They have put 20mph on major road, which is nuts. It is worse, if you a cyclist, because are they are doing the same sort of speed. Ideally, I want to overtake the cyclist, so we are not trying to overtake / undertake one another.
My car, hates 20mph zones. It is n't happy in 2nd gear or 3rd gear.
That seems to be the idea to get you on a bike. A fit cyclist can easily do 30mph, get an e bike and go much faster, no pollution, well not in the city anyway. Gov is going to lose a lot of revenue if people are priced out of cars or driven out in sheer frustration of owning one!
|
A fit cyclist can easily do 30mph, get an e bike and go much faster, no pollution, well not in the city anyway.
While you can get e bikes which go faster (and you don't have to pedal), those legal for the UK will only assist up to 15.5mph.
|
|
|
|
30mph is extremely fast on a bike. It's possible to hit those speeds (and more) in bursts or downhill but maintaing an average speed of 30mph would win you the Tour de France.
|
30mph is extremely fast on a bike. It's possible to hit those speeds (and more) in bursts or downhill but maintaing an average speed of 30mph would win you the Tour de France.
I agree, my reply was a bit tongue in cheek and not serious.
|
|
|
|
They have put 20mph on major road, which is nuts. It is worse, if you a cyclist, because are they are doing the same sort of speed. Ideally, I want to overtake the cyclist, so we are not trying to overtake / undertake one another.
My car, hates 20mph zones. It is n't happy in 2nd gear or 3rd gear.
That seems to be the idea to get you on a bike. A fit cyclist can easily do 30mph, get an e bike and go much faster, no pollution, well not in the city anyway. Gov is going to lose a lot of revenue if people are priced out of cars or driven out in sheer frustration of owning one!
The assumption is that everyone is physically fit, doesn't mind being rained on, will never be encumbered with shopping /children or elderly relatives,
A perfect illustration of the way Khan and other petty dictators think. I see he has given London Bus Drivers an 18% pay rise to further 'encourage' bus use.
|
A perfect illustration of the way Khan and other petty dictators think. I see he has given London Bus Drivers an 18% pay rise to further 'encourage' bus use.
Is it even within his gift to do that?
As I heard it it was one of the several companies who are contracted to run individual routes, or groups of routes, who had given their drivers a rise.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-64626372
|
A perfect illustration of the way Khan and other petty dictators think. I see he has given London Bus Drivers an 18% pay rise to further 'encourage' bus use.
Is it even within his gift to do that?
As I heard it it was one of the several companies who are contracted to run individual routes, or groups of routes, who had given their drivers a rise.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-64626372
So TfL doesn't subsidise them now?
|
So TfL doesn't subsidise them now?
What's that to do with the price of fish?
Abellio and the others, eg RATP, are contracted to operate specific routes. The contract will provide how revenue, whether from fares or subsidy, is dealt with.
Nothing I've seen suggests that Mayor Khan is upping the subsidy to cover this rise, or that he has sought to veto rises or otherwise frustrate bargaining between the drivers union and the employers.
Any evidence that he has done?
|
|
Just imagine London where all ICE traffic is ultimately banned. Cycling, walking, buses, electric buggies (max speed ~20mph) the only way for the public way to get around.
Trades and daytime delivery by speed limited EV. Anything with an ICE limited to using roads between 00.00-06.00 - would cover large delivery trucks etc.
Congestion would disappear overnight. Limited road space would become uncluttered as a dozen cyclists occupy the space of one SUV. Average speed of traffic currently ~9mph may even increase. Pollution almost eliminated. People healthier, less obese.
Financially a winner - offsetting the loss of congestion charge - no major road schemes required for decades. Less surface wear and potholes. Reduced NHS load.
As a strategy it may be what is motivating Mr Khan in the early stages at present.
Yesterday I drove through central Bristol rush hour, sat-nav to avoid the worst congestion. 40 mins to cover 5 miles of urban grot. Cramming more, ever bigger, vehicles into a limited space creating noise, pollution, road rage and stress is a strategic dead end.
|
Just imagine London where all ICE traffic is ultimately banned. Cycling, walking, buses, electric buggies (max speed ~20mph) the only way for the public way to get around.
Trades and daytime delivery by speed limited EV. Anything with an ICE limited to using roads between 00.00-06.00 - would cover large delivery trucks etc.
Congestion would disappear overnight. Limited road space would become uncluttered as a dozen cyclists occupy the space of one SUV. Average speed of traffic currently ~9mph may even increase. Pollution almost eliminated. People healthier, less obese.
Financially a winner - offsetting the loss of congestion charge - no major road schemes required for decades. Less surface wear and potholes. Reduced NHS load.
As a strategy it may be what is motivating Mr Khan in the early stages at present.
Yesterday I drove through central Bristol rush hour, sat-nav to avoid the worst congestion. 40 mins to cover 5 miles of urban grot. Cramming more, ever bigger, vehicles into a limited space creating noise, pollution, road rage and stress is a strategic dead end.
Oh dear. Sounds like a communist utopia. Only where the 95% Plebs are serfs with nothing and the 5% ultra rich can do as they please because they can afford it. No thank you.
|
|
Oh dear. Sounds like a communist utopia. Only where the 95% Plebs are serfs with nothing and the 5% ultra rich can do as they please because they can afford it. No thank you.
It seems to be gradually coming though when you look around, even free speech is being muted gradually....
|
|
|
|
Limited road space would become uncluttered as a dozen cyclists occupy the space of one SUV.
What ? You cannot be serious (I hope) ? Four at the most.
|
|
Oh dear. Sounds like a communist utopia. Only where the 95% Plebs are serfs with nothing and the 5% ultra rich can do as they please because they can afford it. No thank you.
A communist utopia abhors the idea of 5% benefitting at the expense of the 95%. I don't think the Marxist "from each according to their means, to each according to their needs" works anywhere.
You may not like the idea of cars ultimately banned in cities. It may be a decade or two away by which time I will be history. But, tell me, what does the better long term alternative look like.
|
|
But, tell me, what does the better long term alternative look like.
Can anyone answer that, at the moment motors are being pushed into an ever decreasing road space, slowed down as much as possible to hopefully put not only car drivers off going into town, but commercial vehicles as well, blocking roads to prevent free flow traffic then blaming the traffic for pollution
all I can say is they have a weird way of thinking in that they hope to persuade the public they are doing the right thing even though they are causing the problem, but then we are not supposed to think like that, common sense is no more...
|
Only where the 95% Plebs are serfs with nothing and the 5% ultra rich can do as they please because they can afford it. No thank you.
It doesn't make a difference whether cars are driven by serfs or plutocrats - you can't get quarts into pint pots. Roads can only accommodate - and residents tolerate - a limiting number of vehicles, and many urban areas passed that point long ago. It's the attempts to find a solution that are painful.
|
Only where the 95% Plebs are serfs with nothing and the 5% ultra rich can do as they please because they can afford it. No thank you.
It doesn't make a difference whether cars are driven by serfs or plutocrats - you can't get quarts into pint pots. Roads can only accommodate - and residents tolerate - a limiting number of vehicles, and many urban areas passed that point long ago. It's the attempts to find a solution that are painful.
There is no solution while people continue to live/work in/around cities - movement of the population from the countryside to cities has been going on for 1,000s of years and shows no sign of abating. The traffic congestion/pollution is a very good reason not to live/work in cities but you can't tell some people!
|
|
It's the attempts to find a solution that are painful.
especially when the solutions work against traffic flow instead of helping it flow faster, where traffic is held up now is left to stay congested instead of reinstating the original traffic light timings... doesn`t make sense imo
thats without the other i****ic road alterations made..
|
|
<< ... movement of the population from the countryside to cities has been going on for 1,000s of years and shows no sign of abating >>
Well, hundreds, certainly. Can't speak for other continents, but it was the Industrial Revolution that really caused the problems you describe - so say about 300 years ? It was a trickle before that.
|
|
Not only have folk moved from country to city, the population has grown by 400k pa for the last 20 years.
Societies need to make choices about conflicting priorities based on consensus. Not all strategies will meet with common approval. Some may actively dislike the outcome.
To improve traffic flow there are two basic choices - reduce usage and demand, or increase road space.
Reducing demand is the dominant strategy through pricing and increasing regulation - congestion zones, bus lanes, speed limits, parking restrictions etc.
The alternative of increasing road space means something else suffers - less housing, green belt land goes, poorer health from pollution, noise, climate change etc.
Changing behaviours to reduce road use seems a better strategy than endlessly spending to improve the network. The number of cars has tripled since 1970 to 33m.
Cars used to be "luxury" items affordable mainly by those enjoying a decent income. They are now simply too cheap - a new small lease car can be had for the price of a reasonable meal for two, or a family visit to a pizza emporium once a week.
|
Oh dear. Sounds like a communist utopia. Only where the 95% Plebs are serfs with nothing and the 5% ultra rich can do as they please because they can afford it. No thank you.
A communist utopia abhors the idea of 5% benefitting at the expense of the 95%. I don't think the Marxist "from each according to their means, to each according to their needs" works anywhere.
You may not like the idea of cars ultimately banned in cities. It may be a decade or two away by which time I will be history. But, tell me, what does the better long term alternative look like.
It might be a good idea to stop letting net 500k+ (conservative estimate) people into the country each year. Imagine if the population (including those not 'counted') hadn't grown how much less busy the roads would be now...
Or if we didn't encourage people to buy remotely instead of locally (necessitating loads of delivery lorries and vans) and reducing farmland usage for growing food / raising livestock in favour of 'solar farms' (which can go on rooftops) or continually building out-of-town retail developments requiring the usage of cars to get there, especially for the elderly who won't be served by a bus.
Just a few examples for you Terry.
Oh, and by the way, where do you think the proponents of the 15 minute city got their ideas from? It wasn't proponets of capitalism. The policy is pushed by the WEF and their minions though, along with their owning nothing, eating ze bugz and bugz-related produce and having 'happy proles'.
Apparently the local council in Oxford didn't like it up 'em when challanged on the facts. Funny, that.
|
|
<< It might be a good idea to stop letting net 500k+ (conservative estimate) people into the country each year. >>
It is an excellent idea, but how is it put into practice - effectively ? When shoals of unfortunate people pay silly money for an overcrowded rubber boat to cross the Channel, and humanitarian pressures prevent the UK doing much to stop it ?
|
<< It might be a good idea to stop letting net 500k+ (conservative estimate) people into the country each year. >>
It is an excellent idea, but how is it put into practice - effectively ? When shoals of unfortunate people pay silly money for an overcrowded rubber boat to cross the Channel, and humanitarian pressures prevent the UK doing much to stop it ?
You only have to look to certain Eastern European nations to see how they deal with illegals.
Anyone not from a nation at war who has gone through a safe country to get here won't be let in and turned around within a day.
Use intel in France etc to determine who is running these rackets and stop them. I strongly suspect the authorities know who is involved, but do nothing, trying to palm it off onto other departments and nations. That's where we should take a leaf out of the French government's book and essentially threatne them with sanctions, non-co-operation, etc as they regularly do with us.
Maybe then they and the EU in general will be rather more co-operative.
It might help to not be in the ECHR etc and go back to the Law Lords (in a reformed HoL) rather than the very political Supreme Court..
|
|
Back to Motoring now please.
Mod
|
Back to Motoring now please.
Mod
Please tell Terry, FP and Andrew-T that. Their the ones who are trying to scupper the debate by pretending its all unrelated to the issue at hand and all 'comspiracy theories' - the 'current thing' and go-to accusation of The Left whenever their ideology gets taken to task.
I would note that 20mph zones were the opening salvo in the war to demonise Pleb car ownership, first going towards dedicated cycle and bus lanes that rarely get used and squeeze other traffic into less lanes, causing yet more congestion (to force the issue further), then onto congestion and pollution charges (taxes like the ULEZ one in London, etc).
Then onto LTNs (that just push traffic elsewhere and have been shown to significanlt increase congestion and blue light waiting times because the blockades aren't on satnav map services and rising bollards often don't unlock), and now the supposed 'conspiracy theory' of 'Smart Cities' and '15 minute cities' where proponents are saying its not authoritarian communistic stuff then basically saying as much in their blurb.
Besides, this part of the forum is about general discussion topics.
|
|
<< Please tell Terry, FP and Andrew-T that. They are the ones who are trying to scupper the debate by pretending its all unrelated to the issue at hand and all 'comspiracy theories' - the 'current thing' and go-to accusation of The Left whenever their ideology gets taken to task. >>
Andy, I can't speak for FP or Terry, but I would ask you humbly not to assert that all those who argue against your strong opinions are 'ideologists'. I have said before that given any reasonable alternative I will not vote Tory or Labour, as I have middle-of-the-road views. Neither do I habitually assume extreme or unlikely explanations for political events I disagree with, nor try to 'scupper debates'.
At least don't imagine that FP, Terry and I conspire against you :-)
Edited by Andrew-T on 18/02/2023 at 15:23
|
|
"Besides, this part of the forum is about general discussion topics."
It is, which is why I have let the discussion continue but in this General forum. It was originally in Motoring - see my post below this morning at 08:54.
My comment regarding 'back to motoring' was when this thread was in Motoring.
We need to keep Motoring as close to motoring as possible, there have been enough comments made to the Mods that this is what people want and this is afterall a Motoring forum.
I don't have a problem if people want to discuss other subjects as long as no forum rules are broken but the place for this is in General. People can contribute if they want or give it a miss.
The other option would be to have what we had in the 'old days' where there was no General forum and any discussions that deviated from Motoring we simply locked. I'm not sure that's good, some of the General discussions have been useful and I have given it a lot of thought but on balance think the current arrangement is best. But I will lock threads in General if it's getting hand-baggy or just tedious.
Edited by Xileno on 18/02/2023 at 16:53
|
"Besides, this part of the forum is about general discussion topics."
It is, which is why I have let the discussion continue but in this General forum. It was originally in Motoring - see my post below this morning at 08:54.
My comment regarding 'back to motoring' was when this thread was in Motoring.
We need to keep Motoring as close to motoring as possible, there have been enough comments made to the Mods that this is what people want and this is afterall a Motoring forum.
I don't have a problem if people want to discuss other subjects as long as no forum rules are broken but the place for this is in General. People can contribute if they want or give it a miss.
The other option would be to have what we had in the 'old days' where there was no General forum and any discussions that deviated from Motoring we simply locked. I'm not sure that's good, some of the General discussions have been useful and I have given it a lot of thought but on balance think the current arrangement is best. But I will lock threads in General if it's getting hand-baggy or just tedious.
The problem is that's exactly what Brompt, Andrew-T, alan, FP and Terry want. it's why they always ask me and others to say why this or that after we post comments about issue X or Y to deliberately push the debate off topic and/or into a slanging match, precisely because IMHO it stops their arguments from being shown up as either hollow, disengenuous or worse.
Whenever I and others cite factual information and/or reports, we get strawmanned and accused of being ists and phobes. What do you expect us to do - stay silent and just take it?
You need to be even-handed, because I know a good number of now former forum members who are of the 'conservative' persuasion who have left because they are fed up with constantly being targeted in such a way (often being 'ganged up' possibly in a co-ordinated fashion) and those perpetrating them get let off scot-free.
I've seen this happen on other forums and it hasn't ended well for the sites in question.
|
The problem is that's exactly what Brompt, Andrew-T, alan, FP and Terry want. it's why they always ask me and others to say why this or that after we post comments about issue X or Y to deliberately push the debate off topic and/or into a slanging match, precisely because IMHO it stops their arguments from being shown up as either hollow, disengenuous or worse.
Whenever I and others cite factual information and/or reports, we get strawmanned and accused of being ists and phobes. What do you expect us to do - stay silent and just take it?
I have never, ever, in this place or another tried to get threads closed. I enjoy debate but find it difficult to do so with some people on here.
My issue with you specifically Andy is that you cite something as though it were a fact. Viewed from my perspective what you've said is not a fact but an opinion based on either your own thoughts or stuff you've read elsewhere. That's why I ask you where you got that from.
The question of whether the NHS guidance on names etc in Sammy's thread was done by Civil Servants against the wishes of their Minsters is a case in point. I asked you to tell us where that suggestion came from or, if it was based on your own thinking. to explain why.
|
It might be a good idea to stop letting net 500k+ (conservative estimate) people into the country each year.
A little under half the population increase since 1991 has been natural, not immigration.
There would be less congestion were immigration better controlled but at a cost - most are in the age range 15-35 and form part of the active UK workforce, and (mostly) pay tax.
continually building out-of-town retail developments requiring the usage of cars to get there, especially for the elderly who won't be served by a bus.
If we didn't have out of town retail parks explicitly designed for car users, town centres would be even more congested.
Oh, and by the way, where do you think the proponents of the 15 minute city got their ideas from
The "15 minute city" is what most people lived in before car ownership ran riot. Shops, jobs, most close relations, friends and social life all within a few miles.
An existence I would personally find somewhat confining, but one that worked for most for all of human existence bar the last 80 years.
The average commute is ~1 hour per day (200 hours pa). To drive (say) 10k pa at an average of 30 mph is over 300 hours pa. Measured against this waste of time, effort and resources the 15 minute city becomes positively attractive.
|
It might be a good idea to stop letting net 500k+ (conservative estimate) people into the country each year.
A little under half the population increase since 1991 has been natural, not immigration.
That would be difficult, given the birth rate (overall and especially outside of first generation immigrants) is well below the replacement rate. In fact, increases in the population (and that's only the official numbers, given reports are estimating up to 10M illegals to add on) is solely because of immigration and children born of first generation immigrants.
There would be less congestion were immigration better controlled but at a cost - most are in the age range 15-35 and form part of the active UK workforce, and (mostly) pay tax.
continually building out-of-town retail developments requiring the usage of cars to get there, especially for the elderly who won't be served by a bus.
If we didn't have out of town retail parks explicitly designed for car users, town centres would be even more congested.
Most are built to serve the extra population because of the expensaion of towns and surrounding villages, not to make shopping easier for existing residents. For example in my town, the in-town supermarket closed because it was too small to complete with the larger edge of town ones that are nearer to the newer housing developments. They never were needed if migration was essentially zero.
Oh, and by the way, where do you think the proponents of the 15 minute city got their ideas from
The "15 minute city" is what most people lived in before car ownership ran riot. Shops, jobs, most close relations, friends and social life all within a few miles.
An existence I would personally find somewhat confining, but one that worked for most for all of human existence bar the last 80 years.
The average commute is ~1 hour per day (200 hours pa). To drive (say) 10k pa at an average of 30 mph is over 300 hours pa. Measured against this waste of time, effort and resources the 15 minute city becomes positively attractive.
The 15 minute city is not what we used to have before motor cars were widely used. The 15 minute city is a concept used by leftist ideologues and corporatists to control the masses, which is why they restrict car usage, including where you can travel to - unless you are wealthy or someone 'important'.
They also restrict social mobility because obviously every type of job can not have a workplace within 15 minutes of your home, necessitating you move every time you move jobs, which is both impractical and expensive, and often impossible if your are married and both work.
Even some (notional) 'Tory' councils have been taken in by them - I read a report of a serious backlash whereby restrictions of n movement WOULD (as they all are) be put in place as part of the scheme.
In addition, such schemes can easily be used to perform 'lockdowns' for any reason, and given how it has now been conslusively proven they had zero positive effect during the pandemic - quite the opposite in fact, that is very chilling indeed, given how quickly the authorities liked to use them and how willing they are to do so again, including 'climate lockdowns' (which won't apply to the great and good', no doubt including all those calling for them).
|
|
"That would be difficult, given the birth rate (overall and especially outside of first generation immigrants) is well below the replacement rate. In fact, increases in the population (and that's only the official numbers, given reports are estimating up to 10M illegals to add on) is solely because of immigration and children born of first generation immigrants."
That is not correct. A large part of historical population growth has been a result of natural growth (i.e. births minus deaths) as life expectancy has increased. It is certainly not solely because of immigration regardless of what the exact proportion of each is.
Notwithstanding that, I'm not really clear on why children of immigrants somehow don't count.
Where has the figure of 10 million illegal immigrants come from?
|
|
<< ... reports are estimating up to 10M illegals to add on) is solely because of immigration and children born of first generation immigrants.>>
'Children born of first-generation immigrants' are part of the 'natural' figures, as they clearly did not immigrate - at least not in a countable form. And ten million - that sounds like scaremongering to me. Agreed that quite a few people try to avoid being counted, but it's hard to sponge on the system without becoming visible to some authorities.
|
|
Personally I think the 15 minute city sounds a great idea. It'd be fantastic if most of the stuff I need was within 15 minutes walk of home. A bit like what it was pre motor car. I don't see how the 15 minute city idea precludes having a job elsewhere. You just commute, you're not prevented from doing so as far as I can see by the arguments presented here.
|
|
“Oh, and by the way, where do you think the proponents of the 15 minute city got their ideas from?”
Another excursion by EA into conspiracy-theory land.
The “15-minute city” is a rather mundane civic planning idea which tries to locate the essential places an urban person might need to visit frequently (retail, medical etc.) within easy walking or cycling distances, thus cutting down the need for car journeys.
In Oxford, the plan has been adapted to reduce the chaotic congestion in the city centre. It involves traffic filters (controlled by ANPR cameras) installed as part of a £6.5m trial commencing in 2024. Residents will be able to drive freely around their own neighbourhoods (there will be six in total), but will be fined up to £70 for driving into other neighbourhoods through the filters. Some filters will operate 7am to 7pm, some will operate Monday - Saturday.
It does not prevent motorists’ ability to go from one neighbourhood to another. But to do that, you exit your area by driving away from the centre on to the ring road and enter your destination area from the ring road. In effect, it is a sophisticated way of controlling traffic by the use of diversions.
Predictably, people of certain views have been up in arms. True, the WEF likes the general idea – which is apparently a Bad Thing for some, as for them it’s part of some shadowy global conspiracy intent on robbing us of our freedoms. True, the “15-minute city” idea was proposed by a French professor with a history of left-wing activism, so of course it must be bad.
After the plan was published, the lies began. Power-mad politicians, it was claimed, planned to lock residents into one of six zones and confine residents to their own neighbourhoods. This is Communism, apparently.
Nick Fletcher MP, Conservative (Don Valley), recently demanded a debate in the Commons on the “international socialist concept of so-called 15-minute cities”, and said that the schemes could “take away our personal freedom… Sheffield is already on this journey and I do not want Doncaster, which is also a Labour-run socialist council, to do the same,” he added. Fletcher’s demand for the debate is yet to be realised and he was greeted with laughs and jeers in the House of Commons – which is probably the best way to treat this sort of stuff.
I will leave aside EA’s entirely silly comment about “…bugz-related produce and having 'happy proles'.”
(With apologies to Xileno)
|
|
<< It does not prevent motorists’ ability to go from one neighbourhood to another. But to do that, you exit your area by driving away from the centre on to the ring road and enter your destination area from the ring road. >>
It sounds an interesting idea, but I am wondering whether (as described) it will make residents drive further, not less ? Apart from adding another big-brother element to everyday life ?
|
|
Yet more gaslighting about 'conspiracy theories' that amazingly turn out to be 100% true every time. It goes from 'never gonna happen' to 'well, if it does happen, surely it's a good thing' to well, what ye gonna do?.
Absolutely zero attempt at genuine debate, given it's always framed in your way and anything other than that gets the straw man / gaslighting treatment. Presumably because there's little more to say on 'the other place' where its full of lefties high-fiving the latest wheeze from the WEF, activists, civil servants or whoever is 'the latest thing'.
Of course, this here is just to stop debate by getting threads stopped by the mods, because they know any meaningful conversation where they have to go into detail means they get owned time and again, damaging their credibility to a serious degree. You can always tell when that happens, because we on the other side get silence or the personal attacks with no actual facts to back up their claims.
|
|
In many ways I don't know why I'm bothering to write this. However...
"Yet more gaslighting about 'conspiracy theories' that amazingly turn out to be 100% true every time. It goes from 'never gonna happen' to 'well, if it does happen, surely it's a good thing' to well, what ye gonna do?."
- Give us a good example of a so-called conspiracy theory that turned out not to be one at all. It sound as if you believe there are many. I'm willing to listen.
"Absolutely zero attempt at genuine debate, given it's always framed in your way and anything other than that gets the straw man / gaslighting treatment. Presumably because there's little more to say on 'the other place' where its full of lefties high-fiving the latest wheeze from the WEF, activists, civil servants or whoever is 'the latest thing'."
- Based on past experience, I'd say you don't do "genuine debate". However, feel free simply to give an example of "lefties high-fiving the latest wheeze from the WEF". I would love to check it out.
"Of course, this here is just to stop debate by getting threads stopped by the mods, because they know any meaningful conversation where they have to go into detail means they get owned time and again, damaging their credibility to a serious degree. You can always tell when that happens, because we on the other side get silence or the personal attacks with no actual facts to back up their claims."
- Repeating the outrageous accusation that anyone is trying to get threads shut down doesn't make it true. And don't kid yourself - you have never "owned" anyone in a debate on this forum. "Silence" can mean many things, one of which is that people get bored with trying to follow the barely-relevant, rambling length of some of your posts. (Maybe that's a deliberate tactic of yours?)
I can't speak for anyone else, but I haven't made any personal attacks on you, though I'm not sure you understand the difference between attacking you and attacking your views about the world in general and this forum in particular, which seem to grow more outlandish with every comment.
|
In many ways I don't know why I'm bothering to write this. However...
Amazing how you just force yourself to do so. Your life must be so full that all you do is spend time arguing - supposedly on the same side as confirmed socialists whom you say you have nothing in common because 'youre right of centre'. Seems that all your other comments contradict that previous 'statement'.
Then you go with the victim narrative with 'ourageous statement' etc to garner support and presumably to get the mods to delete my comments but not yours. Presumably your skin is so thin that you cannot stand any critcism, and wish anyone on the other side - that you've characterised as 'far right' or 'conspiracy theoriists' (common leftist tactics and tropes) to be silenced via removal of comments.
You have made personal attacks on me, and no denying that after people can see them in black and white will wash them away.
You appear to do all this to deflect from actually refuting my points or defending your own positions with facts - where's all the references?
|
|
"Your life must be so full that all you do is spend time arguing - supposedly on the same side as confirmed socialists whom you say you have nothing in common because 'youre right of centre'. Seems that all your other comments contradict that previous 'statement'."
- Now that IS a personal comment - about what happens in my life, how I spend time arguing etc. I could just as easily say you're some kind of weirdo who spends a lot of time soaking up conspiracy theories - but I don't. I don't know much about you and I'm not the slightest bit interested in your life.
"Then you go with the victim narrative with 'ourageous statement' etc to garner support and presumably to get the mods to delete my comments but not yours."
- I'll leave others to judge that one.
"Presumably your skin is so thin that you cannot stand any critcism, and wish anyone on the other side - that you've characterised as 'far right' or 'conspiracy theoriists' (common leftist tactics and tropes) to be silenced via removal of comments."
- Another personal comment, about my so-called thin skin. Really, you need to get over yourself on that one. No, I don't want anyone silenced; I'm happy for you to continue to make your comments as long as you realise others are going to call you out.
"You have made personal attacks on me, and no denying that after people can see them in black and white will wash them away."
- Back up that accusation. I will apologise if I have done so.
"You appear to do all this to deflect from actually refuting my points or defending your own positions with facts - where's all the references?"
- You know as well as I do that we've been here before and that so-called discussion with you goes nowhere. In any case, let me remind you once again that you are the one with the "unconventional" views that you insist on introducing. I don't need to prove anything.
Do you wish to apologise for the personal comments in the post to which I'm replying?
Edited by FP on 19/02/2023 at 17:18
|
|
Re Post Sun 19 Feb 2023 17:15.
A couple of footnotes to the above.
1. EA: “Your life must be so full that all you do is spend time arguing…” and “Presumably your skin is so thin that you cannot stand any criticism…”
FP: “Do you wish to apologise for the personal comments in the post to which I'm replying?”
- Disappointingly, but perhaps unsurprisingly, so far no apology has been forthcoming. It’s minor, so no big deal, but it does illustrate a point.
2. EA: “You have made personal attacks on me, and no denying that after people can see them in black and white will wash them away.”
FP: “Back up that accusation. I will apologise if I have done so.”
- This is a little more serious. If EA will not (or cannot) give examples of something that exists, he claims, “in black and white”, then it’s fair to assume there aren’t any. So much for EA’s credibility.
I would in fact be disappointed if it turned out that I had made - somehow, without meaning to - any personal attacks.
|
|
Labelling a comment 'entirely silly' might have been construed as a personal comment irrespective of the truth of that statement. Shame this forum hasn't invested in an 'ignore' function. It would make it a more pleasant place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
