homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » What makes you furious? (Page 2)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: What makes you furious?
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Fuck the principle. Riding in clumps is just stupid.

Is it? Which is easier to overtake? 20 cyclists 2 abreast, and therefore forming a group of 10 cycle lengths, or them in a long line forming a group of 20 cycle lengths? The former requires a smaller break in the oncoming traffic.

Generally, if you have enough space to overtake a lone cyclist you would have enough to overtake two abreast as in 99% of cases you will need to cross the centre line and therefore need no oncoming traffic anyway. If you're routinely overtaking lone cyclists without crossing the centre line, odds on you're too damned close. 1 metre clearance (that's end of handlebars to your wing mirror) is a minimum at 30mph; above that 1.5 to 2 metres should be given.

Trust me, closer than that and it can be very frightening, and is one of the reasons you see so many cyclists on pavements (something that annoys me) - they're too damned scared of the cars.

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
By far the most common cause of serious accidents to cyclists is motorists turning across their path and siding into them whether at a junction or when overtaking. In most cases the motorist either didn't see the cyclist at all, or else misjudged their speed and assumed the were behind them. Cyclists are effectively invisible to motorists, even when wearing shiny yellow things or when using flashing lights, because the motorists are, quite sensibly, paying attention to the road ahead, and to other motor vehicles, and tend to miss what is between them and the kerb and what is behind them.

There are a number of ways cyclists can help protect themselves against that:

- occupy their full lane so overtakers need to cross into the next lane
- avoid riding in the gutter
- ride two or more abreast
- ride more slowly
- avoid riding in cycle lanes by the side of the road or on the pavement (sidewalk) if road junctions cross their path
- move to the front of a queue of stationary or slow traffic and position themselves in right front of the lead vehicle so they are easily seen
- start moving off from red lights just before they change

The most dangerous place for a cyclist to be is approaching a junction on the pedestrian side of moving traffic - whether in the gutter or on the pavement or on one of those roadside cycle lanes.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840

 - Posted      Profile for rolyn         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I am generally courteous and considerate to cyclists . Until recently when encountering a 'clump' on my regular route home.
They were occupying the whole of one lane and part of the other doing about 5 mph uphill . A couple of them resisted my attempt to overtake, and it was necessary to sound the horn in order for them to show me some consideration.

--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence

Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
I am generally courteous and considerate to cyclists . Until recently when encountering a 'clump' on my regular route home.
They were occupying the whole of one lane and part of the other doing about 5 mph uphill . A couple of them resisted my attempt to overtake, and it was necessary to sound the horn in order for them to show me some consideration.

Well don't let one group change your attitude to everyone else [Biased]

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840

 - Posted      Profile for rolyn         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
The most dangerous place for a cyclist to be is approaching a junction on the pedestrian side of moving traffic - whether in the gutter or on the pavement or on one of those roadside cycle lanes.

..... or anywhere near the wheels of an articulated lorry .

Common sense is extremely important on both sides of the cyclist/motorist divide.

--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence

Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
The most dangerous place for a cyclist to be is approaching a junction on the pedestrian side of moving traffic - whether in the gutter or on the pavement or on one of those roadside cycle lanes.

..... or anywhere near the wheels of an articulated lorry .

Common sense is extremely important on both sides of the cyclist/motorist divide.

"Suicide lanes" don't help. These are the on-road cycle lanes that are on the left of a road near a junction, putting the cyclist following the "obvious" route right into the wrong place. Of course, the compounding issue here is that if there's an ASL at the head of the junction, the "suicide" lane is the only legal route into it for the cyclist. Who, on getting there, will find that the lorry that's about to kill them is blocking said ASL.

Recipe for disaster. The safest thing, of course, is to ignore the suicide lane, filter (if safe) to the front of the queue and sit in front of the lead vehicle, bearing in mind the blind spot directly in front of HGVs, even if that means crossing the stop line because the ASL is full of illegally stopped motor vehicles, and entering the ASL not through its feeder lane, and set off on the red+amber.

Unfortunately just "waiting your turn" isn't safe either as some berk will squeeze past you and then left hook you as he turns left.

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I am courteous to cyclists, even the ones who I think are bastards. And yes, plenty of motorist are bastards and plenty are clueless and careless.
On open, straight road; riding multiple abreast might be safer. On twistie roads, especially in the hills or mountains it is stupid.
Cyclists should move over when cars approach and motorists should give plenty of space when passing. Simples.
But maintaining position because one feels the right to do so is dangerous, stupid and inconsiderate.
Ultimately, the motorist has the most responsibility as they have the most dangerous conveyance.
I suppose cyclists behaving poorly irritate me because, in a collision, the car might need dent repair, the cyclist might need mourners. Though I suppose "I was in my rights" makes as good an epitaph as any.

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Can I make one alteration?

"Cyclists should move over to let faster traffic pass when it is safe and reasonable to do so."

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Eirenist
Shipmate
# 13343

 - Posted      Profile for Eirenist         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
'Here lies the body of Jonathan Gray
Who died defending his right of way;
He was right, dead right, as he sped along,
but he's just as dead as if he'd been wrong.'

How did we get side-tracked?

Posts: 486 | From: Darkest Metroland | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
M.
Ship's Spare Part
# 3291

 - Posted      Profile for M.   Email M.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by M.:
If we're talking cyclists, perhaps if they stopped at red lights, it would be helpful as well.

M.

Edited to add: I'm not posting as a motorist here but as a pedestrian.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'd be happy if motorists did the same.

Yes, I agree with that but certainly crossing red lights seems to happen more with cyclists than with motorists, at least in central London and my little part of Surrey (the areas I most frequently walk in).

Originally posted by Karl Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Perhaps if motorists didn't ignore speed limits it would be helpful as well.

What's that? Wrong to tar them all with the same brush?

I'm not sure what this has to do with my point about crossing red lights, although I'm sure some motorists do speed through them. I'm equally not sure what your last 2 sentences are getting at - I'm not suggesting that all cyclists break the lights, if that's what you mean.

Perhaps I should have made it clearer that my comment was a rather casual and shorthand way of suggesting the following: 'In my experience, and in the areas in which I am most likely to walk, there are quite a few cyclists who break the law by not stopping at red lights and I find - speaking only for myself - that it makes it difficult, somewhat anxiety-inducing and possibly even somewhat dangerous to attempt to cross the road.'

So sorry I wasn't clear.

M.

Posts: 2303 | From: Lurking in Surrey | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Can I make one alteration?

"Cyclists should move over to let faster traffic pass when it is safe and reasonable to do so."

Certainly. Safety for all should be paramount. Courtesy second, legality after.

Apologies, Eirenist, last on this from me.


Now back to our regular, scheduled outrage....

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
barrea
Shipmate
# 3211

 - Posted      Profile for barrea     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
What makes me furious is the fact that Ship of Fools won't clean up it's act and ban all swearing from it's boards . Other Christian sites would not allow it and some of the secular sites to do not allow swearing. Not every one wants to see the F word and the C word banded about when reading posts. I think that the Hell site ought to be banned, it is absolutely disgusting and I have now stopped reading it, not that I used to read it much before. Nobody seems to realise how offensive SOFs has become has become, even on Purgatory.

--------------------
Therefore having been justified by faith,we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Romans 5:1

Posts: 1050 | From: england | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Moo

Ship's tough old bird
# 107

 - Posted      Profile for Moo   Email Moo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by barrea:
What makes me furious is the fact that Ship of Fools won't clean up it's act and ban all swearing from it's boards . Other Christian sites would not allow it and some of the secular sites to do not allow swearing. Not every one wants to see the F word and the C word banded about when reading posts.

I'm not sure that kind of language is un-Christian. I don't recall the Bible saying anything about it.

It is distasteful to me, but it doesn't bother me enough to make me stop reading.

Moo

--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.

Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Higgs Bosun
Shipmate
# 16582

 - Posted      Profile for Higgs Bosun   Email Higgs Bosun   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
How did we get side-tracked?

Well, road rage on the part of different road users is probably one of the most common forms of anger. One might speculate why. The cyclist/car driver case does seem to be particularly fraught.

I think that cars are a particular problem because the driver is sealed in a box which isolates them from the world. Do drivers of open cars behave differently?

Another problem is that often the anger arises when one's sense of entitlement is violated. Not being able to overtake something going slower than one wishes to travel is an example. How many drivers say "I've paid my road tax", even though there is no such thing. Vehicle Excise Duty is paid according to the pollution from the car. Some pay nothing, are they less entitled to use the road?

I also wonder if there is a sense of superiority from car drivers: "I have a car and therefore I am of higher status than the poor and insignificant person on the bike."

But as a cyclist (and driver and pedestrian) I also get very annoyed at those who go through red lights and ride on footpaths, because it gives drivers cause to vilify all cyclists.

There are also a lot of very bad pedestrians as well, of course!

Posts: 313 | From: Near the Tidal Thames | Registered: Aug 2011  |  IP: Logged
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331

 - Posted      Profile for Jane R   Email Jane R   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Higgs Bosun:
quote:
I also wonder if there is a sense of superiority from car drivers: "I have a car and therefore I am of higher status than the poor and insignificant person on the bike."
There's a pecking order among car drivers too. Those of us in small nondescript (low-polluting) models are frequently carved up by people driving gas-guzzling 4x4 monstrosities or low-slung sports cars. Actually, you might be onto something with the open-top idea - I've noticed people in those tend to drive more considerately.

As a cyclist, I think the most frightening situation is going straight on in a dedicated cycle lane at a junction where there's a left lane controlled by a separate filter light... you have cars on both sides and the constant fear that someone will cut across the cycle lane without noticing you. Is that what you meant by suicide lanes, Karl?

Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Higgs Bosun:
quote:
I also wonder if there is a sense of superiority from car drivers: "I have a car and therefore I am of higher status than the poor and insignificant person on the bike."
There's a pecking order among car drivers too. Those of us in small nondescript (low-polluting) models are frequently carved up by people driving gas-guzzling 4x4 monstrosities or low-slung sports cars. Actually, you might be onto something with the open-top idea - I've noticed people in those tend to drive more considerately.

As a cyclist, I think the most frightening situation is going straight on in a dedicated cycle lane at a junction where there's a left lane controlled by a separate filter light... you have cars on both sides and the constant fear that someone will cut across the cycle lane without noticing you. Is that what you meant by suicide lanes, Karl?

No, they're bad but marginally better because at least you're not put on the left of left turning traffic. The Suicide Lanes are the one ones in the gutter that lead up the left hand side of the lane containing traffic some of which will turn left.

Left filter lanes are of Satan, especially where they're the type where the left hand lane becomes a left filter requiring the cyclist to change lanes into a right-hand lane where he's not expected. Especially bad when they occur uphill at around 10% gradient as Sheffield is particularly fond of so you're having to do this lane change wobbling up at 5-8mph.

With tramlines.

[ 25. July 2013, 13:28: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by barrea:
What makes me furious is the fact that Ship of Fools won't clean up it's act and ban all swearing from it's boards . Other Christian sites would not allow it and some of the secular sites to do not allow swearing. Not every one wants to see the F word and the C word banded about when reading posts. I think that the Hell site ought to be banned, it is absolutely disgusting and I have now stopped reading it, not that I used to read it much before. Nobody seems to realise how offensive SOFs has become has become, even on Purgatory.

I've posted on those other Christian boards. They're generally pretty dull. Allowing - erm - freely worded expression - on SoF is one of the things that like it or not contributes to its diversity and liveliness.

Ditto Hell. Do you know, historically, why the Ship has a Hell? It's because, ultimately, it needed one.

I am aware that some secular boards don't allow naughty words. This is because they are not specifically aimed at adult debate. SoF is. The belief is that like the telly after 9pm, growm-ups can either cope with the contents of Roger's Profanisaurus, or know where the Off switch is.

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

 - Posted      Profile for Leorning Cniht   Email Leorning Cniht   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Is it? Which is easier to overtake? 20 cyclists 2 abreast, and therefore forming a group of 10 cycle lengths, or them in a long line forming a group of 20 cycle lengths? The former requires a smaller break in the oncoming traffic.

Around here, the latter. The roads are sufficiently wide that a bicycle, several feet of space, and a car, very nearly all fit in half a road. On a typical UK road, I'd probably agree with you that 2 abreast is easier to overtake safely.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

 - Posted      Profile for Leorning Cniht   Email Leorning Cniht   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

Left filter lanes are of Satan, especially where they're the type where the left hand lane becomes a left filter requiring the cyclist to change lanes into a right-hand lane where he's not expected. Especially bad when they occur uphill at around 10% gradient as Sheffield is particularly fond of so you're having to do this lane change wobbling up at 5-8mph.

There is a cycle lane round here that does exactly that - there's a filter lane on the right for cars turning right, and a "cycle lane" marked by dashed white lines crossing this diagonally, for bicycles that want to go straight on. And yes, it's up one of our rare hills (but no trams!). I've seen cyclists come close to being flattened several times.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yep, that's it.

Car moving forward intending to turn left. Driver knows perhaps that there is a pedestrian a few metres behind car. Driver uses mirror to check traffic behind and to right, eyeballs oncoming traffic, and looks into side road to ensure its empty. One last glance at mirror and moves off at about five or six metres a second. Pedestrian goes at two metres per second max, so car clears junction before pedestrian tries to cross.

Replace pedestrian with cyclist moving at same speed as car. Whoops!

Even worse if car is 18 metre artic. Driver can't see a thing to left, and when turning vehicle squeezes space between corner and kerb, or even overhangs kerb, forcing cyclist onto sidewalk at best, under wheels at worst.

Solution: cyclist positions themself in front of motor vehicle where they can be clearly seen, in lane, at least a metre away from kerb.

No solution: cyclist slows down or waits by side of road. Why no solution? Because they are then in the same danger from the next car or the next.

Some of the problem is ignorance. Cyclists often genuinely don't realise how restricted a view motorists have. Especially large vehicles. You are on a bike, you can see and hear all sorts of things. You are regularly looking behind you and to your right and left (or you are if you have any sense). Drivers can't see you the way you see them, they can't hear much at all, and they rarely look round - they are actively taught not to, they are trained to keep their eyes on the road ahead. So they really don't know you are there, so you have to make yourself visible by placing yourself in their filed of vision.

Drivers often genuinely don't realise how fast normal cyclists can go, or how much danger they are in from even small potholes and obstacles in the road, or how hard it is for them to start uphill. So they swerve or wobble or even change lanes to avoid things you can't see. And they are sometimes very reluctant to come to a complete stop if they can keep moving forward even at less than walking pace, especially uphill.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Curiosity killed ...

Ship's Mug
# 11770

 - Posted      Profile for Curiosity killed ...   Email Curiosity killed ...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
As a comment on how wonderful bike lanes are in this country: on the lovely CS2 London Superhighway - 3 cyclist deaths and counting, there's a blue painted lane down part of the bus lane which is regularly parked over. Some of the junctions with lights have blue cross-hatched boxes where bikes are supposed to wait in front of the traffic. Guess what is mostly sitting in those boxes? Yep, cars.

--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat

Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331

 - Posted      Profile for Jane R   Email Jane R   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'd agree with Ken that a lot of the problem is caused by ignorance. Some of the rest of it is just bad manners, with a side-order of entitlement: 'Is 20 seconds of my time worth risking someone else's life? Hell, yes!'

It's amusing (in a twisted way, and provided you still have all your limbs intact) when you catch up with these inconsiderate drivers at the next set of traffic lights.

I've become much more cautious about cycling since I learned to drive and realised how difficult it is to see cyclists in the dark... even for those of us who bother to look.

Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Eirenist
Shipmate
# 13343

 - Posted      Profile for Eirenist         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Those who use foul language in rational discourse merely betray the poverty of their vocabulary and/or imagination.

Discuss.

--------------------
'I think I think, therefore I think I am'

Posts: 486 | From: Darkest Metroland | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331

 - Posted      Profile for Jane R   Email Jane R   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Those who tie themselves into knots to avoid sullying their lips with 'foul' language would not recognise righteous indignation if it bit them in the arse.

Flanders and Swann disapproved of the indiscriminate use of swear words because 'if all these words come into common use we will have nothing left for special occasions'. They were not opposed to all use of strong language.

Furthermore, ideas of what constitutes foul language vary considerably.

I hope I have used enough polysyllabic words by now to convince you that I do not suffer from poverty of vocabulary, but if not I have plenty more where those came from.

Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ethne Alba
Shipmate
# 5804

 - Posted      Profile for Ethne Alba     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
i expect the Jewish leaders of the time were fairly furious when one JC took to chucking the furnture around....?

Spect he didn't use 'nice ' language either.

Or is it perfectly reasonable to imagine Christ hurling furniture around withOUT being furious?

Now THAT's creepy.....

Posts: 3126 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713

 - Posted      Profile for Sioni Sais   Email Sioni Sais   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Is it? Which is easier to overtake? 20 cyclists 2 abreast, and therefore forming a group of 10 cycle lengths, or them in a long line forming a group of 20 cycle lengths? The former requires a smaller break in the oncoming traffic.

Around here, the latter. The roads are sufficiently wide that a bicycle, several feet of space, and a car, very nearly all fit in half a road. On a typical UK road, I'd probably agree with you that 2 abreast is easier to overtake safely.
It doesn't make any difference in Newport. The majority of cyclists are on the pavement, and a increasing number are on the wrong side of the road (yes, facing the oncoming traffic including other cyclists and bikers!).

--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"

(Paul Sinha, BBC)

Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Moo

Ship's tough old bird
# 107

 - Posted      Profile for Moo   Email Moo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ethne Alba:
i expect the Jewish leaders of the time were fairly furious when one JC took to chucking the furnture around....?

Spect he didn't use 'nice ' language either.

Paul could be very outspoken. When he spoke out against church leadership that said all new Christians should be circumcised, he had this to say.
quote:
I wish they who trouble you would cut themselves off.
Here are other translations of this verse.

Moo

--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.

Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
Those who use foul language in rational discourse merely betray the poverty of their vocabulary and/or imagination.

Discuss.

Only true if it constantly permeates everything. Which would be true of ANY word, like, that, like, got used all the time, like, when it totally, like wasn't necessary.

Whereas a well placed swear word can be a thing of great power. I'm not particularly fond, for example, of having swear words liberally strewn through the songs I listen to, but there is a Pearl Jam song called 'Jeremy' that has a line: "he seemed a harmless little fuck". And there is simply no way to have anything like the same impact that this has in context. The swear word conveys a sense of contempt that is crucial to the song's narrative. It's absolutely the right word for the moment, and it doesn't display a lack of thought. Quite the reverse.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715

 - Posted      Profile for ExclamationMark   Email ExclamationMark   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ethne Alba:
i expect the Jewish leaders of the time were fairly furious when one JC took to chucking the furnture around....?

Spect he didn't use 'nice ' language either.

Or is it perfectly reasonable to imagine Christ hurling furniture around withOUT being furious?

Now THAT's creepy.....

Not using "nice" language doesn't mean swearing when he did it.

No one said he wasn't furious, it's just pretty unlikely I think that he used language of the "f" variety. Since Jesus did have a considerable amount to say about love and justice - and swearing at someone or to provoke then is hardly love - I'd take it that he didn't swear. He didn't need to for a start and being the ultimate example to us, he wouldn't want to.

The real test for those who argue that it is perfectly ok to use swear words is to ask them whether they

a) use it in church from the pulpit
b) whether they'd use it to their children or parents
c) where do you go - that is, what do you use - now those words have really lost their impact

If the answer to a and b is "no" then their swearing is simply for effect. There are lots of better ways to achieve this effect without that kind of language.

if it's c then it simply demonstrates the cultural conditioning they've got into.

Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715

 - Posted      Profile for ExclamationMark   Email ExclamationMark   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by barrea:
What makes me furious is the fact that Ship of Fools won't clean up it's act and ban all swearing from it's boards . Other Christian sites would not allow it and some of the secular sites to do not allow swearing. Not every one wants to see the F word and the C word banded about when reading posts. I think that the Hell site ought to be banned, it is absolutely disgusting and I have now stopped reading it, not that I used to read it much before. Nobody seems to realise how offensive SOFs has become has become, even on Purgatory.

IIRC the argument in the past has always been that this is not a Christian web site.

Be that as it may, I find swearing distasteful (in any context) whatever its source. It's sad that, on the ship, a proportion of those who recognise themselves as believers are as culturally conditioned in this area as everyone else.

Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Is it? Which is easier to overtake? 20 cyclists 2 abreast, and therefore forming a group of 10 cycle lengths, or them in a long line forming a group of 20 cycle lengths? The former requires a smaller break in the oncoming traffic.

Around here, the latter. The roads are sufficiently wide that a bicycle, several feet of space, and a car, very nearly all fit in half a road. On a typical UK road, I'd probably agree with you that 2 abreast is easier to overtake safely.
It doesn't make any difference in Newport. The majority of cyclists are on the pavement, and a increasing number are on the wrong side of the road (yes, facing the oncoming traffic including other cyclists and bikers!).
I've heard of Salmon Cyclists but not actually seen one in the flesh. These things tend to be geographical; anecdotal evidence is that red light jumping is particularly popular in London.

The pavement thing is weird. Why does an adult cycle on the pavement? I can only think of two reasons:

1. They're terrified to go on the road; I blame lack of cycle training - my local school has recently stopped doing Bikability for no reason I can gather other than "can't be arsed."

2. They started on the pavement as a child (as we all do) and have never realised that that's actually a societal concession (contrary to popular belief there is no law allowing children under a certain age or on bikes smaller than a particular size to use pavements) and that when they grow up the road is where they're meant to be.

Interestingly, if I do a count of cyclists on my way to work I generally find that it's about 50:50 - the 50% on the pavements are generally cheap full-suspension "mountain bikes" (scare quotes because they would actually fall to bits if you took them anywhere more challenging than a canal towpath, partly because the entire bike costs less than a serviceable rear suspension unit, and partly because the whole bike is made of cheese) with the saddle way too low. I've almost never seen a road bike illegally on the pavement. That could be used in support of either of my two hypotheses above.

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Missed edit window, but excellent article here: http://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/wiki/cyclists-ride-pavements

FWIW I reckon a lot of offenders have the same attitude as a lot of motorists do to speeding - "yes, I know it's illegal but everyone does it so I will anyway."

[ 26. July 2013, 08:14: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768

 - Posted      Profile for Penny S     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Reading all those posts about cycling reminded me of the Sunday I couldn't make it to meeting because of some group who had adopted the local lanes for some social day out. They hadn't put up one of those CAUTION CYCLISTS notice, with a date, which would have affected my leaving time, and possibly route, though there isn't much choice.
The particular lane being a very odd one, with quite wide parts with single lane parts between them, and bendy, the options for overtaking are very limited.
First I came across an odd cyclist, followed by another, who was prepared to slow a bit in a wide part (I flashed my emergency lights in thanks) but then I found the peleton. They were not racing, which would have been an adequate speed, but pootling along for a pleasant Sunday outing. They took, initially, no notice of my presence. Then they decided that it would be appropriate to go into single file, which would have worked on a fairly straight road of constant width with two lanes. Totally impossible on the road concerned. 20 odd bikes, spread out, single lane so the option of giving them enough space wasn't there, and the chance of meeting an oncoming vehicle....
I had to give up and go down a side lane to find my way home. Only to find that that route would have been a no better alternative as there were oncoming cyclists on that lane as well.
The other infuriating road users round here are the drivers who feel that the 30 mph limit doesn't mean them, and insist on overtaking me on one particular part (two lanes, good visibility) as if I have deliberately been obstructing them. Mind you, I'd rather have them in front than behind, so close I can't read their number plate.
Oh, and back to cyclists - the other Sunday, different road, but still difficult to overtake on, I was behind a single lycra wearer for some time - he was going at a fair speed, I gave him some room ahead of me, and when I eventually got past, he waved. Much appreciated, that. Showed he knew I was there, and appreciated the way I had been driving.

Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009  |  IP: Logged
wishandaprayer
Shipmate
# 17673

 - Posted      Profile for wishandaprayer   Email wishandaprayer   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by barrea:
What makes me furious is the fact that Ship of Fools won't clean up it's act and ban all swearing from it's boards.

I always wondered what type of person regularly writes in to Ofcom...
Posts: 94 | Registered: May 2013  |  IP: Logged
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768

 - Posted      Profile for Penny S     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I've read Karl's link. This is why my bike is in my garage and I don't use it. My architect designed village is a bit of a Milton Keynes Mini-me, apart from not having cycle paths. It bans bikes from the many footpaths.
The bit of road on which the cars who do not observe the speed limit, see above, gave me the heebie-jeebies on the one time I cycled down it to buy replacement brake blocks.
I hardly ever see utility cyclists about, and I know why.
This causes a sort of slow burn irritation rather than fury.

Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009  |  IP: Logged
Eirenist
Shipmate
# 13343

 - Posted      Profile for Eirenist         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
But how does a liberal scattering of offensive words constitute 'swearing'? You're not invoking the name of God to bear witness to the truth of what you're saying. It is unfortunate that, partly due to the historical development of Christianity, we have come to regard the act of love as disgusting. Like the name of God, it should not be invoked lightly. It is a divine gift and a foretaste of Heaven, too precious to be used as an expletive.

--------------------
'I think I think, therefore I think I am'

Posts: 486 | From: Darkest Metroland | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713

 - Posted      Profile for Sioni Sais   Email Sioni Sais   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by barrea:
What makes me furious is the fact that Ship of Fools won't clean up it's act and ban all swearing from it's boards.

What makes me furious is aberrant apostrophe's. [Biased]

--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"

(Paul Sinha, BBC)

Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well, swearing has it's proponents and it's opponents; its well known that faulty education is to blame.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
The real test for those who argue that it is perfectly ok to use swear words is to ask them whether they

a) use it in church from the pulpit
b) whether they'd use it to their children or parents
c) where do you go - that is, what do you use - now those words have really lost their impact


a) sometimes b and c) often

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm not sure what the 'real test' means in any case. All language is context dependent, so what?

The fact I don't use certain words and expressions everywhere, doesn't really invalidate using them somewhere, does it? For example, I call my wife certain affectionate and idiosyncratic terms, which I would not use to the milkman, or my neighbour. I can't see that this has any implications for language use, except that it is sometimes specialized, sometimes not.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713

 - Posted      Profile for Sioni Sais   Email Sioni Sais   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
The real test for those who argue that it is perfectly ok to use swear words is to ask them whether they

a) use it in church from the pulpit
b) whether they'd use it to their children or parents
c) where do you go - that is, what do you use - now those words have really lost their impact


I use foul and abusive language far more on the Ship than in RL, simply because it isn't real life and one has fewer tools available.

In RL I tend to speak slower and drop the tone of my voice for emphasis or when I might otherwise let rip. I abruptly stop talking when interrupted if I am interrupted! That gets through after about three goes.

The children didn't pay much attention when Daddy swore, but when I spoke slowly, they did and still do.

--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"

(Paul Sinha, BBC)

Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Curiosity killed ...

Ship's Mug
# 11770

 - Posted      Profile for Curiosity killed ...   Email Curiosity killed ...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Different contexts allow different use of language - what is acceptable on the workshop floor is not necessarily the language appreciated by your mother (daughter, please take note).

The armed forces tend to the earthy in their forms of expression, so it's worth checking the origins of abbreviations and acronyms. I was told that my language was unacceptable when asked on a training day if anyone knew what PPPPPP meant. I did, but I also thought the guy would have checked it before use or asking the question. It did also make me think QED

And going back to the original question of what makes me furious, the only times I've been so angry that I've acted without thinking were when people were being hurt. I still don't know how I caught up with the leader of a group of scouts in the Lake District up on the tops in snowy conditions, snow up to my knees, packed up, an asthmatic with cold and exercise as triggers, but I was furious. This leader was losing one of his troop - one poor lad miles behind and struggling. There was no-one keeping an eye at the back of the troop. I stormed up to him and told him that he needed to take better care of his charges and not lose them in snowy conditions. The guys I was with were embarrassed, so goodness how mortified the leader was, and he was crimson by the time I'd finished. However, when we met them again later in the day, the lad who was struggling had two others with him back marking, carrying his pack between them. So I still don't feel that guilty.

--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat

Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It just seems odd to me that people come to this forum, which is known as a lively and irreverent one, and then complain. There are tons of nice polite Christian forums, where swearing isn't allowed, aren't there?

It's like going to the pub, and complaining that you don't like all the alcohol around.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I'm not sure what the 'real test' means in any case. All language is context dependent, so what?

The fact I don't use certain words and expressions everywhere, doesn't really invalidate using them somewhere, does it? For example, I call my wife certain affectionate and idiosyncratic terms, which I would not use to the milkman, or my neighbour. I can't see that this has any implications for language use, except that it is sometimes specialized, sometimes not.

Yes to this. There are formal and informal types of language. The suggestion that I must only use terminology I would comfortably use everywhere would mean I would spend my entire life speaking like I was at a podium. Or writing legislation. No contractions for starters. No for starters for starters.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yes to that. We have an incredibly complex and subtle multi-tracked communication system, which can adapt to many different situations and speakers. Thus, if I go to see my GP, I don't slap her on the back, and shout 'awright, me old china'.

We are multi-tracked, not mono-tracked.

I can understand people not liking swearing. Actually, I don't like swearing bans! What next?

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

The real test for those who argue that it is perfectly ok to use swear words is to ask them whether they

a) use it in church from the pulpit
b) whether they'd use it to their children or parents
c) where do you go - that is, what do you use - now those words have really lost their impact

If the answer to a and b is "no" then their swearing is simply for effect. There are lots of better ways to achieve this effect without that kind of language.

if it's c then it simply demonstrates the cultural conditioning they've got into.

Replacing searing with sex in your examples. Wouldn't have sex on the pulpit? Then do not anywhere else.
As Sioni and others have mentioned, this communication form is limited. We lose tone, expression and body movement.
Several points here.
A swear word can serve as emphasis that is lost online.
Swear words are far from the most hurtful or unChristian language I've seen used on the Ship.
Your abhorrence demonstrates your cultural conditioning.

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It's also about forum rules, isn't it? Obviously, forums differ widely, and I tend to avoid those which ban swearing, as I suspect they are going to be too polite and reverent for me. For others, they are probably just right. Horses for courses.

Don't go in the steakhouse, if you are a vegetarian, or love horses.

[ 26. July 2013, 15:44: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
wishandaprayer
Shipmate
# 17673

 - Posted      Profile for wishandaprayer   Email wishandaprayer   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Surely this isn't the place for people to impose their culturally formed (evolved?! [Big Grin] ) views onto others. It all stinks of total moral absolutism - I know the best way, so you better fall in line.

Thanks, but no thanks.

Posts: 94 | Registered: May 2013  |  IP: Logged
mark_in_manchester

not waving, but...
# 15978

 - Posted      Profile for mark_in_manchester   Email mark_in_manchester   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Moo said

quote:
Paul could be very outspoken
Aye - what about that bit where he's talking about his unimpeachable high-class Jewish credentials, and then comes the punchline (KJV I think) "I consider it all but dung".

In other words..."what a load of ****!".

Strong language can convey strong emotional punch, to me, and we're emotional creatures. IMV it's a vital part of speech - but fails when mis-used for inappropriate purposes, which is what I guess this bit (bad language) of the thread is about.

But over all, this is a thread about fury! Perhaps strong language might be expected.

The thread has me reading about the seven deadlies, and Wrath in particular. Anyone have any insights on historical disciplines for growing out of it? Perhaps that needs a new thread?

--------------------
"We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard
(so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)

Posts: 1596 | Registered: Oct 2010  |  IP: Logged
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715

 - Posted      Profile for ExclamationMark   Email ExclamationMark   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Your abhorrence demonstrates your cultural conditioning. [/QB]

And what culture might that be? Do tell!

[ 26. July 2013, 23:14: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]

Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools