Gimme

I usually agree with you Sean but not this time. What bores the pants off me is people ruining an interesting thread by inserting into it a whole load of posts that start a big discussion about whether we should be having the thread at all. If you don't like the thread, leave it alone dont try to spoil it. This is what bullies do. If they don't like what someone else is talking about it they interject their viewpoint into a thread or say "you are new, I'll tell you what you can or can't do" "They might be saying it's unnecessary because it already exists" Yes, that is exactly what they are saying, but who are they to say that it is unnecessary. This is like saying that anything that is entertaining or interesting shouldn't be done because it has been done before. Why not tell the BBC to stop showing the news because they had similar stories on yesterday. And just because something is unnecessary for one user, it might not be unnecessary for one of the several thousand other EDF users. As I said on a previous post - if you don't like the channel, change over. New thread just started on whether repetition should be allowed on the EDF. SeanMacGabhann Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "Who has the right to decide what is a valid > topic? " > > Well that depends on what is meant as valid - is > someone trying to invalidate the thread? I don't > think so > > If a thread is over repetitive because someone > can't be fagged to do a search, or at least > differentiate it, then surely it is reasonable for > someone to point this out? They haven't demanded > any punishment or said the topic isn't of interest > to anyone. So in that sense I would say no-one is > saying the thread is invalid > > They might be saying it's unnecessary because it > already exists - which again seems reasonable to > me, as they linked to teh previous iterations - > look a whole welter of info on tap already! Let's > start with that and see if we can add to it, > rather than re-invent the wheel?

Our baby is due in October. I'm having a discussion with various mums and dads at work about where the baby should sleep in the first 6 months. Options so far (1) One mum and a separate dad both strongly suggest always putting the baby in their own room not in the parents room and mum getting up and going into that room to feed during the night. Reasons: not waking up the breadwinner who needs to go to work the next day, not getting baby into the habit of sleeping in mum and dads room. Both say their kids sleep very well. (2) Other people seem to think that keeping baby in the parents room for the first 6 months. Reasons: easy to feed without getting out of bed, able to keep checking on the baby, less worrying for mum and dad. (3) A few people have suggested putting baby in the parents room for at maximum 6 weeks for reasons in (2) but also to avoid baby getting into the habit of sleeping in parents room. The mum and dad in (1) don't like this idea because they say once started, it's hard to make that decision to move the baby out. Any thoughts? Good reasons for options 1, 2 or 3?

Thanks for your advice everyone. Nappy Lady - we found one of your videos on YouTube. Very informative. Baby is due mid-October so we'll hopefully be able do attend one of your demos in September.

Does anyone know of a working nappy laundry service in the area? We're keen to use real nappies when jnr arrives but the one recommended on Southwark council website seems to have gone into administration or similar (Bumbletots) and nobody else we've looked at seems to do SE22

Think it's got to be HellNo then ;-)

Fantastic. Cutting. Insightful. Haven't seen the "Carrier Bag Blew Down Lordship Lane" thread but will look for it. He's right though!!! That's what EDF is about. It's also about fabulous put downs, and that one is up there with the best. BeaverUk14 - please tell us that you are not just a one thread contributor!

Dear Administrator The new changes look very swanky but how do they work? For example, lost cat threads tended to go on the offered and wanted site. Do they still go in 'wanted' - as in 'wanted - lost cat' or do they go somewhere else. One thing that was an excellent addition is the new Drawing Room! Looking forward to having a heated discussion in there. You've done loads of work changing the site and it looks great. Maybe you should have a fanfare thread to introduce the changes... or did I just miss it? One other thing I was wondering was - are the changes on trial or are they here to stay? One thing I did think was good about the old look site was that when browsing to see what was on sale etc, I often saw requests for advice or recommendations and answered them. I probably won't bother going into the local businesses section unless I'm looking for a recommendation for me (and therefore won't contribute as many recommendations). If you find that you aren't getting much being put on the local business site, will you revert? Oh finally, should this have gone into 'About this forum'? On looking around that seems to be the place to ask questions about the forum... However, thought it was a valid point for the main thread. I'm sure you'll move it if you think otherwise. Anyone else got any thoughts on the new look?

Percy Lane Oliver founded the first voluntary blood donor service from Colyton Rd (which borders Peckham Rye Park) http://www.beatnic.co.uk/2005/06/17/percy-lane-oliver-1878-1944/

Surely the idea of the Gossip section is for bored people to kill a few minutes / hours etc. So what if the discussion has been had before. "Famous people in Dulwich" is hardly a thread designed to exchange information. I can see the point of someone asking "anyone got any advice on sash windows" and being pointed to the thousands of posts on it but the point of gossiping isn't the same. Computedshorty probably didn't start the thread to get information but rather to have a natter and kill a bit of time. Do we really want guardians of the forum who tell people what they can and cant natter about? I don't. If I see a thread that asks "what's the best curry in ED?" I just don't open it. If you don't like what's on, change channel.

Not wanting to be rude AnnaJ but the only boring thing about this thread is the posts where you are trying to stop it :-)

annaj Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Welcome to the forum computedshorty. > > Before starting threads you might want to try > doing a search, using the search box top right, to > see if there's already a thread running on your > topic that you could add to. The forum has been > running for a while now and lots of things have > come up before. It's always good to hear new > voices and new opinions, but seeing the same > threads satrted over and over does start to get a > bit dull. Don't be put off computedshorty... I found it very interesting. Maybe I missed the fascinating previous thread. Actually, think I might have seen it but it wasn't very good. Nobody mentioned people like James Nesbitt, Jenny Eclair, the girl from Gavin and Stacey, Monica Ali or a number of other people. The forum is for everyone not just those who are long in the tooth and continually looking for something new.

HellNoHellYeah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Gimme Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Buying wine is like everything. There's a > target > > market. If you aren't the target market don't > go > > there. > > If you don't like spending more than ?5 on a > > bottle of wine then don't go to Green and Blue > - > > use Threshers or the corner shop (or if you > really > > don't like wine but like getting drunk go for > > Somerfield's special offer on Isla Negra). > > If you really like wine and are prepared to > spend > > ?10 for something that is more expensive to > make > > but should also have more depth of flavour then > go > > to Green and Blue. > > > > I don't like handbags and therefore cannot > > understand in a million years why someone would > > buy a Gucci handbag for ?400. > > But I'm not going to slag off people who like > > spending a quarter of their monthly wage on a > > handbag as 'pretentious knobs'. > > > > Green and Blue has been awarded best > independent > > wine merchant by Decanter magazine readers - > who > > probably know something about wine. Nicolas is > > universally despised by wine writers (from what > > I've seen). But not everyone agrees with the > views > > of magazines and wine writers so if someone > thinks > > that Nicolas is 'better' than Green and Blue > > that's fair enough - it's their opinion. > > > > Personally I like Green and Blue for wine and > > probably wouldn't go anywhere else in LL but > > that's because I'm willing to pay a bit more for > a > > bottle of wine than some people (but less for a > > handbag!). Bossman is (IMHO) pretty duff for > wine > > but they have a totally superb beer selection. > And > > the local shop that does 6 cans of strong lager > > for a ?5 can't be beaten for a BBQ. > > > > Let's celebrate Lordship Lane. Something for > > everyone! > > You can get Gucci handbags for ?400?? Never seen > one that cheap. Never bought a Gucci handbag but I thought that ?400 was suitably ridiculous for a handbag.... :-) How much do they really cost?

Wow! Beaver14uk takes control of the thread and some..... Having been suitably shamed, I will endeavour to say 'good morning' to all bus drivers from now on. And will take the registration number of, and report any driver who does not say 'good morning' back.

What if you spotted a woman in her 60s taking secret photos of two white young teenagers stabbing a bin with what turned out not to be large knives, but were in fact broken garden shears, and both boys turned out to be called Nigel and both wanted to be bus drivers when they grew up? If you called the police, who would you report and for what crime?

Shame when an interesting argument / debate, about the rights of photographers vs the rights of hysterical parents who read the News of the World too much, becomes a slagging match. Would everyone involved in the slagging match please back down for the sake of those who were enjoying this thread! Keep it interesting.

Hey, what about a general ceasefire??? The best post I read this morning was beaver14uk's story about people lifting up the sign that says Oyster Not Working. Brilliant. Instead of more slagging off of bus drivers, can we have entertaining stories of life as a bus driver or things people saw on buses that made them laugh. Please....?

Sounds like you would do a great job there. You are obviously more sensitive than most and sounds like you know how to find a legal case from the most trivial of circumstances New motto "No matter how trivial, we'll sue" Anyway, let's ceasefire on this as it's stopped being enjoyable. Anyway, I'm reminded of an amusing story about a rude bus driver many years ago. I got into a slight argument when I was a student many years ago with a bus driver about a fare. On getting off, he drove along slowly and shouted out the door "where did you get your clothes mate? a jumble sale?". I was mildly offended and annoyed and later told my friend what had happened. The friend (who is now a barrister) replied quick as a flash, 'You should have said "It's all I can afford, my dad's a bus driver"'. Alas it was too late by that time.

Domitanius, I'm glad that you've come onto this forum to make such a clever, well informed and world-wise point. Since I'll take it from your self-important rant that you are speaking from a position of knowledge, I'll bow down to your superior point of view (have I perhaps been a victim of intellectual harrassment here as you are obviously insinuating that my point of view is inferior to yours). It would seem that as is often the case, the law that is in place to protect people who are genuinely being harrassed or disadvantaged, racially or otherwise, is a total ass when it comes to trivial situations. And if you can take a case against someone for saying on a bus that "I'm English and you're not" then the law is clearly an ass here - it was surely never intended to protect people from childish (and frankly embarrassingly weak) insults made by bus drivers... in the same way as it was never intended to protect people who can look after themselves against weak anti-Scottish jokes. I'm not saying that people don't get racially discriminated against or that they shouldn't have the protection of the law but there has to be a dividing line between totally trivial (which shouldn't be wasting court time) and serious cases (where someone has been genuinely wronged rather than mildly offended). And I would have thought that had you sat in Employment Tribunals for a morning then you would have realised that. I'm sure I'll get a superbly worded reply that will put me to shame and will suggest again that I work for an inferior company, have an inferior intellect and an inferior point of view, as you are obviously someone of great wisdom and importance. I look forward to it.

And what offence would you report to the police Steph? This whole thread seems to agree that people would be annoyed by the guy taking photos of their kids without permission but nobody has explained yet why the police would need to get involved. You don't phone the police every time someone does something totally legal but which annoys you do you?

Methinks somebody is confusing "in the public interest" with "of interest to the public" which are two completely different things... Photos of Gordon Brown taking drugs would be in the public interest as he is responsible for the country's wellbeing. Photos of Tony Blair taking drugs would, IMHO, not currently be "in the public interest" and would only be "of interest to the public" as he has no public role, and is now a private individual who should have the right to privacy. What public good would showing Amy Winehouse drunk do? Or what public service would showing Max Moseley frolicking with call girls serve?

Domitanius How could Nasty Nigel hassling people with paper tickets - which is something he appears to does without discrimination (i.e. to everyone who doesn't have a dog) - constitute discrimination? And why would it make it "racially discriminatory behaviour" just because he pointed out that he is English when this is nothing in particular to boast about. He didn't disparage the other persons race, just indicated that he thought that being English was superior. I get called a "Sweaty" (Sweaty Sock = Jock) and get comments about tightness continually but would never in a million years count as "racially discriminatory behaviour". Naturally the people saying this are just jealous :-) Why don't we call the police to see to everyone who thinks they are superior because they are English. That would probably keep them busy for a while.

Domitanius - I'm not sure how pointing out that he is English and that someone else isn't is racial abuse... Quote from Nigel apparently: "I am english remember unlike you". Who would be proud to be English these days with all the negative connotations. In London it's far better to be exotic. If he'd called me English, that would have been a real insult! Don't be too quick to play the 'racism' card.

How naive you are jumpinjourno. You obviously don't read the tabloids. Full of photos that the subjects don't like. No responsibility shown there. Perhaps someone asked Max Moseley if he minded them taking photos with a hidden camera. Perhaps the Paps let Amy Winehouse choose her favourite shots or request any photos she doesn't like to be deleted. Or perhaps you haven't seen war photographers taking photos of people lying in agony in dirty hospitals. Perhaps they asked permission before printing those photos. Bonkers.

Once more your genius for a wind-up shines through bob :-) What's next in the pipeline following the success of the Times Online article?

And to think that ED was relatively free of rabid, ignorant Daily Mail readers.... Unless of course you are joking Tiger Ranks.....