rendelharris

Castillo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > London mix a vast majority of your posts are guess > work ( not sure if you know or just cant see it > !) You can agree or disagree with LM's analysis but it is analysis rather than guesswork and I appreciate the effort s/he's put in to share her/his opinions. Any prediction of the future movements of markets etc can be dismissed as "guesswork" if you wish, but then what else can one work on? I'd call it informed speculation. "We cannot elect or remove the people who govern us - and that is undemocratic" - despite the myth that we are governed by an elite of EU civil servants, they are answerable to the European Parliament and we vote for them. You might not want to share democracy with Europe, fair enough, but if we vote for the parliament that governs Europe then that is democratic.

Jules-and-Boo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > since we're all soooo good at predictions > (especially years in advance) can we please get > the half time score and time of first goal.... I > could do with some positive reward for investment > in Euro - albeit just the football bit.... 1-0 to England half time, Sturridge scoring on 27 mins, Slovakia win 2-1. If I'm right you have to vote remain, deal?

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If a bird allows itself to get caught by a cat, > it's obviously bloody stupid.. and should make way > for more intelligent species. In defence of felines (which I adore, though I do think Terry Pratchett (great catlover) was right when he said "If the little buggers looked like frogs we'd all realise how evil they were") the RSPB are of the opinion that cat predation is not responsible for any decline in bird numbers (and actually apart from sparrows and certain rare countryside species there doesn't seem to be one); birds naturally overbreed to ensure they produce two surviving offspring, the majority of birds caught by cats are ones which were already ill or injured. I've never seen a cat manage to catch a healthy bird (though of course it must happen sometimes). Also worth noting that many experts are of the opinion that without domestic cats the rat problem in urban areas would be well nigh insuperable.

JRK Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If you receive a postal vote card can you still > chose to vote on the day or do I have to do a > postal vote? Thanks You can't actually go in and vote, but you can take your postal vote form along and hand it in to be included. http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/frequently-asked-questions/voting-by-post

Bic Basher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If you registered to vote in the recent Mayoral > and Assembly elections, it'll be at exactly the > same place as in May. Don't bank on it - our polling station has moved from the Goose Green centre to the Arnott Road Baptist church, for some reason.

Hi Doodlebug, The thing is that international corporations will still be able to move to Europe and take advantage of EU grants and there's nothing, in or out, that we can do to stop them. The difference, if we're out, is that there won't be any EU grants in this country to persuade them to stay. Moving to Europe will become more attractive if we leave, both as there won't be any EU grants for business and also as we will cease to benefit from single market free trade with Europe, so anything built here would be subject to import taxes. Just as one example of this, Nissan have said that if we leave they will have to consider closing their Sunderland plant, as the taxes Europe would impose on car imports from Britain (currently zero) would have a serious impact. Cheers, Rendel

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Oh good, Lindylou is posting again.......... She's damned good value - have friends round for dinner and we've had her on in the background, most entertaining.

lindylou Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Artful dodger "dogger?" have just passed your > details on to CEOP.child exploitation and online > protection agency, also the police. Your sexual > references to minors are abhorent. You do not know > the age of these posters. I find it very discerni > ng that you are keen to find.? IP addresses of > minors. Whats more worrying iS that you delete > prior posts. Wow, someone winds you up a bit and you try to accuse them of being a paedophile? Reported to mods.

Isaac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rendel did you not criticise Lindylou for her > assumption of Joylo and then go on to make > assumptions, which were indicatively quite rude > about her by saying we know all we need to about > her. I would say that is pro active and upsetting > language. Secondly please do not make it appear > that she has roped us in as you put it, because > she hasn't, I was shocked by your ridiculous > comments and felt it necessary to stand up for > someone who is an exemplary member of society. When somebody sees fit to say "Thank God, thank god that the families I know and love are upper middle class, rather than lower. Take a leaf out of their books" that does indeed tell me all I need to know about her, which is that she's a galloping snob. That's not an assumption, it's absolutely self-evident in that comment.

Here, just for reference, are all my comments to Lindylou before she started getting new people to register on the forum to argue for her: i) Firstly, the OP does have children, as she states. Secondly, I think it's revolting to accuse someone who objects to bad behaviour from children of being childless - do you have any idea what a person on an internet forum might have gone through, what children they might have lost, what heartbreak they may have suffered? Don't just bandy that about thoughtlessly, especially as, as I said, it has no validity anyway. And thirdly, one can adore children and still find it bloody annoying to have to step into the road when forced to by a trio of parents pushing buggies walking three abreast and completely ignoring common courtesy. ii) There isn't a word there that could be considered abusive and you know it. Your post, on the other hand, is insensitive and extremely silly. iii) Blocked by whom, pray? "Thank God, thank god that the families I know and love are upper middle class, rather than lower." I think that tells us all we need to know about you. iv) If you are referring to me rather than the OP, I have received no such message, but please don't trouble yourself; your last post clearly identified you as someone with whom it would be not only pointless but extremely irritating to correspond. If you can identify a single thing which can be classed as "bullying" there, do tell. Bullying is a catchall term used by silly people to mean "disagreeing with my opinion." Roping in two other people to register on this forum in order to gang up on one individual is, however, textbook bullying.

