What are your unpopular opinions?
Discussion
davhill said:
From Diamonds are forever, when Bond's in a hearse, heading for Slumber Inc.
It's Sean so it should be Shlumber Inc.
It's the gay baddies, Wint and Kidd, who have the best lines
Operating the controls to send Bond into the crem oven...
"Illuminating, Mr. Wint."
"Moving." as the coffin conveyor starts and the door opens, revealing flames.
"A glowing tribute."
Classic stuff.
" names are for tombstones baby"It's Sean so it should be Shlumber Inc.
It's the gay baddies, Wint and Kidd, who have the best lines
Operating the controls to send Bond into the crem oven...
"Illuminating, Mr. Wint."
"Moving." as the coffin conveyor starts and the door opens, revealing flames.
"A glowing tribute."
Classic stuff.
I nicked it off Live and Let Die got away with using it for ages
I couldn’t give a rat’s posterior about the Aussie ball tampering furore, for all I care, they can go equipped with hacksaw blades in their pockets.
My wife heard a sound bite about it on BBC news, and asked me what on Earth it was about.
I told her that as I understood it, scraping or scratching the ball somehow altered its flight trajectory or something, giving the bowler an advantage, which the other side saw as cheating.
“You have to be kidding”, she said, “what are they, 13?”
I said, “Sadly not”, “if they were 13, they might be doing something sensible, like chasing 13 y.o. girls.”
My wife heard a sound bite about it on BBC news, and asked me what on Earth it was about.
I told her that as I understood it, scraping or scratching the ball somehow altered its flight trajectory or something, giving the bowler an advantage, which the other side saw as cheating.
“You have to be kidding”, she said, “what are they, 13?”
I said, “Sadly not”, “if they were 13, they might be doing something sensible, like chasing 13 y.o. girls.”
Shakermaker said:
TameRacingDriver said:
Frank7 said:
I said, “Sadly not”, “if they were 13, they might be doing something sensible, like chasing 13 y.o. girls.”
Lets hope they don't decide to actually do that 
)TameRacingDriver said:
Frank7 said:
I said, “Sadly not”, “if they were 13, they might be doing something sensible, like chasing 13 y.o. girls.”
Lets hope they don't decide to actually do that I did NOT say that the cricketers should chase teen girls.
AstonZagato said:
randomeddy said:
Einion Yrth said:
I suspect the fact that the stationary truckie was utterly slaughtered may have had some effect on the sentencing.
Yes, I understand that, but what would have been the outcome if the lorry had simply broken down. Who would be getting the blame then? The driver of the mini bus?Horrible that so many people died, terrible for the emergency services having to go and clean up the aftermath, but if the driver of the minibus had been watching where he was going the disaster would have been avoided.
3:15 AM, Saturday morning, the motorway would have been very quiet, mini bus driver simply drives up behind stationary lorry, thinks, er? this has stopped, I know, I will just pull out into the second lane without checking to see if it is safe.
What if his actions caused the lorry in the second lane to crash and that driver died, mini bus driver would be getting the blame.
Like the title says 'unpopular opinions'. But it is my opinion, unpopular or not.
As for breaking down, it would be unusual if the lorry driver couldn't have somehow reached the hard shoulder - lots of momentum or power to get him there - rather than ending up in L1.
Where I do think the minibus driver is at fault - and paid a huge price for his decision - was to wait to head for L2 rather than immediately pulling into the HS and crawling past the lorry there.
Let's say the first lorry had a catastrophic failure in the air system so the brakes jammed hard on, it could be quite possible for him to fail to reach the hard shoulder.
To my mind the only fault that the mini bus driver made was getting himself into a position where he couldn't pull out into lane 2, if you watch the dashcam videos you can see vehicles up ahead, braking
, indicating and moving out which should alert someone paying proper attention. However in favour of the minibus driver we don't know what the traffic situation was to his right, maybe it prevented him moving lanes. Also, as one of the videos demonstrates, despite the stopped vehicle being fully illuminated, at motorway speeds it's surprising how quickly you bear down on a stationary obstruction. Agree that once in that position, piling down the left would have been the obvious escape route.
Another thing in favour of the minibus driver is that he managed to see the lorry, suss out it presumably wasn't safe to pull out past it on the right, stop the vehicle well back, side, brake and hazard lights all illuminated, whereas the only driver who actually hit something, Wagstaff, was paying so little attention that he didn't brake nor even apply any steering lock to swerve around it.
In my opinion, which may or may not be unpopular, I don't care, is that Wagstaff was very lucky that the driver of the stationary lorry, Masierak, was drunk and had licence suspended, so he was the scapegoat. If the first lorry had simply broken down, then the most guilty party would have been Wagstaff, the only driver in that 14 or so minutes who actually crashed.
Shiv_P said:
Football is s
t to watch and I don't understand why players "cost" so much and people pay so much to watch it. The players are pussies as well and fall over at any possible occasion
It's supply and demand - and the reason why it's hugely dominant as a global spectator sport is because it's not 'st to watch and I don't understand why players "cost" so much and people pay so much to watch it. The players are pussies as well and fall over at any possible occasiont to watch' for more people than for any other sport. If you don't understand simple economics.....And for the 'pussies' comment? Rugby is full of them, as is cricket, as is golf, as is, etc, etc, etc.
had ham said:
Shiv_P said:
Football is st to watch and I don't understand why players "cost" so much and people pay so much to watch it. The players are pussies as well and fall over at any possible occasion
It's supply and demand - and the reason why it's hugely dominant as a global spectator sport is because it's not 'st to watch and I don't understand why players "cost" so much and people pay so much to watch it. The players are pussies as well and fall over at any possible occasiont to watch' for more people than for any other sport. If you don't understand simple economics.....And for the 'pussies' comment? Rugby is full of them, as is cricket, as is golf, as is, etc, etc, etc.
nothing to do with it being a good sport. to do with it being ingrained in children from a very young age, encouraged through school, the main sport on TV.
Kids never really have a chance to play/get into anything else.
but then my unpopular opinion, is that people that get so wrapped up in watching any sport are idiots.
Efbe said:
had this in this thread already.
nothing to do with it being a good sport. to do with it being ingrained in children from a very young age, encouraged through school, the main sport on TV.
Kids never really have a chance to play/get into anything else.
but then my unpopular opinion, is that people that get so wrapped up in watching any sport are idiots.
Totally agree.nothing to do with it being a good sport. to do with it being ingrained in children from a very young age, encouraged through school, the main sport on TV.
Kids never really have a chance to play/get into anything else.
but then my unpopular opinion, is that people that get so wrapped up in watching any sport are idiots.
Sport attracts moronic behaviour. The end.
Efbe said:
had this in this thread already.
nothing to do with it being a good sport. to do with it being ingrained in children from a very young age, encouraged through school, the main sport on TV.
Kids never really have a chance to play/get into anything else.
but then my unpopular opinion, is that people that get so wrapped up in watching any sport are idiots.
I hate football, I find it supremely dull to watch but i disagree with the above.nothing to do with it being a good sport. to do with it being ingrained in children from a very young age, encouraged through school, the main sport on TV.
Kids never really have a chance to play/get into anything else.
but then my unpopular opinion, is that people that get so wrapped up in watching any sport are idiots.
At my school we played cricket, tennis, rugby, football and hockey in fairly equal measures and the fact of the matter is that during our lunch breaks we would play football because it was the easiest thing to play, we played with 4 school bags/jumpers as goals and my mate Oli kept a ball in his locker.
Cricket requires a bat and ball, rugby is pretty hard to play casually, tennis needs rackets and multiple balls ideally. Football is one ball, it’s success is due to its simplicity, even in the arse end of nowhere in the third world you’ll find kids playing football not because it’s a superior sport but because it’s easy and you can actively involve a huge of number of people. 3,5,11,20 a-side, it doesn’t matter, it works.
jimPH said:
I drive better when drunk.
First, the 'fat wife' thread and then this?Ok, I will bite. Is this an opinion you have when you are drunk , or do you also think you drive better drunk, when you are sober?
I live out in the sticks and have been around a while, and I confess I have occasionally been a but naughty in this regard, but not any more.
What I noticed was that after two to three pints I drove like a total w
ker. The more I drunk after that, the more 'sensibly' I drove.But I would never say I was a better driver after any amount of booze than I was when sober!
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff