Bendy Bus - RIP

24

Comments

  • W1
    W1 Posts: 2,636
    rjsterry wrote:
    W1 wrote:
    jamesco wrote:
    W1 wrote:
    I know the Guardian is a completely laughable and absurd paper, but get a load of their "take" on this:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/patri ... rect=false
    W1, somewhere deep down you've got to have a heart... this is a blog post pointing out, not lecturing, that there are homeless people that use the bendy-buses for shelter. 2 weeks before xmas that's not laughable, it's heart-breaking.

    I don't think there is a topic in the world that some hypocritical bleeding heart Guardian blogger couldn't spin into a ludicrous tear-jerker story. Their take on this is ridiculous - of course bendy buses should be kept so some homeless people can fare-dodge and go for a ride around town at night.

    I presume you're a fan of squatters rights too?

    So where does the article say that? I think it was just pointing out that homeless people used them as a refuge, much like they do with the Tube and overground trains, and that this to some extent disguises the number of homeless people, sorry, fare-dodging joy-riders, in the capital. And while we're on the subject, what exactly is hypocritical about that article? I notice it's a word you've taken to recently as a sort of blanket derogatory comment.

    It's my new favourite word to cover the lefty bases. It was inspired by anti-capitalist protestors tweeting on their Iphones from Starbucks, before pretending to sleep in their "made in China" tents, whilst bleating that it's all so unfair, that someone else should pay, all whilst living off the state and contributing nothing. It's a joy.

    The article is so ridiculous - I wonder whether the author would support higher fares to cover the cost of fare jumpers? Or is happy that people may be put off using public transport at night because the driver has no control over who comes on or not? It's just an absurd excuse to write a hand-wringing article to make the author feel less guilty that he's not homeless. There are better ways to deal with that than keeping bendy-bloody-busses.
  • W1
    W1 Posts: 2,636
    rjsterry wrote:
    W1 wrote:
    jamesco wrote:
    W1 wrote:
    homeless people can fare-dodge and go for a ride around town at night
    Classy, Scrooge, very classy.

    Oh it's Christmas, so let's keep the bendy busses. Brilliant.

    The editors of the Guardian must have imploded at the thought that, on the one hand bendy busses are dangerous to cyclists, yet on the other they are used by the homeless. Which hand-wringing stance to take?

    Again, nowhere in the article does it say that either explicitly or implicitly. You are inventing things to get upset about.

    The implication of an article criticising the loss the bendy buss is unquestionably that they should be kept.

    And I was refering to Jamesco's use of the word scrouge, obviously.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    No it's not.

    Give me a quote from that article which directly implies that bendy busses should "unquestionably... be kept."
    _
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,372
    W1 wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    W1 wrote:
    jamesco wrote:
    W1 wrote:
    I know the Guardian is a completely laughable and absurd paper, but get a load of their "take" on this:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/patri ... rect=false
    W1, somewhere deep down you've got to have a heart... this is a blog post pointing out, not lecturing, that there are homeless people that use the bendy-buses for shelter. 2 weeks before xmas that's not laughable, it's heart-breaking.

    I don't think there is a topic in the world that some hypocritical bleeding heart Guardian blogger couldn't spin into a ludicrous tear-jerker story. Their take on this is ridiculous - of course bendy buses should be kept so some homeless people can fare-dodge and go for a ride around town at night.

    I presume you're a fan of squatters rights too?

    So where does the article say that? I think it was just pointing out that homeless people used them as a refuge, much like they do with the Tube and overground trains, and that this to some extent disguises the number of homeless people, sorry, fare-dodging joy-riders, in the capital. And while we're on the subject, what exactly is hypocritical about that article? I notice it's a word you've taken to recently as a sort of blanket derogatory comment.

    It's my new favourite word to cover the lefty bases. It was inspired by anti-capitalist protestors tweeting on their Iphones from Starbucks, before pretending to sleep in their "made in China" tents, whilst bleating that it's all so unfair, that someone else should pay, all whilst living off the state and contributing nothing. It's a joy.

