louisiana

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I can barely tolerate a carrot but Mrs ????s is a > veggie. Today, we have a lunchtime break from 2p > and 10p, and so are looking for the best local > venue for veggie choice (although one where I can > eat animals and drink beer too). Any ideas? > Ideally with sun. > > Cheers in advance Please don't take this the wrong way, but with your tastes how did you ever hitch up?

Moos Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > louisiana Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > So how long have you been working at The > > Palmerston, Jeremy? > > Louisiana, play the game. You know perfectly well > that Jeremy doesn't work for the Palmerston. I have no idea. Where does he work? I've never met him etc. But he's certainly doing some good plugging right now, with all that talk of port and coffees. Who for chrissake drinks port with pub grub? Echoes of the Vale I'm afraid, just sounds like a member of staff.

Indeed it was not BBW. I have never set foot in Iceland.

louisiana Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I rarely go there. Perhaps I should go more often. > > > Man and woman, both of a tubby appearance, tending > towards globular, and both well beyond middle age. > > > Woman: Jason's got a six pack. He's hot. He's got > a hot body, hot arms, hot arse, hot ?$%^&, he's > hot. You could have a six-pack. You could be a > six-pack together. Both of you. ??? > > Man: - grunts and walks away pushing trolley > > Woman: - waddles up aisle > > (All words are approximate, as remembered from > Sunday afternoon. All names have been changed to > protect those involved.)

Bum, the bits at the end were not published (no doubt due to forum thingummywhatsits)

Marmora Man Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm a sceptic and have posted to say so before. I > am only going to post this one time - because the > EDF debate will, in all probability, go nowhere. > > While scientists arguing in favour of the climate > change model are in the majority 100% of scientific organisations worldwide either support it (the vast majority) or do not object to it (a handful) - that, of > itself, does not indicate unanimity and many of > their reports are hedged with more "possibles", > likely", "most" etc. That is the cornerstone of scientific method. It is all about probability. There cannot be any certainty, ever. Do you have any training in statistics? That is what it is all about. 90%, 95%, 99% - all have a particular definition. You will always encounter such words. Once it was "Global Warming" > now it's "Climate Change" as, inconveniently, the > actual increase in global temperatures isn't > matching the predicted increase of the climate > models. > > However, sceptic or fan of the concept what > troubles many of the "deniers" is the vociferous > and (I've used this term before - to Sean McG's > disgust) almost evangelical nature of the many > supporters - whose invariably unscientific > approach seems to be unconcerned with facts, the > possibility of technology developing solutions and > particularly doom laden; many seem more concerned > with the creation of costly and inefficient > "green" solutions - such as high carbon, > intermittent and inefficient windfarms. > > jctg's first para of the first post is polemic not > argument and an example of much of the level of > debate - not a single fact is presented to support > the case. The second paragraph is, slightly, more > sensible in drawing upon the scientific > community's consensus - but ignores that > scientific research is subject to fads, fancies > and current enthusiasms - as a result the work can > become skewed. > But you don't respond to my posts? (which don't supply you with such ammunition, perhaps?)

I rarely go there. Perhaps I should go more often. Man and woman, both of a tubby appearance, tending towards globular, and both well beyond middle age. Woman: Jason's got a six pack. He's hot. He's got a hot body, hot arms, hot arse, hot ?$%^&, he's hot. You could have a six-pack. You could be a six-pack together. Both of you. ??? Man: Woman: (All words are approximate, as remembered from Sunday afternoon. All names have been changed to protect those involved.)

Indeed blah. In Spain, there has been massive deforestation over the last few hundred years (which is almost like yesterday in climate terms). Areas that were forested are now almost desert. I wrote a long piece about this back in early 1998 (wow - 11 years ago) which I will try to salvage from old formats/media (windows pre-Windows 98).

Your point is a good one, steveo. Consider - contacting Heather Brooke, who raised the whole MP's expenses thing in the first place (via FOI). - contacting Tom Steinberg at MySociety, who build all kinds of really good websites that inform the public about what politicians are up to. Note: Heather Brooke will be speaking at geek conference OpenTech next month (4 July, ULU). It's only five quid for the day to cover costs, so do come along if you are interested. (You also get Bill & Ben: Bill Thompson, and Ben Goldacre.) Transparency is everything: does your European candidate support transparency?

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > *Bob* Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > When we've been to the P'ston the bill was > around > > ?80 - ?100 for two. > > > > In terms of price, that puts it right up there > > with just about anywhere in London you'd care > to > > try out. And the food (quality, quantity) > simply > > didn't justify the price last time I was there, > so > > yes, I'm put-off returning. At least for the > > present. > > > > I'll make a few concessions for it being five > > minutes walk, but not ?100-worth. > > "Around ?80-?100" is a pretty big margin! But I > can see you mind spend around ?80 if you have > desserts and coffee. Maybe ?100 if you'd had > dessert wine, port or whatever. I seem to recall the bill was north of 80 with only one dessert between two, no coffees (which I never order and my partner doesn't drink), no wine and 3.5 beers etc. So how long have you been working at The Palmerston, Jeremy? > > I also disagree that the price is up there with > just about "anywhere in London you'd care to try > out", ?80 is really not expensive for a decent > meal these days. Indeed it isn't. when the food is up there too. I don't mind spending ?150-200, if the food is up to scratch.

louisiana Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Asset Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I've eaten in the Palmerston several times and > > always been very impressed with the quality of > the > > food, the style of cooking and the size of the > > portions. Yes it is pricey but it certainly is > > not the most expensive place I've been - the > > prices are not far off Le Chardon and the > quality > > is far better. > > It is not pricey, or expensive. There are many, > many places far more expensive. It is over-priced: > mediocre quality and poor portions. There is a > difference. > > > I haven't been for a while though. > > Perhaps you should return. Things are not as they > should be. Edited to correct spelling.

This thread is about an accident.

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hey Louisiana, you know what, I've never actually > been to the Harvester! I am guessing it is cheap > and nasty. Am I wrong? > > I'm not arguing about it... if you don't like that > Palmerston then that's fine with me. I didn't say I didn't like it. I said the food was overpriced for what it was. But it doesn't stand up to other restaurants charging the same price (even though it clearly will have lower overheads than some of those restaurants e.g. central London). On my last visit, the waiting staff didn't even clean the table, which was sticky with remains of spilt drink. Yes, I did have to point out to staff. I don't expect 'pub service' (sticky tables, indifferent wine list) in a place charging 80-100 quid for 2 starters, 2 mains, a shared dessert and a coupe of drinks. For that kind of price I get at other restaurants a clean tablecloth, a wine waiter who really knows about wine, some imagination in the cooking (not horeseradish and beetroot recipes pinched from other establishments)... So where should I spend my money? I just > thought I'd pipe in to provide some balance to the > thread, because I really like their food and think > the prices are fair. You should get out more... from The Palmerston.

Gerrard Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I agree Jeremy, and in my opinion, it beats > Franklins hands down. I have never had a bad meal > in the Palmerston, but had two disappointing meals > at Franklins, both of which were rather smallish > servings. I've had a not-so-cheap and indifferent meal at the Palmerston in the last couple of months. The ingredients are fine, it's what they do with them that is so unexceptional. The wine list is... indifferent.

*Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 'You could do worse' is not a good enough reason > to spend a hundred quid on food. How true, *Bob*, how true. I could have married a monster from out space. But hey, who wants to do that?

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hey Louisiana, you know what, I've never actually > been to the Harvester! I am guessing it is cheap > and nasty. Am I wrong? I wouldn't know. You are the person who used it as a comparator.

jctg Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > F---ing hell, this is awful. You have to be SO > aware of what is going on around you as a cyclist. > Of course I make no assumptions as to whether this > poor woman was wearing an iPod or not but I see so > many cyclists wearing headphones. You cannot be in > your own little world listening to music when > you're cycling. Although maybe this is the > wrong/time place for this mini rant. It is. Few cyclists wear anything on their ears. Far too many - female - cyclists get mown down - and often killed - by left-turning juggernauts. Please show some respect.

dulwichlover Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > i have to agree it is a crooked system but not > nearly as crooked as this guy's smile. I would go > along witb previous comment and say that to trust > him with that much money is an accident waiting to > happen. He does bring to mind the expression 'Would you buy a used car from this man?'. I can't think why.

By the way, Alan, golf is one of the main causes of water shortages in a number of countries... B)

charliecharlie, you're sounding like that member of staff from The Vale...

Asset Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I've eaten in the Palmerston several times and > always been very impressed with the quality of the > food, the style of cooking and the size of the > portions. Yes it is pricey but it certainly is > not the most expensive place I've been - the > prices are not far off Le Chardon and the quality > is far better. It is not pricey, or expensive. There any many, many places far more expensive. It is over-priced: mediocre quality and poor portions. There is a difference. > I haven't been for a while though. Perhaps you should return. Things are not as they should be.

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think the food is very nice, and not > particularly expensive. The wine is also good > value by restaurant standards. > > I think last time I went there, we had two courses > each and a bottle of house wine, bill came to > something like ?55-?60. Yes it's more expensive > than the Harvester, but you get what you pay for. Jeremy, you mention 'the Harvester'. Would that be where you eat normally?

*Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > When we've been to the P'ston the bill was around > ?80 - ?100 for two. Same here. That's the price I'd pay at St John Bread and Wine (central), or Franklins (local) or (top end of range) The Hind's Head at Bray (out of town).... In other words, the price for a basic level of quality. > > In terms of price, that puts it right up there > with just about anywhere in London you'd care to > try out. Exactly. And the food (quality, quantity) simply > didn't justify the price last time I was there, so > yes, I'm put-off returning. At least for the > present. I agree entirely. The food is plain ordinary. Nowhere up to the standard of Franklins, St John Bread and Wine, or The Hind's Head, mentioned above as in the same price bracket. > > I'll make a few concessions for it being five > minutes walk, but not ?100-worth. No, it's taking the piss frankly.

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Strangely enough, I've heard quite a few global > warming sceptics recently. > > I agree with what Louisiana said, organisations > with vested interests are prepared to pump lots of > money into research, trying to debunk the whole > thing. But despite this, their position is still > in the minority. Ah but Jeremy, what they don't do is 'research' (either primary or secondary). What they do is lobbying and PR. That is where the money is spent. For 100-200k, you can buy yourself a very competent mouthpiece plus sidekick with very competent marketing skills, who can organise endless events, lobby MPs, write articles in the mainstream media, and so on. Before you know it, you've got a C4 documentary, an op-ed in he WSJ... > > Given that the sceptics are going against the > mainstream of the scientific community - and that > their views are potentially immeasurably > destructive - surely the emphasis should be on > them to present the evidence to support *their* > case? It would indeed be interesting to hear any reasonable or science-based argument from this camp (as opposed to a lone talking head hired from India who is not a scientist and who happens to want to create an international profile. Or a lone non-scientifically qualified ex-MP. etc.) Edited to insert missing '4'.

SteveT, the problem is widespread and escalating, not just here. I was surprised on recent visits to fairly remote parts of East and West Sussex (i.e. far from Gatwick and Horsham and well away from supposed lower-level flight paths - just much air traffic noise there was.