Ladymuck

JBARBER Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > please pleasep please report such incidents to the > Police. > Going on a forum and not reporting it is frankly > irresponsible. Oh PLEASE! I remember getting KNOCKED OFF MY BIKE by a taxi driver who had stopped at a GREEN traffic light and allowed a passenger to open the door to get out...which resulted in my "crashing" into the suddenly opened door and ending "tits up" in the road. I reported it to the Police only to be told that I should have cycled further away from the door! Waste of time!

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > " HAL9000, you never cease to make me > laugh...visibly labelled as such - I was horrified > when I first spotted them." > > It's like Hyacinth Bucket, so much drama. [ANOTHER HUGE BURST OF LAUGHTER]...well at least my diaphragm is receiving a full work-out today! The Bucket Lady - eh? I am not so sure I SHOULD be laughing! Oh well, have been called worse things...(thanks for the free laugh though)...[now giggling away like a teenage schoolgirl...the Bucket Lady indeed]

[LOUD SCREAM HOMER SIMPSON STYLE] But DO have a lovely break.

Does anyone know those "lovely" apple trees on the estate off Melbourne Grove? Well, I've always admired them and thought "what a wonderful idea" UNTIL some youths decided to throw them at me as I cycled past a few weeks ago...they appeared to be having a fabulous time AT MY EXPENSE! Little GITS!

[HUGE burst of laughter!] HAL9000, you never cease to make me laugh. It's true, I've actually seen them - the containers are visibly labelled as such - I was horrified when I first spotted them. Just imagine if one of those trains were involved in a serious accident...doesn't bear thinking about.

Tolly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > as a EDF drinks virgin, is there a secret > handshake one needs to learn? Nah...just join in...I went to my first EDF drinks in August (couldn't make Sept.), and, although I went with a friend and a very chivalrous chaperon, the people we met were very pleasant and made us feel most welcome. Incidentally, another forumite once told me that you actually don't lose your virginity until you've been to the Curry outing! So, there you go! Anyway, look forward to meeting you tomorrow - and big fat WELCOME.

Administrator Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Not straight away no, I think it will give this > new local venture a bit of a helping hand to be in > this section for a short while. That's the spirit Admin...and who ever said Admin had no heart? ;-)

Ahhhh, BLESS! Oh, and good on you HEROINE. Nice to see someone with a bit of spunk. (No smutty jokes please - it's a good word).

mockney piers Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm sorry ladymuck but Huguenot was quite right on > the pre-tool society thing. > > The 'EDF Guru's'* arguments only allow you to > infer that the earth will only be happy when man > has no society capable of breakdown or cohesive > enough for war and must make no progress capable > of any harm at all. > > Which rather suggests some point in the late > paleolithic period at latest (if not pre tool at > least pre society above that of the family > (although isn't that where most abuse and murders > are commited? Oh let's just do away with mankind > altogether venal little beast who has wasted > gaia's gifts and doubtless deserves banning from > this Eden we were granted, or something). Added to > that Hal's previous arguments for population > decline I think Huguenots inference is spot on. Ladymuck wrote: Again, three words: "agree", "disagree" and "circles". > Aaaaanyway, I remember an EU chappie who went out > to Bulgaria to give a talk at a farming conference > there on organic methods and most of them laughed > and told him they can't do it any other way as > they can't afford pesticides or fertilisers not > produced by their own animals. > It does seem to be a peculiarly western issue this > one. > You may well be right. > *I'm sure te EDF should have more of a say on who > their guru is. I'm sorry, that's just what I call him (whether he likes it or not!). I probably should not have foisted my unilateral nomination on the Forum. I don't think we have one but at a > pinch I'd nominate *Bob* for pearls of wisdom. Well, perhaps you could start a new thread - "WHO DO YOU THINK DESERVES THE TITLE "EDF GURU?" - though perhaps not in the Drawing Room eh? We don't want Chair tearing his/her hair out...must be fairly bald by now! ...have managed to stray off topic again. Now let's see...ah I know...just for all those sceptics...did you know that organic food MIGHT be better for your heart? See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6272634.stm. See also: http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/twr118h.htm - an article on how Cuba (through necessity) is now farming organically on a grand scale. At the very least, it's an interesting article. There is lots of stuff on this on the net for those interested. I have been to Cuba, and whether or not one is for or against organic food production, I defy anyone not to be impressed by what the Cubans have achieved. I would just like to add that I have learnt one very vital thing from this thread...and that is to keep a special look-out when cycling to my allotment in future...Huguenot's quoted RTA statistics are frightening!;-)

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ah, Ladymuck, you've resorted to Fisking, a habit > of those bereft of ideas and enamoured of > technology. It does you an injustice and I'm sure > it was an aberration. Notwithstanding that I've only had 3 hours' sleep, I shall take that as a compliment - from you. [Muttering under breath...fisking indeed]. > > Lifenet do not provide figures, they provide > polemic prose, and very pretty it is too. Ummm, statistics on disabled children "pretty"? > > Your nitpicking with the Greenpeace figures is a > misdirection, I'm quite happy to take your > high-end Greenpeace figures of 200,000 consequent > deaths and compare that with the 30,000,0000 > deaths to RTAs in the same period. I am indeed honoured ![tongue firmly in cheek, tone bordering on the sarcastic]. Incidentally I am not disputing your RTA figures...not that I have checked them or anything. > > I repeat, if the major focus was 'health and long > life', the anti-GM and anti-nuclear brigade have > better targets. As stated in a previous posting, I think we are going to have to agree to disagree. > This thread is about Organic food. Now that I cannot dispute...we have strayed quite a bit...and an interesting journey it has been too > My argument that Organic food is part of a generic > political movement that is anti-technology, > anti-organisation, anti-administration and > anti-social is sustained by your own position.> > I think the Organic movement do themselves a > disservice by dragging 'righteous' political and > religious arguments into what is essentially a > convenience argument. I like Organic food, it's nice and cute. I buy it, > and pay over the odds for it. When you start talking about apocalypse and > morality you're stuck in a bog. Again...two words..."agree/disagree"...actually three..."circles". But for what it's worth, I actually grow most of my fruit/veg (at this time of year I only need to purchase mushrooms)...I DO utilise organic principles (e.g. no slug pellets etc., crop rotation, companion planting etc.) because, (a) I do not wish to unnecessarily ingest residues from toxic chemicals and (b)I wish to do my "bit" for the environment...by not unnecessarily poisoning the little patch of soil on which I work and the wildlife that it sustains. Simple really. I like organic food too, the organic stuff in the supermarket does not necessarily taste better than "conventionally grown produce" (I really don't like that term), but (and I don't mean to brag) my produce definitely does - no doubt about it. At other times of the year, I WILL pay over the odds for organic food - it IS expensive (which is why I grow as much as I can myself)- fortunately, I have that choice (and I appreciate that some people may not). Right, I THINK we might JUST be back on topic now - eh? Chair must be breathing a sigh of relief!

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "Hundreds of thousands of suffering children" - > Ladymuck you do show a trend to accept any > fabricated statistic without the least amount of > due diligence if it supports your cause ;-) I have no reason to suspect Lifenets International's statistics to be fabricated. They are a properly registered and BBB accredited charity. On the other hand, you appear to - on what basis? > Estimates of the death toll from Chernobyl range > from 500 direct to 5,000 indirect from cancer. I think you'll find the figure in respect of DEATHS is higher than that: As I understand the situation, the "hundreds of thousands" figure cited by Lifenets refers to the number of ALIVE children who are suffering the terrible consequences of that dreadful disaster. > Road traffic accidents kill 1,270,000 every year > across the world (WHO)> Even if we accept Ladymuck's figures of 100,000 > kids 'suffering' since 1986, we've lost 30,000,000 > to RTAs in the same period, and assuming they've > each got at least 5 people who 'suffer' as a > consequence, that gives us 150,000,000 > suffering... Now hold on a minute, these are NOT MY figures - they are provided by Lifenets International: > > Yet the eco-religious claim that 'health risk' is > their principle motive for attacks on modern > scientific achievements such as nuclear power and > genetic modification, and ignore risks that are > higher by 4 orders of magnitude because they're > not convenient. The modern neo-luddites are hypocritical in their > attacks, and would do better to admit that their > criticism is superstitious and dogmatic rather > than rational. > > I don't really understand HAL9000's position - you > seem to be recommending not just an embargo on GM > and nuclear, but a return to pre-tool societies? Erm...I don't think the EDF Guru is suggesting anything of the kind. On the contrary: Have you not been paying attention? > Is this the essence of the Organic movement? Now I shall presume that this is a rhetorical question. Otherwise I would have to conclude that you have indeed NOT been paying as much attention as you perhaps should have. TUTT TUTT [shakes head and rolls eyes upwards];-)

