Solomon1 Posted September 12, 2014 Author Share Posted September 12, 2014 So anyone saying "you should be concentrating on the road" is just being deliberately argumentative Going back to what I was saying earlier, re how SF used to be... People didn't used to argue, just for the sake of argument....well not like they do nowadays And I partly blame the way it's been moderated. The mods used to be a bit more open-hearted, tolerant and forgiving...and with a sense of humour too....and that was naturally reflected in the whole culture of the forum. Certain mods who shall remain nameless (aka death) have got into a bad habit of banning people without due process....causing a great deal of animosity and bad feeling....which of course gets carried back into the forum... I understand it's difficult to moderate something so large....it's never going to be perfect, and most of the mods do a really great job... And don't get me wrong, I still love this place.....whenever I'm in a spot of bother, there's always someone on here who is willing to help you out or offer advice....and that's just blimmin AMAZING . I just miss the good old days when things were just a bit less serious....and people were just that bit nicer.... Anyhoo....I've chewed yer ear off, and we've only just met! Thanks for listening dude Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No User Name Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 Solomon returning time and time again to the thread just to insult people, there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solomon1 Posted September 12, 2014 Author Share Posted September 12, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinz Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 :hihi: < Ispeetinyaface> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted September 15, 2014 Share Posted September 15, 2014 Solomon returning time and time again to the thread just to insult people, there. Not only that, he seems to have taken the opportunity to turn it into a rant about posters and mods ruining SF. By the sounds of it, in the 'good old days' somebody would start a thread and all the other posters would come along and agree 100% with the op's opinion, therefore all having a jolly good utopian time. How dare people come along and oppose Solomon's opinion with a rational approach and using big, sciency words to present their case! The way to deal with this is obviously to call them names, try and change the subject and try to make an appeal to emotion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexAtkin Posted September 15, 2014 Share Posted September 15, 2014 Not only that, he seems to have taken the opportunity to turn it into a rant about posters and mods ruining SF. By the sounds of it, in the 'good old days' somebody would start a thread and all the other posters would come along and agree 100% with the op's opinion, therefore all having a jolly good utopian time. How dare people come along and oppose Solomon's opinion with a rational approach and using big, sciency words to present their case! The way to deal with this is obviously to call them names, try and change the subject and try to make an appeal to emotion. I'm not getting involved with this "how things used to be" debate as its pointless. However, I'd love to know who you think opposed his opinion on THIS thread about THIS topic in a rational or scientific way. The argument of if digital signs are a hazard has been going on for years in the US and apparently studies claim they are not. However, that is assuming they are correctly dimmed at night and the street lights are working properly. Its also assuming the studies were not funded by people with an interest in keeping the signs, so its by no means fool proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No User Name Posted September 15, 2014 Share Posted September 15, 2014 I'm not getting involved with this "how things used to be" debate as its pointless. However, I'd love to know who you think opposed his opinion on THIS thread about THIS topic in a rational or scientific way. The argument of if digital signs are a hazard has been going on for years in the US and apparently studies claim they are not. However, that is assuming they are correctly dimmed at night and the street lights are working properly. Its also assuming the studies were not funded by people with an interest in keeping the signs, so its by no means fool proof. Well the number of injuries, accidents and/or deaths caused by this sign is a rational place to start. Can someone remind me of the figures? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexAtkin Posted September 15, 2014 Share Posted September 15, 2014 (edited) Because EVERY hazard causes immediate and notable accidents and injuries? Erm nope, that's not how it works. Take for example when someone breaks down on the motorway. If it worked how you say then every time it would cause an accident. What actually happens is people have to compensate, but it doesn't mean having a parked car in the middle of the motorway is not a hazard. That is of course an extreme example as its more likely to cause an accident than the lit sign is, but its the same principle. Just because people so far have been able to compensate or been lucky, doesn't mean its not an accident waiting to happen. It would require a number of contributing factors to actually cause an accident. The question is if its an avoidable additional hazard or not which clearly some people think it is. Example, if someone were to brake suddenly in front of someone who just got startled by the sign. It might not be entirely the signs fault, but was it avoidable? Yes, if the sign was dimmed sufficiently so it couldn't startle anyone. Its called risk assessment. You don't just look at one factor, you look at the whole picture and try to minimise hazards. Edited September 15, 2014 by AlexAtkin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No User Name Posted September 15, 2014 Share Posted September 15, 2014 So the answer to my question is "none", then? Just a simple yes or no reply will do I was in Las Vegas a fortnight ago, god knows how those cars cope. Poor lambs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted September 15, 2014 Share Posted September 15, 2014 (edited) I'm not getting involved with this "how things used to be" debate as its pointless. However, I'd love to know who you think opposed his opinion on THIS thread about THIS topic in a rational or scientific way. The argument of if digital signs are a hazard has been going on for years in the US and apparently studies claim they are not. However, that is assuming they are correctly dimmed at night and the street lights are working properly. Its also assuming the studies were not funded by people with an interest in keeping the signs, so its by no means fool proof. Seeing as he claimed the billboard is as bright as 20 car headlamps on full beam, just about every opposing opinion is a rational one ---------- Post added 15-09-2014 at 21:03 ---------- I'm not getting involved with this "how things used to be" debate as its pointless. However, I'd love to know who you think opposed his opinion on THIS thread about THIS topic in a rational or scientific way. The argument of if digital signs are a hazard has been going on for years in the US and apparently studies claim they are not. However, that is assuming they are correctly dimmed at night and the street lights are working properly. Its also assuming the studies were not funded by people with an interest in keeping the signs, so its by no means fool proof. Because EVERY hazard causes immediate and notable accidents and injuries? Erm nope, that's not how it works. Take for example when someone breaks down on the motorway. If it worked how you say then every time it would cause an accident. What actually happens is people have to compensate, but it doesn't mean having a parked car in the middle of the motorway is not a hazard. That is of course an extreme example as its more likely to cause an accident than the lit sign is, but its the same principle. Just because people so far have been able to compensate or been lucky, doesn't mean its not an accident waiting to happen. It would require a number of contributing factors to actually cause an accident. The question is if its an avoidable additional hazard or not which clearly some people think it is. Example, if someone were to brake suddenly in front of someone who just got startled by the sign. It might not be entirely the signs fault, but was it avoidable? Yes, if the sign was dimmed sufficiently so it couldn't startle anyone. Its called risk assessment. You don't just look at one factor, you look at the whole picture and try to minimise hazards. It's no more of a hazard than the lights of an oncoming vehicle on the other side of the central reservation. People somehow cope with that. Edited September 15, 2014 by RootsBooster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now