Babies and prams in Pubs!

[Sue]

ClareC Wrote:

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

> If a person is offended the result is the same

> whether offence was intended or not. Once that

> offence is realised, on the basis it was not

> intended, then it can be rectified. Failure to do

> so would imply the interpretation is correct.

>

xxxxxxxxx

Absolutely, totally agree.

[KidKruger]

So somebody who is oversensitive always perceives 'the truth' ?

And all their squabbles and defensive reactions are justified.

Come on, no-one believes that !!

[ClareC]

KidKruger Wrote:

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

> So somebody who is oversensitive always perceives

> 'the truth' ?

>

> And all their squabbles and defensive reactions

> are justified.

>

> Come on, no-one believes that !!

Not at all, everyone is unique. Some are offended easily some rarely.

The important factor is the point where a person is aware their words (spoken or written) have been misunderstood and their subsequent act or omission.

[edcam]

ClareC Wrote:

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

> If a person is offended the result is the same

> whether offence was intended or not. Once that

> offence is realised, on the basis it was not

> intended, then it can be rectified. Failure to do

> so would imply the interpretation is correct.

>

> The problem with the written word is it can easily

> be interpreted in a way that was not necesarily

> intended.

I don't see why, in the case of this subject, all parents should feel criticised. I don't think anybody here has criticised ALL parents. If they have, they're an idiot. As I said before, common EDF misconception, which implies that it is taboo to make any comment on how the behaviour of some impacts on others.

[Horsebox]

ClareC Wrote:

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

>

> The important factor is the point where a person

> is aware their words (spoken or written) have been

> misunderstood and their subsequent act or

> omission.

What about the point at which a person realises that they've misinterpreted or misunderstood something and/or were being oversensitive?

You can't expect people to apologise each time you take something the wrong way, can you?

[KidKruger]

I was responding to Otta's point which was about the received PERCEPTION, not about whether apologies are made.

ie.

"If people have taken something a particular way, then it is true, whether intended or not."

I disagree with that, unless it's qualified with "true, inside their head".

[zeban]

edcam Wrote:

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

> ClareC Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > If a person is offended the result is the same

> > whether offence was intended or not. Once that

> > offence is realised, on the basis it was not

> > intended, then it can be rectified. Failure to

> do

> > so would imply the interpretation is correct.

> >

> > The problem with the written word is it can

> easily

> > be interpreted in a way that was not necesarily

> > intended.

>

> I don't see why, in the case of this subject, all

> parents should feel criticised. I don't think

> anybody here has criticised ALL parents. If they

> have, they're an idiot. As I said before, common

> EDF misconception, which implies that it is taboo

> to make any comment on how the behaviour of some

> impacts on others.

(tu)

[zeban]

"If people have taken something a particular way, then it is true, whether intended or not."

Absolute nonsense.

[Sue]

KidKruger Wrote:

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

> I was responding to Otta's point which was about

> the received PERCEPTION, not about whether

> apologies are made.

>

> ie.

> "If people have taken something a particular way,

> then it is true, whether intended or not."

>

> I disagree with that, unless it's qualified with

> "true, inside their head".

xxxxxxx

Yep

[KidKruger]

This all has the same tone as why do fireworks run for x number of days, a kind of it's being done to ME angle.

Things just happen, people have different agendas and styles, they don't mean each other harm, most people by far are good people. So offence needs to be considered carefully before being articulated, because it may not (probably isn't) be intended.

You can't just say the onus is on everyone who speaks to the make sure everyone took it the right way and dish out apologies up and down for good measure ! Most people are aloof enough to know what's reasonable behaviour.

Jesus even the term PC will be non-PC at this rate !!

[Otta]

That's not true either Otta. There's a marked difference between a general dislike of children and a concern that some people just aren't very good at parenting. Not what many want to hear but true.

Someone said that posts didn't come across in the way that you described them, and you said that that wasn't true. How can you know how something came across to someone else?

I don't disagree with what you say in the above quote at all, I am just saying that if people took things differently, they may have misunderstood, yes, but you can't say that it is untrue that they've taken offence from your post.

Anyway, I give up on this, I'm not even trying to argue with anyone, but everything that gets said on this thread seems to be taken apart, and twisted, and life is frankly too short.

[ClareC]

It's not about apologising.... If something is taken not as intended then there is nothing to apologise about. It is in those circumstances usual to clarify what was actually intended, as would happen in a face to face conversation.

[ClareC]

Otta Wrote:

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

> That's not true either Otta. There's a marked

> difference between a general dislike of children

> and a concern that some people just aren't very

> good at parenting. Not what many want to hear but

> true.

>

> Someone said that posts didn't come across in the

> way that you described them, and you said that

> that wasn't true. How can you know how something

> came across to someone else?

>

> I don't disagree with what you say in the above

> quote at all, I am just saying that if people took

> things differently, they may have misunderstood,

> yes, but you can't say that it is untrue that

> they've taken offence from your post.

>

> Anyway, I give up on this, I'm not even trying to

> argue with anyone, but everything that gets said

> on this thread seems to be taken apart, and

> twisted, and life is frankly too short.

I second that!!

[BB100]

I'm editing this post after seeing there is now another discussion raging in the famiily room - best to keep out of it I think. :-S

[Magpie]

The key to this is surely consideration. Non-parents should be considerate to families with Children - yes we are aware our buggies are effing huge and take up a lot of space - but what can we do - never leave the house at the weekend, because hungover groups of twenty-somethings want to dawdle outside cafes and pubs on the narrow pavements of Lordship Lane?

Equally, parents should be considerate and aware of the noise and disruption caused by young children, which is why I wouldn't take my brood into a proper drinking pub, which lets be honest in ED can be defined as the CPT, the Castle and maybe the EDT - all other pubs are pretty much eating establishments desperate for their share of the family market.

[Devonlass15]

I can't believe there is even a thread of this title on the Ed Forum, how ridiculous.

I don't normally post but having read this I am quietly fuming!

In defense of mothers and fathers (yes, I am one, as are a majority of adults in the british population) of course people will get defensive if you make huge sweeping statements about their ability to be good parents! It's insulting and very ignorant to assume that people having a relaxed drink are mistreating their children.

East Dulwich has always been very much a family area. I have lived here for many years and to be honest, ten years ago if you walked into 'The Foresters' there were normally a load of Millwall fans jumping around on the tables, so I know which people I'd rather see in the pub when I meet up with my friends for a drink.

There seems to be a growing resentment towards families moving into the area and alot of snide remarks about pushchairs and the patronizing use of the phrase 'yummy mummy's'.

Would you prefer it to have the crime rate it had fifteen years ago or for there to be lots of children growing up here and a much safer feel to the area?

Please can we let people go about their own business and do things the way they feel is right without the constant and needless criticism of parents, surely there are more worthy reasons to have a good winge??

[Otta]

Agree with pretty much all of that, although I did grow up in ED, and it wasn't that bad! ;-)

[tallulah71]

me too...my brother worked in the Foresters. Don't remember the Millwall fans leaping all over the tables! For starters, they never win anything....:(

[StraferJack]

I wonder why the forresters felt the need to take a tenner deposit just for a game of pool then. Must have been all the upstanding punters

[Rolo Tomasi]

Worked in the Foresters too. 96 to 98. Lovely people back then, before the refurb.

Then it all went to hell!

[Sue]

Rolo Tomasi Wrote:

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

> Worked in the Foresters too. 96 to 98. Lovely

> people back then, before the refurb.

>

> Then it all went to hell!

xxxxxx

The people may have been lovely, but you do have to admit the pub was shit!

Unless you like squelchy swirly carpets and the smell of piss wafting from the toilets whilst you're having a pint.

[peckhamboy]

Sue Wrote:

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

> Rolo Tomasi Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Worked in the Foresters too. 96 to 98. Lovely

> > people back then, before the refurb.

> >

> > Then it all went to hell!

>

> xxxxxx

>

> The people may have been lovely, but you do have

> to admit the pub was shit!

>

> Unless you like squelchy swirly carpets and the

> smell of piss wafting from the toilets whilst

> you're having a pint.

Stop it Sue, you're making me all nostalgic for the good old days.

[DulwichFox]

Yes it WAS a Shite-hole.. BUT at least it was OUR Shite-hole..

Foxy Fox

[DulwichFox]

StraferJack Wrote:

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

> I wonder why the forresters felt the need to take

> a tenner deposit just for a game of pool then.

> Must have been all the upstanding punters

You might of been asked to pay a Tenner Deposit.

I was never asked to pay a Tenner.

Just put 50p in slot and the cues were on the wall in a rack.

Fox

[Otta]

Same here.

Towards the end, it got a bit rough, as a particular bunch of people were barred from everywhere else, but I have some good memories of it just being a nice pub with pool and a good juke box.