Gross women

[Voyageur]

Wowzer.... I shall have a secret smile on my face when I next apply lipstick on the train knowing that I am responsible for the moral decline of society in general http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/teufel/devil-smiley-033.gif

[WorkingMummy]

Ok, not sure the dog poo and spit comparisons of yours are out of context, and you joined this thread and took the side of an OP with that title, but I'm happy to add to the examples of general misanthropy your suggestion that people who apply makeup in public are necessarily bad, immoral people and that we should impose heavy financial penalties on bus users who comit such social crimes as using moisturiser or talking loudly whist in transit.

Fairer?

[PaulK]

Do some work.

[Voyageur]

PaulK Wrote:

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

> Do some work.

Add something remotely relevant or interesting.

[Louisa]

WM, much fairer. Immorality rears its ugly head in many forms, often in ways which surprise some people. Your example of breast feeding in public isn't an example of immorality, it's more a matter of taste. However, my point would be that as an individual we all have choices in life, and society in general sets those boundaries which most of us follow. Society and its toleration of immorality is to blame here. If we believe something to be ok, acceptable, more often we will partake in it. People used to believe smoking and drinking alcohol in restaurants and on public transport was acceptable until we put fines in place and made it clear those pastimes were not. The same should apply to makeup, and mobile phones. Financial penalties are sometimes the only way to encourage people to give up bad habits.

Louisa.

[WorkingMummy]

Yes but Louisa, smoking on the bus risks giving other people cancer. There is a difference between that and applying moisturiser.

Can you not see that you are trying to be prescriptive about what are only your tastes? And it's not moral or physical health which is at stake here. Just look away. Goodness, you don't even use the bus!

You may want to rethink what you say about alcohol in restaurants.

[Louisa]

WM we do not know what goes into moisturiser, there could be any number of hidden dangers which to some people may well cause rashes and other allergies to flare up. Being sat in this shared space indulging in a behind closed doors act is, IMO no better than having sex in a public place, on the morality scale of selfishness. Therefore how can you say moral and physical health is not at stake? Sorry my reference to restaurants doesn't always include alcohol, unless they're licensed to sell/all people to consume it on the premises.

Louisa.

[Voyageur]

Louisa Wrote:

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

> WM we do not know what goes into moisturiser,

> there could be any number of hidden dangers which

> to some people may well cause rashes and other

> allergies to flare up. Being sat in this shared

> space indulging in a behind closed doors act is,

> IMO no better than having sex in a public place,

> on the morality scale of selfishness. Therefore

> how can you say moral and physical health is not

> at stake? Sorry my reference to restaurants

> doesn't always include alcohol, unless they're

> licensed to sell/all people to consume it on the

> premises.

>

> Louisa.

Goodness me Louisa - have you OCD or summat?

If applying moisturiser to oneself included grabbing one's fellow passengers in headlocks and slathering their faces in untested muck I would have some sympathy with your rather peculiar point of view.

I often apply moisturiser to my hands and lip-salve to my lips on journeys - epsecially when there is a cold, biting wind. Are you really saying that that is an assault on my fellow passengers?! Bizarre.

[Louisa]

Voyageur, you'd be surprised how even at a distance of say 2/3 metres away, some poor unsuspecting person could be at risk from the fumes carried by your application of makeup/moisturiser. It might not be a big deal to you, but to others it could cause health issues to flare up and equally is unfair in the cramped shared space to subject them to the smells and slopping sounds of the application. It's just generally quite rude, surely you can appreciate this?

Louisa.

[seemster]

Wonder why Louisa's supporters who have been PM'ing her aren't choosing to share their views more publicly!

[Louisa]

seemster, not just the handful of private messages, other too on this thread are with me on the general rule of thumb that makeup application on a bus is unfair. You make it sound as though I am the only one here and everyone else is mocking me for some bizarre stance. How would you feel if you had a skin allergy and I sat next to you slopping on copious amounts Johnson's dreamy skin lotion? (Other moisturisers are available).

Louisa.

