Cheap flights bad...

[Nemesis]

There has not even been an application to build the damned thing, let alone an inquiry.

 

[Flyfisher]

I don't actually give a flying **** what you think about Stansted or anything much else, same as I don't give a damn about Graham's opinions.

Please Nemesis, there really is no need for that.

If you don't wish to engage in the debate then fine. Just refrain from posting a reply, that's usually the best method - and far less offensive.

 

[Nemesis]

Your choice of infill.

But please - as with Graham, whose little rants against me are the stuff of what Carol is posting really - stop posting half baked nonsense.

 

[Flyfisher]

Surely the stuff of debate is to explain why someone's post is 'half baked nonsense' with a reasoned argument . . . . but you seem to prefer to resort to being offensive instead, which is a great shame.

 

[Nemesis]

If you want offensive I can do it. But as I doubt we will agree on many things in life I sinmply haven't the time to engage in fruitless discussions here. I have real stuff to do which is urgent and this is stopping me doing it.

There has been NO PUBLIC INQUIRY at all into the expansion of Stansted. Read the press release - the one Grahan thought was simply sound business sense on behalf of the owners.

The inquiry last summer was into the proposed massive increase in flights - especially at night - which surely can only be to the detriment of residents?

Aircraft noise is one of the greatest causes of stress a survey found. No I can't post a link at the moment.

 

[Flyfisher]

If you want offensive I can do it. But as I doubt we will agree on many things in life I sinmply haven't the time to engage in fruitless discussions here. I have real stuff to do which is urgent and this is stopping me doing it.

No, I don't want offensiveness - that's what I was asking you to avoid. I doubt that anyone else wants it either.

Of course we may not agree on everything, or anything possibly, but that's life. And if you really have more urgent things to do then go and do them. Nothing is stopping you but your own determination to always have the last word (which is fine if that's what you want, but please don't try to lay the blame elsewhere).

 

[Nemesis]

But you will insist on posting the last word which is often basically ill informed opinion.

As with the inquiry stuff.

NO INQUIRY ok? It's not we nasty subversive protestors who are holding up the bulldozing of listed buildingsand the massive expansion of air travel.

But of course we should allow market forces to prevail. We should simply let those with vast pots of dosh bugger up our country and make even more pots of dosh. It's all in the public interest of course that they do it.

And the awkward squad like me - well, what can we know.

No. I get annoyed at the stupid childishness of so much on this forum disguised as ' discussion', Carol has it sussed, others who simply have stopped posting have it sussed. I know as they have told me.

I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees. Che Guevara.

 

[Schoolmarm]

Right, there are regularly posts from Ev linking to things. I always read them and think oooh goody or oooh that is awful.


I don't usually reply with devil's advocate fingies about those links. There is no need mostly. We are extremely lucky that she throws all this information at us. There is no way I would get to hear about them otherwise.
It gives us the opportunity to either get involved or leave alone.

The only time I would waste her time discussing/asking things is if I didn't see what the problem was and needed further clarification. The links are basically to bring our attention to things, not so it can be thrashed out every time.

I hope you realise that Ev really is a tireless campaigner and prolific report writer . She doesn't promote herself very well cos she is too flippin busy.


Anyone wishing to join the fan club can make donations to SAVE lol. :lol:

 

[Flyfisher]

I, too, am very glad that Nem spends so much of her time searching for information and posting the links here and, like you, I reply to very few of them. But to expect no one to comment on any of that information does seem rather odd, especially when it sometimes appears to contain obvious inaccuracies.

OK, perhaps I could have tempered my description of the SSE press release as 'rubbish', but I notice that no one has yet challenged my basic criticism of it. Instead, there is the usual descent into offensiveness and the oft repeated 'I don't give a damn' or 'I'm too busy' - all of which takes time to post, so why bother?

And if Ev really is so busy and gets "annoyed at the stupid childishness of so much on this forum ", why does she post things expressly to wind people up, as she has herself admitted on a number of occasions?

I'm sorry, but from my perspective it seems like she relishes winding people up but can't follow through with sensible debate and gets upset when people don't agree with her.

 

[Nemesis]

I don't see much as sensible debate - you keep telling me it's Devil's Advocate, and so much is clearly nonsense. It can't be allowed to stand in case the unwary read it.

