The being nice thread, remember chums?
Cras wrote:
The being nice thread, remember chums?
Yeah, it's gone off topic because he's a twit.
TheVision wrote:
I was lucky in that I never had to do that. They all paid me exactly what they said they would and I only had to chase one. I thought I'd have problems with that but they apologized and then paid it.
But I didn't even have that hassle. The points went swimmingly
The one problem I did has was when I fucked up a game, (I think I pressed "bet everything") and lost, asked about it, and they cancelled the bet and gave me the money back!
Wasn't expecting that.
I got an XBOX 360 and a few other things out of it. And was loads of money up at the end too
Malc
If it wasn't for Stu and his site I might never have met you guys. 
Goddess Jasmine wrote:
If it wasn't for Stu and his site I might never have met you guys.
BEING! NICE! THREAD!
Joans wrote:
Goddess Jasmine wrote:
If it wasn't for Stu and his site I might never have met you guys.
BEING! NICE! THREAD!
:like:
Joans wrote:
Goddess Jasmine wrote:
If it wasn't for Stu and his site I might never have met you guys.
BEING! NICE! THREAD!
So you like a guy because he showed you a way to make money.
OOOOO K.
OOOOO K.
We're all private dancers now.
JohnCoffey wrote:
So you like a guy because he showed you a way to make money.
OOOOO K.
OOOOO K.
I don't think Joan's is that rich, actually. And I'm sure she sees some other passable qualities in him.
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
And you say he writes about politics now? Fucking shocker.
that gave me a good old chuckle. In the spirit of the thread I'll say the nicest thing I can say about him. He's a twat. A small-minded bitter twat now funded by other small-minded bitter twats. He closed his old forums because it no longer served him. No nostalgia, no posterity, just no longer any chumps to claw £2 a month off for zero output. Since SNP cunts love a good demagogue and will throw money at him all day long he's set up, and fuck anyone who used to support him.
</nice>
Whilst I disagree with him entirely about Scottish secession, I can't help but be impressed that he's been able to make a career out of this. Wonder if he'll ever run for office?
Kern wrote:
Whilst I disagree with him entirely about Scottish secession, I can't help but be impressed that he's been able to make a career out of this. Wonder if he'll ever run for office?
Oh god, I'd love it.
But he wouldn't have the gumption.
Scottish Nationalism is unique in its fervour and tribal small-mindedness. Disenchanted chip-on-shoulder oiks that rail against anything resembling 'the system' and the English, particularly Westminster. Appealing to that mentality can't be difficult, you just have to represent that line of thinking while consistently holding up examples of how those English bastards are still English bastards and the views will come pouring in. insisting it's just all about the politics and nothing to do with anglophobia is a thin veneer of bullshit that fools very few people.
The real winner was in saying 'Hey look, I clearly do this on a daily basis anyway but unless you give me money I'll have to stop' - and that wasn't exactly a flare of genius. It was the same old money-grubbing Stu doing the old 'it now needs to be £2 a month' gambit, but this time against an audience primed and stupid enough to fall for it hook, line and sinker. He's practically a demi-god to them now which says all you need to know about the whole Nationalist movement.
The real winner was in saying 'Hey look, I clearly do this on a daily basis anyway but unless you give me money I'll have to stop' - and that wasn't exactly a flare of genius. It was the same old money-grubbing Stu doing the old 'it now needs to be £2 a month' gambit, but this time against an audience primed and stupid enough to fall for it hook, line and sinker. He's practically a demi-god to them now which says all you need to know about the whole Nationalist movement.
Does he still live in England?
Zardoz wrote:
Does he still live in England?
Why would he want to live in such a rat infested shit hole?
lmao.
Hearthly wrote:
Ahhh yes, holding a grudge for many years - that's what marks him out as the bastard here.
I don't need to hold a grudge for years to think he's a knob, because he's a knob today, in real time. The anecdote I chose as an illustrative example is admittedly old but it's such an impressive one I think it's worth mentioning. Also holding a grudge implies I am angry about him. I'm not, I just think he's a knob.