[Voyageur]

Louisa Wrote:

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

> Voyageur, you'd be surprised how even at a

> distance of say 2/3 metres away, some poor

> unsuspecting person could be at risk from the

> fumes carried by your application of

> makeup/moisturiser. It might not be a big deal to

> you, but to others it could cause health issues to

> flare up and equally is unfair in the cramped

> shared space to subject them to the smells and

> slopping sounds of the application. It's just

> generally quite rude, surely you can appreciate

> this?

>

> Louisa.

No. I really don't appreciate what you are saying. I add a tiny blob of moisturiser to my chapped hands. I don't SLOP it around in copious amounts and I am confident that it would not cause anyone to break out in an allergic reaction.

This isn't going to stop - so I suggest you avoid public transport at all costs.

[DJKillaQueen]

You ARE being completely unreasonable on this Louisa, but if you can provide some hard medical evidence that backs up your claim that a person with a rare (because it would have to be rarely severe) allergy condition can be seriously affected by someone using makeup/ moisturiser 3 metres away from them, then you might just get my attention. And as I've already pointed out, by your logic, no-one who owns a pet should travel on public transport either, for fear of activating a pet hair allergy in someone.

So let's have your hard evidence - provide some links to respected medical science....

[StraferJack]

Louisa... As I've posted many times, people applying make up (or brushing teeth or cutting nails) bother me enormously

But I wouldn't want you to take that position and align it with the general tenor of your posts on here. I have no idea if you think I am on your side on this one or not but having read the thread I feel it necessary to point out I'm not

If someone wants to put on some mousturiser on a bus be my guest. It's the combination of "total make up regime" combined with the sulky attitude towards the driver for having the temerity to brake that bothers me so

[Louisa]

If myself and Mr Louisa were to pop onto the number 3 and grope one another and partake in sexual liaisons people would be up in arms and rightly so. It's an invasion of other people's personal space. The same applies to makeup and moisturiser. The question of a pet allergy is different because unless the person is taking a cat onto a bus, it's something which is hardly avoidable - knowingly taking potentially harmful products (for some people) onto a bus and using them without consideration for others is selfish. DJKQ there are numerous pages on the Internet which give plenty of details about people suffering allergic reactions to makeup and other products. I personally have an issue with nuts, and if someone sat next to me on a bus and pulled out a bag of peanuts and started dining on them it would be close enough for me to react to that and I would have to move. Why should I be forced to move because another person wishes to have a munch?

Louisa.

[Voyageur]

Louisa Wrote:

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

> If myself and Mr Louisa were to pop onto the

> number 3 and grope one another and partake in

> sexual liaisons people would be up in arms and

> rightly so. It's an invasion of other people's

> personal space. The same applies to makeup and

> moisturiser. The question of a pet allergy is

> different because unless the person is taking a

> cat onto a bus, it's something which is hardly

> avoidable - knowingly taking potentially harmful

> products (for some people) onto a bus and using

> them without consideration for others is selfish.

> DJKQ there are numerous pages on the Internet

> which give plenty of details about people

> suffering allergic reactions to makeup and other

> products. I personally have an issue with nuts,

> and if someone sat next to me on a bus and pulled

> out a bag of peanuts and started dining on them it

> would be close enough for me to react to that and

> I would have to move. Why should I be forced to

> move because another person wishes to have a

> munch?

>

> Louisa.

Actually Louisa - I think you are a little bit nuts :(

Your posts are getting more bizarre by the minute and, on that basis, there seems little point in continuing to try to have a reasoned discussion.

[PaulK]

People who apply full makeup on public transport have bad manners. It shows ill-breeding

[Louisa]

Voyageur Wrote:

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

> Louisa Wrote:

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

> -----

> > If myself and Mr Louisa were to pop onto the

> > number 3 and grope one another and partake in

> > sexual liaisons people would be up in arms and

> > rightly so. It's an invasion of other people's

> > personal space. The same applies to makeup and

> > moisturiser. The question of a pet allergy is

> > different because unless the person is taking a

> > cat onto a bus, it's something which is hardly

> > avoidable - knowingly taking potentially

> harmful

> > products (for some people) onto a bus and using

> > them without consideration for others is

> selfish.

> > DJKQ there are numerous pages on the Internet

> > which give plenty of details about people

> > suffering allergic reactions to makeup and

> other

> > products. I personally have an issue with nuts,

> > and if someone sat next to me on a bus and

> pulled

> > out a bag of peanuts and started dining on them

> it

> > would be close enough for me to react to that

> and

> > I would have to move. Why should I be forced to

> > move because another person wishes to have a

> > munch?

> >

> > Louisa.

>

> Actually Louisa - I think you are a little bit

> nuts :(

>

> Your posts are getting more bizarre by the minute

> and, on that basis, there seems little point in

> continuing to try to have a reasoned discussion.

Oh so now because you disagree with me and feel you are losing the argument you pull the bizarre card out of the pack and dismiss me as slightly insane. I came up with a good example of why food should be banned, nut allergies are potentially life threatening to some people and even being near to someone eating them could result in a severe reaction. But clearly you think my case is flawed and because it suits you and others to indulge yourself on public transport people who disagree with you are seen as slightly bizarre. It don't wash with me!

Louisa.

[edcam]

When observing the sort of person that is trashy enough to apply make up on public transport, the phrase "You can't polish a turd" always occurs to me.

[edhistory]

Why do women with blonde hair dye their roots black?

John K

[Otta]

Bravo to the OP. One post and not even a need to come back and fan the flames. Superb work. The likes of PaulK must be jealous of such skills.

[Voyageur]

Louisa Wrote:

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

> Voyageur Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Louisa Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > ----

> > > If myself and Mr Louisa were to pop onto the

> > > number 3 and grope one another and partake in

> > > sexual liaisons people would be up in arms

> and

> > > rightly so. It's an invasion of other

> people's

> > > personal space. The same applies to makeup

> and

> > > moisturiser. The question of a pet allergy is

> > > different because unless the person is taking

> a

> > > cat onto a bus, it's something which is

> hardly

> > > avoidable - knowingly taking potentially

> > harmful

> > > products (for some people) onto a bus and

> using

> > > them without consideration for others is

> > selfish.

> > > DJKQ there are numerous pages on the Internet

> > > which give plenty of details about people

> > > suffering allergic reactions to makeup and

> > other

> > > products. I personally have an issue with

> nuts,

> > > and if someone sat next to me on a bus and

> > pulled

> > > out a bag of peanuts and started dining on

> them

> > it

> > > would be close enough for me to react to that

> > and

> > > I would have to move. Why should I be forced

> to

> > > move because another person wishes to have a

> > > munch?

> > >

> > > Louisa.

> >

> > Actually Louisa - I think you are a little bit

> > nuts :(

> >

> > Your posts are getting more bizarre by the

> minute

> > and, on that basis, there seems little point in

> > continuing to try to have a reasoned

> discussion.

>

>

> Oh so now because you disagree with me and feel

> you are losing the argument you pull the bizarre

> card out of the pack and dismiss me as slightly

> insane. I came up with a good example of why food

> should be banned, nut allergies are potentially

> life threatening to some people and even being

> near to someone eating them could result in a

> severe reaction. But clearly you think my case is

> flawed and because it suits you and others to

> indulge yourself on public transport people who

> disagree with you are seen as slightly bizarre. It

> don't wash with me!

>

> Louisa.

Nuts :)

[DJKillaQueen]

Well there's an example of insanity right there...comparing an act of public fornication to an act of putting on make-up....if you can't see how bonkers a comparison that is Louisa then you really must be...well....bonkers.

Yes there is is lots of information about allergic reactions to things people PUT on their OWN skins but funilly enough I can't find a single study into the inhalation of makeup from three meters away....THAT's my point.

By your logic Louisa we should also ban the following......

Flowers or any pollen bearing plant

Animals

The wearing and/or use of any kind of deoderant, makeup, perfume or chemical based beaty product.

Nylon, rubber and parafin based products

I could go on.

All of those things can activate known allergies - most commonly if people come into direct contact with them. But most people would agree that it would be a ridiculous proposal to outlaw such things.

But as someone else posted, there's no point using reasoned debate with someone who has no conception of it.

[KidKruger]

....and don't forget that you can't 'catch' anything by watching people fornicating on public transport either, though that does sort of support Louisa's argument that they're virtually the same.

[DJKillaQueen]

LOL...KK