Why post on this forum?
Discussion
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?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.
What time does it start?
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'm glad to see the good-natured ribbing you've been receiving recently hasn't put you off.
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.I'm glad to see the good-natured ribbing you've been receiving recently hasn't put you off.
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.
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.How does that suck the life out? It's a serious(ish) sub-forum.
I'm sure Steve Callaghan will still be here when they turn the lights out though.
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.
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.How does that suck the life out? It's a serious(ish) sub-forum.
I'm sure Steve Callaghan will still be here when they turn the lights out though.
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?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 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.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff