Inconsequential Things That Annoy Me Intensely

[Sledgehead]

32 minutes ago, Bruce Banner said:

Twelve years later and this is still makes my blood boil.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/jul/26/arts.artsnews

If I could go back in time, turn into a "green rage monster" and throw the officious little blue serge clad jobsworths off the old couples land, I would do so in a heartbeat.

Presumably so the old git could posthumously claim a Darwin award?

The way I see it, by living here and acting in certain ways, you sign up to a social contract. If he didn't want what society provided, he should have put measures in place to stop society implementing those measures. A good example is the archetypal 'mountain man', who fires upon any vehicles that looks like a police or FBI mode of transport. If he wanted more say in his life there's plenty of room in Montana!

The guy accepted the fire brigade. If he didn't want the police to save him from himself, he should have blocked the fire tenders. You don't get to pick and choose what kind of help you get.

 

And even tho we disagree on this issue, I think we can agree it has no place in this "inconsequential" thread.

[Sledgehead]

Tea dust on surface of my cuppa.

Time was you could buy tea dust for a fraction of the price of proper leaves. Now it's accepted as a bulker.

[ccc]

3 minutes ago, Sledgehead said:

Presumably so the old git could posthumously claim a Darwin award?

The way I see it, by living here and acting in certain ways, you sign up to a social contract. If he didn't want what society provided, he should have put measures in place to stop society implementing those measures. A good example is the archetypal 'mountain man', who fires upon any vehicles that looks like a police or FBI mode of transport. If he wanted more say in his life there's plenty of room in Montana!

The guy accepted the fire brigade. If he didn't want the police to save him from himself, he should have blocked the fire tenders. You don't get to pick and choose what kind of help you get.

 

And even tho we disagree on this issue, I think we can agree it has no place in this "inconsequential" thread.

If he has paid for both through his taxes - why shouldn't he have the right to say - yes I would like help from Option A over there but as for option B over here - no thanks.

If he was putting nobody else at risk - and it certainly appears so - then up to him if he wants to risk his life for a few paintings.

[Sledgehead]

Silicone caulk only available in 300ml min. You use a thimble-full and seal. Six months later, when you have another  job that requires a thimble-full, the whole tube is solid. You chuck it away, together with its plastic packaging, drive to the store, wasting petrol and time, only to buy another to repeat the whole process six months later.

In the meantime you are told that plastic bags are ruining the world.

[Bruce Banner]

12 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

Might be moving a bit beyond "inconsequential" there. First I've heard of that story. I very, very much take the view that any attempt by authority to protect people from themselves (beyond the obvious cases like those who are unable to care for themselves and don't have anyone else to do it for them), beyond maybe a warning and "we won't try to rescue you if you ignore the warning", easily crosses the line of acceptability. Which is why the fact that apparently all new cars must be fitted with a system that automatically calls the emergency services with the location in case of a crash (so compelling both tracking and calling systems) so p1sses me off, as well as demonstrating an utterly paranoid, disproportionate attitude to the risk.

Only inconsequential because it happened twelve years ago and the couple are probably long dead.

Incidentally, I'm pretty sure he lost his case, so the law was as much of an ass as the porcines.

[Sledgehead]

4 minutes ago, ccc said:

If he has paid for both through his taxes - why shouldn't he have the right to say - yes I would like help from Option A over there but as for option B over here - no thanks.

If he was putting nobody else at risk - and it certainly appears so - then up to him if he wants to risk his life for a few paintings.

Do you really want to pay for the kind of tailored solution you describe?

Can you imagine how long the form would be? He was in his 80's so we'd need a psychiatrist on hand to check he wasn't suffering from dementia (by which time the house would have burnt to the ground) etc etc etc

This is clearly a complex and non-inconsequential issue, so either start another thread or let it go. It has no business being on this thread.

[ccc]

2 minutes ago, Sledgehead said:

Do you really want to pay for the kind of tailored solution you describe?

Can you imagine how long the form would be? He was in his 80's so we'd need a psychiatrist on hand to check he wasn't suffering from dementia (by which time the house would have burnt to the ground) etc etc etc

This is clearly a complex and non-inconsequential issue, so either start another thread or let it go. It has no business being on this thread.

Yes agree it is complex. However at a high level if he wants to go back into his house and at his own risk and the Police state clearly you do that and we aren't coming in to help you if you get into trouble then absolutely reasonable and common sense IMO. And it would have taken all of 10 seconds.

People should take responsibility for their own actions. One thing that has been massively eroded in the UK of today.

Anyway - I wont add anymore.

[Bruce Banner]

On 11/05/2018 at 18:41, Dogtanian said:

A perpetual slight annoyance of mine are people who stand at pedestrian crossings but don't push the green man button.  It's just something I notice all the time... Sometimes the same pedestrians don't even cross when the coast is clear (i.e they are waiting for the green light).  Worst by far is when it's busy and nobody presses on either side just stands with blank faces waiting.  First world problem for sure.

Actually, I do this all the time. I have a bee in my bonnet about people who press the button and then cross before the green light, if the coast is clear, leaving the traffic to stop for no reason a few minutes later. So, I never press the button if I can see a break in the traffic I'll wait for it and cross on the red. If I do press the button, I will always wait for the green light even if there is no traffic at all. 

So, which is more annoying, seeing someone standing by a pedestrian controlled crossing, waiting for the green light, or having to stop at a pedestrian controlled crossing when there is no pedestrian in sight?

[Riedquat]

39 minutes ago, ccc said:

People should take responsibility for their own actions. One thing that has been massively eroded in the UK of today.

Amen.

What we have is a situation where some people won't. And some people never have done, and never will, no matter what sort of world you've got. There's also the reality that it's just about impossible to do something that doesn't affect someone else in some way. Current thinking unfortunately seems to be that there's no balance to be struck, any negatives from that must be eliminated no matter what negatives it has elsewhere. Add in an attitude that things only count if they're materially measurable ("there are no material downsides to you for this, therefore you've got no reason to object to it") and you end up with this abhorrence of letting anyone have an ounce of responsibility, and where it's unavoidable trying to do everything possible to remove that as soon as possible.

[Bruce Banner]

5 hours ago, Sledgehead said:

Presumably so the old git could posthumously claim a Darwin award?

The way I see it, by living here and acting in certain ways, you sign up to a social contract. If he didn't want what society provided, he should have put measures in place to stop society implementing those measures. A good example is the archetypal 'mountain man', who fires upon any vehicles that looks like a police or FBI mode of transport. If he wanted more say in his life there's plenty of room in Montana!

The guy accepted the fire brigade. If he didn't want the police to save him from himself, he should have blocked the fire tenders. You don't get to pick and choose what kind of help you get.

 

And even tho we disagree on this issue, I think we can agree it has no place in this "inconsequential" thread.

I find it hard to believe that you are not arguing for the sake of it. 

If you had a fire at your house, phoned the fire brigade and started to get your possessions out of harm's way, when plod turns up, tells you to stop what you are doing and when you tell him that it's your property, your life and nobody else is at risk, he physically restrains you and forces you to watch your valuables burn. Perhaps you would say "Yes sir, no sir, three bags full sir" and thank him for his concern. 

Me, I'd do exactly what this chap did, not that it got him very far, but at least he made a stand against petty officialdom.

My life, my responsibility!

[Sledgehead]

4 hours ago, Bruce Banner said:

I find it hard to believe that you are not arguing for the sake of it. 

If you had a fire at your house, phoned the fire brigade and started to get your possessions out of harm's way, when plod turns up, tells you to stop what you are doing and when you tell him that it's your property, your life and nobody else is at risk, he physically restrains you and forces you to watch your valuables burn. Perhaps you would say "Yes sir, no sir, three bags full sir" and thank him for his concern. 

Me, I'd do exactly what this chap did, not that it got him very far, but at least he made a stand against petty officialdom.

My life, my responsibility!

I find it hard to believe you are still hijacking this thread despite two independent voices telling you this is not an "inconsequential thing". Show a bit of restraint and respect for the OP's intention and start a new thread.

[Bruce Banner]

8 minutes ago, Sledgehead said:

I find it hard to believe you are still hijacking this thread despite two independent voices telling you this is not an "inconsequential thing". Show a bit of restraint and respect for the OP's intention and start a new thread.

Ah, a forum policeman .

I explained why I consider it to be inconsequential, can you not read?

Thread drift is a normal occurrence on HPC. It sometimes results in more interesting threads.

 

[Sledgehead]

1 minute ago, Bruce Banner said:

Ah, a forum policeman .

I explained why I consider it to be inconsequential, can you not read?

Thread drift is a normal occurrence on HPC. It sometimes results in more interesting threads.

 

Your reason is not valid. Time does not make an issue less consequential, nor does the passing of those concerned. Don't make me prove Godwin's law.

[Bruce Banner]

45 minutes ago, Sledgehead said:

Your reason is not valid. Time does not make an issue less consequential, nor does the passing of those concerned. Don't make me prove Godwin's law.

You are now dragging the thread further off topic, why not just leave it and it will drift back on topic. Or do you want to engage in a lengthy argument about whether or not my reason is valid? 

For God's sake man, get a grip!

 

 

[Bruce Banner]

Back on topic.

Inconsequential things that annoy me intensely?

Self appointed forum policemen.

 

 

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Bruce Banner said:

Back on topic.

Inconsequential things that annoy me intensely?

Self appointed forum policemen.

 

 

It's actually a fascinating subject in my opinion... Similar to the health service Vs risky life connundrum. For instance a stuntman gets lots of NHS ops for broken bones. An accountant gets none. They both pay tax as a percentage of income.

