19 year mortgage 8itch Posted November 17, 2010 Share Posted November 17, 2010 My favourite ugly house location http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-16512363.html?backListLink=%2Fproperty-for-sale%2Fmap.html%3FlocationIdentifier%3DPOSTCODE%255E147199%26insId%3D1%26radius%3D1.0%23_includeSSTC%3Don%26auction%3Dfalse%26locationIdentifier%3DPOSTCODE%255E147199%26previousSearchLocation%3DCF31%25201RJ%26radius%3D1.0%26searchLocation%3DCF31%25201RJ%26searchType%3DSALE%26useLocationIdentifier%3Dfalse%26box%3D-3.59583%2C-3.56708%2C51.51272%2C51.52447%26popupPropertyId%3D16512363%26mapType%3DMap&fromMap=true Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tankus Posted November 17, 2010 Share Posted November 17, 2010 what is it with the windows ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
campervanman Posted November 17, 2010 Share Posted November 17, 2010 I've posted this on another thread but imo it's worthy of inclusion here: http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-20360365.html And no we won't reduce the asking price - been on the market all this year with no change to the price. Ideal property for someone who wants to run an abbatoir from home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu1 Posted November 17, 2010 Share Posted November 17, 2010 yours for £44,950 £44,950 Offers Over £45,000 £45,000 £49,950 £52,000 £52,500 Offers Over £5,000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarahBell Posted November 17, 2010 Author Share Posted November 17, 2010 Lofty perches are a good thing. If you try hard enough, even you, could sit on one. I see things with great clarity from up here. No you've probably got altitude sickness and that's affecting your judgement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reck B Posted November 17, 2010 Share Posted November 17, 2010 Bungalow with a high forehead? a bungahigh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beccles Posted November 17, 2010 Share Posted November 17, 2010 Bungalow with a high forehead? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Executive Sadman Posted November 17, 2010 Share Posted November 17, 2010 Bungalow with a high forehead? a bungahigh? Not ugly, but why have a bungahigh when you could have a 'bungalette' http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-31493564.html Only a short walk away from Wickford Station and situated on the popular Wick Meadows development is this one bedroom Bungalette having its own garden and allocated parking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Executive Sadman Posted November 17, 2010 Share Posted November 17, 2010 In Cambridge this game is too easy! I give you a fine selection: http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/new-homes/property-30292058.html/nomsite Dangit they STILL for sale after all these years? I like cambridge, but everything that calls itself a house built in the past few years feels like student accomodation, and a when family house is a tiny terrace off mill road, Cambridge must have the worst housing stock in the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow Birds Posted November 17, 2010 Share Posted November 17, 2010 Just because one thing is ugly, it doesn't make something else beautiful either. What a ridiculous argument. The problem is that what you are proposing a poisonous philosophy that has infiltrated the modern world, i.e. people should not be criticised or critiqued or have their feelings hurt at all, ever. This leads to the absurd situation where it is never allowable to tell a child he isn't striving hard enough and hasn't met a reasonable standard in whatever subject, when s/he is perfectly capable. Just like it is not allowable to tell someone that their child is disrupting the lesson for everyone else's children. Have you ever heard of the phrase "you have to be cruel to be kind?" When I look back at my education, those who confronted me with my failings were the ones who taught me something and improved me as a person. They never won the teachers' popularity awards, but then, that wasn't their job. Their job was to make me better than what I was. One should not be needlessly cruel, but allowing people to live neurotic lives helps no one, not least the person in question, especially as in the end reality will impinge upon them and the facts will become known. Those living with a false model of the world have a tougher time when reality strikes than those with a more realistic perspective in my experience. One of the things that people often find difficult when they go to university is the criticism/critique their work receives. Without this, they will not improve. At first, it feels like an assault on one's self, but upon reflection you realise that it is warranted and that you need to try harder. You learn to separate criticism from your sense of self, and take its positive aspects, and often internalise the process of standing back and looking at one's work more objectively. A perfect example of this in action was Sarah Beeny's show where she helps would be developers. Many people don't take advice well as they feel it is a personal insult and do their own thing, only for reality to rear its ugly head when they cannot sell their doer upper, or make a loss. Actually, I totally agree with everything you have said but I contend we are talking apples and oranges. Criticizing something that can be changed, like behaviour, or study habits etc is constructive. Criticizing something that cannot be changed, like a big nose or an ugly face is cruel. Criticizing a taste, whether it be architecture or food is snobbery. When you criticize a house because you consider it ugly you are attacking taste and poverty. Poverty cannot be changed by the poor and so such an attack is cruel. Attacking taste is simple snobbery. You have made a very good argument for an irrelevant subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccc Posted November 17, 2010 Share Posted November 17, 2010 Actually, I totally agree with everything you have said but I contend we are talking apples and oranges. Criticizing something that can be changed, like behaviour, or study habits etc is constructive. Criticizing something that cannot be changed, like a big nose or an ugly face is cruel. Criticizing a taste, whether it be architecture or food is snobbery. When you criticize a house because you consider it ugly you are attacking taste and poverty. Poverty cannot be changed by the poor and so such an attack is cruel. Attacking taste is simple snobbery. You have made a very good argument for an irrelevant subject. You really seem to be making a very simple thing incredibley complicated. I look at a house. I think 'urgh that's not the bonniest looking place'. I decide to share this opinion with someone else. If you honestly have an issue with that then you have............well...............issues !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow Birds Posted November 17, 2010 Share Posted November 17, 2010 You really seem to be making a very simple thing incredibley complicated. I look at a house. I think 'urgh that's not the bonniest looking place'. I decide to share this opinion with someone else. If you honestly have an issue with that then you have............well...............issues !! When you share a private opinion with a friend, that is one thing. When you post your opinions all over the Internet that is an entirely different ball game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarahBell Posted November 17, 2010 Author Share Posted November 17, 2010 When you share a private opinion with a friend, that is one thing. When you post your opinions all over the Internet that is an entirely different ball game. *holds mirror up* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AThirdWay Posted November 17, 2010 Share Posted November 17, 2010 When you share a private opinion with a friend, that is one thing. When you post your opinions all over the Internet that is an entirely different ball game. So what is this forum for???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow Birds Posted November 17, 2010 Share Posted November 17, 2010 *holds mirror up* A public statement is open to public criticism. A private person is protected from public criticism in any civilised society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow Birds Posted November 17, 2010 Share Posted November 17, 2010 So what is this forum for???? More relevant would be "What is this forum not for?" Making fun of a particular house that is totally identifiable and by inference making fun of the owner or occupier is getting dangerously close to slander. In my opinion this whole topic is skating along the edge of forum rules regarding personal insults. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Monk Posted November 17, 2010 Share Posted November 17, 2010 More relevant would be "What is this forum not for?" Making fun of a particular house that is totally identifiable and by inference making fun of the owner or occupier is getting dangerously close to slander. In my opinion this whole topic is skating along the edge of forum rules regarding personal insults. Come on then, which one is yours? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AThirdWay Posted November 17, 2010 Share Posted November 17, 2010 More relevant would be "What is this forum not for?" Making fun of a particular house that is totally identifiable and by inference making fun of the owner or occupier is getting dangerously close to slander. In my opinion this whole topic is skating along the edge of forum rules regarding personal insults. But making fun of the 'sheeple' who have paid over the odds for some ugly pile of bricks, a couple of months before prices drop 50%, is the sites favourite pastime. I haven't seen you leap to defend them, even though that could come far closer to slander. Quick edit: I'm not sure that you CAN slander someone for having bad taste. If anyone knows for sue..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow Birds Posted November 17, 2010 Share Posted November 17, 2010 Come on then, which one is yours? Shhhhhh . . . . I'm building a case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Britney's Piers Posted November 17, 2010 Share Posted November 17, 2010 More relevant would be "What is this forum not for?" Making fun of a particular house that is totally identifiable and by inference making fun of the owner or occupier is getting dangerously close to slander. In my opinion this whole topic is skating along the edge of forum rules regarding personal insults. Are you on the wind up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccc Posted November 17, 2010 Share Posted November 17, 2010 A public statement is open to public criticism. A private person is protected from public criticism in any civilised society. What ?! Exactly what is a 'private person' ? And exactly how could anyone criticise a person when they don not even know who they are ? It isn't even possible. More relevant would be "What is this forum not for?" Making fun of a particular house that is totally identifiable and by inference making fun of the owner or occupier is getting dangerously close to slander. In my opinion this whole topic is skating along the edge of forum rules regarding personal insults. Yep I agree with Britney. You are on the wind up. It was a funny one - I will give you that. Getting a bit boring now though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow Birds Posted November 17, 2010 Share Posted November 17, 2010 But making fun of the 'sheeple' who have paid over the odds for some ugly pile of bricks, a couple of months before prices drop 50%, is the sites favourite pastime. I haven't seen you leap to defend them, even though that could come far closer to slander. Quick edit: I'm not sure that you CAN slander someone for having bad taste. If anyone knows for sue..... The difference is that "sheeple" is a generic term and these house pictures are possessions of individual people. Sheeple can't sue ya. House owners can and any lawyer would have a field day with such a case. Devaluation of property would only be a start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AThirdWay Posted November 17, 2010 Share Posted November 17, 2010 Are you on the wind up? Bu55er, hook line and sinker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Monk Posted November 17, 2010 Share Posted November 17, 2010 The difference is that "sheeple" is a generic term and these house pictures are possessions of individual people. Sheeple can't sue ya. House owners can and any lawyer would have a field day with such a case. Devaluation of property would only be a start. Do you really think you could be sued for saying that you consider somebody's house to be ugly? I doubt you could even be sued for saying that a person is ugly, since ugliness is an entirely subjective matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AThirdWay Posted November 17, 2010 Share Posted November 17, 2010 The difference is that "sheeple" is a generic term and these house pictures are possessions of individual people. Sheeple can't sue ya. House owners can and any lawyer would have a field day with such a case. Devaluation of property would only be a start. OK, maybe you are winding me up, maybe your not. Just in case.... My post used the generic sheeple (gawd, I hate that word...), but there has often been discussions about the price of individual properties on this forum, with mostly negative comments that the house isn't worth the vendors asking price. You think this is fine, but describing the house as ugly is slanderous. Is that, seriously, your thinking on this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.