Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Personally, when in the middle of a tense-ish debate/barney, sometimes it feels important to be clear that it's typos etc, not a sudden change of heart or loss of bottle. maybe that's just me. sorry for the offensive unnecessary explanations of the past.



(not edited, looks about right. it is late, though)

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/7063-edited-for/#findComment-225683
Share on other sites

matthew123 Wrote:

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

> Once something has been posted it should be locked

> - if you need to correct an opinion do it in the

> next post... if people are worried about spelling

> and grammer mistakes then they shouldn't be so

> trigger happy hitting 'Post message'

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


Yeah................... so there.......


Think about it kidsz.............."Take resposibility"..


trigger happy knob jockeys



Now your scared "made you look , made you stare "

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/7063-edited-for/#findComment-225730
Share on other sites

Here here Mic Mack. It's pathetic isn't it. What I can't stand apart from emocions or whatever they're called is when people do this:


*something descriptive of a physical action that relates to the post*


Far too easy if you ask me.



Edited 101 time(s). Last edit was today, 10.37am by Louisiana.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/7063-edited-for/#findComment-225795
Share on other sites

Depends entirely on the context. In the forthcoming serious discussion room then quite right that emoticons and actions are contemptuous or at the very least annoying, but much on here is essentially conversational which is a physical activity with gestures, expressions and eye contact (or not). None of which exists here, making nuances, irony and physical embellishment nigh on impossible and suddenly posts become very very easy to misinterpret.


Until somebody comes up with a decent mechanism to emulate this we're left with exclamations, emoticons and *shrugs* stage directions.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/7063-edited-for/#findComment-225802
Share on other sites

It's quite simple really... there are a fair few on here prepared to jump on others for "backtracking" what they originally put just for simply realising they may have either been a little rash or found there's no point to one comment or other as it has been taken completely out of context.


Please feel free to disagree. B)

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/7063-edited-for/#findComment-225826
Share on other sites

I don't mind emoticons at all, especially in light hearted threads. I don't use them all the time, but I do like the :-S one, as it seems to sum up my general confusion sometimes.


People that get wound up about this sort of thing really need to take a look at the world. There are more important things to worry about.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/7063-edited-for/#findComment-225861
Share on other sites

This is just bloody outragous!


I pop out to the pub and when I get back I'm being attacked on all fronts. Kel has mercilessly rejected my honourable advances, Mick Mac and Quids are ganging up on me, Legal has got everyone making fun of me (insinuating that I'm a shandy drinker of all things) and now Moos is swearing at me along with Brendan.


Is an Englishman not safe in his glass house any more?

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/7063-edited-for/#findComment-226060
Share on other sites

Moos Wrote:

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


> *thinks - if that wasn't a special clique

> handshake, what was it?!*



Well it depends entirely on what part of Quids you shook. If it was his hand that's fine but if it was his..well..you know, then you two may well be in a clique of you very own.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/7063-edited-for/#findComment-226083
Share on other sites

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'm a bit worried by your sudden involvement on this Forum.  The former Prince Andrew is now Andrew Mountbatten Windsor Mountbatten in an anglicisation of Von Battenburg adopted by that branch of our Royal Family in 1917 due to anti-German sentiment. Another anglicisation could be simply Battenburg as in the checker board cake.  So I surmise that your are Andrew Battenburg, aka Andrew Mountbatten Windsor and that you have infiltrated social media so that the country can put the emphasis on Mandelson ather than yourself.  Bit of a failure. I don't expect an answer from police custody.  
    • We had John fit our PLYKEA kitchen (IKEA cabinets with custom doors) and would happily recommend him and Gabi to anyone. Gabi handled all communication and was brilliant throughout — responsive and happy to answer questions however detailed. John is meticulous, cares about the small details, and was a pleasure to have in the house. The carpentry required for the custom doors was done to a high standard, and he even refinished the plumbing under the sink to sit better with the new cabinets — a small touch that made a real difference. They were happy to return and tie up a few things that couldn't be finished in the time, which we appreciated. No hesitations recommending them.
    • Not sure about that. Rockets seems to have (rightly in my view) identified two key motivating elements in Mcash's defection: anger at his previous (arguably shabby) treatment and a (linked) desire to trash the Labour party, nationally and locally. The defection, timed for maximum damage, combined with the invective and moral exhibitionism of his statement counts as rather more than a "hissy fit".  I would add a third motivation of political ambition: it's not inconceivable that he has his eye on the Dulwich & West Norwood seat which is predicted to go Green.  James Barber was indulging in typical LibDem sleight of hand, claiming that Blair introduced austerity to *councils* before the coalition. This is a kind of sixth form debating point. From 1997-1999 Labour broadly stuck to Tory spending totals, meaning there was limited growth in departmental spending, including local govt grants. However local government funding rose substantially in the Noughties, especially in education and social care. It is a matter of record that real-terms local authority spending increased in the Blair / Brown years overall. So he's manifestly wrong (or only right if the focus is on 1997-1999, which would be a bizarre focus and one he didn't include in his claim) but he wasn't claiming Blair introduced austerity more widely. 
    • My view is that any party that welcomes a self-declared Marxist would merit a negative point. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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