Nice people thread part 8 - worth the wait

zagubov

tomterm8 wrote: »

I don't think I have ever seen Her Majesties Opposition whipped to vote in support of the queens speach, at the same time the vast majority of Her Majesties Ministers were told to abstain from voting for the Queens Speach.

It is the kind of day that will be imortalised in a hundred nerdy politics books.

And the most talked about "rising" political party can't manage even one single MP and wouldn't subject them to a whip system if there were.:rotfl:

Last thing on my ipod as Wendy Carlos "Allegro". Doubt it's on Youtube.

Spirit_2

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

. Long day it's 3 hours from Waterloo to Weymouth, then onwards to the prison, then all the way back again afterwards.

Commiserations. I am still not over my stupidly long day last week.

Generali

I'll be in London on Wednesday 3rd July. I've got meetings in St James but happy to go wherever really.

Prefer to avoid the tourist pubs. Clerkenwell is good as is Mayfair IME.

chewmylegoff

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

Yes, phonics (I think - the making sounds that sound different from the way you pronounce a letter).

He's never had laces in his shoes - so 20th century, sweetie!

My mum is or at least was a reading recovery teacher and she was banging on about phonics being awful the other day. Allegedly according to her at least, the less intelligent kids just learn to say things by rote but don't understand what their doing whilst the more intelligent kids try to understand what they're being taught but can't as it makes no sense.

However, I have no idea what phonics are and therefore no idea what I am talking about - I suppose I have just learnt the above by rote...dammit!!

lostinrates

chewmylegoff wrote: »

My mum is or at least was a reading recovery teacher and she was banging on about phonics being awful the other day. Allegedly according to her at least, the less intelligent kids just learn to say things by rote but don't understand what their doing whilst the more intelligent kids try to understand what they're being taught but can't as it makes no sense.

However, I have no idea what phonics are and therefore no idea what I am talking about - I suppose I have just learnt the above by rote...dammit!!

I have done reading homework with a fair few kids and think but am not sure what I did with them was phonics (keh, keh kicking king?). It feels a natural way to break down sounds to me but probably because its the only way I have done it. (Encouraging the child to make the sounds faster and faster to pronounce the word.....).

I cannot remember how I was taught!

LydiaJ

GDB2222 wrote: »

I mostly skip breakfast. I know that the nutritionists say I shouldn't, but it seems to work for me. I generally don't exercise a lot in the mornings. If I were digging ditches or something like that, I expect that my approach would be different. As it is, I quite often go for a 5 mile walk without having eaten anything and feel absolutely fine, although I carry glucose as a precaution.

Another non-breakfast eater here (usually). I'm not a fan of tea or coffee either, but a mug of hot chocolate (water based rather than milk based, which would be too heavy) in the staff room at school gives me what I need to see me through to break, when there are snacks in the staff room.

I used to eat lightly at lunch and then a main meal in the evening, but now that all 3 of us get decent quality school lunches for a reasonable price, it's much easier to eat lots at lunch time when somebody else has cooked it, and then something quick and easy in the evening.

When we go to see LNE's parents we stay up the road from them in a place that does an all you can eat breakfast - free for both kids if mine has been paid for. DD does proper justice to it, DS has a bit, and I just have the fruit salad and croissants etc. I've tried eating the full English - I love a lot of that stuff if it's later in the day - but it just makes me feel sluggish all morning, and then eat far too much at lunch, which is bad on so many levels, so now I resist it.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

What does work however, is undivided attention and complete agreement while she expresses her feelings and until she has calmed down, followed by meaningful discussion if needed.

So not the dismissive 'yes dear' (wouldn't dare!), but rather the understanding or empathetic 'yes dear' that allows for unlimited tantrum throwing and much stamping of feet with no fear whatsoever of it developing into a serious row.

It's all in the tone apparently....;)

That may be the understatement of the year....:D

I'm not surprised it works. Apart from the minor matter of taste that I've never liked being called "dear", it sounds like ideal husband behaviour to me, which the dismissive "yes dear" is not. Just like "you look sweet when you're angry" - which is so infuriating when used as a deflection against actually taking seriously anything that she has to say, but no doubt doesn't feel like that at all to lir because she knows that fir is fully attending to engage with her point of view when she's calmed down.

neverdespairgirl

HP Verne is orrrffff. Next week instead.

chewmylegoff

I had an interesting journey to work - I broke out into a horrible sweat about 5 minutes outside waterloo and then promptly fainted in the middle of a crowded carriage. Luckily there was a nice person (although not a Nice Person) on the train who gave me some water and looked after me.

This is at least the fourth time this has happened, although the first time I have actually passed out on the train. The previous times I have managed to make it off the train and sit down somewhere. Expect I will have to stop saying there is nothing wrong with me and go to the doctor now.

lostinrates

chewmylegoff wrote: »

I had an interesting journey to work - I broke out into a horrible sweat about 5 minutes outside waterloo and then promptly fainted in the middle of a crowded carriage. Luckily there was a nice person (although not a Nice Person) on the train who gave me some water and looked after me.

This is at least the fourth time this has happened, although the first time I have actually passed out on the train. The previous times I have managed to make it off the train and sit down somewhere. Expect I will have to stop saying there is nothing wrong with me and go to the doctor now.

Yes, you will.

Go to the doctor.

lostinrates

LydiaJ wrote: »

I'm not surprised it works. Apart from the minor matter of taste that I've never liked being called "dear", it sounds like ideal husband behaviour to me, which the dismissive "yes dear" is not. Just like "you look sweet when you're angry" - which is so infuriating when used as a deflection against actually taking seriously anything that she has to say, but no doubt doesn't feel like that at all to lir because she knows that fir is fully attending to engage with her point of view when she's calmed down.

It's all about the talking, but for me the laughter is the best * for me because it diffuses everything. A crucial part is he never actually laughs until I do, so I never feel belittled or that he is making me feel 'silly'. It's ME who recognises an adult woman wanting to have a huff is ridiculous and I laugh at myself first, but he GIVeS me that option, rather than going on a heated spiral upwards till you get to the point where you are angry but you don't even know what at...a body chemistry thing that is no good for anyone.

My mother is 'highly strung' too (much worse than me!), and my father dealt with it not in a heated way, but also very badly. Ridicule, derision, the failure to address the points which leads one to the point of such immense and destructive frustration is just another way of not communicating.

*When I started typing I thought that the humour was the most important thing for me, but while typing I have realised its the most enjoyable ways to back down, but the most important is that boring old chestnut communication. The laughter offers us both a route to communication. One where we enter the communication on the same 'side' and together reaching a compromise in front of us, rather than trying to find one from opposition between us.