Addicted to EDF...

[ACBP]

Is there a tonic available for this?

[numbers]

Yes!

Simply move away from the SE22 postcode. That should do it.

*embarrassed cough*

[maxxi]

Norfolking chance

[speedbird]

ACBP Wrote:

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

> Is there a tonic available for this?

Sadly no! Lots of us have this common sickness, but no known cure as far as I'm aware. Good luck and remember 'one day at a time'!!

[Huggers]

the stuff nowadays is cut with fluff, easy to resist but the old days of pregnant smoking woman 20 page thread of ranting feud, clown apparitions etc, well that was the hard pure stuff.

[HonaloochieB]

Yes, it ALL feuds round these parts back then.

[????]

Pretty dull nowadays, the old it was better 2 years ago clich? can be changed to 4

[Annette Curtain]

I'll have you know I AM NOT ADDICTED TO THE EDF

It's easy to give up posting on here, i've done it hundreds of times.

[Laddy Muck]

9

[Burbage]

???? Wrote:

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

> Pretty dull nowadays, the old it was better 2

> years ago clich? can be changed to 4

Which begs the question of why more seem addicted to it now it's turned, to use a culinary analogy, from crack to porridge.

The absence of unmitigated strife is, at least arguably, a good thing, and I can see the benefit of single-issue, single-author threads where monomaniacs can gibber to themselves without upsetting others. It follows in the recent tradition of public bodies which, however short of cash, find time and money to set up forums and meetings and consultations and communications units to focus on ever more detailed aspects of their work in the strategic hope of being able to place any future fall-out at the doors of a handful of bewildered public. But what's a sound component of a panjandric arse-concealing strategy isn't necessarily so useful in the context of a discursive forum. And that makes it particularly baffling that so of us are now incapable of reading a thread without appending an entirely inoffensive version of what we'd like people to think our opinion might be.

I'm of the mind that, as the economy plummets, inflation rises, wages falls, unemployment hovers, gas prices loom and the overweening futility of what passes for a human life looks more like a bleakly cosmic giggle, people turn to the forum in the same way as, in decades past, they would turn to suet pudding or (in more elevated households) banana custard. By dripping our polite and neutral contributions into the communal mix, like spoonfuls of Horlicks into Grandma's toothless maw, we're adding a dose of fluffiness to what we hope will become a respectful utopia, spontaneously arising from a pleasantly public denial that there's anything out of place in this best of all possible worlds. It's pure escapism, of course. But there's little enough of that available elsewhere, outside of the Daily Mail, since the soaps went all gritty.

But however attractive escapism might be, it's never buttered any parsnips or shifted much in the way of canine excrement. It is therefore our certain duty to clamp down on it. We must quash unwarranted optimism with the same vigour as we sit on the deluded, scurry at the legal threats of cake-shops or, with all due respect, drive out irrelevant nostalgia.

[maxxi]

Burbage Wrote:

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

> ???? Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Pretty dull nowadays, the old it was better 2

> > years ago clich? can be changed to 4

>

> Which begs the question of why more seem addicted

> to it now it's turned, to use a culinary analogy,

> from crack to porridge.

>

> The absence of unmitigated strife is, at least

> arguably, a good thing, and I can see the benefit

> of single-issue, single-author threads where

> monomaniacs can gibber to themselves without

> upsetting others. It follows in the recent

> tradition of public bodies which, however short of

> cash, find time and money to set up forums and

> meetings and consultations and communications

> units to focus on ever more detailed aspects of

> their work in the strategic hope of being able to

> place any future fall-out at the doors of a

> handful of bewildered public. But what's a sound

> component of a panjandric arse-concealing strategy

> isn't necessarily so useful in the context of a

> discursive forum. And that makes it particularly

> baffling that so of us are now incapable of

> reading a thread without appending an entirely

> inoffensive version of what we'd like people to

> think our opinion might be.

>

> I'm of the mind that, as the economy plummets,

> inflation rises, wages falls, unemployment hovers,

> gas prices loom and the overweening futility of

> what passes for a human life looks more like a

> bleakly cosmic giggle, people turn to the forum in

> the same way as, in decades past, they would turn

> to suet pudding or (in more elevated households)

> banana custard. By dripping our polite and neutral

> contributions into the communal mix, like

> spoonfuls of Horlicks into Grandma's toothless

> maw, we're adding a dose of fluffiness to what we

> hope will become a respectful utopia,

> spontaneously arising from a pleasantly public

> denial that there's anything out of place in this

> best of all possible worlds. It's pure escapism,

> of course. But there's little enough of that

> available elsewhere, outside of the Daily Mail,

> since the soaps went all gritty.

>

> But however attractive escapism might be, it's

> never buttered any parsnips or shifted much in the

> way of canine excrement. It is therefore our

> certain duty to clamp down on it. We must quash

> unwarranted optimism with the same vigour as we

> sit on the deluded, scurry at the legal threats of

> cake-shops or, with all due respect, drive out

> irrelevant nostalgia.

q.e.d.

[woodrot]

I was once addicted to the EDF. Luckily Admin saw the problem and made a tough love decision FOR MY OWN GOOD. he banned me. 5 times actually.

[Atticus]

woodrot Wrote:

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

> I was once addicted to the EDF. Luckily Admin saw

> the problem and made a tough love decision FOR MY

> OWN GOOD. he banned me. 5 times actually.

Sexist

[StraferJack]

Wait, what now Atticus?

[Jeremy]

woodrot Wrote:

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

> he banned me

Pretty sure you quit last time..

[El Pibe]

He is a he in fairness.

And you have definitely quit as well as been banned.

[woodrot]

Its all cheap theatre innit.

[El Pibe]

I can hold my head up that I've never spent unhealthy amount of time on here, nor quit nor changed my identity in a weak bid to control my participation.

....

Doh!!

[Otta]

Are you me?

[Annette Curtain]

???? Wrote:

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

> Pretty dull nowadays, the old it was better 2

> years ago clich? can be changed to 4

Old habits die hard tho, eh ????'s

[Atticus]

SJ,lighten up a little, won't you?

[StraferJack]

Whaddya mean?

I was just asking why you posted sexist? It didn't make any sense. Rereading Woodrot's post again, what is sexist, even as a gag? Have you got admins gender wrong?

[Atticus]

It was a gag, albeit a shit one, I have no idea as to the singular or collective gender of admin.

[HonaloochieB]

About 3,160,000 results (0.63 seconds)

What I got when I Googled Addicted to EDF...

I then consulted with Heston Blumenthal (the HB initials? no, no coincidence a member of the society) and I got him to divide the 0.63 by the 3,160,000 ( I'm all about the concept, he's the mathlete) and the end result is a new seasoning.

We'll probably use the word addictive in the advertising, so thanks.