If I got 'upset' when people disagreed I wouldn't have spent several decades sitting in streets, writing angry letters, reports, doing the things I do which you have no idea at all about. I don't see much here that is sensible debate either. Not the sort I am used to elsewhere.

I post things because a number of people find them interesting. They tell me they do. they ask me to carry on. But they don't any longer wish to post about them as all they get is embroiled in low grade nitpicking from the likes of you. And you are entitled to an opinion, you are entitled to express it, even though, as you often are, you are wrong. Or maybe playing 'Devil's Advocate' to waste time. Who knows. therin lies a problem.

No-one has challenged your basic criticism as no-one much gives a damn what you think I suspect. Maybe you have cried wolf too often.

I don't, and you seem to be unaware af a great deal, and it's therefore pointless discussing it with you.

I don't 'frequently' post to wind people up. You do that all on your own. I sometimes make wry comment, which is a different matter entirely.

I do at times see exactly the reaction any post will get, and from whom, it doesn't need a crystal ball, but I don't intend to be censored simply because Graham doesn't like it.

 

[skier-hughes]

Flyfisher, I agree, if Nem wants to post links fine.
I read this one and I replied to items in it. Others could have then argued for or against my points.
Re-reading through, everyone who posted agreed with the points I raised, so they were obviously vaild points to make, not ramblings of an idiot.

As for posting to wind people up.
From this thread

Well, this should keep several posters I can think of foaming at the mouth:

What is the need for that sentence, in the context of the link, can you think of one Fly, other than to wind people up??

What is nonsense such that it can't be allowed to stand in case the unwary read about People taking budget airline flights to UK destinations to holiday?

I don't know mate, perhaps we should have had a last days shooting today.

Graham

 

[Nemesis]

And I was right wasn't I Graham? I knew exactly who would react and how. But I don't see why i should stop simply because you don't like something.

Everyone who posted agreed with the points you made?

Eh?

 

[Moo]

We are extremely lucky that she throws all this information at us. There is no way I would get to hear about them otherwise.

Hear, hear.

It gives us the opportunity to either get involved or leave alone.
The links are basically to bring our attention to things, not so it can be thrashed out every time.

Now that's where I'm not clear. Does it mean that we should either join in the campaign or shut up and refrain from discussing contentious issues on the forum?

.. a tireless campaigner and prolific report writer . ... she is too flippin busy.

Yes, of course, we need a lot more devoted campaigners, but I'm inclined to echo Flyfisher's remark on this point - there is really no need for her to waste precious time batting back posts that she regards as a trivial waste of time.

 

[Schoolmarm]

especially when it sometimes appears to contain obvious inaccuracies.

.

how can a link contain inaccuracies?

 

[Nemesis]

But they are posted to waste time when they are as Flyfisher frequently says they are 'Devil's Advocate'.

And put there in order to try to waste my time which is worse, as then I have to try to point out to the unwary that he's talking nonsense.

I think Gareth has a point. Maybe the IHBC forum is a more sensible place to post.

 

[Moo]

Wikipedia for starters.

 

[skier-hughes]

how can a link contain inaccuracies?

Just because it is a link doesn't mean it's true, I could link to an item written by anyone and it could be false.

 

[skier-hughes]

And I was right wasn't I Graham? I knew exactly who would react and how. But I don't see why i should stop simply because you don't like something.

Everyone who posted agreed with the points you made?

Eh?

Ok, which post didn't agreee with my points?

I don't care if you stop, but what you have to be prepared for is that if you post something, someone else may well have an opinion on it and post that.

 

[Nemesis]

Oh for God's sake.

A link cannot in itself contain inaccuracies, unless it's broken. The information linked to maybe be perceived to have inaccuracies, although at times that's only a perception as those who disagree or who know not a lot may think it is inaccurate when it possibly isn't.

Brain the size of a planet mutter mumble...


Desist.

 

[skier-hughes]

Oh for God's sake.

A link cannot in itself contain inaccuracies, unless it's broken. The information linked to maybe be perceived to have inaccuracies, although at times that's only a perception as those who disagree or who know not a lot may think it is inaccurate when it possibly isn't.

Brain the size of a planet mutter mumble...


Desist.

Here's a link that contains inaccuracies.

Nobody can have a brain the size of a planet.