UKC

I live and run a business in Norway... and have dealt with many UK Ice Climbers over the past few years... with no problems... and have often socialised and found most of the guys to be great fun...

However... I feel compelled to express my feelings about "two ice climbers " who in my opiion let the UK and your sport down badly...

I was a passenger aboard a Ryanair flight to Norway (Oslo Torp)... A young Norwegian family... with a six year old child were last aboard... and the family was going to be split up and could not sit next to each other.... The family was obviously distressed...

Three "quite loud"... Ice climbers were aboard the flight... two sitting either side of the aisle... talking to each other... The stewerdess... asked very politely... if one of the climbers would mind moving over... to the vacant seat... (they would have still been sitting next to each other)... The ice climber... point blank refused... and very rudely carried on with his conversation... The mother became even more stressed... the stweardess was within her rights to insist that the climber move... however...

I volenteered... to move from my window seat... and the family took there seats...

So the mother got to sit next to her daughter...

When the flight arrived in Norway... I casually asked one of the climbers... why he had refused... ?? and did'nt he care about the mother and her daughter ?? He said that he could'nt give a **** about the family... he was a "well known" climber... and he travelled the world... etc...

He was abusive and was extremely physically threatening...

I was thanked by the family and the stwardess for moving seats...

My point is... climbing is a brave sport... and you have the respect... of most people who do not climb... but to act this way towards a family... lets the UK and your sport down... Norway is a family orientated country... and we don't need this type of behaviour... We have enough with the reputation of the UK football supporters in Norway! and really don't expect it from you guys...

I have a mobile phone photo of the guy... so lets have an apology... ! If you are that "well known"... you will know who you are.. !!

In reply to lovlia:

There are cocks in all walks of life. Its fairly irrelevant (in my mind) that they're british and climbers.

In reply to slacky:

if you're going round saying 'I'm a well-known climber' then I guess that the fact that you're a climber *is* relevant.

In reply to lovlia:

'cmon name and shame.

In reply to lovlia:

The guy sounds like an a*se.

Congratulations on your bravery confronting this idiot, many would have just shyed away

In reply to lovlia:

If you send a copy of the photo to the moderators on here I am sure they will be able to identify the climber and let them know of your displeasure.

If nothing comes of it you could put it onto a website like flikr and link it in your profile if you wished to, mentioning the bad manners.

In reply to 3leggeddog: cheers

In reply to lovlia: He was probably 'scared' when flying?

In reply to lovlia:

what have you got to lose by exposing who this rude guy is?

what reason have you got for not saying who it is? i don't understand why you're quite happy (rightly) to protest against their rudeness but won't say who it was.

In reply to lovlia:

If there is enough support... I will publish the photo..

In reply to mrsmesh:
Not sure if dishing the dirt will make the creep squirm any more than he may already be doing.

In reply to lovlia:
the stweardess was within her rights to insist that the climber move... however...
And the climber was issued a tick for that seat I presume? so was he not entitled to sit there. Surely if the family was so desperate to sit together they could have reserved the seats, or got to the front of the boarding gate to be sure if not?



Extremely? Physically? In what way?

Not that I'm making excuses for the guy if he was, but your post doesn't describe a threatening manner, just someone who didn't want to move seats. After all, it's not gunna kill a family to sit apart for a flight, is it. And I'm sure we aren't all judged by one mans actions, that would be pretty narrow minded of anyone.

In reply to lovlia:
I am a great belieever in manners and courtesy - obviously there are 2 sides to the story and we only have your word - but it does sound like rude boorish behaviour that reflects badly on the rest of us - name and shame .

In reply to lovlia:

saying who it is would be easier.

anyway i didn't say well done for confronting this chap. so many people are too happy to shy away from confronting people like this.

can't believe someone would say they don't give a f**k etc when confronted like this.

In reply to lovlia:

go on, do it.

In reply to lovlia: I've had to sit apart from my kids on flights.

They are the quietest flights I've been on...

I make an effort to be last in the queue when checking in/boarding planes now

On a more serious note, there is no excuse for verbal abuse and physical threatening (and there are more tits on this earth than I care to think about) - the airline should have had more bollox though.

In reply to lovlia:
yes

In reply to lovlia:

That's pathetic behaviour by the macho morons in question. Lovlia, I'm sorry this happened. Don't judge all Brits by this, or all ice climbers either. And please do name and shame the culprits.

In reply to Muhammad-the-randy-teddy:
It was a Ryanair flight. You are not allocated seats; you sit where there is a space. Some people try to create personal space by sitting next to the aisle in the hope that no-one will ask to squeeze past them.

So no - they had no 'right' to be sitting where they were.

And if they'd been preventing me sitting with my kids they'd had got the thick end of my tongue.

In reply to Andy Say:

still i don't think you can automatically expect to sit with your group (family or otherwise).....it is up to the courtesy of other passengers. If it is a must then the other options are paying extra for priority boarding or a flight with allocated seating.

In reply to Andy Say:

On the other hand they could have sat the six year old in the odd seat and passed drinks over to it, accidentally spilling the orange juice on the 'tough climbers' as they did it.

In reply to lovlia:

Count me as a supporter, providing he is allowed to try and answer your criticisms. As he would be if it was posted on here rather than Flicka.

In reply to lovlia: Name and shame!

In reply to Andy Say: So it isn't also up to the late boarders to get to the front of the boarding gates?
We have no idea why the guy needed to be on the end, maybe he had bladder problems, fear of flying needed to be away from the window or whatever.
Seems a bit nasty of him, but can also see the other side. First come first served is exactly the way these flights work and I'm sure the family knew that.
Still narrow minded of anyone to claim 1 man has let UK climbers down in anyway.

In reply to lovlia:
If you've gone to the bother of finding a climbing site and posting on here, he must have really annoyed you.

I suggest that you post the date and time of the flight first. The climber may still be out there and no know about this issue. His friends may recognise him from the date of his flight departure and contact him, asking him to explain his actions. If there is still no reply, then post the picture.

In reply to lovlia:

I was in chamonix last year waiting in line for the Aiguille du Midi cable car when a couple of Norwegians (Norwegian flag on backpack, hat and coat, blond hair, chiselled jaw, herring in pockets, etc) in turning around to his mate, sliced open a womans' cheek with a crampon in his backpack. a nasty deep gash starting just below her right eye and finishing halfway across her face. both of them looked at her and started laughing...


there are wangers all over the place and I'm sorry that you experienced some from over here... we have no control over them.

Not that im defending the guys actions but if I met a Norwegian who was a complete prick would you like it if i started a thread raving about how all Norwegians are cocks?

In reply to Andy Say:

You are not helping here. Such a reply merely adds to the suggested loutishness of British climbers.

In reply to finkployd:


haha thank god i'd swallowed my mouthfull of drink first before i read that!

i can't believe your story is true tho, that sounds so incredibly bad.

In reply to dread-i:

Explain his actions? Christ, he didn't beat the family to death with a crampon. He didn't want to give his seat up, hardly crime of the decade is it?

In reply to Adam Moroz: I never said all Brits are bad... or all Climbers... there certainly are some rude Norwegians... to act this way towards a 6 year old is another matter...

In reply to mrsmesh:

fraid so... I could have forgiven them if it was an initial 'shock' reaction at something so bad, but they were complete tools about it, telling her it was nothing, getting shirty when people went to help her, saying it was no big deal, they left the queue and disappeared leaving this poor woman in tears and a nasty scar I would imagine.

In reply to lovlia:

to act this way towards a 6 year old is another matter...

Not really like Randy teddy boy said its not exactly crime of the century, some people just need to be a little less sensitive maybe....

In reply to Mike Highbury:

forget giving them a lashing with your tongue! actions speak louder than words, you should have belted him across the face ture english gentleman style with your glove or something.

In reply to Muhammad-the-randy-teddy:
>Explain his actions?
As this is trial by ukc, then it is only right that the guy in question is given a chance to reply. Perhaps the facts are correct as stated, perhaps the are not. Perhaps he has a need for an isle seat. Perhaps he has a strong regional accent, that might make him sound aggressive. Perhaps he is a dick?
Still, lets not let facts get in the way of a good lynching.