brum Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Besides, in life there are more important things > to worry about than money. I KNEW there was something missing from my earlier post...it was exactly that. Such a simple thought, but often ignored. Thanks Brum for bringing it to the fore.

This probably isn't allowed in the Drawing Room, but seeing as we ARE talking about RISK on this thread;-), here goes...100! (Sorry Chair...I just could NOT resist...hope to return much later tonight with a "proper" Drawing Room posting!)

Ted Max Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > If he's gone, then he's looking down on us all > from a better place, hamdulillah. Now you can't POSSIBLY know that for sure. Perhaps you could start a new thread in the Drawing Room: Is TLS looking down on us from a better place?!;-)

Well, my view (and it's a simplistic one) is that if a couple has to even CONSIDER pre-nups, then they shouldn't be together. The mere THOUGHT of such a document undermines any trust between that couple. Hubby and I share everything (well, he doesn't wear my underwear and vice versa - obviously!)...but everything is jointly owned...we have ONE bank account and it is in JOINT names...there is no such thing as "my" money or "his" money...and it's fabulous...if either of us want to purchase something over a certain value, then we will consult each other. There is COMPLETE trust. Result: happily married 31 years.

mockney piers Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes, consequences of progress can be > unpredictable, as I said the car has done far more > damage than nuclear power ever has. Indeed even > the land around Chernobyl is blooming again and > nature has proved surprisingly resilient. Unfortunately such "resilience" has not been extended to the hundreds of thousands of children who are suffering to this day. http://www.lifenets.org/chernobyl/

Well, having at first used the Drawing Room for the purpose of annoying those who are cleverer than myself by posting silly one-liners, I have to say that, having discovered some really interesting threads, I am now a fan. Also, I like the way the "Chair" sits back and only really intervenes where absolutely necessary.

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Likewise your assertion that there are no proven > benefits to GM food is quite simply wrong. What I ACTUALLY said was : "there doesn't appear to be a great deal of evidence PROVING the purported benefits of GMOs in food." The Biotechnology Industry spends millions on telling us all how beneficial their technology is going to be. The list you have included simply reads like a list of claims that the Monsantos of this world would make. I am not suggesting that these Corporations have NOT produced (e.g.) rice with inbuilt Vitamin A, but merely that there doesn't appear to be a great deal of evidence PROVING that such products will be of benefit overall. Often, any advantage is outweighed by disadvantage. To take your example of: > one of the big disadvantages of such a crop is the COST...so, if rice is thus rendered unaffordable to the poor and malnutritioned, then it's not going to do them a fat (excuse pun!) lot of good. Rice without inbuilt Vitamin A has to be better than no rice at all. Cost is just ONE issue, but there are others as has been highlighted in this thread. The MAIN concerns, however revolve around (a) the potential danger to the environment and (b)the possible health risks to humans. Until such time as an independent scientific report can show that GM foods do not pose serious threats to human health or the world?s ecosystems then we cannot state that they are beneficial or safe etc. Living organisms are complex and shuffling their genes around may cause serious problems for the future (though some problems already exist). To quote The EDF Guru: I think, until such time as further studies are done, we are going to have to agree to disagree.

