Jump to content

Recommended Posts

*Bob* Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


>

> You can scoff at those with their pithy-icky

> tributes to X Y and Z but the truth is that the

> decision ?not? to comment or ?show anything? can

> be just as much of a signal.



I agree - which is EXACTLY why I was so pissed off Mick Mac seemed to think I'd been leading a sentimental grief charge for Bowie rather than noticing I was far too cool to indulge

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I agree - which is EXACTLY why I was so pissed off

> Mick Mac seemed to think I'd been leading a

> sentimental grief charge for Bowie rather than

> noticing I was far too cool to indulge



Never could read the signals, that one.

I am a total FB whore, always posting nonsense on there, usually just my musings on the news or whatever, and usually meant with tongue in cheek, but quite often I then find myself having to explain myself because people have taken me seriously when I didn't mean to be.


But what I don't do, and what fascinates me is when people put real personal stuff on there. I may say I've had a shit day and am fed up or something, but I've seen people post stuff about big rows between them and a friend or partner. It's uncomfortable just reading it. Much as I post on FB, I don't feel that I really put much of myself on there.


An interesting one recently was when a friend of my wife's had a nasty cancer. She stayed very quiet for a while but then one day said she needed to share, and started writing long VERY detailed posts about her illness and treatment (which, touch wood, seems to have stopped it for now at least). It was the most personal thing I've seen on social media, but it clearly had a therapeutic value for her, and there was nothing "look at me look at me" about it.

Writing can be cathartic - in which case you may possibly direct her to a blog or forum for that specific audience, which might mean she has more engaging conversations than posting randomly on fb....?


it's also quite easy to create a blog, so that could also be an option?

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The passive aggressive posts wind me up, the ones

> that say things like "its tough when you find that

> you cant rely on the people you thought you

> could". Always followed by "you OK Hun? Message

> me" etc.




Yes absolutely. This is the sort of post I was getting at (as well as less cryptic ones).

In the Four Quarters on Rye Lane last night they were playing back-to-back Prince downstairs in the confession booth. Good place for that sort of vibe.


When I speculated how long it will be before Fidel Castro joins the 2016 roll call, the barman declared himself a big socialist fan. Reckon this might be an interesting place when it's El Jefe's turn.

I liked Prince, or whatever he chose to be called


But really, am I upset at his death, NO


I didn't know him, but I am moved by the circumstances of a talented man being dead at 57 and of course, much like Jacko. Whereas Bowie feels more premature, such is the nature of that disease



But if you've tried to kill yourself previously , then after a bit you might succeed



I hate FB for all the reasons laid out by others

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Per Cllr McAsh, as quoted above: “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution. " Is anyone au fait with the Clean Air Act 1993, and  particularly with the state of 'Smoke Control' law and practice generally?  I've just been looking  through some of it for the first time and, AFAICS, the "civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300" were introduced into the Clean Air Act, at Schedule 1A, in May 2022.  So it seems that, in this particular,  it's a matter of the enforcement policy trailing well behind the legislation.  I'm not criticising that at all, but am curious.  
    • Here's the part of march46's linked-to Southwark News article pertaining to Southwark Council. "Southwark Council were also contacted for a response. "Councillor James McAsh, Cabinet Member for Clean Air, Streets & Waste said: “One of Southwark’s key priorities is to create a healthy environment for our residents. “To achieve this we closely monitor legislation and measures that influence air pollution – our entire borough apart from inland waterways is designated as a Smoke Control Area, and we also offer substantial provision for electric vehicles to promote alternative fuel travel options and our Streets for People strategy. “We as a council support the work of Mums for Lungs and recognise the health and environmental impacts of domestic solid fuel burning, particularly from wood-burning appliances. “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution.  “This work is being undertaken in collaboration with other London boroughs as part of the pan-London Wood Burning Project, which aims to harmonise enforcement approaches and share best practice across the capital.” ETA: And here's a post I made a few years ago, with tangential relevance.  https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/278140-early-morning-drone-flying/?do=findComment&comment=1493274  
    • The solicitor is also the Executor. Big mistake, but my Aunt was very old, and this was the Covid years and shortly after so impossible to intervene and get a couple of close relatives to do this.  She had no children so this is the nephews and nieces. He is a single practitioner, and most at his age would have long since retired - there is a question over his competence Two letters have already gone essentially complaining - batted off and 'amusingly' one put the blame on us. There are five on our side, all speaking to each other, and ideally would work as a single point of contact.  But he has said that this is not allowed - we've all given approval to act on each others behalf. There are five on her late husband's side, who have not engaged with us despite the suggestion to work as a team, There is one other, who get's the lion's share, the typicical 'friend', but we are long since challenging the will. I would like to put another complaint together that he has not used modern collective communication (I expect that he is incapable) which had seriously delayed the execution of the will.   I know many in their 80s very adept with smart phones so that is not an ageist comment. The house has deteriorated very badly, with cold, damp and a serious leak.  PM me if you want to see the dreadful condition that it is now in. I would also question why if the five of us are happy to work together why all of us need to confirm in writing.             The house was lived in until Feb 23, and has been allowed to get like this.
    • Isn’t a five yearly electricity safety certificate one of the things the landlord must give for a legal tenancy?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...