Silly things That Irritate you for no good reason.

[Paul Monk]

You've never taken acid have you Paul?

No but I have seen people who have and they weren't wacky!
All I'm saying is that its very lazy writing wise to describe something that way.

[Wayne]

No but I have seen people who have and they weren't wacky!
All I'm saying is that its very lazy writing wise to describe something that way.

Fair enough, but no more lazy than saying people on acid just sit in a corner staring at the ceiling.
Not that i'd know, of course.

[Paul Monk]

Damn you Jefferies!

This thread is like a standard PS thread on acid!

[Wayne]

It's all good stuff on here.
It's like a Dr.Who forum on ac..... Hang on, you can overplay a gag.

[Si Hunt]

Things that irritate me.

THINGS THAT IRRITATE ME! :

- People who take ages to get back to you at work, then when the deadline is close start hassling you
- People who take something from where it lives, use it, then just leave it there
- Shops displaying things they can't sell you
- Having an unelected PM
- Smokers. "They're interferring a bit too much in our personal lives". F**K OFF!
- People who ring when you're doing something (I know it's not their fault, but it still irritates me!)
- Junk mail
- Cocky people on TV - Russell Brand, that pair on The Friday Night Project etc. Ooh, I'm rude and a lil bit camp and WORTHLESS so laugh at me.

Si.

[Paul Monk]

I hate the Friday Night Project too. What's the point of it?

People who ring when you're doing something (I know it's not their fault, but it still irritates me!)

Jody's parents have a habit of phoning when we are putting the children to bed which is annoying cos they know we put them to bed at that time.

[Si Hunt]

Who rings while "Coronation Street" is on as well! People have had 47 years to learn to avoid that time!!

Si.

[Wayne]

I hardly ever answer either of my phones anyway. I'm one of those irritating (probably) people where you'll have leave a message & i'll get back to you when i feel like it.

[Jason Thompson]

Having an unelected PM

Not that I want to get into a long political debate here, but surely it is the party that is elected, not the man? This isn't a dictatorship where the two are one and the same.

Churchill wasn't elected for his first term, but I'm sure glad we had him!

[Si Hunt]

Convince me the Labour Party would still have been elected in 1997 with Brown, not Blair, at the helm and I'll agree with you.

Besides, we DO vote for a leader as well as the party. It's the leader that's got to personally negotiate with other heads of state and ultimately be responsible for foreign and domestic policy.

Si.

[Jason Thompson]

Convince me the Labour Party would still have been elected in 1997 with Brown, not Blair, at the helm and I'll agree with you.

That's an absurd criterion. For one thing I was not eligible to vote back then, and therefore have no in-depth knowledge of the politics of the time. For another, I can't prove that, as you well know, any more than you can prove that they wouldn't have been elected then with Gordon Brown, or that they wouldn't have been had there been a general election immediately after Blair's resignation, or that they won't be re-elected with Brown at the helm when the next general election comes round.

That's a thing that irritates me: being asked to prove something the asker knows cannot be proven. Why not just say you disagree and list your reasons rather than ask an unanswerable question or demand an unsatisfiable standard of proof to change your mind?

Besides, we DO vote for a leader as well as the party.

Of course, the one comes with the other. But the only people with Blair's name on their election slips in 1997 were the residents of the Sedgefield constituency.

Personally I couldn't care less. The three major parties all seem to have some good ideas and some bad ones, so it all seems much of a muchness to me.

[Andrew Curnow]

If it was, you'd be watching a shark telling you the best soil conditions to grows tomatoes in.

That's the funniest thing I've read all day. Sorry Paul.

[Si Hunt]

That's an absurd criterion. For one thing I was not eligible to vote back then, and therefore have no in-depth knowledge of the politics of the time.

I don't really see what that has to do with it. You don't need to have actually been able to vote to make a judgement on if Labour was elected on the basis of its leader or not, just been around at the time. I voted in that election, and you arn't that much younger than me. It's not unreasonable to suspect you had a grasp of public opinion in 1997.

For another, I can't prove that, as you well know, any more than you can prove that they wouldn't have been elected then with Gordon Brown, or that they wouldn't have been had there been a general election immediately after Blair's resignation, or that they won't be re-elected with Brown at the helm when the next general election comes round.

That's a thing that irritates me: being asked to prove something the asker knows cannot be proven. Why not just say you disagree and list your reasons rather than ask an unanswerable question or demand an unsatisfiable standard of proof to change your mind?

I didn't ask you to prove anything Jason, nor did I ask an "unanswerable question"! I just said if you could convince me that the last election wasn't won on Blair's personality, rather than the Labour Party's policies, then I'd concur. It wasn't THAT outrageous a thing to say was it?

Si.

[Jason Thompson]

I don't really see what that has to do with it. You don't need to have actually been able to vote to make a judgement on if Labour was elected on the basis of its leader or not, just been around at the time. I voted in that election, and you arn't that much younger than me. It's not unreasonable to suspect you had a grasp of public opinion in 1997.

I was 17 and deep into my A-levels. Since I was not eligible to vote I saw no reason to expend energies involving myself in things I could not change when I had a rather more pressing set of things to worry about. I had no interest whatsoever in politics in those days. It has everything to do with the issue at hand, because you're asking me to convince you of something that requires in-depth knowledge of an event I simply do not have.

I didn't ask you to prove anything Jason, nor did I ask an "unanswerable question"! I just said if you could convince me that the last election wasn't won on Blair's personality, rather than the Labour Party's policies, then I'd concur.

From your point of view in this debate, what is the difference between proving it and convincing you?

I get asked to prove things or convince people of things an awful lot on other forums, and I refuse to answer the question until I have a reasonable idea of what the person asking would consider proof or a convincing argument.

My very vague recollection of the situation at the time was that public opinion generally held the conservative government to be pretty shite following the recession of the early 90s, and the severity of their defeat in the election leads me towards the suspicion that the conservatives were on the way out anyway. Given my understanding of the political parties of the time, the Lib Dems weren't likely to get in, and none of the other parties have ever had enough clout to realistically be elected to government. That leaves Labour. I'm not denying Blair's personality was a big factor, or that he was a driving force in making Labour a more appealing political party to vote for, but at the end of the day it's the party and not the man that is elected to government, and you can't be certain that someone other than Blair couldn't have also led the Labour party to victory in 1997.

John Major was an unelected PM until the first general election following his appointment. I can't believe his personality influenced the voting much, as every interview I've seen with him he seems pretty well devoid of personality!

[Logo Polish]

I was old enough to vote at the time, and from what I recall the Conservatives never really recovered from the problems caused them by the "Black Wednesday" episode on 16 September 1992. Labour was doing well even under John Smith before he died in 1994, so personally I think they would have had a fairly good chance of winning under him. He was even one of the people thought likely to have a go at standing for the job after Smith's death, although he didn't in the event.

Blair did mark more of a symbolic break with the past than Smith did (the scrapping of Clause 4 from the Labour constitution in 1994-5 was seen as a sign of that), and he had a more emollient voter-wooing style than most of his recent predecessors, and I'm not sure Brown would have had quite the same effect, but in my view he would probably have won.

Although I'd have thought the 2005 election was just as relevant to this, as that's the most recent, and the same person ended up as Prime Minister on that occasion.

[Si Hunt]

It has everything to do with the issue at hand, because you're asking me to convince you of something that requires in-depth knowledge of an event I simply do not have.

No, I'm not! I'm saying I'll change my mind when you (or someone else) convinces me I'm wrong. Isn't that standard for any point of view? I was very casually saying I'd revise my opinion if persauded, in the same way one would say "well I'll change my opinion of lorry drivers if you convince me they arn't all rude louts".

I certainly wasn't "demanding proof" of anything, nor did I intend to launch a mass debate.

Si.

[Jason Thompson]

No, I'm not! I'm saying I'll change my mind when you (or someone else) convinces me I'm wrong. Isn't that standard for any point of view?

My point is how am I supposed to do that? If you want me to convince you that not all ginger cats are male, all I need do is show you Emma's old pet cat, who was giner and female. If you want me to convince you it is possible to orbit a black hole I could show you some of the relevant scientific data. To convince you that a party's policies and not the charisma of their leader was the reaon for their election victory ten years ago, how do I do that? What objective evidence can I provide for you to do it?

I was very casually saying I'd revise my opinion if persauded, in the same way one would say "well I'll change my opinion of lorry drivers if you convince me they arn't all rude louts".

Sorry, it didn't read like that. Maybe I'm just having a bad day.

I certainly wasn't "demanding proof" of anything, nor did I intend to launch a mass debate.

All right then, we'll leave it there.

[Dave Lewis]

I enjoy launching myself into a good mass debate.

[Jason Thompson]

There'll be no mass debating here, Mr Lewis. Save it for the Temple....

[Michael Mills]

Now this is my sort of thread!

THINGS THAT IRRITATE ME...

-Telephones - the single rudest invention since one caveman began banging rocks together too loudly
-Stretch limousines - despite what you might think when you drive along in one of these on the way to your hen party/sixth form prom/etc no one thinks, 'Ooh, I wonder who's in that! Maybe it's a celeb!' they think 'Ooh, I wonder who's in that so that when I next see them I can stab them with something sharp'
-People who say 'sh-roos-bree' instead of 'sh-rows-bree'. I know they're both correct but the first one just sounds so lazy
-People who say 'i.e.' when they mean 'e.g.'
-People who say 'd'you know what I mean?' unnecessarily
-Ben Kingsley
-Parents who buy colossal behemoths of landrovers/battlecruisers to ferry some very small children around, because, after all, children are the most important thing. Bollocks. I'd put a number of things ahead of them including oxygen and gravity
-Pesco-vegetarians - you're just picking on the fish

<Phew>

[Captain Tancredi]

-People who say 'sh-roos-bree' instead of 'sh-rows-bree'. I know they're both correct but the first one just sounds so lazy

That'll be the Welsh, then- my understanding (as I was told by an old Shropshire hand) is that that's how it's pronounced on the Welsh side of the Severn.

One of my pet hates at the moment is people who have a pop song or something similar as their ringtone, and who proceed to let the whole tune play every time their phone rings rather than actually answering it.

[Stephen Morgan]

One of my pet hates at the moment is people who have a pop song or something similar as their ringtone, and who proceed to let the whole tune play every time their phone rings rather than actually answering it.

One of my pet hates at the moment is actually the mobile phone, let alone the ringtone. Viv keeps on that I need one and must have one, I keep telling her "I've lived almost 52 years without one, and don't intend on getting one now" I think they're the bane of modern society and they really do irritate me.
Incidentally, Viv's fave ringtone is the sound of a baby laughing along to Woody Woodpecker, I think she sent it to Zel last time we met, I can just imagine the two ringtones going off together at one of our next BBQs.

[Pip Madeley]

One of my pet hates at the moment is actually the mobile phone, let alone the ringtone.

I can't be doing with those daft comedy ringtones, like the Crazy Frog... but think about it Steve, a mobile is useful, if you ever need to get in touch with someone in an emergency. Always good to keep it with you just incase.

[Jeff]

I don't think my cell has been off of silent/vibrate alert since the day I got it...

[Stephen Morgan]

... but think about it Steve, a mobile is useful, if you ever need to get in touch with someone in an emergency. Always good to keep it with you just incase.

You sound like my wife, nag, nag, nag, nag, nag..............