Firefighters cut drivers from wreckage of crash in Commercial Road in Southampton

Two taken to hospital after bus crash in Southampton

Two taken to hospital after bus crash in Southampton

First published in News
Last updated

Two people were taken to hospital after a crash in Southampton city centre last night.

Emergency services were alerted to the accident in Commercial Road involving a single decker First bus and two cars - a Renault Clio and a Vauxhall Meriva - at 7.15pm.

A total of 14 firefighters from St Mary's and Redbridge Hill stations, were called to the scene and cut the drivers from their cars.

Both of the motorists - one a 19-year-old man and the other a 52-year-old man - were taken to Southampton General Hospital by the South Central Ambulance Service.

A passenger on the bus also took themselves to hospital for treatment on a neck injury.

A police spokesman described their injuries as "minor".

Police say the driver of one of the vehicles - although they have not confirmed which one - has been arrested but they are not disclosing any more details at the moment.

 

Comments (42)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:42am Sun 16 Mar 14

SOULJACKER says...

What is it with the buses in this town?
There seems to be a lot on incidents involving buses :D
What is it with the buses in this town? There seems to be a lot on incidents involving buses :D SOULJACKER
  • Score: -13

7:54am Sun 16 Mar 14

so'tongirl says...

SOULJACKER wrote:
What is it with the buses in this town?
There seems to be a lot on incidents involving buses :D
You don't even know who is at fault here yet!
[quote][p][bold]SOULJACKER[/bold] wrote: What is it with the buses in this town? There seems to be a lot on incidents involving buses :D[/p][/quote]You don't even know who is at fault here yet! so'tongirl
  • Score: 13

8:01am Sun 16 Mar 14

boxing_nut says...

Don't know the details yet but those temporary bus stops on commercial rd are an accident waiting to happen.
Don't know the details yet but those temporary bus stops on commercial rd are an accident waiting to happen. boxing_nut
  • Score: 16

8:32am Sun 16 Mar 14

Saintsincethe60s says...

boxing_nut wrote:
Don't know the details yet but those temporary bus stops on commercial rd are an accident waiting to happen.
I agree it's not just Commercial road though, there are a lot of bus stops around the city sited in dangerous places where buses have to pull out across the flow of traffic in front of you. Civic centre and west quay are two that come to mind.
Perhaps the police or whoever is responsible for where they are positioned should start doing their job, it appears to be one area where health and safety hasn't gone mad.
[quote][p][bold]boxing_nut[/bold] wrote: Don't know the details yet but those temporary bus stops on commercial rd are an accident waiting to happen.[/p][/quote]I agree it's not just Commercial road though, there are a lot of bus stops around the city sited in dangerous places where buses have to pull out across the flow of traffic in front of you. Civic centre and west quay are two that come to mind. Perhaps the police or whoever is responsible for where they are positioned should start doing their job, it appears to be one area where health and safety hasn't gone mad. Saintsincethe60s
  • Score: 8

9:05am Sun 16 Mar 14

focus19 says...

Saintsincethe60s wrote:
boxing_nut wrote:
Don't know the details yet but those temporary bus stops on commercial rd are an accident waiting to happen.
I agree it's not just Commercial road though, there are a lot of bus stops around the city sited in dangerous places where buses have to pull out across the flow of traffic in front of you. Civic centre and west quay are two that come to mind.
Perhaps the police or whoever is responsible for where they are positioned should start doing their job, it appears to be one area where health and safety hasn't gone mad.
Sainsbury's at Portswood is another dangerous bus stop situated in a left hand turn lane few metres back from traffic lights, Southampton City Council is responsible and they say they HAVE been risk assessed . The city council planning department need firing for outrageous road planning such London Road obstacle course . As mentioned above the are many badly positioned Bus Stops Town Quay by Gods House is another Lordswood Road Bottom of a blind bend.
[quote][p][bold]Saintsincethe60s[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]boxing_nut[/bold] wrote: Don't know the details yet but those temporary bus stops on commercial rd are an accident waiting to happen.[/p][/quote]I agree it's not just Commercial road though, there are a lot of bus stops around the city sited in dangerous places where buses have to pull out across the flow of traffic in front of you. Civic centre and west quay are two that come to mind. Perhaps the police or whoever is responsible for where they are positioned should start doing their job, it appears to be one area where health and safety hasn't gone mad.[/p][/quote]Sainsbury's at Portswood is another dangerous bus stop situated in a left hand turn lane few metres back from traffic lights, Southampton City Council is responsible and they say they HAVE been risk assessed . The city council planning department need firing for outrageous road planning such London Road obstacle course . As mentioned above the are many badly positioned Bus Stops Town Quay by Gods House is another Lordswood Road Bottom of a blind bend. focus19
  • Score: 3

9:06am Sun 16 Mar 14

SOULJACKER says...

so'tongirl wrote:
SOULJACKER wrote:
What is it with the buses in this town?
There seems to be a lot on incidents involving buses :D
You don't even know who is at fault here yet!
You must have sleepy dust in your eye 'So'tongirl' or maybe something else!
Did I apportion blame at any time, no I don't think I did did I but that's ok you needn't apologize.
[quote][p][bold]so'tongirl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SOULJACKER[/bold] wrote: What is it with the buses in this town? There seems to be a lot on incidents involving buses :D[/p][/quote]You don't even know who is at fault here yet![/p][/quote]You must have sleepy dust in your eye 'So'tongirl' or maybe something else! Did I apportion blame at any time, no I don't think I did did I but that's ok you needn't apologize. SOULJACKER
  • Score: -9

9:06am Sun 16 Mar 14

oldage says...

Cars trying to overtake a bus just to get in front!
Cars trying to overtake a bus just to get in front! oldage
  • Score: 1

9:15am Sun 16 Mar 14

Maine Lobster says...

oldage wrote:
Cars trying to overtake a bus just to get in front!
Or is it buses pulling out deliberately in front of cars as they pass, or stopping for a chat with their bus driver mate going in the opposite direction ?
There is every good reason why drivers should pass a bus stopped for passengers. For all traffic to have to be stuck behind a bus, stopping every few hundred yards in some cases is nonsense.
[quote][p][bold]oldage[/bold] wrote: Cars trying to overtake a bus just to get in front![/p][/quote]Or is it buses pulling out deliberately in front of cars as they pass, or stopping for a chat with their bus driver mate going in the opposite direction ? There is every good reason why drivers should pass a bus stopped for passengers. For all traffic to have to be stuck behind a bus, stopping every few hundred yards in some cases is nonsense. Maine Lobster
  • Score: 6

9:29am Sun 16 Mar 14

CHARLIE TAYLOR says...

SOULJACKER wrote:
What is it with the buses in this town?
There seems to be a lot on incidents involving buses :D
The curse of the First!!!
[quote][p][bold]SOULJACKER[/bold] wrote: What is it with the buses in this town? There seems to be a lot on incidents involving buses :D[/p][/quote]The curse of the First!!! CHARLIE TAYLOR
  • Score: -2

9:52am Sun 16 Mar 14

lovesausage says...

Theres always one that gets the old "neck injury" in there!
Theres always one that gets the old "neck injury" in there! lovesausage
  • Score: 9

9:56am Sun 16 Mar 14

Gumbo82 says...

Let's get this story straight,my colleague was driving the bus which was stationary outside the mayflower and a drunk driver smashed into the back of a car which in turn smashed into the back of the bus.
Let's get this story straight,my colleague was driving the bus which was stationary outside the mayflower and a drunk driver smashed into the back of a car which in turn smashed into the back of the bus. Gumbo82
  • Score: 15

10:11am Sun 16 Mar 14

charrlee says...

Gumbo82 wrote:
Let's get this story straight,my colleague was driving the bus which was stationary outside the mayflower and a drunk driver smashed into the back of a car which in turn smashed into the back of the bus.
What is it with the drunks in this town?
There seems to be a lot on incidents involving drunks :D
[quote][p][bold]Gumbo82[/bold] wrote: Let's get this story straight,my colleague was driving the bus which was stationary outside the mayflower and a drunk driver smashed into the back of a car which in turn smashed into the back of the bus.[/p][/quote]What is it with the drunks in this town? There seems to be a lot on incidents involving drunks :D charrlee
  • Score: 14

10:14am Sun 16 Mar 14

Donald2000 says...

Gumbo82 wrote:
Let's get this story straight,my colleague was driving the bus which was stationary outside the mayflower and a drunk driver smashed into the back of a car which in turn smashed into the back of the bus.
Thanks for that. I had previously thought that the bus driver was not at fault, as it's not normal for bus drivers to be drink driving, or to be driving in a careless fashion. Once again it's idiots in cars which are to blame.
[quote][p][bold]Gumbo82[/bold] wrote: Let's get this story straight,my colleague was driving the bus which was stationary outside the mayflower and a drunk driver smashed into the back of a car which in turn smashed into the back of the bus.[/p][/quote]Thanks for that. I had previously thought that the bus driver was not at fault, as it's not normal for bus drivers to be drink driving, or to be driving in a careless fashion. Once again it's idiots in cars which are to blame. Donald2000
  • Score: 0

10:20am Sun 16 Mar 14

focus19 says...

Its seems its easy to Blame Bus Drivers Cyclist and Lorry drivers and there are less of them I guess, Car driver do no wrong of course. (Sarcasm) 223

Highway Code : 223
Buses, coaches and trams. Give priority to these vehicles when you can do so safely, especially when they signal to pull away from stops. Look out for people getting off a bus or tram and crossing the road.

Granted Like any other Category there are Idiots in ALL, It takes a better person to excise more caution than none at all. Lookout for one another You only get one chance at life !
Its seems its easy to Blame Bus Drivers Cyclist and Lorry drivers and there are less of them I guess, Car driver do no wrong of course. (Sarcasm) 223 Highway Code : 223 Buses, coaches and trams. Give priority to these vehicles when you can do so safely, especially when they signal to pull away from stops. Look out for people getting off a bus or tram and crossing the road. Granted Like any other Category there are Idiots in ALL, It takes a better person to excise more caution than none at all. Lookout for one another You only get one chance at life ! focus19
  • Score: 3

10:21am Sun 16 Mar 14

mickey01 says...

a very busy area at that time of night what with the mayflower etc and some people coming from afar to watch a show and not knowing the area well
a very busy area at that time of night what with the mayflower etc and some people coming from afar to watch a show and not knowing the area well mickey01
  • Score: 1

10:48am Sun 16 Mar 14

charrlee says...

Donald2000 wrote:
Gumbo82 wrote:
Let's get this story straight,my colleague was driving the bus which was stationary outside the mayflower and a drunk driver smashed into the back of a car which in turn smashed into the back of the bus.
Thanks for that. I had previously thought that the bus driver was not at fault, as it's not normal for bus drivers to be drink driving, or to be driving in a careless fashion. Once again it's idiots in cars which are to blame.
Donald2000 sounds suspiciously like a "Back To Bikes" campaigner, with his rather broad "idiots in cars" comment.

10% of all road accidents are caused by drunk drivers. That means the other 90% of the road accidents are caused by sober people. So get the sober people off the roads and let the drunks get on with it ! (Dave Allen)
[quote][p][bold]Donald2000[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gumbo82[/bold] wrote: Let's get this story straight,my colleague was driving the bus which was stationary outside the mayflower and a drunk driver smashed into the back of a car which in turn smashed into the back of the bus.[/p][/quote]Thanks for that. I had previously thought that the bus driver was not at fault, as it's not normal for bus drivers to be drink driving, or to be driving in a careless fashion. Once again it's idiots in cars which are to blame.[/p][/quote]Donald2000 sounds suspiciously like a "Back To Bikes" campaigner, with his rather broad "idiots in cars" comment. 10% of all road accidents are caused by drunk drivers. That means the other 90% of the road accidents are caused by sober people. So get the sober people off the roads and let the drunks get on with it ! (Dave Allen) charrlee
  • Score: 4

10:53am Sun 16 Mar 14

ilovelamp says...

I believe the bus drivers in southampton are very competent given the state of the roads. Cyclists are where the real dangers at, one pulled out on me the other day, riding on the road coming from the opposite direction they just decided to use a zebra crossing as an excuse to ride carelessly across infront of me. And they also dont care for red lights, soon enough theyll need mandatory riding lessons a theory test and a licence to learn
I believe the bus drivers in southampton are very competent given the state of the roads. Cyclists are where the real dangers at, one pulled out on me the other day, riding on the road coming from the opposite direction they just decided to use a zebra crossing as an excuse to ride carelessly across infront of me. And they also dont care for red lights, soon enough theyll need mandatory riding lessons a theory test and a licence to learn ilovelamp
  • Score: 9

10:54am Sun 16 Mar 14

Donald2000 says...

charrlee wrote:
Donald2000 wrote:
Gumbo82 wrote:
Let's get this story straight,my colleague was driving the bus which was stationary outside the mayflower and a drunk driver smashed into the back of a car which in turn smashed into the back of the bus.
Thanks for that. I had previously thought that the bus driver was not at fault, as it's not normal for bus drivers to be drink driving, or to be driving in a careless fashion. Once again it's idiots in cars which are to blame.
Donald2000 sounds suspiciously like a "Back To Bikes" campaigner, with his rather broad "idiots in cars" comment.

10% of all road accidents are caused by drunk drivers. That means the other 90% of the road accidents are caused by sober people. So get the sober people off the roads and let the drunks get on with it ! (Dave Allen)
Idiots in cars is right. To what standard do you think learner drivers are put to, before they pass the test. I can tell you that it is a far lower standard than it is to pass the public carriage vehicle tests?

A bus driver is responsible for up to 70 persons in one vehicle. They rarely get it wrong. Whereas a lot of people can't drive themselves and be responsible for themselves in one vehicle without messing it up.
[quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Donald2000[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gumbo82[/bold] wrote: Let's get this story straight,my colleague was driving the bus which was stationary outside the mayflower and a drunk driver smashed into the back of a car which in turn smashed into the back of the bus.[/p][/quote]Thanks for that. I had previously thought that the bus driver was not at fault, as it's not normal for bus drivers to be drink driving, or to be driving in a careless fashion. Once again it's idiots in cars which are to blame.[/p][/quote]Donald2000 sounds suspiciously like a "Back To Bikes" campaigner, with his rather broad "idiots in cars" comment. 10% of all road accidents are caused by drunk drivers. That means the other 90% of the road accidents are caused by sober people. So get the sober people off the roads and let the drunks get on with it ! (Dave Allen)[/p][/quote]Idiots in cars is right. To what standard do you think learner drivers are put to, before they pass the test. I can tell you that it is a far lower standard than it is to pass the public carriage vehicle tests? A bus driver is responsible for up to 70 persons in one vehicle. They rarely get it wrong. Whereas a lot of people can't drive themselves and be responsible for themselves in one vehicle without messing it up. Donald2000
  • Score: -2

11:06am Sun 16 Mar 14

charrlee says...

Donald2000 wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Donald2000 wrote:
Gumbo82 wrote:
Let's get this story straight,my colleague was driving the bus which was stationary outside the mayflower and a drunk driver smashed into the back of a car which in turn smashed into the back of the bus.
Thanks for that. I had previously thought that the bus driver was not at fault, as it's not normal for bus drivers to be drink driving, or to be driving in a careless fashion. Once again it's idiots in cars which are to blame.
Donald2000 sounds suspiciously like a "Back To Bikes" campaigner, with his rather broad "idiots in cars" comment.

10% of all road accidents are caused by drunk drivers. That means the other 90% of the road accidents are caused by sober people. So get the sober people off the roads and let the drunks get on with it ! (Dave Allen)
Idiots in cars is right. To what standard do you think learner drivers are put to, before they pass the test. I can tell you that it is a far lower standard than it is to pass the public carriage vehicle tests?

A bus driver is responsible for up to 70 persons in one vehicle. They rarely get it wrong. Whereas a lot of people can't drive themselves and be responsible for themselves in one vehicle without messing it up.
Very fair comment.
[quote][p][bold]Donald2000[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Donald2000[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gumbo82[/bold] wrote: Let's get this story straight,my colleague was driving the bus which was stationary outside the mayflower and a drunk driver smashed into the back of a car which in turn smashed into the back of the bus.[/p][/quote]Thanks for that. I had previously thought that the bus driver was not at fault, as it's not normal for bus drivers to be drink driving, or to be driving in a careless fashion. Once again it's idiots in cars which are to blame.[/p][/quote]Donald2000 sounds suspiciously like a "Back To Bikes" campaigner, with his rather broad "idiots in cars" comment. 10% of all road accidents are caused by drunk drivers. That means the other 90% of the road accidents are caused by sober people. So get the sober people off the roads and let the drunks get on with it ! (Dave Allen)[/p][/quote]Idiots in cars is right. To what standard do you think learner drivers are put to, before they pass the test. I can tell you that it is a far lower standard than it is to pass the public carriage vehicle tests? A bus driver is responsible for up to 70 persons in one vehicle. They rarely get it wrong. Whereas a lot of people can't drive themselves and be responsible for themselves in one vehicle without messing it up.[/p][/quote]Very fair comment. charrlee
  • Score: 0

11:21am Sun 16 Mar 14

oldage says...

Gumbo one of First swines
Gumbo one of First swines oldage
  • Score: 0

11:29am Sun 16 Mar 14

Gumbo82 says...

oldage wrote:
Gumbo one of First swines
And your point?Im just explaining this stupidly titled story by the echo,a stationary bus,handbrake on in traffic is not at fault.
[quote][p][bold]oldage[/bold] wrote: Gumbo one of First swines[/p][/quote]And your point?Im just explaining this stupidly titled story by the echo,a stationary bus,handbrake on in traffic is not at fault. Gumbo82
  • Score: 3

11:54am Sun 16 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

ilovelamp wrote:
I believe the bus drivers in southampton are very competent given the state of the roads. Cyclists are where the real dangers at, one pulled out on me the other day, riding on the road coming from the opposite direction they just decided to use a zebra crossing as an excuse to ride carelessly across infront of me. And they also dont care for red lights, soon enough theyll need mandatory riding lessons a theory test and a licence to learn
Yet another troll trying to turn this into something about cyclists when there was no cyclist involved in this collision... Car drivers is where the real dangers are, 2 pulled out on me last month, didn't have a car in the world that I was another person, driving on the road towards me and failing to give way to me as I was already on the roundabout coming from their right and carelessly drove across my path. They also don't care for traffic lights, seen them jump reds everywhere and are always on the phone while driving.
Soon enough they'll need mandatory driving lessons, theory test and a licence to learn... Oh wait, I forgot. THEY ALREADY DO NEED IT and yet we STILL get people driving dangerously and there's MORE of them than there are of cyclists who behave in similar ways.
By the way, most cyclists like myself do have a licence.

But I agree, most bus drivers in Southampton are very competent these days, weren't as many competant drivers(especially from bluestar, first drivers have generally been consistantly good) before I got my bike cameras though.
[quote][p][bold]ilovelamp[/bold] wrote: I believe the bus drivers in southampton are very competent given the state of the roads. Cyclists are where the real dangers at, one pulled out on me the other day, riding on the road coming from the opposite direction they just decided to use a zebra crossing as an excuse to ride carelessly across infront of me. And they also dont care for red lights, soon enough theyll need mandatory riding lessons a theory test and a licence to learn[/p][/quote]Yet another troll trying to turn this into something about cyclists when there was no cyclist involved in this collision... Car drivers is where the real dangers are, 2 pulled out on me last month, didn't have a car in the world that I was another person, driving on the road towards me and failing to give way to me as I was already on the roundabout coming from their right and carelessly drove across my path. They also don't care for traffic lights, seen them jump reds everywhere and are always on the phone while driving. Soon enough they'll need mandatory driving lessons, theory test and a licence to learn... Oh wait, I forgot. THEY ALREADY DO NEED IT and yet we STILL get people driving dangerously and there's MORE of them than there are of cyclists who behave in similar ways. By the way, most cyclists like myself do have a licence. But I agree, most bus drivers in Southampton are very competent these days, weren't as many competant drivers(especially from bluestar, first drivers have generally been consistantly good) before I got my bike cameras though. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -9

12:19pm Sun 16 Mar 14

charrlee says...

From your many posts in the past (dozens daily), it would appear that a troll is someone who does not hold the same views and opinions as you, Cook, and Simmons. Ironically, you three demonstrate behaviour more akin to that of a troll than anyone else on this forum, so if I were you I'd shut up before you attract a bundle of minus votes, and the sensible things that you say get overlooked.

Controversial, often tangential, but usually with something useful to say in terms of information is how one might describe you, but lately you have begun to sound as petty-minded and shallow as Cook. Not good.
From your many posts in the past (dozens daily), it would appear that a troll is someone who does not hold the same views and opinions as you, Cook, and Simmons. Ironically, you three demonstrate behaviour more akin to that of a troll than anyone else on this forum, so if I were you I'd shut up before you attract a bundle of minus votes, and the sensible things that you say get overlooked. Controversial, often tangential, but usually with something useful to say in terms of information is how one might describe you, but lately you have begun to sound as petty-minded and shallow as Cook. Not good. charrlee
  • Score: 1

12:20pm Sun 16 Mar 14

charrlee says...

charrlee wrote:
From your many posts in the past (dozens daily), it would appear that a troll is someone who does not hold the same views and opinions as you, Cook, and Simmons. Ironically, you three demonstrate behaviour more akin to that of a troll than anyone else on this forum, so if I were you I'd shut up before you attract a bundle of minus votes, and the sensible things that you say get overlooked.

Controversial, often tangential, but usually with something useful to say in terms of information is how one might describe you, but lately you have begun to sound as petty-minded and shallow as Cook. Not good.
I forgot to "quote". My message is primarily for Gingercyclist.
[quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: From your many posts in the past (dozens daily), it would appear that a troll is someone who does not hold the same views and opinions as you, Cook, and Simmons. Ironically, you three demonstrate behaviour more akin to that of a troll than anyone else on this forum, so if I were you I'd shut up before you attract a bundle of minus votes, and the sensible things that you say get overlooked. Controversial, often tangential, but usually with something useful to say in terms of information is how one might describe you, but lately you have begun to sound as petty-minded and shallow as Cook. Not good.[/p][/quote]I forgot to "quote". My message is primarily for Gingercyclist. charrlee
  • Score: 2

1:01pm Sun 16 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

charrlee wrote:
From your many posts in the past (dozens daily), it would appear that a troll is someone who does not hold the same views and opinions as you, Cook, and Simmons. Ironically, you three demonstrate behaviour more akin to that of a troll than anyone else on this forum, so if I were you I'd shut up before you attract a bundle of minus votes, and the sensible things that you say get overlooked.

Controversial, often tangential, but usually with something useful to say in terms of information is how one might describe you, but lately you have begun to sound as petty-minded and shallow as Cook. Not good.
No, a troll is someone who tries to start arguments to get people worked up for fun.
[quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: From your many posts in the past (dozens daily), it would appear that a troll is someone who does not hold the same views and opinions as you, Cook, and Simmons. Ironically, you three demonstrate behaviour more akin to that of a troll than anyone else on this forum, so if I were you I'd shut up before you attract a bundle of minus votes, and the sensible things that you say get overlooked. Controversial, often tangential, but usually with something useful to say in terms of information is how one might describe you, but lately you have begun to sound as petty-minded and shallow as Cook. Not good.[/p][/quote]No, a troll is someone who tries to start arguments to get people worked up for fun. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -4

2:01pm Sun 16 Mar 14

Inform Al says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
From your many posts in the past (dozens daily), it would appear that a troll is someone who does not hold the same views and opinions as you, Cook, and Simmons. Ironically, you three demonstrate behaviour more akin to that of a troll than anyone else on this forum, so if I were you I'd shut up before you attract a bundle of minus votes, and the sensible things that you say get overlooked.

Controversial, often tangential, but usually with something useful to say in terms of information is how one might describe you, but lately you have begun to sound as petty-minded and shallow as Cook. Not good.
No, a troll is someone who tries to start arguments to get people worked up for fun.
OMG, do you do it by accident then?
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: From your many posts in the past (dozens daily), it would appear that a troll is someone who does not hold the same views and opinions as you, Cook, and Simmons. Ironically, you three demonstrate behaviour more akin to that of a troll than anyone else on this forum, so if I were you I'd shut up before you attract a bundle of minus votes, and the sensible things that you say get overlooked. Controversial, often tangential, but usually with something useful to say in terms of information is how one might describe you, but lately you have begun to sound as petty-minded and shallow as Cook. Not good.[/p][/quote]No, a troll is someone who tries to start arguments to get people worked up for fun.[/p][/quote]OMG, do you do it by accident then? Inform Al
  • Score: 1

2:11pm Sun 16 Mar 14

charrlee says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
From your many posts in the past (dozens daily), it would appear that a troll is someone who does not hold the same views and opinions as you, Cook, and Simmons. Ironically, you three demonstrate behaviour more akin to that of a troll than anyone else on this forum, so if I were you I'd shut up before you attract a bundle of minus votes, and the sensible things that you say get overlooked.

Controversial, often tangential, but usually with something useful to say in terms of information is how one might describe you, but lately you have begun to sound as petty-minded and shallow as Cook. Not good.
No, a troll is someone who tries to start arguments to get people worked up for fun.
No, Ginger, that is a chat show host. A troll has far more sinister, malicious intentions : Wikipedia says :
In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a forum, chat room, or blog), either accidentally or with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

This sense of the word troll and its associated verb trolling are associated with Internet discourse, but have been used more widely. Media attention in recent years has equated trolling with online harassment. For example, mass media has used troll to describe "a person who defaces Internet tribute sites with the aim of causing grief to families."

It's like shoplifting, in that it is all about INTENT. If someone makes a robust, even harsh statement about, or in response to a given topic, and it is a sincere opinion, then it cannot be classified as trolling. However, if that statement was initiated or offered in reply with the deliberate intention of causing serious offence to another, then that is trolling.

What about humour, teasing, witty comments, etc? You can't classify all that as trolling just because you choose not to like it. Is Southy a troll because he sees everything via a particular political perspective ? Am I a troll for tackling what I and many others would consider to be your "out of kilter" definition of troll ?

The troll card is played more often than not by people who are losing the argument, and want to disrupt that trend to save face.

No, the trolling thing is like political correctness, and the ridiculous "Godwins Law" - most people just say it and use it to further their own argument.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: From your many posts in the past (dozens daily), it would appear that a troll is someone who does not hold the same views and opinions as you, Cook, and Simmons. Ironically, you three demonstrate behaviour more akin to that of a troll than anyone else on this forum, so if I were you I'd shut up before you attract a bundle of minus votes, and the sensible things that you say get overlooked. Controversial, often tangential, but usually with something useful to say in terms of information is how one might describe you, but lately you have begun to sound as petty-minded and shallow as Cook. Not good.[/p][/quote]No, a troll is someone who tries to start arguments to get people worked up for fun.[/p][/quote]No, Ginger, that is a chat show host. A troll has far more sinister, malicious intentions : Wikipedia says : In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people,[1] by posting inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a forum, chat room, or blog), either accidentally[3][4] or with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[5] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[6] This sense of the word troll and its associated verb trolling are associated with Internet discourse, but have been used more widely. Media attention in recent years has equated trolling with online harassment. For example, mass media has used troll to describe "a person who defaces Internet tribute sites with the aim of causing grief to families."[7][8] It's like shoplifting, in that it is all about INTENT. If someone makes a robust, even harsh statement about, or in response to a given topic, and it is a sincere opinion, then it cannot be classified as trolling. However, if that statement was initiated or offered in reply with the deliberate intention of causing serious offence to another, then that is trolling. What about humour, teasing, witty comments, etc? You can't classify all that as trolling just because you choose not to like it. Is Southy a troll because he sees everything via a particular political perspective ? Am I a troll for tackling what I and many others would consider to be your "out of kilter" definition of troll ? The troll card is played more often than not by people who are losing the argument, and want to disrupt that trend to save face. No, the trolling thing is like political correctness, and the ridiculous "Godwins Law" - most people just say it and use it to further their own argument. charrlee
  • Score: 0

2:43pm Sun 16 Mar 14

solomum says...

Gumbo82 wrote:
Let's get this story straight,my colleague was driving the bus which was stationary outside the mayflower and a drunk driver smashed into the back of a car which in turn smashed into the back of the bus.
In which case the title of this story is incorrect. It is not a bus crash then, but a multi vehicle crash. The title leads the reader to think the bus was the one that crashed when in fact it was a car that crashed into the bus.
[quote][p][bold]Gumbo82[/bold] wrote: Let's get this story straight,my colleague was driving the bus which was stationary outside the mayflower and a drunk driver smashed into the back of a car which in turn smashed into the back of the bus.[/p][/quote]In which case the title of this story is incorrect. It is not a bus crash then, but a multi vehicle crash. The title leads the reader to think the bus was the one that crashed when in fact it was a car that crashed into the bus. solomum
  • Score: 2

2:55pm Sun 16 Mar 14

Mary80 says...

From experience of being stuck behind buses you see morons in cars in front of you get impatient and drive around them so maybe that's how it happened? Waiting a few seconds wouldn't kill someone if that is why the accident happened.
From experience of being stuck behind buses you see morons in cars in front of you get impatient and drive around them so maybe that's how it happened? Waiting a few seconds wouldn't kill someone if that is why the accident happened. Mary80
  • Score: -3

5:48pm Sun 16 Mar 14

sotonbusdriver says...

focus19 wrote:
Its seems its easy to Blame Bus Drivers Cyclist and Lorry drivers and there are less of them I guess, Car driver do no wrong of course. (Sarcasm) 223

Highway Code : 223
Buses, coaches and trams. Give priority to these vehicles when you can do so safely, especially when they signal to pull away from stops. Look out for people getting off a bus or tram and crossing the road.

Granted Like any other Category there are Idiots in ALL, It takes a better person to excise more caution than none at all. Lookout for one another You only get one chance at life !
It is also likely that bus and lorry drivers will have an accident on frequency more than a car driver..
Although per mile they are safer drivers.
The average car driver does up to 12000 miles a year, where as bus drivers can easy exceed 35000 miles a year, with lorries greater than that.
As Bus drivers and lorry drivers have extended tests and higher medical requirements to drive they are less likely per mile to have an accident too..
As a car driver I haven't had an accident in some 35+ years, but on the bus, have had a couple of non-blame worthy accidents
[quote][p][bold]focus19[/bold] wrote: Its seems its easy to Blame Bus Drivers Cyclist and Lorry drivers and there are less of them I guess, Car driver do no wrong of course. (Sarcasm) 223 Highway Code : 223 Buses, coaches and trams. Give priority to these vehicles when you can do so safely, especially when they signal to pull away from stops. Look out for people getting off a bus or tram and crossing the road. Granted Like any other Category there are Idiots in ALL, It takes a better person to excise more caution than none at all. Lookout for one another You only get one chance at life ![/p][/quote]It is also likely that bus and lorry drivers will have an accident on frequency more than a car driver.. Although per mile they are safer drivers. The average car driver does up to 12000 miles a year, where as bus drivers can easy exceed 35000 miles a year, with lorries greater than that. As Bus drivers and lorry drivers have extended tests and higher medical requirements to drive they are less likely per mile to have an accident too.. As a car driver I haven't had an accident in some 35+ years, but on the bus, have had a couple of non-blame worthy accidents sotonbusdriver
  • Score: 1

6:09pm Sun 16 Mar 14

so'tongirl says...

SOULJACKER wrote:
so'tongirl wrote:
SOULJACKER wrote:
What is it with the buses in this town?
There seems to be a lot on incidents involving buses :D
You don't even know who is at fault here yet!
You must have sleepy dust in your eye 'So'tongirl' or maybe something else!
Did I apportion blame at any time, no I don't think I did did I but that's ok you needn't apologize.
Won't apologise to no one !
[quote][p][bold]SOULJACKER[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]so'tongirl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SOULJACKER[/bold] wrote: What is it with the buses in this town? There seems to be a lot on incidents involving buses :D[/p][/quote]You don't even know who is at fault here yet![/p][/quote]You must have sleepy dust in your eye 'So'tongirl' or maybe something else! Did I apportion blame at any time, no I don't think I did did I but that's ok you needn't apologize.[/p][/quote]Won't apologise to no one ! so'tongirl
  • Score: -1

6:36pm Sun 16 Mar 14

charrlee says...

so'tongirl wrote:
SOULJACKER wrote:
so'tongirl wrote:
SOULJACKER wrote:
What is it with the buses in this town?
There seems to be a lot on incidents involving buses :D
You don't even know who is at fault here yet!
You must have sleepy dust in your eye 'So'tongirl' or maybe something else!
Did I apportion blame at any time, no I don't think I did did I but that's ok you needn't apologize.
Won't apologise to no one !
"Won't apologise to no one" is what is called a double negative, which, as in maths, comes out as a plus. So "won't apologise to no one" actually means you WILL apologise to SOMEONE. If you want to say that you are NOT apologising, then, staying close to your choice of words, you need to say :"Won't apologise to ANYone". It would have been much simpler to have just said, " F*** Off", and then Souljacker would have been absolutely clear about your position on the matter.

Now then, Gingercyclist, is that genuine advice, or deliberate patronisation designed to humiliate ie trolling ?
[quote][p][bold]so'tongirl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SOULJACKER[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]so'tongirl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SOULJACKER[/bold] wrote: What is it with the buses in this town? There seems to be a lot on incidents involving buses :D[/p][/quote]You don't even know who is at fault here yet![/p][/quote]You must have sleepy dust in your eye 'So'tongirl' or maybe something else! Did I apportion blame at any time, no I don't think I did did I but that's ok you needn't apologize.[/p][/quote]Won't apologise to no one ![/p][/quote]"Won't apologise to no one" is what is called a double negative, which, as in maths, comes out as a plus. So "won't apologise to no one" actually means you WILL apologise to SOMEONE. If you want to say that you are NOT apologising, then, staying close to your choice of words, you need to say :"Won't apologise to ANYone". It would have been much simpler to have just said, " F*** Off", and then Souljacker would have been absolutely clear about your position on the matter. Now then, Gingercyclist, is that genuine advice, or deliberate patronisation designed to humiliate ie trolling ? charrlee
  • Score: -1

8:04pm Sun 16 Mar 14

gilbertratchet says...

charrlee wrote:
so'tongirl wrote:
SOULJACKER wrote:
so'tongirl wrote:
SOULJACKER wrote:
What is it with the buses in this town?
There seems to be a lot on incidents involving buses :D
You don't even know who is at fault here yet!
You must have sleepy dust in your eye 'So'tongirl' or maybe something else!
Did I apportion blame at any time, no I don't think I did did I but that's ok you needn't apologize.
Won't apologise to no one !
"Won't apologise to no one" is what is called a double negative, which, as in maths, comes out as a plus. So "won't apologise to no one" actually means you WILL apologise to SOMEONE. If you want to say that you are NOT apologising, then, staying close to your choice of words, you need to say :"Won't apologise to ANYone". It would have been much simpler to have just said, " F*** Off", and then Souljacker would have been absolutely clear about your position on the matter.

Now then, Gingercyclist, is that genuine advice, or deliberate patronisation designed to humiliate ie trolling ?
Perhaps she's just predicting that at some point in the future she may apologise to someone.
[quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]so'tongirl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SOULJACKER[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]so'tongirl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SOULJACKER[/bold] wrote: What is it with the buses in this town? There seems to be a lot on incidents involving buses :D[/p][/quote]You don't even know who is at fault here yet![/p][/quote]You must have sleepy dust in your eye 'So'tongirl' or maybe something else! Did I apportion blame at any time, no I don't think I did did I but that's ok you needn't apologize.[/p][/quote]Won't apologise to no one ![/p][/quote]"Won't apologise to no one" is what is called a double negative, which, as in maths, comes out as a plus. So "won't apologise to no one" actually means you WILL apologise to SOMEONE. If you want to say that you are NOT apologising, then, staying close to your choice of words, you need to say :"Won't apologise to ANYone". It would have been much simpler to have just said, " F*** Off", and then Souljacker would have been absolutely clear about your position on the matter. Now then, Gingercyclist, is that genuine advice, or deliberate patronisation designed to humiliate ie trolling ?[/p][/quote]Perhaps she's just predicting that at some point in the future she may apologise to someone. gilbertratchet
  • Score: 1

10:11pm Sun 16 Mar 14

charrlee says...

gilbertratchet wrote:
charrlee wrote:
so'tongirl wrote:
SOULJACKER wrote:
so'tongirl wrote:
SOULJACKER wrote:
What is it with the buses in this town?
There seems to be a lot on incidents involving buses :D
You don't even know who is at fault here yet!
You must have sleepy dust in your eye 'So'tongirl' or maybe something else!
Did I apportion blame at any time, no I don't think I did did I but that's ok you needn't apologize.
Won't apologise to no one !
"Won't apologise to no one" is what is called a double negative, which, as in maths, comes out as a plus. So "won't apologise to no one" actually means you WILL apologise to SOMEONE. If you want to say that you are NOT apologising, then, staying close to your choice of words, you need to say :"Won't apologise to ANYone". It would have been much simpler to have just said, " F*** Off", and then Souljacker would have been absolutely clear about your position on the matter.

Now then, Gingercyclist, is that genuine advice, or deliberate patronisation designed to humiliate ie trolling ?
Perhaps she's just predicting that at some point in the future she may apologise to someone.
That would disconnect her comment from the one to which she was responding. The use of double negatives when only a single was intended is quite common at "street level".

You were simply overwhelmed with the desire to say something, and that was the best you could do, was it ? When I find myself in such a situation, I generally say nothing.
[quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]so'tongirl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SOULJACKER[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]so'tongirl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SOULJACKER[/bold] wrote: What is it with the buses in this town? There seems to be a lot on incidents involving buses :D[/p][/quote]You don't even know who is at fault here yet![/p][/quote]You must have sleepy dust in your eye 'So'tongirl' or maybe something else! Did I apportion blame at any time, no I don't think I did did I but that's ok you needn't apologize.[/p][/quote]Won't apologise to no one ![/p][/quote]"Won't apologise to no one" is what is called a double negative, which, as in maths, comes out as a plus. So "won't apologise to no one" actually means you WILL apologise to SOMEONE. If you want to say that you are NOT apologising, then, staying close to your choice of words, you need to say :"Won't apologise to ANYone". It would have been much simpler to have just said, " F*** Off", and then Souljacker would have been absolutely clear about your position on the matter. Now then, Gingercyclist, is that genuine advice, or deliberate patronisation designed to humiliate ie trolling ?[/p][/quote]Perhaps she's just predicting that at some point in the future she may apologise to someone.[/p][/quote]That would disconnect her comment from the one to which she was responding. The use of double negatives when only a single was intended is quite common at "street level". You were simply overwhelmed with the desire to say something, and that was the best you could do, was it ? When I find myself in such a situation, I generally say nothing. charrlee
  • Score: -1

5:42am Mon 17 Mar 14

gilbertratchet says...

charrlee wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
charrlee wrote:
so'tongirl wrote:
SOULJACKER wrote:
so'tongirl wrote:
SOULJACKER wrote:
What is it with the buses in this town?
There seems to be a lot on incidents involving buses :D
You don't even know who is at fault here yet!
You must have sleepy dust in your eye 'So'tongirl' or maybe something else!
Did I apportion blame at any time, no I don't think I did did I but that's ok you needn't apologize.
Won't apologise to no one !
"Won't apologise to no one" is what is called a double negative, which, as in maths, comes out as a plus. So "won't apologise to no one" actually means you WILL apologise to SOMEONE. If you want to say that you are NOT apologising, then, staying close to your choice of words, you need to say :"Won't apologise to ANYone". It would have been much simpler to have just said, " F*** Off", and then Souljacker would have been absolutely clear about your position on the matter.

Now then, Gingercyclist, is that genuine advice, or deliberate patronisation designed to humiliate ie trolling ?
Perhaps she's just predicting that at some point in the future she may apologise to someone.
That would disconnect her comment from the one to which she was responding. The use of double negatives when only a single was intended is quite common at "street level".

You were simply overwhelmed with the desire to say something, and that was the best you could do, was it ? When I find myself in such a situation, I generally say nothing.
No you don't. If that was the case, you would never be posting. Picking someone up on poor grammar is pretty much the quintessential example of someone having nothing of value to say, and doing so anyway. Explaining double negatives to someone who has just used one is the grammar nazi equivalent of a **** joke, by the way. Cheap and easy point-scoring.
[quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]so'tongirl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SOULJACKER[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]so'tongirl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SOULJACKER[/bold] wrote: What is it with the buses in this town? There seems to be a lot on incidents involving buses :D[/p][/quote]You don't even know who is at fault here yet![/p][/quote]You must have sleepy dust in your eye 'So'tongirl' or maybe something else! Did I apportion blame at any time, no I don't think I did did I but that's ok you needn't apologize.[/p][/quote]Won't apologise to no one ![/p][/quote]"Won't apologise to no one" is what is called a double negative, which, as in maths, comes out as a plus. So "won't apologise to no one" actually means you WILL apologise to SOMEONE. If you want to say that you are NOT apologising, then, staying close to your choice of words, you need to say :"Won't apologise to ANYone". It would have been much simpler to have just said, " F*** Off", and then Souljacker would have been absolutely clear about your position on the matter. Now then, Gingercyclist, is that genuine advice, or deliberate patronisation designed to humiliate ie trolling ?[/p][/quote]Perhaps she's just predicting that at some point in the future she may apologise to someone.[/p][/quote]That would disconnect her comment from the one to which she was responding. The use of double negatives when only a single was intended is quite common at "street level". You were simply overwhelmed with the desire to say something, and that was the best you could do, was it ? When I find myself in such a situation, I generally say nothing.[/p][/quote]No you don't. If that was the case, you would never be posting. Picking someone up on poor grammar is pretty much the quintessential example of someone having nothing of value to say, and doing so anyway. Explaining double negatives to someone who has just used one is the grammar nazi equivalent of a **** joke, by the way. Cheap and easy point-scoring. gilbertratchet
  • Score: 2

9:55am Mon 17 Mar 14

S!monOn says...

gilbertratchet wrote:
charrlee wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
charrlee wrote:
so'tongirl wrote:
SOULJACKER wrote:
so'tongirl wrote:
SOULJACKER wrote:
What is it with the buses in this town?
There seems to be a lot on incidents involving buses :D
You don't even know who is at fault here yet!
You must have sleepy dust in your eye 'So'tongirl' or maybe something else!
Did I apportion blame at any time, no I don't think I did did I but that's ok you needn't apologize.
Won't apologise to no one !
"Won't apologise to no one" is what is called a double negative, which, as in maths, comes out as a plus. So "won't apologise to no one" actually means you WILL apologise to SOMEONE. If you want to say that you are NOT apologising, then, staying close to your choice of words, you need to say :"Won't apologise to ANYone". It would have been much simpler to have just said, " F*** Off", and then Souljacker would have been absolutely clear about your position on the matter.

Now then, Gingercyclist, is that genuine advice, or deliberate patronisation designed to humiliate ie trolling ?
Perhaps she's just predicting that at some point in the future she may apologise to someone.
That would disconnect her comment from the one to which she was responding. The use of double negatives when only a single was intended is quite common at "street level".

You were simply overwhelmed with the desire to say something, and that was the best you could do, was it ? When I find myself in such a situation, I generally say nothing.
No you don't. If that was the case, you would never be posting. Picking someone up on poor grammar is pretty much the quintessential example of someone having nothing of value to say, and doing so anyway. Explaining double negatives to someone who has just used one is the grammar nazi equivalent of a **** joke, by the way. Cheap and easy point-scoring.
I might be speaking just for myself, but can you all just "f*** off"? :D
[quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]so'tongirl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SOULJACKER[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]so'tongirl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SOULJACKER[/bold] wrote: What is it with the buses in this town? There seems to be a lot on incidents involving buses :D[/p][/quote]You don't even know who is at fault here yet![/p][/quote]You must have sleepy dust in your eye 'So'tongirl' or maybe something else! Did I apportion blame at any time, no I don't think I did did I but that's ok you needn't apologize.[/p][/quote]Won't apologise to no one ![/p][/quote]"Won't apologise to no one" is what is called a double negative, which, as in maths, comes out as a plus. So "won't apologise to no one" actually means you WILL apologise to SOMEONE. If you want to say that you are NOT apologising, then, staying close to your choice of words, you need to say :"Won't apologise to ANYone". It would have been much simpler to have just said, " F*** Off", and then Souljacker would have been absolutely clear about your position on the matter. Now then, Gingercyclist, is that genuine advice, or deliberate patronisation designed to humiliate ie trolling ?[/p][/quote]Perhaps she's just predicting that at some point in the future she may apologise to someone.[/p][/quote]That would disconnect her comment from the one to which she was responding. The use of double negatives when only a single was intended is quite common at "street level". You were simply overwhelmed with the desire to say something, and that was the best you could do, was it ? When I find myself in such a situation, I generally say nothing.[/p][/quote]No you don't. If that was the case, you would never be posting. Picking someone up on poor grammar is pretty much the quintessential example of someone having nothing of value to say, and doing so anyway. Explaining double negatives to someone who has just used one is the grammar nazi equivalent of a **** joke, by the way. Cheap and easy point-scoring.[/p][/quote]I might be speaking just for myself, but can you all just "f*** off"? :D S!monOn
  • Score: 0

10:16am Mon 17 Mar 14

charrlee says...

S!monOn wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
charrlee wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
charrlee wrote:
so'tongirl wrote:
SOULJACKER wrote:
so'tongirl wrote:
SOULJACKER wrote:
What is it with the buses in this town?
There seems to be a lot on incidents involving buses :D
You don't even know who is at fault here yet!
You must have sleepy dust in your eye 'So'tongirl' or maybe something else!
Did I apportion blame at any time, no I don't think I did did I but that's ok you needn't apologize.
Won't apologise to no one !
"Won't apologise to no one" is what is called a double negative, which, as in maths, comes out as a plus. So "won't apologise to no one" actually means you WILL apologise to SOMEONE. If you want to say that you are NOT apologising, then, staying close to your choice of words, you need to say :"Won't apologise to ANYone". It would have been much simpler to have just said, " F*** Off", and then Souljacker would have been absolutely clear about your position on the matter.

Now then, Gingercyclist, is that genuine advice, or deliberate patronisation designed to humiliate ie trolling ?
Perhaps she's just predicting that at some point in the future she may apologise to someone.
That would disconnect her comment from the one to which she was responding. The use of double negatives when only a single was intended is quite common at "street level".

You were simply overwhelmed with the desire to say something, and that was the best you could do, was it ? When I find myself in such a situation, I generally say nothing.
No you don't. If that was the case, you would never be posting. Picking someone up on poor grammar is pretty much the quintessential example of someone having nothing of value to say, and doing so anyway. Explaining double negatives to someone who has just used one is the grammar nazi equivalent of a **** joke, by the way. Cheap and easy point-scoring.
I might be speaking just for myself, but can you all just "f*** off"? :D
As there's quite a few of us, that's rather a lot of f***ing off, so probably easiest if you just f*** off by yourself, Simone.
[quote][p][bold]S!monOn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]so'tongirl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SOULJACKER[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]so'tongirl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SOULJACKER[/bold] wrote: What is it with the buses in this town? There seems to be a lot on incidents involving buses :D[/p][/quote]You don't even know who is at fault here yet![/p][/quote]You must have sleepy dust in your eye 'So'tongirl' or maybe something else! Did I apportion blame at any time, no I don't think I did did I but that's ok you needn't apologize.[/p][/quote]Won't apologise to no one ![/p][/quote]"Won't apologise to no one" is what is called a double negative, which, as in maths, comes out as a plus. So "won't apologise to no one" actually means you WILL apologise to SOMEONE. If you want to say that you are NOT apologising, then, staying close to your choice of words, you need to say :"Won't apologise to ANYone". It would have been much simpler to have just said, " F*** Off", and then Souljacker would have been absolutely clear about your position on the matter. Now then, Gingercyclist, is that genuine advice, or deliberate patronisation designed to humiliate ie trolling ?[/p][/quote]Perhaps she's just predicting that at some point in the future she may apologise to someone.[/p][/quote]That would disconnect her comment from the one to which she was responding. The use of double negatives when only a single was intended is quite common at "street level". You were simply overwhelmed with the desire to say something, and that was the best you could do, was it ? When I find myself in such a situation, I generally say nothing.[/p][/quote]No you don't. If that was the case, you would never be posting. Picking someone up on poor grammar is pretty much the quintessential example of someone having nothing of value to say, and doing so anyway. Explaining double negatives to someone who has just used one is the grammar nazi equivalent of a **** joke, by the way. Cheap and easy point-scoring.[/p][/quote]I might be speaking just for myself, but can you all just "f*** off"? :D[/p][/quote]As there's quite a few of us, that's rather a lot of f***ing off, so probably easiest if you just f*** off by yourself, Simone. charrlee
  • Score: 0

10:37am Mon 17 Mar 14

charrlee says...

gilbertratchet wrote:
charrlee wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
charrlee wrote:
so'tongirl wrote:
SOULJACKER wrote:
so'tongirl wrote:
SOULJACKER wrote:
What is it with the buses in this town?
There seems to be a lot on incidents involving buses :D
You don't even know who is at fault here yet!
You must have sleepy dust in your eye 'So'tongirl' or maybe something else!
Did I apportion blame at any time, no I don't think I did did I but that's ok you needn't apologize.
Won't apologise to no one !
"Won't apologise to no one" is what is called a double negative, which, as in maths, comes out as a plus. So "won't apologise to no one" actually means you WILL apologise to SOMEONE. If you want to say that you are NOT apologising, then, staying close to your choice of words, you need to say :"Won't apologise to ANYone". It would have been much simpler to have just said, " F*** Off", and then Souljacker would have been absolutely clear about your position on the matter.

Now then, Gingercyclist, is that genuine advice, or deliberate patronisation designed to humiliate ie trolling ?
Perhaps she's just predicting that at some point in the future she may apologise to someone.
That would disconnect her comment from the one to which she was responding. The use of double negatives when only a single was intended is quite common at "street level".

You were simply overwhelmed with the desire to say something, and that was the best you could do, was it ? When I find myself in such a situation, I generally say nothing.
No you don't. If that was the case, you would never be posting. Picking someone up on poor grammar is pretty much the quintessential example of someone having nothing of value to say, and doing so anyway. Explaining double negatives to someone who has just used one is the grammar nazi equivalent of a **** joke, by the way. Cheap and easy point-scoring.
Poor old Rachet (is it pronounced Rah - shay, or Rat - sh it? I would imagine most people here use the latter in reference to you).

You just keep missing the point, don't you? So shallow in your thinking, so superficial, so one-dimensional.

I will continue to use trolling techniques to mildly irritate you if you are going to persist with your irrational, personal insults. I think most readers here would say my comments are of some value, and I only mention grammar in an ironic context, so "grammar Nazi" is a flawed assessment. You are right about "cheap and easy point-scoring" : you leave yourself so wide open to mockery that one just cannot resist the temptation.
[quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]so'tongirl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SOULJACKER[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]so'tongirl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SOULJACKER[/bold] wrote: What is it with the buses in this town? There seems to be a lot on incidents involving buses :D[/p][/quote]You don't even know who is at fault here yet![/p][/quote]You must have sleepy dust in your eye 'So'tongirl' or maybe something else! Did I apportion blame at any time, no I don't think I did did I but that's ok you needn't apologize.[/p][/quote]Won't apologise to no one ![/p][/quote]"Won't apologise to no one" is what is called a double negative, which, as in maths, comes out as a plus. So "won't apologise to no one" actually means you WILL apologise to SOMEONE. If you want to say that you are NOT apologising, then, staying close to your choice of words, you need to say :"Won't apologise to ANYone". It would have been much simpler to have just said, " F*** Off", and then Souljacker would have been absolutely clear about your position on the matter. Now then, Gingercyclist, is that genuine advice, or deliberate patronisation designed to humiliate ie trolling ?[/p][/quote]Perhaps she's just predicting that at some point in the future she may apologise to someone.[/p][/quote]That would disconnect her comment from the one to which she was responding. The use of double negatives when only a single was intended is quite common at "street level". You were simply overwhelmed with the desire to say something, and that was the best you could do, was it ? When I find myself in such a situation, I generally say nothing.[/p][/quote]No you don't. If that was the case, you would never be posting. Picking someone up on poor grammar is pretty much the quintessential example of someone having nothing of value to say, and doing so anyway. Explaining double negatives to someone who has just used one is the grammar nazi equivalent of a **** joke, by the way. Cheap and easy point-scoring.[/p][/quote]Poor old Rachet (is it pronounced Rah - shay, or Rat - sh it? I would imagine most people here use the latter in reference to you). You just keep missing the point, don't you? So shallow in your thinking, so superficial, so one-dimensional. I will continue to use trolling techniques to mildly irritate you if you are going to persist with your irrational, personal insults. I think most readers here would say my comments are of some value, and I only mention grammar in an ironic context, so "grammar Nazi" is a flawed assessment. You are right about "cheap and easy point-scoring" : you leave yourself so wide open to mockery that one just cannot resist the temptation. charrlee
  • Score: 0

