Ahhh, false modesty
You're assuming that I'm even talking about you. And anyway, its more a case of me seeing through your poor attempts to get out of this with your pride intact and without seeming a massive hypocrite than me trying to score points for acting tough in any way.
Do you realise just how boring it is when people start arguments then try to play the victim to get the sympathy vote, everyone does it ands its not clever.
Give them a medal, noble heores of the internet.
You obviously cared enough to start this, so what has changed since then that makes it so unimportant to you now? Don't try to cop out, if you're so correct then why are you trying to get out of what you started?
Odd how you started off as the serious one, pulling me up for a minor issue, and now you're trying to pretend that you're not uptight at all?
Being an ignorant arse and then trying to pass it off as some edgy opinion is also another cop out, yes you have a right to be wrong, but that dosen't mean you should be for the sake of your own vanity.
You obviously cared enough to start this, so what has changed since then that makes it so unimportant to you now? Don't try to cop out, if you're so correct then why are you trying to get out of what you started?
Odd how you started off as the serious one, pulling me up for a minor issue, and now you're trying to pretend that you're not uptight at all?
Being an ignorant arse and then trying to pass it off as some edgy opinion is also another cop out, yes you have a right to be wrong, but that dosen't mean you should be for the sake of your own vanity.
Last edited by 5haz, .
Thats not the issue, the point is naming names dosen't make you any bigger a person when you consider that the whole thing is done behind a big facade, so theres little point in you trying to make yourself feel better by accusing others of weakness, especially if you can't even lead by example.
Come on now, we both know thats bullshit. Somebody following your shining example would be responsible enough to own up to it as well, but we've already established that you're not going to practise what you preach.
Essentially you're preaching to me how I should behave according to you, like some kind of self styled evangelist, don't try to pretend that you had anything remotely relevant and impersonal to say. And don't try to portray yourself as some high and mighty figure who always plays by the book, you're no better than the rest of us when it comes to arguing over the internet. The moral high ground is not yours no matter how much you pretend it is.
Yeah I'd have the spine to identify a false identity, from behind my own false identity, thats the mark of somene who knows how to stand up for themselves!
I'm sorry that we can't all follow your high and noble example, I'm sure you're doing the world good by demanding we all man up and get a spine...
...on a rotten corner of the internet, behind a false identity, behind a keyboard, many miles away.
Hang on, you were pulling me up for insulting someone, then you're making snide comments about not being able to yourself? Not only that but you didn't even name the person the above was aimed at. If you're going to lay down the supreme internet law to me at least follow your own ****ing example.
Last edited by 5haz, .
Its an ironic term for that exact reason, I assumed you'd be able to grasp the irony of it. Directly naming someone over the internet is in no way bolder than not doing so, which makes me wonder why you feel the need to question the state of other poster's marbles, as if somehow mentioning names would make a poster more badass in some imagined way.
Sorry, we can't all be internet hard men. I'm sure you would have no regrets about directly naming and insulting people many miles away behind a false identity, because I'm sure thats the kind of thing people who have massive marbles do.
Last edited by 5haz, .
Exactly, I'd say a lack of updates isn't the biggest issue LFS has, its the number of massive pricks that inhabit its community, a problem which seems to have got much worse lately, and we all know who the usual suspects are.
Absolutely, great now they've given him a bigger budget and a place on BBC2
Last edited by 5haz, .
May have to, good old Lock on was almost too realistic for its own good back in the day. 
Sorry, its late and I couldn't be bothered to add that I realise its not a constant upward curve, also I know people who've had relatives that have only discovered they have Alzheimer's after they crashed a car, quite worrying really.
Also with experience theres always the opportunity for bad habits and complacency to creep in. There are always those more experienced drivers who feel completely comfortable with taking vastly uneccesary risks yet still complain about this 'boy racer' stereotype at the same time.
Also with experience theres always the opportunity for bad habits and complacency to creep in. There are always those more experienced drivers who feel completely comfortable with taking vastly uneccesary risks yet still complain about this 'boy racer' stereotype at the same time.
And thats why you could justify not discriminating by gender but still be able to justify discriminating by age/experience, which there is a much more valid case for IMO.
Oh how conveniant
Too much of this issue is based on 'they' and 'in general'.
I wonder if that view is based on real experience or a well-worn stereotype? Probrably the latter.
I will not be told how I am going to drive when I haven't driven since the day I passed my driving test.
If the market is regulated suitably what few insurance companies are left wont be allowed to charge to suit their needs, and if this means they have to change their model of operation to survive (beyond simply charging more) then so be it, the cost dosen't have to be passed on to the consumer, that only happens because businesses are too lazy to adapt.
Different industries need different levels of regulation, ranging from nationalisation to almost completely hands-off, an industry that directly affects the livelihoods of so many people to such a great extent should never be allowed to be a free for all.
Last edited by 5haz, .
I can see why a small difference in premiums could be justified because the statistical trends are pretty clear to see, but my insurance for a 1970 Minor 1000 being double that of my sister driving a '94 Astra is just ridiculous. There needs to be undisputed scientific proof that male drivers are always more dangerous for them to justify such a huge gap, and there isn't any.
I think we're more likely to see women's fees rising than men's dropping, insurance companies are probrably clapping their hands together at the potential excuse to grab even more money because the ruling is worded wrong.
Because for every boy racer there is another lad of the same age who has a car rusting in the garage because he or his parents can't afford to pay ridiculous premiums. And for every safe women driver there is another who drives like my sister. Essentially the whole car insurance industry is based on stereotypes, drivers are judged before they even turn a wheel.
And higher premiums means a greater percentage of young male drivers on the road who can even afford to modify their cars, driving premiums up further.
Insurers should not be allowed to determine premiums based on risk until they have justification on an individual basis, after say a year or two of driving.
I think we're more likely to see women's fees rising than men's dropping, insurance companies are probrably clapping their hands together at the potential excuse to grab even more money because the ruling is worded wrong.
Because for every boy racer there is another lad of the same age who has a car rusting in the garage because he or his parents can't afford to pay ridiculous premiums. And for every safe women driver there is another who drives like my sister. Essentially the whole car insurance industry is based on stereotypes, drivers are judged before they even turn a wheel.
And higher premiums means a greater percentage of young male drivers on the road who can even afford to modify their cars, driving premiums up further.
Insurers should not be allowed to determine premiums based on risk until they have justification on an individual basis, after say a year or two of driving.
Last edited by 5haz, .
Thing is, the native population is exactly the same, there are millions of British people who complain about the country, never learn to speak, read or write properly. Who have no skills and lounge around doing nothing, we build churches in high streets and giant cathedrals in cities, often overseas in other people's back yards.
People are just as useless anywhere. Nationality is just a man made label, part of the human obsession with wanting to categorise everything and it makes no difference. Infact its the concept of nationality which helps keep people apart and quality of life inequal which is why we get so much immigration to start with.
Last edited by 5haz, .
Social networking is both completely useless and really useful.
I don't know, have nothing against them just I prefer Kyuss, QOTSA and Vultures, not my main area of music really. I have quite a varied taste (if you consider mostly rock influence to be 'varied').
Last edited by 5haz, .
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG