-
No Smoking In Cars - argument version
I have just heard on the news and seen in the newspaper that top doctors want a ban on smoking in cars!
This really winds me up, I can understand a ban on smoking in public places as there are other people around who don't want to breath in your smoke. Your car is a private place! It is of no concern of anyone but you.
Now they are claiming it is to stop children from breathing in second hand smoke and I respect that. However it doesn't solve anything, someone who is going to be inclined to smoke in the car with their kid around (which I hate) is also going to smoke in the house with their kids around....
So are they going to ban smoking in houses next????
I hate this country sometimes.....arrrrghhhhh!
-
re: No Smoking In Cars - argument version
If the evidence shows that it can cause harm just from the lingering chemicals then I think it makes sense (and will push up the value of smokers cars :p) But if they're just worried about the effect of smoking with children present then they should just ban that, rather than ruling out smoking in specific places whether or not they are present.
-
re: No Smoking In Cars - argument version
it would be fine if all the smoke stayed in the car, but i often walk past cars where someone is smoking with the window open to let the smoke out (since they dont want to have to sit in it). Doesnt strike me as much different from just smoking outside.
I think this proposed ban would only be for people parked around public places like schools etc, not in the middle of nowhere?
-
re: No Smoking In Cars - argument version
Quote:
Originally Posted by
colincliff
I think this proposed ban would only be for people parked around public places like schools etc, not in the middle of nowhere?
No it's concerned with the effect that smoking in a car has on children that travel in that car.
-
re: No Smoking In Cars - argument version
Quote:
Originally Posted by
99Flake
I have just heard on the news and seen in the newspaper that top doctors want a ban on smoking in cars!
This really winds me up, I can understand a ban on smoking in public places as there are other people around who don't want to breath in your smoke. Your car is a private place! It is of no concern of anyone but you.
Now they are claiming it is to stop children from breathing in second hand smoke and I respect that. However it doesn't solve anything, someone who is going to be inclined to smoke in the car with their kid around (which I hate) is also going to smoke in the house with their kids around....
So are they going to ban smoking in houses next????
I hate this country sometimes.....arrrrghhhhh!
I don't really see why your angered by this. I mean mobile phone use in cars was banned because your concentration was impaired. The same can be said when you lit a cigarette and while you smoke it. You also have one hand off the steering wheel when lighting it and when smoking. So to be honest i'm glad there banning it, for one thing it may cut a small percentage of accidents and has health benefits. Had a few friends who were annoyed with the ban on smoking in pubs etc, and now 2 out of the 4 have stopped and are all the better for it.
edit: just read the bbc article I still would agree with a ban, but support is not as strong as it was. The reason being is that a safety and health reasoning should be the reason for the ban.
-
re: No Smoking In Cars - argument version
If they cared that much they would just ban smoking altogether. Its not like its about the money or anything, oh wait...
-
re: No Smoking In Cars - argument version
Quote:
Originally Posted by
kalniel
No it's concerned with the effect that smoking in a car has on children that travel in that car.
in that case does seem a tad extreme, although fines etc for people spotted smoking in cars with children i are a good idea in IMO. Not sure who would be responsible for checking these things though - perhaps teams of smoking wardens - who might would help take the pressure of the hatred of traffic wardens..........
-
re: No Smoking In Cars - argument version
Quote:
Originally Posted by
99Flake
top doctors want a ban on smoking in cars!
Top hippies want a ban on animal testing.
Gosh, I hate this government!
This is much like that non-story a while ago that I don't care to remember where "top doctors" were proposing a ban on food, or some other mundanely aggravating thing.
-
re: No Smoking In Cars - argument version
Quote:
Originally Posted by
AledJ
I don't really see why your angered by this. I mean mobile phone use in cars was banned because your concentration was impaired.
That would be a better arguement yes, however it is still flawed, do you change a cd whilst you are driving? Maybe have a swig of water? Or eat a chocolate bar? All these are just as bad as having a fag.
In fact you can very easily drive with two hands whilst smoking, only occasionally taking your hands off the wheel, far less dangerous that trying to drink from a bottle which also impares your vision, you have to open the cap etc.
As for smoke coming out of a car and people breathing it in? Well that is no different from following someone on the street (walking) who is smoking and that isn't band (whether it should be is another arguement altogether) but in this instance it isn't a valid arguement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
KidChameleon
This is much like that non-story a while ago that I don't care to remember where "top doctors" were proposing a ban on food, or some other mundanely aggravating thing.
Oh I know that it is a 'non-story' really. It is just that it is the sort of thing that winds me up. Doctors and governments constantly telling us what we can and can't eat/smoke do etc....
By the time you are an adult you should be able to choose (for better or worse) what you do with your body.
-
re: No Smoking In Cars - argument version
I would also support a ban on smoking while driving for the same reason as they banned mobiles, but for health reasons is taking it a bit too far.
-
re: No Smoking In Cars - argument version
I'm constantly amazed by the fact that, every time I end up stuck in a traffic jam on the M-whatever, the most pervasive smell, above all of the vehicle fumes, is the person three cars back smoking a fag. Seriously. I can't remember the last time I was parked up on the M6 between 11 and 8 and didn't get a lungful of tobacco smoke at some point.
On the other hand, a car is just about as private a space as you can get outside your own home, and I'd be disinclined to support a ban on people smoking in their cars. Although I would introduce some very harsh penalties for anyone caught smoking in an enclosed space with a child present...
p.s. there are already perfectly good laws in place to deal with people who have accidents while unnecessarily distracting themselves. If you want to ban everything that might distract people while driving, then we'll end up banning children in cars - they are easily the most distracting thing I can think of...
-
re: No Smoking In Cars - argument version
Quote:
Originally Posted by
99Flake
That would be a better arguement yes, however it is still flawed, do you change a cd whilst you are driving? Maybe have a swig of water? Or eat a chocolate bar? All these are just as bad as having a fag.
I have my ipod connected in my car and just select a play list before i set off. As for drinking water etc I can see your point, and accept my point is a bit flawed. However, what government idea/ law etc is not flawed.
-
re: No Smoking In Cars - argument version
In a safety aspect it seems sensible to me, if you're not allowed to use your phone or eat an Apple, why are you currently allowed to smoke. A lit object that you need to hold constantly, you could drop it and set something on fire!
In a health aspect, I can't really see the point, passive smoking from people walking passed your car whilst you are smoking seems a bit weak, as car fumes surely are worse?
It should still be banned for safety and of course that will keep the Dr's happy as well.
-
re: No Smoking In Cars - argument version
Quote:
Originally Posted by
KidChameleon
Gosh, I hate this government!
What has the govt got to do with this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Chris P
In a health aspect, I can't really see the point, passive smoking from people walking passed your car whilst you are smoking seems a bit weak, as car fumes surely are worse?
It's for the people *in* the car, not outside it.
-
re: No Smoking In Cars - argument version
Quote:
Originally Posted by
99Flake
Doctors and governments constantly telling us what we can and can't eat/smoke do etc....
By the time you are an adult you should be able to choose (for better or worse) what you do with your body.
Well a doctor's job is not only to fix the problem when they arises. Given that prevention is better than than treatment, it makes sense for them to push for what's best to keep one healthy. Government are the ones who can make it a legal requirements.
To be honest, I believe that the 'life choice' granted to adult is partly on the assumption that they can behave as responsible adults. Yet sometime I wonder why 'responsible adults' would choose to do what they do.
Ideally I think that at the very least, people should not smoke in the vicinity of children in an enclosed place (that means in their car, and even in the same room of their own home) and pregnant women should not smoke nor drink during pregnancy. But it's near impossible to enforce.
-
re: No Smoking In Cars - argument version
kalniel
Sure, I just read one of the comments about outside. Inside, I would say your own car clearly isn't a public place, so I doubt this new law would pass for this reason. It makes sense so children can't breath in smoke but this is more of a parental decision, just like a law can't be passed stopping you smoking in your house, where children may be present.
The safety aspect still makes more sense.
-
re: No Smoking In Cars - argument version
they did say that they would like a ban on smoking at homes with kids, but it's unenforceable, thus the least they could do is ban it in cars where it would be more visable if someone broke the law
also, cars are a lot smaller than most homes, thus smoking is confined to a much smaller area. imagine the smoke from two adults in the front seat with the windows closed because it's winter, and the impact that could have to a young kid in the back
i think many people would like to ban smoking, after all the majority of people don't smoke, yet a minority of people smoking near non smokers can have an adverse effect, but the logistics of such an immediate ban would be difficult to implement
if there are continued restrictions on smoking, such as advertising ban, restrictions on sales (ie. no point of sale advertising, fags kept under counter), public smoking ban, it can only serve to reduce smoking overall, and help eliminate future generations from starting to smoke, so effectively smoking may die out over time. it's a horrible addiction that kills people and makes others feel uncomfortable or ill, even if they don't smoke themselves, so if a stop can be put on new smokers, whilst existing smokers can feed the addition in private in their own homes without bothering other people, both sides win
-
re: No Smoking In Cars - argument version
Typical 'Think of the Children' argument.
Another small bite out of your liberty for no proven gain. You'd do better to ban all cars, smoking, drinking, and any other risk factor you can name. Then we'll all be immortal.
-
re: No Smoking In Cars - argument version
What's wrong with thinking about those who do not have a choice? If I don't want to sit in a car with a smoker, I can arrange my own transportation. Children do not have luxury. Babies do not have that luxury of choice while they are in their mother's womb. Of course, we can't control everything in life, but what's wrong with controlling what we can and be considerate of those who can't?
-
re: No Smoking In Cars - argument version
Quote:
Originally Posted by
kalniel
What has the govt got to do with this?
That's my point. The joys of internet sarcasm. :)
"Some people with strong opinions not connected to the government want something banned, therefore I hate the government."
"The old lady up the road thinks cars louder than 30dB should be banned. Damn this government for telling me what to do."
-
re: No Smoking In Cars - argument version
I detest smoking (I am an ex-smoker and we are notoriously hypocritcal about it) but in your own car, with no-one else in it? I cannot see that being bad for anyone except yourself.
Of course most kids hate being in a car with a smoker, so they are a real PITA and tend to discourage smoking anyway.
Besides, I bought my wife's previous Merc from a smoker and got a nice discount (about 3,500 Euros) because of the smell, which vanished after a few months of keeping some smell-suck stuff in the back. Actually, even the windscreen had a yellow tint from the layer of tar, but that came off with a wipe of nail polish remover.
-
re: No Smoking In Cars - argument version
Quote:
Originally Posted by
AledJ
I don't really see why your angered by this. I mean mobile phone use in cars was banned because your concentration was impaired. The same can be said when you lit a cigarette and while you smoke it. You also have one hand off the steering wheel when lighting it and when smoking.
I'm pretty sure there's already a law which covers all the eating/drinking/smoking/putting on make up while driving, something like "Driving without due care and attention". But it has the clause that it must be having a noticeable negative effect on your driving, instead of an outright ban like with mobile phones.
-
re: No Smoking In Cars - argument version
I rather they use the money spent on drafting legislation, implementation and enforcement of this ban with better tests for driving so that we get better drivers on average.
-
re: No Smoking In Cars - argument version
Quote:
Originally Posted by
99Flake
So are they going to ban smoking in houses next????
Would not surprise me in the slightest, in fact i'm surprised it hasn't already been suggested.
This pains me too, haven't we got more important issues to debate? Honestly they may as well suggest hanging smokers by their neck until they are dead and have done with. I quit years ago and it still annoys me when i see the constant attack on smokers. We have already put them out into the cold, segregated them from the rest of society.
If they want to smoke in their own car who are we to stop them, and what ground does anyone have to stipulate otherwise.
As for safety, well personally i prefer smokers to have a smoke while driving, that way when they are late for work and stuck in temporary traffic lights or behind a tractor, cyclist or moron driver in rush hour with a two mile long queue behind them they remain in control, calm and don't plow head on into oncoming traffic or mount the curb and run over your kids on the way to school.
If safety is a cause for concern, or indeed plays any pivotal part in this debate, surely the use of CD players, Sat-Navs and hungry hippos should come 1st..
-
re: No Smoking In Cars - argument version
Quote:
Originally Posted by
PeteSmith
If they want to smoke in their own car who are we to stop them, and what ground does anyone have to stipulate otherwise.
On the grounds that they're harming people who don't have a choice to avoid that harm. Smokers have always had the choice to make decisions that affect themselves, it's when they affect other people that recommendations have been made.
-
re: No Smoking In Cars - argument version
Quote:
Originally Posted by
kalniel
On the grounds that they're harming people who don't have a choice to avoid that harm. Smokers have always had the choice to make decisions that affect themselves, it's when they affect other people that recommendations have been made.
Most people have a choice; they have a choice to walk away (or get out of the car in this particular case). If it's a child then okay, we need to ensure they are protected from 3rd party smoke. But a blanket ban on smoking in cars? No. It's a silly notion that holds no credit what so ever.
-
re: No Smoking In Cars - argument version
I have to say that I support a ban on smoking in cars, if you are driving. If you've got a lit fag in your hand, or are lighting one whilst driving, or worse rolling one when driving you don't have full control of the car.
Speaking as someone who has been rear ended by a driver who was more concerned about lighing one up than she was stopping for the traffic lights and smacking into my car she should have had the book thrown at her.
That said you could argue that your not in full control of the car if your changing station on the radio or turning the volume up/down but alot of modern cars come with those controls on the steering wheel now.
I've no issue with anyone smoking in their car when its stationary, just not your when driving thanks.
-
re: No Smoking In Cars - argument version
Quote:
Originally Posted by
PeteSmith
As for safety, well personally i prefer smokers to have a smoke while driving, that way when they are late for work and stuck in temporary traffic lights or behind a tractor, cyclist or moron driver in rush hour with a two mile long queue behind them they remain in control, calm and don't plow head on into oncoming traffic or mount the curb and run over your kids on the way to school.
I don't understand this bit???? So we should let heroin user shoot up in the car so they don't get agitated or jumpy ?
If i'm stuck in traffic I mange to keep myself under control so why would a smoker be any different. Very flawed point tbh!
-
re: No Smoking In Cars - argument version
Quote:
Originally Posted by
PeteSmith
Most people have a choice; they have a choice to walk away (or get out of the car in this particular case). If it's a child then okay, we need to ensure they are protected from 3rd party smoke. But a blanket ban on smoking in cars? No. It's a silly notion that holds no credit what so ever.
The recommendation was talking about children, yes.
-
re: No Smoking In Cars - argument version
they should first stop people from smoking in doorways...
I have never smoked and never intend to but we all know second hand smoke is a killer and thats why smoking in doorways should of been stopped at same time as the current smoking ban.
As to smoking in cars well if its your own car and only you are being harmed i see no problem with it.
i really dont know why people still smoke. it costs ton,it makes you smell,and you will have a shorter life. wow i can see why so many young people still start smoking haha.
-
re: No Smoking In Cars - argument version
Just a thought.
Maybe we should ban cars in confined spaces? Eg multi sotry car parks, tunnels etc.
-
re: No Smoking In Cars - argument version
Quote:
Originally Posted by
abaxas
Just a thought.
Maybe we should ban cars in confined spaces? Eg multi sotry car parks, tunnels etc.
Buses too. Have you seen how much pollution they pump out ? They should be banned from public roads.
-
re: No Smoking In Cars - argument version
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Chris P
kalniel
Sure, I just read one of the comments about outside. Inside, I would say your own car clearly isn't a public place, so I doubt this new law would pass for this reason. It makes sense so children can't breath in smoke but this is more of a parental decision, just like a law can't be passed stopping you smoking in your house, where children may be present.
The safety aspect still makes more sense.
Well, a law could be passed about smoking in the home. If the perceived problem is that it's a parental decision, the same could be said about smacking kids and that didn't stop legislation being passed. The problem would be enforcement, but it isn't insurmountable. It would just be a case of the relevant authorities, be they police or social services, gathering sufficient evidence.
Another parallel would be TV licensing. That takes place in the home, but it didn't stop legislation making it mandatory for those receiving TV broadcasts, so it isn't as simple s it not being a public place.
As for cars, well, the parallel with using handheld mobiles is obvious, so that could work for smoking too.
Whether such a law will be passed is one thing, but I have no doubt that it could be, both in relation to cars and homes. How heavily it's enforced would largely be a function of the level of resources allocated to it.
Whether it should be passed, either for cars or homes is another matter, and that, IMHO, comes down to whether the medical evidence supports the requirement .... and my suspicion is that it does, where kids are present at least.
I see no problem in principle in banning it either in cars or private homes where kids are exposed. If there are no kids, then it's grossly intrusive, If adults don;t like it, they can always leave. Kids of then don't have that option.
I also wouldn't be supposed to see this type of law on the statute books, but I don't see it happening yet. But the attitude of the public to what is or is not acceptable changes, and the result is often legislation. Seatbelts would be one example, smoking in public places is another and attitudes to drink driving yet another. In each case, attitudes changed and legislation came along with it. Some of it, like seatbelts, we now all pretty much take for granted, and my bet would be that the same will happen to smoking, publicly or privately. The process is already well underway. It may take some more years, but in my view, it's coming.
-
re: No Smoking In Cars - argument version
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Saracen
It would just be a case of the relevant authorities, be they police or social services, gathering sufficient evidence.
Indeed. Kafka would be proud.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Saracen
As for cars, well, the parallel with using handheld mobiles is obvious, so that could work for smoking too.
In terms of being distracted ? What a pity the argument is based on health grounds.What else in the car is a distraction ? Radios ? Passengers ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Saracen
Whether it should be passed, either for cars or homes is another matter, and that, IMHO, comes down to whether the medical evidence supports the requirement .... and my suspicion is that it does, where kids are present at least.
Source ? I haven't seen any causal links shown at all. All we have is a purported correlation. A stronger case could be made for diesel particulates. Ban the buses !
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Saracen
I see no problem in principle in banning it either in cars or private homes where kids are exposed. If there are no kids, then it's grossly intrusive, If adults don;t like it, they can always leave. Kids of then don't have that option.
So your proposed solution to parental negligence is to legislate and let the courts sort it out ? That's always worked well in the past.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Saracen
I also wouldn't be supposed to see this type of law on the statute books, but I don't see it happening yet. But the attitude of the public to what is or is not acceptable changes, and the result is often legislation. Seatbelts would be one example, smoking in public places is another and attitudes to drink driving yet another. In each case, attitudes changed and legislation came along with it. Some of it, like seatbelts, we now all pretty much take for granted, and my bet would be that the same will happen to smoking, publicly or privately. The process is already well underway. It may take some more years, but in my view, it's coming. .
And....I agree. What I dislike is that the first reaction is to proscribe not educate, and that the precedent is set for another reach into the home by legislation, with no scientific backing. There are only two defensible positions. Either ban it entirely or not. Stop farting about.
-
re: No Smoking In Cars - argument version
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Phage
In terms of being distracted ? What a pity the argument is based on health grounds.What else in the car is a distraction ? Radios ? Passengers ?
....
No, nothing to do with distraction. My point was that it being inside your own car won't stop a law being passed. It was in response to the bit I quoted ...
Quote:
Inside, I would say your own car clearly isn't a public place, so I doubt this new law would pass for this reason.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Phage
Source ? I haven't seen any causal links shown at all. All we have is a purported correlation. A stronger case could be made for diesel particulates. Ban the buses !
The reason I said "and my suspicion is that it does" is because it's what I suspect to be the case. I did not claim it to be proven, or not proven, because I haven't bothered to search to see is such evidence exists, or even if attempts have been made to prove it one way or the other. There is, however, anecdotal evidence to that effect, including the lady that described the effect on her child's asthma on the TV the other night. There is also my personal experience of the effect second hand smoke has on me. It is certainly not conclusive for the general case, but I am in absolutely no doubt whatsoever about my case. And that is why nobody smokes in my home or car, and why I won't travel in a car with those that do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Phage
....
So your proposed solution to parental negligence is to legislate and let the courts sort it out ? That's always worked well in the past.
Please indicate where I proposed anything of the sort? I didn't propose anything at all. I also said I see no problem in principle, that being to err on the side of protecting kids because some parents are selfish enough to smoke and expose their kids to high levels of second hand smoke. My attitude is that given that there is anecdotal evidence and that kids have no choice, parents should not risk the damage to their kids health until or unless it's proven to be no risk. What do you prefer ..... expose kids to risk where we believe there to be a serious risk until we can prove categorically that their is? By then, many kids will have been harmed. I prefer the principle of acting on the side of caution.
But again, I did say "in principle". I didn't say it would (or wouldn't) work in practice, but since when have all laws had to be practical before being passed? I refer you to the legislation about hunting with dogs as an example.
-
re: No Smoking In Cars - argument version
i agree with chris p on first page, its a safety thing, if you cant change the cd/tape, use phone, eat etc while driving, why should you be able to hold a light object and then constantly take hand off wheel to put the lit object to mouth. Also fire hazard... if you drop the cigarette you are either going to stamp it out or try and grab it which is dangerous and distracts you from road.
But also i think the effect of Nicotine on the brain while driving is probably something that should be looked at, as i bet it effects the driver more then we know it does.
-
re: No Smoking In Cars - argument version
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Cozwin
But also i think the effect of Nicotine on the brain while driving is probably something that should be looked at, as i bet it effects the driver more then we know it does.
We know quite a lot about the effects of nicotine on the brain, and they're probably rather more helpful than harmful in this respect.
-
re: No Smoking In Cars - argument version
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Saracen
The reason I said "and my suspicion is that it does" is because it's what I suspect to be the case. I did not claim it to be proven, or not proven, because I haven't bothered to search to see is such evidence exists, or even if attempts have been made to prove it one way or the other.
And you see this lack of evidence as no barrier to passing legislation ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Saracen
There is, however, anecdotal evidence to that effect,
Apologies, but anecdote /= evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Saracen
My attitude is that given that there is anecdotal evidence and that kids have no choice, parents should not risk the damage to their kids health until or unless it's proven to be no risk.
How do you feel about other risks with anecdotal evidence ? Pylons ? EMF ? WiFi ? Mobile Phones ? Diesel exhaust ? Auras ? Your attitude is that we should eliminate all risk, whatever the cost. To keep legislating until all risks are eliminated. I understand the motivation, but the end result is repugnant. If parents are negligent, find a way to educate them, or more realistically make tobacco a banned substance. Nothing less will stop people (possibly not even then.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Saracen
But again, I did say "in principle". I didn't say it would (or wouldn't) work in practice, but since when have all laws had to be practical before being passed? I refer you to the legislation about hunting with dogs as an example.
Very true. But I am again mystified. Becuase we have one piece of crap legislation we should have another ? Should we not try to avoid such laws where possible ? They only bring the law into disrepute.
-
re: No Smoking In Cars - argument version
Reading people's arguments is very interesting.
It seems to me that most people haven't really touched upon the issue that this is being proposed upon - kids in cars with smokers.
Most are saying that it should be banned from a safety point of view, which I would see as a more valid point.
I agree with Phage here, parent's need to be educated, not just a blanket ban which would affect people who are not within the constraints of having children in the car.
Again the argument here would be why not ban it on safety grounds and therefore solve the problem?
The thing is, like drinking a bottle of water, or changing a cd etc, smoking is already covered under the 'driving without due care and attention law'. To ban smoking completey would mean having a ban on drinking, fiddling with radio's, cd changing etc.
It is not the same as using a mobile, for two reasons, firstly a mobile conversation means you HAVE to have one hand off the wheel ALL the time you are using the phone. Not so when smoking, you can have the offending item in one hand whilst holding the wheel, only occasionally taking it away for a puff.
A phone also means you are having a conversation, which means not all your attention is on driving, therefore this leads to accidents. A cigarrette doesn't do that.
My problem is with it, if you ban that then where does it stop? No talking when driving? No music? No farting? They are all distractions like anything else. These are the things that drivers have to contend with everyday.
-
re: No Smoking In Cars - argument version
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Phage
And you see this lack of evidence as no barrier to passing legislation ?
Again, you're putting words in my mouth and asking me to justify things I didn't say.
I did not say I thought such legislation should pass. I said that the evident weaknesses did not mean it wouldn't be passed.
Quote:
Apologies, but anecdote /= evidence.
Now you're being pedantic. Alright, instead of anecdotal evidence, which is a term generally used (or perhaps misused) to refer to evidence from personal account, let's refer to "personal account". That is evidence, and evidence that can be used in a court. That is not to say it's scientific evidence, or that it should be used to draw conclusions that cannot be supported, but nonetheless, where a sufficient body of such personal account exists, it is enough to at the very least justify there being a case to investigate.
If you have 50 people all of whom saw smoke emerging from a wooden box, a workable hypothesis is that something in the box, or the box itself, is on fire. It could be, of course, that 50 people saw a box containing a working smoke machine. Where there are lives at stake if it turns out to be fire, it's worth assuming it is fire until such time as investigation proves otherwise.
Hence my comments. In principle, if sufficient evidence exists to suggest that children's health is being harmed, you have two choices while you ascertain if it is the case or not :-
1) Assume it is not, and if you're wrong, children's heath is damaged or perhaps ruined
2) Assume it is, and if you're wrong, no kids have been harmed.
I see nothing wrong with the principle of acting to prevent harm to kids health, where sufficient grounds for reasonably believing it to be the case exist, even in the absence of actual proof.
But absolutely nowhere did I say I thought such legislation should be passed. I did not express an opinion on whether it should be passed, one way or the other.
-
re: No Smoking In Cars - argument version
Quote:
Originally Posted by
99Flake
parent's need to be educated
Sometime it's not negligence or lack of education, but plain selfishness. More education won't help under such circumstances, but depending on their priorities, a fine might just swing their behaviour.
-
re: No Smoking In Cars - argument version
Quote:
Originally Posted by
99Flake
Now they are claiming it is to stop children from breathing in second hand smoke and I respect that. However it doesn't solve anything, someone who is going to be inclined to smoke in the car with their kid around (which I hate) is also going to smoke in the house with their kids around....
If I have kids in my car, I think the fact I am smoking is the least of the their worries.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
kalniel
We know quite a lot about the effects of nicotine on the brain, and they're probably rather more helpful than harmful in this respect.
As one of the most powerful legal stimulants, yep :)
-
re: No Smoking In Cars - argument version
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Saracen
Hence my comments. In principle,
The lawyers equivalent of the physicists frictionless vacuum. We should discuss facts, and scientific evidence. You did use the term medical evidence did you not ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Saracen
if sufficient evidence exists to suggest that children's health is being harmed,
It doesn't - and a lot of people have spent a lot of time looking. My point is that there are much better uses of parliaments time. Time that could be based looking at arguments based on facts and a real risk assesment. This is pseudo-science and political posturing. Nothing more.
Either ban it, and alcohol, or do not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Saracen
even in the absence of actual proof.
Or indeed rational debate. Say no more. No sacrifice too great etc etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Saracen
But absolutely nowhere did I say I thought such legislation should be passed. I did not express an opinion on whether it should be passed, one way or the other.
This is dissembling.
-
re: No Smoking In Cars - argument version
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Phage
....
This is dissembling.
Rubbish.
I quoted ChrisP, who commented that commented that he didn't think that legislation would pass for specific reasons, and I commented on why I didn't think those reasons would prevent it passing.
That was the whole thrust of my comments. Not whether it should be law or not, but whether it wouldn't become law for those reasons.
You have then selectively quoted, ignored context and set up straw man arguments expecting me to justify things you suggest I said when I did not.
Quote:
The lawyers equivalent of the physicists frictionless vacuum. We should discuss facts, and scientific evidence. You did use the term medical evidence did you not ?
First, we will discuss what we want to discuss and not what you tell us we can.
Second, yes I used the term medical evidence in a different paragraph and context.
Quote:
Whether it should be passed, either for cars or homes is another matter, and that, IMHO, comes down to whether the medical evidence supports the requirement .... and my suspicion is that it does, where kids are present at least.
Note that, as I have already told you, I have not expressed an opinion on whether it should be passed or not. That, as I said, IMHO, is down to medical evidence and I stressed I suspect that it exists, but am not interested enough to spend the time checking it out before commenting, hence explicitly not passing an opinion and stipulating that I merely suspect it does. I do suspect it does, and that's ALL I do.
I also said that anecdotal evidence, or personal accounts, whatever you want to call it, exists. That I know exists. How much you can rely on it and what conclusions, if any, can be drawn from it is a different matter, which is why I didn't give an opinion on whether it should be passed or not, and specified that I believe the principle of not taking chances in kid's health where ground for suspicion exist.
You have now misrepresented me as much as you are going to, and then accused me of being deceitful, concealing my real motives or pretending, i.e. dissembling. I will not put up with that and if you do that again, you will lose your posting rights.
Consider this a clear warning, because there won't be another one.
-
re: No Smoking In Cars - argument version
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Saracen
You have now misrepresented me as much as you are going to, and then accused me of being deceitful, concealing my real motives or pretending, i.e. dissembling. I will not put up with that and if you do that again, you will lose your posting rights.
Consider this a clear warning, because there won't be another one.
^^This is over board, just because you are having an argument/ discussion or otherwise and you are an admin/ mod, this does not give you the right to simply abuse to shut someone up to suit you.
Tbh, i dont care if you think im out of place, your attitude in this situation is plain wrong. People will and be interpreted wrong in varying situations, it happens all over these forums, its typical one up man ship at its best.
-
re: No Smoking In Cars - argument version
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Disturbedguy
^^This is over board, just because you are having an argument/ discussion or otherwise and you are an admin/ mod, this does not give you the right to simply abuse to shut someone up to suit you.
Tbh, i dont care if you think im out of place, your attitude in this situation is plain wrong. People will and be interpreted wrong in varying situations, it happens all over these forums, its typical one up man ship at its best.
He is not being warned to shut up because we are having an argument, or misinterpreting me. He is being warned because that remark as much as accuses me of being a liar. He does it again and his account is suspended.
And you're not in trouble or out of place. You can disagree with it but it won't change my mind.
-
re: No Smoking In Cars - argument version
Sara certainly isn't telling anyoner to shut up.. but he is asking for some mutal respect.. phage ain't feeling the love tho.
phage.. Saracen has NEVER been known to have an absence of rational debate.. I'm suprised you think he does.
-
re: No Smoking In Cars - argument version
Obviously I am unable to comment any further.
-
re: No Smoking In Cars - argument version
Quote:
You have now misrepresented me as much as you are going to, and then accused me of being deceitful, concealing my real motives or pretending, i.e. dissembling. I will not put up with that and if you do that again, you will lose your posting rights.
Respect goes both ways I'm affraid and that remark above is NOT showing Phage any respect at all in my opinion.
Quote:
I will not put up with that and if you do that again, you will lose your posting rights.
How is that not telling him to shut up though? He has basically in my opinion telling Phage, post something again that I don' agree with and you wont be posting again.
Don't get me wrong, I have respect for all the members of staff on this forum, but sometimes, especially during arguements/ discussions the admin boots should be left at the door and normal person should enter.
-
re: No Smoking In Cars - argument version
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Phage
Obviously I am unable to comment any further.
by all means comment, but not upon what Saracen didn't say..
Saracen is a top bloke and he doesn't talk rubbish. But he also won't stand fully on one side of a fence when there is no legal grounds to do so... he;s more cautious than that. But dissembling...? In my head that's quite an offensive thing to say to someone. It's as nasty as saying he's lying.
Might as well call him Gordon Brown next.. really put the boot in ;)
I on the other hand think that smoking at the wheel is dangerous. It should be illegal and if I had my way, it would be.
I smoked as a teenager for 6 months as an experiement.. and it makes you dizzy. I don't think being dizzy is a good thing when driving.
-
re: No Smoking In Cars - argument version
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Disturbedguy
Respect goes both ways I'm affraid and that remark above is NOT showing Phage any respect at all in my opinion.
How is that not telling him to shut up though? He has basically in my opinion telling Phage, post something again that I don' agree with and you wont be posting again.
nope.. he said call him a liar again(however it's worded) and we'll ban him. Me.. I'll do it.
Please don't call my colleagues liars. Or dissemblers in that context.. or Gordon Brown :)
-
re: No Smoking In Cars - argument version
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Zak33
by all means comment, but not upon what Saracen didn't say..
Saracen is a top bloke and he doesn't talk rubbish. But he also won't stand fully on one side of a fence when there is no legal grounds to do so... he;s more cautious than that. But dissembling...? In my head that's quite an offensive thing to say to someone. It's as nasty as saying he's lying.
Might as well call him Gordon Brown next.. really put the boot in ;)
I on the other hand think that smoking at the wheel is dangerous. It should be illegal and if I had my way, it would be.
I smoked as a teenager for 6 months as an experiement.. and it makes you dizzy. I don't think being dizzy is a good thing when driving.
Apologies - but I don't feel that I should make any further comment of any kind.
I'd like to thank DG for his support. :)
-
re: No Smoking In Cars - argument version
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Disturbedguy
Respect goes both ways I'm affraid and that remark above is NOT showing Phage any respect at all in my opinion.
When someone tells me I'm "dissembling", they are essentially accusing me of lying and I'm not going to put up with it. I'm certainly not going to "show respect" to someone doing it, because they sure aren't showing me any.
Also, that warning is exactly the same type of warning as others have been issued when I'm not involved in the thread. The method is the same.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Disturbedguy
How is that not telling him to shut up though? He has basically in my opinion telling Phage, post something again that I don' agree with and you wont be posting again.
Don't get me wrong, I have respect for all the members of staff on this forum, but sometimes, especially during arguements/ discussions the admin boots should be left at the door and normal person should enter.
Experience tells me that when you try to warn people off gently, they push it and push it and end up getting banned, and I end up with a load of hassle, a load of abuse and a headache. I stepped down as an admin on these forums for a couple of years for precisely that reason.
So now I have a different policy.
When someone oversteps the line, they get a very clear warning. And phage just did. If they heed the warning, it's the end of the matter. If they ignore that warning, they get suspended, probably for 7 days. When they come back, it's the end of it .... unless they pick up where they left off. If they do, they get a longer suspension. And repeat. If they pick up in the same spot a third time, well, probably a permanent ban ... but I don't know because it's not happened yet. Offhand, I can't think of an occasion where the second suspension has been necessary because most people are bright enough to work out after the first time that I mean exactly what I say and that it will follow immediately.
As for leaving admin boots at the door, absolutely not. Admins (the Orange ones) are members first and admins second. We're not paid to do this job. It's simply a way of putting something back into the forums. Part of the requirement for mods is to be active on the forums and we're active precisely because we're involved, because we post.
What you're saying is that we can't be admins and be involved at the same time. Sorry, but the two functions are part of the same thing. If you want professional admins who take no part in the forums, then you have to give them some other motive for being on the forums. I post here because I want to, and accepted the post of admin to give something back.
I have faced this accusation of not being involved before, and had a long conversation with DR about it. In fact, though I didn't realise it, he rang me for over an hour .... from Taiwan. If it is a choice between posting and not being an admin, or being and admin and not posting, then I will choose posting and not being an admin. Being an admin is not fun. It's work, and a duty. It's one I'm happy to do, but would quite cheerfully do without. I do it to the best of my ability, and if that isn't good enough, I shouldn't be doing it. That involves being able to step back. DR's response was pretty simple, and you can deduce what it was from the fact that I'm still an admin.
Taking part in threads and functioning as an admin are utterly inseparable, at least to me. I can't and won't be an admin if the price is not being able to post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Disturbedguy
How is that not telling him to shut up though? He has basically in my opinion telling Phage, post something again that I don' agree with and you wont be posting again.
No. I'm telling him that I'm not going to continue responding to straw man arguments, because it is a debating technique worthy of contempt. He's going no further with that because I'm going no further with responding to it. I've explained several times that what he says I said is not what I said, and asked him to substantiate his assertions of what I said, and all he's done is move to a different straw man. When that fails, he's moved to smartalec remarks and indirect insults, and "dissembling". So I'm forced to conclude he's doing it deliberately, probably to wind me up.
There has been a growing tendency on here recently for sharp and snippy remarks, for "clever" barbs, designed to be nasty without going so far as to break rules. I've warned quite a number of people over doing it, and will continue to do so. Phage trying it with me was not a good idea.
DR made it very clear in that call that he trusts my judgement. That's why he asked me (and the other admins) to do the job. As soon as he stops doing so, I assume he'd remove me. If I thought he'd lost faith, I'd remove myself. In the meantime, I do the job as I've been asked to do it, and that requires taking part in discussions as and when I choose to. The same applies when people moan about length of posts. Either I post as I want to or there's no point in being here to post. If I can't take part where I choose, and post as I choose, there's no point being here at all.
So, until such time as either the forum owners want me to stand down or I choose to quit, I'll both take part and do the admin job, and that means doing it as I see fit, not as you think is best. That. I'm afraid you'll have to put up with. And in case you're wondering, you're still not in any trouble with me. You're welcome to your opinion and to express it, even if you think I'm wrong. But I do things the way I do them as a result of mod'ding and admin'ing forums for about 10 years, and from running dialup Wildcat bulletin boards for about 10 years before that. I have a technique that works for me, and while you're welcome to your opinion, I'm not about to change because of it.
-
re: No Smoking In Cars - argument version
In all honest, I didnt read even a thrid of what you type because it could essentially be covered in a lot less text, wasting a lot less of both our time.
It was a debate/ discussions/ arguement, every tries to get one up one each othera nd at some point someone will more than likely be called a liar or be told something they dont like. If you dont like being told what you dont want to hear, then dont get into a debate/ discussion or arguement with that person.
Quote:
What you're saying is that we can't be admins and be involved at the same time.
No I am not saying that, I am saying that sometimes some thought before posting is needed.
Quote:
So, until such time as either the forum owners want me to stand down or I choose to quit, I'll both take part and do the admin job, and that means doing it as I see fit, not as you think is best. That. I'm afraid you'll have to put up with. And in case you're wondering, you're still not in any trouble with me. You're welcome to your opinion and to express it, even if you think I'm wrong. But I do things the way I do them as a result of mod'ding and admin'ing forums for about 10 years, and from running dialup Wildcat bulletin boards for about 10 years before that. I have a technique that works for me, and while you're welcome to your opinion, I'm not about to change because of it.
Ive not said anything about whether i thinks it best or not, I was tbh appaled at your attitude towards the situation and now so even more. In all honesty I couldn't care less if I were or weren't in trouble with you, I don't agree with the way you handled the situation and think it was un-needed.
If you werent going to respond to straw man arguements, then why come out with the warning that he will lose posting privileges if carries on? You could have simple not replied, or just stated that I wont be repsonding to straw man arugmenets, it would have been far simpler and far more diplomatic.
Quote:
There has been a growing tendency on here recently for sharp and snippy remarks, for "clever" barbs, designed to be nasty without going so far as to break rules. I've warned quite a number of people over doing it, and will continue to do so. Phage trying it with me was not a good idea.
On this note, I have seen admins and mods do this and get away with it with seemingly no warning at all. I am not going to name names, but im sure if people sat and thought about it, they would see it to. It almost seems like one set of rules for one and one for the other, which shouldn't be the case, regardless of whether people are admins, mods or whatever.
-
re: No Smoking In Cars - argument version
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Zak33
nope.. he said call him a liar again(however it's worded) and we'll ban him. Me.. I'll do it.
This happens all over the forums, people being called a liar in one way or another, members dont get on there high horses about it, they just get on with it. Banning someone for calling you a 'liar' is going to far.
People have opinions and they are entitled to them as has been said repeatedly, but if someones opinion of someone is that they are a liar, then they are entitled to make his or her feelings clear towards that person, however they say it.
-
re: No Smoking In Cars - argument version
Erm, no, they're not.
Making their feeling towards someone known could very likely result in an insult... and insulting other members is a clear breach of the rules.
For example only: DisturbedGuy, my opinion is that your grasp and understanding of basic English grammar can only be compared to that of a concussed monkey. A drunken dyslexic one at that.
Now, I wish to make it very, VERY clear that I am using that as an example only and I'm actually not that bothered by your spelling and grammar, I'm not UCAS for a start :)
But the point is to demonstrate that giving your opinion about someone isn't an inherent right for the very reason that you'll likely end up insulting them.
The streets would be full of fighting if we all walked around believing we were entitled to voice our opinions about people.
Edit for musings on this: My point is, by all means, give an opinion about an idea or a thing or whatever, but don't think that you can tell someone what you think of them without getting some sort of rebuke in return.
It just so happens that Saracen is an admin here. It's a given that if he were just a member, he'd be hitting the report post button and we'd still be giving Phage a slap on the wrist. The only difference here is that the guy giving out the warning happens to be the guy who was affronted in the first place.
It's a bit like moaning to the booking sergeant that the copper arresting you is the one you slapped... and how that's not a fair fight as he's a copper... Regardless of that person's standing, it's still wrong.
-
re: No Smoking In Cars - argument version
Are we better off it though?
Liar!
No, you are the liar!
No, you are!
[Etc.]
'Within the rule sniping remarks' is something I wouldn't mind seeing less of on Hexus (I've been thinking of taking some time out because I feel that my *own* posts have degraded at time, when I try hard not to). Not sure if it's because we get more topics people feel strongly about, but there is still I think we'd all be better off without it. That's my two pence worth, I am out (don't mean to add fuel to the fire).
-
re: No Smoking In Cars - argument version
My spelling and grammar fail, I know it :p.
I give up. I made my point and stand by it.
Members shouldnt have to sit and proof read what they say just incase they hurt someones feelings.
-
re: No Smoking In Cars - argument version
For anyone who read this thread and thought I'm not entirely sure what that word means: (I.e. Me).
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dissemblers
-
re: No Smoking In Cars - argument version
[QUOTE=Disturbedguy;1897801]This happens all over the forums, people being called a liar in one way or another, members dont get on there high horses about it, they just get on with it. Banning someone for calling you a 'liar' is going to far.[QUOTE]
Can you point me in the direction of some posts on these forums where someone has been accused of lying - without providing justification for the accusation?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Disturbedguy
People have opinions and they are entitled to them as has been said repeatedly, but if someones opinion of someone is that they are a liar, then they are entitled to make his or her feelings clear towards that person, however they say it.
To lie is to represent as truth, something that you know to be a untrue. An opinion may be formed on the bais of facts that are untrue, but if the person doesn't kow that the fact is untrue, while his opoinion may be flawed, thsat doesn't make the person a liar. However before making an opinion, a prudent person will try to determine the validity of the facts that form his opinion.
Saracen's posts are always well researched - and his opinions based on facts that he has verified, or with a justification that lead to his voicing an opinion. If more members followed his example, we might avoid some of the petty spats that have marred the forums in the last few weeks.
And if phage has any evidence that Saracen has lied, then he is welcome to post it - but it had better be good and it had better be watertight.
And it is a shame you didn't take the time to read Saracen's posts in their entirety, because if you had, you would understand why his opinions are so well respected and why phage is considered to have (uncharacteristically) stepped over the line.
-
re: No Smoking In Cars - argument version
I didnt read his post as to be honest, im at work and trying to avoid the managers gaze.
Either way, like I said, i give up. One mod or admin gets told he is wrong in someones opinion and the rest jump in shooting that person down.
-
re: No Smoking In Cars - argument version
[QUOTE=peterb;1897822]
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Disturbedguy
To lie is to represent as truth, something that you know to be a untrue. An opinion may be formed on the bais of facts that are untrue, but if the person doesn't kow that the fact is untrue, while his opoinion may be flawed, thsat doesn't make the person a liar. However before making an opinion, a prudent person will try to determine the validity of the facts that form his opinion.
.
ERR ORR (Family Fortunes noise)
A liar is someone who says something untrue, it doesnt matter if they meant to or not. If they know they have lied, this it is a conspiricy to lie.
IE the words 'lie' or 'liar' simply mean saying something untrue.
-
re: No Smoking In Cars - argument version
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Disturbedguy
My spelling and grammar fail, I know it :p.
I give up. I made my point and stand by it.
Members shouldnt have to sit and proof read what they say just incase they hurt someones feelings.
Dude, please read the whole of my post.
I, and everyone else here, don't want anyone to feel like they can't post just because their grammar is a bit poor... good lord, I'm hardly a shining beacon myself.
But that wasn't my point anyway, it was about voicing and defending an opinion about a thing/idea versus giving an opinion on a member of the forums.
There is a difference... the former is fine, the latter isn't as 99% of the time, you're going to insult them.
Here's another example... years ago, like, 7 or 8 years ago, I wished all the girls on the forum a Happy Valentines... not knowing that Sara was an abbreviation for Saracen :eek:
He took it in good humour but he could've equally gotten snotty with me on it... so even when you're trying to be nice it can go very wrong.
-
re: No Smoking In Cars - argument version
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Nick
Dude, please read the whole of my post.
I, and everyone else here, don't want anyone to feel like they can't post just because their grammar is a bit poor... good lord, I'm hardly a shining beacon myself.
But that wasn't my point anyway, it was about voicing and defending an opinion about a thing/idea versus giving an opinion on a member of the forums.
There is a difference... the former is fine, the latter isn't as 99% of the time, you're going to insult them.
Here's another example... years ago, like, 7 or 8 years ago, I wished all the girls on the forum a Happy Valentines... not knowing that Sara was an abbreviation for Saracen :eek:
He took it in good humour but he could've equally gotten snotty with me on it... so even when you're trying to be nice it can go very wrong.
Nick, my comment about proof reading was not aimed at what you said.
Quote:
My spelling and grammar fail, I know it .
- Was making light of the situation in regards to my spelling and such.
The proof reading comment was in general and wasnt aimed at anyone in particular.
So apologies if it seemed like my comment was aimed at yourself.
-
re: No Smoking In Cars - argument version
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Disturbedguy
In all honest, I didnt read even a thrid of what you type because it could essentially be covered in a lot less text, wasting a lot less of both our time.
If you didn't read most of it, you can't know whether it could be covered in less text. And if you didn't read it, it didn't waste your time doing it, did it? You really didn't think that remark through, did you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Disturbedguy
....
It was a debate/ discussions/ arguement, every tries to get one up one each othera nd at some point someone will more than likely be called a liar or be told something they dont like. If you dont like being told what you dont want to hear, then dont get into a debate/ discussion or arguement with that person.
Part of the job of an admin is to set and monitor the tone of the forums. We will NOT have people on these forums along about calling others liars is debates, not if I see it anyway. Do it and you will get warned, keep it up and if necessary, you will be banned. There are plenty of forums where virtually anything goes, and where flare debates go on all the time. But not here. I step on that type of thing regularly, and fully intend to carry on doing so. You may think it's a valid part of a debate on here, but I assure you it isn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Disturbedguy
....
No I am not saying that, I am saying that sometimes some thought before posting is needed.
You really have no clue what thought went into my post. There is no way you can. So you are simply making an assumption and as it happens, an incorrect one. You also have no way to know if this situation has cropped up before, and/or been discussed between mods before.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Disturbedguy
Ive not said anything about whether i thinks it best or not, I was tbh appaled at your attitude towards the situation and now so even more. In all honesty I couldn't care less if I were or weren't in trouble with you, I don't agree with the way you handled the situation and think it was un-needed.
If you don't care, why did you bother to go to the trouble to say you're don't care if you're in trouble? Was it perhaps to try to imply that merely expressing an opinion would get you banned by a draconian Mod? of not, why bother mentioning it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Disturbedguy
....
If you werent going to respond to straw man arguements, then why come out with the warning that he will lose posting privileges if carries on? You could have simple not replied, or just stated that I wont be repsonding to straw man arugmenets, it would have been far simpler and far more diplomatic.
Because
Quote:
You have now misrepresented me as much as you are going to, and then accused me of being deceitful, concealing my real motives or pretending, i.e. dissembling. I will not put up with that and if you do that again, you will lose your posting rights.
The emphasis in bold has been added, and that is what the warning was for. Hence the great big big between that and the previous section.
he misrepresented what I said repeatedly, didn't justify the allegations when asked to and then resorted to effectively using me of deceit, of lying. I will not put up with that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Disturbedguy
On this note, I have seen admins and mods do this and get away with it with seemingly no warning at all. I am not going to name names, but im sure if people sat and thought about it, they would see it to. It almost seems like one set of rules for one and one for the other, which shouldn't be the case, regardless of whether people are admins, mods or whatever.
Then report it. Report it to another admin, or report it to DR.
-
re: No Smoking In Cars - argument version
Quote:
If you don't care, why did you bother to go to the trouble to say you're don't care if you're in trouble? Was it perhaps to try to imply that merely expressing an opinion would get you banned by a draconian Mod? of not, why bother mentioning it?
Saracen, its not really trouble to type a few words is it?
If I wanted to call a mod a draconian Mod, I would come out and say it quite plainly to make it very easy to understand.
Now, you don't like being called a liar and I dont appreciate having words put in my mouth or having what I have said twisted to imply something else. So please, only quote what I have said.
Reading an essay is wasting time, I have read some of your posts before and decided off my own back that things you have said in the past could have been made in smaller post and still got your point across. And please, dont attack my thinking.
To be honest, it seems the only thought that crossed your mind was "I dont like what this guy said, I think he is calling me a liar, I dont like that, I will warn him".
You just love a good argument dont you Saracen? I have more on my mind to say, but I KNOW that if I say what I am thinking I WILL be warned or even banned.
I am leaving this thread here now, like I tried to do a post or two ago, its a waste of time as I will clearly get no where. So please for the lvoe of god, either delete the posts that have decended into argument of close the thread.
-
re: No Smoking In Cars - argument version
Phage, DisturbedGuy and Saracen, can we please get this thread back OT?
I realise that people may feel a bit upset about comments made or not made about them but a thread really isn't the place to be fighting it out.
-
re: No Smoking In Cars - argument version
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Disturbedguy
Saracen, its not really trouble to type a few words is it?
If I wanted to call a mod a draconian Mod, I would come out and say it quite plainly to make it very easy to understand.
Now, you don't like being called a liar and I dont appreciate having words put in my mouth or having what I have said twisted to imply something else. So please, only quote what I have said.
I only ever quote what people have said.
As for putting words in your mouth, it's fine when with you when Phage when does it to me, but you don't like it when I do it to you, even when all I actually did was ask a question. I didn't say that that was what you were doing, I asked if it was.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Disturbedguy
Reading an essay is wasting time, I have read some of your posts before and decided off my own back that things you have said in the past could have been made in smaller post and still got your point across. And please, dont attack my thinking.
As I have said repeatedly, if people don't want to read a long post, then don't. But don't tell me how to post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Disturbedguy
To be honest, it seems the only thought that crossed your mind was "I dont like what this guy said, I think he is calling me a liar, I dont like that, I will warn him".
Now you know what I was thinking?
In one breath you tell me not to attack your thinking, but at the same time, you are presumptuous enough to know what I was thinking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Disturbedguy
You just love a good argument dont you Saracen?
It takes two to argue.
As an admin, I decided to take admin action. You chose to jump into something that was nothing to do with you an express an opinion. Well fine, its a discussion forum. But just because I don't agree with you or accept your opinion, based it seems on what you know I was thinking, you decide I'm argumentative? It takes two to tango.
If you really think you can take that kind of stance and I'm just going to let it drop, you need a serious reality check. It's not me being argumentative. It's me defending my position, and explaining it not just for your benefit, but for the benefit of anyone else reading this. You chose to accuse me of acting unprofessionally, and I'm not just going to let that ride. You also accused other mods and admins of jumping in. What you're missing is that that is what they're supposed to do. I did not ask any other mod or admin to comment. They didn't discuss with me what they were going to say and I didn't know they were going to say it until I read in on the open forum,just like everyone else. The fact that several others have said much the same thing ought to tell you something, or are we all acting unprofessionally?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Disturbedguy
....
I am leaving this thread here now, like I tried to do a post or two ago, its a waste of time as I will clearly get no where.
Nobody is holding a gun to your head to make you post. You seem to think that you can have your say, and make it the last word. Or that I reply, it's "argumentative".
If you want to stop posting in this thread, then stop posting. And assuming that by "waste of time" you mean changing my mind, then you're quite right, it's a waste of time. While I'm an admin, I will do it as I have been asked to do, whether you like it or not. I have explained why I do it, only for you to not bother to read it. That's your right. But you've tried to tell me I'm wrong, by your own admission not read much of it and then tell me I'm argumentative because I don't accept your viewpoint, and seem to think I just have to stop replying. Not gonna happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Disturbedguy
..... I have more on my mind to say, but I KNOW that if I say what I am thinking I WILL be warned or even banned.
Good call. If you say something worthy of a warning, you'll be warned. If you say something worthy of a ban, you'll be banned. If you don't, you won't. If I were to do it because ... and I directly quote your allegation
Quote:
"I dont like what this guy said
I would quite rightly be called up on it by the other admins or by DR. But if you say the kind of thing you imply you want to say, then yes, I would warn or ban, and so would any of the rest of the team.
-
re: No Smoking In Cars - argument version
Quote:
Originally Posted by
99Flake
Phage, DisturbedGuy and Saracen, can we please get this thread back OT?
I realise that people may feel a bit upset about comments made or not made about them but a thread really isn't the place to be fighting it out.
On the contrary, a thread is exactly the right place. Otherwise, the risk is that I'd be accused of abusing powers by locking it, or of censorship by deleting it.
However, I take the point that it is way off-topic, so I'll duplicate this thread, delete the arguments and retitle this one with the argument. Once it's clear everybody really has decided to say no more I or one of the other mods will remove it. But until then, I'm not sweeping it under the carpet.
It'll take a few minutes.
-
Re: No Smoking In Cars - argument version
This thread will shortly be removed.
Discussion of the smoking ban subject should be in this thread
-
Re: No Smoking In Cars - argument version
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Nick
It's a given that if he were just a member, he'd be hitting the report post button and we'd still be giving Phage a slap on the wrist. The only difference here is that the guy giving out the warning happens to be the guy who was affronted in the first place.
Without getting too involved in this thread - I've no desire to have an argument with anybody today ;) - surely you've hit the nail on the head there.
Would it not make more sense, if an Admin/Mod is in this type of situation, for them to have to report the post and let another member of the team deal with it?
I'm not saying this because I doubt Saracen's (or any other mod's) neutrality, but because for an outsider - poster or non-poster - it's hard to interpret properly and come across in the wrong manner very easily.
I don't doubt that mods will disagree with me for various reasons, no doubt the "questioning neutrality" issue for one, but it's more a question than a suggestion.
-
Re: No Smoking In Cars - argument version
Quote:
Originally Posted by
snootyjim
Without getting too involved in this thread - I've no desire to have an argument with anybody today ;) - surely you've hit the nail on the head there.
Would it not make more sense, if an Admin/Mod is in this type of situation, for them to have to report the post and let another member of the team deal with it?
I'm not saying this because I doubt Saracen's (or any other mod's) neutrality, but because for an outsider - poster or non-poster - it's hard to interpret properly and come across in the wrong manner very easily.
I don't doubt that mods will disagree with me for various reasons, no doubt the "questioning neutrality" issue for one, but it's more a question than a suggestion.
Actually, that is pretty much what happens, most of the time.
Granted, you guys don't get to see it because the RTM button sends an email, and any messages we share as Mods/Admins only get seen by us, but it does happen. That said, we don't discuss every single warning/chat we've had with members - it would take far, far too much time!
So when you see a mod warning someone, that is very much just a simple 'you've getting a bit close to the line, that's enough' type of post. When that happens, most of the time it is dropped and let go. However, if that same point becomes an issue, or someone feels they need an impartial input on the thread, it gets posted and the other mods have a look at it. In this case it has been misinterpreted as "You've questioned a mod/admin, lets find all the mods and admins to comment", it isn't the case. We'll comment if we feel there is something we can add - it isn't a numbers game.
The other reason I post such things is a sanity check - if I've been having a bad day, I can be a little more snappy/abrupt than need be, and as such it sometimes good to see how other mods/admins view it. In many cases, they agree, the approach sometimes differs, but Hexus is golden because it has a variety of views and opinions on how things should be done. I value it, and I think I can speak for the others when I say they do too.
As to the length of posts, the construction of them or the content, that is entirely up to the member concerned. Personal insults, however veiled or hidden, are something we will pick up on though, and I believe that is what has happened here. Whether Phage intended them to come across as they did or not, is (imho) immaterial, as they have come across in a certain manner. To then refuse to post because you got called on the comment, by another member or mod/admin, is a little silly. However if that is the route you want to go down, I'd try to persuade you otherwise, but it is ultimately your choice.
Anyway, I think I've created a mini version of a Saracen mega-post, so I'll stop there. One thing I would like to underline is that you should never feel a mod/admin has kept you quiet because he doesn't agree with you, that is most definitely not the case.
-
Re: No Smoking In Cars - argument version
bored with this now.
Closed... by all means start a new one but don't let it go like this.. it's doing my brain in!
-
Re: No Smoking In Cars - argument version
Quote:
Originally Posted by
snootyjim
....
Would it not make more sense, if an Admin/Mod is in this type of situation, for them to have to report the post and let another member of the team deal with it?
.....
I'll give a quick answer to that, despite the thread having now been closed.
Yes, on first look, it's a good idea.
The problem is that we don;t want admins sitting in judgement on other admins. We have to work together and it could cause problems. Therefore, it gets referred to David. Also, sometimes (though not so much this time) it needs to be dealt with right there and then, and the others may be be online.
So, as I referred to in an earlier post, last time this happened, I did refer it on, and contacted DR. He was, as it happens, in a hotel room in Taiwan when I got him on MSN, and he immediately rang me, spent an hour on the phone and ended up late for a meeting with a manufacturer. His instructions to me at the time were, to paraphrase and boil it down, "I trust your judgement, that's why you're an admin. Deal with it".
So while it's an appealing idea, the conclusion was it's unnecessary and has other problems. And if someone feels they've been unfairly treated by an admin, they can always complain to DR themselves. But we act as we've been asked to act, and as long as we;re doing that, I doubt it;ll get far. Having said that, it isn't my decision.
We are, however, very much here to exercise our judgement to run the forums and as long as we do that as instructed, I doubt DR will overrule us. But it's his call. That's the check and balance in the system, rather than the method you suggest.
