Bendy Bus - RIP

notsoblue

W1

MaxwellBygraves

Rick Chasey wrote:

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.

+1

I think W1's lack of empathy is glaring by it's omission...

W1

notsoblue wrote:

W1

I knew you'd turn up - what took you so long? You've made the set complete.

rick_chasey

I'd love to meet you W1.

You should do some charity auction for the homeless who used to use bendy buses.

Winner gets dinner with you (and gets to put the conversation up on youtube).

W1

Rick Chasey wrote:

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.

Nope, you haven't. You've tried to spin your way out of answering, even when I kept it really simple. Telling.

W1

Rick Chasey wrote:

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.

I'll take entertaing.

If you think trolling is disagreeing with you, then maybe you're crazy...

W1

Rick Chasey wrote:

I'd love to meet you W1.

Thanks, but I waste enough time with recruitment consultants as it is.

MaxwellBygraves

Rick Chasey wrote:

I'd love to meet you W1.

You should do some charity auction for the homeless who used to use bendy buses.

Winner gets dinner with you (and gets to put the conversation up on youtube).

Just make sure you remember your tin foil hat

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

W1

I knew you'd turn up - what took you so long?

Couldn't be bothered to read the whole thread. But your involvement meant I could just skip to the petty bickering.

rick_chasey

Yeah, I got suckered in this time NSB.

rjsterry

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.

No, it's not, the article is about about homelessness, and a documentary that someone was making about a particular byproduct of homelessness. The benefits of removing bendy busses, of which there are many, will have been covered elsewhere, perhaps by a transport correspondent, rather than a social issues blogger. These benefits are irrelevant in relation to the topic of homelessness, though, so they wouldn't have 'undermined the hand-wringing'* even if they had been included. BTW, these benefits are referenced in a related story, a link to which is just to the left of the original blog post.

*Yeah, 'cause showing any kind of empathy for another human being is a sign of weakness.

W1

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

W1

I knew you'd turn up - what took you so long?

Couldn't be bothered to read the whole thread. But your involvement meant I could just skip to the petty bickering.

Well it's good to have you along, no thread with a Guardian link is complete without you.

asprilla

I think the only thing we've established from this is that NSB's link was pretty much spot on.

notsoblue

Rick Chasey wrote:

Yeah, I got suckered in this time NSB.

What bothers me is that I don't think he would actually be like this face to face. I have political conversations with people who have totally different opinions than I do, and they don't end up like this. At worst we just agree to disagree but at best we gain some insight into why we hold the political values we do. Often we have had different experiences and maintain different focuses, and the conflict is due to areas of ignorance that can be resolved through discussion. Arguments about semantics and petty name calling only makes things worse. W1 does this consciously, so I can only assume he *wants* to make things worse and pick fights.

But then this is the internet. And he's anonymous.

rick_chasey

notsoblue wrote:

But then this is the internet. And he's anonymous.

Speaking of which - where were you on Friday?

W1

Asprilla wrote:

I think the only thing we've established from this is that NSB's link was pretty much spot on.

Yawn.

It's so predictable to call "troll" if someone disagrees with you, or, if that doesn't work, just be insulting (or, rather, attempt to be).

asprilla

Hurrah, I've just discovered this place has an ignore list.

W1

notsoblue wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Yeah, I got suckered in this time NSB.

What bothers me is that I don't think he would actually be like this face to face. I have political conversations with people who have totally different opinions than I do, and they don't end up like this. At worst we just agree to disagree but at best we gain some insight into why we hold the political values we do. Often we have had different experiences and maintain different focuses, and the conflict is due to areas of ignorance that can be resolved through discussion. Arguments about semantics and petty name calling only makes things worse. W1 does this consciously, so I can only assume he *wants* to make things worse and pick fights.

But then this is the internet. And he's anonymous.

Do you not see the staggering hypocricy of the above, bearing in mind your additions to this thread?

Or do you call people "c*cks" to their faces and then just "agree to disagree"?

I receive my fair share of "semantics and petty name calling", so please don't jump up and down about it as if it's one sided, or unless you really are that blinkered.

notsoblue

Rick Chasey wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

But then this is the internet. And he's anonymous.

Speaking of which - where were you on Friday?

Ended up not being at the central London office that day, so had to bail. Was on the cards though, so I didn't confirm for the meal. Shame, was looking forward to speaking dutch to someone who wouldn't laugh at my awful accent.

rjsterry

W1 wrote:

Asprilla wrote:

I think the only thing we've established from this is that NSB's link was pretty much spot on.

Yawn.

It's so predictable to call "troll" if someone disagrees with you, or, if that doesn't work, just be insulting (or, rather, attempt to be).

What, like your usual 'hypocritical pinko' spiel - oooooooh, that reeeeeally hurts. You used to be way more fun than this: actually putting forward an argument rather than lapsing into sub-Paxman "you didn't answer my question".

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

blah blah blah "c*cks" blah blah

Nah, that wasn't the word I was going for.

asprilla

rjsterry wrote:

W1 wrote:

Asprilla wrote:

I think the only thing we've established from this is that NSB's link was pretty much spot on.

Yawn.

It's so predictable to call "troll" if someone disagrees with you, or, if that doesn't work, just be insulting (or, rather, attempt to be).

What, like your usual 'hypocritical pinko' spiel - oooooooh, that reeeeeally hurts. You used to be way more fun than this: actually putting forward an argument rather than lapsing into sub-Paxman "you didn't answer my question".

The problem W1 is that all you do is disagree. You don't enter into discussion, if someone asks you a direct question you avoid it and you go off in unrelated tangents when someone answers one of your questions.

(It appears that although I can't see W1's posts I can seem them if quoted. Damn).

rjsterry

Asprilla wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

W1 wrote:

Asprilla wrote:

I think the only thing we've established from this is that NSB's link was pretty much spot on.

Yawn.

It's so predictable to call "troll" if someone disagrees with you, or, if that doesn't work, just be insulting (or, rather, attempt to be).

What, like your usual 'hypocritical pinko' spiel - oooooooh, that reeeeeally hurts. You used to be way more fun than this: actually putting forward an argument rather than lapsing into sub-Paxman "you didn't answer my question".

The problem W1 is that all you do is disagree. You don't enter into discussion, if someone asks you a direct question you avoid it and you go off in unrelated tangents when someone answers one of your questions.

(It appears that although I can't see W1's posts I can seem them if quoted. Damn).

jamesco

W1 wrote:

Asprilla wrote:

I think the only thing we've established from this is that NSB's link was pretty much spot on.

Yawn.

It's so predictable to call "troll" if someone disagrees with you, or, if that doesn't work, just be insulting (or, rather, attempt to be).

You've admitted to trolling:

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, yeah, when someone's trolling he can't complain later about being given his C*** badge.

W1

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

blah blah blah "c*cks" blah blah

Nah, that wasn't the word I was going for.

Is is the one you went for?

W1

jamesco wrote:

W1 wrote:

Asprilla wrote:

I think the only thing we've established from this is that NSB's link was pretty much spot on.

Yawn.

It's so predictable to call "troll" if someone disagrees with you, or, if that doesn't work, just be insulting (or, rather, attempt to be).

You've admitted to trolling:

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, yeah, when someone's trolling he can't complain later about being given his C*** badge.

It is easy - it isn't deliberate. I have explained why I think it was a ridiculous article, if you don't agree and get angry about it - well, that's not trolling.

W1

rjsterry wrote:

W1 wrote:

Asprilla wrote:

I think the only thing we've established from this is that NSB's link was pretty much spot on.

Yawn.

It's so predictable to call "troll" if someone disagrees with you, or, if that doesn't work, just be insulting (or, rather, attempt to be).

What, like your usual 'hypocritical pinko' spiel - oooooooh, that reeeeeally hurts. You used to be way more fun than this: actually putting forward an argument rather than lapsing into sub-Paxman "you didn't answer my question".

Are you going to pull Rick Chasey up for doing exactly the same?

W1

Asprilla wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

W1 wrote:

Asprilla wrote:

I think the only thing we've established from this is that NSB's link was pretty much spot on.

Yawn.

It's so predictable to call "troll" if someone disagrees with you, or, if that doesn't work, just be insulting (or, rather, attempt to be).

What, like your usual 'hypocritical pinko' spiel - oooooooh, that reeeeeally hurts. You used to be way more fun than this: actually putting forward an argument rather than lapsing into sub-Paxman "you didn't answer my question".

The problem W1 is that all you do is disagree. You don't enter into discussion, if someone asks you a direct question you avoid it and you go off in unrelated tangents when someone answers one of your questions.

(It appears that although I can't see W1's posts I can seem them if quoted. Damn).

I don't really know if you want me to respond. It would mean that (a) I would just be disagreeing again, and (b) it would break your ignore rule. In fact, can you even see this?

rjsterry

W1 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

W1 wrote:

Asprilla wrote:

I think the only thing we've established from this is that NSB's link was pretty much spot on.

Yawn.

It's so predictable to call "troll" if someone disagrees with you, or, if that doesn't work, just be insulting (or, rather, attempt to be).

What, like your usual 'hypocritical pinko' spiel - oooooooh, that reeeeeally hurts. You used to be way more fun than this: actually putting forward an argument rather than lapsing into sub-Paxman "you didn't answer my question".

Are you going to pull Rick Chasey up for doing exactly the same?

No. I don't consider that he was doing exactly the same. I don't always agree with him just because he's a fellow pinko - see the lads' mag thread.

W1

rjsterry wrote:

No. I don't consider that he was doing exactly the same. I don't always agree with him just because he's a fellow pinko - see the lads' mag thread.

Come on RJS.

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.