Jump to content

Thread Locked

aquarius moon

By aquarius moon
in The Lounge

 Share

Recommended Posts

red devil

red devil

Posted
Posted

DulwichFox Wrote:

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

> *Bob* Wrote:

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

> -----

> > AQ Foxy specifically said he didn't want any

> > debate on the thread, only supporting views. I

> > quote "this is not a thread to discuss fox

> > hunting".

> >

> > The Fox's wish has been granted.

>

> Again *Bob* you are wrong . WRONG.

>

> I did not say I only wanted supporting views.. I

> wasn't looking for ANY views. I said no debate.

>

> Again.. It was just a link to a petition for

> people who wanted to sign it.

>

> I could not of made it easier to understand.

>

> The thread was in the LOUNGE. Where all the 'Bad'

> guys are sent. It should not of been closed.

>

> It was closed because of some ones personal

> political view.

>

> Like anyone who respects and supports Animal

> Liberty /rights has to be some kind of Radical

> 'Lefty' Anarchist.

>

> DulwichFox



Here you go Lou...

keekybreeks

keekybreeks

Posted
Posted

*Bob* Wrote:

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

> It's a wonderful irony.. Two people bemoaning the

> strangulation of debate and free speech - stemming

> from a thread where the OP dictated the terms of

> what was and wasn't allowed.


Im bemoaning nothing, I take my gitmo lounge jumpsuit deportation on the chin and handle it like a man*



* i.e. reregistering under another name

maxxi

maxxi

Posted
Posted

I understand the reason but think the locking action was wrong.


Nobody who starts a thread has the right to dictate the terms of others posting on it so I had assumed anyone who had an opinion would ignore DF's bleating about "no debate" and go ahead and debate it anyway. Isn't that what usually happens?


In any case problem is easily solved by DF, or anyone else who wants it, starting a thread debating the whole tedious business (I say tedious because much as I suspect I should care I really don't).


Or we could start an EDF martyrs thread as there seems to be a growing band...

*Bob*

*Bob*

Posted
Posted

Anyway, let's see if it's possible to discuss the potential lifting of the foxhunting ban 'without discussing foxhunting', just for the hell of it.


I was always under the impression that there was a sort of unwritten parliamentary rule that successive opposing governments wouldn't act regressively (with regards to legislation introduced by the previous government) - on the grounds that if they did, it would start to resemble a feuding couple the morning after a flaming row - with one wanting the radio on in the morning and the other not. More so than usual, I mean.


The fact that this is even being considered only underlines what it's all really about: one in the eye for the townies to avenge one in the eye for the toffs, like a victorious football team waving their silly oversized cup around to moos of delight from crowds of cock-a-hoop morons.

DulwichFox

DulwichFox

Posted
Posted

What I actually said in the original post...


This is not a thread to discuss Fox Hunting but a chance to express any apposing views and sign the petition.



That is very different from what some people are saying.


The subject has been discussed at length before (like Pizza) and we do not NEED another debate.


It was a Public Information thread pointing to a petition in view of the new government's intention

to repeal the Fox Hunting Ban.


DulwichFox

DulwichFox

DulwichFox

Posted
Posted

Otta Wrote:

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

> I have heard it suggested that the whole fox

> hunting thing is a bit of a ruse to distract

> people from all the other stuff the government are

> up to.

>

> And judging by social media it's working today

> extent.


We have just suffered 5 years of Cameron and know where his priorities lay.

The Fox Hunting thing is a little bonus for his mates in the House of Lords..


.. and the Country Alliance..


Whoops.. You tricked me there.. almost got me debating the issue..


Foxy

*Bob*

*Bob*

Posted
Posted

DulwichFox Wrote:

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

> *Pedant*



Well you did say "I could not of made it easier to understand".


Whereas in fact - by simultaneously declaring it "not a thread to discuss fox hunting" but also with "a chance to express apposing views" - you actually made it completely impossible to understand.


On the pedant front, you'll note I haven't picked up on spelling and grammar - but when the overall meaning lost through poor wording, I think it's a fair cop. Even your clique were confused.

Loz

Loz

Posted
Posted

david_carnell Wrote:

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

> *Bob* Wrote:

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

> -----

> > AQ Foxy specifically said he didn't want any debate on the thread, only supporting views. I

> > quote "this is not a thread to discuss fox hunting".

> >

> > The Fox's wish has been granted.

>

> This


In that case, I take it back then Foxy. It seems you *do* make the rules around here.


Poor judgement, DC. Really poor.

DulwichFox

DulwichFox

Posted
Posted

Goodness sake..


R.D. Lush. Loz.


How dull your lives must be if all you have to talk about is Foxy's spelling grammar thread wording.


I will be going on holiday soon and I won't be coming on here.

Will you all still be talking about it when I get back in 8 weeks time.?


It's laughable.


Get out and about. Go for a beer. Chill. Go on holiday.


I my self spend far to much time here. but I do get out walking most days and I'm out and about every night.


Foxy.

DulwichFox

DulwichFox

Posted
Posted

Louisa Wrote:

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

> I got the impression the thread was for anyone who

> agreed that fox hunting was bad and could talk

> about it being bad and sign the petition if you

> wanted.

>

> Louisa.


Yes Lou. That's about it. I just did not want to discuss it again.


Was expecting people so say 'Thanks for the link - Signed :) '


Strange thing was that no one came back in support of hunting.


Their concern was more of a technical error in the wording, grammar and spelling of my thread.


Quite often people go on about negativity without making any positive comments of there own.


Just lose the will to live sometimes :)


Foxy

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
 Share
Go to topic listing
  • Advertise Here

  • Latest Discussions

    • Sue
      Advice on dealing with a solicitor who will not use modern means of communication

      By Sue · Posted

      How on earth can someone like this be allowed to continue as a solicitor? Can't he just be struck off, or the equivalent?
    • richard tudor
      Is the Choumert Road bus stop open yet following the ending of pavement works. Thanks

      By richard tudor · Posted

      There are no road works in front of Cod fellas and yesterday when I requested a stop there the driver went straight past and never stopped untill Avondale Riss. As cars have to stop because of the lights why can busses not do this? 1 minute Bloodly mindedness.
    • CPR Dave
      Where can you smell Wood Burning stoves in East Dulwich

      By CPR Dave · Posted

      These are the smokeless fuels you can burn on a open fireplace in Southwark: https://smokecontrol.defra.gov.uk/fuels-php/england/ https://www.southwark.gov.uk/planning-environment-and-building-control/environment/air-quality/reduce-air-pollution/reduce-smoke
    • malumbu
      Advice on dealing with a solicitor who will not use modern means of communication

      By malumbu · Posted

      Thanks all, our hope was (despite the diminishing estate) he would get on with it.  Progress is glacial, it's been two years since probate was granted, that's two cold and damp winters with no heating, and not surprisingly a pipe burst. He's blames the issues on the estate agent, who separately had a dispute with him, he had a wobbly when one of the beneficiaries spoke to the estate agent.  Separately he said it was the family's fault for letting the property get into a poor condition.  It was dated, but certainly not in poor condition. There are two five star reviews on Google, and five one star: ** WARNING** This solicitor firm has to be one of the worst I have encountered. The solicitor is prehistoric in his practices and will carry out work at his own snails pace, the fax machine he uses gets turned off at 2 pm and its near impossible to get him on the phone. STAY AWAY, YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED, check the solicitors ombudsman, this firm has previous bad practice recorded.   Disgusting under no circumstances use this solicitor.For over 10 years he has not carried out the terms of a Will he has not re-invested money but has retained it.  He writes letters which are pure "Flannel" excuses for doing nothing.  You have been warned   shocking experience, delayed the whole process, told other side solicitors to not contact him as he feels pressured etc. never use.   Not fit for 21st century. No website, no email address, no electronic transfer. Very slow, very little communication.   Was not a pleasant experience dealing with this firm    

East Dulwich Forum

Established in 2006, we are an online community discussion forum for people who live, work in and visit SE22.

Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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