Jump to content

Recommended Posts

?

WHY do I have to Justify EVERY comment I post to you. ?? ?


Ooh I know.


A) because you choose to post on a public forum

B) because many of your opinion are not only objectively poor, but because of people believing such lame opinions, the country is on brink of majorly troubling times

C) it?s not sue you have to answer to. Anyone who reads your stuff will have same question. Of course none of us need to read it but then it begs the question; ?why are you posting it??

keano77 Wrote:

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

> Good point Seabag.

>

> At least the EU has the bare-faced cheek to make

> up more ludicrous figures, eg ?39 Billion divorce

> payment.

>

> That?s three tens and a nine thrown in for some

> more dinners.



The 39 is a failure too. That?s x 4 units of 10, then isolate one of the units of 10, and then you?re back to the same old 10% discount scenario. It?s all conversational negotiating, just a little more evolved than ?back of a fag packet? calculations. And the back of a fag packet (and the front for that matter)feature a guy in a surgical hat having his heart jumpstarted, which is a fitting motif for where we are currently in the whole thing.


All this may be a basis to start, but not finish negotiations on.


Much like the heart, we may need a meaningful defibrillator to get us going again.

Angelina Wrote:

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

> I think the Tories will need more than that.


True, you actually need a heart in the first place, before a defibrillator can be of any use.


Maybe sometime could lend or donate, or even share one.

This is starting to go into Frankenstein territory I know, but we gotta try something.

DulwichFox Wrote:

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

> Sue Wrote:

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

> -----

> > DulwichFox Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > The E.U is unlikely to survive another 10

> years.

> >

> > >

> > > We are getting out at the right time. Others

> > WILL

> > > follow.

> >

> >

> > What are you basing this statement on, exactly?

>

> WHY do I have to Justify EVERY comment I post to

> you. ??

>



I have told you recently why I answer your posts.


Perhaps you didn't read what I said?


If you don't want me (and others) to respond to you, then why not consider stopping posting ill-informed bollocks - which you can't back up when asked - on a public local forum?


A forum is for people to discuss things with others, and I dont intend to stop responding to your mostly ridiculous posts just because you don't like it.

The result in Southwark...https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/9490/Appendix-C-European-Parliamentary-Elections-2019-local-totals.pdf


Lib Dems 27128 32.5%

Labour 20569 24.7%

Green 15286 15.4%

Brexit 9072 10.9%

Change UK 4908 5.9%

Cons 2853 3.4%

UKIP 1158 1.4%


Very grateful to those who voted Lib Dem.


Total. 83350

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

    • It’s a 4 year old on a bike do you really think he is going 15mph. Grown adults complaining about a child who probably isn’t able to string a few sentences together says a lot about the people in this forum. If this member was hit from behind the father was probably walking behind the bike so I don’t get the point of stretching out an overreaction from a child in Nursery bumping into you. Grow up Obviously a four year old should be cycling on the pavement.
    • Malumbu,  if none of us were there, does that mean that nobody should post anything on here unless they have witnesses from the EDF? Why would someone post something like this if it  wasn't true? This is not about whether children should or should not be cycling on the pavement. There are specific issues. a) the child was out of sight of the person supposed to be caring for him b) he appears to have been  either not looking where he was going or was out of control of the bike c) if he did see that he was about to hit someone  he apparently did not give them any kind of warning  d)  a person was unexpectedly hit from behind whilst just walking along, which in my view makes him a victim e) does the title of the thread really matter as the issue was described in the first post?  f) nobody is blaming the child, they are blaming the person who should have been watching him g) do you really think it was acceptable for that person to find the situation funny? The OP was not complaining about the 4 year old. They were complaining about an adult's lack of supervision of a 4 year old who was not capable of riding a bike and who hit someone from behind with no warning. Also, apart from reading the OP more carefully, perhaps also choose your words more carefully. Jobless? Lunatic? Charming.
    • Completely jobless and lunatic behaviour coming on a forum and complaining about a 4 year old and the child’s bike riding skills. Honestly grow up
    • I have to say, I too am upset about the passing of DulwichFox. He was a real local character, who unlike me, managed to stick with ED despite all of the nauseous yuppification of the last three decades. R.I.P to foxy    Louisa. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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