    The article is so ridiculous - I wonder whether the author would support higher fares to cover the cost of fare jumpers? Or is happy that people may be put off using public transport at night because the driver has no control over who comes on or not? It's just an absurd excuse to write a hand-wringing article to make the author feel less guilty that he's not homeless. There are better ways to deal with that than keeping bendy-bloody-busses.

    I'll write it one word at a time:

    The

    Article

    Doesn't

    Suggest

    That

    Bendy

    Busses

    Should

    Be

    Kept.

    Less frothing, more careful reading.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • W1
    W1 Posts: 2,636
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    No it's not.

    Give me a quote from that article which directly implies that bendy busses should "unquestionably... be kept."

    Do you think that an article that highlights an "issue" of removing bendy busses is in favour or against their removal?

    Even for you Rick, this is clutching at straws.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    Where's my quote? I'm not going to answer anything unless I get my quote from you.

    No quote = you lose.
    _
  • jamesco
    jamesco Posts: 687
    W1 wrote:
    It's my new favourite word to cover the lefty bases. It was inspired by anti-capitalist protestors tweeting on their Iphones from Starbucks, before pretending to sleep in their "made in China" tents, whilst bleating that it's all so unfair, that someone else should pay, all whilst living off the state and contributing nothing. It's a joy.

    The article is so ridiculous - I wonder whether the author would support higher fares to cover the cost of fare jumpers? Or is happy that people may be put off using public transport at night because the driver has no control over who comes on or not? It's just an absurd excuse to write a hand-wringing article to make the author feel less guilty that he's not homeless. There are better ways to deal with that than keeping bendy-bloody-busses.
    You're trolling, right, W1? Here you're extrapolating from the blog post to draw silly conclusions, which you then ridicule.

    And you still haven't answered my question about why you read & post from the Guardian when it's clearly a paper you loathe. What's the point? To make yourself angry?
  • W1
    W1 Posts: 2,636
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Where's my quote? I'm not going to answer anything unless I get my quote from you.

    No quote = you lose.
    No answer - you lose.

    Or do you only accept things that are express, rather than implied? Is it best to keep it that simple?
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,372
    So you can't find a quote then?

    Nobody is suggesting that bendy busses are a solution to the homeless problem. The article is just pointing out that homeless people (as well as plenty of others) have taken advantage of them to get somewhere relatively safe and warm to sleep, and that as the busses have been withdrawn, about 200 people are now sleeping rough somewhere else. The former was a bad thing, but the latter (more people sleeping rough in winter) is worse.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • jamesco
    jamesco Posts: 687
    W1 wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Where's my quote? I'm not going to answer anything unless I get my quote from you.

    No quote = you lose.
    No answer - you lose.

    Or do you only accept things that are express, rather than implied? Is it best to keep it that simple?
    That might be the problem, W1, you're implying a lot of things that just aren't there.
  • W1
    W1 Posts: 2,636
    jamesco wrote:
    W1 wrote:
    It's my new favourite word to cover the lefty bases. It was inspired by anti-capitalist protestors tweeting on their Iphones from Starbucks, before pretending to sleep in their "made in China" tents, whilst bleating that it's all so unfair, that someone else should pay, all whilst living off the state and contributing nothing. It's a joy.

    The article is so ridiculous - I wonder whether the author would support higher fares to cover the cost of fare jumpers? Or is happy that people may be put off using public transport at night because the driver has no control over who comes on or not? It's just an absurd excuse to write a hand-wringing article to make the author feel less guilty that he's not homeless. There are better ways to deal with that than keeping bendy-bloody-busses.
    You're trolling, right, W1? Here you're extrapolating from the blog post to draw silly conclusions, which you then ridicule.

    And you still haven't answered my question about why you read & post from the Guardian when it's clearly a paper you loathe. What's the point? To make yourself angry?

    I was answering RJS' question.

    It's best to know your enemies. And I do find the hypocricy of Monibot, Tonibee et al amusing.

    And it's so easy to rile up the pinkos on here (as proven), because even when something is clearly a daft article they'll still defend it to the end on any spurious ground.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    W1 wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Where's my quote? I'm not going to answer anything unless I get my quote from you.

    No quote = you lose.
    No answer - you lose.

    Or do you only accept things that are express, rather than implied? Is it best to keep it that simple?

    Until you can prove the article suggests that bendy busses must be kept, then your argument is baseless.

    Given that no-one else can see that, we need some proof.

    The onus is on you to prove your argument right, not me.
    _
  • W1
    W1 Posts: 2,636
    jamesco wrote:
    W1 wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Where's my quote? I'm not going to answer anything unless I get my quote from you.

    No quote = you lose.
    No answer - you lose.

    Or do you only accept things that are express, rather than implied? Is it best to keep it that simple?
    That might be the problem, W1, you're implying a lot of things that just aren't there.

    Do you want to answer the question, because Rick can't.
  • W1
    W1 Posts: 2,636
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    W1 wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Where's my quote? I'm not going to answer anything unless I get my quote from you.

    No quote = you lose.
    No answer - you lose.

    Or do you only accept things that are express, rather than implied? Is it best to keep it that simple?

    Until you can prove the article suggests that bendy busses must be kept, then your argument is baseless.

    Given that no-one else can see that, we need some proof.

    The onus is on you to prove your argument right, not me.

    Do you read that article as pro or anti? Do you find that the use of particular words gives you an idea? You know, like "haven"? It's not that hard to form an opinion Rick, unless you need things spelt out for you - in which place, give the Guardian a call.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    W1 wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    No it's not.

    Give me a quote from that article which directly implies that bendy busses should "unquestionably... be kept."

    Do you think that an article that highlights an "issue" of removing bendy busses is in favour or against their removal?

    Even for you Rick, this is clutching at straws.

    I think the article is not concerned with the rights or wrongs of removing bendy busses.

    I think the article is concerned with reporting issues re-homeless people.
    _
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    Now where's the proof for your argument?
    _
  • jamesco
    jamesco Posts: 687
    W1 wrote:
    And it's so easy to rile up the pinkos on here (as proven), because even when something is clearly a daft article they'll still defend it to the end on any spurious ground.
    So, you're trolling.

    That pretty much ends the discussion, no? Wrestling with pigs and all that.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    Man_Looking_at_Watch.gif
    _
  • asprilla
    asprilla Posts: 8,440
    I read the article before manfully ploughing though the rest of this thread.

    The article points out a sad byproduct of the removal of the bendy buses. That doesn't mean it advocates keeping them.

    My neighbour has fir tree that casts a massive shadow across my garden. It is home to a squirrel that my daughter loves watching playing in the garden and depriving her of that is going to be sad but I still want him to cut the fecking three down and if he doesn't I'm going to put copper nails in it's roots.

    See, just because I'm saddened by by the side effect of something doesn't mean I don't think that overall it's a good thing.
    Mud - Genesis Vapour CCX
    Race - Fuji Norcom Straight
    Sun - Cervelo R3
    Winter / Commute - Dolan ADX
  • kelsen
    kelsen Posts: 2,003
    Asprilla wrote:
    I read the article before manfully ploughing though the rest of this thread.

    The article points out a sad byproduct of the removal of the bendy buses. That doesn't mean it advocates keeping them.

    My neighbour has fir tree that casts a massive shadow across my garden. It is home to a squirrel that my daughter loves watching playing in the garden and depriving her of that is going to be sad but I still want him to cut the fecking three down and if he doesn't I'm going to put copper nails in it's roots.

    See, just because I'm saddened by by the side effect of something doesn't mean I don't think that overall it's a good thing.

    So you advocate making squirrels homeless?! Scum!

    :wink:
  • W1
    W1 Posts: 2,636
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Now where's the proof for your argument?

    You've had it Rick, I can't make it any simpler for you.
  • W1
    W1 Posts: 2,636
    Asprilla wrote:
    See, just because I'm saddened by by the side effect of something doesn't mean I don't think that overall it's a good thing.

    Do you see the same balance in that article? Because all I see is highlighting a negative, without considering any positives.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    W1 wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Now where's the proof for your argument?

    You've had it Rick, I can't make it any simpler for you.

    You wouldn't even get a C at A level with that.

    We're discussing a piece of text and you can't quote a piece that supports your argument?
    _
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    W1 wrote:
    Asprilla wrote:
    See, just because I'm saddened by by the side effect of something doesn't mean I don't think that overall it's a good thing.

    Do you see the same balance in that article? Because all I see is highlighting a negative, without considering any positives.

    From a homeless perspective, there isn't.

    The article is about homeless people. Not about buses. The bendy bus discussion does not occur in the article.
    _
  • W1
    W1 Posts: 2,636
    jamesco wrote:
    W1 wrote:
    And it's so easy to rile up the pinkos on here (as proven), because even when something is clearly a daft article they'll still defend it to the end on any spurious ground.
    So, you're trolling.

    That pretty much ends the discussion, no? Wrestling with pigs and all that.

    It depends what you mean by trolling - I think it's a ridiculous article, and predictably a few of the regulars on here don't. The fact that my view winds some of the pinkos up is a fortunate (or unfortunate) by-product of the discussion.
  • W1
    W1 Posts: 2,636
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    W1 wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Now where's the proof for your argument?

    You've had it Rick, I can't make it any simpler for you.

    You wouldn't even get a C at A level with that.

    We're discussing a piece of text and you can't quote a piece that supports your argument?

    Thanks Dad.

    Can you answer my question yet?
  • W1
    W1 Posts: 2,636
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    W1 wrote:
    Asprilla wrote:
    See, just because I'm saddened by by the side effect of something doesn't mean I don't think that overall it's a good thing.

    Do you see the same balance in that article? Because all I see is highlighting a negative, without considering any positives.

    From a homeless perspective, there isn't.

    The article is about homeless people. Not about buses. The bendy bus discussion does not occur in the article.

    The article is about a downside to the removal of the bendy bus. Do you need some quotes for that, or do you accept it using your own intelligence?

    The positives of the removal of the bendy bus are glaring by their ommission. I wonder why? Because that would undermine the author's hand-wringing I suppose.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    W1 wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    W1 wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Now where's the proof for your argument?

    You've had it Rick, I can't make it any simpler for you.

    You wouldn't even get a C at A level with that.

    We're discussing a piece of text and you can't quote a piece that supports your argument?

    Thanks Dad.

    Can you answer my question yet?
    Pretty sure I have.
    _
  • asprilla
    asprilla Posts: 8,440
    edited December 2011
    Because the article is about highlighting that specific issue with relation to the story of the bendy buses as a whole. An article doesn't have to repeat all of the coverage about the whole story when covering one particular area.

    I must admit, lots of people have a problem with this and we looked at trying to solve it when designing the new Times website; the idea was to be able to automatically tag articles with the 'story' they relate to so we could generate on the fly topic pages providing all of the articles in context of each other.

    Backend systems were in place, but budget didn't allow us to complete it. Pity, would have been very useful.
    Mud - Genesis Vapour CCX
    Race - Fuji Norcom Straight
    Sun - Cervelo R3
    Winter / Commute - Dolan ADX
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    W1 wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    W1 wrote:
    Asprilla wrote:
    See, just because I'm saddened by by the side effect of something doesn't mean I don't think that overall it's a good thing.

    Do you see the same balance in that article? Because all I see is highlighting a negative, without considering any positives.

    From a homeless perspective, there isn't.

    The article is about homeless people. Not about buses. The bendy bus discussion does not occur in the article.

    The article is about a downside to the removal of the bendy bus. Do you need some quotes for that, or do you accept it using your own intelligence?

    The positives of the removal of the bendy bus are glaring by their ommission. I wonder why? Because that would undermine the author's hand-wringing I suppose.

    Hah!

    Can we save this quote forever.


    I always thought you were a bit crazy, but you are definitely either living in a fantasty world with a tinfoil hat, or you're an entertaining troll.
    _

Categories