm at the age now where it's getting towards "now or never", which is scary. I'd almost rather be 40 now and have the pressure off (somehow I think of 40 as being the cut off point after which I'd not think about it, which I guess is kind of arbitary!) Steve, thanks for the offer, but if I do it, I'll be looking for a husband not a doner!

Hi, sounds like a good idea, I'm much the same fitness and motivation wise, 30 something and female so having some people to go out with be good. I play badminton, but not tennis (unless you count really really badly) Only thing is my work can be somewhat unpredicatable so I can only really commit to weekends in advance. But if you get a group going I'd be happy to join weekday things too if I turn out to be available.

I agree Belle. I don't quite see why those of us who choose not to have children should have to fill our lives with "something noble". There are plenty of dreadful parents out there after all - those who beat / sexually abuse their children for example, or those who abandon them for the other parent to cope with. Why should we have to be living exemplorary lives if we don't have children, when so many parents aren't exemplorary? Obviously, I am not suggesting all parents are like that - most are doing the best they can to give their kids a good start in life. But I don't like the implication that being a parent automatically makes you a better person. I'm sure for some people it brings out the best in them, but it's not a universal experience. I also think citizenED left out an important catagory of those who haven't got kids - those who haven't met someone they really feel they could have kids with. (I don't count that as a biological issue) I've generally been in the "I'd rather not, thanks" camp, but I suspect that is at least in part due to the fact I've not had a relationship I've really felt would go the distance and that they would be a good father. I'm now the wrong side of 35 and still single... what am I meant to do? Start investigating sperm doners?? I wouldn't dream of being a single parent by choice - awfully hard work and I would like to at least try to ensure my children had a father who did a little more than produce the sperm. I have been told I might feel differently about parenthood if I met the right guy to have children with, which may be true. But by now, even if I do meet them, there's a chance it will be too late from a fertility point of view. I don't like the suggestion that unless I do something amazing to fill my childfree life, I'm somehow some kind of second class citizen. And yes, I expect I am being overly touchy about this and reading more info the remark than was meant. But it is so tiresome being single and having people rub salt in the wound by going on about missing out on one life's great experiences. Whether I am missing out or not is irrelevant, this is about creating a new life, one who has no say in the matter, but I feel has some right to expect two loving parents to care for it well. And if I can't provide that, I'm not going to do it.

My sister and her husband got accused of being selfish by his mother for not wanting to have children - she wanted more grandchildren (her daughter has a child already). I understand they pointed out she was being selfish wanting them to have children purely because she wanted to be a grandparent and eventually she quit going on about it. Take the point someone made about having the wrong friends if they can't respect your choice of lifestyle. Not so easy when it is family, though my sister certainly didn't have any intention of falling in line with the request! I haven't had the "selfish" tag thrown at me too often. Tended more to get (from men) "ah, your biological clock will start ticking when you hit 30 and you will change your mind" (I didn't) or (from female friends) "but you'd make such a good other" - though quite how they'd know given I've never even baby sat for an evening is beyond me!

Cassius Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Some people just simply cannot accept that others > are different to them - not wrong just different. > This is percieved as being a criticism of them and > their choice so they go on the attack. > > Some of my friends are parents, some are child > free - all have lives that they are happy with. > Why can't people accept that we are simply not all > the same. I like my friends' children (in very > small doeses), they have times when they wish they > didn't have kids and had our freedom. We respect > each others lifestyles and are not so insecure > that we see differences as being rights and > wrongs. Well said. If only all people with children thought the same as your friends. It's the minority that talk as if those of us who choose not to have children are either a) going to regret it or b) very selfish that drive me mad. Even some of my friends have told me more than once they think I would make a good mother, despite knowing I don't want kids and even if I did I am single so it's somewhat irrelevant! I may yet change my mind - perhaps if I wasn't single and managed to land a reliable boyfriend for once, but I want it to be my decision not my friends. Doing it to keep them happy really would be a bad reason!

VeryBerryCherry Wrote: > Would you feel any better if I said that I agree?:-$ > > > ...edit: Oops I didn't mean that to sound like you don't come across as a "nice" girl. You definitely do! :)) Lol, don't worry, I read your comment like you meant it. Asset, I agree with you comment about men and the urge to reproduce. Most men I know seem to want kids, and I know one guy at work who has upset one of my female friends by nagging her about when she is going to start a family as she isn't really keen but the way he talks about it, she ends up feeling bad for not wanting to. Course, being a father isn't quite as demanding as being a mother *prepares herself for onslaught of abuse*.... Seriously though, I think in most families (not all I admit, but it is in the case of all my friends) the woman does end up with her life changing more and she takes on the majority of the childcare. Some guys I know really only see their kids on weekends.

I have to admit I've not tried Sainsbury's or Tesco home delivery, but I do use Ocado and would definately recommend, great service, and they price match Tescos on some branded goods too now, so not as expensive as they were. And the quality beats the others hands down. I managed to accidentally book a delivery for a morning slot rather than evening once and they were nice as pie about it too - I was expecting to get charged extra for a re-delivery, or at least get a telling off, but just called to arrange when to re-deliver and put a polite card through the door telling me not to worry they would come back later.

SeanMacGabhann Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > At the weekend I witnessed over 2 days the > negative side of having kids. For the sake of > privacy I can't go into any detail but it sure > didn't encourage me > > Also at the weekend I was interested to read this > > > To have or not to have Interesting article Sean. I have to admit I would really disapprove of any woman setting out to have kids without agreeing with their partner first. I think kids have a right to at least a chance of being wanted by both parents. Sure there are no guarantees in life as to what happens down the line, but tricking someone into fatherhood seems a dreadful thing to do to both them and the child.

Asset Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Just to point out, it's not too late once you've > left the shop as the tills have to balance. I did > exactly that at Sainsbury's and it wasn't until I > got home that I realised I had forgotten the cash. I had a similar thing years ago and they gave my money back (no shoe proof though!). And I've almost walked off without my cashback more than once through scattiness. I'm sure it's not been the till assistant trying to distract me, I'm just the chatty sort and can distract myself nattering if someone is friendly to me.

SteveT Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Women have the urge to reproduce. > > > All men want to do is shag, which is their.... > sorry OUR form of happiness. lol, not all women. Some of us definately have a stronger urge to shag than to reproduce. hmmm, saying that isn't a good way of coming across as a nice girl is it?.. *blushes*

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Not sure if 'ordinary' bombs / ordnance count on > this thread but..... I understand the hairdressing > suppliers site on Crystal Palace Rd (few yards > South of CPT) was hit by bomb(s) in the war, > demolishing those houses and causing extensive > damage to the 3-storey terraced houses in the > block opposite. > I hear the top floor of that row of terraces (the > ones which face the premises directly) were > rebuilt as a result, which is why the skyline goes > from straight-rendered parapet to up-down zigzag > style (following the roofline) about halfway along > the terrace. I wonder if this is why my flat seems kind of wonky - I swear there isn't an even floor or wall in the place, and I don't just mean a little out - like an inch out from door hinge to other side of door.

capt_birdseye Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ...and Ratty's children will be paying for your > state pension (unless they've been scrapped by > then) :) lol, with the ageing population making pensions for all unaffordable, what ever benefits are around by the time I retire I expect to be means tested, and I hope to have saved enough I wouldn't pass any means test. Anyway, going back to whether having kids is the best thing ever, I read a psychology book called "Stumbling on Happiness" by Daniel Gilbert and the research he did on this (it wasn't the only thing in the book) showed that people believed having children would make them happy before having them, and that once they had left home they remembered feeling it did make them happy. However, when you actually asked people to report on how happy they were at various life stages when they were actually in them, marriage, pre children, with kids at home, after they had flown nest etc, what people actually reported was that happiness dipped from the levels experienced in early marriage on having their first child and didn't recover to the levels when first married till the last one left home. This was especially true of women as they generally took on more of the childcare. Women were reported to find looking after their children only slighly more pleasant than doing housework. (Which I like so much I pay someone else to do!) The conclusion was that the erroneous belief "children bring happiness" was transmitted throughout society because without that belief society would cease to exist. If we all believed children would make us miserable, how long would it take before the population began to contract? (at least where contraception is readily available / not against religion to use) I'm not saying he is right or wrong, but it did make me feel more comfortable about my apathy about ever being a parent!

I rather like pandas myself...

benmorg Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > indiepanda Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I could afford to buy here, though not yet > > the kind of place I'd really like to own, but > I've > > no intention of gambling with my deposit and > > potentially seeing my equity vanish when I > could > > wait a while and buy somewhere nicer later on. > > that's the predicament facing all first-time > buyers at the moment. If house prices carry on > falling 1-2% a month, it doesn't take very long > for a hard-earned deposit to evaporate and the > spectre of negative equity to rear its head. > Although many people say negative equity doesn't > matter if you can afford the repayments, in fact > it causes problems when mortgage rates re-set > after discounted or fixed terms expire. The owner > is then unable to re-mortgage and forced to accept > a painfully high variable rate deal from their > current provider. it's not just first time buyers - when I next buy it will be my third property. I just happened to sell my last one before moving to London last year, and now I am out of the market it seems a little daft to rush back in when I can get a better deal by waiting. My rent is lower than I'd spend on mortgage (my flat is ok but I want a small house, and renting seems cheaper than repayment mortgage anyway) so I can save while seeing the kind of place I'd like become more affordable. Plus whilst I like living in London I find the longer hours / higher stress work culture a bit of an adjustment, and till I am sure I want to stay for sometime, it doesn't seem clever to incur the buying costs to get into a falling market and then get stuck having to rent my pad out or crystalize a loss if I decided to move out again.