´óÏó´«Ã½

This is a nursing home for WW2 veterans

Comments

1. At 12:44 PM on 08 Aug 2007, wrote:

   ah the old Junonia coenia.......my they are sooo tasty, mind you you need an awful lot for a decent meal....

   ..anyway nice one Roberto....BTW look out for Mrs DIY, she is flying out for two weeks in the US on Friday..

2. At 12:57 PM on 08 Aug 2007, Dr Hackenbush wrote:

   Hello - I got your newsletter twice today. I won’t be listening to the programme twice.

3. At 01:02 PM on 08 Aug 2007, Delores Behan-Ingland (Mrs) wrote:

   Ah, the Common Buckeye. Eddie that reminds me. Four linguists were sharing a compartment on a train on their way to an international conference on sound symbolism.

   One was English, one Spanish, one French and the fourth German. They got into a discussion on whose language was the most eloquent and euphonious.

   The English linguist said: "Why, English is the most eloquent language. Take for instance the word "butterfly". Butterfly, butterfly... doesn't that word so beautifully express the way this delicate insect flies. It's like flutter-by, flutter-by."

   "Oh, no!" said the Spanish linguist, "the word for "butterfly" in Spanish is "maripose". Now, this word expresses so beautifully the vibrant colours on the butterfly's wings. What could be a more apt name for such a brilliant creature? Spanish is the most eloquent language!"

   "Papillon!" says the French linguist, "papillon! This word expresses the fragility of the butterfly's wings and body. This is the most fitting name for such a delicate and ethereal insect. French is the most eloquent language!"

   At this the German linguist stands up, and demands:

   "Und vot is rongk mit 'SCHMETTERLING'?" :0)

4. At 01:06 PM on 08 Aug 2007, silver-fox wrote:

   Lovely picture.

5. At 01:11 PM on 08 Aug 2007, Lucy wrote:

   I wonder what the whingers in Surrey would make of that eh.......

6. At 01:16 PM on 08 Aug 2007, witchiwoman wrote:

   Lucy - I'm sure the Surrey residents wouln't mind, WW2 veterans being so much more worthy than our contmporary forces (much sarcasm and irony)

7. At 03:02 PM on 08 Aug 2007, Dr Hackenbush wrote:

   SB7

   (2) Doc, isn’t it true that you posted that twice, in a clever commentary on the double newsletter? Yes.

8. At 05:13 PM on 08 Aug 2007, wrote:

   witchi (6)

   As an ex serviceman and 'vet' myself, though not WW II, I rather take umbrage at your comment.

   You are bang out of order, our servicemen and women volunteered to pursue a career in the armed forces and when they get injured they should be given the full support of the nation to ensure that they and their families get and recieve all the support that they need.

   I am just glad that the Mole Valley District Council had the balls to stand up against a few nimbies and approved the families hostel in Ashtead.

   DIY

9. At 05:46 PM on 08 Aug 2007, David McNickle wrote:

   There's no such thing as a common Buckeye. All Ohioans are special. Conkers to you!

10. At 06:19 PM on 08 Aug 2007, Chris Ghoti wrote:

    DIWyman @ 8, I didn't think witchiwoman was being anti services personnel, then or now; I thought she was suggesting that they were all of equal value, despite what anybody in Surrey might say about anything? That would explain the 'much sarcasm and irony' in the brackets.

    (If that was wrong I apologise, ww, but I didn't take what you said as being an attack on service personnel and their families...)

11. At 06:34 PM on 08 Aug 2007, admin annie wrote:

    DI , I think you missed the heavy irony of witchi's comment. From what I know of witchi she would be the last person to be passing hurtful comments on servicemen, as opposeed to the idiots who sent them to iraq.

12. At 07:41 PM on 08 Aug 2007, wrote:

    admin annie (11)

    that as may but there is a lot of us out there that do not like having us being used as cheap shots.

    We did our bit, some of us lost bits as well, and we think it would be rather ironic if the piss takers own nearest and dearest turned up with their limbs / eyesight / hearing / minds or any combination of the afore mentioned missing.

    We are supposed to be "civilised" but refering to 'previous' veterans as "being so much more worthy than our contmporary forces" is demeaning which ever which way it is put....sarcasm and irony included.

    If Witchi wants to make a "valid" point then she should pop over to the furrowed brow, in the mean time perhaps she (i presume) should "read before she posts"?

    DIY aka Jones, Cpl, G8013319 (GSM + bar x 2)

13. At 09:43 PM on 08 Aug 2007, admin annie wrote:

    well I daresay witchi can take up the baton on her own behalf if she feels she needs to, but as a proud wearer of the red poppy, a long time supporter of Erskine hospital and a researcher for a while in a World War 1 archive I can assure you that I have never made the armed forces the object of 'cheap shots', nor do I differentiate between 'worthy' and 'unworthy' veterans.
    My admiration for the service personnel currently serving in Afghanistan and Iraq is unbounded. I don't think they should be there, but that's a comment on the government not the armed forces.

14. At 11:32 PM on 08 Aug 2007, Aperitif wrote:

    DIY (8/12) I, too, suspect that Witchi's comment was directed at those who would suggest that one group of veterans was more worthy than another, and not at the veterans themselves. I think you misunderstand her, and all the "thinking before posting" in the world would not prevent a reader from misunderstanding a poster.

15. At 09:23 AM on 09 Aug 2007, witchiwoman wrote:

    DiW -

    No offence was meant and am not taking any cheap shots. I was mortified of the NIMBY attitude taken towards the servicemen and their families. My comment was directed at those individuals in Surrey who seem to think that our service personnel are some how going to be problematic etc.

    I admire and support our troops; I may not agree with the politics behind deployment but that it is a very different matter.

    I am truly sorry if I caused offence.

16. At 10:28 AM on 09 Aug 2007, wrote:

    witchi & All.....fair enough.....my previous post this morning has obviously been moderated by the guardians of good taste at the new ´óÏó´«Ã½ truth centre!!

    Perhaps I shouldn't have used the words 'big**ed' 'ars****es' and 'Ashtead' together in the same sentence?

17. At 11:05 AM on 09 Aug 2007, witchiwoman wrote:

    DiW (16) - you see, thats what I should've put first time round!

18. At 11:14 AM on 09 Aug 2007, wrote:

    witchi (17)

    ok.....parade now finished!

    PARADE....Stand....Ahhht HEASE......STAND STILL

19. At 07:14 PM on 09 Aug 2007, Humph wrote:

    DIW (18) RSM Shouted (as only RSMs can):

    Stand HEAAAARRRRRRTSSSS . . .HEEEEEEZZZE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Um, can we sit down now? I mean sir, sir? Only some of us have dinner to get, sir.

    H.

20. At 08:02 PM on 09 Aug 2007, Chris Ghoti wrote:

    Humph @ 19

    Please, sir -- 'e sed 'e wuz a corp'rul, sir. Up at twelve it woz wen 'e sed it. Sir.