Why post on this forum?

[roofer]

singlecoil said:

It means there are too many posters that don't agree with his way of seeing things.

Or with your, and your mates way...eh?

[singlecoil]

roofer said:

singlecoil said:

It means there are too many posters that don't agree with his way of seeing things.

Or with your, and your mates way...eh?

I'm not with those that are complaining about the forum degrading. I'm fine with it as it is. I'm also fine with people disagreeing with me and not sharing my views.

[Pete317]

Devil2575 said:

750turbo said:

768 said:

A few people do like to suck the life out of this forum. Continuously.

Yep - And you have not been here long to notice it.

It is tiring, and spoils it for others.

It's a discussion forum. If you don't like discussion, debate and occasionally argument then you might be in the wrong place.

Oh, I do love discussion, debate and occasionally argument.

What time does it start?

[singlecoil]

Pete317 said:

What time does it start?

We're open 24/7

[roofer]

singlecoil said:

I'm not with those that are complaining about the forum degrading. I'm fine with it as it is. I'm also fine with people disagreeing with me and not sharing my views.

Very good, carry on.

[singlecoil]

roofer said:

singlecoil said:

I'm not with those that are complaining about the forum degrading. I'm fine with it as it is. I'm also fine with people disagreeing with me and not sharing my views.

Very good, carry on.

I intend to.

I'm glad to see the good-natured ribbing you've been receiving recently hasn't put you off.

[roofer]

singlecoil said:

I intend to.

I'm glad to see the good-natured ribbing you've been receiving recently hasn't put you off.

Trust me sir, there are none here that would defeat me. A few accused me of all sorts, with the courage of distance of course.

If they had read the first page of the post, I don't recall looking for sympathy, as some have inferred. Just advice from anyone who had experienced similar.

But, as usual, the preachers appeared, and they're always right, because that's who they are. I understand, anonymity gives courage, it is, after all...the Internet.

[768]

Vaud said:

I don't really mind if you have been here for 2 days or 10 years, but as you know SP&L has been a (mostly) constructive forum with helpful posts from barristers, lawyers, police and those with commercial experience trying to help people without cost.

How does that suck the life out? It's a serious(ish) sub-forum.

Yeah and any minute now there'll be a post from BV72 that was worth waiting for. Or Loon. Or cyberface for that matter (sorry; before your time). Or... etc, etc.

I'm sure Steve Callaghan will still be here when they turn the lights out though.

[roofer]

768 said:

Yeah and any minute now there'll be a post from BV72 that was worth waiting for. Or Loon. Or cyberface for that matter (sorry; before your time). Or... etc, etc.

I'm sure Steve Callaghan will still be here when they turn the lights out though.

[supersport]

Danattheopticians said:

Ste1987 said:

Add trying to justify parking in a disabled space as well

This reminds me of another question I have. Why ARE disabled people allowed to park on double yellows? I get that it is only fair to allow them some more convenient areas to park in and do not want to sound discriminatory but, double yellows (so I though) are put in places where parking a vehicle is hazardous or causes an inconvenience in some way. So:
1) Do disabled badge holders have special small cars that create less of a hazard/hindrance? NO!
2) Is 3 hours just a short amount of time that reduces the scale of the hazard/hindrance? NO!
3) Are they allowed to park there to allow disabled badge holders easier access to shops amenities etc? YES!
So as 3 being the case then why are they double yellow? Why are they not disables bays?

I'm just interested to know if someone has the answer to this? Please don't beat me down for being a disabled badge holder hater, this is not what this is about. I'm just questioning the logic behind the decision as to why, 1 can they park there or 2 If the council (Whoever makes these decisions) believes it is safe to park there but would prefer it that only badge holders did, then why are they not marked as disabled bays? Then they could use double yellow when NO ONE is allowed to park there.

I think they get the same rights as taxis

[hora]

Johnnytheboy said:

How about:

"This subforum is only for embittered policemen, wannabe lawyers and sanctimonious pricks who think driving at 1mph over the speed limit should earn you the firing squad.

Everyone else: stick to General Gassing"

Yo so cool bro

[Vaud]

768 said:

Vaud said:

I don't really mind if you have been here for 2 days or 10 years, but as you know SP&L has been a (mostly) constructive forum with helpful posts from barristers, lawyers, police and those with commercial experience trying to help people without cost.

How does that suck the life out? It's a serious(ish) sub-forum.

Yeah and any minute now there'll be a post from BV72 that was worth waiting for. Or Loon. Or cyberface for that matter (sorry; before your time). Or... etc, etc.

I'm sure Steve Callaghan will still be here when they turn the lights out though.

So you are trying to tell me that as a 6 month poster you are referencing cyberface, etc... ok.

[Devil2575]

768 said:

Yeah and any minute now there'll be a post from BV72 that was worth waiting for. Or Loon. Or cyberface for that matter (sorry; before your time). Or... etc, etc.

Ironic given that it was because of the idiots that people like that stopped posting.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

roofer said:

Trust me sir, there are none here that would defeat me. A few accused me of all sorts, with the courage of distance of course.

If they had read the first page of the post, I don't recall looking for sympathy, as some have inferred. Just advice from anyone who had experienced similar.

But, as usual, the preachers appeared, and they're always right, because that's who they are. I understand, anonymity gives courage, it is, after all...the Internet.

And yet although you disagreed with the preachers, which you have every right to, who was the first one to turn the thread abusive...7th post in?

[768]

Devil2575 said:

Ironic given that it was because of the idiots that people like that stopped posting.

Not ironic, the whole point.

[768]

Vaud said:

So you are trying to tell me that as a 6 month poster you are referencing cyberface, etc... ok.

Keep clinging to that snobbery. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

[Devil2575]

768 said:

Devil2575 said:

Ironic given that it was because of the idiots that people like that stopped posting.

Not ironic, the whole point.

Ironic given it is one of the idiots who is pointing it out.

[Vaud]

768 said:

Vaud said:

So you are trying to tell me that as a 6 month poster you are referencing cyberface, etc... ok.

Keep clinging to that snobbery. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

It's not snobbery. It's curiosity as to how you know so many posters, and that they have stopped (and that some predate me), despite being a new joiner? Sorry but I think you are a previously banned or new account poster, no snobbery.

[cmaguire]

Devil2575 said:

Ironic given that it was because of the idiots that people like that stopped posting.

Maybe.
Loon was permanently banned. Does anybody other than the moderators know which members' complaints brought that about?

[singlecoil]

Vaud said:

Sorry but I think you are a previously banned or new account poster, no snobbery.

That would seem to be the most likely explanation.

Which then means we have to figure out who, of course.