What are your unpopular opinions? (Vol. 2)
Discussion
LetsTryAgain said:
Nothing to do with hindsight at all. Anyone with the slightest critical ability could see that closing down the economy and throwing away what was left of our civil liberties wasn’t going to end well and was an absurd over reaction from the get go.
We should have acted responsibly, with caution and proportion.
Drama queen alert. Have you nothing else to say, other than to bang the same drum over and over and over? Just have a look at the US for what could have happened if we were to act the way they have and their economy is in the pan too. Of course you won’t, because it doesn’t suit your ridiculous narrative. We should have acted responsibly, with caution and proportion.
if we could all just be relied upon to not steal things then we wouldn't need to lock our doors.
if we could all just be relied upon not to break laws then we wouldn't need the police
if we could all just be relied upon to make our own decisions then we wouldn't need the government
if we could all just be relied upon to not cheat on significant others then we wouldn't need to get divorced.
if we could all just be relied upon to be sensible with respect to <risk> then we wouldn't need <insert risk mitigation here>
Life. Innit.
if we could all just be relied upon not to break laws then we wouldn't need the police
if we could all just be relied upon to make our own decisions then we wouldn't need the government
if we could all just be relied upon to not cheat on significant others then we wouldn't need to get divorced.
if we could all just be relied upon to be sensible with respect to <risk> then we wouldn't need <insert risk mitigation here>
Life. Innit.
Blown2CV said:
if we could all just be relied upon to not steal things then we wouldn't need to lock our doors.
if we could all just be relied upon not to break laws then we wouldn't need the police
if we could all just be relied upon to make our own decisions then we wouldn't need the government
if we could all just be relied upon to not cheat on significant others then we wouldn't need to get divorced.
if we could all just be relied upon to be sensible with respect to <risk> then we wouldn't need <insert risk mitigation here>
Life. Innit.
What? It's a function of government to do our thinking for us now?if we could all just be relied upon not to break laws then we wouldn't need the police
if we could all just be relied upon to make our own decisions then we wouldn't need the government
if we could all just be relied upon to not cheat on significant others then we wouldn't need to get divorced.
if we could all just be relied upon to be sensible with respect to <risk> then we wouldn't need <insert risk mitigation here>
Life. Innit.
Dr Jekyll said:
Blown2CV said:
if we could all just be relied upon to not steal things then we wouldn't need to lock our doors.
if we could all just be relied upon not to break laws then we wouldn't need the police
if we could all just be relied upon to make our own decisions then we wouldn't need the government
if we could all just be relied upon to not cheat on significant others then we wouldn't need to get divorced.
if we could all just be relied upon to be sensible with respect to <risk> then we wouldn't need <insert risk mitigation here>
Life. Innit.
What? It's a function of government to do our thinking for us now?if we could all just be relied upon not to break laws then we wouldn't need the police
if we could all just be relied upon to make our own decisions then we wouldn't need the government
if we could all just be relied upon to not cheat on significant others then we wouldn't need to get divorced.
if we could all just be relied upon to be sensible with respect to <risk> then we wouldn't need <insert risk mitigation here>
Life. Innit.
if we could all just be relied upon to do for ourselves the things government does for us and decide between ourselves the things that government decides on behalf of us, then we wouldn't need the government
i think you'll find the sentence irritatingly clunky, but you wanted it.
LetsTryAgain said:
We should have acted responsibly, with caution and proportion.
That was the problem, though. As I recall it, Monday was the "you should steer clear of pubs unless there's plenty of room and you can keep your distance" message. Tuesday and Wednesday had various comments of people packing into crowded bars in city centres and ignoring the advice. After four days of the general public not acting responsibly with caution and proportion, firmer measures were taken and Friday was "OK, pubs are closed then".droopsnoot said:
LetsTryAgain said:
We should have acted responsibly, with caution and proportion.
That was the problem, though. As I recall it, Monday was the "you should steer clear of pubs unless there's plenty of room and you can keep your distance" message. Tuesday and Wednesday had various comments of people packing into crowded bars in city centres and ignoring the advice. After four days of the general public not acting responsibly with caution and proportion, firmer measures were taken and Friday was "OK, pubs are closed then".Dr Jekyll said:
Blown2CV said:
if we could all just be relied upon to not steal things then we wouldn't need to lock our doors.
if we could all just be relied upon not to break laws then we wouldn't need the police
if we could all just be relied upon to make our own decisions then we wouldn't need the government
if we could all just be relied upon to not cheat on significant others then we wouldn't need to get divorced.
if we could all just be relied upon to be sensible with respect to <risk> then we wouldn't need <insert risk mitigation here>
Life. Innit.
What? It's a function of government to do our thinking for us now?if we could all just be relied upon not to break laws then we wouldn't need the police
if we could all just be relied upon to make our own decisions then we wouldn't need the government
if we could all just be relied upon to not cheat on significant others then we wouldn't need to get divorced.
if we could all just be relied upon to be sensible with respect to <risk> then we wouldn't need <insert risk mitigation here>
Life. Innit.
