Jump to content

ED Picturehouse. Elitist*. (Louisa's lounged response)


Recommended Posts

miga Wrote:

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

yet still plenty of buttons are

> pushed as witnessed by the popularity of threads

> such as this.


It's a different sort of button in here though, is it not? More of a pantomime bunfight by a load of people who know each other too well.


For Lou - an altogether less satisfying experience - and all those rich pickings over in the general issues section going begging at the same time.. must be infuriating (ho ho ho)

*Bob* Wrote:

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


> The interesting thing (to me, anyway) is that

> Lou's restriction to the lounge has really exposed

> the one-dimensionality of the contributions...


1-D is key when setting-up a character, the less you have to remember, the less likely you are to forget what that character would say/has said.


Lousia, how old is your character supposed to be?...

The irony of all of this, is that good old thick skinned *Bob* still cannot (Or knowingly refuses), to acknowledge that by definition, many (most) of his contributions to this forum are along the same tired old lines, time and time again. A made up character yourself *Bob*? Once again shifting the goal posts and not responding to my questions, so that YOU aren't accused of the very same things you accuse me of doing. Great stuff, no, it really is a good move. It's clearly working too, because no-one else has pulled you up on it either.


Louisa.

*Bob* Wrote:

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

> miga Wrote:

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

> -----

> yet still plenty of buttons are

> > pushed as witnessed by the popularity of

> threads

> > such as this.

>

> It's a different sort of button in here though, is

> it not? More of a pantomime bunfight by a load of

> people who know each other too well.


Maybe so...but some posters still engage with the content of what Louisa is saying. It's a reaction. Perhaps not so much on this thread.

Jeremy of course he is. Thank you for at least being the only ONE to admit that! No one else has the guts to.


And *Bob* that is therefore different to me in what sense? None!


.... Yet I get all the blame. Takes two to tango my lovely.


Louisa.

Don't justify it red devil. *Bob* as much a made up character with his constant sarcasm and put down schtick. Let's face it, that is what *Bob* does, he has done it well over the years, despite becoming largely predictable. But you can't claim he is other than that. What other contributions has he made to the forum other than that?


Btw thanks for comparing me to the krankies, always been a fan.


Louisa.

This is seriously funny.


Lou and Fox have been exposed as one trick ponies.


I used the term "troll lite" for a reason. It's not a classic or malicious trolling act - just a one dimensional and stale one.


If only the forum could self regulate by voting people off....I suspect two would have gone by now.

Anyway I can't believe anyone would seriously give enough of a monkeys about being 'banned from General issues section' (like, whoop, big deal) to feel the need to issue 'stop press - my official response to' threads over here.


I mean, really - think about it. its just not dignified.

MrBen Wrote:

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

> Lou and Fox have been exposed as one trick ponies.


I'm going to stand up for fox here.. certainly don't agree with everything he says, but his posts have never seemed unpleasant or confrontational in any way. Just a guy who doesn't buy into the "zeitgeist" of newly affluent East Dulwich.

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

    • I agree, the people in the park office seem to be invisible. Quite why we need a park office I am not sure. Perhaps it is to do with all the maintenance and upkeep for which there will be organisation and admin. It may be expensive but I do think funding some sort of regular park safety oversight should be a priority. Southwark to want young people to use the park, as do we all, but there probably does need to be some sort of supervision for everyone's sake.  
    • The big difference, other than increasingly flaking paint, seems to be graffiti. The question is, will that/ can it be controlled?
    • I took back my 🤣 because I think the idea is unworkable expensive and would produce little result.  There seems to be people in the office next to the toilet but I don’t think they leave the office. I’m not sure what they do there.  The toilets have been in a disgusting state for months and months with many promises to repair they are not functional and they invite vandalism. I shall  try to add a couple of photos. The council doesn’t care why should we?
    • There will always be kids pushing the envelope as the saying goes, but having some boundaries should help most understand what they can and cannot do. I think dedicated, daily park wardens is exactly what is required...with a hotline to SNT teams on the beat. Is there no way money made from Gala or from Park parking fees can be diverted to provide that funding? I feel it would be a really good use of money. The principle aim being to maintain the park as a safe and relaxing environment for all. If funding really cannot be found I wonder if there might be funding to at least train volunteer park wardens?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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