10:40am Mon 17 Mar 14

S!monOn says...

charrlee wrote:
S!monOn wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
charrlee wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
charrlee wrote:
so'tongirl wrote:
SOULJACKER wrote:
so'tongirl wrote:
SOULJACKER wrote:
What is it with the buses in this town?
There seems to be a lot on incidents involving buses :D
You don't even know who is at fault here yet!
You must have sleepy dust in your eye 'So'tongirl' or maybe something else!
Did I apportion blame at any time, no I don't think I did did I but that's ok you needn't apologize.
Won't apologise to no one !
"Won't apologise to no one" is what is called a double negative, which, as in maths, comes out as a plus. So "won't apologise to no one" actually means you WILL apologise to SOMEONE. If you want to say that you are NOT apologising, then, staying close to your choice of words, you need to say :"Won't apologise to ANYone". It would have been much simpler to have just said, " F*** Off", and then Souljacker would have been absolutely clear about your position on the matter.

Now then, Gingercyclist, is that genuine advice, or deliberate patronisation designed to humiliate ie trolling ?
Perhaps she's just predicting that at some point in the future she may apologise to someone.
That would disconnect her comment from the one to which she was responding. The use of double negatives when only a single was intended is quite common at "street level".

You were simply overwhelmed with the desire to say something, and that was the best you could do, was it ? When I find myself in such a situation, I generally say nothing.
No you don't. If that was the case, you would never be posting. Picking someone up on poor grammar is pretty much the quintessential example of someone having nothing of value to say, and doing so anyway. Explaining double negatives to someone who has just used one is the grammar nazi equivalent of a **** joke, by the way. Cheap and easy point-scoring.
I might be speaking just for myself, but can you all just "f*** off"? :D
As there's quite a few of us, that's rather a lot of f***ing off, so probably easiest if you just f*** off by yourself, Simone.
Uh-huh. Name calling now that's mature. Can't take a joke? Just goes to show your true nature.
[quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]S!monOn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]so'tongirl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SOULJACKER[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]so'tongirl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SOULJACKER[/bold] wrote: What is it with the buses in this town? There seems to be a lot on incidents involving buses :D[/p][/quote]You don't even know who is at fault here yet![/p][/quote]You must have sleepy dust in your eye 'So'tongirl' or maybe something else! Did I apportion blame at any time, no I don't think I did did I but that's ok you needn't apologize.[/p][/quote]Won't apologise to no one ![/p][/quote]"Won't apologise to no one" is what is called a double negative, which, as in maths, comes out as a plus. So "won't apologise to no one" actually means you WILL apologise to SOMEONE. If you want to say that you are NOT apologising, then, staying close to your choice of words, you need to say :"Won't apologise to ANYone". It would have been much simpler to have just said, " F*** Off", and then Souljacker would have been absolutely clear about your position on the matter. Now then, Gingercyclist, is that genuine advice, or deliberate patronisation designed to humiliate ie trolling ?[/p][/quote]Perhaps she's just predicting that at some point in the future she may apologise to someone.[/p][/quote]That would disconnect her comment from the one to which she was responding. The use of double negatives when only a single was intended is quite common at "street level". You were simply overwhelmed with the desire to say something, and that was the best you could do, was it ? When I find myself in such a situation, I generally say nothing.[/p][/quote]No you don't. If that was the case, you would never be posting. Picking someone up on poor grammar is pretty much the quintessential example of someone having nothing of value to say, and doing so anyway. Explaining double negatives to someone who has just used one is the grammar nazi equivalent of a **** joke, by the way. Cheap and easy point-scoring.[/p][/quote]I might be speaking just for myself, but can you all just "f*** off"? :D[/p][/quote]As there's quite a few of us, that's rather a lot of f***ing off, so probably easiest if you just f*** off by yourself, Simone.[/p][/quote]Uh-huh. Name calling now that's mature. Can't take a joke? Just goes to show your true nature. S!monOn
  • Score: 1

11:41am Mon 17 Mar 14

charrlee says...

What is funny about telling people to f*** off? Saying it in public would constitute a public order offence and put you on a level with our Gingercyclist.

What name calling are you talking about? Oh ! You must mean the little "e" on the end of "Simon" ! Uh-huh. Can't take a joke? Just goes to show your true nature.
What is funny about telling people to f*** off? Saying it in public would constitute a public order offence and put you on a level with our Gingercyclist. What name calling are you talking about? Oh ! You must mean the little "e" on the end of "Simon" ! Uh-huh. Can't take a joke? Just goes to show your true nature. charrlee
  • Score: -1

2:17pm Mon 17 Mar 14

S!monOn says...

charrlee wrote:
What is funny about telling people to f*** off? Saying it in public would constitute a public order offence and put you on a level with our Gingercyclist.

What name calling are you talking about? Oh ! You must mean the little "e" on the end of "Simon" ! Uh-huh. Can't take a joke? Just goes to show your true nature.
Are you serious? You were the one suggesting to tell another to "f*** off" and now you take offence?

You've just shown what a complete and utter idiot you are.
[quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: What is funny about telling people to f*** off? Saying it in public would constitute a public order offence and put you on a level with our Gingercyclist. What name calling are you talking about? Oh ! You must mean the little "e" on the end of "Simon" ! Uh-huh. Can't take a joke? Just goes to show your true nature.[/p][/quote]Are you serious? You were the one suggesting to tell another to "f*** off" and now you take offence? You've just shown what a complete and utter idiot you are. S!monOn
  • Score: -1

6:02pm Mon 17 Mar 14

charrlee says...

S!monOn wrote:
charrlee wrote:
What is funny about telling people to f*** off? Saying it in public would constitute a public order offence and put you on a level with our Gingercyclist.

What name calling are you talking about? Oh ! You must mean the little "e" on the end of "Simon" ! Uh-huh. Can't take a joke? Just goes to show your true nature.
Are you serious? You were the one suggesting to tell another to "f*** off" and now you take offence?

You've just shown what a complete and utter idiot you are.
Ah ! Now SimonOn's post IS trolling.

I make an observation relating to his telling everyone to "f*** off". Nowhere do I say that I am offended. He invents that to justify wrongly calling me "a complete and utter idiot".

You are pushing the limits of credibility by intimating you believe you can assess the character and personality of another forum user from the horsesh*t that is posted here daily.
[quote][p][bold]S!monOn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: What is funny about telling people to f*** off? Saying it in public would constitute a public order offence and put you on a level with our Gingercyclist. What name calling are you talking about? Oh ! You must mean the little "e" on the end of "Simon" ! Uh-huh. Can't take a joke? Just goes to show your true nature.[/p][/quote]Are you serious? You were the one suggesting to tell another to "f*** off" and now you take offence? You've just shown what a complete and utter idiot you are.[/p][/quote]Ah ! Now SimonOn's post IS trolling. I make an observation relating to his telling everyone to "f*** off". Nowhere do I say that I am offended. He invents that to justify wrongly calling me "a complete and utter idiot". You are pushing the limits of credibility by intimating you believe you can assess the character and personality of another forum user from the horsesh*t that is posted here daily. charrlee
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree