louisiana

That Turkish/Swedish 'haat' song/video from years back, which is still festering in my brain; trying to track it down again...

Brendan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Guinness is good for pie. +1 Guinness is excellent in a pie. Beef pie, mind.

Bizzy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Give it a rest Louisiana. Your ridicule tone > clearly isn't working. > > If you didn't care about the Church you wouldn't > have gone on your little dirt digging mission. > It's clear you have used your misrepresented facts > to entice others to join the campaign (although > this wouldn't have been necessary judging by what > you have said previously) and then turn around and > say you're not against the Church in question. > You're a hypocrite - simple as that. > > For the record, I don't post on other threads > because I have nothing useful to contribute. If > you're trying to say my points are not valid > because I'm not a regular of the forum group then > you're sadly mistaken. If I posted on some of the > other threads I would become another one of the > growing number that use forums such as this to > escape from their real lives and pretend to be > something they're not. This isn't an attack on > everyone that uses an online forum! The forum is a > useful tool in today's society which can be easily > misused. > > Whilst I am the only one who has expressed my > viewpoint on this thread, your bigoted singling > out is wrong as there are many people out there > who will be thinking what I am thinking. I would be interested in hearing your views on why Jowell supports the cinema, but you seem to be only interested in making accusations against just about anybody posting on this thread (now it's 'bigoted' and 'crazy'), not dealing with any issues or questions raised herein. I said nothing about you being or not being a regular on the forum. I pointed out that you had previously explained the reason why you didn't post on other subjects except religion was because you were not interested in other issues. That was part of your explanation at the time (when I was encouraging you to contribute elsewhere). Which is a highly unusual position in 20thC Western society. I do think that blinkers your interpretation of events in wider society: as I pointed out, most of us do not spend our time preoccupied with either religion or churches, and do not view the world through those particular spectacles. I am in no way in favour of the church in question, I am in no way in favour of churches in general, or of religion. And as I have said before, I do think that prosperity gospel churches have some serious issues (including with the authorities), most of which have been raised in critiques by other religions/churches, not by humanists/secularists/atheists... because frankly most of the latter prefer not to spend time thinking about something that holds no interest. For me, it goes in a pot with football, rugby, TV soaps, celebrity culture and a whole long et cetera of things not in my life. But, as I have said before, people have the right to believe what they want. It's totally up to them. I think it's a tenable position to not be in favour of religion and churches; to think that people should be able to believe and follow what they wish; to expect democracy and the rule of law to be upheld; to be in favour of local communities actively participating in their own development; and to support the retention of a cinema. I don't know whether you're aware that there are several pentecostal tradition churches which run on very similar principles to KICC already in the Triangle area, and I've never heard of anyone protesting against them at all, and I most certainly haven't, and have no plans to. They are not on my horizon really, or anyone else's as far as I know, because they are not trying to take over a cinema. And 'dirt-digging mission', 'crazy', 'bigoted', all that jazz? Can't be bothered. It's the language of the News of the World. Right, back to work.

Some of the strongest attacks on these churches have come from other, established churches. Even the Pope. He's been attacking the African ones and their religious fundamentalism. In the newspapers today. But then he would say that, wouldn't he? (self interest?)

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Louisiana backing Huguenot? That'll be the day. > > I remain totally isolated on this one, for good > reason. Have we had some falling out somewhere Huguenot? I can't recall, but my memory is not what it was :-S

Bizzy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Picture this whole campaign without the cinema > behind it. At that point you do truly descend into the land of make-believe, that of the conspiracy theorists: http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/magazine/15-11/st_best "Picture this whole campaign without the cinema behind it" you say. Are you for real? The whole campaign is taking place because (a) there *is* a cinema, D2 use class (and was used as a bingo later, but now legally can no longer be a bingo hall in any case, so cinema-cinema it is); and (b) a group of people, who mostly don't live locally, want to stop it being a cinema and © another group of people, who live locally, want to keep it as a cinema. And your response is: "Picture this whole campaign without the cinema behind it" So what campaign is that then? Do you really think Tessa Jowell MP, *who has gone on the record in the past supporting the work of KICC*, http://www.culture.gov.uk/reference_library/minister_speeches/5768.aspx (and elsewhere) and so is, we can perhaps assume, not conspiring against KICC, would have written a letter of support for this cinema returning to being a cinema, for the reasons she outlines, if it wasn't about the cinema? What do you reckon her letter is about, then? Are you aware of the vast amount of ongoing work in Crystal Palace concerning regeneration across the area, involving hundreds of people, residents, local politicians, committees etc.? And of how scores of local traders are actively seeking cinema footfall? And of the ongoing attempts to get the five boroughs to work together on the future of the Triangle? And all because the people of the area want to improve their own area, make it a great place to live. Are these people all conspiring too? The fact is, we have planning laws and planning policies for a reason: it's part of being a democracy. Cash is not always king, in this country. Yet. (Though I know that in some others, flashing the cash and lining certain pockets will generally get you what you want.) People have the right to take part in the decision-making process concerning what happens in their own neighbourhoods. You are clearly not interested in cinema, or indeed in anything other than religion (going by your posts on this forum, and by the reasons you gave me before on here about why you didn't post about anything except religion). So be it. But I think that your obsession concerning religion is clouding your judgment. Perhaps a case of 'to a hammer, everything looks like a nail'. Most of the rest of us never even think about religion or churches or any of that stuff.

Tessa Jowell MP this week came out in favour of the cinema campaign: http://www.tessajowell.net/crystal-palace-planning I understand Malcolm Wicks MP has too.

I wasn't there as I was prepping the next day's work until after midnight. I, like you, don't use the trains to commute daily (I'm an occasional user), but I'm also concerned about such a deterioration to what is already an indifferent service. Was Jowell there? If not, we need to write to her.

I got about 18 items suddenly. Ho hum.

Bizzy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Huguenot > > I don't understand. Why are you shaking your head? > Please explain. I think he's made himself perfectly clear. > > Downthehill > > > With the congregation numbers you throw around, > how can you expect the Church not to have an > impact on the local economy?? The church does its own catering. Going back to the > popular congestion issue, a Cinema in use all week > round will surely have an impact on local traffic. Tut tut, you haven't been looking at the data. I'm amazed an outfit can spend over a million quid without doing the most basic research. And even more so given it's a 'charity'. Would you buy a house by sticking a pin in a map, and no more? > When it's a Cinema nobody cares, when it's a > Church people start jumping up and down for what > is essentially the same issue. Not at all the same issue. Essentially or otherwise. See my previous point. Look at the data. > > It doesn't matter whether City Screen wanted to > buy the building. Their offer didn't match the > Church offer hence ownership belonging to KICC. > Were the previous owners expected to wait or sell > at a reduced price in order for them to buy the > building? I think not. The bid situation was daft, because Gala were trying to keep all the rushed building sales secret from employees, so no access and all that that entailed. Nobody can really bid sensibly in those circumstances. Gala were clearly in a rush to sell many properties very quickly, owing to the financial meltdown they are experiencing. > > I'm starting to conclude the following: > > * Is the Picture Palace Campaign a smokescreen - > Yes A smokescreen for...? > * Are the objections against the Church and what > it stands for - Probably not... What, the stuff like you can make god do things by saying it (which seems an intrinsic part of all word-faith and prosperity gospel churches)? I have to say I find that a pretty strange idea, for starters. Many people who are religious seem to have major problems with the whole prosperity gospel message, and quite a few argue that it rests on a fundamental logical contradiction, which I'd be happy to discuss if you're interested. I'm always interested in discussing ideas. > > * Are the objections against the people associated > with the Church - I think so...and there?s > something seriously wrong about that :( So who is associated with the church? Tell us about them. I'm interested. I'm half expecting you to declare next that we bribed Tessa Jowell to support the cinema, or that we're a bunch of alien lizards that are part of a zionist conspiracy. Because you are coming out with claptrap that exists nowhere but in your head. See Sean's point.

