Too Many T-Wats in East Dulwich

[LuvPeckham]

I don't know if anyone else feels this way but I do think there is an excess of t-wats in East Dulwich and I think this can mainly be attributed to the laziness of the council.

This is not the countryside, it is a capital city. Therefore it seems quite unacceptable to allow the t-wats to get out of control in the way that they do. They stir up arguements with their stupid concepts which can cause people with thinking difficulties many problems, and dead conversations can fall off and injure people?s intellegence. Discussions blocked by rotting concepts can cause serious harm to your mental health. They also encourage stupid postings and other pests.

I am not anti-t-wat per se but I think they should be kept to appropriate areas. I would like to hear other peoples' views on this matter as I am currently drafting a letter to local councillors as well as Boris Johnston.

understand more about this post here

[Shaolin Wolf]

I concur...t-wats damage the ozone and make the life of mobility challenged people hell from being knocked off their scooters with their overgrown feet! I feel the only way is to have more buildings to house them in...i don`t know..maybe like a zoo!

[Jah Lush]

Loving your post LuvPeckham and I also feel that T-wats are a waste of space and should be culled.

[MadWorld74]

Got any t-wats in mind Jah?

[Brendan]

I see what you guys are saying but perhaps ease off a bit. Wouldn't want it to end up all,

in here.

[giggirl]

I agree. I tried hugging a T-Wat once but it was all very one-sided. Get rid of them all.

[buggie]

Do you think by reducing numbers of T-Wat's carbon emissions could be reduced as there would be less hot air blown out?!

[jrussel]

Brendan Wrote:

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

> I see what you guys are saying but perhaps ease

> off a bit. Wouldn't want it to end up all,

>

> http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/file.php?0

> ,file=1327

>

> in here.

Do not worry, Brendan, I am quite thick skinned and perfectly accustomed to these attempts at satire perpetuated by those who would rather not take my points seriously.

This one is not too bad, and has caused me very mild amusement, although I think I could probably have done better myself. My main criticism would be the use of the term "T-wat" which feels a little contrived and clunky; I think with a little more time the author could have come up with something more imaginative.

[SeanMacGabhann]

TW@ would have been better - but potentially litigious as it's © Rockstar

[JamesG]

Precisely what points are we meant to be taking seriously?

I thought this was all for fun.

jrussel Wrote:

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

> Brendan Wrote:

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

> -----

> > I see what you guys are saying but perhaps ease

> > off a bit. Wouldn't want it to end up all,

> >

> >

> http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/file.php?0

>

> > ,file=1327

> >

> > in here.

>

> Do not worry, Brendan, I am quite thick skinned

> and perfectly accustomed to these attempts at

> satire perpetuated by those who would rather not

> take my points seriously.

>

> This one is not too bad, and has caused me very

> mild amusement, although I think I could probably

> have done better myself. My main criticism would

> be the use of the term "T-wat" which feels a

> little contrived and clunky; I think with a little

> more time the author could have come up with

> something more imaginative.

[LuvPeckham]

jrussel Wrote:

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

> Brendan Wrote:

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

> -----

> > I see what you guys are saying but perhaps ease

> > off a bit. Wouldn't want it to end up all,

> >

> >

> http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/file.php?0

>

> > ,file=1327

> >

> > in here.

>

> Do not worry, Brendan, I am quite thick skinned

> and perfectly accustomed to these attempts at

> satire perpetuated by those who would rather not

> take my points seriously.

>

> This one is not too bad, and has caused me very

> mild amusement, although I think I could probably

> have done better myself. My main criticism would

> be the use of the term "T-wat" which feels a

> little contrived and clunky; I think with a little

> more time the author could have come up with

> something more imaginative.

Jrussel

Ypu are correct in your assumption, sadly the word I really wanted to put in wouldn't be acceptable to a lot of people, even though they were thinking it.... so "T-Wat" was the most 'appropriate' in this situation....but I am sure, now that I have had beer that I could come up with a different word, however I can't be bothered (does this tree look bothered?)