Golden Gate Bridge Suicide Net Plan Gets Boost

by Guest Wed Jun 25, 2014 6:12 pm

First topic message reminder :

It is hoped a net made of stainless steel cable extending below and from the side of the span will save hundreds of lives.

Officials say they have funds to build a suicide-prevention net at San Francisco Bay's Golden Gate Bridge where two jump to their deaths each month.

The bridge's board of directors will vote on Friday on the plan, which has been debated since the 1950s.

One of the obstacles - the price tag - fell away on Monday as officials announced they had $76m (£45m) for the project.

Most of the new money comes from federal transport programmes, while the rest will be paid out of the bridge's own reserves and state mental health funding.

The bridge district's plan calls for a net made of stainless steel cable extending 20ft below and 20ft from the side of the span.

Anyone who jumps from the span might be injured but would probably survive the fall, say officials.

"For whatever reason, suicidal people don't want to hurt themselves," Dennis Mulligan, the bridge district's general manager, told KTVU-TV.

"At other locations where nets have been up no individual has jumped into the net."

More than 1,400 people have leapt to their deaths from the 4,200-ft suspension bridge since it opened in 1937.

Every year, scores of people contemplating suicide are coaxed not to jump from the span.

On average, there are two suicides a month at the structure.

The Bridge Rail Foundation, which tracks fatalities on the span, said 46 people committed suicide there last year.

Backers of the suicide net were boosted in 2012 when President Barack Obama signed a transportation bill allowing federal funds to flow to the project.

http://news.sky.com/story/1288528/golden-gate-bridge-suicide-net-plan-gets-boost

Good idea, if people want to kill themselves they don't want to do something that will hurt them but not kill them, so it sounds logical.

by Guest Sun Jul 13, 2014 5:47 pm

Well lets see if Lovedust can answer after the hundredth time

there is no evidence to connect here, they are again just going off a decrease overall, but clearly on all of the reports the suicide jumpers rate increases in areas close by.
You have avoided my opinion and questions, then just asked more questions yourself or just copied what others have said. I do not mind you using experts to back your view, but you use them as debate, where they cannot be responded to, that is a flawed philosophy in debating and proves you know little on the subject, you just believe what they say.
I deem what experts are claiming as flawed on claiming that a net will make a person who is suicidal give up on the idea, because just one place has a net, that is flawed and they come to this conclusion based on an overall decrease in a set time period, not ruling out if it is in fact other factors that have created this decrease. Again in Toronto, the numbers doubled for other areas near by where people jumped. The nets will deter people jumping on that bridge and save accidents which I am glad for that benefit to help, they will not though and there is no evidence to link they will reduce suicide rates overall or stop people using other methods, when again world wide the numbers have increased by 60%.
Again human intervention is best, for helping people and deterring people from trying.
So can you show me on any of these reports they have ruled out other factors that have could have created the decrease overall in an area over that short time period? Can they explain why it does increase again, if as claimed suicide nets put people off altogether attempting suicide? Can they explain why jumping increases nearby on other buildings, if it s meant to put people off attempting suicide altogether?

So I have asked you again questions, here, I would like to see some answers for a change

by Guest Sun Jul 13, 2014 6:31 pm

Dunno what Didge is saying, but I thought he wanted this stopped?

by Guest Sun Jul 13, 2014 6:37 pm

Phildidge wrote:Well lets see if Lovedust can answer after the hundredth time

there is no evidence to connect here, they are again just going off a decrease overall, but clearly on all of the reports the suicide jumpers rate increases in areas close by.
You have avoided my opinion and questions, then just asked more questions yourself or just copied what others have said. I do not mind you using experts to back your view, but you use them as debate, where they cannot be responded to, that is a flawed philosophy in debating and proves you know little on the subject, you just believe what they say.
I deem what experts are claiming as flawed on claiming that a net will make a person who is suicidal give up on the idea, because just one place has a net, that is flawed and they come to this conclusion based on an overall decrease in a set time period, not ruling out if it is in fact other factors that have created this decrease. Again in Toronto, the numbers doubled for other areas near by where people jumped. The nets will deter people jumping on that bridge and save accidents which I am glad for that benefit to help, they will not though and there is no evidence to link they will reduce suicide rates overall or stop people using other methods, when again world wide the numbers have increased by 60%.
Again human intervention is best, for helping people and deterring people from trying.
So can you show me on any of these reports they have ruled out other factors that have could have created the decrease overall in an area over that short time period? Can they explain why it does increase again, if as claimed suicide nets put people off altogether attempting suicide? Can they explain why jumping increases nearby on other buildings, if it s meant to put people off attempting suicide altogether?

So I have asked you again questions, here, I would like to see some answers for a change

But they can't possibly show that didge. By your reasoning, studies on suicide prevention are invalid unless they take into account
all factors, like economic situations, financial, relationship situations, levels of bullying, depression etc

Phildidge wrote:
lovedust wrote:

Actually Didge the other factors the experts took into account include:

1) Public Education Campaigns
2) Primary Care Physicians
3) Gatekeepers
4) Screening
5) Pharmacotherapy
6) Psychotherapy
7) Follow-up care following suicide attempts
and
Media Blackouts

and they still concluded "restricting access to lethal methods reduce[s] suicide rates".

Sorry but you are very mistaken, that is not taking into all factors, like economic situations, financial, relationship situations, levels of bullying, depression etc

So do the studies on which you have based your opinion take into account all factors like economic situations, financial, relationship situations, levels of bullying, depression etc?

by Guest Sun Jul 13, 2014 6:39 pm

Phildidge wrote:Well lets see if Lovedust can answer after the hundredth time

there is no evidence to connect here, they are again just going off a decrease overall, but clearly on all of the reports the suicide jumpers rate increases in areas close by.
You have avoided my opinion and questions, then just asked more questions yourself or just copied what others have said. I do not mind you using experts to back your view, but you use them as debate, where they cannot be responded to, that is a flawed philosophy in debating and proves you know little on the subject, you just believe what they say.
I deem what experts are claiming as flawed on claiming that a net will make a person who is suicidal give up on the idea, because just one place has a net, that is flawed and they come to this conclusion based on an overall decrease in a set time period, not ruling out if it is in fact other factors that have created this decrease. Again in Toronto, the numbers doubled for other areas near by where people jumped. The nets will deter people jumping on that bridge and save accidents which I am glad for that benefit to help, they will not though and there is no evidence to link they will reduce suicide rates overall or stop people using other methods, when again world wide the numbers have increased by 60%.
Again human intervention is best, for helping people and deterring people from trying.
So can you show me on any of these reports they have ruled out other factors that have could have created the decrease overall in an area over that short time period? Can they explain why it does increase again, if as claimed suicide nets put people off altogether attempting suicide? Can they explain why jumping increases nearby on other buildings, if it s meant to put people off attempting suicide altogether?

So I have asked you again questions, here, I would like to see some answers for a change

Still no answers what you provided is not all factors as I keep saying, so

Try again

by Guest Sun Jul 13, 2014 6:40 pm

lovedust wrote:
Phildidge wrote:Well lets see if Lovedust can answer after the hundredth time

there is no evidence to connect here, they are again just going off a decrease overall, but clearly on all of the reports the suicide jumpers rate increases in areas close by.
You have avoided my opinion and questions, then just asked more questions yourself or just copied what others have said. I do not mind you using experts to back your view, but you use them as debate, where they cannot be responded to, that is a flawed philosophy in debating and proves you know little on the subject, you just believe what they say.
I deem what experts are claiming as flawed on claiming that a net will make a person who is suicidal give up on the idea, because just one place has a net, that is flawed and they come to this conclusion based on an overall decrease in a set time period, not ruling out if it is in fact other factors that have created this decrease. Again in Toronto, the numbers doubled for other areas near by where people jumped. The nets will deter people jumping on that bridge and save accidents which I am glad for that benefit to help, they will not though and there is no evidence to link they will reduce suicide rates overall or stop people using other methods, when again world wide the numbers have increased by 60%.
Again human intervention is best, for helping people and deterring people from trying.
So can you show me on any of these reports they have ruled out other factors that have could have created the decrease overall in an area over that short time period? Can they explain why it does increase again, if as claimed suicide nets put people off altogether attempting suicide? Can they explain why jumping increases nearby on other buildings, if it s meant to put people off attempting suicide altogether?

So I have asked you again questions, here, I would like to see some answers for a change

But they can't possibly show that didge. By your reasoning, studies on suicide prevention are invalid unless they take into account
all factors, like economic situations, financial, relationship situations, levels of bullying, depression etc
lovedust wrote:

Sorry but you are very mistaken, that is not taking into all factors, like economic situations, financial, relationship situations, levels of bullying, depression etc

So do the studies on which you have based your opinion take into account all factors like economic situations, financial, relationship situations, levels of bullying, depression etc?

