The motorists who dominate and infest this newsgroup always gloat
about how their car-dependent suburban lifestyle is superior to urban
living. But if you scratch underneath the glossy veneer, it soon
becomes clear that suburbs are a bleak, miserable place plagued by
crime, isolation, obesity, and social deprivation. The failure of this
unsustainable way of life has once again come to the surface:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jun/26/ukcrime.drugsandalcohol

"What was a cottage industry is now a slick and secret network of
factories and farms, many based in respectable suburbs."

While suburbs are slowly rotting away, vibrant communities in urban
cores are going from strength to strength. I wonder how long it will
take for the blinkered motorists to notice? Given their anti-social
attitude and tendency to isolate themselves from the rest of the world
in steel cocoons, probably not until they live in a outright slum.

Doug


Reclaim the streets
http://rts.gn.apc.org/

On Jun 30, 3:18 pm, Doug  wrote:
> The motorists who dominate and infest this newsgroup always gloat
> about how their car-dependent suburban lifestyle is superior to urban
> living. But if you scratch underneath the glossy veneer, it soon
> becomes clear that suburbs are a bleak, miserable place plagued by
> crime, isolation, obesity, and social deprivation. The failure of this
> unsustainable way of life has once again come to the surface:
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jun/26/ukcrime.drugsandalcohol
>
> "What was a cottage industry is now a slick and secret network of
> factories and farms, many based in respectable suburbs."
>
> While suburbs are slowly rotting away, vibrant communities in urban
> cores are going from strength to strength. I wonder how long it will
> take for the blinkered motorists to notice? Given their anti-social
> attitude and tendency to isolate themselves from the rest of the world
> in steel cocoons, probably not until they live in a outright slum.
>

I live in a suburb.  We've got kids playing, parks and local shops.
The countryside is literally a stones throw away.  I can see mountains
and hills in the distance from my garden and I'm a 20 minute bus/train/
car journey from the center of the city.

The previous burb I stayed in was almost the exact same though it was
in a town not a city.

When I stayed in the city center I had neighbours from hell and
someone through up in the doorway to my flat twice.  Alarms were
constantly going off and it was noisey 24/7, especially at pub closing
time.  You'd see drunks at all time of the day and the local drug
dealer was a personal friend of my flatmate so he hung about quite a
bit...

I guess your millage may vary.

Fod

"Doug"  wrote in message 
news:1dd50089-88bb-4c0a-8c62-bcc9d7fbdad4@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> The motorists who dominate and infest this newsgroup always gloat
> about how their car-dependent suburban lifestyle is superior to urban
> living. But if you scratch underneath the glossy veneer, it soon
> becomes clear that suburbs are a bleak, miserable place plagued by
> crime, isolation, obesity, and social deprivation. The failure of this
> unsustainable way of life has once again come to the surface:
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jun/26/ukcrime.drugsandalcohol
>
> "What was a cottage industry is now a slick and secret network of
> factories and farms, many based in respectable suburbs."
>
> While suburbs are slowly rotting away, vibrant communities in urban
> cores are going from strength to strength. I wonder how long it will
> take for the blinkered motorists to notice? Given their anti-social
> attitude and tendency to isolate themselves from the rest of the world
> in steel cocoons, probably not until they live in a outright slum.
>

I'm really struggling to work out what the hell some gangs growing weed in 
suburban houses has to do with motoring.

I live in a lovely place. There's very little traffic, I can walk for hours 
on the green, clean common land surrounding our little development and the 
air smells fresh or of cowshit. I can also be in London in less than an 
hour.

I went to London at the weekend, it's a dirty, stinking, unfriendly 
shithole.

Mike P

On Jun 30, 3:18 pm, Doug  wrote:
> The motorists who dominate and infest this newsgroup always gloat
> about how their car-dependent suburban lifestyle is superior to urban
> living. But if you scratch underneath the glossy veneer, it soon
> becomes clear that suburbs are a bleak, miserable place plagued by
> crime, isolation, obesity, and social deprivation. The failure of this
> unsustainable way of life has once again come to the surface:
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jun/26/ukcrime.drugsandalcohol
>
> "What was a cottage industry is now a slick and secret network of
> factories and farms, many based in respectable suburbs."
>
> While suburbs are slowly rotting away, vibrant communities in urban
> cores are going from strength to strength.

care to give some examples of cities being such nice places to live?

Whats the betting that for every such story i could find a negative
story about living in a city?

Fod

"Fod"  wrote in message 
news:e203270d-2b38-4952-aa86-0178af84ed1b@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 30, 3:18 pm, Doug  wrote:
> The motorists who dominate and infest this newsgroup always gloat
> about how their car-dependent suburban lifestyle is superior to urban
> living. But if you scratch underneath the glossy veneer, it soon
> becomes clear that suburbs are a bleak, miserable place plagued by
> crime, isolation, obesity, and social deprivation. The failure of this
> unsustainable way of life has once again come to the surface:
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jun/26/ukcrime.drugsandalcohol
>
> "What was a cottage industry is now a slick and secret network of
> factories and farms, many based in respectable suburbs."
>
> While suburbs are slowly rotting away, vibrant communities in urban
> cores are going from strength to strength.

>care to give some examples of cities being such nice places to live?

Is that possible? Maybe it is to some, but I've lived in a few cities in 
Europe, a couple of places in South America, and Hong Kong years ago. 
They're all dirty, crowded places that are seemingly noisy all the time.

>Whats the betting that for every such story i could find a negative
>story about living in a city?

Bookies would stop taking bets on that one..

Mike P

On 30 Jun, 15:18, Doug  wrote:

> "What was a cottage industry is now a slick and secret network of
> factories and farms, many based in respectable suburbs."

Take for example this well known pedaller:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/gollumofcatford/2620828418/

That looks like suburbier to me, and the bloke pictured could have
been in one of the pictures of heroin addict that had plastered around
my school. He also looks old enough to be from the flower power
generation, and does not like using drugs tested on animals. Makes you
wonder who would want to live in a drug ridden place like Catford.

Doug  wrote:

> While suburbs are slowly rotting away, vibrant communities in urban
> cores are going from strength to strength.

Errrm, Catford is a suburb. And I agree with you about what a shithole
it is.

Doug wrote:
> The motorists who dominate and infest this newsgroup always gloat
> about how their car-dependent suburban lifestyle is superior to urban
> living. But if you scratch underneath the glossy veneer, it soon
> becomes clear that suburbs are a bleak, miserable place plagued by
> crime, isolation, obesity, and social deprivation. The failure of this
> unsustainable way of life has once again come to the surface:
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jun/26/ukcrime.drugsandalcohol
> 
> "What was a cottage industry is now a slick and secret network of
> factories and farms, many based in respectable suburbs."
> 
> While suburbs are slowly rotting away, vibrant communities in urban
> cores are going from strength to strength. I wonder how long it will
> take for the blinkered motorists to notice? Given their anti-social
> attitude and tendency to isolate themselves from the rest of the world
> in steel cocoons, probably not until they live in a outright slum.
> 
> Doug

So the Guardian has no respect for the lives of suburb-dewllers.

Dog bites man - no news here, no news at all.

Move along - there's nothing to see.

> Errrm, Catford is a suburb. And I agree with you about what a shithole
> it is.

Wrong again. Catford has a proper town centre, a village green, mixed
use zoning, grid topology, and good public transport. So not a suburb
in the modern sense of the word. Not like those ghastly places outside
the M25 consisting of homogeneous detached housing subdivisions/ cul
de sacs / megamalls / business parks. Besides, Catford has been a part
of London proper for ages. It's no more a suburb than Kensington.

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 21:19:18 +0100, Doug wrote
(in article 
):

>> Errrm, Catford is a suburb. And I agree with you about what a shithole
>> it is.
> 
> Wrong again. Catford has a proper town centre, a village green, mixed
> use zoning, grid topology, and good public transport. So not a suburb
> in the modern sense of the word. Not like those ghastly places outside
> the M25 consisting of homogeneous detached housing subdivisions/ cul
> de sacs / megamalls / business parks. Besides, Catford has been a part
> of London proper for ages. It's no more a suburb than Kensington.

How do you know, you don't live there.

NM

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

On 30 Jun, 15:18, Doug  wrote:
> The motorists who dominate and infest this newsgroup always gloat
> about how their car-dependent suburban lifestyle is superior to urban
> living. But if you scratch underneath the glossy veneer, it soon
> becomes clear that suburbs are a bleak, miserable place plagued by
> crime, isolation, obesity, and social deprivation. The failure of this
> unsustainable way of life has once again come to the surface:
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jun/26/ukcrime.drugsandalcohol
>
> "What was a cottage industry is now a slick and secret network of
> factories and farms, many based in respectable suburbs."
>
> While suburbs are slowly rotting away, vibrant communities in urban
> cores are going from strength to strength. I wonder how long it will
> take for the blinkered motorists to notice? Given their anti-social
> attitude and tendency to isolate themselves from the rest of the world
> in steel cocoons, probably not until they live in a outright slum.

An absolute DougClassic.  Start with a single story, about a single
issue which is not car-related.  Add in a bit of GollumMagic, twist it
round to cars, extrapolate a bit and, hey presto, you can use it to
generalise about all motorists.

You *really* are a decrepit old turd, aren't you Gollum?

Doug  wrote:

> > Errrm, Catford is a suburb. And I agree with you about what a shithole
> > it is.
> 
> Wrong again. Catford has a proper town centre, a village green, mixed
> use zoning, grid topology, and good public transport. So not a suburb
> in the modern sense of the word. Not like those ghastly places outside
> the M25 consisting of homogeneous detached housing subdivisions/ cul
> de sacs / megamalls / business parks. Besides, Catford has been a part
> of London proper for ages. It's no more a suburb than Kensington.

It's a suburb. It was built as a suburb and lies outside the cities of
London and Westminster.

The fact that creeping urbanisation has completely engulfed Catford into
the sprawling, festering cloaca of Greater London does not change its
status, nor does it change your hypocrisy and blindness.

On 30 Jun, 22:24, BrianW  wrote:
> On 30 Jun, 15:18, Doug  wrote:
>
>
>
> > The motorists who dominate and infest this newsgroup always gloat
> > about how their car-dependent suburban lifestyle is superior to urban
> > living. But if you scratch underneath the glossy veneer, it soon
> > becomes clear that suburbs are a bleak, miserable place plagued by
> > crime, isolation, obesity, and social deprivation. The failure of this
> > unsustainable way of life has once again come to the surface:
>
> >http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jun/26/ukcrime.drugsandalcohol
>
> > "What was a cottage industry is now a slick and secret network of
> > factories and farms, many based in respectable suburbs."
>
> > While suburbs are slowly rotting away, vibrant communities in urban
> > cores are going from strength to strength. I wonder how long it will
> > take for the blinkered motorists to notice? Given their anti-social
> > attitude and tendency to isolate themselves from the rest of the world
> > in steel cocoons, probably not until they live in a outright slum.
>
> An absolute DougClassic.  Start with a single story, about a single
> issue which is not car-related.  Add in a bit of GollumMagic, twist it
> round to cars, extrapolate a bit and, hey presto, you can use it to
> generalise about all motorists.
>
> You *really* are a decrepit old turd, aren't you Gollum?

Glad you have finally responded to the real Doug Bollen who lives in
Catford, instead of to me by mistake with your endless abuse.

You are learning at last but it has taken you a very long time.

--
World Carfree Network
http://www.worldcarfree.net/
Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.

Fod wrote:

> I live in a suburb.  We've got kids playing, parks and local shops.
> The countryside is literally a stones throw away.  I can see mountains
> and hills in the distance from my garden and I'm a 20 minute bus/train/
> car journey from the center of the city.

So do I. But the countryside is just out from my back garden. Farmland 
stretches to the horizon. Out of the front window I can see the hills, 
albeit over the roofs of the suburb, but they are there and look great 
on a clear day. Yet the town centre is 10 mins away by car (20 by 
bus...) and my local shops are 5 mins walk.

-- 
Abo

On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 06:55:46 +0100, Doug wrote
(in article 
):

> On 30 Jun, 22:24, BrianW  wrote:
>> On 30 Jun, 15:18, Doug  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> The motorists who dominate and infest this newsgroup always gloat
>>> about how their car-dependent suburban lifestyle is superior to urban
>>> living. But if you scratch underneath the glossy veneer, it soon
>>> becomes clear that suburbs are a bleak, miserable place plagued by
>>> crime, isolation, obesity, and social deprivation. The failure of this
>>> unsustainable way of life has once again come to the surface:
>> 
>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jun/26/ukcrime.drugsandalcohol
>> 
>>> "What was a cottage industry is now a slick and secret network of
>>> factories and farms, many based in respectable suburbs."
>> 
>>> While suburbs are slowly rotting away, vibrant communities in urban
>>> cores are going from strength to strength. I wonder how long it will
>>> take for the blinkered motorists to notice? Given their anti-social
>>> attitude and tendency to isolate themselves from the rest of the world
>>> in steel cocoons, probably not until they live in a outright slum.
>> 
>> An absolute DougClassic.  Start with a single story, about a single
>> issue which is not car-related.  Add in a bit of GollumMagic, twist it
>> round to cars, extrapolate a bit and, hey presto, you can use it to
>> generalise about all motorists.
>> 
>> You *really* are a decrepit old turd, aren't you Gollum?
> 
> Glad you have finally responded to the real Doug Bollen who lives in
> Catford, instead of to me by mistake with your endless abuse.
> 
> You are learning at last but it has taken you a very long time.
> 



You are not fooling anyone, why don't you give it up. 








** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

Doug wrote:
> On 30 Jun, 22:24, BrianW  wrote:
>> On 30 Jun, 15:18, Doug  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> The motorists who dominate and infest this newsgroup always gloat
>>> about how their car-dependent suburban lifestyle is superior to urban
>>> living. But if you scratch underneath the glossy veneer, it soon
>>> becomes clear that suburbs are a bleak, miserable place plagued by
>>> crime, isolation, obesity, and social deprivation. The failure of this
>>> unsustainable way of life has once again come to the surface:
>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jun/26/ukcrime.drugsandalcohol
>>> "What was a cottage industry is now a slick and secret network of
>>> factories and farms, many based in respectable suburbs."
>>> While suburbs are slowly rotting away, vibrant communities in urban
>>> cores are going from strength to strength. I wonder how long it will
>>> take for the blinkered motorists to notice? Given their anti-social
>>> attitude and tendency to isolate themselves from the rest of the world
>>> in steel cocoons, probably not until they live in a outright slum.
>> An absolute DougClassic.  Start with a single story, about a single
>> issue which is not car-related.  Add in a bit of GollumMagic, twist it
>> round to cars, extrapolate a bit and, hey presto, you can use it to
>> generalise about all motorists.
>>
>> You *really* are a decrepit old turd, aren't you Gollum?
> 
> Glad you have finally responded to the real Doug Bollen who lives in
> Catford, instead of to me by mistake with your endless abuse.

You forgot to take your lithium this morning, Doug...

-- 
Abo

On 1 Jul, 06:55, Doug  wrote:
> On 30 Jun, 22:24, BrianW  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 30 Jun, 15:18, Doug  wrote:
>
> > > The motorists who dominate and infest this newsgroup always gloat
> > > about how their car-dependent suburban lifestyle is superior to urban
> > > living. But if you scratch underneath the glossy veneer, it soon
> > > becomes clear that suburbs are a bleak, miserable place plagued by
> > > crime, isolation, obesity, and social deprivation. The failure of this> > > unsustainable way of life has once again come to the surface:
>
> > >http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jun/26/ukcrime.drugsandalcohol
>
> > > "What was a cottage industry is now a slick and secret network of
> > > factories and farms, many based in respectable suburbs."
>
> > > While suburbs are slowly rotting away, vibrant communities in urban
> > > cores are going from strength to strength. I wonder how long it will
> > > take for the blinkered motorists to notice? Given their anti-social
> > > attitude and tendency to isolate themselves from the rest of the world> > > in steel cocoons, probably not until they live in a outright slum.
>
> > An absolute DougClassic.  Start with a single story, about a single
> > issue which is not car-related.  Add in a bit of GollumMagic, twist it> > round to cars, extrapolate a bit and, hey presto, you can use it to
> > generalise about all motorists.
>
> > You *really* are a decrepit old turd, aren't you Gollum?
>
> Glad you have finally responded to the real Doug Bollen who lives in
> Catford,

Oh, but I am Doug, I am.

"Abo" <no@spam.thanks> wrote in message 
news:g4cj2u$2ar$2@news.albasani.net...
> Doug wrote:
>> On 30 Jun, 22:24, BrianW  wrote:
>>> On 30 Jun, 15:18, Doug  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> The motorists who dominate and infest this newsgroup always gloat
>>>> about how their car-dependent suburban lifestyle is superior to urban
>>>> living. But if you scratch underneath the glossy veneer, it soon
>>>> becomes clear that suburbs are a bleak, miserable place plagued by
>>>> crime, isolation, obesity, and social deprivation. The failure of this
>>>> unsustainable way of life has once again come to the surface:
>>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jun/26/ukcrime.drugsandalcohol
>>>> "What was a cottage industry is now a slick and secret network of
>>>> factories and farms, many based in respectable suburbs."
>>>> While suburbs are slowly rotting away, vibrant communities in urban
>>>> cores are going from strength to strength. I wonder how long it will
>>>> take for the blinkered motorists to notice? Given their anti-social
>>>> attitude and tendency to isolate themselves from the rest of the world
>>>> in steel cocoons, probably not until they live in a outright slum.
>>> An absolute DougClassic.  Start with a single story, about a single
>>> issue which is not car-related.  Add in a bit of GollumMagic, twist it
>>> round to cars, extrapolate a bit and, hey presto, you can use it to
>>> generalise about all motorists.
>>>
>>> You *really* are a decrepit old turd, aren't you Gollum?
>>
>> Glad you have finally responded to the real Doug Bollen who lives in
>> Catford, instead of to me by mistake with your endless abuse.
>
> You forgot to take your lithium this morning, Doug...
>

Risperdal would be more effective in his case..

Mike P

On Jun 30, 9:19 pm, Doug  wrote:
> > Errrm, Catford is a suburb. And I agree with you about what a shithole
> > it is.
>
> Wrong again. Catford has a proper town centre, a village green, mixed
> use zoning, grid topology, and good public transport.

Yep, Cumbernauld has all of those yet its widely accepted as being a
complete shithole.

( ok you might be able to argue about the town center being proper...)

> So not a suburb
> in the modern sense of the word.

care to define what you think the word means?

Fod

Fod wrote:

> Doug  wrote:

>>> Errrm, Catford is a suburb. And I agree with you about what a shithole
>>> it is.

>> Wrong again. Catford has a proper town centre, a village green, mixed
>> use zoning, grid topology, and good public transport.

> Yep, Cumbernauld has all of those yet its widely accepted as being a
> complete shithole.

> ( ok you might be able to argue about the town center being proper...)

>> So not a suburb
>> in the modern sense of the word.

> care to define what you think the word means?

Doug is more or less right (though I suspect that he doesn't know why).

"Suburb" originally meant a built-up area adjacent to a city and 
effectively indistinguishably a functional part of it - but outside the 
control of its authorities and therefore more "licentious". Shakespeare 
would have used the word of Southwark or Shoreditch, where "his" 
theatres were located. The City would never have allowed them inside the 
square mile. Google for "Bishop of Winchester" and "stews".

Later, the term changed its meaning so as to encompass any area of or 
adjacent to a town or conurbation which functions as part of it, whether 
under the control of the city authorities or not.

As an example, Liverpool suburbs include the Bowring Park area (part of 
the city) and the Roby area (not legally part of the city, but 
functioning as though it were and completely enmeshed with neighbouring 
Bowring Park). At the boundary, you need a keen sense of geography to 
always know which one you are in.

Roby was originally a (small) separate settlement but was engulfed 
(along with its more famous neighbour, Huyton) by Liverpool suburban 
expansion during the first half of the twentieth century. Catford is a 
better example of semi-rural settlement being engulfed by urban 
expansion at a much earlier date (C19). Many London suburbs have the 
urban formation of a small town rather than a village simply because the 
distance from Central London (in miles, minutes and/or cost) was too 
great for the centre to act as the high-order retail facility. Not so 
with the other big English cities, where the suburban facilities tend to 
be small-time affairs and where "going downtown" was always a more 
everyday matter that going "up west" was in London.

> How do you know, you don't live there.

Why do I need to live there to know?

On Jul 1, 10:18 am, JNugent  wrote:
> Doug is more or less right (though I suspect that he doesn't know why).
>

It sounds to me a lot like his 4x4 rants which, when you get to the
bottom off them, seem more a rant about class.

The burbs are the home of the middle class and are enemies of the
workers... or something like that.

Fod

On 2008-06-30, Doug  wrote:
> The motorists who dominate and infest this newsgroup always gloat
> about how their car-dependent suburban lifestyle is superior to urban
> living. But if you scratch underneath the glossy veneer, it soon
> becomes clear that suburbs are a bleak, miserable place plagued by
> crime, isolation, obesity, and social deprivation. 

Indeed. You live in one, so how could it be anything other than shit?


-- 
          "Be thankful that you have a life, and forsake your vain
                 and presumptuous desire for a second one."
               [email me at huge {at} huge (dot) org <dot> uk]

JNugent  wrote:

> Doug is more or less right (though I suspect that he doesn't know why).

No, both of you are mistaken.

" 1 a residential district that lies on the edge of a town or city. 2
(the suburbs) the outlying districts of a city thought of collectively •
lives in the suburbs. "

Catford is, I'm sure you will agree, a residential district. It lies on
the edge of a City. Therefore it is a suburb.

Even one of Duhng's reference sources considers Lewisham to be a suburb:

"A WEBSITE looking at the history of suburbia in Greenwich and Lewisham
spanning more than 400 years has been officially launched."

http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/archive/display.var.347406.0.new_webs
ite_maps_history.php

Catford also features in Hanif Kureishi's the Buddha of Suburbia, how
suburban does it have to be to qualify as a suburb?

Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:

> On 2008-06-30, Doug  wrote:
> > The motorists who dominate and infest this newsgroup always gloat
> > about how their car-dependent suburban lifestyle is superior to urban
> > living. But if you scratch underneath the glossy veneer, it soon
> > becomes clear that suburbs are a bleak, miserable place plagued by
> > crime, isolation, obesity, and social deprivation. 
> 
> Indeed. You live in one, so how could it be anything other than shit?

It seems that Duhng is convinced that he lives in a socialist people's
republic.

Steve Firth wrote:

> JNugent  wrote:

>> Doug is more or less right (though I suspect that he doesn't know why).

> No, both of you are mistaken.

> " 1 a residential district that lies on the edge of a town or city. 2
> (the suburbs) the outlying districts of a city thought of collectively •
> lives in the suburbs. "

> Catford is, I'm sure you will agree, a residential district. It lies on
> the edge of a City. Therefore it is a suburb.

> Even one of Duhng's reference sources considers Lewisham to be a suburb:

> "A WEBSITE looking at the history of suburbia in Greenwich and Lewisham
> spanning more than 400 years has been officially launched."

> http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/archive/display.var.347406.0.new_webs
> ite_maps_history.php

> Catford also features in Hanif Kureishi's the Buddha of Suburbia, how
> suburban does it have to be to qualify as a suburb?

There's something wrong here - I said that Catford *is* a suburb, and I 
explained why it qualifies as one (giving two different meanings of the 
term)!

JNugent  wrote:

> Steve Firth wrote:
> 
> > JNugent  wrote:
> 
> >> Doug is more or less right (though I suspect that he doesn't know why).
> 
> > No, both of you are mistaken.
> 
> > " 1 a residential district that lies on the edge of a town or city. 2
> > (the suburbs) the outlying districts of a city thought of collectively •
> > lives in the suburbs. "
> 
> > Catford is, I'm sure you will agree, a residential district. It lies on
> > the edge of a City. Therefore it is a suburb.
> 
> > Even one of Duhng's reference sources considers Lewisham to be a suburb:
> 
> > "A WEBSITE looking at the history of suburbia in Greenwich and Lewisham
> > spanning more than 400 years has been officially launched."
> 
> > http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/archive/display.var.347406.0.new_webs
> > ite_maps_history.php
> 
> > Catford also features in Hanif Kureishi's the Buddha of Suburbia, how
> > suburban does it have to be to qualify as a suburb?
> 
> There's something wrong here - I said that Catford *is* a suburb, and I
> explained why it qualifies as one (giving two different meanings of the
> term)!

Errm then why did you start off by sayign that Duhg was right when he
denies that Catford is a suburb?

Steve Firth wrote:
> JNugent  wrote:
> 
>> Steve Firth wrote:
>>
>>> JNugent  wrote:
>>>> Doug is more or less right (though I suspect that he doesn't know why).
>>> No, both of you are mistaken.
>>> " 1 a residential district that lies on the edge of a town or city. 2
>>> (the suburbs) the outlying districts of a city thought of collectively •
>>> lives in the suburbs. "
>>> Catford is, I'm sure you will agree, a residential district. It lies on
>>> the edge of a City. Therefore it is a suburb.
>>> Even one of Duhng's reference sources considers Lewisham to be a suburb:
>>> "A WEBSITE looking at the history of suburbia in Greenwich and Lewisham
>>> spanning more than 400 years has been officially launched."
>>> http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/archive/display.var.347406.0.new_webs
>>> ite_maps_history.php
>>> Catford also features in Hanif Kureishi's the Buddha of Suburbia, how
>>> suburban does it have to be to qualify as a suburb?
>> There's something wrong here - I said that Catford *is* a suburb, and I
>> explained why it qualifies as one (giving two different meanings of the
>> term)!
> 
> Errm then why did you start off by sayign that Duhg was right when he
> denies that Catford is a suburb?

Because he was simply using a definition which wasn't the one that 
everyone else was using.

Duh. There is more than one kind of suburb. My thread, and the linked
article, is obviously not talking about the traditional suburb you
have defined. It is talking about a modern, cynical phenomenon defined
as such. I have already described its attributes above so I won't
bother repeating them.

In any case, why are you bringing up Catford, hypocrite? How is
Catford pertinent to this thread?  Yet again you litter this newsgroup
with OT nonsense while accusing others of doing the same.

On 1 Jul, 17:55, Doug  wrote:
> Duh. There is more than one kind of suburb. My thread, and the linked
> article, is obviously not talking about the traditional suburb you
> have defined. It is talking about a modern, cynical phenomenon defined
> as such. I have already described its attributes above so I won't
> bother repeating them.
>
> In any case, why are you bringing up Catford, hypocrite? How is
> Catford pertinent to this thread?  Yet again you litter this newsgroup
> with OT nonsense while accusing others of doing the same.

This is another post by Fake Doug Bollen.  Or possibly by Real Doug
Bollen pretending to be Fake Doug Bollen in order to make us think
that Real Doug Bollen is not Doug Bollen.  Or something.

Doug  wrote:

> Duh. There is more than one kind of suburb.

Duhg "two kinds of suburb" Bollen. good to see you using your real name
at last Bollen, who instructed you in the use of an anonymous proxy?

> My thread, and the linked article, is obviously not talking about the
> traditional suburb you have defined. It is talking about a modern, cynical
> phenomenon defined as such. I have already described its attributes above
> so I won't bother repeating them.

So you admit you live in suburb, excellent. Since you did not
differentiate between this suburb and the "good" suburb, you'll simply
have to live with the description you gave of yourself.
 
> In any case, why are you bringing up Catford, hypocrite? How is
> Catford pertinent to this thread?  Yet again you litter this newsgroup
> with OT nonsense while accusing others of doing the same.

This entire thread, created by you, is off-topic bozo. Or are there two
kinds of off-topic as well?

Doug wrote:
> Duh. There is more than one kind of suburb. My thread, and the linked
> article, is obviously not talking about the traditional suburb you
> have defined. It is talking about a modern, cynical phenomenon defined
> as such. I have already described its attributes above so I won't
> bother repeating them.
>
> In any case, why are you bringing up Catford, hypocrite? How is
> Catford pertinent to this thread?  Yet again you litter this newsgroup
> with OT nonsense while accusing others of doing the same.

You started the thread.

Or was it "the other Doug Bollen"?"

Brimstone wrote:
> Doug wrote:
>> Duh. There is more than one kind of suburb. My thread, and the linked
>> article, is obviously not talking about the traditional suburb you
>> have defined. It is talking about a modern, cynical phenomenon defined
>> as such. I have already described its attributes above so I won't
>> bother repeating them.
>>
>> In any case, why are you bringing up Catford, hypocrite? How is
>> Catford pertinent to this thread?  Yet again you litter this newsgroup
>> with OT nonsense while accusing others of doing the same.
> 
> You started the thread.
> 
> Or was it "the other Doug Bollen"?" 

It has some hallmarks of the traditional Duhg infestation... It talks 
about "motorists who dominate and infest this group", which has become a 
watchword for the traditional Duhg.

-- 
John Wright

"What would happen if you eliminated the autism genes from the gene pool?

You would have a bunch of people standing around in a cave, chatting and
socialising and not getting anything done!" - Professor Temple Grandin

Doug wrote:

> Duh. There is more than one kind of suburb. My thread, and the linked
> article, is obviously not talking about the traditional suburb you
> have defined. It is talking about a modern, cynical phenomenon defined
> as such. I have already described its attributes above so I won't
> bother repeating them.

> In any case, why are you bringing up Catford, hypocrite? How is
> Catford pertinent to this thread?  Yet again you litter this newsgroup
> with OT nonsense while accusing others of doing the same.

Context?

Whom you are addressing?

John Wright wrote:
> Brimstone wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> Duh. There is more than one kind of suburb. My thread, and the
>>> linked article, is obviously not talking about the traditional
>>> suburb you have defined. It is talking about a modern, cynical
>>> phenomenon defined as such. I have already described its attributes
>>> above so I won't bother repeating them.
>>>
>>> In any case, why are you bringing up Catford, hypocrite? How is
>>> Catford pertinent to this thread?  Yet again you litter this
>>> newsgroup with OT nonsense while accusing others of doing the same.
>>
>> You started the thread.
>>
>> Or was it "the other Doug Bollen"?"
>
> It has some hallmarks of the traditional Duhg infestation... It talks
> about "motorists who dominate and infest this group", which has
> become a watchword for the traditional Duhg.

In terms of writing style and content there's nothing to distinguish between 
the two. No two different people will the same style or go on at such length 
about the same subject(s). Therefore we must be drawn to one conclusion, 
that the Doug who posts from jagmad at riseup.net and the Doug who posts 
from dougbollen at googlemail.com are one and the same person.

> So you admit you live in suburb, excellent. Since you did not
> differentiate between this suburb and the "good" suburb, you'll simply
> have to live with the description you gave of yourself.

Why do I need to spell it out for you again?

The modern definition of suburb: single use zoning, homogeneous
detached homes, cul de sac topology, business parks, megamalls, wide
roads, lack of public transport.

> This entire thread, created by you, is off-topic bozo. Or are there two
> kinds of off-topic as well?

No it's not. To quote Andre Gorz:

"Above all, never make transportation an issue by itself. Always
connect it to the problem of the city, of the social division of
labour, and to the way this compartmentalises the many dimensions of
life."

Doug wrote:
> Duh. There is more than one kind of suburb

Oh god here we go...

-- 
Abo

Doug  wrote:

> > So you admit you live in suburb, excellent. Since you did not
> > differentiate between this suburb and the "good" suburb, you'll simply
> > have to live with the description you gave of yourself.
> 
> Why do I need to spell it out for you again?

Only by trimming conext in an 'unmarked deletion of relevant text".

> The modern definition of suburb: single use zoning, homogeneous
> detached homes, cul de sac topology, business parks, megamalls, wide
> roads, lack of public transport.

No reference or source, again I see.

Your defnition bears no relationship to the accepted definition of a
suburb.

> > This entire thread, created by you, is off-topic bozo. Or are there two
> > kinds of off-topic as well?
> 
> No it's not. To quote Andre Gorz:

No one gives a fuck.
 
> "Above all, never make transportation an issue by itself. Always
> connect it to the problem of the city, of the social division of
> labour, and to the way this compartmentalises the many dimensions of
> life."

Still quoting Marxist "philosophy" I see, with no relevance to the
modern world since Marxism failed a long time ago.

You're still off-topic and still a Marxist masquerading as an
environmentalist. A watermelon.

BrianW  wrote:

> On 1 Jul, 17:55, Doug  wrote:
> > Duh. There is more than one kind of suburb. My thread, and the linked
> > article, is obviously not talking about the traditional suburb you
> > have defined. It is talking about a modern, cynical phenomenon defined
> > as such. I have already described its attributes above so I won't
> > bother repeating them.
> >
> > In any case, why are you bringing up Catford, hypocrite? How is
> > Catford pertinent to this thread?  Yet again you litter this newsgroup
> > with OT nonsense while accusing others of doing the same.
> 
> This is another post by Fake Doug Bollen.  Or possibly by Real Doug
> Bollen pretending to be Fake Doug Bollen in order to make us think
> that Real Doug Bollen is not Doug Bollen.  Or something.

Two types of ozone.
Two types of frivolous hypermobility.
Two types of terrorist.
Two types of retard.
Two types of suburb.
Two types of Bollen.

I think a pattern is developing here.

On 1 Jul, 19:30, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> BrianW  wrote:
> > On 1 Jul, 17:55, Doug  wrote:
> > > Duh. There is more than one kind of suburb. My thread, and the linked
> > > article, is obviously not talking about the traditional suburb you
> > > have defined. It is talking about a modern, cynical phenomenon defined> > > as such. I have already described its attributes above so I won't
> > > bother repeating them.
>
> > > In any case, why are you bringing up Catford, hypocrite? How is
> > > Catford pertinent to this thread?  Yet again you litter this newsgroup
> > > with OT nonsense while accusing others of doing the same.
>
> > This is another post by Fake Doug Bollen.  Or possibly by Real Doug
> > Bollen pretending to be Fake Doug Bollen in order to make us think
> > that Real Doug Bollen is not Doug Bollen.  Or something.
>
> Two types of ozone.
> Two types of frivolous hypermobility.
> Two types of terrorist.
> Two types of retard.
> Two types of suburb.
> Two types of Bollen.
>
> I think a pattern is developing here.

It's certainly a good impression of Real Doug Bollen, if indeed it is
not Real Doug Bollen pretending to be Fake Doug Bollen.

The ultimate challenge, however, would be to pretend to be Toomtard.
His retarded gibberish is almost impossible to fake, I reckon.

Doug wrote:
>> So you admit you live in suburb, excellent. Since you did not
>> differentiate between this suburb and the "good" suburb, you'll simply
>> have to live with the description you gave of yourself.
> 
> Why do I need to spell it out for you again?
> 
> The modern definition of suburb: single use zoning, homogeneous
> detached homes, cul de sac topology, business parks, megamalls, wide
> roads, lack of public transport.

Rubbish. I live in a village which is (inter alia) a dormitory suburb of 
the nearest medium sized town - not to mention filling the same role 
(not to the same extent) for London. The area is not arranged in 
cul-de-sacs, very few homes are detached (many are terraced), there is 
no "mall", and unfortunately, not much in the way of wide roads.

AFAICS there's plenty of public transport (there's a bus stop visible 
from this very window as I type).

I have lived in other suburban areas, none of which match your criteria.

>> This entire thread, created by you, is off-topic bozo. Or are there two
>> kinds of off-topic as well?