Someone who chooses to endanger their life by running into a burning house, is entitled to fire and health service care. Should they be stopped... there has to be an on the spot assessment of their state of mind... Mad? Suicidal?

It's not black and white you know.

[Bruce Banner]

44 minutes ago, The Crow said:

It's actually a fascinating subject in my opinion... Similar to the health service Vs risky life connundrum. For instance a stuntman gets lots of NHS ops for broken bones. An accountant gets none. They both pay tax as a percentage of income.

Someone who chooses to endanger their life by running into a burning house, is entitled to fire and health service care. Should they be stopped... there has to be an on the spot assessment of their state of mind... Mad? Suicidal?

It's not black and white you know.

If there has to be an on the spot assessment of their state of mind, which I don't agree should be the case, then plod will likely err on what they think is the side of caution. 

Should there be a policeman on hand at every "dangerous sports" event to conduct a risk assessment into the state of mind of the competitors?

From memory, the judge concluded that the police acted correctly as it is their duty to protect people, even from themselves. So much for freedom of choice. Nanny state gone mad.

More reports... https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1516753/Police-locked-me-in-van-while-my-prize-possessions-burned.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-472183/Retired-captain-sues-police-stopped-saving-heirlooms-blaze.html

 

 

[Sledgehead]

5 hours ago, Bruce Banner said:

Back on topic.

Inconsequential things that annoy me intensely?

Self appointed forum policemen.

 

 

Room 101

Frank : So what's winding up Sledgehead?

SH : kids who wear their trousers half way down their arses

Frank : So what's winding up Duncan?

Duncan : ketchup that all comes out in one slap of the bottle

Frank: So what's winding up Bruce Banner?

Bruce Banner: that children still go to bed hungry.

Frank: Well Sh, as much as there is enough material in the world to cover kids arses, it's fashion and it's what they want to wear. As for ketchup Duncan, you can now buy it in squeezy bottles, allowing you to put out as much or as little as you like. But the thought of little children, with their big sad eyes, going hungry, saddens me to the bottom of my heart, and for that reason, it's Bruce's choice I'm going with. Childhood hunger is going in Room 101

At which point Bruce leaps to his feet, pulls his t-shirt over his face and runs about the set chanting "one-nil, one-nil, one-nil, one-nil ...."

[Bruce Banner]

Sober now?

?

[Funn3r]

On 13/05/2018 at 20:56, Will! said:

I was recently rejected as a volunteer with my current local branch (Brighton) of the Samaritans. 

I was a volunteer, but almost didn't do it as beforehand I imagined they must be incredibly empathetic and loving superbeings and how would I as a normal person measure up to that? After a while I found they were actually normal people as well with all the good and bad traits that normal people have. I was at that branch for many years and on the whole I found that the other volunteers were, as you might expect, a lot less assholeistic then the general population and I enjoyed my time there. On this occasion you got unlucky and got on the wrong side of someone with influence. I hope this doesn't put you off caring about others and that you do something else that helps people.

[Funn3r]

On 11/05/2018 at 18:41, Dogtanian said:

A perpetual slight annoyance of mine are people who stand at pedestrian crossings but don't push the green man button.  It's just something I notice all the time... Sometimes the same pedestrians don't even cross when the coast is clear (i.e they are waiting for the green light).  Worst by far is when it's busy and nobody presses on either side just stands with blank faces waiting.  First world problem for sure.

A lot of the time the button doesn't do anything - people who are regulars in the area know this so don't press it.
 

[Bruce Banner]

Companies that have been spamming my email account with multiple emails begging me to agree to them keeping my details on their database because unless I do, after the 25th, they won't be able to continue to pester me.

Well, guess what, I ignored the lot of them, and today, the 26th, many are just carrying on like it never happened .

[Sledgehead]

Critters (most likely foxes) using my flower beds as an al fresco knocking shop.

Largely I let nature take its course when it comes to flower beds, and I think that looks best. Trouble is the animals seem to agree. I'm guessing if critters had smart phones they'd be giving my flower beds 5 stars on trip advisor. I've now put some short pointy sticks in the soil to spoil their fun, but the damage is already done. Now the beds look as unkempt as they actually are. Bother!

[Dogtanian]

6 hours ago, Funn3r said:

A lot of the time the button doesn't do anything - people who are regulars in the area know this so don't press it.
 

Weird, a fake button!  My favourites are the crossings that after a set period of time instant!  And for the record I never press the button if the coast is clear, and if quiet then will deliberately wait to save unnecessary stops - I actually think of it more as environmentally friendly action rather than avoiding the ire of some random driver!   However if it's cold raining/ in a hurry and busy traffic it's annoying seeing people standing there gormless obviously not able to cross until somebody Else presses said button. 

[Dogtanian]

msm media and clickbait that describes reactions or opinions of "The Internet" ....to me for some reason it always come's across as alluding to "The Internet" as a distinct collective identity and not just "People".   Could be just me though!