Evening Lovey. You have the patience of a saint.

by Guest Sun Jul 13, 2014 6:41 pm

Phildidge wrote:Well lets see if Lovedust can answer after the hundredth time

there is no evidence to connect here, they are again just going off a decrease overall, but clearly on all of the reports the suicide jumpers rate increases in areas close by.
You have avoided my opinion and questions, then just asked more questions yourself or just copied what others have said. I do not mind you using experts to back your view, but you use them as debate, where they cannot be responded to, that is a flawed philosophy in debating and proves you know little on the subject, you just believe what they say.
I deem what experts are claiming as flawed on claiming that a net will make a person who is suicidal give up on the idea, because just one place has a net, that is flawed and they come to this conclusion based on an overall decrease in a set time period, not ruling out if it is in fact other factors that have created this decrease. Again in Toronto, the numbers doubled for other areas near by where people jumped. The nets will deter people jumping on that bridge and save accidents which I am glad for that benefit to help, they will not though and there is no evidence to link they will reduce suicide rates overall or stop people using other methods, when again world wide the numbers have increased by 60%.
Again human intervention is best, for helping people and deterring people from trying.
So can you show me on any of these reports they have ruled out other factors that have could have created the decrease overall in an area over that short time period? Can they explain why it does increase again, if as claimed suicide nets put people off altogether attempting suicide? Can they explain why jumping increases nearby on other buildings, if it s meant to put people off attempting suicide altogether?

So I have asked you again questions, here, I would like to see some answers for a change

Still no answers what you provided is not all factors or even the ones I mentioned,as I keep saying, so

Try again[/quote]

by Guest Sun Jul 13, 2014 6:48 pm

Phildidge wrote:
Phildidge wrote:Well lets see if Lovedust can answer after the hundredth time

there is no evidence to connect here, they are again just going off a decrease overall, but clearly on all of the reports the suicide jumpers rate increases in areas close by.
You have avoided my opinion and questions, then just asked more questions yourself or just copied what others have said. I do not mind you using experts to back your view, but you use them as debate, where they cannot be responded to, that is a flawed philosophy in debating and proves you know little on the subject, you just believe what they say.
I deem what experts are claiming as flawed on claiming that a net will make a person who is suicidal give up on the idea, because just one place has a net, that is flawed and they come to this conclusion based on an overall decrease in a set time period, not ruling out if it is in fact other factors that have created this decrease. Again in Toronto, the numbers doubled for other areas near by where people jumped. The nets will deter people jumping on that bridge and save accidents which I am glad for that benefit to help, they will not though and there is no evidence to link they will reduce suicide rates overall or stop people using other methods, when again world wide the numbers have increased by 60%.
Again human intervention is best, for helping people and deterring people from trying.
So can you show me on any of these reports they have ruled out other factors that have could have created the decrease overall in an area over that short time period? Can they explain why it does increase again, if as claimed suicide nets put people off altogether attempting suicide? Can they explain why jumping increases nearby on other buildings, if it s meant to put people off attempting suicide altogether?

So I have asked you again questions, here, I would like to see some answers for a change

Still no answers what you provided is not all factors as I keep saying, so

Try again

1) You claimed that conclusions drawn from studies are invalid if those studies do not take into account "all factors like economic situations, financial, relationship situations, levels of bullying, depression etc".

2) The studies I have quoted do not take into account "all factors like economic situations, financial, relationship situations, levels of bullying, depression etc".

3) The studies you have quoted from also fail to take into account "all factors like economic situations, financial, relationship situations, levels of bullying, depression etc".

Correct?

by Guest Sun Jul 13, 2014 6:49 pm

Phildidge wrote:
Phildidge wrote:Well lets see if Lovedust can answer after the hundredth time

there is no evidence to connect here, they are again just going off a decrease overall, but clearly on all of the reports the suicide jumpers rate increases in areas close by.
You have avoided my opinion and questions, then just asked more questions yourself or just copied what others have said. I do not mind you using experts to back your view, but you use them as debate, where they cannot be responded to, that is a flawed philosophy in debating and proves you know little on the subject, you just believe what they say.
I deem what experts are claiming as flawed on claiming that a net will make a person who is suicidal give up on the idea, because just one place has a net, that is flawed and they come to this conclusion based on an overall decrease in a set time period, not ruling out if it is in fact other factors that have created this decrease. Again in Toronto, the numbers doubled for other areas near by where people jumped. The nets will deter people jumping on that bridge and save accidents which I am glad for that benefit to help, they will not though and there is no evidence to link they will reduce suicide rates overall or stop people using other methods, when again world wide the numbers have increased by 60%.
Again human intervention is best, for helping people and deterring people from trying.
So can you show me on any of these reports they have ruled out other factors that have could have created the decrease overall in an area over that short time period? Can they explain why it does increase again, if as claimed suicide nets put people off altogether attempting suicide? Can they explain why jumping increases nearby on other buildings, if it s meant to put people off attempting suicide altogether?

So I have asked you again questions, here, I would like to see some answers for a change

Still no answers what you provided is not all factors or even the ones I mentioned,as I keep saying, so

Try again

[/quote]

....Didge, JUST ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION MAN!!!!!!! ::rockout::

by Guest Sun Jul 13, 2014 6:52 pm

Joy Division wrote:

....Didge, JUST ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION MAN!!!!!!! ::rockout::

Unless you have anything to add to the debate, move on, you o not direct the debates here, so jog on!

I have throughout answered her questions, she has used a poor tactic to keep asking whilst ignoring my points and not playing her game anymore, if you do not like it that is your problem, but do not jump on where you have nothing to add to the debate

by Guest Sun Jul 13, 2014 6:54 pm

Joy Division wrote:
Phildidge wrote:

Still no answers what you provided is not all factors or even the ones I mentioned,as I keep saying, so

Try again

....Didge, JUST ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION MAN!!!!!!! ::rockout:: [/quote]

I think Lovedust is not only being patient but polite and the answer is Didge doesn't know, has been proved wrong and will do anything to avoid the fact. So it ain't gonna happen JD.

by Guest Sun Jul 13, 2014 6:55 pm

Sassy wrote:
I think Lovedust is not only being patient but polite and the answer is Didge doesn't know, has been proved wrong and will do anything to avoid the fact. So it ain't gonna happen JD.

Didge does know, and if you have me on ignore I suggest you keep to that position you have taken, as some of us wish to abide with Cass's wishes to keep peace on this forum, I suggest you do the same

by Guest Sun Jul 13, 2014 7:07 pm

Phildidge wrote:
Sassy wrote:
I think Lovedust is not only being patient but polite and the answer is Didge doesn't know, has been proved wrong and will do anything to avoid the fact. So it ain't gonna happen JD.

Didge does know, and if you have me on ignore I suggest you keep to that position you have taken, as some of us wish to abide with Cass's wishes to keep peace on this forum, I suggest you do the same

Well said your Didgeship

by Guest Sun Jul 13, 2014 7:10 pm

Nems wrote:
Phildidge wrote:

Didge does know, and if you have me on ignore I suggest you keep to that position you have taken, as some of us wish to abide with Cass's wishes to keep peace on this forum, I suggest you do the same

Well said your Didgeship

Thanks Nems.
Lets repay Cass by trying to all get on.

by Guest Sun Jul 13, 2014 7:18 pm

lovedust wrote:
Phildidge wrote:

Still no answers what you provided is not all factors as I keep saying, so

Try again

1) You claimed that conclusions drawn from studies are invalid if those studies do not take into account "all factors like economic situations, financial, relationship situations, levels of bullying, depression etc".

2) The studies I have quoted do not take into account "all factors like economic situations, financial, relationship situations, levels of bullying, depression etc".

3) The studies you have quoted from also fail to take into account "all factors like economic situations, financial, relationship situations, levels of bullying, depression etc".

Correct?[/quote]

Well, lets just be thankful it's going ahead because it got support from all those that had studied it, and hopefully, once it is put in place, which is a while off yet before it is finished, all those poor sods who have to deal with the suicides now, won't have to deal with them anymore.

by Guest Sun Jul 13, 2014 7:24 pm

Phildidge wrote:

Unless you have anything to add to the debate, move on, you o not direct the debates here, so jog on!

I have throughout answered her questions, she has used a poor tactic to keep asking whilst ignoring my points and not playing her game anymore, if you do not like it that is your problem, but do not jump on where you have nothing to add to the debate

That's odd - I think I've been extremely diligent in answering didge's questions - often multiple times. Can anyone else show me where I've been "poor" or "ignored" didge's points?

In the meantime didge, perhaps you could stop deflecting and answer my question:-

You claimed that conclusions drawn from studies are invalid if those studies do not take into account "all factors like economic situations, financial, relationship situations, levels of bullying, depression etc".

Yet the studies you have quoted from also fail to take into account "all factors like economic situations, financial, relationship situations, levels of bullying, depression etc". Correct?.

by Guest Sun Jul 13, 2014 7:27 pm

lovedust wrote:
Phildidge wrote:

Unless you have anything to add to the debate, move on, you o not direct the debates here, so jog on!

I have throughout answered her questions, she has used a poor tactic to keep asking whilst ignoring my points and not playing her game anymore, if you do not like it that is your problem, but do not jump on where you have nothing to add to the debate

That's odd - I think I've been extremely diligent in answering didge's questions - often multiple times. Can anyone else show me where I've been "poor" or "ignored" didge's points?

In the meantime didge, perhaps you could stop deflecting and answer my question:-

You claimed that conclusions drawn from studies are invalid if those studies do not take into account "all factors like economic situations, financial, relationship situations, levels of bullying, depression etc".

Yet the studies you have quoted from also fail to take into account "all factors like economic situations, financial, relationship situations, levels of bullying, depression etc". Correct?.

I told you I am not playing your childish game, go back and answer my points and questions Lovedust, you seem to think you can direct the debate your way throughout and as stated, you have done this throughout, avoiding countless points and questions and no more am I going to play this poor tactic you use anymore.
You address my points as I have done yours throughout and then the debate continues, it is as simple as that

by Guest Sun Jul 13, 2014 7:31 pm

Phildidge wrote:
Nems wrote:

Well said your Didgeship

Thanks Nems.
Lets repay Cass by trying to all get on.

Indeed

by Guest Sun Jul 13, 2014 7:36 pm

Phildidge wrote:
lovedust wrote:

That's odd - I think I've been extremely diligent in answering didge's questions - often multiple times. Can anyone else show me where I've been "poor" or "ignored" didge's points?

In the meantime didge, perhaps you could stop deflecting and answer my question:-

You claimed that conclusions drawn from studies are invalid if those studies do not take into account "all factors like economic situations, financial, relationship situations, levels of bullying, depression etc".

Yet the studies you have quoted from also fail to take into account "all factors like economic situations, financial, relationship situations, levels of bullying, depression etc". Correct?.

I told you I am not playing your childish game, go back and answer my points and questions Lovedust, you seem to think you can direct the debate your way throughout and as stated, you have done this throughout and no more am I going to play this poor tactic you use.
You address my points as I have done yours throughout and then the debate continues, it is as simple as that

^^Deflection. You seem to have realised that your whole rationale for dismissing studies supportive of The Harvard Public School of Health/John Grohol stance also applies to all the studies you have quoted. Therefore, by logical extension, you must also dismiss your own quoted studies (and their "methodology") as invalid.

Cheers Didge

by Guest Sun Jul 13, 2014 7:37 pm

lovedust wrote:
Phildidge wrote:

I told you I am not playing your childish game, go back and answer my points and questions Lovedust, you seem to think you can direct the debate your way throughout and as stated, you have done this throughout and no more am I going to play this poor tactic you use.
You address my points as I have done yours throughout and then the debate continues, it is as simple as that

^^Deflection. You seem to have realised that your whole rationale for dismissing studies supportive of The Harvard Public School of Health/John Grohol stance also applies to all the studies you have quoted. Therefore, by logical extension, you must also dismiss your own quoted studies (and their "methodology") as invalid.

Cheers Didge

Bye then, I hope when you return you show some maturity and debate the points raised to you.

All the best

by Guest Sun Jul 13, 2014 7:45 pm

lovedust wrote:
Phildidge wrote:

I told you I am not playing your childish game, go back and answer my points and questions Lovedust, you seem to think you can direct the debate your way throughout and as stated, you have done this throughout and no more am I going to play this poor tactic you use.
You address my points as I have done yours throughout and then the debate continues, it is as simple as that

^^Deflection. You seem to have realised that your whole rationale for dismissing studies supportive of The Harvard Public School of Health/John Grohol stance also applies to all the studies you have quoted. Therefore, by logical extension, you must also dismiss your own quoted studies (and their "methodology") as invalid.

Cheers Didge

Exactly. You have been patient, rational, put forward your views with elan and showed how to debate with great maturity. Bet he calls you childish lol

by Guest Sun Jul 13, 2014 7:46 pm

Sassy wrote:
lovedust wrote:

^^Deflection. You seem to have realised that your whole rationale for dismissing studies supportive of The Harvard Public School of Health/John Grohol stance also applies to all the studies you have quoted. Therefore, by logical extension, you must also dismiss your own quoted studies (and their "methodology") as invalid.

Cheers Didge

Exactly.

Thanks.

by Guest Sun Jul 13, 2014 7:49 pm

lovedust wrote:
Sassy wrote:

Exactly.

Thanks.

Like I said it is easy to expose your poor tactics throughout, when you wish to address, my points, I will be happy to continue, but am not going to allow you to continue in such a poor fashion.

by Guest Sun Jul 13, 2014 7:56 pm

Sassy wrote:
lovedust wrote:

^^Deflection. You seem to have realised that your whole rationale for dismissing studies supportive of The Harvard Public School of Health/John Grohol stance also applies to all the studies you have quoted. Therefore, by logical extension, you must also dismiss your own quoted studies (and their "methodology") as invalid.

Cheers Didge

Exactly. You have been patient, rational, put forward your views with elan and showed how to debate with great maturity. Bet he calls you childish lol

Thankyou.

by Guest Sun Jul 13, 2014 7:58 pm

lovedust wrote:
Sassy wrote:

Exactly. You have been patient, rational, put forward your views with elan and showed how to debate with great maturity. Bet he calls you childish lol

Thankyou.

Thanking someone for their mistaken belief you have answered, does not mean you have, the worst part being how you have never even answered why each year suicide rates keep increasing even with all these preventive measures.

As I say, when you wish to actually for once answer my points throughout, will hall continue the debate

by Guest Mon Jul 14, 2014 7:14 pm

To amend my misquote earlier, here's the correct quotation attribution:

lovedust wrote:
Phildidge wrote:Well lets see if Lovedust can answer after the hundredth time

there is no evidence to connect here, they are again just going off a decrease overall, but clearly on all of the reports the suicide jumpers rate increases in areas close by.
You have avoided my opinion and questions, then just asked more questions yourself or just copied what others have said. I do not mind you using experts to back your view, but you use them as debate, where they cannot be responded to, that is a flawed philosophy in debating and proves you know little on the subject, you just believe what they say.
I deem what experts are claiming as flawed on claiming that a net will make a person who is suicidal give up on the idea, because just one place has a net, that is flawed and they come to this conclusion based on an overall decrease in a set time period, not ruling out if it is in fact other factors that have created this decrease. Again in Toronto, the numbers doubled for other areas near by where people jumped. The nets will deter people jumping on that bridge and save accidents which I am glad for that benefit to help, they will not though and there is no evidence to link they will reduce suicide rates overall or stop people using other methods, when again world wide the numbers have increased by 60%.
Again human intervention is best, for helping people and deterring people from trying.
So can you show me on any of these reports they have ruled out other factors that have could have created the decrease overall in an area over that short time period? Can they explain why it does increase again, if as claimed suicide nets put people off altogether attempting suicide? Can they explain why jumping increases nearby on other buildings, if it s meant to put people off attempting suicide altogether?

So I have asked you again questions, here, I would like to see some answers for a change

But they can't possibly show that didge. By your reasoning, studies on suicide prevention are invalid unless they take into account
all factors, like economic situations, financial, relationship situations, levels of bullying, depression etc
Phildidge wrote:

Sorry but you are very mistaken, that is not taking into all factors, like economic situations, financial, relationship situations, levels of bullying, depression etc

So do the studies on which you have based your opinion take into account all factors like economic situations, financial, relationship situations, levels of bullying, depression etc?

by Lone Wolf Mon Jul 14, 2014 7:21 pm

Nems wrote:
Phildidge wrote:
Didge does know, and if you have me on ignore I suggest you keep to that position you have taken, as some of us wish to abide with Cass's wishes to keep peace on this forum, I suggest you do the same

Well said your Didgeship

SASSY'S still as big an interfering know-nothing fuckwit as usual, I notice...

SOME things will never change.. Rolling Eyes

by Guest Mon Jul 14, 2014 7:21 pm

didge - have you left and joined again?

What the hell?

by Guest Mon Jul 14, 2014 7:22 pm

Phildidge wrote:
lovedust wrote:

Thanks.

Like I said it is easy to expose your poor tactics throughout, when you wish to address, my points, I will be happy to continue, but am not going to allow you to continue in such a poor fashion.

Didge , your being condescending with LD here, despite providing you with credible sources, stats etc...

Last I looked in here you were still avoiding one of LD's questions.

This talk of trying to sound overly-knowledgeable doesn't bare well Didge, you don't have to speak down to her like that...and you've obviously took nothing in which LD has said and info supplied , but all you constantly do is more or less answer as....

Neh-neh I'm right , your wrong no matter what , hands are over my ears.
LA-LA-LA.

That's what your doing mate.

by Lone Wolf Mon Jul 14, 2014 7:23 pm

lovedust wrote:
Sassy wrote:

Exactly. You have been patient, rational, put forward your views with elan and showed how to debate with great maturity. Bet he calls you childish lol

Thankyou.

THANKING sassy for being an ignorant fool ???

by Guest Mon Jul 14, 2014 7:25 pm

Lone Wolf wrote:
Nems wrote:

Well said your Didgeship

SASSY'S still as big an interfering know-nothing fuckwit as usual, I notice...

SOME things will never change..

There is almost a comforting familiarity!

by Guest Mon Jul 14, 2014 7:25 pm

Is this now another thread which needs locking, Benji?

lol

Must have been that thread title eh?

Basketball

by Guest Mon Jul 14, 2014 7:28 pm

I see the gang are still ganging and pretending they are not. Come on Didge, tell them to 'move on for the good of the board'. After all, that way you can avoid Lovey's question again.

by Guest Mon Jul 14, 2014 7:29 pm

Sassy wrote:I see the gang are still ganging and pretending they are not. Come on Didge, tell them to 'move on for the good of the board'. After all, that way you can avoid Lovey's question again.

Gangs again?

Has Irn Bru been on yet?
Im still waiting for an answer to my question

by Guest Mon Jul 14, 2014 7:30 pm

Sassy wrote:I see the gang are still ganging and pretending they are not. Come on Didge, tell them to 'move on for the good of the board'. After all, that way you can avoid Lovey's question again.

All this talk of mods - i see mods on the forum but they do nowt - yeah, get another 10 so they too can do feck all!

by Irn Bru Mon Jul 14, 2014 7:32 pm

Nems wrote:
Sassy wrote:I see the gang are still ganging and pretending they are not. Come on Didge, tell them to 'move on for the good of the board'. After all, that way you can avoid Lovey's question again.

Gangs again?

Has Irn Bru been on yet?
Im still waiting for an answer to my question

What question?

by Guest Mon Jul 14, 2014 7:39 pm

Irn Bru wrote:
Nems wrote:

Gangs again?

Has Irn Bru been on yet?
Im still waiting for an answer to my question

What question?

Irn Bru wrote:

Nems wrote:

Do LD and Irn need you to speak for them?!
All dragging this thread up shows is that you did start it to wind up Quill.
You know that dragging others in is pure cowardice?

You have a point there so maybe we'll hear no more of this 'posse' nonsense that just drags others into it as well.

Thanks Irn xx
I know you must find it maddening to be dragged into the mire especially when you are not even here!
Just one thing though, you haven't mentioned 'GRANGE HILL GANG' or 'NORMAL CREW' etc. Was that just an oversight on your part? Thanks.

Last edited by Nems on Sat Jul 12, 2014 12:37 pm; edited 1 time in total

This one
Was it just an oversight ?

by Guest Mon Jul 14, 2014 7:41 pm

Just a shame that Didge has not reciprocated LD, rather than his 'try again' cop out nonsense.

by Irn Bru Mon Jul 14, 2014 7:47 pm

Nems wrote:
Irn Bru wrote:
Nems wrote:

Gangs again?

Has Irn Bru been on yet?
Im still waiting for an answer to my question

What question?

Irn Bru wrote:

Nems wrote:

Do LD and Irn need you to speak for them?!
All dragging this thread up shows is that you did start it to wind up Quill.
You know that dragging others in is pure cowardice?

You have a point there so maybe we'll hear no more of this 'posse' nonsense that just drags others into it as well.

Thanks Irn xx
I know you must find it maddening to be dragged into the mire especially when you are not even here!
Just one thing though, you haven't mentioned 'GRANGE HILL GANG' or 'NORMAL CREW' etc. Was that just an oversight on your part? Thanks.

Last edited by Nems on Sat Jul 12, 2014 12:37 pm; edited 1 time in total

This one
Was it just an oversight ?

I don't mind my name being dragged into anything as long as it is accurate and broadly reflects my point of view, so don't assume I will be maddened by that.

On the second question you may have noticed that I didn't mention the name in the 'posse' reference so you can take that to mean all groups including any that name specific individuals

Does that clear it up?

by Guest Mon Jul 14, 2014 8:06 pm

Irn Bru wrote:
Nems wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Nems wrote:

Do LD and Irn need you to speak for them?!
All dragging this thread up shows is that you did start it to wind up Quill.
You know that dragging others in is pure cowardice?

You have a point there so maybe we'll hear no more of this 'posse' nonsense that just drags others into it as well.

Thanks Irn xx
I know you must find it maddening to be dragged into the mire especially when you are not even here!
Just one thing though, you haven't mentioned 'GRANGE HILL GANG' or 'NORMAL CREW' etc. Was that just an oversight on your part? Thanks.

Last edited by Nems on Sat Jul 12, 2014 12:37 pm; edited 1 time in total

This one
Was it just an oversight ?

I don't mind my name being dragged into anything as long as it is accurate and broadly reflects my point of view, so don't assume I will be maddened by that.

On the second question you may have noticed that I didn't mention the name in the 'posse' reference so you can take that to mean all groups including any that name specific individuals

Does that clear it up?

I dont think names were needed really as I have only ever seen Quill and Bee use posse.
In the interests of fairness, Im sure you will confirm that you also oppose the use of inflammatory things like grange hill gang or normal crew just as strongly?

by Irn Bru Mon Jul 14, 2014 8:16 pm

Nems wrote:
Irn Bru wrote:
Nems wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Nems wrote:

Do LD and Irn need you to speak for them?!
All dragging this thread up shows is that you did start it to wind up Quill.
You know that dragging others in is pure cowardice?

You have a point there so maybe we'll hear no more of this 'posse' nonsense that just drags others into it as well.

Thanks Irn xx
I know you must find it maddening to be dragged into the mire especially when you are not even here!
Just one thing though, you haven't mentioned 'GRANGE HILL GANG' or 'NORMAL CREW' etc. Was that just an oversight on your part? Thanks.

Last edited by Nems on Sat Jul 12, 2014 12:37 pm; edited 1 time in total

This one
Was it just an oversight ?

I don't mind my name being dragged into anything as long as it is accurate and broadly reflects my point of view, so don't assume I will be maddened by that.

On the second question you may have noticed that I didn't mention the name in the 'posse' reference so you can take that to mean all groups including any that name specific individuals

Does that clear it up?

I dont think names were needed really as I have only ever seen Quill and Bee use posse.
In the interests of fairness, Im sure you will confirm that you also oppose the use of inflammatory things like grange hill gang or normal crew just as strongly?

I've already said that about all gangs and I include all those who appear to support or subscribe them as well.

by Guest Mon Jul 14, 2014 8:18 pm

Lone Wolf wrote:
lovedust wrote:

Thankyou.

THANKING sassy for being an ignorant fool ???

Thanking Sassy for acknowledging I've been going out of my way to answer didge's every question for nine pages.

by Guest Mon Jul 14, 2014 8:23 pm

Irn Bru wrote:
Nems wrote:

I dont think names were needed really as I have only ever seen Quill and Bee use posse.
In the interests of fairness, Im sure you will confirm that you also oppose the use of inflammatory things like grange hill gang or normal crew just as strongly?

I've already said that about all gangs and I include all those who appear to support or subscribe them as well.

And that would include Grange hill gang and Normal crew?

by Irn Bru Mon Jul 14, 2014 8:24 pm

Nems wrote:
Irn Bru wrote:
Nems wrote:

I dont think names were needed really as I have only ever seen Quill and Bee use posse.
In the interests of fairness, Im sure you will confirm that you also oppose the use of inflammatory things like grange hill gang or normal crew just as strongly?

I've already said that about all gangs and I include all those who appear to support or subscribe them as well.

And that would include Grange hill gang and Normal crew?

What is it about 'all gangs' that you don't understand?

by Guest Mon Jul 14, 2014 8:30 pm

Irn Bru wrote:
Nems wrote:

And that would include Grange hill gang and Normal crew?

What is it about 'all gangs' that you don't understand?

Your fear of saying yes I include Grange Hill Gang and Normal crew in my condemnation has me bemused.
Why cant you bring yourself to post the words?

by Irn Bru Mon Jul 14, 2014 8:47 pm

Nems wrote:
Irn Bru wrote:
Nems wrote:

And that would include Grange hill gang and Normal crew?

What is it about 'all gangs' that you don't understand?

Your fear of saying yes I include Grange Hill Gang and Normal crew in my condemnation has me bemused.
Why cant you bring yourself to post the words?

I didn't use a name when I said 'posse' in the first place and I've answered your question fairly and honestly. A 'posse' is a gang and all gangs means all gangs and there is absolutely no reason that I can think of why you would want me to make a distinction between those mentioned.

by Guest Mon Jul 14, 2014 8:53 pm

Irn Bru wrote:
Nems wrote:

Your fear of saying yes I include Grange Hill Gang and Normal crew in my condemnation has me bemused.
Why cant you bring yourself to post the words?

I didn't use a name when I said 'posse' in the first place and I've answered your question fairly and honestly. A 'posse' is a gang and all gangs means all gangs and there is absolutely no reason that I can think of why you would want me to make a distinction between those mentioned.

Because using just one term and refusing to even acknowledge others makes you appear biased.
You used posse I asked you to condemn grange hill Gang and normal crew no names mentioned and you wont.
that's it

by Irn Bru Mon Jul 14, 2014 8:58 pm

Nems wrote:
Irn Bru wrote:
Nems wrote:

Your fear of saying yes I include Grange Hill Gang and Normal crew in my condemnation has me bemused.
Why cant you bring yourself to post the words?

I didn't use a name when I said 'posse' in the first place and I've answered your question fairly and honestly. A 'posse' is a gang and all gangs means all gangs and there is absolutely no reason that I can think of why you would want me to make a distinction between those mentioned.

Because using just one term and refusing to even acknowledge others makes you appear biased.
You used posse I asked you to condemn grange hill Gang and normal crew no names mentioned and you wont.
that's it

I said 'posse nonsense' and no name was mentioned and a posse is a gang.

The others you named as a gang are a gang aren't they?

Have I said I included all gangs? Yes I did

by Guest Mon Jul 14, 2014 9:02 pm

Irn Bru wrote:
Nems wrote:

Because using just one term and refusing to even acknowledge others makes you appear biased.
You used posse I asked you to condemn grange hill Gang and normal crew no names mentioned and you wont.
that's it

I said 'posse nonsense' and no name was mentioned and a posse is a gang.

The others you named as a gang are a gang aren't they?

Have I said I included all gangs? Yes I did

Of course

by Guest Mon Jul 14, 2014 9:06 pm

How about Irn if you say that by 'gangs' you mean gangs and posse's (which you already have) and you condemn the use of the words, and Nems says the same thing. Seems fair to me.

by Guest Mon Jul 14, 2014 9:12 pm

Sassy wrote:How about Irn if you say that by 'gangs' you mean gangs and posse's (which you already have) and you condemn the use of the words, and Nems says the same thing. Seems fair to me.

OK but you are by far the worst offender, gangs, the grange hill gang, the normal crew; are you prepared to condemn the use of those words? Seems fair to me ::D::

by Sponsored content