Jump to content

fatshaft

Regulars
  • Content Count

    634
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by fatshaft

  1. On 6/6/2018 at 9:47 AM, RIchard Britten said:

    Sigh (again).

    You seemed fixated on "banning" things and comparing things that aren't related.

    Chase your own tail.  I am done trying to reason with the unreasonable.

    Not at all, you're the one wants the TT banned, I don't, nor any other sport, nor activity, nor type of work (fishing for example has an incredibly high death toll).

     

    It's very simple, you do, it's not something you like or approve of, yet has no effect on you at all. You won't explain reasoning other than people occasionally die doing it, which occurs doing other things you don't want banned.

     

    I'm simply asking for an explanation of this contradiction. 

    • Like 1
  2. 30 minutes ago, RIchard Britten said:

    Sigh, you are new to TT threads on MF, aren't you?

    No, I don't want motorcycles banned (your strawman).  I want the TT to end (which is not the same thing as "banned") because of the continued and senseless loss of life and limb.

    Yes, people die in all sorts of sports, events, every day life.  Using football as an example, when players die it is extremely rare (almost unheard of) and when it does happen it is invariably down to health conditions not related to playing football (genetic conditons).   But in the real world when there is a continued and seemingly unavoidable loss of life and life, steps are taken to mitigate that (hence you having to wear a seat belt when in a car).

    Cool. So, do you want other sports where people die banned too? I know it's taken hours and hours to get here, but that was my initial question, so if you could answer this first time without stupid "everest" & "bingo" comments, that would be just erchie 

  3. 1 minute ago, RIchard Britten said:

    Define "approve of".

    I don't approve of football (soccer) because I find it boring.  Do I want it "banned" (another emotive term with no relevance in the discussion), no.

    I am not avoiding anything.  You are trying to build a spurious argument based on dis-similar things (hence the apples and oranges you seem intent on ignoring).

    Do you want motorcycles banned?

    People die in football, why are you not wanting it banned?

     

  4. 18 minutes ago, RIchard Britten said:

    Where is that apples and oranges link again...

    Irrelevant with respect to your argument. You want to stop something you don't approve of, you have yet to clarify what sort of sports you are happy with, and which you want banned, and what non-sporting activities should also be banned on your "everest" :rolleyes: scale 

  5. 10 minutes ago, Mr. Sausages said:

    We're all involved. We fund it.

     

    9 minutes ago, RIchard Britten said:

    As long as it doesn't get in the way of your enjoyment of the event then?

    Do you guys sit at home in the dark, doing nothing? 

     

    Doing things is dangerous, some moreso than others. 

     

    So no sports of any kind is your idea? No roads, wouldn't want cars going around eh? Nor horses, lot of people killed by/falling off horses. 

    How about walking? Easy to trip, bang your head, and bingo! 

    • Like 1
  6. 18 hours ago, Gizo said:

    Why then? 2 competitors are on a mortuary slab. One “fan” also in the mortuary. 

    As an outsider, what exactly does this mean?

    you do realise not everyone believes in the TT. It isn’t some holy than thou race. 

    I'd have thought nothing surely? 

    People enjoy the races, the racers know the risks. If you don't enjoy them go do your thing instead. 

    • Like 2
  7. 6 minutes ago, Yibble said:

     Jodie Kidd though seems like a nice lass who is a bit confused as to why she's there, struggles to maintain enthusiasm and often sounds like she's just reading a script off a card. Matt Roberts' wander through the starting lineup yesterday was just downright embarrassing. Frankly I wished the organisers had removed him from the track. Whilst the previous Doyle, Parrish & Whitham combination seemed a little tired at times, it beat Kidd & Roberts by a country mile.

     

    Aye this. Anyone know why the previous trio have been replaced?

  8. On 5/16/2018 at 5:40 PM, woolley said:

    But who plants Tory plants? What process do they have to have undergone to become "plants" as opposed to being any other political activist on a political programme?

     

    It's most obvious in Scotland, the Dundee episode was where it reached it's nadir, when there was scarcely a Scottish accent on the show, never mind local. And of the five big cities Dundee is by far the one with the least immigration of English. Yet full of Tories, NO voters (Dundee/Angus has always been the most SNP area in Scotland) and leavers.  

     

    Then there's the UKIP chap from Glasgow who has on two separate occasions in the last couple of years, not just made it into the studio, but been able to ask questions also. Good on him you'd say, except most of us try and fail to even be an invited audience member, never mind ask questions, in a country where around 1% were voting UKIP.

     

    It's stinky

  9. 10 hours ago, P.K. said:

     

    Ms Soubry suggested dossiers of material she had handed to the Speaker showed a direct link between newspaper headlines attacking her views and actions on Brexit and threats of violence against herself.

    Two things. 

     

    The Daily Mail headline was the very next day after their "bullying" headline of the previous day.

    It's got to be stopped, now that Tories are being targetted. Was fine though when it was judges, Gina Miller, SNP MPs/MSPs, or Labour politicians. 

    • Thanks 1
  10. 5 minutes ago, llap said:

    The fact that they operate at "break-even" and therefore charge a lower price for their food isn't the full picture, though, is it? They're not really operating at break-even, as that doesn't factor in numerous other costs which a private business would have to pay (e.g. staff wages, property rental / purchase, cleaning, accounting, insurance, health and safety, training, security, advertising, etc). When you add it all together, it's definitely not running at break-even.

    I don't know, do you? I assume breakeven means exactly that. If they mean break even on wages and costs then yes you'd be right. But is that the case, I suspect you don't know that any more than I do. 

    • Like 1
  11. 24 minutes ago, llap said:

    Are you thick or something? It's subsidised. That's how they are able to operate at break-even, i.e. charge less.

    No, if they were getting food at less than break even, it's subsidised, if it's running at break even then by definition it clearly isn't subsidised, it's just cheap in comparison to open market values

    • Like 1
  12. On 21/10/2017 at 9:11 PM, notwell said:

    It was proven that the fatal shot was fired from his own security detail travelling behind him, in the panic.

    Have to say of all the documentaries and theories there's been, this one was the most convincing, especially as it finally made sense regarding the way pieces of JFK flew off his person. 

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...