silverfox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's probably better not to try to analyse me > Sean, however there is a serious side to this. > Things are getting out of hand in some quarters > with people too frightened to speak out for fear > of retribution from local thugs or organised > crime. > > Caning may be a brutish uncivilised remedy but > Singapore doesn't seem to agree. Our liberalism > has created a paradox whereby we've outlawed many > punishments which we quite rightly feel are > unacceptable today and in doing so have created a > situation where crime and violence can breed with > little concern for existing deterrents. > > Surely, if a caning prevented a person from > adopting a life that lead to prison (and let's > face it, far worse can and does happen inside > prison) wouldn't you be doing that person a favour > as well as making his peers think twice? > > The real questions are would it work? Does it work > in Singapore? If it does/did work why shouldn't it > be reintroduced if it would cut down street > robbery, knifings, rapes? etc. > > As a society we have to ask ourselves some serious > questions if we really want to address some of the > problems facing us. Singapore...doesn't the State dish out 2 years' in prison for homosexuality? And doesn't it still have the death penalty too? Having asked those (rhetorical) questions, I have to say that one thing I REALLY like about Singapore, is that I can walk around without worrying about whether my purse is going to be snatched, whether I am going to be confronted by glue-sniffers or crack addicts, whether I am going to be pestered etc. etc... At a lower level, I've never even seen commuters place their feet on train seats. They just would not dare. To get back on topic, I received the cane(on the hand) once for "back-chatting" a teacher ...it stung like hell, and I certainly did not show off the resulting inflammation.

Ann Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- Yes, that's the reality in China - rather Barbaric to my mind. > An interesting thought Ann.

Universal benefits are great in certain areas, e.g. the State Pension, as they (generally) get through to everyone. However, while a universal child benefit may have been a good idea in the days of encouraging a growth in the population, I do not believe such an incentive is now neccessary in times of over-population, a recession, and massive overborrowing. Cuts are going to have to be made - like it or not, and restricting Child Benefit to those who actually NEED it could save the Country around ?7billion.

neilson99 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I fail to see the point of "universal benefits" as > implied by Quids - so we all pay in to get the > same back? Minus the cost of the beuracracy to > service? Ridiculous concept. Surely universal > means anyone who needs them can get them? > > I don't mind paying my taxes to provide a safety > net for those who genuinely need it, can't afford > the basics and can't access opportunities - in > fact I think I have a moral duty to do so. But why > should I have to cough up for a rainy day fund for > the middle class families of East Dulwich or > indeed my aunt and uncle sunning themselves in the > Canaries this December while waiting for their > winter fuel payments to come through. Get them all > means tested. > > Interesting, neilson99...I too wasn't financially dependent on anyone...but succeeded in a different way to you. I couldn't afford to study full-time (mortgage etc.), nor did I wish to incur debt; so I continued to work full-time whilst attending Uni. 3 x a week (6pm - 9pm) and doing assignments at weekends over 5 years. It was blood, sweat and - yes - tears, but success was all the sweeter when it arrived. Well done on paying those debts off, bye the way.

At a time of recession and massive debt/overborrowing by our Government, I do not believe that it is right that Child benefit should continue to be paid out to parents IRRESPECTIVE of means. Does anyone else feel the same - or am I just being a bit mean? Child Benefit, which is paid to people bringing up children, is currently NOT means tested - so even the well-heeled are entitled to: ?18.80 per week for child no. 1 and then ?12.55 per week for each subsequent child. This, to my mind, could go towards reducing our national debt.

The Chair Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > However, I do not think that it is right that when > couples have children that support for that child > should come out of the public purse (child credits > etc.)...(Chair: is this still in-topic? or should > I start a separate thread?). > > Start a new thread please! OK - cheers!

SteveT Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As we are an over populated country should we > adopt the same ideas on population control as > China, one family one child? I'm not sure about that one - seems a bit drastic...what if a second child were conceived, would the Government order it's abortion...as they have done in China? However, I do not think that it is right that when couples have children that support for that child should come out of the public purse (child credits etc.)...(Chair: is this still in-topic? or should I start a separate thread?).