Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Living off the land 100%

I've never eaten a turnip. Well neeps but they're sweeds.

Vege thought of the day.

Even more confused now i've asked wikipedia what a neep is.
It says:
"A neep or tumshie is the ruit crap brassica rapa var. rapa that's aft growen in maumie climates athort the warld for its white, bulbous tapruit. Smaw, neshy kynds is growen for human consumption, while lairger kynds is growen as feed for stock. Neeps is weel-likit in Europe, parteecular in caulder airts, sith they growe weel in cauld climates an can be keepit for mony months efter the hairst."

:hmm:
 
Even more confused now i've asked wikipedia what a neep is.
It says:
"A neep or tumshie is the ruit crap brassica rapa var. rapa that's aft growen in maumie climates athort the warld for its white, bulbous tapruit. Smaw, neshy kynds is growen for human consumption, while lairger kynds is growen as feed for stock. Neeps is weel-likit in Europe, parteecular in caulder airts, sith they growe weel in cauld climates an can be keepit for mony months efter the hairst."

:hmm:
:D
 
OK. I saw the thread titles, but it doesn't let you read the threads.

So perhaps you might explain - for those of us who don't understand the significance - why we should "understand the difference"?

Are you concerned about Stanley's confidentiality?

I don't want to derail this fantastic thread and have just asked that question in the feedback forum :)
 
Like just about everyone on the thread, I'm not a medical professional; but from my layperson's perspective, after reading Stanley posts for many years, it would appear that the man is a serious alcoholic, and has been for a long time.

Given what we know about how that particular illness ravages the life of the person afflicted with it, and the consequences it has on their behavior, amongst other things, it seems surprising to me that this aspect of his life seems to get ignored, when people are closely scrutinizing the things he says or, purportedly, does.
 
Given what we know about how that particular illness ravages the life of the person afflicted with it, and the consequences it has on their behavior, amongst other things, it seems surprising to me that this aspect of his life seems to get ignored, when people are closely scrutinizing the things he says or, purportedly, does.
In what way(s) do you think Stan's drinking should be taken into account, Johnny?
 
Like just about everyone on the thread, I'm not a medical professional; but from my layperson's perspective, after reading Stanley posts for many years, it would appear that the man is a serious alcoholic, and has been for a long time.

Given what we know about how that particular illness ravages the life of the person afflicted with it, and the consequences it has on their behavior, amongst other things, it seems surprising to me that this aspect of his life seems to get ignored, when people are closely scrutinizing the things he says or, purportedly, does.
In what way is it ignored?

Does it means those he threatens should be forgotten, or otherwise treated as mere collateral damage?

The fact that he is an alcoholic just makes his creepy, stalky, threatening tendencies even more dangerous to others because there is a greater chance of him acting in them.
 
In what way(s) do you think Stan's drinking should be taken into account, Johnny?

Arguably, a person suffering from a serious illness that affects behavior and mental health, is attempting to function in life with a degree of disability brought on by that illness.

You can answer for yourself how much you think that a disability should be taken into consideration, when judging the actions of such a person.
 
The last thing I'll say on this thread:

Something else that I've observed after reading U75 posts for many years, is that a number of us have struggled, at times, with substance abuse problems, emotional difficulties, mental health problems, etc.

Perhaps it might be worth reflecting on how those difficulties affected our own lives, our own behavior; and to think about that, when viewing from afar, the life of another person who appears to have some of the same difficulties that so many of us have had to face, ourselves.
 
The last thing I'll say on this thread:

Something else that I've observed after reading U75 posts for many years, is that a number of us have struggled, at times, with substance abuse problems, emotional difficulties, mental health problems, etc.

Perhaps it might be worth reflecting on how those difficulties affected our own lives, our own behavior; and to think about that, when viewing from afar, the life of another person who appears to have some of the same difficulties that so many of us have had to face, ourselves.
Drug and alcohol dependence can certainly disinhibit someone, but to suggest that heavy drinking is to blame for all of Stanley's problems is - IMO - pushing what alcohol can do beyond all credibility. Unless you're suggesting serious alcohol-related brain damage.

I'm posting as someone with a history of alcohol dependence and serious mental illness and a reasonably long history of working in / around drug and alcohol dependent people; and whilst I can certainly recognise some of Stanley's fragility, narcissism and 'megolomaniac with an inferiority complex' traits, I'm not convinced that drugs or alcohol can be responsible for someone sexually objectifying teenage girls, stalking, performing the 'artistic' equivalent of revenge porn, assaulting someone with Downs Syndrome, etc.

Those attitudes - and behaviours - need to be challenged. Because they're not 'caused' by being pissed, and nor should they be treated more leniently because someone is pissed. To do so trivialises them, trivialises their consequences, and trivialises their causes.
 
Erm...

I am a very confident, capable person who functions very well in life. I am no peadophile, or whatever else it was people accused me of. I drink very happily. I manage to forge a very nice life for myself as a travelling artist. I have yet to meet anyone else who manages to do that. I have not threatened anyone here - merely retorted to the abuse I have received. I have many friends who value my company, mostly because, I make them feel safe and wanted.

To go with the beets, I cooked red pepper and onions with chicken livers. The livers came my way for free from a butchers shop just as it was closing. They gave me a bag of about 3 Kilo's of chicken and pigs liver. I have gone all Hannibal Lector!

I am in Coimbra. Comfortably cleared €70 in Two hours today. It seems to be a very nice, safe city. I am really enjoying Portugal. So much so, that I am actually considering talking my friends in Spain to come live here.

Keep the patronising bullshit coming. I am still enjoying the attention.
 
The use of punctuation is becoming a lost art, now that most punctuation symbols aren't included in the first screen of a cel phone keypad; it's therefore incumbent upon those of us who were trained in an earlier time, to carry the flag, as it were, for proper usage - all the while dodging the slings and arrows of the grammatically-challenged hordes. :)
 
The use of punctuation is becoming a lost art, now that most punctuation symbols aren't included in the first screen of a cel phone keypad; it's therefore incumbent upon those of us who were trained in an earlier time, to carry the flag, as it were, for proper usage - all the while dodging the slings and arrows of the grammatically-challenged hordes. :)
Your word of the day is "superfluous".
(oh and it's cell* phone, by the way).
 
Semicolons: a brief guide.

You can use semicolons to separate items in a list, especially where one or more of the items is a phrase.

"We ate ice creams; candy floss; fish and chips; and doughnuts."

You can also use it between two clauses to create a longer sentence, rather like one might use a connective such as "however", "because" or "therefore".

"My shoes are falling apart; I've been wearing them to play rugby."

However, this is only permitted when the clause following the semicolon could stand as a full sentence on its own.
 
Semicolons: a brief guide.

You can use semicolons to separate items in a list, especially where one or more of the items is a phrase.

"We ate ice creams; candy floss; fish and chips; and doughnuts."

You can also use it between two clauses to create a longer sentence, rather like one might use a connective such as "however", "because" or "therefore".

"My shoes are falling apart; I've been wearing them to play rugby."

However, this is only permitted when the clause following the semicolon could stand as a full sentence on its own.

On review, I believe that you are right.

In any event, I'm hopeful that you were able to glean the message from the post, in spite of the inelegant punctuation.
 
Back
Top Bottom