pk

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I should listen to people discussing those experiences and yet you don't, you criticise unidentified people for saying things that you don't understand

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > pk Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > > > > > no it's not > > > > > > > it's not to do with your race or gender > > > > > > > > > so, so pathetic > > > Chuckles. What a brilliantly insightful set of > responses. Thank you so much pk for unambiguously > proving my point. > > Gotta run now, but look forward to next time when > you make me reconsider my whole world view by > calling me 'pathetic'....hahahaha so so so pathetic

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > pk Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > TheCat Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > pk Wrote: > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > ----- > > > > TheCat Wrote: > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > ----- > > > > > I just don't get it. > > > > > > > > > for once we agree > > > > > > feel free to actually add something > construcive > > to > > > the discussion pk. I know thinking for > yourself > > > can be really difficult. But im 10% sure you > > can > > > do it. > > > > you've rolled out this type of > > provocative/ignorant/arrogant/naive/childish > > rubbish before about race and about gender so i > > don't believe that someone who thinks that they > > don't need any education on issues of > > discrimination really wants to engage in > > constructive discussion > > > > someone cleverer than you once said something > > along the lines of: "if you have a critique of > our > > resistance, you better have a record of > critiquing > > our oppression" but for you it seems that you'd > > rather call of black people and women for not > > appreciating your 'good' (but ill informed) > > intentions as a white man > > All you've just said there that I've said things > that you don't agree with, and becuase I'm a > 'white man', I must just being > provocative/ignorant/arrogant/naive/childish. > no it's not > My views disagree with your own, so you won't > 'engage' and try and change my mind.....you'll > just dismiss me becuase of my race and > gender...there's a name for people that do > that.... it's not to do with your race or gender > > But in seriousness, I don't think you're really a > bigot, but I think we all know it's actually > becuase if it's not written in the Guardian, or > cant be parroted from people who are 'cleverer > than me', then you've got a absolutley nothing of > value to say.. so, so pathetic

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > pk Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > TheCat Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > I just don't get it. > > > > > for once we agree > > feel free to actually add something construcive to > the discussion pk. I know thinking for yourself > can be really difficult. But im 10% sure you can > do it. you've rolled out this type of provocative/ignorant/arrogant/naive/childish rubbish before about race and about gender so i don't believe that someone who thinks that they don't need any education on issues of discrimination really wants to engage in constructive discussion someone cleverer than you once said something along the lines of: "if you have a critique of our resistance, you better have a record of critiquing our oppression" but for you it seems that you'd rather call of black people and women for not appreciating your 'good' (but ill informed) intentions as a white man

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I just don't get it. > for once we agree

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > diable rouge Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > If corbyn had removed the surcharge it would be > evidence of awesome he is. > > Now that Boris has...it's a U-turn, or he's been > 'forced" into it..... > > Government has done something that the left wants, > and the left still find a way to have a go... You don?t think that saying one thing one day and the opposite the next is a U Turn?

Frankito Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Oh no, Petty Betty has escaped from her cage yet > again... > > why do you bother?

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > pk I don't care what you don't understand. > If you wanna know what lindylou was on about in > their posts, ask them. I did But you answered I?m not sure why

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I was saying previously that I didn't think a > poster was racially motivated. > If you disagree tough shit. > > If you think someone was being racist report it to > whoever you think will listen to your claim. > > Gotcha moment free zone ! i'm pretty sure that it's only you playing a gotcha game (but you're still probably losing). i'm just trying to understand what you (and others) are saying about e.g. peckham and what peckham's got to do with alleyns playing fields and to understand why people think it's important to identity footballers at alleyns as white or not white (i think it isn't and think that to think it is important to classify people playing football as white or not is odd and then to jump from alleyns to 'facts' about peckham is a jump based on stereotypes and anecdotal observations not facts at all) i can see you've got no coherent thoughts on this so i'll not expect any sensible response - 'tough shit' is the best you can come up with!

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I was saying previously that I didn't think a > poster was racially motivated. but in doing that you didnt consider why someone would think that it was important to distinguish white people from the rest when playing football in Dulwich? or how this had anything to do with Peckham? so what did you consider before reaching your conclusion and calling out others for things they haven't done?

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I wouldn't dream of trying to explain why other > people do things pk, nor what they think is > important or otherwise. > You could ask them yourself I reckon. but you've done this multiple times on this thread already!

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm not sure lindylou was expressly making a point > about one area being more supreme than another > area, though I guess it's possible to construe > anything if you want. > > I think it's important in discussions like this to > read the words people write, rather than making-up > a back story to what they write in order to create > a Gotcha moment. > > > so perhaps you can explain why it's important to identify ratios of white to not white playing football in dulwich? and what that's got to do with Rye Lane?

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > lindylou - it's easy (and lazy) for people to call > grave insults on people over the internet as I'm > sure you know (seeing as you're experiencing it > !). who's 'calling grave insults on people'? and why is it important to know that 8 put of 10 people playing football were BAME (maybe)? because that's where this started

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > pk - I think lindlylou is referencing the > collective lack of self-distancing evident around > Rye Lane/High St. > It's certainly the case, I shop there every few > days and it's noticeable (if you're trying to take > precautions for yourself). > To be fair though, I wouldn't say Lordship Lane is > the shining example of how to distance either, > people acting clueless there too ! so both ED and Peckham are bad but the BAME people are the worst? is that the 'fact' that she's getting at?

lindylou Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Yes we do need to know the ratio of BAME to white. > Southwark has one of the highest death rates of > COVID19, and Peckham being the highest. It's > useless having an expensive enquiry into why BAME > have a higher rate of death unless we understand > why. Please take a walk along Peckham high > street/rye lane. I can't imagine you've done that. > If not, before you comment, go and have a look at > the facts. what facts are you talking about? what is it that you want people to see in Peckham?

so people think that the vulnerable should go out and then less vulnerable (and more able to work) should stay at home? weird

Home games on PokerStars works really well, especially combined with zoom Doesn?t work on mobile or tablet apps tho

Frankito Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And you?ve always got to have the last word... > enough already Petty Betty ffs.. > > Sorry for responding to a post on an Internet forum Thanks for your useful contribution Feel free to have the last word

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > PK: Why are so certain it won?t reduce infection > risk? > > From my last post: "Like I said, this forces same > population to seek their collective exercise in a > reduced total available area - surely an increased > risk of infection (certainly won't reduce risk of > infection)." > > Anyway Renata has advised why now, so job done. So you?re quoting yourself to prove that you?re right? But as you say Renata has told us that informed experts disagree so job done

Renata Hamvas Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's a directive from the government to all local > authorities. All Cemeteries nationally are being > closed. > Renata I?m not surprised by that

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "The point is closing the cemetery is in line with > other closures like tennis courts (which day to > day are used for exercise)" > > I disagree. The decision to close Nunhead cemetery > except for funerals is completely NOT in line with > also closing tennis courts. They are different > utilities entirely ! > If they're gonna close Nunhead, that's like > closing a park utility. > Parks are open, Nunhead should too - both public > spaces. > Nunhead's main use is not funerals, by a country > mile. > Like I said, this forces same population to seek > their collective exercise in a reduced total > available area - surely an increased risk of > infection (certainly won't reduce risk of > infection). Inevitably you?ll disagree, but a cemetery is fundamentally different to a random park And generally the open expanses in parks allow better for social distancing than paths next too graves particularly if people are already congregating for a funeral Why are so certain it won?t reduce infection risk?

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm not sure how you can construe that I think > we're living in regular times, pk. It was the ?day to day? comment > If the cemetery (mainly the space is disused and > overgrown, as I'm sure you know) has been > predominantly used for decades as I've described > above, why change that now ? I think the answer is the virus and the associated guidance > Doesn't make sense and there's no sensible reason > given yet. > Walking in a cemetery isn't essential, walking in > a park isn't essential, walking isn't essential. > Have you an actual point ? Sorry if I've missed > it. I agree walking for no reason is not essential but the guidance allows for exercise The point is closing the cemetery is in line with other closures like tennis courts (which day to day are used for exercise) What?s your point?

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Most of the people that use Nunhead are > individuals, couples, families, dog walkers. > They effectively police the place through their > numbers and regular presence - there's no police > or security there. > To make out that these people are somehow > interfering with graveside visitors is > inconsistent with what goes on day-to-day there. > I look forward to reading a meaningful and > coherent reason (but not holding breath). you think that we're living regular 'day-to-day' life?s and that walking in a cemetery is essential?

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Would like to know the reason formally given for > this. > The 'grieving families' thing is illogical, how > are they more vulnerable than other cemetery users > ? grieving families (who maybe elderly themselves) attending funerals will not be exposed to people out for a walk or a run, I suppose > All it does is concentrate an already compromised > population into fewer open spaces. but people are supposed to be indoors unless shopping for essentials or execising (mainly) and a cemetery isn't meant for either of those (altho I accept that nunhead cemetery can be a nice place for a walk) > I wonder what consequences that will have. > Any Einsteins out there care to take a guess ? I'd guess none, as you point people failing to social distance is mostly because they e.g. don't make the effort to run round you not because of overcrowding

I heard that there was going to be a minute of applause for Yodel and other delivery drivers it's going to take place sometime between 9 and 6 tomorrow, or maybe the next day, or maybe it'll be rearranged