Re: warning speed camera

Oooppss.. Giggle :)

Onejob

ST1100 Panny STOC#4253

lol anti-social? where did i say that?. i was actually being sarcastic. i think idiots like you who are still living in the eighties and think newsgroup etiquette is the most important thing in their lives are anti-social. how is it inconsiderate if its easier to read? i cant be bothered to scroll right down to the bottom of a post every time. i want to read posts like email and have the replies at the top, surely thats easier? the only reason it was brought into a Request For Change in the first place was to stop posts growing too large when no-one bothered cutting. if you top-post and cut irrelevant stuff from the bottom then it makes it easier to read.

thats my opinion. i think yours are old and out of date but hey it would be a boring world if we all thought the same.

my OE is fine thanks apart from it being M$.

Well you were wrong then. IT was clear from what you said that you knew top posting is generally frowned on, so it was quite reasonable to assume that meant you knew you were being anti-social.

It is hard to imagine how anybody can think it could be easier to read. It is ONLY easier to read if you are not going to read the quoted material.

The point of quoting material is to provide context, and the vast majority of readers will want to read the quoted text first, which means it should come first.

Nope. If you only read1-2 newsgroups, and check every few minutes, so you don't need the context, then it would be. But most people do not read newsgroups that way.

Rubbish. WHile that is an added benefit, the main reason is simply that it is far easier to read if all the text is in natural reading order.

Indeed. But there are some things where convention requires that we do all do things the same way.

Text in English goes top to bottom and left to right.

Would you think it reasonable if the paragraphs on the page of a magazine were reversed in order?

Or if the editorial responses to letters were before the text they responded to?

Putting your text before what you are responding to is just the same.

No it isn't. ALthough since you don't have a sig at all, it doesn't matter too much.

Like so?

LOL at the sig

The meanies in the Volvo didn't at Strawberyy Howe near Cockermouth when the jumped out of the roundabout for me at 108.2 in a 60!

Only reading replies in uk.rec.car.maintenance.

Been stopped, oh, at least ten times. Never been breathalised.

They only automatically breathalyse for accidents, not speeding.

In alt.uk.law Tim S Kemp writted:

:> The meanies in the Volvo didn't at Strawberyy Howe near Cockermouth :> when the jumped out of the roundabout for me at 108.2 in a 60! :>

:> Only reading replies in uk.rec.car.maintenance.

: Been stopped, oh, at least ten times. Never been breathalised.

Funnily, I've had the exact opposite experience. I've been stopped three times (2x "faulty lights", 1x speeding), and breathalysed each time, despite not having had an alcoholic drink for several days in each case. Also been stopped once in a car with someone else (35 in a 30 zone) - driver was also breathalysed in this case, and was similarly alcohol-deprived.

I was evidently wrong in thinking in that breathalysing is automatic, but it's certainly seemed that way to me! Maybe Lothian and Borders are more inclined to this approach than other forces. In which case, I limit the previous statement to 'AFAIUI, the police *can* breathalyse if they wish to, or if they suspect, when a driver is pulled over for another offence'. ATB, Gavin

In message , Guy King writes

Didn't you ask him to narrow it down to a particular model and colour of FIAT?

:)

Yesh, ocifer, I'm sure I've got one in the boot.

Rv!

been stopped more times than I can remember, and apart from accidents, I've only been breathered 5 times in the same night :) but 6 young lads in a 3 door cossie at 4 in the morning tends to make the coppers suspicious for some reason :/

Yes, if you've committed a "moving traffic offence", the police are entitled to breathalyse you even if they have no grounds for suspecting you have been drinking.

The above cases sound much like the police trawling for people to breath-test, rather than specifically looking for dud lights or those doing

In the days when it was not considered politically incorrect to "beat the breathalyser", one piece of advice usually given was to make sure that all your lights were working.

--

I've only been stopped twice in 27 years of driving - once for speeding ("It's a fair cop, guv!") - and once to be breathalysed (negative result) in circumstances where the officer might have had some grounds for suspicion but took a liberal interpretation of his powers when stopping me, claiming I had been speeding when at most I'd been doing 2 mph over the limit.

You're not black as well, are you?

There is a concept called "keeping a low profile", you know.

--

Paul Giverin mumbled:

Actually, I /had/ seen a tow tuck pulling a blue Fiat 127 and told him where it'd gone. He was most appreciative and shot off after it.

Guy King fascinated us all by saying...

And I replied "No, is it available for rent on DVD?"

nearly :) maybe when i top up the tan :)

i was :)