Bizzy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Huguenot > > I find your comments unhelpful. Let the bitterness > go. > > Shane > > I do appear to have got it wrong. From what I have > read, this Church will bring a congregation from > the existing location of the Church. This means my > source must be wrong and my source happens to be > the Picture Palace Campaign site. For one who is in the know, you're being a little economical with the truth. The information on the campaign website is based on KICC's original announcement to the press that the congregation would come from Wimbledon. When the planning application was validated, the paperwork from KICC said something quite different ("wide area of Kent, Surrey" etc.). In other words, the campaign website hasn't kept up with the changing story coming out of KICC, who say one thing to the press, and another to the Bromley planning department. It's a point > which is used on many objection posts on the site > in that it will effect congestion on Sunday > mornings. If what you're saying is correct, > congestion won't be an issue as most people won't > have to travel far to get to their Church. And of course you know he isn't correct, for the reasons stated above: that is not what the (your) planning app says.

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Huguenot Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > People who go to churches don't want anything > for > > the community: they want allegiance, control, > > coercion, capitulation, and power. > > My gran was a regular church-goer. I never had her > down as a power-crazed control freak. Jeremy, that may have been quite a different type of church. This one has the slogan 'Taking Territories'. Check it out on the web. And check out the Shooting People video by Darryn de la Soul. There's pretty much an absence of anything about god, but quite a lot about investment, assets, property and so on. Even quite a few of the other evangelicals seem opposed - for example see http://restorethegospel.wordpress.com/2007/11/15/prosperity-pimps/ Donnie Swaggart on what he calls the 'prosperity pimps'.

End

Probably. It's mainly the ancient ones that have a problem. There is a list online somewhere of the ones that won't work, or that need a manufacturer's code update.

Fox sitting in front of the garden gate, preening itself, at 4pm. They are getting fearless.

There's plenty of evidence to back up your position Shane. The UK Film Council did a marvellous report in 2005 called The Importance of Local Cinema. They looked at five different cinemas across the country, including the Rio in Dalston. Main report: http://www.ukfilmcouncil.org.uk/search?articleid=7&x=0&y=0&keyword=local+cinema

You only get the good puns on the Louisiana-by-subscription I'm afraid :)

Bizzy: is that the business model or the benefits, that you consider to be terrible? I wouldn't be the first to comprehend the benefits to be had from setting up a charity. Just look at the hundreds of thousands of them out there right now, and the thousands of new ones applying as we write. Many of them are undoubtedly completely sound, but some of them are unbelievably cranky and even questionable, and it has to be said that there must by now be a charity for just about every purpose under the sun, plus some. So this does kind of beg the question of why somebody should set up a new charity these days when an existing charity (or many existing charities) exist for that purpose already. But this is perhaps an excessively philosophical area of exploration for the Lounge.

Higher education has some parallels with tourism: if it becomes a mass thing, everyone goes, then that alters the goalposts for everyone. When everyone goes to the beach etc., it's just not the same (crowded, noisy, crowded skies, flight delays...), and when everyone goes to university, the experience is devalued (no/fewer/lower grants, class overcrowding, teaching by postgrad students, and little or no income differential when you come out as everyone else has a degree too).

And Jules effin Holland. In fact, I'd smash the damn piano over his head.

Though I will say there were expensive vehicles with extremely dark glass, drivers, and a her-indoors.

I'm saying nowt ::o

Ant n flippin Dec.

After having lived in the area on and off for many years, last week I came face to face with someone who *looked like* one of the biggest moneyed gangsters I've ever seen... on one of the most expensive roads in SE21. Where he clearly lived. Gotta say, I much prefer my slightly shabbier but more cuddly neighbours in SE22. Every area has its ups and downs, even the seemingly classy ones.

Why ever not? It's the best business in town ;-). Once it's registered, just about the only way the Commission will shut you down is if the pastor gets jailed (see Victory Christian Centre, circa 2004). Otherwise, they just try and get your activities back in line with your stated objectives, should they find any funny business... It's a business model truly made in heaven :-S