Isaac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I second Artful Dodgers request for an IP check as > it will clearly show different locations and > numbers. Proving you to be cynical and quick to > jump to conspiracies when losing an argument. And yet Josiah's post has just shown that, at best, Lindylou, unable to defend her ridiculous comments ("Thank God, thank god that the families I know and love are upper middle class, rather than lower." I ask you!), has roped in two other people to register on the forum to accuse other people of bullying her. Absolutely hilarious, keep 'em coming, this is far better than Saturday night TV. Nice one deliberately spelling my name wrong by the way, Josiah, very mature.

Josiah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi "Rendell" Harris - The fact that this post has > been brought to my attention recently does not > impact in the slightest my right to pass comment. > All you do by responding in this manner is render > your own views yet more futile. Why don't you > consider the fact that you've reacted outrageously > to a perfectly reasonable response - embarrassing. At least I'm using my own name (which is Rendel, by the way) and only one ID.

TheArtfulDogger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Admin, can you check the ip of the posters josiah, > lindylou and Isaac to see if they are the same > person using multiple ids ? > > Interesting that the two new posters all biblical > names, who next will they appear as ? "Bealzabub" > is my next prediction ! ;-)

Josiah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dear "Rendell" Harris and "Joylo", i quite frankly > think it's embarrassing that you've both resorted > to bullying another user to prop up your > antiquated and quite frankly mean spirited > opinions on "how children should behave" in > Dulwich. Dulwich is a beautifully unique, young > and vibrant community in the sense that it is home > to a wide range of schools which provide an > exemplary education to young children. Thank > goodness we as a community are still a home to > people like lindylou, and aren't populated by > miserable dinosaurs such as yourselves. Another who registered at 17.56 and left their first comment immediately, this is hilarious! How many more new users are we going to welcome, Lindylou?! We've had an Isaac and a Josiah, I suggest you go for Nebuchadnezzar next...

Isaac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dear Joylo, I support Lindylou on this one, you > show a clear lack of patience and understanding of > children on their way to school, may I suggest > that instead you stay inside and keep your > codgerish attitudes to yourselves. We should pride > ourselves on the multiple offers of excellent > education in Dulwich and the child friendly > atmosphere that comes with it. Lindylou's attitude > is welcome in Dulwich, yours is not. Don't you just love it when someone registers on the forum at 17.59 and leaves their first comment supporting someone immediately afterwards! Transparent.

Hear hear, Joylo.

If you are referring to me rather than the OP, I have received no such message, but please don't trouble yourself; your last post clearly identified you as someone with whom it would be not only pointless but extremely irritating to correspond.

Blocked by whom, pray? "Thank God, thank god that the families I know and love are upper middle class, rather than lower." I think that tells us all we need to know about you.

I entirely agree. Like you, I was a teacher for many years and love children, but don't love parents who don't make sure their children aren't a danger or inconvenience to themselves and others.

There isn't a word there that could be considered abusive and you know it. Your post, on the other hand, is insensitive and extremely silly.

Firstly, the OP does have children, as she states. Secondly, I think it's revolting to accuse someone who objects to bad behaviour from children of being childless - do you have any idea what a person on an internet forum might have gone through, what children they might have lost, what heartbreak they may have suffered? Don't just bandy that about thoughtlessly, especially as, as I said, it has no validity anyway. And thirdly, one can adore children and still find it bloody annoying to have to step into the road when forced to by a trio of parents pushing buggies walking three abreast and completely ignoring common courtesy.

I don't think sending out the message that a single deranged person can derail the democratic processes of the whole nation is terribly desirable, and I'm sure as a passionate defender of democracy Ms.Cox would not have wanted the vote postponed. Surely by now anyone who wants it has been bombarded with sufficient information from all sides to make up their minds?

I think now the dreadful news that Ms Cox has died has come through, perhaps we should all follow the example of both campaigns and lay off the arguments for today.

That'd certainly be a lot nicer but would add about 50% in distance...

Robert Poste's Child Wrote: > How long would it take to walk from D Hill to > Waterloo - an hour maybe? Less, it's almost precisely three miles. Along the Camberwell, Walworth and Waterloo roads at rush hour though, not the world's most charming or unpolluted walk!