Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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, 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.

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.

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....

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

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.

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.

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.

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 :)

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.

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

    • Our 10 month old kitten has been missing since this morning from Nutbrook street. I know that's  not that long but he's not well and on medication for diarrhea, vomiting, and eating very little. He only ever goes out back and today he got out the front door, an area he's never been before. He's very good about coming home when you call him but no sign.  Answers to Jeffrey or Jeff.  Please get in touch in you see him as I think he will be very dehydrated very soon. 
    • A Google search brought up eleven Chango  branches, although they don't all seem to be listed on their website. In the order they came up: East Dulwich, Clapham Common, Mayfair, Wandsworth, City of London, Wimbledon,  Parsons Green, Kensington, Highgate, Richmond, Hampstead. I think it is the positioning of this new branch that has mostly got to me. I accept that they would have to go for where a space became vacant, but Lordship Lane is pretty long, even just the part with shops in,  and choosing to  open a stone's throw away from Chacarero seems mean, to say the least. I wonder if they have made contact with Chacarero. It would be nice to think they had (in a friendly way, obviously!) As regards the apparent  marketing spiel, at least one of the online reviewers also refers to a Chango branch (the Parsons Green one in this case) as a "gem". Probably just coincidence and a word in common use to describe such places. I wouldn't know. I'm ancient 🤣
    • I like empanadas. I don't think Chango is a massive chain - it's got a few stores all in London I believe (stand to be corrected if I've got that wrong). I don't see a problem with them opening on the Lane personally. I really like Chacarero, but that doesn't mean that they should be immune from competition - if they're successful and open a couple more stores, are we then meant to stop supporting them for being a 'chain'?  That opening post does sound a lot like marketing spiel though. Is the OP perhaps connected to the new business I wonder?
    • According to what I can see online, Dynamic Vines and Cave de Bruno sell totally different kinds of wine to each other.  Dynamic Vines  "work with independent winemakers who produce outstanding wine using sustainable practices in the vineyard and minimal intervention in the cellar".  Cave de Bruno specialises in French wines and spirits from small independent producers. So two different USPs, and no doubt two different but overlapping customer bases who can afford these wines. Probably different again to the people mainly  shopping for wine at Majestic or the Co op. On the other hand, the two empanada shops appear on the face of it to be selling virtually identical products. But time will tell, won't it? Let's see how they are both doing in - say - a couple of years' time. Impossible, of course, to compare that with how they would have done if there had been only one of them. I just feel more  sorry for the original one than for  the one which can apparently already afford to have a number of shops in places like Mayfair and Highgate. I'm tempted to buy something there every week, and I don't even like that kind of pastry 🤣
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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