I don't hold grudges because nobody lives rent free in my head.
They do in DavPaz's.
The cRPG addict has been doing some catchup with contemporary reviews of the games he writes on his blog. He has taken issue with some of Stu's review for Amiga power, but since he's American he's clueless of who he is.
I don't know how Stu hasn't materialized yet in the comments section insulting everyone.
Here's an example (specially in the comments):
http://crpgaddict.blogspot.pt/2014/09/s ... ating.html
I don't know how Stu hasn't materialized yet in the comments section insulting everyone.
Here's an example (specially in the comments):
http://crpgaddict.blogspot.pt/2014/09/s ... ating.html
RuySan wrote:
I don't know how Stu hasn't materialized yet in the comments section insulting everyone.
That would be fun, wouldn't it.
Bloody hell, some of you still have grudges going back over 7 years! That cant be healthy, that poisons you, not him.
If you cant say anything nice about him, dont hit submit.
I think Hearthly, Cras, Joans and Goddess Jasmine already said it really.
If you cant say anything nice about him, dont hit submit.
I think Hearthly, Cras, Joans and Goddess Jasmine already said it really.
Hearthly wrote:
Ahhh yes, holding a grudge for many years - that's what marks him out as the bastard here.
Having a strong opinion that isn't of the majority opinion makes you a bastard here.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/clique
No, it doesn't, people would happily tolerate you spouting your drivel if you weren't constantly lecturing them and coming across as a patronising arsehole.
markg wrote:
No, it doesn't, people would happily tolerate you spouting your drivel if you weren't constantly lecturing them and coming across as a patronising arsehole.
Yep, absolutely
. Despite your desperate desire to believe it the problem here isn't us: it's totally you. You do talk a load of shite which doesn't help but as mark says that would be fine; what isn't fine is that your attitude towards everyone else here is terrible. 
To be fair, his drivel posting is tolerated. It is the rest of the crap that gets on people's nerves and even that is tolerated. I can't think of many places where the only input someone has is to slate every other member, openly admit that you are trying to insult them, and apparently dislike everyone and everything about the place, that would allow him to continue posting that bile and still maintain a (generally) responsive attitude towards that person.
Fear not, your ruthless moderators are on the case!
But we're not going to do anything
But we're not going to do anything
Grim... wrote:
But we're not going to do anything
No action required.
I like some of you, but not the ones who throw a rock at me then sprint off.
It's called having an alternative opinion - politics is a dirty game for example and requires a thick skin. I have one, some here dont.
Perjorative terms like "drivel" and "shite" wont exactly get a friendly reply from me now will they?
Anyway, even some who hate me, may agree with some of my opinions on films or games.
This thread is about being nice to Rev Stu btw
Stu set this up yesterday :
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/a-sm ... ity#/story
That's a nice thing isn't it ?
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/a-sm ... ity#/story
That's a nice thing isn't it ?
Wow... That's a lot of money raised!
BertyBasset wrote:
Stu set this up yesterday :
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/a-sm ... ity#/story
That's a nice thing isn't it ?
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/a-sm ... ity#/story
That's a nice thing isn't it ?
That sort of thing sits uncomfortably with me. Mainly, because it appears to forward the notion that there are some criminal acts that are acceptable under certain circumstances (leading to the not unreasonable proposition of "Is it a crime to draw lots to kill and eat your shipmate if you are adrift at sea?"), and that can then become certain rules for certain people and you've moved the goalposts around for some not others.
The publicity he has garnered has been a success, at least.
Grim... wrote:
Fear not, your ruthless moderators are on the case!
But we're not going to do anything
But we're not going to do anything
Wouldn't expect or want you to.
MaliA wrote:
That sort of thing sits uncomfortably with me. Mainly, because it appears to forward the notion that there are some criminal acts that are acceptable under certain circumstances
I'd say it's a given that some criminal acts are acceptable under certain circumstances, the statute books are plagued by what are clearly bad laws that I don't believe people have any particular obligation to obey 'just because it says so'.
In fact, the lives of normal people are only as comfortable as they are these days, and we only enjoy the rights that we do, because the generations before us openly and necessarily violated the laws of the time.
Unlawful protest and/or behaviour is a must sometimes.
In this woman's case I'd say she didn't do anything wrong in stealing 75p's worth of Mars bars.
Hearthly wrote:
MaliA wrote:
That sort of thing sits uncomfortably with me. Mainly, because it appears to forward the notion that there are some criminal acts that are acceptable under certain circumstances
I'd say it's a given that some criminal acts are acceptable under certain circumstances, the statute books are plagued by what are clearly bad laws that I don't believe people have any particular obligation to obey 'just because it says so'.
In fact, the lives of normal people are only as comfortable as they are these days, and we only enjoy the rights that we do, because the generations before us openly and necessarily violated the laws of the time.
Unlawful protest and/or behaviour is a must sometimes.
In this woman's case I'd say she didn't do anything wrong in stealing 75p's worth of Mars bars.
Where would you draw the line? Both in value of goods pilfered, and circumstances. £5 as you're waiting for payday? £10 just until the end of the month?
MaliA wrote:
BertyBasset wrote:
Stu set this up yesterday :
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/a-sm ... ity#/story
That's a nice thing isn't it ?
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/a-sm ... ity#/story
That's a nice thing isn't it ?
That sort of thing sits uncomfortably with me.
I'm sure it does. You can afford to sit and ponder on it from a purely academic point of view. Others are not so lucky.
MaliA wrote:
Where would you draw the line? Both in value of goods pilfered, and circumstances. £5 as you're waiting for payday? £10 just until the end of the month?
I think it should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, which is sort of what we have judges and magistrates for, really.
In this case there was a desperate and hungry human being who stole a small amount of chocolate so she had something to eat.
In an ideal world the case would have been dismissed.
Personally I think there are circumstances where theft is entirely morally justified, as indeed on this occasion. There must be an asymptote whereby a differential between have and have not, in a civilised society cannot be exceeded, otherwise rule of law - an abstract construct requiring and dependent on universal buy in afterall - must break down. Revolutions happen for a reason and history shows many of these have been necessary, and justified.
This woman has to eat. If you take away completely all her income and therefore access to any resources what are her options left to feed herself? Prostitution? Begging in the street? Theft? To my mind it is absurd to use any sanction, for any reason, that is tantamount to giving someone precisely no choice but to commit crime to survive; it is nothing less than a create-a-crime incitement on the part of the State.
Some years ago, the cops rigged up a flash car, deliberately left all the doors open and parked it under surveillance in rough parts of town, like some 'steal me' advert. The people they nicked got off though because the magistrate ruled create-a-crime was itself unlawful, rightly so.
All things considered this woman's actions were very moderate IMO, and the convicting court a bunch of inhuman, unthinking and impractical dicks. As for Stu, fair play to him as I've said directly on his blog, and have donated.
There are red lines here and they've surely been crossed.
This woman has to eat. If you take away completely all her income and therefore access to any resources what are her options left to feed herself? Prostitution? Begging in the street? Theft? To my mind it is absurd to use any sanction, for any reason, that is tantamount to giving someone precisely no choice but to commit crime to survive; it is nothing less than a create-a-crime incitement on the part of the State.
Some years ago, the cops rigged up a flash car, deliberately left all the doors open and parked it under surveillance in rough parts of town, like some 'steal me' advert. The people they nicked got off though because the magistrate ruled create-a-crime was itself unlawful, rightly so.
All things considered this woman's actions were very moderate IMO, and the convicting court a bunch of inhuman, unthinking and impractical dicks. As for Stu, fair play to him as I've said directly on his blog, and have donated.
There are red lines here and they've surely been crossed.
Good post Cavey, and I also learned a new word - asymptote!
Hearthly wrote:
Good post Cavey, and I also learned a new word - asymptote!
Hey man, I have my uses! Once an engineer always an engineer.
Serious matter, though, makes you think and start to really question everything, really.
Hearthly wrote:
In an ideal world the case would have been dismissed.
Your ideal world has low standards
He said it was necessary, not sufficient.
..........................................
Why did she get sanctioned?
Mr Russell wrote:
Why did she get sanctioned?
Shoplifting
The good Reverend, doing God's work: http://m.bathchronicle.co.uk/Mars-Bar/s ... story.html
I think it IS a great thing, and if you gave a knack for drumming up support and publicity, this is one way of putting those skills to good use.
Yes, nobody has mentioned why her benefits were sanctioned, and I think there are probably bits of this story missing in the presentation, but there's no good reason why anyone should go hungry in 2015, in the UK, and there have been some ridiculous examples of benefits sanctioning before now.
It does say that the woman was given food bank vouchers at least, but she went whilst it was shut. No good for her in terms of food for then and there, but it's at least something that she should have had access for food, so hopefully not too widespread an occurrence
I think it IS a great thing, and if you gave a knack for drumming up support and publicity, this is one way of putting those skills to good use.
Yes, nobody has mentioned why her benefits were sanctioned, and I think there are probably bits of this story missing in the presentation, but there's no good reason why anyone should go hungry in 2015, in the UK, and there have been some ridiculous examples of benefits sanctioning before now.
It does say that the woman was given food bank vouchers at least, but she went whilst it was shut. No good for her in terms of food for then and there, but it's at least something that she should have had access for food, so hopefully not too widespread an occurrence
Mimi wrote:
Yes, nobody has mentioned why her benefits were sanctioned, and I think there are probably bits of this story missing in the presentation, but there's no good reason why anyone should go hungry in 2015, in the UK, and there have been some ridiculous examples of benefits sanctioning before now.
There are endless reports in the media of benefits sanctioning for the most bullshit of reasons: http://stupidsanctions.tumblr.com/ There's an interview here with an alleged mole who claims the target-driven culture imposes harsh targets on the Job Centre staff for quotas of sanctions. The inhumanity of it all appals me. Achilles wrote:
I suppose it's just a esoteric topic on a thread until it happens to a friend or family member - then, and only then, it will become a real issue to you.
A similar monetary situation and struggle to eat and cope has been part of the life of someone who is a good friend to many of us on here; someone many of us know personally. They didn't steal, no, and eventually managed with the help of food donations and a couple of forum peeps taking them out shopping when they were able to make contact, but whilst waiting for a problem processing a crisis loan they never had food for, I think, six days.
So not so esoteric, and nobody said it wasn't a real problem, but that shouldn't stop discussion.
I understand MaliA's uncomfortableness to some degree; I think for some people not knowing all the facts (why the sanction, how long had she had the food bank vouchers, why couldn't she attend when it was open? Is it her first shoplifting offence or 300th?) will obscure the facts for some. Others can look straight beyond this to the eventual outcome and back to the problem source.
I think it's a good cause. I hope that the money is put to good use both for this woman and in supporting food banks as stated. More pressingly, that we still have cases of people unable to eat for days is something that needs highlighting, and if this brings it to press attention on any level then in that manner, at least, it has achieved a great thing.
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Mimi wrote:
Yes, nobody has mentioned why her benefits were sanctioned, and I think there are probably bits of this story missing in the presentation, but there's no good reason why anyone should go hungry in 2015, in the UK, and there have been some ridiculous examples of benefits sanctioning before now.
There are endless reports in the media of benefits sanctioning for the most bullshit of reasons: http://stupidsanctions.tumblr.com/ There's an interview here with an alleged mole who claims the target-driven culture imposes harsh targets on the Job Centre staff for quotas of sanctions. The inhumanity of it all appals me.Yes, those were the ridiculous examples I was speaking of. The problem is that so much is process rather than person-driven. With just some common sense and compassion so many ridiculous sanctions could and should be avoided, but that would take common sense and compassion, and the new system doesn't seem to allow for things that fall outside of the heat little labelled boxes of the banal.
I wonder if it isn't so ridiculous a case in this example, however, as surely the media reports and subsequent campaign would have very much highlighted that? At least, I hope they would have, if just to bring that element of it to attention, too.
Men do not despise a thief if he steals to satisfy himself when he is hungry.