Another Drive4show 'Anything goes' thread

by kwinigolfer Tue Nov 18, 2014 9:43 am

First topic message reminder :

Sr,
1).Correct. Wonderful is right. Though in the American order of things behind the NFL, College Football, High School Football, NBA, College B'ball.
2).Not much of a market: 21,000 per home game.
3).But no other nations pay their players a fraction of this sort of bounty. He'll probably end up using PED's, just like his predecessor as highest paid.
Ridiculous money!

by raycastleunited Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:17 am

McLaren wrote:Indeed super, that was the target of my mockery. (And you can lump Nige in with that as well http://video.foxnews.com/v/3985683598001/nigel-farage-says-europe-has-suffered-from-moral-cowardice/?#sp=show-clips what a plonker)

Here's a tip: if you have to subsequently explain your mockery, it generally means it wasn't funny and wasn't successful.

by McLaren Thu Jan 15, 2015 1:12 am

raycastleunited

It didn't have to explain anything, I was just ensuring that we were still talking about the same topic.

here is a tip: if you don't understand a simple thread of conversation that is your problem, don't assume the rest of us need you to decipher such simple arguments.

by beninho Thu Jan 15, 2015 6:44 am

So anyone had to do a speed awareness course? I was caught doing 41 in a 30 in Staffordshire over Christmas. Making a quick getaway after to many days with the in laws!! Anyway option is a speed awareness course in place of 3 points.

by **navyblueshorts** Thu Jan 15, 2015 7:33 pm

beninho wrote:So anyone had to do a speed awareness course? I was caught doing 41 in a 30 in Staffordshire over Christmas. Making a quick getaway after to many days with the in laws!! Anyway option is a speed awareness course in place of 3 points.

I've been on one 5 or 6 years back but was told it wasn't an option for 41 in a 30 - way too far over limit. Think the guy who ran the course I attended said anything over 37 in a 30 was automatic points, fine and no speed awareness option. How did you manage that???? Christmas spirit from plod?
Course was, mainly, pants but there were a few interesting bits and pieces. Funniest bit was when we were all (~25 people) asked what the speed limit on dual carriageways was, about 50% thought it was 60mph.

by JAS Thu Jan 15, 2015 7:51 pm

beninho wrote:So anyone had to do a speed awareness course? I was caught doing 41 in a 30 in Staffordshire over Christmas. Making a quick getaway after to many days with the in laws!! Anyway option is a speed awareness course in place of 3 points.

I've done one as well, 75 in a 60, tying to pass a convoy of caravans on one of the 2 lane uphill parts of the A361 between Barnstaple & Tiverton (coming back from an Open at Saunton actually). Got to do the Course near Bristol rather than have to go back to Devon to do it. It's dull but it's a helluva lot better than 3 points and the knock on effect of insurance premiums.

Staffordshire is particularly bad for them beninho, the main road that runs parallel to the M6 between J15 & 14 is absolutely littered with Gatsos

by beninho Thu Jan 15, 2015 8:17 pm

According to the notes on the back, anything upto 42 in a 30, they give you the option of the course. It seems it has been changed to 10% plus 9mph. So i fall just in. Ive sent the form off, so hopefully this is what i get. The road has so many cameras, and have done it so many times over the years with no problems, and then it gets me! I did not even realise i had been flashed. Very annoying, hopefully i will not have to travel all the way back up their to take the course.

by Davie Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:40 pm

I don't think the different areas have reciprocal agreements Ben - so you will probably have to attend there. On the positive side though the lack of reciprocal agreements also means lack of communication between areas so it you happened to be done again on your home patch you could possibly get away with attending again at home!

by westisbest Thu Jan 15, 2015 10:22 pm

beninho wrote:So anyone had to do a speed awareness course? I was caught doing 41 in a 30 in Staffordshire over Christmas. Making a quick getaway after to many days with the in laws!! Anyway option is a speed awareness course in place of 3 points.

Did one back in august.

Had to go to Eastleigh to do it.

Caught doing 38 in a 30 zone up in Blackpool. Was following a mate,(so his fault Wink

).

It was actually a decent course. Just sat there and just watched a few video's took part in a couple of questions.

Nothing to bad.
Would rather do that then take the points, which I had the option to do.

by super_realist Fri Jan 16, 2015 12:16 am

At least you get the opportunity to do the course. They don't exist in Scotland. Points and a fine i'm afraid, although I've never had points in Scotland.

by McLaren Fri Jan 16, 2015 12:29 am

Super

Do you know if your job is safe after the announcement of job losses today?

by super_realist Fri Jan 16, 2015 12:46 am

I don't work for BP Mac, but obviously it's a big ongoing concern. On the plus side it's good for aquisitions.

Lots of companies (Chevron, Marathon, Statoil, Apache) have all laid people off, so one is constantly looking over ones shoulder and keeping an eye on the oil price.
More likely to be a case of contractors leaving, no bonus, salary freeze/reduction, before redundancy at least in the immediate term, will be wiser around March/April I would think.

by McLaren Fri Jan 16, 2015 1:15 am

At least you would get to leave Aberdeen, that must be a pretty grim place to live?

by super_realist Fri Jan 16, 2015 1:22 am

NOt as bad as you think Mac, although given you've never been I'm not sure how you would know. Very affluent in parts, some nice parks and beachfront. Great golf courses, and pretty dry and sunny. Pig to drive around though, so I walk everywhere.
Obviously not as nice as Edinburgh visually or socially, but as a lefty I'm sure you'd love how diverse it is.

by McLaren Fri Jan 16, 2015 2:34 am

super, as a champagne socialist I require some of the more finer things in life than a backwater like Aberdeen can offer.

by **navyblueshorts** Fri Jan 16, 2015 2:37 am

Duh! :-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-30828694

by super_realist Fri Jan 16, 2015 2:47 am

navyblueshorts wrote:Duh! :-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-30828694

Well, better than trusting in the alternate anagram.

by McLaren Fri Jan 16, 2015 2:49 am

I would prefer to turn to cats in times of need. Not sure dogs are smart enough to use as authority figures.

by pedro Fri Jan 16, 2015 2:49 am

navyblueshorts wrote:Duh! :-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-30828694

I don't think it's a misprint navy. It's America.

by **navyblueshorts** Fri Jan 16, 2015 3:56 am

McLaren wrote:I would prefer to turn to cats in times of need. Not sure dogs are smart enough to use as authority figures.

I like cats but I think they'd only be good as deities or dictators I reckon. "Do as I say! Worship me!" etc...

by beninho Fri Jan 16, 2015 9:13 pm

So, i am due to play golf on Saturday, it is only my 3rd game in over 6months and not been practising once. In all likelihood, I will be struggling to get many games in going forward, so do I just not worry and enjoy it for what it is, try and smack the driver if i can and take on improbable shots on the off chance that they may come off? and do i get some dunlop pink balls from sports direct just in case a snow flurry comes in as predicted!

by Roller_Coaster Fri Jan 16, 2015 9:43 pm

I'd personally probably go for the improbable. Wahey, tw@t it.

by McLaren Fri Jan 16, 2015 10:34 pm

Mcilroy and O'Driscoll messing about;

Mcilroy and O'Driscoll messing about:

by super_realist Fri Jan 16, 2015 11:36 pm

Where's me lucky charms Leprechaun

by westisbest Fri Jan 16, 2015 11:50 pm

Those boys dont need luck thumbsup

by Roller_Coaster Sat Jan 17, 2015 12:40 am

Pro golfer carrys his own bag?

Pfft.

by McLaren Fri Jan 23, 2015 7:58 am

Navy

I agree kwini's thread is no place for this.

navyblueshorts wrote:
No, again. I'm calling you out as a hypocrite. Oh, not so well done on the straw man distraction attempt either. I made no comment on degrees/severity of objectification (or however you want to define it). Pure and simple - your remark(s) are on the same scale as some sexist/discriminatory remark at some woman or other. What's the matter? Don't like the image in the mirror?
Don't worry about it though - I'm sure we're all hypocritical from time to time .

I'll leave it at that as Kwini's thread isn't the place for this really.

A basic definition of hypocrisy from wiki (which seems ok to me)

"it is the practice of engaging in the same behavior or activity for which one criticizes another"

So I have criticised others for objectifying women. For me to have engaged in hypocrisy - by the above definition - I would have to have engaged in the objectification of women or an equivalent act.

Your argument is that by commenting on Lee's physical appearance I have engaged in the same behavior - in this case the objectification of women - as that for which I have criticised others.

In order to have accused me of hypocrisy on this issue you have to be claiming that commenting on the fatness of a man is the equivalent of objectifying women. If you are unwilling to accept that premise then no hypocrisy has been committed.

by Davie Fri Jan 23, 2015 8:28 am

I wasn't even aware "objectification" was a proper word - but wiki put me right on that one *sigh*

But given it is a real word, one would therefore assume from your dismissal that you are a hypocrite, that you consider it ok to "objectify" a man but not a woman - is that correct?

by McLaren Fri Jan 23, 2015 8:31 am

Davie

I will repeat. I do not equate commenting on a man's beer gut and the objectification of women.

Does the concept of objectification of men even exist?

by incontinentia Fri Jan 23, 2015 9:26 am

Have you been campaigning for the eradication of page 3 mac?

Men are objectified plenty in ladies mags and diet coke ads, the page 3 protesters seem to only object to sexism against women.

Je suis page 3!!

by **navyblueshorts** Fri Jan 23, 2015 9:22 pm

McLaren wrote:Navy

I agree kwini's thread is no place for this.

navyblueshorts wrote:
No, again. I'm calling you out as a hypocrite. Oh, not so well done on the straw man distraction attempt either. I made no comment on degrees/severity of objectification (or however you want to define it). Pure and simple - your remark(s) are on the same scale as some sexist/discriminatory remark at some woman or other. What's the matter? Don't like the image in the mirror?
Don't worry about it though - I'm sure we're all hypocritical from time to time .

I'll leave it at that as Kwini's thread isn't the place for this really.

A basic definition of hypocrisy from wiki (which seems ok to me)

"it is the practice of engaging in the same behavior or activity for which one criticizes another"

So I have criticised others for objectifying women. For me to have engaged in hypocrisy - by the above definition - I would have to have engaged in the objectification of women or an equivalent act.

Your argument is that by commenting on Lee's physical appearance I have engaged in the same behavior - in this case the objectification of women - as that for which I have criticised others.

In order to have accused me of hypocrisy on this issue you have to be claiming that commenting on the fatness of a man is the equivalent of objectifying women. If you are unwilling to accept that premise then no hypocrisy has been committed.

Seriously, you don't get it do you? Or, if you do (and I suspect this is the case), you haven't even got the balls to admit the remarks you made are hypocritical. Your behaviour re. the Westwood image is exactly the same as that which you'd be decrying in other circumstances and your hair-splitting attempt to say otherwise doesn't get you off the hook.
As I implied earlier, many JWs are the same in this - they jump up and down re. perceived racist remarks (or some other issue) but then go out and slag off, say, ginger-haired people. You don't get to choose which group your behaviour towards is correct, while at the same time behaving in a dubious way towards some other group, which may or may not attract the same PC-cachet/JW score.

McLaren wrote:Davie

I will repeat. I do not equate commenting on a man's beer gut and the objectification of women.

Does the concept of objectification of men even exist?

More Straw Man nonsense. It's not degrees of something here Mac - it's whether you do it or not. You can't pick and choose your targets when the behaviour is the same. You can repeat it 'till you're blue in the face but your equating (or not) of these two is irrelevant.

by GunsGerms Fri Jan 23, 2015 9:47 pm

incontinentia wrote:Have you been campaigning for the eradication of page 3 mac?

Men are objectified plenty in ladies mags and diet coke ads, the page 3 protesters seem to only object to sexism against women.

Je suis page 3!!

I agree with this. I am not a supporter of feminism for many reasons mainly because I dont believe their agenda is gender equality.

That said I always found page three a little OTT. Would never buy the sun anyway.

by beninho Fri Jan 23, 2015 10:07 pm

In theory, there should be nothing wrong with Girls willingly getting their baps out on page 3. They are being paid for it. But it just seems a bit behind the times.

by incontinentia Fri Jan 23, 2015 10:44 pm

beninho wrote:In theory, there should be nothing wrong with Girls willingly getting their baps out on page 3. They are being paid for it. But it just seems a bit behind the times.

Yeah the Times is much better Smile

by Roller_Coaster Fri Jan 23, 2015 11:38 pm

incontinentia wrote:
beninho wrote:In theory, there should be nothing wrong with Girls willingly getting their baps out on page 3. They are being paid for it. But it just seems a bit behind the times.
Yeah the Times is much better

Well, it was when it was a big broadsheet.

The page three pictures were mahoosive! thumbsup

Unfortunately they were quite likely to be of Angela Merkel thumbsdown

I'll get me coat.

by raycastleunited Fri Jan 23, 2015 11:44 pm

Navy, what's a JW?

Jehovah's witness?

by super_realist Fri Jan 23, 2015 11:48 pm

raycastleunited wrote:Navy, what's a JW?

Jehovah's witness?

Don't get me started.

by **navyblueshorts** Sat Jan 24, 2015 7:27 am

raycastleunited wrote:Navy, what's a JW?

Jehovah's witness?

Sorry. Should have been 'SJW' - as in 'Social Justice Warrior'.

by kwinigolfer Sat Jan 24, 2015 9:09 am

Mac,
Where's David Moyes when you need him?
200M smackers spent and team in disarray.What a coup to get van Gaal, quite a find!

by McLaren Sat Jan 24, 2015 8:19 pm

Navy

As I have said to you in almost every post on this matter if you agree that the objectification of women and the comments I made about Westwood are the same thing then I was hypocritical. I don't understand why you won't admit that you do find them to be roughly equivalent as without doing so your accusation of hypocricy makes little sense.

I clearly don't see them as the same thing and would be unwilling to say that all insults about looks equate to a similar level of harm. Your premise seems to be that the same harm is caused be the objectification of women and the mockery of an overweight man.

Instead of just claiming that I do not understand your argument why not offer an argument that explains to me why these two issues are equivalent?

I will restate the definition we both seemed comfortable with;

"it is the practice of engaging in the same behavior or activity for which one criticizes another"

You can see why agreeing that the objectification of women and my comments about Westwood being the same are so crucial to your accusation.

by kwinigolfer Sat Jan 24, 2015 11:00 pm

Mac,
I heard it's your birthday. Here's your card:

https://twitter.com/AndrewHarding9/status/557833935938658305/photo/1

by raycastleunited Sun Jan 25, 2015 12:46 am

I don't know why I've fallen for this. As Davie would say, please don't feed the trolls...

Mac it's pretty clear that your comments about Westwood, Scott, and others equate to the objectification of men. And the objectification of men is the same behaviour as the objectification of women.

The fact you can't see your hypocrisy, not just on this subject but pretty much on a daily basis on this forum, indicates to me that frequently you don't fully understand the issues you argue. You always end up getting found out, and generally come across as the most uneducated and ignorant person on this forum.

There used to be someone more ignorant than you but she doesn't post any more.

by beninho Sun Jan 25, 2015 5:18 am

I heard a dick of a Chelsea fan on the radio at the start of the season claim they had outgrown English football and if they didn't win all 4 trophies it would be a poor season. Ignoring the fact that a rich Russian pumping money in doesn't make you a footballing super power, I am so happy they lost!

by McLaren Sun Jan 25, 2015 6:28 am

Thanks kwini, they are some seriously hot abs. kiss

by McLaren Sun Jan 25, 2015 6:37 am

Kwini

A replay now looks like a pretty good result given how some have fared this weekend.

by kwinigolfer Sun Jan 25, 2015 6:50 am

Agreed Mac, pretty dire performances with 2 x Manchesters, Liverpool, Chelsea and Tottenham racking up 3 goals, 3 home losses and two draws between 'em. Close to 750M pounds' worth of talent it took to achieve that lot.
Credit to Man Utd and Spurs for at least having one or two home grown players in their ranks, more than could be said for the others.
What a load of rubbish.

by Davie Sun Jan 25, 2015 7:17 am

One thing to say about today's results (and last night's for that matter) ...

laughing

by McLaren Sun Jan 25, 2015 7:42 am

Ray

Would you take the time to consider that objectification of men ànd women are not equal?

by Davie Sun Jan 25, 2015 8:09 am

McLaren wrote:Ray

Would you take the time to consider that objectification of men ànd women are not equal?

Why are they not equal? A bit selective isn't it?

by McLaren Sun Jan 25, 2015 10:38 am

For starters we live in a patriarchal society.

by **navyblueshorts** Sun Jan 25, 2015 3:20 pm

McLaren wrote:Navy

As I have said to you in almost every post on this matter if you agree that the objectification of women and the comments I made about Westwood are the same thing then I was hypocritical. I don't understand why you won't admit that you do find them to be roughly equivalent as without doing so your accusation of hypocricy makes little sense.

I clearly don't see them as the same thing and would be unwilling to say that all insults about looks equate to a similar level of harm. Your premise seems to be that the same harm is caused be the objectification of women and the mockery of an overweight man.

Instead of just claiming that I do not understand your argument why not offer an argument that explains to me why these two issues are equivalent?

I will restate the definition we both seemed comfortable with;

"it is the practice of engaging in the same behavior or activity for which one criticizes another"

You can see why agreeing that the objectification of women and my comments about Westwood being the same are so crucial to your accusation.

I was right - you simply don't get it. I think it's more charitable if I assume that than any other possibility. Your remarks re. Westwood's physique are the same as saying re. the picture of some woman "Don't like the look of that cellulite. Ug!" or "Nah. Not as fit as Kate Upton". If you don't see that your remarks on Westwood's physique are equitable with the sorts of comment on women that you'd get hot under the collar about, I really can't explain it to you. Trying to justify it due to some flannel about objectification of men and women not being equitable is completely besides the point - your remarks re. Westwood were de facto 'objectification', whether you like it or not.

McLaren wrote:Ray

Would you take the time to consider that objectification of men ànd women are not equal?

McLaren wrote:For starters we live in a patriarchal society.

That has stuff all to do with this conversation; the same as your attempt to justify your remarks based on some self-declared lack of equality in remarks.
How about I make racist remarks about, say, people of Far Eastern origin because they've perhaps not had such a hard time, historically, with racism as people of African origin? Your conjecture is absurd.

by Sponsored content