> No it's not. To quote Andre Gorz:

> "Above all, never make transportation an issue by itself. Always
> connect it to the problem of the city, of the social division of
> labour, and to the way this compartmentalises the many dimensions of
> life."

He was writing before the Yom Kippur War oil shock. What was he talking 
about when he wrote the bit you cite?

Does he just think that he owns people (or should own them) and thathe 
has a right to direct their lives in a manner that he prefers?

Steve Firth wrote:
> BrianW  wrote:
> 
>> On 1 Jul, 17:55, Doug  wrote:
>>> Duh. There is more than one kind of suburb. My thread, and the linked
>>> article, is obviously not talking about the traditional suburb you
>>> have defined. It is talking about a modern, cynical phenomenon defined
>>> as such. I have already described its attributes above so I won't
>>> bother repeating them.
>>>
>>> In any case, why are you bringing up Catford, hypocrite? How is
>>> Catford pertinent to this thread?  Yet again you litter this newsgroup
>>> with OT nonsense while accusing others of doing the same.
>> This is another post by Fake Doug Bollen.  Or possibly by Real Doug
>> Bollen pretending to be Fake Doug Bollen in order to make us think
>> that Real Doug Bollen is not Doug Bollen.  Or something.
> 
> Two types of ozone.
> Two types of frivolous hypermobility.
> Two types of terrorist.
> Two types of retard.
> Two types of suburb.
> Two types of Bollen.
> 
> I think a pattern is developing here.

Is there not now two types of CO2?

-- 
Tony the Dragon

On 2008-07-01, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
> BrianW  wrote:
>
>> On 1 Jul, 17:55, Doug  wrote:
>> > Duh. There is more than one kind of suburb. My thread, and the linked
>> > article, is obviously not talking about the traditional suburb you
>> > have defined. It is talking about a modern, cynical phenomenon defined
>> > as such. I have already described its attributes above so I won't
>> > bother repeating them.
>> >
>> > In any case, why are you bringing up Catford, hypocrite? How is
>> > Catford pertinent to this thread?  Yet again you litter this newsgroup
>> > with OT nonsense while accusing others of doing the same.
>> 
>> This is another post by Fake Doug Bollen.  Or possibly by Real Doug
>> Bollen pretending to be Fake Doug Bollen in order to make us think
>> that Real Doug Bollen is not Doug Bollen.  Or something.
>
> Two types of ozone.
> Two types of frivolous hypermobility.
> Two types of terrorist.
> Two types of retard.
> Two types of suburb.
> Two types of Bollen.
>
> I think a pattern is developing here.

Schizophrenia.

-- 
          "Be thankful that you have a life, and forsake your vain
                 and presumptuous desire for a second one."
               [email me at huge {at} huge (dot) org <dot> uk]

"Huge" <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote in message 
news:g4fjfu$350$1@anubis.demon.co.uk...
> On 2008-07-01, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
>> BrianW  wrote:
>>
>>> On 1 Jul, 17:55, Doug  wrote:
>>> > Duh. There is more than one kind of suburb. My thread, and the linked
>>> > article, is obviously not talking about the traditional suburb you
>>> > have defined. It is talking about a modern, cynical phenomenon defined
>>> > as such. I have already described its attributes above so I won't
>>> > bother repeating them.
>>> >
>>> > In any case, why are you bringing up Catford, hypocrite? How is
>>> > Catford pertinent to this thread?  Yet again you litter this newsgroup
>>> > with OT nonsense while accusing others of doing the same.
>>>
>>> This is another post by Fake Doug Bollen.  Or possibly by Real Doug
>>> Bollen pretending to be Fake Doug Bollen in order to make us think
>>> that Real Doug Bollen is not Doug Bollen.  Or something.
>>
>> Two types of ozone.
>> Two types of frivolous hypermobility.
>> Two types of terrorist.
>> Two types of retard.
>> Two types of suburb.
>> Two types of Bollen.
>>
>> I think a pattern is developing here.
>
> Schizophrenia.
>
> -- 
hence why I suggested Risperdal rather than lithium

;-)

Mike P

On 2008-07-01, BrianW  wrote:

> Oh, but I am Doug, I am.

You are? Blimey, how mnay of you are there?

-- 
          "Be thankful that you have a life, and forsake your vain
                 and presumptuous desire for a second one."
               [email me at huge {at} huge (dot) org <dot> uk]

Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:

> On 2008-07-01, BrianW  wrote:
> 
> > Oh, but I am Doug, I am.
> 
> You are? Blimey, how mnay of you are there?

I'm Spartaduhg!

On 2 Jul, 12:34, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> Huge <H...@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
> > On 2008-07-01, BrianW  wrote:
>
> > > Oh, but I am Doug, I am.
>
> > You are? Blimey, how mnay of you are there?
>
> I'm Spartaduhg!

<pulls off mask>

Actually, I am the real Doug Bollen.  I don't know who that old fart
who posts as Doug really is.  Maybe he's me?

Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:

> Doug  wrote:
> 
> > > Errrm, Catford is a suburb. And I agree with you about what a shithole
> > > it is.
> > 
> > Wrong again. Catford has a proper town centre, a village green, mixed
> > use zoning, grid topology, and good public transport. So not a suburb
> > in the modern sense of the word. Not like those ghastly places outside
> > the M25 consisting of homogeneous detached housing subdivisions/ cul
> > de sacs / megamalls / business parks. Besides, Catford has been a part
> > of London proper for ages. It's no more a suburb than Kensington.
> 
> It's a suburb. It was built as a suburb and lies outside the cities of
> London and Westminster.
> 
> The fact that creeping urbanisation has completely engulfed Catford into
> the sprawling, festering cloaca of Greater London does not change its
> status, nor does it change your hypocrisy and blindness.

quite, there are plenty of old villages/towns that are now essentally in
London, and who have now become suburbs.

roger
-- 
www.rogermerriman.com

Roger Merriman wrote:
> Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
> 
>> Doug  wrote:
>>
>>>> Errrm, Catford is a suburb. And I agree with you about what a shithole
>>>> it is.
>>> Wrong again. Catford has a proper town centre, a village green, mixed
>>> use zoning, grid topology, and good public transport. So not a suburb
>>> in the modern sense of the word. Not like those ghastly places outside
>>> the M25 consisting of homogeneous detached housing subdivisions/ cul
>>> de sacs / megamalls / business parks. Besides, Catford has been a part
>>> of London proper for ages. It's no more a suburb than Kensington.
>> It's a suburb. It was built as a suburb and lies outside the cities of
>> London and Westminster.
>>
>> The fact that creeping urbanisation has completely engulfed Catford into
>> the sprawling, festering cloaca of Greater London does not change its
>> status, nor does it change your hypocrisy and blindness.
> 
> quite, there are plenty of old villages/towns that are now essentally in
> London, and who have now become suburbs.

