rendelharris

macutd Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > kibris Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > whatever dont forget to clean your window so > you > > can see if the light comes on > > > No need to be a tit Kibris. It was a serious > observation on what could be a fatal issue! kibris' natural position is to be a tit, I fear...

Peckhampam Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I am uncomfortable with an individual being > discussed on this forum. Raises an interesting question (to which I have no answer) - what's the difference between someone being discussed on the internet and discussed between neighbours, down the pub etc? Would there be a legal expectation of privacy which would be breached by discussion on a message board? In this case, however, as TE44 wisely points out, Paddy has been happy to give his story to a citywide newspaper/internationally read website, so I don't think you really need to have qualms in this instance.

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- And if they > live east: west of us, rather than north: south it > is very likely they are poorly served, if at all, > by convenient public transport. Last I looked the Overground runs to the east and west of us, as well as at least three major rail lines and numerous bus services. I know these aren't always perfect but the argument that anyone, except those who need to carry heavy tools for their work or have a disability which precludes cycling/public transport, actually needs (as opposed to finds it a little more convenient) to use a motor vehicle for commuting into this area is simply false. Happy to be given examples which prove me wrong.

Afraid that's a no from me too, sounds like there are too many undesirables in your situation to give them a comfortable happy life.

kibris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As long as people give this man things he will not > be moving anywere and then when his mates turn up > and start to camp you will say I CANT WAIT FOR HIM > TO BE MOVED You told us on November 6th that he would have ten mates with him "next week."

Nobody ever lost money by pandering to the lowest most bigoted common denominator.

Energy saving bulbs have an average of 4mg of mercury (though some have none) inside; this equates to just 1% of the amount of mercury in a traditional thermometer you'd find in a medicine cabinet. It's really almost impossible to do yourself any damage by breaking one unless you decide to clean it up with your tongue.

hammerman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rendelharris Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > James Barber Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > > > My beef is no consideration of streets south > of > > > the railway line has been made and how it > will > > > move the problem. But I also get where does > > this > > > end. > > > > Virtually overnight Copleston Road and environs > > have become a carpark for commercial vehicles - > > saw some workmen the other day offload their > > supplies at a house they were working on north > of > > the railway then nip round the corner to park > on > > Copleston. Many, many vans being left parked > up > > at night. As the genie can't go back in the > > bottle, we're going to need a CPZ here too as > soon > > as possible I think. > > You have always been opposed to CPZ areas though > haven't you rendel? Not per se, no - I've always felt one wasn't necessary in my neighbourhood and that people were complaining too much about having to walk twenty yards from their car to their front door, and until recently it wasn't, but as I said, the genie can't go back in the bottle; if they're going to make all the surrounding areas CPZ then we'll have to have one as well or become swamped.

Mark Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Nice work M&S staff. And good to see/hear no one > actually whinge about the queue, just the usual > hearsay about someone hearing something about > someone apparently saying something. Well said - as M&S apparently opened when they said they would the "whining" stories seem clearly fabricated.

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There is light at the end of the tunnel > (literally) > http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3394807/Li > ght-bulbs-banned-EU-make-comeback-breakthrough-mea > ns-use-energy.html How splendid, with a bit of luck we can continue walking backwards into the past, in a few years our houses can be lit by gaslights (good traditional British lights) and who knows, in a couple of decades we can all be huddled round tallow candles! The utter vacuity of the Brexit argument is notably illustrated by the fact that eighteen months after the vote all they can point to as a success is that our passports will be a different colour (which it turns out we could have had all along) and that a redundant form of lighting might be permitted. As one of their great champions is so fond of pointing out, you couldn't make it up. By the way, uncle, you regularly make great play of the fact that you don't read the media and that you only follow Private Eye. Funny you should be able to quote from the Daily Mail then...

Just a quick personal note - Socrates I replied to your sweet personal message through the forum message service a couple of weeks back but it's still marked as "not seen" - have a look in your inbox, wouldn't like you to think I'd ignored you! Happy Christmas!

Seconded vote of thanks to PALs - over the past far too many years King's have been looking after me there have inevitably been a few mistakes - they're as human as the rest of us - and PALs do a sterling job of putting things right.

Still makes no sense as to why you're addressing me directly as if I'd commented on it. Still, doesn't take much for you to have a go at me, I know! Happy Christmas!

You appear to think I've made some comment on the Chadwick Road restrictions. I haven't, so slightly confused as to why you're addressing me as if I had.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > My beef is no consideration of streets south of > the railway line has been made and how it will > move the problem. But I also get where does this > end. Virtually overnight Copleston Road and environs have become a carpark for commercial vehicles - saw some workmen the other day offload their supplies at a house they were working on north of the railway then nip round the corner to park on Copleston. Many, many vans being left parked up at night. As the genie can't go back in the bottle, we're going to need a CPZ here too as soon as possible I think.

Reset to factory defaults then set it up with your router from scratch?