Runners should all be made to wear the same/same spec shoes in races.
It is getting ridiculous with Nike and Adidas putting carbon plates, 5 cms of foam in their shoes and whatever else, claiming it boosts performance by 5% or something.
Make them all wear the same spec shoes and clothing in any races! Its a test of human body performance.
It is getting ridiculous with Nike and Adidas putting carbon plates, 5 cms of foam in their shoes and whatever else, claiming it boosts performance by 5% or something.
Make them all wear the same spec shoes and clothing in any races! Its a test of human body performance.
hyphen said:
Runners should all be made to wear the same/same spec shoes in races.
It is getting ridiculous with Nike and Adidas putting carbon plates, 5 cms of foam in their shoes and whatever else, claiming it boosts performance by 5% or something.
Make them all wear the same spec shoes and clothing in any races! Its a test of human body performance.
And if the shoes don't fit?It is getting ridiculous with Nike and Adidas putting carbon plates, 5 cms of foam in their shoes and whatever else, claiming it boosts performance by 5% or something.
Make them all wear the same spec shoes and clothing in any races! Its a test of human body performance.
ThatGuyWhoDoesStuff said:
hyphen said:
Runners should all be made to wear the same/same spec shoes in races.
It is getting ridiculous with Nike and Adidas putting carbon plates, 5 cms of foam in their shoes and whatever else, claiming it boosts performance by 5% or something.
Make them all wear the same spec shoes and clothing in any races! Its a test of human body performance.
And if the shoes don't fit?It is getting ridiculous with Nike and Adidas putting carbon plates, 5 cms of foam in their shoes and whatever else, claiming it boosts performance by 5% or something.
Make them all wear the same spec shoes and clothing in any races! Its a test of human body performance.
hyphen said:
Runners should all be made to wear the same/same spec shoes in races.
It is getting ridiculous with Nike and Adidas putting carbon plates, 5 cms of foam in their shoes and whatever else, claiming it boosts performance by 5% or something.
Make them all wear the same spec shoes and clothing in any races! Its a test of human body performance.
I hold the opposite view. Athletics, cycling, etc, instead of trying to catch drug cheats, should throw in the towel and make it a free for all. Like F1, a combination of driver and technology, the best runner would be the guy who was very good, but also had the best chemists giving him the best combination of performance enhancing drugs, the best shoe designers, etc. It is getting ridiculous with Nike and Adidas putting carbon plates, 5 cms of foam in their shoes and whatever else, claiming it boosts performance by 5% or something.
Make them all wear the same spec shoes and clothing in any races! Its a test of human body performance.
coppernorks said:
that it is perfectly ok for people over 60s to wear jeans.
They are marginally more snug now, but my gut doesn’t hang over the waist band, and around every seven days I’ll switch to my Lee slightly lighter blue jeans, which go well with the dark blue suede loafers that are my go to footwear.
My 53 y.o. younger boy, an aficionado of Ermenegildo Zegna suits, and Vilebrequin swimwear, says, “Dad, what are you like for Chrissakes, don’t you ever read GQ?”
Frank7 said:
I appreciate that coppernorks, the Wranglers that I bought in Tampa FL some thirty odd years back when I was around 50, are still de rigeur for me virtually every day.
They are marginally more snug now, but my gut doesn’t hang over the waist band, and around every seven days I’ll switch to my Lee slightly lighter blue jeans, which go well with the dark blue suede loafers that are my go to footwear.
My 53 y.o. younger boy, an aficionado of Ermenegildo Zegna suits, and Vilebrequin swimwear, says, “Dad, what are you like for Chrissakes, don’t you ever read GQ?”
my advice is to disinherit that 53 year old.They are marginally more snug now, but my gut doesn’t hang over the waist band, and around every seven days I’ll switch to my Lee slightly lighter blue jeans, which go well with the dark blue suede loafers that are my go to footwear.
My 53 y.o. younger boy, an aficionado of Ermenegildo Zegna suits, and Vilebrequin swimwear, says, “Dad, what are you like for Chrissakes, don’t you ever read GQ?”
I have transgressed to the stretchy fabric denim jeans, but NOT the elasticated waistband ones, there are standards to be kept you know.
coppernorks said:
my advice is to disinherit that 53 year old.
I have transgressed to the stretchy fabric denim jeans, but NOT the elasticated waistband ones, there are standards to be kept you know.
I’ll check out the stretch fabric denim jeans, thanks for the heads up.I have transgressed to the stretchy fabric denim jeans, but NOT the elasticated waistband ones, there are standards to be kept you know.
I mulled over your suggestion re my younger son, can’t be
done I’m afraid, to know him is to love him, always.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff