Falmer Planning Application - Lewes DC recommended NOT to object; Falmer PC do object

[Horsham Gull]

come on Dan get with it

 

[Dave the OAP]

I was going to pm you a pleasant little note explaining in detail a little bit more about that post but seeing as you are taking my post completely out of context and taking my post to very illogical conclusions can I just ask you to kindly go f*** yourself? Would you do that for me, luvvie?

cant we all just get on

 

[Buzzer]

Sorry Dave. I shouldn't gave snapped but when adoo took a post of mine that referred to a specific comment about a specific circumstance and then implies that I therefore think it's okay for people to write that they wish people to be raped and murdered without considering what they have written... well. That's just completely out of order. Either adoo knows this and is just being a twat or he is too stupid to be able to understand that. Either way, he's a pillock

 

[Napper]

calling people by their own names is G-A-Y

 

[steward 433]

Excellent tip LB, I'm sure myself and the steward will be there again. I just hope that darling Melanie finds time to attend and address the Committee - could be an opportunity not to miss.

Which pub afterwards?

Surely a celebratory tipple in The Swan in Falmer

 

[Horsham Gull]

melanie.cutress@lewes.gov.uk, it even has her home telephone number on her profile have fun nscer's

 

[Storer68]

What material are the SDJC referring to here?

......and the use of blocks for the facades of the North and South Stands instead of a locally distinctive material likely to be available as a waste product on the site.

I think they would like the stadium facia to be flint covered.
could look like this tho...

 

[Cheshire Cat]

I think they would like the stadium facia to be flint covered.
could look like this tho...

I think that they would actually like it to look like this

 

[Buzzer]

calling people by their own names is G-A-Y

Have they relaxed the entrance exams now then? In my day it was sticking your willy up another bloke's arse.

 

[steward 433]

Have they relaxed the entrance exams now then? In my day it was sticking your willy up another bloke's arse.

I thought Gay meant happy I was well gay watching the diggers working when we drove past earlier today

 

[Questions]

I was going to pm you a pleasant little note explaining in detail a little bit more about that post but seeing as you are taking my post completely out of context and taking my post to very illogical conclusions can I just ask you to kindly go f*** yourself? Would you do that for me, luvvie?

I left this morning with you advocating a big ''lurve in'' for the Albion and I return to THIS.

 

[Alex Alex Dawson oo! oo!]

Sorry Dave. I shouldn't gave snapped but when adoo took a post of mine that referred to a specific comment about a specific circumstance and then implies that I therefore think it's okay for people to write that they wish people to be raped and murdered without considering what they have written... well. That's just completely out of order. Either adoo knows this and is just being a twat or he is too stupid to be able to understand that. Either way, he's a pillock

My understanding is that you were supporting a general principle that posters should be able to post what they like without sanction and so not have threads and posts deleted by the mods. I don't agree in all cases; thursday's deleted thread implying that a local company is about to fold is one example (on which you referred to my views as nonsense) and TCB's juvenile post earlier on this thread is another.
I did not intend to imply that you (personally) think it's okay for anyone to write that they wish people to be raped and murdered without considering what they have written, and do not believe I did so. The sarcasm was intended to highlight an example outcome of the general principle you were championing.

 

[Alex Alex Dawson oo! oo!]

Surely a celebratory tipple in The Swan in Falmer

No thanks Graham, you're on your own if it's there.

 

[steward 433]

No thanks Graham, you're on your own if it's there.

I thought that would be the response hence the suggestion.

I don't know Hove that well so it's your call!!

 

[ben andrews' girlfriend]

Anyone who wants to attend the Planning Committee meeting (which will be held at Hove Town Hall) will be relieved to know that Forfars is no longer the nearest food outlet to the venue. Bagelman has now moved into the area, with a shop on New Church Road. I recommend him highly.

Are we allowed to go and throw said bagels at the opposing people?

 

[Buzzer]

My understanding is that you were supporting a general principle that posters should be able to post what they like without sanction and so not have threads and posts deleted by the mods. I don't agree in all cases; thursday's deleted thread implying that a local company is about to fold is one example (on which you referred to my views as nonsense) and TCB's juvenile post earlier on this thread is another.
I did not intend to imply that you (personally) think it's okay for anyone to write that they wish people to be raped and murdered without considering what they have written, and do not believe I did so. The sarcasm was intended to highlight an example outcome of the general principle you were championing.

Don't bullshit me. Re-read my post that you quoted and explain how you could possibly say I was supporting a general principle of "anything goes".

I made the point that the region's most widely read newspaper had quoted the director himself as saying how bad things were. It's not a huge leap of imagination to state that if the director himself has said that the climate is unprecedented, 80% of staff have been laid off and turnover is ONE TENTH of last year's then the company is in serious doo-doo. It's also not particularly libellous to speculate about this on a football forum. Therefore, considering the boss of the company himself was quoted in the Evening Argus then a discussion about it on NSC is unlikely to add any further material risk that already exists. I stand by this point. You may or may not agree with the argument but that was what I was stating. And it was a very very specific argument. No generalisms. No vague principles.

You now tell me that you read this as support for absolutely ANYTHING (in principle) being posted without consideration of the consequences.

And.....either you think I support IN GENERAL an anything goes approach (including advocating rape and murder) or you don't think I implied that I supported someone writing about rape or murder.

Let's really spell this out for you, shall I?

My understanding is that you were supporting a general principle that posters should be able to post what they like without sanction and so not have threads and posts deleted by the mods

I did not intend to imply that you (personally) think it's okay for anyone to write that they wish people to be raped and murdered without considering what they have written, and do not believe I did so

Clearly the two statements are mutually exclusive. So which is it to be?

An apology and retraction wouldn't go amiss. Failing that, I'd learn some basic debating skills if I were you.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Don't bullshit me. Re-read my post that you quoted and explain how you could possibly say I was supporting a general principle of "anything goes".

I made the point that the region's most widely read newspaper had quoted the director himself as saying how bad things were. It's not a huge leap of imagination to state that if the director himself has said that the climate is unprecedented, 80% of staff have been laid off and turnover is ONE TENTH of last year's then the company is in serious doo-doo. It's also not particularly libellous to speculate about this on a football forum. Therefore, considering the boss of the company himself was quoted in the Evening Argus then a discussion about it on NSC is unlikely to add any further material risk that already exists. I stand by this point. You may or may not agree with the argument but that was what I was stating. And it was a very very specific argument. No generalisms. No vague principles.

You now tell me that you read this as support for absolutely ANYTHING (in principle) being posted without consideration of the consequences.

And.....either you think I support IN GENERAL an anything goes approach (including advocating rape and murder) or you don't think I implied that I supported someone writing about rape or murder.

Let's really spell this out for you, shall I?





Clearly the two statements are mutually exclusive. So which is it to be?

An apology and retraction wouldn't go amiss. Failing that, I'd learn some basic debating skills if I were you.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

I made the point that the region's most widely read newspaper had quoted the director himself as saying how bad things were. It's not a huge leap of imagination to state that if the director himself has said that the climate is unprecedented, 80% of staff have been laid off and turnover is ONE TENTH of last year's then the company is in serious doo-doo. It's also not particularly libellous to speculate about this on a football forum. Therefore, considering the boss of the company himself was quoted in the Evening Argus then a discussion about it on NSC is unlikely to add any further material risk that already exists. I stand by this point. You may or may not agree with the argument but that was what I was stating. And it was a very very specific argument. No generalisms. No vague principles.

I can't disagree with that - particularly since it was I who posted the link on that thread to the Argus story.

But this is a discussion about whether "anything" goes.

There is a great deal of difference between discussing the known - and admitted - troubles of a local business and stating - without any basis in truth - that it is "about to go bust".

There is also a great deal of difference between attacking Falmer Parish Council's stance on the stadium planning application (which I have been doing for years) and expressing the wish that "everyone pisses in their streets, all their daughters get raped, their houses burgled, their possessions stolen, their cars vandalised, their homes burnt down, and each one is subjected to a painful and humiliating death".

Fortunately the bleeding obvious has now been made clear ... this isn't a serious threat.

Which is just as well for us NSC mods who didn't enjoy the previous occasion when the police DID threaten a moderator with charges, because absurd messages about councillors hadn't been removed from NSC. And, if people have forgotten, it took the Crown Prosecution Service more than six months to decide not to prosecute.


The point I am making is that what gets posted on NSC can have consequences.

.

 

[Surf 'n' Turf]

It's baffling. Any business in Falmer right now is blatantly tin-pot. Take the farm shop for instance. If you're the owner of that then you probably make PEANUTS as things stand. However, sort out some decent food and drink to sell to 10,000 people every fortnight and your takings will multiply tenfold. These people are BLIND.

Exactly, you would make an killing. As for the guy in the pub (is it the Swan)? Wasn't he only going to open for the locals? Bet that changes at some point in the future.

 

[Buzzer]

I can't disagree with that - particularly since it was I who posted the link on that thread to the Argus story.

But this is a discussion about whether "anything" goes.

There is a great deal of difference between discussing the known - and admitted - troubles of a local business and stating - without any basis in truth - that it is "about to go bust".

There is also a great deal of difference between attacking Falmer Parish Council's stance on the stadium planning application (which I have been doing for years) and expressing the wish that "everyone pisses in their streets, all their daughters get raped, their houses burgled, their possessions stolen, their cars vandalised, their homes burnt down, and each one is subjected to a painful and humiliating death".

Fortunately the bleeding obvious has now been made clear ... this isn't a serious threat.

Which is just as well for us NSC mods who didn't enjoy the previous occasion when the police DID threaten a moderator with charges, because absurd messages about councillors hadn't been removed from NSC. And, if people have forgotten, it took the Crown Prosecution Service more than six months to decide not to prosecute.


The point I am making is that what gets posted on NSC can have consequences.

.

f*** sake. There is NO DISCUSSION ABOUT WHETHER ANYTHING GOES.

YOU DO NOT NEED TO MAKE THAT POINT TO ME.

YOUR POST QUOTING ME IS DISINGENUOUS AS IT APPEARS THAT YOU THINK I DO SUPPORT ANYTHING GOES.

Can you tell I'm shouting? Can you? Good, because I f***ing well am. You seem to be bloody deaf to my previous posts on this thread.

I don't advocate that. Never have done and never will. I was responding to a SPECIFIC point about a SPECIFIC subject. One in which we disagree. How, in the name of sweet Jesus, Peter Ward and little Maddie McCann are you people construing that as me advocating anything goes?

I don't want to get into the details with you here, LB. We've done that privately, but in THIS SPECIFIC INSTANCE we have a difference of opinion. How, just f***ing, bloody, sodding how are you now telling me that it's now a discussion about "ANYTHING GOES"?

f***ing throw the book at TCB. He deserves it after his comments. I've never defended them. In fact, you can tell from the tone of my first and second post on this thread that I obviously DON'T. Perhaps you might have got a smidgeon of an inkling of a whiff of a suspicion from this post that I don't.

I dunno. Perhaps I'm too subtle in what I've posted. (Yes, I am being sarcastic).