In reply to lovlia: That's a real shame. I travel with my son and we rely on a decent attitude from fellow passengers to make it through difficult journeys. All the norwegians who I have met on numerous trips have been kind, helpful and fun, even the lady injecting smack in a Oslo cafe toilets who had the decency to apolgise to my mum and explain she had a difficult childhood.

Publish the photo and damn them!

In reply to lovlia:

You have to name & shame I'm afraid as I have a mate over there & I'd like to be able to cross him off the list! Does sound like he was a bit up himself tho.

In reply to dannorris:


brilliant

Name, Name, Name!

Ha.

In reply to dannorris:


yeah....she got separated from her family on a budget flight.

In reply to Andy Say: If I was desperate to sit next to someone else (kids/whoever) on a flight that did not allocate seats, I'd pay the extra for priority boarding to ensure I got to sit with them...

But that's just me. A couple of quid for peace of mind.

And Ryanair do offer priority boarding.

In reply to Adam Moroz:

This thread has all the usual hallmarks that mean it will descend into stupid name-calling and fighting... "would you like it if i started a thread raving about how all Norwegians are cocks?"

Why not actually read the OP: "have dealt with many UK Ice Climbers over the past few years... with no problems... and have often socialised and found most of the guys to be great fun"

In reply to Adam Moroz: i agree it is not crim e of the century but from the side of the story we have that there was no need for him to be so unfair to the flight crew ( as it will have put them in an awkward position) and to the family

fair enough if the mystery climber had a good reason maybe he should come on and mention what his reason was to give us a more balanced view

in reply to lovila i really dont think we can base this guys actions on the british climbing comunity its his personal actions letting himself down

just my thoughts
matt

In reply to lovlia:

Well lets have a look!
If you have gone to the trouble of taking a photo (did he not mind?) and are not willing to let us see, can I presume this is a troll of some kind?

In reply to mrsmesh:

If he didn't live in the arse end of the universe I'd have sandbagged the skunk as well.

Sadly, he's just an old git so I all I can do is to slag him off on line like a proper modern day warrior.

In reply to CJD:

How they attempted to justify their behaviour is (to me) irrelevant.

They could have said they were the head of a small tribe from the middle of the Amazonian rain forest, they still acted like a cock (and I doubt it would have elicited a message to the other members of the tribe).

The "climbing community" can't be responsible for the action of all individuals that claim to be a constitute part of that community.

If anyone wants anything to come of it then the only option is to name and shame (or in this case post the pic and shame), the other individuals who make up the "climbing community" can then make their own mind up as to how to act towards the individual in question.

In reply to slacky: "the other individuals who make up the "climbing community" can then make their own mind up as to how to act towards the individual in question."

sounds like your organising a mob lol

but i do agree since he hasnt come on himself nothing will come of this unless youpost the picture

matt

In reply to Muhammad-the-randy-teddy: Disappointingly, I think you are correct, though it's way up there - 8/10 I should say. The photo bit is an excellent innovation!

In reply to lovlia:

This thread was originated in the wrong forum. It should be moved to the Salem Witch Hunting Forum. Any incriminating pictures will be published in the "Latest Noose" section.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward: God, I do hope so. I thought this was where we vented our frustrations, not addressed the dullard OP.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


don't you mean 'fortunately'?

In reply to teddy_simmon:

The axiom of the sentence is the word "individuals" as opposed to something like "the UKC lynch mob"

In reply to lovlia: name and shame this dobber, especially since he was calling himself a well known climber

In reply to Erik B:

I bet their name is Clematis...

In reply to Bingly Bong:


so not Clementis?

In reply to lovlia:
How could this be, If they were either side of the aisle and one moved over then that would have put a seat between them!!

In reply to ebygomm: It was touch and go with clementine...

In reply to lovlia: Don't know about Norway, but is it the case in the UK that one should be considered innocent until it can be proved that one is guilty. If you are accused of a crime, you should always have the right to defend yourself. Nobody has the right to condemn you and punish you for something you have not done. Show the photo or shut up, this forum isn't for instigating some kind of witch hunt

In reply to Muhammad-the-randy-teddy: e.g. window, A, B, C, aisle, D, E, F. Climbers are in B, C and D. A and E are empty. Climbers move to A, B and C, family sit in D and E.

In reply to lovlia:

OK I have been asked not to publish any photos... its not meant to be a witch hunt... by the guys in charge of forum so I wont...

thanks for the response...

Stay safe..

AR

In reply to lovlia:

If you've got the evidence - name and shame -- though be prepared to be sued if the 'evidence' won't hold up.

If it was a Ryanair flight, from my experience there are no pre-booked seats, and the alleged climber was under no obligation to meove.

Saying that, there is no excuse for rudeness when being presented with a reasonable request. If the guy is truly an ar5e he deserves all he gets.

In reply to lovlia:

Nooooooooooo!

OK, then let's have a poll and vote on the most likely candidates.

I offer

1. Steve H
2. Tim E
3. Neil G
4. Some wannabe I've never heard of.

My money's on 4.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I would like to add,

1) Mystery Toad

2) Al Evans

3) Mick Ryan

4) Niggle

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
or (5) someone living under a bridge?

In reply to Wingnut:

No they're booked on the return flight though

In reply to lovlia: Wasn't me

In reply to lovlia: I'm in no way defending these guys who sound like absolute knobs. However I do get irritated sometimes by families who expect special treatment because they've got kids, which is at the end of the day, a lifestyle decision which they've made.

In reply to co1ps:

Fair point with which I agree fully.

In reply to Benglog: Yeah, I can see your point, but I wouldnt call wanting to sit with your 6 year old child on a flight special treatment...

When forming queues to board planes, adults often act like little children - pushing and shoving to be first on... What's the rush? the plane won't leave without you!

In reply to Benglog:

What, like climbers complaining about Ryanair's hand luggage policy on account of a lifestyle decision they've made?

This is just down to gross bad manners and lack of consideration for others. Rights and special treatment don't come into it.

In reply to Dave Garnett:

That's equally as silly.

You pay your money you take your choice.

In reply to Bingly Bong:

Equally true. Flew back from Pau last year and had some richard head do that. Going down the ramp he was trying his damndest to get past me. I usually travel in my boots so he's now got a nice Vibram imprint on his big toe:0)

In reply to Bingly Bong:
Ryanair brings out the worst in people
In much the same way as the thread has brought out the worst in UKC (lynch the climber, lynch the norwegian....)

In reply to Bingly Bong:


It's a least a little bit understandable on ryanair/easyjet. But people do the same on flights with pre-booked seats!

In reply to lovlia:

This has got to be a troll.

In reply to Benglog:

I have no objection to people describing children as a lifestyle decision so long as they don't expect to receive any kind of pension and are happy to grow all their own food after the age of 65.

Otherwise, it's mere stupidity and extremely unattractive.

jcm

In reply to Chris the Tall:

lynch no one... wangers exist everywhere


this is a troll

In reply to co1ps: So you think a 6 year old wanting to be with her mum... is special treatment ??

In reply to Chris the Tall: ok, if he/she wont name & shame, i think theres only 1 way to solve this, everyone registered on UKC will have there name put into a hat or climbing helmet, which ever name is picked out, we lynch them!! or burn in a wicker man (of course as its my idea i should be exempt).

In reply to finkployd:



I too am inclined to think that either this is a complete troll because having met many many 'well known' climbers I have never heard any of them refer to themselves in such terms , climber who have have excelled in their sport usually have enough self value not to have to ever say such a thing ! .... or Take JC's forth option, he was a climbing nobody.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

What on earth are you on about? State pensions are laughable today and anyone in their right mind will have a private pension(s) into which they have paid a proportion of their hard earned wages for the period of their working lives.

This will (hopefully for most) provide sufficient income to live off and purchase their food as opposed to grow it, without having to rely on the any off-spring (or the younger generations who work and pay tax at that time if thats what you mean).

I wouldn't go as far to say that having children is a lifestyle choice as many people don't actually plan to have children and haven't therefore chosen, although they should perhaps have made it a choice in the first place.

In reply to Benglog:

Don't start moaning then if my six year old, who is sat the other side of you because you wouldn't move, spills her or his sticky juice on your nice goretex. There is usually a reason why parents ought to be sat next to their kids

In reply to lovlia: You have my support to name and shame these guys, I would like to hear what they had to say also.

In reply to woolsack: Children under the age of sixty should be barred from flying.

In reply to slacky:

>This will (hopefully for most) provide sufficient income to live off and

Indeed. And that income will be generated how?

jcm

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Such things only bring the worst out in tossers. They can also bring out the best in better people.

To the OP: Name and shame, (or at least give us a link to your flickr site), and then he can give his side of the story if he's bothered. We can also see how many of us have heard of him. He sounds like a cock.

All

Well, sorry love, then bloody well choose another airline where you can book your seats. If the six fyear old spilled stuff in me, trust me, I would be more than simply displeased.

No-one has a 'right' to any particular seat, and families cannot expect to sit together on cheap airlines. They may ask, and the people being asked have the choice of refusing to move. They may well have their own reasons why they wished to sit in the format they did, as other posters have pointed out. From the OP, it sounds like (bearing in mind that we only have on person's description of the events here, and so no balanced view can be gained) the ice climber chap simply refused to move, making no fuss. But then, he didn't need to- the family made up for that.

As to the events post flight, again we only have one person's word for what happened, and perhaps the ice chap was rude, or simply startled that he was being questioned at all. I know I wouldn't have been too happy being 'confronted' and prejudged as an arrogant person simply becuase I did not wish to move seats.

It is a pity that the OP has gone away with a negative impression, but I wonder how accurate it is. In true UKC style, on the basis of this though, a witch hunt has been generated. Shame on you all.

As to families on flights, as has been previously said, get to the gate first and check in first, or use an airline that has bookable seats, if you are that fussed. You do not have an automatic right to sit together.

Sxx

In reply to lovlia: you deseve beatification my Lovlia - I would congratulate you, but you've already done it yourself...

In reply to lovlia:

Firstly it wasn't me but:

Up to about 18 months ago I had to have an aisle seat as my back would go into spasm on flights unless I could get up and walk about and yes I was still able to climb. I would not have been rude to anyone about it but I would not have given up my seat either. There may be genuine reasons why he could not or would not give up his seat.

We also only have one persons opinion that he was rude and everyone seems happy to take that at face value. (I am not calling the OP a liar just pointing out there are different views on everything)

If it did happen as reported then maybe it was a bit antisocial but really that is about it, it is not exactly the biggest deal in the world is it!

This thread smells of BS to me, and and having read the whole thing it seems that quite alot of people have fallen for a classic troll.
Well done to Mohamed the Randy teddy for spotting it first.

In reply to Sarah G: we have all recognised no 'judgement' can be made without another viewpoint - from the ice climber and that he desserves a voice.

Fact; the only people who ever call themselves great climbers are pissed ones!
Who's gone away and is a well known pisshead? We have the answer!




Still think this is a troll!

Even if it isn't, it is irresponsible for a parent who knows they need to be together on a flight or they may suffer separation anxiety to not pay the extra few quid to do so.

Bad parenting in my opinion!! Obvious!

In reply to lovlia:
I`m pretty sure that it`s FAA rules that chldren of that age have by law to sit with their parents for safety reasons, however if it was that one parent was seperated from the family group because they were to cheap to pre book seats and the Ice Climber had paid to pre book his seats.
Family cocked up because they didn`t arrange things properly.
Maybe Ryanair cocked up, maybe not.
Ice Climber is then harrased to get the other two out of a hole.
Cheers Beds

In reply to Paul Bowen:

Was pretty obvious a while up, nothing made sense and then the vanishing and no replies from the OP until we were told that the Mods had made the decision........................hmmm

In reply to Sarah G:

You don't have kids then?

In reply to Paul Bowen: It doesn't matter what the fight is about, someone shouted 'fight' so everyone bundled in. That's what usually happens isn't it?

SALE NOW ON AT LYNCH MOB WORLD

Are you prone to a bit of vigilante direct action, don't want to listen to both sides of the story, do you ignore any due judicial process and determine guilt based on frenzied tabloid speculation, ?

Then 'LYNCH MOB WORLD (c)' is the place for you. Prices are just ker-razy in our January Sale

Pitch forks £6 each (2 for £10) - Wow

20mm Hanging rope £5

High Flame Torch (guaranteed not to go out even in the strongest of gales)

Assorted blunt instruments and bats from £1

Bricks...from 20p each




"When a paediatrician moved into our street we were able to put their windows through using top quality bricks from Lynch Mob World....I will never shop anywhere else"

Mrs B, Southampton

In reply to Paul Bowen: Not BS... I am not a Troll I am a Brit...

In reply to Cú Chullain:


is that dry treated?

In reply to lovlia: yawn...

In reply to lovlia: Well... to put an end to this I will publish the date of the flight... and the flight number... and hopefully he can publish his side of the story... then we can move on...

In reply to lovlia:

"... then we can move on"

I very much doubt that

In reply to lovlia:

What has being a Brit got to do with it, a trolls a troll.
Whats the point in posting all that if you are not going to tell who it is?
Whats the point in asking for support to back the outing of this climber if you are not going to?
whats the point in all of a sudden sticking your head out from under the bridge only to tell us the mods had asked you not to out this guy?
Looks like alot of dangling carrots and no real evidence or hint of who it may be, why on earth would you give a toss what the mods said or felt about it, its your one and only post!
If you know who the guy is and were so so so angry about this then I'm sure you would have put the pic up directly without trying to score hits!

<rolls over and goes back to sleep>

In reply to lovlia:
I have once did a bit of ice climbing, and as such I would like to accept full responsibility for this dreadful incident and apologise in the most profound terms to everyone involved.

In reply to Rat know-all:

*tsk*

In reply to lovlia:

As a father it seemed like a very reasonable request.

As an inhabitant of planet earth it appears an extremely unreasonable response.

But then people do have an uncanny abilty to dissapoint.

In reply to Muhammad-the-randy-teddy: I have not dissapeared... just got a business to run...

In reply to Cú Chullain:

I would like to know how much a High Flame Torch would cost please, you seem to have missed off the price fot this item.

In reply to ceri:

Is this like one of those IQ test problems from The Sunday Times

In reply to finkployd:

lol

In reply to lovlia:

Troll. 8.5/10.

Good move trying to revive it with the, "I'll publish details" rouse. Marvelous! Loving your work!

In reply to lovlia:

Not frequenting forums often... i did not know what a forum Troll was... now I know...

But this was a serious post not a Troll !!

An "Internet troll" or "Forum Troll" or "Message Board Troll" is a person who posts outrageous message to bait people to answer. Forum Troll delights in sowing discord on the forums. A troll is someone who inspires flaming rhetoric, someone who is purposely provoking and pulling people into flaming discussion. Flaming discussions usually end with name calling and a flame war.

In reply to lovlia:

It's not that bigger deal. The guy was a bit arsish, but at the end of the day it's up to him. If he was as abusive as you're making out then fair enough he's a complete nob head, but if he just refused to move and that offended you then it's not a big deal.

In reply to lovlia: The bloke you describe sounds a dick, however I have two points to make, Ive always seen families with young children allowed to board first and Ive never seen a Ryanair flight to Norway full

Can you give the flight number and date etc?

In reply to Franco Cookson:



In context and through the eyes of a 6 year old and an anxious mother it was probably a very big deal.

In reply to Cú Chullain:

I'll have a bag of gravel please

youtube.com/watch?v=ZNeq2Utm0nU&

In reply to lovlia:


A perfect description of this thread 9/10

amazing some people just don't bother reading beyond the first couple of replies on a thread, you're still stirring emotions... congratulations

In reply to lovlia:

Sorry to hear of your and the family's experience. The two times I've been to Norway everyone has been very pleasant and welcoming. Unfortunately some, a minority, act like arseholes. I'm not sure why, but a significant number of peoplein the UK seem to subscribe to the "I will learn no language as they all speak English" / "johnny foreigner" / "I'm a big tough climber but too insecure to behave in a mature way" "Empire" / "who won the war?" mentalities.......

In reply to Paul Bowen: God your fat

In reply to Fawksey:


sorry don't understand...please explain

In reply to Slugain Howff:


Do you agree that the parent(s) should have sorted out priority boarding then? So they could sit together? (Maybe they did and it all got cocked up by ryanair / traffic / check-in queues etc.)

Or are you saying that they were quite right just to expect other people to accomodate them when they made no effort to help themselves?

Si

In reply to Slugain Howff: but the guy hasn't done anything really wrong. if you move youare heralded as a good person because it is your choice whether to move or not. Like i said it was a bit dickish, but no reason to start a thread about it, it happens all the ime. Also where was the father in all this?

In reply to Franco Cookson:

Talking to his mates about ice climbing

In reply to woolsack: lol. i laughed out-loud when i read that.

In reply to Paul Bowen:


doh:.. name calling!!! .... hand me that flame thrower....burn damn you

In reply to lovlia:


After much deliberation over your post I can conclude that:




Sloper has upgraded his spell checker.

In reply to lovlia:


On the Keef Richards scale of bad boy behaviour this rates about 1/10

Which makes the reading on the trollometer worth about 0.5/10

In reply to lovlia:

couldnt one of the adults have sat with the child and the other sat on their own and if that was a possibility the family must take some blame for being late.

However this guy was obviously is a complete tool. name and shame. the "im a great climber" blah blah is just rubbish.

Ive met some pretty nasty Norwegians but i dont judge the whole nation by that.

The more pressing issue is why do people get so wound up by getting their own seat. i make a point of asking the people who sit on the outside to move over as i fly a lot for work and this really winds me up.

In reply to SI A: thats what happened... all three were to be split up... so a six year old would be left sitting with strangers at the front of the plane... Scary stuff for a six year old...

In reply to Simon22:
anybody else really want to know who the perp is ?
i,ll wager it,s a tubby brit with a belly full of stella and brand spanker heavy water guide !

if it is a troll (i don,t think so) 10/10 from me! an absolute gem

jas

In reply to Paul Bowen: Sopry my apologies - the wifes arse hove into view and it seems I typed what I was thinking - oops!

In reply to lovlia:

Is that what this is all about, you want a pat on the back for giving your seat up?
They got to sit together because you are so polite and understanding to all.
Now either post the pic or name or get over it, as far as a troll goes you are doing well, I've been to town and back and you're still getting hits. Very well done.

In reply to all: After briefly skimming this interesting thread, I agree with somebody that it's morally wrong that a 6 year old should be ice climbing in Norway at all!

In reply to Fawksey:

The purest post on here ha ha ha!!

In reply to Bingly Bong:

Firstly, even if you pay for priority boarding, anyone who has checked in on-line (about 70% on most RyanAir flights) also have priority boarding. Basically everyone on Ryan Air essentially has priority boarding now.
Second it there is a bus to the plane then you get on the bus first with priority boarding - but no guarantee to get to the plane first, as first on the bus is probably last off the bus as you get squashed in the middle.
I make a point on a RyanAir flight on deliberatly choosing a seat beside the person who has most obviously tried to block the seat next to them with his/her bag/coat etc just to annoy them. Though it back-fired on a flight from Italy when the couple I squeezed in beside were practically having sex. They were Itallian....
However the take home message is DO NOT SUPPORT RYANAIR by travelling with them.

In reply to smallclimber: In the interests of balance I love RyanAir and feel they have allowed poor peple like me to fly and that really ahs pissed off those twunts who thought it was only their privelege

and to all those who dnt like paying four quid for a sarnie go pay a hundred quid more somewhere else thats a lot of dosh for a crap meal and a glass or two of wine

In reply to Muhammad-the-randy-teddy:
Presumably the OP wanted to let the "famous climber" aware that he was being an ill mannered , selfish and arrogant git. Seems fair enough.

Why are you so keen to criticise the OP .Would you have done the same as the "famous climber"?

In reply to Postmanpat: If she really was Norwegian, she wouldn't write so poorly and certainly would be able to spell.

In reply to smallclimber: Perhaps they should have gone with a 'proper' airline to ensure they all sat together then?

They shouldnt have picked a free for all budget airline then...

They took a risk...

In reply to lovlia:


This has got to be...... a 5/10 troll.... one in ten.... norwegians has an addiction.... to using lots of.... fullstops....it...makes...me laugh because....don't.....trolls.... originate from Norway...???.........................................

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Err, did you read the previous sentence, about how people _work_ and _pay into private pensions_?

In reply to Bingly Bong: Ryanair and all the cheapies do ask parents with young kids to board first, but if they're late (or more likely get shoved to the back by people who are scared the plane will go without them) then they may end up getting on last.

I don't think I have any "right" to sit together as an entire family (if that's what these people were asking for), but I sure as hell have the responsibility for one of us to sit with our kids, and i would expect an adult to move or be moved to accommodate that - until they're at least 10 years old. If the plane crashed I don't think that anyone else should be responsible for getting my child off, nor do i expect anyone else to have to clean up sick/open drinks cartons/wipe their noses or any one of the myriad things that kids need.

In reply to Bingly Bong: How about a nice twist of irony that one of the climbers should break a leg and no-one gets up to help him on the return flight?

In reply to slacky: I think the point is that your pension fund is invested into businesses. Those businesses have to have people working in them, or buying their products and services in order to generate returns for the pension funds. If everyone is retired (which they will be if nobody has any kids) then there will be nobody to make anything. So your pension will be worthless.

Unless you're saying that your private pension is simply a big bag of money with "Slacky's Cash" written on the side that you will go to each month and take out what you need. If that's the case you'd better plan on dying about 5 years after you retire...

In reply to Bingly Bong:

That's completely missing the point.The point is that even if they screwed up it would be a kindness and simple good manners for the "famous climber" to help them out .

Or should it just be dog eat dog ?

In reply to Sarah G: "Well, sorry love, then bloody well choose another airline where you can book your seats. If the six fyear old spilled stuff in me, trust me, I would be more than simply displeased.

No-one has a 'right' to any particular seat, and families cannot expect to sit together on cheap airlines."

Sorry, love, they do. CAA guidelines state airlines should:

"...develop procedures for the seat allocation of family groups, particularly when a group includes children. It is probable that family group members would seek each other out should an emergency evacuation be required, an action that could adversely affect the rapid evacuation of the aircraft. Children should be seated where they can be adequately supervised by an accompanying adult in the event of turbulence or a decompression in the cabin."

It's primarily a safety procedure - if I'm sat 6 rows apart from my kids in an emergency then i'm probably going to trample you to death to get them off the plane. With Ryanair that 'procedure' is getting them to board first or (as is often the case when you're bussed out to the aircraft so the free-for-all starts again when you get off the bus) asking other passengers to move. If the family in question's issue was that they all wanted to sit together then whilst I would probably have moved because I'm well brought up, that's not necessary from a safety point of view, but if it was that they wanted a parent to sit with the six year old then I think the airline should have made someone move.

In reply to lovlia: if he was so conceited as to say he was a well-known climber (well-known to whom? the police?) perhaps he is already lost to civilisation. You, on the other hand, also have a certain vanity because not content with trying to do good you also want to publicise your noble knight errantry. Perhaps the best thing is to forget the episode. There is no such entity as a "climber", simply people who climb and the British are now renowned throughout Europe for their appalling manners.

In reply to andy:
Nope. Ryanair used to let all families with children on first. I liked them for that alone.
They've scrapped that practice - you just get in the queues like anyone else. I hate them for that.

Strange I know - but I actually like to travel with my children!

In reply to Postmanpat:

I dont geddit...

Where kindness and simple good manners should never be 'expected' of strangers - they are but very nice and are falling attributes, ensuring your child is happy and comfortable in their surroundings is...

You should not rely on others is what I am saying. Or maybe I'm ubber organised or over worry to avoid such situations...

Nay mind eh?

In reply to lovlia: If this is a troll (which I think it is) then good call, I like it!
If not, he sounds like a cock. Whether or not he 'has' to move, it is just simple manners, and if he said no in such terms he is a rude arrogant arsehole. "well known' probably means he works on reception at a climbing wall, or got one mention in some mag once....
Sam

In reply to lovlia:


Haven't read the whole thread but can't you pay £10 or something for a 'priority boarding pass' where you get to go on first. I normally see families taking this up so they get the chance to sit next to one another.

As someone who has moved for a family before, it doesn't particularly bother me where I sit (as long as it's not next to, or near some screaming child) but if it's imperative that people sit together, be them friends, families or otherwise then why not pay the £10 and get the guarantee you sit together?!

Lovlia - well done for taking the higher ground. I'd have been tempted to tell him I didn't care if he was the Sultan of f*cking Brunei there's no advantages to be had traveling on Ryanair and if he's *that* good a bloody climber why doesn't he have a decent sponsor paying for him to fly a scheduled airline?! What a tit!

In reply to lovlia:
TROLL! (pretty good one though)

In reply to lovlia: Post a picture of yourself ( a convincing picture that is, not just some passer by) and I just might start to believe that this isn't a troll.

In reply to slacky:

I think JCM's point might be that a pension does not operate in a magical void. It is capital invested in a businesses which are set up and run by people and employ people who have not retired.

So deciding not to have your own children means you will be directly relying on other peoples children to sustain you when you retire.

In reply to andy: Thank you Andy... On this I rest may case! I don't think there is much more to say on this...

In reply to lovlia:

Now we've dealt with the morals, where's the photos? Let the lynching begin!

In reply to Postmanpat:

1, would that not be easier by posting the picture? 2, seems they didn't get on that well, would this guy not feel it a little odd that a strange person was snapping pics of him? 3, Why would a one and only poster be bothered what the mods had to say about anything? 4, would the mods really be that bothered enough to contact her anyway? 5, Seems she/he knows the site very well to know the reaction they would get by asking for backing to out the photo. 6, Most sites would not get the response you would on here, so very unlikely they stumpled over here. 7, I very much doubt a woman would confront a guy off the plane 'why did you not give your seat up?' seems a bit wierd.
If I had a genuine reason I needed to be in that seat and a someone near could offer up a seat then I would see no problem and wouldn't. Lots of other people about who might not mind giving the seat up for them, no biggy, and hopefully the family wouldn't take things forgranted in future, they being parents should know that.

In reply to Muhammad-the-randy-teddy: Would help matters if you read the post... Hey... have you been to Norway lately ?

"When the flight arrived in Norway... I casually asked one of the climbers... why he had refused... ?? and did'nt he care about the mother and her daughter ?? He said that he could'nt give a **** about the family... he was a "well known" climber... and he travelled the world... etc..."

In reply to Muhammad-the-randy-teddy:
No,the climber knows who he is . He now knows that a lot of other people think he behaved badly.Point made.
I don't get the relevance of all your stuff about women and photos.In fact I don't see why you think it should be raised to a hiigher pitch by putting up a photo.
2

And then you could politely explain why you were reluctant to give up your seat which the "famous climber"didn't.

In reply to lovlia:

I'm a little surprised that you are coming in for criticism on this one... I would have thought that most people would find that the "famous climber" was being selfish and unpleasant. I think you should publish the photo though, not on UKC as this is hardly their role, but on some other site and then post a link here so we can all see. If you don't know a site email it to me and I'll do the job

It would be interesting to hear his explanations all the same.

In reply to Bingly Bong:
You were implying that the lack of organisation of the parents somehow justifies the crass behaviour of the climber.It doesn't .The climber remains at fault even if the parents screwed up. Very simple.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I'm not excusing the behaviour of the climber, but why was he at fault?

We all have the right to refuse 'requests' (although the manner in which these are done should at least be polite).

At least the parents may be a little more organised for their next trip, so if nothing else, at least they learnt a valuable lesson in life.

In reply to lovlia:

Can you explain how you came to snap a random piture of this guy please?

In reply to Bingly Bong:

Leave the kids at home?

In reply to Postmanpat:

Absolute rubbish, free for all airline. Says it on the tin!

In reply to woolsack: Well, that is my preferred option but I recognise it may not be the choice of all...

<cough>

Ps - I am kidding...

In reply to Muhammad-the-randy-teddy:

OK,so you're a selfish, rude, uncaring sod as well. Just wanted to clarify it.
Bloody depressing ,though.

In reply to lovlia:
have a mobile phone photo of the guy... so lets have an apology... ! If you are that "well known"... you will know who you are.. !!
- You can't say that and then not publish it! Come on, we're all nosey buggers here, let's have a look!

In reply to timby:

Its the make of break: troll or not.

In reply to lovlia:

Perhaps, if you're reluctant to post or are prevented from posting a picture of the offender, to prove your bona fides you could put up a picture of yourself. If, as you claim, you have 'dealt with' and 'socialised' with UK climbers then I'm sure someone will recognise you and speak up.

Otherwise, the troll claims seem justified. Happy to be proved wrong, of course.

T.

In reply to lovlia:

Put his photo on line and contact his sponsors and let them deal with him

In reply to Postmanpat:

No but I happen to think this poster is a troll so makes no matter what I write in reply to your questions of 'what if'. It never was so it doesn't matter. You don't know the circumstances if it did happen so don't start calling people before you do, you have one side of the story, or do you belong to the guilty whatever mob? Looks like it. Bloody depressing eh?
Considering everyone is asked to turn off phones on a flight, even on flight mode now, it is very unlikely that this poster was waving a phone around once the plane was up. And I doubt very much was snapping sneaky ones once the plane landed, you get arrested for that. And whenever I ask a question like, 'explain the circumstances you got a pic of the guy' she vanishes for a while until she has a think. Like the 'oh, the mods have asked me not to' rubbish yesterday.
I hope I'm wrong after the length of this thread, but doubt it.

In reply to Muhammad-the-randy-teddy: "Absolute rubbish, free for all airline. Says it on the tin!"

Please see CCA guidelines above - it's not a free for all on any airline - safety says parents should sit with their kids. Good manners also says that if you find yourself politely asked to move in those circumstances then you should. For people who don't have good manners the airline should tell them to move, and if they don't, unload them and their luggage.

And re: priority boarding - that's fine if the plane is outside the terminal (I usually pay for valet parking to avoid struggling from off-site car parks on a bus full of ill-mannered oiks that I wouldn't want my children to be contaminated by), but if (as is often the case with low cost) all "priority boarding" gets you is to be first on the bus, to be trampled to the back once the bus gets to the steps then it's hardly worth it, is it?

In reply to andy:
And that strengthens my point that it never actually happened!!!

In reply to lovlia:

Perhaps as myself these threatening characters were just tall and had chosen an aisle ceat to allow them to stretch out just a little more. I always get the aisle seat if i can for this very reason and would be reticent to say the least about giving it up ....

Just a thought..

Si

In reply to lovlia: Can we know who this well known climber is then? The suspense is killing me!

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I think this is the first time I've ever agreed with Bruce about anything, ever.

In reply to andy:

Right that removes the obfuscation behind Mr mysterious cox's point that I was failing to comprehend.

Mr mysterious cox said....



...in response to someone who had stated that having children was a lifestyle choice. Quite how he drew the conclusion that because people have the choice as to whether they have children or not that the whole populace would cease to reproduce if they were made aware of that choice I'm not sure and was what I found confusing.

After all everyone already has the choice as to whether or not to have children, some choose to, others choose not to, and I really don't see why stating the obvious would lead to the whole population ceasing to reproduce.



Nope I never said that, and am fully aware as to how pensions work. As I said above I found the jump from "children are a lifestyle choice" to "receiving no pension and having to grow their own food" to be rather illogical.

If his assertion that people who believe having children is a lifestyle choice is "mere stupidity and extremely unattractive", then presumably he advocates some sort of reproductive policy that doesn't allow individuals to make their own choices, which sounds like a rather unsavoury situation to me.

Thanks for clarifying things though andy.

In reply to Muhammad-the-randy-teddy:

this is the reply from your "mods" as you put it... and I dont disappear.. but some of has have work to do...

Hi Tony


Further to your post on UKC:


We have no problem with this discussion taking place however I would request that you don't name the person in public. That could bring the web site into difficulties.


Cheers


Alan

I know this is OT but it stll relates to budget airlines. What do others thing when the passenger behind persists in pushing their knees into the seat back or fiddling with the fold down table in such a manners as to cause discomfort?

In reply to lovlia:

if you're called tony why would you choose such a flouncy username as "Lovlia"?

and are you sure the mod is ok with you posting the contents of aprivate e-mail?

In reply to Morgan Woods: Lovlia is a placename in Norway.

In reply to SJD:

But there are ways and ways of explaining that!

ANY views please

In reply to Alun:

Oh dear! I'm terribly sorry, is there anything I can do to make up for it?

In reply to Benglog:

I don't see what difference it make it being a budget airline... the oaf wasn't an airline employee, was he?

In reply to lovlia: You still haven't answered my question about 'why and how you took the picture'? 3rd time lucky!!

In reply to slacky:

You said "Children are a lifestyle choice" which might be interpreted as like saying that such a choice is similar to choosing whether to fly abroad for ones holidays or spend the money on going to the theatre every month. Its not.

I think that the point that JCM (and me for that matter) is getting at is that having children is a fundamental aspect of humanity and parents are responsible for looking after those cute vulnerable little monsters. The kids also need the security and attention they get by sitting with their parents. Being a parent is a choice to the individual and is usually a rewarding one sure but its very demanding too. So isn't it appropriate to acknowledge that and make a sacrifice to accomodate a family trying to sit together?

In reply to lovlia: Why would this bring the website in difficulty? Is it a climber who is sponsored or has particular links with the website?

In reply to lovlia: You can send the name by private email to people who have posted on the thread. I want to know who that was!

In reply to petellis:

Lateral troll linking thinking. Nice!

In reply to lovlia:

**Sighs**

What a long thread. It made for a good read but all a bit much though.

In reply to lovlia:

personally i would have moved, but if you want to make sure your sitting next to your kin go scheduled . why should they have moved the people who booked the flight with their rug rats knew what they were doing .

In reply to lovlia: I am Spartacus!!

In reply to Muhammad-the-randy-teddy:

No


I *AM* Spartacus!!

In reply to petellis:


Not as far as I know -- they're from Sweden -- at least that was what the people who build SAAB cars and planes used to claim. Their factory is at Trollhattan, Sweden, and my old Saab 96 three cylinder two stroke bore a sticker proudly proclaiming

"Made By the Trolls in Trollhattan"

In reply to RocknRoll:

No I didn't it was co1ps @ 15:56 Wed who said that first. I said I didn't quite agree with that, since many people don't think about whether to start a family in the first place.


No, its FAR more serious a _choice_ to make as it entails a complete change in lifestyle and responsibilities. I do however believe that as rationale human beings we _are_ capable of choosing whether or not to start a family. A current point of contention I have with my partner, she wants children, I don't. Something we have to resolve between us, but at least we've thought about it unlike many unplanned pregnancies (in particular young teenage parents).


Well, thats not really anything I have a problem with, as others have pointed out there are various reasons why the individual may have wished to remain in that seat, blah blah, (see whole thread).

What I was questioning was how Mr Mysterious Cox jumped from the (true) assertion that individuals have the choice as to whether or not to have children (co1ps's statement about "children being a lifestyle choice"), and whilst it might be a fundamental aspect of humanity, nay life in general I see no reason why this leads to the conclusion that Mr Mysterious Cox put forward that no one should expect to draw a pension and should grow their own food after the age of 65 should they openly state that they do have a choice.

Yourself and andy have proffered two possible explanations, but neither (to my mind) explain how one reaches this conclusion from the premise.

Thanks for taking the time to reply.

In reply to co1ps:

"expect special treatment because they've got kids, which is at the end of the day, a lifestyle decision which they've made."

treating small children as small children and, as you might expect, having the needs of samll children, is NOT special treatment; it is called civilised behaviour.
youur posting provides more information about you than any profile could, thanks

In reply to slacky:

It's not a complicated point. If no-one had children, then in your old age you would starve. So talking about parents having made a lifestyle choice and how they should suffer the consequences needs to be done against the background of this simple truth.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


I think what JCM's objecting to is the sheer superficiality and triviality of mind that is revealed by calling children a "lifestyle choice". What, like patio extensions and Gucci handbags? Children are not fashion accessories; believe it or not, they're human beings. Yes, just like you.

This is a silly, bad-tempered thread, which I won't be returning to, but that remark does perhaps deserve to be picked out as a particular low point.

In reply to slacky:

>> You said "Children are a lifestyle choice"

>No I didn't

Sorry about that.

>"I see no reason why this leads to the conclusion that Mr Mysterious Cox put forward that no one should expect to draw a pension and should grow their own food after the age of 65 should they openly state that they do have a choice."

Its a philosophical question of law, morals and ethics, the individual and their responsibility to society and their dependance on that society. Its weak to claim that it (having kids) is a choice as society would disappear if people didn't do it. To illustrate the point Mr Cox is being obtuse in his extrapolation. I see your point too, its a weak extrapolation because people are going to have children no matter how uncooperative a guy on the plane is and society is organised so as to allow people to accumulate capital which enables them to behave in a selfish individualistic way.

There lies the tension between what is legal and what is morally or ethically acceptable and the tension between the individual and society.

There might be some philosophy graduates out there that can do this debate justice?

Now I've got a headache.

In reply to Tim Chappell:

Agreed, but it is (unless you're crap with contraception) a choice. JCMs point would be valid if we were about to run out of people, but we can always import from the third world. Ultimately having or not having children is a choice you make, because that's what you want to do. Having children isn't some altruistic sacrifice to humanity.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I certainly didn't and nor did co1ps state that _no-one_ should have children though. Where and how did you link this idea from the statement that people choose to have children?

Yes its possible that because there is a choice to have children that you _might_ have the whole population simultaneously choose not to reproduce for a number of generations, but its highly improbable (and its got nothing to do with uncooperative people on planes), so your statement about how people over 65 shouldn't expect a pension and should grow their own food if they accept that having children is a choice is a non sequitur.

Is it not just as dispassionate towards other humans if society penalises individuals (no pension, no food) who choose not to have children (and there are also those who _can't_ have children for medical reasons) for not making a contribution to the next generation (as seems to be the underlying tone to what you are writing) as it is to put forward the notion that those who have chosen to have children have to accept their situation and that which it entails?

In both instances the individual has made a choice (with a few medical exceptions) and they are no doubt happy to live with that choice. The individual members of a society have a responsibility to care for and act in a civilised manner to all other individuals within that society.

Unfortunately there will always be selfish individuals in society who aren't willing to make concessions to others because of a conflict of interests.

In reply to RocknRoll:

This is the essence of what I have taken issue with.

Just because its possible to make a choice (having children) _doesn't_ in _anyway_ mean that no-one will have children. Its ludicrous to think that, and if that were the case it wouldn't be a choice, as there is only one outcome (i.e. no-one has children).

Ridge has summarised it very succinctly....

In reply to Ridge:

Hands up all those parents here who had children to help society?

In reply to slacky:

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you're talking about. This paragraph in particular is complete nonsense.

"Is it not just as dispassionate towards other humans if society penalises individuals (no pension, no food) who choose not to have children (and there are also those who _can't_ have children for medical reasons) for not making a contribution to the next generation (as seems to be the underlying tone to what you are writing) as it is to put forward the notion that those who have chosen to have children have to accept their situation and that which it entails?"

My point is extremely simple. Other people's children will ensure you a comfortable old age. It is worth remembering that before complaining about needing to move seats on a plane, children making a noise on trains, and so on. That's all.

It's also worth remembering, even if you persist in this unattractive categorisation of children as a 'lifestyle choice', that it wasn't a choice made by the children.

As for Ridge's question, the fact that people do not have children in order to help society doesn't alter the fact that their decision to have children does in fact help society.

jcm

In reply to slacky:

We've moved on from that. Did you not read my reply properly?

I give up.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

This stems from your assertion that those who see children as a 'lifestyle choice' (co1ps's not mine, I said they weren't always a choice) should not expect a pension and should grow their own food. This point of view is as vicarious as that which you were admonishing.


That is clear, thank you for clarifying what perhaps should have been written in the first instance instead of the nonsense about no pensions, growing your own food and the allusion to humanity ceasing to reproduce and dying out.


I never said it was a 'lifestyle' choice, but I have and standby the assertion that it _is_ a choice made by the parents.


No it doesn't, but its down to two individuals to choose to do so, there are no laws (nor should there be) that force couples to have children.

Personally I feel the world is massively over-populated as it is and it wouldn't be such a bad thing if the population was reduced a bit by the most humane method (i.e. personal restraint).

In reply to Ridge:

I'd go so far as to say that with current levels of overpopulation as the human race lays waste to every natural 'resource' it can lay its hands on spawning further selfish consumerist (and in the society that has evolved through necessity from population density it's pretty much impossible not to be) clones is the exact opposite of altruism.

In reply to RocknRoll:

Yes I did read your post, and you wrote...


Its not weak, it _is_ a choice. But its a choice individuals make and not society. No one has a social responsibility to reproduce. People do benefit from others reproduction (I've not once attempted to deny this), but thats a consequence and not a justification for forcing people to reproduce.

In reply to lovlia:
http://www.villarenters.com/villas/southern-norway-villa-to-rent-4342-sum.a...

just done some googling of 'troll norway lovlia' and look what comes up....
Troll Mountain House run by .... a Tony????
Is this a coincidence.... I think not

To all those still posting and getting your knickers in a twist over kids and pensions blah blah blah... check the link out...

In reply to Ridge:


Damn! Isn't it? I've been conned again!

I suppose it's too late now to trade mine in for a patio? (the extension would have to come later as I haven't got the patio yet)

In reply to Cú Chullain:


Sorry, I've been thinking about this for a few days. Is that a 20mm diameter rope or a 20mm length of rope. Eitherway, not a practacle piece of rope.

Maybe you should have words with your supplier in order to increase your hanging rope sales.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Ha, I've got both an extention and a patio. But then again I have to do DIY tasks in order to get sex from our lass. Oh, and we've only got 2 kids.

In reply to slacky:

Can I suggest you look up the words 'vicarious' and 'dispassionate' in a dictionary and confine yourself to using words whose meaning you understand?

>Personally I feel the world is massively over-populated as it is and it >wouldn't be such a bad thing if the population was reduced a bit by the >most humane method (i.e. personal restraint).

I don't disagree with that, but it doesn't alter the fact there need to be some children and that non-parents should bear that in mind.

>That is clear, thank you for clarifying what perhaps should have been written in the first instance instead of the nonsense about no pensions, growing your own food and the allusion to humanity ceasing to reproduce and dying out.

It's a very stupid poster who couldn't work out my meaning from my reference to eating in your old age. It's not like this isn't a fairly well-worn commonplace.

I'm not sure I mentioned humanity dying out, although obviously that would be an effect of people ceasing to have children.

jcm

In reply to evs1066:


Smug sod!

This thread seems to have gone off track

Whnerwe gonna see the photo?

PS. Trolls are from Norway too... Peer Ghynt and all that?

In reply to lovlia: God don't this lot bang on about f*ck all?! In the old days it'd have been a proper fight, none of this glaring and shoving and "oh yes it is!" "Oh no it isn't!" puffery.

Whether it's a troll or not, cheers for posting it. Some people are selfish and won't make way for anyone. This morning I pulled to the head of a queue of traffic at some lights, coming up the inside. The bloke at the front, just behind and to my right, starts revving his engine, creeping forward over the line. I still managed to set off before him, then signalled right and crossed his lane, making him tootle along behind me at 20-25mph. Once he'd got past me, and raced ahead with a snarl of his engine, I caught up with him on Bramall Lane, him stuck in another queue, me in the cycle lane on his inside. He sees me coming and pulls over to block the cycle lane, forcing me to pass him on the pavement. As if that's not enough, further down the same road, a bloke stope to let a car out of a side road. Motorist coming out looks at me, doing maybe 30mph, lumicycle lights glaring, and pulls out in front of me anyway, forcing me to brake and skid. Fortunately I managed to put my cleat-clad foot against his plastic bumper to prevent me sliding into his car. I just shouted "OI! LOOK before you pull out!", and carried on. He looked startled, as if I'd popped out of a hole in space. I don't think he even knew I'd left a big foot-shaped scartch in his colour coordinated Audi A4 bumper. Incidentally, the other car was an Audi too.

Tsk! As a cyclist I see selfishness like that every day. Hey, even happens as a pedestrian!

I was walking along this very lunchtime, trying to send a text, when a young bloke walks into me and says "watch where you're going!". I laughed and said "Sorry, didn't you see me either?" "Yeah I did, but you weren't looking where you were going!" I shook my head and walked off. This occurred on a really wide pavement, not many people around. Bloke deliberately walked into me because I wasn't looking where I was going! He expected me to move aside, but wasn't prepared to himself. Odd. I didn't argue, he might have had a knife.

Anyway, rant over. Thanks for listening. back to the OP.
Been funny if the kid had had to sit next to said climber then proceed to bawl loudly all the way to Oslo. Bet he'd have changed his mind then.

In reply to BrianT:

'me,me,me,me,me,me,me,me,me,me,me,me,me,me,me,me memememememememememe'

"Anyway, rant over. Thanks for listening. back to the OP."

'oh I'm sorry I have been talking about me - would you like to talk about me now'


</puffery>

In reply to BrianT:

Why do think you attract these sort of people?

PS. Was the dangerous pedestrian an Audi mechanic?... if he was then this could be an interesting lead to follow.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

on children as a lifestyle choice and it's relationship with _society_:

If someone doesor doesn't have children they support the elderly by participating in the economy and paying tax so that any pension scheme may work. This is what society owes them back in their own old age. Are you inferring that they should be forced to have children to perpetuate this scheme also or is it in fact a (lifestyle)choice? One couple choosing not to have children frees up the option(in terms of sustainability) for other people to have more, no? Which the non child bearing people also subsidise. It is a lifestyle choice. IMO

In reply to neilinut:

Not when you get a bird up the duff, and it's death to the wean, or have it and forever be told - "It was your choice mate!"

Where's the f***ing choice in that?

People who use the lifestyle choice arguement are mostly completely sad, boring c*unts who like whacking off to porn to make up for there otherwise sad lonely lifes. IMO.

In reply to gourd:

the choice is not to get birds you aren't that into pregnant in the first place or if you can't act responsibly stay home whacking off to porn.

In reply to evs1066:

You are Fred West and I claim my £5

In reply to gourd:

You're not a tad bitter, perchance?

In reply to neilinut:


Yes, it's exactly the same as choosing luxury velvet toilet paper or izal medicated tissue.

In reply to neilinut:

You don't mean infer, you mean imply.

Your tax pays your parents' pension, not yours.

It is obviously literally true that children are a lifestyle choice; they are a choice, and they affect your lifestyle.

However, it is a choice which it is essential that some people make. It is therefore appropriate for non-parents to recognise that children are essential to society and that their care is to some extent the responsibility of us all.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


no, I am pretty sure I meant infer.

If you want to imply something please be more exhaustive or axiomatic.


How is it essential? If everyone stopped right now to have children then we would also have less children to take care of meaning the wealth generated in this taper period would be enough to support ourselves materialy. True, for those at the very end of this taper there will be nobody to care for them but is this "essential" or a or is it a welfare.

Are you are infering that human existence is essential or that you need someone to look after you in your later years?

In reply to neilinut:

You may be sure, but you're still wrong. 'Infer' means 'deduce'. 'Imply' means either 'suggest', or a stronger equivalent.

I was implying (or as you quaintly put it 'infering') that we all need someone to look after us in our later years.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously: 'Infer' means 'deduce'

or 'induce'

In reply to ericoides:

Indeed.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

to infer can also mean to indicate or suggest with the use of statements / only imply relates to something being implicit (though can be used in other contexts), a logical neccessity of the argument.

so, for sure, I meant infer.

Oh and as to the spelling - my spell checker is currently in Dutch. Oh so sorry.

By the way you missed the point entirely.

In reply to neilinut:

This is all very well but whener we going to get the photo?

In reply to neilinut:

>to infer can also mean to indicate or suggest with the use of statements / only

Not in decent English. Although I hadn't realised your native language was Dutch, and I must say you're doing very well for a foreigner.

I'm afraid you seem to be right though that the lnaguage barrier is preventing us establishing any sensible communication.

jcm

In reply to Ridge:

I wish. Remember the school bike? I only ever got to check her oil.....

I just hate that whole "oooh it's a lifestyle choice". Like a wean is something you get in f***ing IKEA. Wankers.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I was infering that I have an extention and a patio as a result of building/laying the same in order to be granted sexual favours from the Mrs, hense the 2 x kids.

In reply to evs1066:

I was joking, by the way... is the 1066 indicative of anything?

I'm still waiting for the photo though... I looked at the link to Norway above and it only seemed to be a holiday rent ad... no photos, not even a Tony to be seen.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
So why am I still paying taxes? My parents died five years ago:0}

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I think you'll be waiting a long time for the photo.....

Lovlia.. the OP, aka Tony, operates his business from 'TROLL' mountain house southern Norway... I think the clue can be found there...

Probably the best I've witnessed on here..judging by the the amount of hits and continuing replies... I bet he's pissing himself laughing

In reply to Paul Bowen:

He/she could send a Troll photo though? Giving up so quickly seems to indicate a certain lack of character!

In reply to lovlia:

Whilst I realise that this thread has descended into an off topic bun fight, and whilst I believe that had I or any of my friends been put in a similar position to the climber on that flight we would have given up our seat I'm also reminded that it is our choice to act as we like.

Queuing for hours would normally mean that we had endured some kind of sacrifice in order to be seated where we like. I think that the family on this flight displayed a bit of bad form in stamping their feet having missed out on a good position in the queue. I don't think I can judge them by their actions however, and likewise I'm not sure I can judge the climber by his. It's all a bit tabloid this.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I realised this a few years ago, but thanks for making the point better than ever could. I suppose I was being naive in proposing a cash less society based on altruism ((as physically cash doesn't exist, it's dimensionless, or relative; nowadays I think it should be measured in man hours, and it still scales nonetheless)). Your old age is the only thing you need cash for, anything else it's a means to an end.

In reply to an OP:

Shame you can't name and shame, can we play the Yes No game?:

Were they from sheffield?
Or proceed by process of elimination: It wasn't me.

Genius troll if it is.

Thou shalt give up thine bus seat to needy others is the zero'th commandment

Even if there is a slight behavioural argument saying if you gave your seat up to everyone on Ryanair you'd be encouraging them to rely on others' good will in future rather than on themselves, and may even be encouraging delayed flights. But you'll probably never see them again, so that's so much cock. Anyway:

I have hilarious vision's of Neil or Adrian going "I'm Owen McLough, I could have you killed"

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.howardlyon.com/images/p...

Here's the link you've all been waiting for....

In reply to neilinut:

Neil darling, why would I want to talk about anyone else?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
I must look like a target.

Audi drivers are like BMW drivers without the humility or social grace.

In reply to BrianT:
>


Morning Brian this is why you need to work on the basics, learn the shape of how to bunny hop, no point riding a bike if you can't change direction as and when you need

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Well one definition of 'vicarious' is 'to substitute' ( http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+vicarious&btnG=Goo... ), so I feel I used it well within context as you could substitute the view which I feel you are proposing (people describing having children as a lifestyle choice having to grow their own food in retirement) with that which you were admonishing (you don't like people describing having children as a lifestyle choice), but I'm not going to be drawn in to a petty slanging match about vocabulary by being patronised.


Personally I don't think there is any need to have some children. Human beings are neither the goal, nor the end point of evolution by natural selection, we're just one species, there are millions (billions) of others. There are more species that have gone extinct than are extant. Extinction is a necessary and integral component of evolution. Yes H. sapiens would die out if no one reproduced, but that wouldn't be the end of life on earth. But this is a side issue that isn't relevant to what wrankled me about your post.



Well then I must be a very stupid poster, but lets have a look at what you wrote...

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Implicit although somewhat occluded in this statement you are saying that there won't be _anyone_ (be it an individuals own offspring, or other people's) around to look after people in their twilight years if they believe that having children is a 'lifestyle choice'. (At least thats how I read it).

This is simply ridiculous, whether individuals choose to have children or not, there will be a younger generation, as some people choose to have children, others have them unplanned and so forth. Quite why you think that people who believe that having children is a (lifestyle) choice won't have any state/private pension or family* around to help look after them in their old age is what I could not fathom and is what I took issue with.

I get the impression that you perhaps didn't like the use of 'lifestyle' used by co1ps in the first instance, and that you interpreted it as being somewhat off-hand and belittling, implying that they are as interchangeable as other fashion accessories such as gucci bags of soft velvet toilet paper. However, the fact is that having children IS a choice as we are sentient beings who are self aware and have the ability to use contraception, and is something that you acknowledged in one of your posts above. People who acknowledge that choice are not going to be ostracised from society and will get a state pension (hopefully) plus any private pension they have and won't have to grow their own food (although it may be a pasttime that they enjoy in retirement).

Its been fun having a bit of banter, you have explained in other posts what you meant, and its clearer now. Hopefully I've explained clearly why I had a problem with your above post. Apologies for not replying yesterday (I left work early and this is the fisrt opportunity I've had to reply).


* Note that whilst acknowledging that you have a choice does NOT in anyway pre-determine the choice that you will make, some people choose to have children, others not to.

In reply to lovlia:

Not really UKC's finest, this thread.

JCM is becoming Sloper (maybe it's a professional thing?).
BrianT is becoming JCT.

Nobody really listens to the points others are making, so it all descends into name calling and pedantry.

Seems like a lot of noise because somebody wouldn't change seat.

I'd have changed seat, but I don't think I'd have started a thread because someone wouldn't. Maybe we should all go outside and play in the exhilarating winter sunshine?

John

In reply to Moacs:

That's right. And when my tranformation is complete, I'm looking forward to hot lesbian sex with the 'real' jct

In reply to slacky:

>Well one definition of 'vicarious' is 'to substitute'

FFS. In addition to my previous suggestion, can I propose you look up 'adjective' and 'verb' as well? And while you're at it, rankled.

jcm

In reply to Moacs:
I think that should say; "name-calling and pedantry."

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

No as I said above, I won't be drawn into petty arguments over grammar/spelling. I apologise if I have upset you by using words inappropriately.

As I said above you've explained what you meant by your post, and I've explained (hopefully clearly enough, despite any grammatical or spelling errors that may exist) why I took issue with it.

If all you can do is nitpick on grammar and spelling, rather than responding in a mature manner to the main body of last post in which I explained why I took issue with what you wrote then I've no desire to continue this discourse.

In reply to Lord of Starkness:

Seriously cool car!

In reply to Moacs:

At last, sense!

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
I've worked extremely hard not to burden the state with my pension provision, as well as healthcare and pretty well everything else etc. The world population explosion would seem to indicate I'll have no problem finding someone to grow food (if there's enough to go round).
I don't think it takes a genius to see that population control is a major part of climate change control.

In reply to lovlia:

Dunno, maybe the guy had already been hen pecked all week.

Fex.