Harrow is a good example, and all the other places joined together in 
Metro Land

-- 
John Wright

"What would happen if you eliminated the autism genes from the gene pool?

You would have a bunch of people standing around in a cave, chatting and
socialising and not getting anything done!" - Professor Temple Grandin

Roger Merriman wrote:
> Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
> 
>> Doug  wrote:
>>
>>>> Errrm, Catford is a suburb. And I agree with you about what a shithole
>>>> it is.
>>> Wrong again. Catford has a proper town centre, a village green, mixed
>>> use zoning, grid topology, and good public transport. So not a suburb
>>> in the modern sense of the word. Not like those ghastly places outside
>>> the M25 consisting of homogeneous detached housing subdivisions/ cul
>>> de sacs / megamalls / business parks. Besides, Catford has been a part
>>> of London proper for ages. It's no more a suburb than Kensington.
>> It's a suburb. It was built as a suburb and lies outside the cities of
>> London and Westminster.
>>
>> The fact that creeping urbanisation has completely engulfed Catford into
>> the sprawling, festering cloaca of Greater London does not change its
>> status, nor does it change your hypocrisy and blindness.
> 
> quite, there are plenty of old villages/towns that are now essentally in
> London, and who have now become suburbs.
> 
> roger


...but still claim "village" status.

-- 
Moving things in still pictures!

®i©ardo  wrote:

> Roger Merriman wrote:
> > Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
> > 
> >> Doug  wrote:
> >>
> >>>> Errrm, Catford is a suburb. And I agree with you about what a shithole
> >>>> it is.
> >>> Wrong again. Catford has a proper town centre, a village green, mixed
> >>> use zoning, grid topology, and good public transport. So not a suburb
> >>> in the modern sense of the word. Not like those ghastly places outside
> >>> the M25 consisting of homogeneous detached housing subdivisions/ cul
> >>> de sacs / megamalls / business parks. Besides, Catford has been a part
> >>> of London proper for ages. It's no more a suburb than Kensington.
> >> It's a suburb. It was built as a suburb and lies outside the cities of
> >> London and Westminster.
> >>
> >> The fact that creeping urbanisation has completely engulfed Catford into
> >> the sprawling, festering cloaca of Greater London does not change its
> >> status, nor does it change your hypocrisy and blindness.
> > 
> > quite, there are plenty of old villages/towns that are now essentally in
> > London, and who have now become suburbs.
> > 
> > roger
> 
> 
> ...but still claim "village" status.

well yes, people do like to hang on to these things, and some of them
can have that feel to a degree.

roger
-- 
www.rogermerriman.com

Roger Merriman wrote:
> ®i©ardo  wrote:
> 
>> Roger Merriman wrote:
>>> Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Doug  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Errrm, Catford is a suburb. And I agree with you about what a shithole
>>>>>> it is.
>>>>> Wrong again. Catford has a proper town centre, a village green, mixed
>>>>> use zoning, grid topology, and good public transport. So not a suburb
>>>>> in the modern sense of the word. Not like those ghastly places outside
>>>>> the M25 consisting of homogeneous detached housing subdivisions/ cul
>>>>> de sacs / megamalls / business parks. Besides, Catford has been a part
>>>>> of London proper for ages. It's no more a suburb than Kensington.
>>>> It's a suburb. It was built as a suburb and lies outside the cities of
>>>> London and Westminster.
>>>>
>>>> The fact that creeping urbanisation has completely engulfed Catford into
>>>> the sprawling, festering cloaca of Greater London does not change its
>>>> status, nor does it change your hypocrisy and blindness.
>>> quite, there are plenty of old villages/towns that are now essentally in
>>> London, and who have now become suburbs.
>>>
>>> roger
>>
>> ...but still claim "village" status.
> 
> well yes, people do like to hang on to these things, and some of them
> can have that feel to a degree.

How many within the pre-WW2 built-up area of London, though?

Highgate, certainly.

Blackheath, arguably.

Any more?

JNugent wrote:
> Roger Merriman wrote:
>> ®i©ardo  wrote:
>>>
>>> ...but still claim "village" status.
>>
>> well yes, people do like to hang on to these things, and some of them
>> can have that feel to a degree.
>
> How many within the pre-WW2 built-up area of London, though?

Do you mean pre-WW1? I don;t think there has been any growth of London since 
the "green belt" act of 1947.

> Highgate, certainly.

Part of the reason that the phrase "Highgate Village" is so widely used is 
to distinguish the ancient High St area from the newer area around the 
station.
The same is true of Wimbledon Village, and outside London, Swanley Village.

> Blackheath, arguably.
>
> Any more?

Walthamstow Village

Pinner Village

Finchley Village, which is the name of the Village Road area, which had a 
fair to celebrate its 100th anniversary at the weekend (which makes it way 
too young to be a proper village). It does have its own war memorial though, 
unlike Finchley proper, which was the only borough in Britain too stingy to 
fund one.

Harrow Weald Village (also 20th-C housing and presumably an estate rather 
than a proper village).

In message <g4th9s$7tv$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk>, John Rowland 
 writes
>Finchley Village, which is the name of the Village Road area, which had a
>fair to celebrate its 100th anniversary at the weekend (which makes it way
>too young to be a proper village). It does have its own war memorial though,
>unlike Finchley proper, which was the only borough in Britain too stingy to
>fund one.

Ah, that might explain their choice of MP in the 80s. ;-)


-- 
Ed Banger