That's very generous - would these guys take it I wonder? http://fareshare.org.uk/fareshare-centres/london/ If you find a deserving cause but have any transport/time problems give me a shout and I'll gladly cycle it over for you.

Huggers Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Angling - fishing as a sport means no one taking > any fish home but returning them alive to the > water after weighing and photographing. Anglers > often know the individual wiley old carp, having > caught and returned them to the water before. > Taking them home and eating them is something else > altogether. There should be a big sign explaining > this to new anglers. its a sport not a shopping > expedition. I don't eat them myself, nor do I fish, but I can see rather more justification in catching them and killing them to eat, rather than sticking a barbed hook through their top lip, hauling them thrashing to the bank under extraordinary stress, holding them out of the water to photograph them (which is, essentially, the equivalent of holding a human's head underwater) then returning them for it to be done all over again the next day, for "sport."

Over the line BB, in the cold light of day best deleted?

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I gave you a chance Rendel, could you think of any > reason etc You've been answered sensibly by others. But if you insist, no I can't think of any reason why someone would complain about a woman breastfeeding in the fruit aisle of a supermarket. Please explain why this would be a problem for you.

Oh I see, it's only inconsiderate, selfish and inappropriate when you decide it is. Right. You've tried to change tack somewhat, we were specifically discussing breastfeeding, not all the other delights babies are able to produce. Bit strange that after a whole day of arguing and many, many comments it's only just occcured to you to shoehorn that one in. Anyway, I give up, you obviously have a problem with women breastfeeding in public which you can't articulate, but lacking any training in psychiatry I can't help you with that. Fortunately, as someone noted above, 95% of people fully support the right (and it is a right and, ahem, rightly so) for women to feed their children in public, so hopefully instances of women being hassled and complained about in public by those who go into Victorian vapours at the sight of a few square inches of exposed mammary gland will continue to decline.

You're not exactly making things any better - OK, instead of explaining why you think breastfeeding in public is offensive, explain why you think it's inappropriate, inconsiderate and selfish! Seriously? "What I find difficult to understand is the blinkered thinking that nobody is allowed to question or complain." That's blinkered thinking, is it? So would it be OK to complain about a black person in a pub, or a gay person, or a disabled person? Surely if not that would just be blinkered thinking? Once again, and really, for the last time, what is it that you find so objectionable about a woman breastfeeding in public? There must be something there for you to be this vehemently against it, but as yet you've been completely unable to explain what it is.

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Good Rendel we agree - it's not always > appropriate, Surgeons during an operation or > dentists giving you fillings might be ill-advised. > > > How did you get on with the thought experiment? Yes nice try at diversion (though rather transparent). Come on now, please, just explain in simple terms, using logical argument, what you find offensive about a woman breastfeeding her baby in a pub?

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- Is it possible the complainant just thought > 'why are you doing that here, in the middle of the > aisle when there are plenty of other places you > could choose to feed your child'? But WHY???? You are apparently unable to answer the question as to why you want breastfeeding banned in certain places without coming up with the slightest rationale as to why it should be! Is it the display of flesh? You've been asked this over and over by myself and others and thus far have been utterly unable or unwilling to explain your antipathy. (ETA crossposted with jacks, who obviously shares my curiosity - come on keano, do enlighten us)

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rendel, you've already conceded on your > over-generalisation above because you stopped and > thought about it for a minute. There are times and > places where it is not appropriate - courts for > example. > > If you think a bit harder and deeper it may become > apparent that others who may not agree with you > are not necessarily irrational. They might have > been brought up with different standards as to > what is or is not acceptable or desirable in > polite society. I've given some high profile > examples. I don't think beast feeding should be > encouraged in important institutions like national > debating chambers for example. > > I could get all pompous and philosophical about > the confusion between the public and private > realms in modern society and the role of social > media in exacerbating this confusion but I suspect > I'd be wasting my time. I mentioned one very specific example - in the courts - where breastfeeding might hamper the mother in carrying out her tasks. Obviously if you wish one can come up with other scenarios - when driving or operating heavy machinery, for example. However, simply stating that you may have different standards of manners doesn't cut it I'm afraid. I'm a stickler for good manners and I abhor the many ways in which common courtesy has waned over my lifetime. But if your "standards" are entirely irrational and not based on anything except saying "they're my standards," without explanation, that is not an argument. Take a trivial example, when I was younger it was impossible to get into a halfway decent restaurant without a tie on; now people have realized how absurd that was and in all but a few places the rule has been relaxed. Good manners have a rationale behind them, all I'm asking for, once again, is for you to explain what is offensive about someone breastfeeding their baby in a public place? Until you can do that I'm afraid your objections say a lot more about you than about the women who undertake such activity. Thinking you have a right to decree where women should and shouldn't be allowed to undertake something as natural and essential as breastfeeding is the real bad manners here, I'm afraid.