Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 08/11/2020 in all areas

  1. Blimey... the state of this thread. Normally a good read, getting all your different opinions and viewpoints on this shit that is our lives at the moment. But like many other threads on here it’s descended into bollocks and infighting and it’s off putting to the casual reader. Exactly the reason I can’t be assed to post anymore... carry on like this and there will just be about 10 people posting to each other, especially with the lack of festival chat at the moment. Fake accounts, tactical voting... have a word with yourselves.
    8 points
  2. Wow. When historical revisionism has primarily been used to sculpt and amplify narratives and structures that further marginalisation, I have no idea how comparing respecting someone's identity could be compared to historical revisionism. If you feel so strongly that 'dead names' should be preserved as historical evidence, the only person who needs to conduct some self-reflection is you. I would hate for a trans person to be browsing the thread only to discover that the forum's admin not only supports a culture of dead-naming that inevitably devalidates trans identity, but implies that it is immoral to make any effort to change our behaviours to be as inclusive as possible.
    6 points
  3. Just had an evening walk up into the hills just as dusk was setting in. So calm and peaceful
    2 points
  4. Hi, so we had a bit of a chat about that article when it came out and really, it's looking for problems where they don't exist. Acetaminophen is just what they call paracetamol in the US and it's an American article. However, it's mentioned in a sinister way (that it wasn't included in the original trial design), but it's the run of the mill analgesic that would be used post vaccination in most cases (how many kids get a dose of calpol after theirs?)...The author also suggests that there was something sinister in the control vaccination used, but actually answers their own question a to why this was the case. To be honest, it reads a bit like an anti-vaxxer piece trying hard not to be! (I myself hadn't seen enough data about the Moderna vaccine, but I spoke to a mate in Chicago who is a virologist and works with the people making the RNA vaccines and he's pretty impressed by what he is seeing, so maybe they'll be ok too...I'd still prefer to see some longer followup on side effects for them though). I've been through the Oxford vaccine paper in detail and there isn't anything in it that you wouldn't see with an annual flu shot (and with the booster, side effects were almost non-existent). In truth, the reporting of the Oxford vaccine data was accurate and we'll just have to wait and see how the final testing phase data looks. Edit: autocorrect fix!
    2 points
  5. Howdy! Yes, an elevated temp is pretty standard with many vaccines (and 38 isn't much of a fever to be honest). Making a vaccine is the easy part, making sure it's safe and actually works is the difficult bit. Unless the laws of physics don't apply in Russia and time moves at a different pace, it's simply not possible to make a vaccine that has "passed all the safety checks" in two months. If everyone else decided to skip this part of vaccine development, we'd have hundreds available right now.
    2 points
  6. Model Village premieres on Clara Amfo’s show tonight from 7.30 👍
    2 points
  7. There we go. It's not that hard.
    2 points
  8. The pub industry has been decimated for at least the last 10 years and many independant and small pubs have disappeared and those will have lost the staff jobs ... some indirectly from the opening of Wetherspoons and the pricing policy they have because of the buying power ... And low cost supermarket alcohol ... would that ever return to how it was before ? Although I’d never want those people to be losing jobs I’ve taken the decision that I’m avoiding the place as much as I possibly can and supporting independents if I can ... that might not be all the time (hopefully it will ) but I hate that prick Tim Martin and his nasty opinions and treatment of his staff .. so what other way is there to show him that his treatment has consequences ?
    2 points
  9. Man, woman nor child should never walk into Wetherspoons again. That's coming from me, and I pretty much spent my gap year in one.
    2 points
  10. https://www.tht.org.uk/news/how-have-sex-while-managing-risk-covid-19 Face coverings during sex, dont be face to face, no cuddling, and wash your hands before and after while singing happy birthday twice. Nothings changed for me from before!
    2 points
  11. I fully understand and appreciate your sentiments. Tim Martin is a truly odious person, on a number of levels.
    1 point
  12. I would. Partly for the novelty factor but mainly because it’s six months since my last gig. Right now I’d settle for watching the Kaiser Chiefs through a powerful telescope.
    1 point
  13. My brother in law works on the customs boats in the channel and the shit he gets from people for rescuing the migrants is horrific ..... at the moment though hes just completed his leg ( without a leg ) in a channel swim and the team have made the crossing ... so thats the sort of news these tv companies should be all over
    1 point
  14. its ok we have the bbc and sky news following just to keep them safe ....or maybe to get the exclusive when the wave from their boat capsizes them
    1 point
  15. Today I learnt it’s spelt dinghy
    1 point
  16. I really hope it works and all, but is is it just me seeing this?
    1 point
  17. Australians like ballet? They never struck me as being that cultured.
    1 point
  18. Normally they do... and the war on drugs headlines another day at DTRH i guess.
    1 point
  19. I think this partly comes from it not being that widely used, and those who do use it often being somewhat negative about cis people, if most of the places you see the term being used are in a negative context then a certain amount of baggage attaches itself to the word.
    1 point
  20. Didn't know you were there! We used the toilet at the Trout Inn and had a coffee in the Temple Street Canteen.
    1 point
  21. Short version. Kate is now Kae. No argument over nomenclature in future. Disagreement / discussion over whether they should still be referred to as Kate/she when discussing output prior to the change to Kae. Ultimately we're all guessing based on what we think, as no-one really knows what Kae's thoughts are on that specific question. And Australia has black swans. This is my most surprising takeaway from the whole thing.
    1 point
  22. I get it, as the debate has gone on over time its been used as an insult to hit back, I just haven't heard another term being used for it and don't find it particularly offensive myself. I've seen some people get annoyed by it because they don't think 'normal' should have its own term though and thats a bit off. I was really trying to diffuse with that post not start another argument ahah. I don't really care what you call me personally, but if someone gets upset by being referred to as a certain way I try to accommodate.
    1 point
  23. OK this one's probably going to get me pilloried.... Is it just me that has some undefinable objection to being categorised as "cis"?
    1 point
  24. Ultimately the only person who can tell us whether the past view of Kate/Kae and associated references should be left as Kate/her/she or amended to Kae/them/they is Kae. Everything else is speculation based on what we do or don't know about it based on examples we've come across (either personally or from public figures). Until or unless Kae comes out and says one or the other (or is asked and responds) there's no real telling who's got the correct position on this. There's no clear hard & fast rules on this; everyone who goes through this process will have their own perspective and position on it.
    1 point
  25. Small guide on mask wearing for @Wellyboot
    1 point
  26. If it caught on, yeah. But if someone said they had seen Kae Tempest at Glastonbury and hit were great, you would wonder what the fuck they were talking about. Edit: autocorrect didn't even know what the fuck I was talking about and changed "hir" to "hit". Error left in for posterity.
    1 point
  27. I understand people struggling with some of these concepts but its been really well explained elsewhere in the thread. Kae hasn't changed their identity, they've realised they always had a different one. Its one thing not changing a thread name that was created years ago, and I kind of get it as I doubt the album names and that will be changed as in this instance its somewhat a brand, but continuing to use the wrong pronouns out of stubbornness is a bit off. They didn't used to be she/her, they've realised they were always they/their therefore its appropriate to refer to their past self accordingly. I'm guessing someone else has already pointed that out in the time it took me to write that post, I must admit I had to reread and correct a few of the pronouns I'd got wrong out of habit.
    1 point
  28. When that riff kicks in is what I want to witness at Glastonbury the most I think.
    1 point
  29. It's a little disrespectful to get their pronouns wrong in a post after doing a cute strike through thing on the previous post.
    1 point
  30. So I tied an onion to my belt, which was the style at the time.
    1 point
  31. The Rolling Stones ft. Jimmy Page and The War on Drugs is Dua Lipa ft. Madonna and Missy Elliott for people who chew tobacco.
    1 point
  32. I like a different insight to the festival!! Going to ensure I take random pictures of numbers from now!! wish I cud remember what number my high viz was last year!!! Will remember to take a picture for next year!! This really has brightened up my day Thank you 😀
    1 point
  33. Someone call Colleen Rooney!
    1 point
  34. would it not be an idea to change the thread name @eFestivals ?
    1 point
  35. I would love to see Parquet Courts & Gang of Youths on the poster next year where do we think they would be on the bill?
    1 point
  36. Bit of a dick move to enter the draw without paying considering the point of these gigs.
    1 point
  37. Neil Young subbed by The War on Drugs BOOK IT
    1 point
  38. Let’s jump off that bridge when we come to it eh?
    1 point
  39. It sounded incredible on their last tour, the clear highlight both times. I’m sure it’ll sound just as good on the Pyramid at 8:30 on Saturday night.
    1 point
  40. Ooh War on Drugs would be a fantastic replacement for one of our missing acts. One of the few “new” names that are actually exciting for me.
    1 point
  41. 1 point
  42. Statler: Same as it ever was? Waldorf: Yeah! Terrible!
    1 point
  43. Still an invasion! Shouldn’t be here should go through the proper channels not the English Channel simples
    -2 points
  44. Any reason why you voted me down @FestivalJamie ??
    -2 points
This leaderboard is set to London/GMT+01:00
×
×
  • Create New...