# Pet Peeves Thread



## Sprinter79 (27 March 2008)

After seeing this topic work well on other forums, I thought that I'd start one up on here (if of course there isn't already one), and see how it goes.

All you have to do is put down something, non stockmarkety, that really gets up your nose, boils your beetroot, puts you in tizzy etc. Feel free to rant and rave!

I'll start it off by saying:

PP: Stupid flying bugs that just refuse to die when given copious amounts of bug spray!


----------



## Sprinter79 (27 March 2008)

And another one

PP: Programs that run 20mins later than they should have!!!!


----------



## Spaghetti (28 March 2008)

Reminds me of a radio segment years ago.."You know what I hate..." 

Hate when people in lines at shops, bus whatever wait until told total of their purchase is BEFORE digging around in purse/backpack/pocket etc for money. Even if they do not know the total it is a pre-determined fact that some money will be required~!


----------



## Julia (28 March 2008)

As above from Spaghetti, and also people who use Express check-outs with about 50 items in their trolley instead of 15.  Apparently the check-out staff are not allowed to turn them away to an ordinary check-out.

Neighbours who refuse to do anything about cutting back a massive gum tree which sheds thousands of leaves into everyone else's property.  

Climate change fanatics.


----------



## sam76 (28 March 2008)

People who brake before indicating.

People who come to a complete stop at a roundabout when there is no car in sight coming from the right.


----------



## sam76 (28 March 2008)

Julia said:


> As above from Spaghetti, and also people who use Express check-outs with about 50 items in their trolley instead of 15.  Apparently the check-out staff are not allowed to turn them away to an ordinary check-out.
> 
> Neighbours who refuse to do anything about cutting back a massive gum tree which sheds thousands of leaves into everyone else's property.
> 
> Climate change fanatics.




How about the person who forgets something at the checkout, goes off to get it and walks back!!


----------



## stockGURU (28 March 2008)

When it comes to forum posts:


People who don't proofread their posts before submitting them.
People who don't separate huge lumps of text into paragraphs.
People who don't capitalise the first letter of every sentence.
People who don't know how to punctuate.

Ahhh... that feels better.


----------



## Birdster (28 March 2008)

Hmmm...

People who toss cig butts out of the car window.  

"Reality TV"


----------



## Spaghetti (28 March 2008)

OK sort of stockmarkety

Just at that the critical moment to buy or sell Comsec ask you sign in again. So you do then it asks again? So you do then little green progress bars go on strike so you hit refresh, then whole damn thing freezes so you hit refresh again only to get website not available or some such message. So then you finally get back in only to find this little information highway roundabout has probably cost you a lot of money, but rarely saved you any.


----------



## MattB (28 March 2008)

- When watching a movie on Ch10,  and it's in the last 5 minuets as a foreign character says something important with sub-titles,  and Ch10 decide to scroll an advertisement across covering the sub-titles...   now that just disgusts me!


----------



## Julia (28 March 2008)

sam76 said:


> .
> 
> People who come to a complete stop at a roundabout when there is no car in sight coming from the right.



Yes, yes, yes!  This drives me nuts too.  And then they just sit there, and sit there and...... then look in the rear view mirror with a most aggrieved expression when they finally get a horn toot.  Really!  How hard is it to figure out that you have the right of way.


----------



## Julia (28 March 2008)

Hey Sprinter, great thread.  

Another one:  owners of little, fluffy, yappy dogs who think it's ever so cute that little Rastus rushes up and snaps noisily at the heels of big dogs.
They laugh with pride and say stuff like "Look at Rastus - he thinks he's a Rottweiler - go, Rastus - get the big doggie"!

This is just bloody stupid and really tries the temperament of the best trained large dog.  Once when one of these dumb owners just kept it up despite my asking him to call his dog back, whilst my Shepherd had been walking beside me ignoring the fluffy thing, I got fed up and gave her the OK to be free.
I doubt that owner ever let the fluff do it again!


----------



## nioka (28 March 2008)

sam76 said:


> People who brake before indicating.




How do you break before indicating.In the early days of hand signals that was done but if you don't see my braking lights then I hope you are well insured.
  My pet hate is the driver who holds up traffic on the highway at 85 kmh until the overtaking line gets close then speeds up to 110 kmh only to drop back to 85 at the end of the second lane.


----------



## spottygoose (28 March 2008)

Julia said:


> Hey Sprinter, great thread.
> 
> Another one:  owners of little, fluffy, yappy dogs who think it's ever so cute that little Rastus rushes up and snaps noisily at the heels of big dogs.
> They laugh with pride and say stuff like "Look at Rastus - he thinks he's a Rottweiler - go, Rastus - get the big doggie"!
> ...




I hate that too. Yes it is so much fun to have my shoulder pulled out of its socket while some  yappy thing is snapping at my dog.


----------



## spottygoose (28 March 2008)

I hate it that people are soooo slow to get their luggage out of the overhead locker and get off the damn plane.


----------



## sam76 (28 March 2008)

nioka said:


> How do you break before indicating.In the early days of hand signals that was done but if you don't see my braking lights then I hope you are well insured.
> My pet hate is the driver who holds up traffic on the highway at 85 kmh until the overtaking line gets close then speeds up to 110 kmh only to drop back to 85 at the end of the second lane.




People who slow right down to a crawl then idicate as they are turning.

The driver behind doesn't know what their intention is until the last second.


----------



## Absolutely (28 March 2008)

Spaghetti said:


> Hate when people in lines at shops, bus whatever wait until told total of their purchase is BEFORE digging around in purse/backpack/pocket etc for money. Even if they do not know the total it is a pre-determined fact that some money will be required~!




Another shopping one. What about when you are in a long queue for a checkout and just as you are finally getting near the checkout they open another one right next door and all the people at the back of the line who haven't waited half as long as you have, rush it and get to it first and are out the other side before you have even been able to place your stuff on the conveyor belt. GEEEEEZ I hate that.


----------



## Gar (28 March 2008)

some work related venting....

people who ask stupid questions like "how much is a sign?" and then will not tell you what they want. :screwy:   errr.... How long is a peice of string FFS!

people who come into the shop and answer 17 phone calls while we are serving them and while other customers are waiting.:shoot:

anybody that orders a sticker with the word "pimp" or "gangster" in it :silly::dunno:


----------



## SenTineL (28 March 2008)

Julia said:


> Yes, yes, yes!  This drives me nuts too.  And then they just sit there, and sit there and...... then look in the rear view mirror with a most aggrieved expression when they finally get a horn toot.  Really!  How hard is it to figure out that you have the right of way.




Yes this is a mindnumbing one. 

Also to add to these roundabout frustrations - when there's two lanes going around the roundabout and the person in the left lane just stops there while all the cars are going around on the inside right lane......ummm there's two lanes there buddy you don't give way to cars in other lanes, that's the turning lane, you are not in it, you have your own lane...OMG


----------



## SenTineL (28 March 2008)

another one that gives me the shivers:

people that use there/their, your/you're all wrong. 

I'm an immigrant and had to learn English but the people that are born in english speaking countries still can't get it right. This is at plague proportions at the moment.


----------



## Birdster (28 March 2008)

SenTineL said:


> another one that gives me the shivers:
> 
> people that use there/their, your/you're all wrong.
> 
> I'm an immigrant and had to learn English but the people that are born in english speaking countries still can't get it right. This is at plague proportions at the moment.




yer.peepil hoo kant spel rite pesses me of 2. LOL


----------



## korrupt_1 (28 March 2008)

those SMS competition/love compatibility/shell game/etc commercials on tv...

"SMS your name, his/her name to find your true love"

Fricken... i don't want to be charged $5/sms!!!!


----------



## agro (28 March 2008)

people who post bs about another stock (particularly one they don't hold) for a reason that serves no purpose but to deter others from buying into it. 

you know who you are.


----------



## Joe Blow (28 March 2008)

agro said:


> people who post bs about another stock (particularly one they don't hold) for a reason that serves no purpose but to deter others from buying into it.
> 
> you know who you are.




If something posted in a stock thread can be shown to be factually incorrect, either myself or one of the moderators will happily remove it.

However, if you mean a view that is different to yours, well that's another matter entirely. Differing views are what makes a market. Also, I don't know why it matters whether someone is a holder of a stock or not. Anyone is entitled to discuss any stock and present any view, as long as they can back it up with some factual information or analysis.

If anyone is posting anything that is factually incorrect, and you can demonstrate that it is, then please report the post in question using the report a post feature. Please also report posts that contain no meaningful content.


----------



## Grinder (28 March 2008)

only one driving one for me....... it's logical! Your crusing to a red knowing it will be green any moment, so your off the brakes saving fuel & pads, only to find the driver abrubtly overtake and speed up to the red. WHAT FOR, ITS RED!

actually does feel better to have written that.


----------



## prawn_86 (28 March 2008)

People who are one eyed and not willing to even consider others opinions/ideas.

People who are not willing to educate/inform themselves (ie - the vast majority)

People who complain about life but do nothing to help themselves (the vast majority)

People with tall poppy syndrome (the vast majority)

So as you can see, one of my pet peeves is people in general


----------



## chops_a_must (28 March 2008)

One word:

"Neon"


Ahahahahahahahahhahahahaa!

Seriously, you should be shot for writing and playing crap like that!!! I think they'd piss the Chinese authorities off more than the Tibetans.

I accidentally caught them supporting a touring band, and as it was at metros freo, I couldn't leave. I had to get very drunk to get through the set, it was so awful. 

Never have I seen a signed act wank about on stage... so much... whilst not even noticing they weren't even playing in the same god damn key!!!

No wonder it drives dogs beserk, I was going mental. It really hurt my brain. 

Funny thing was, they were constantly wearing Perth band shirts on tour. Until the bands told them not to wear them because they didn't want to be associated with such atrocious music! Ahahahahaha!

And to see how many fans they still have.... hmmm... no myspace... no videos on youtube... no bandsite. Talk about success!

Yes, Neon, 3 years later... I have not forgotten... you owe me. 

PP: Those that hold lengthy grudges... Lol!


----------



## phoenix_gr (28 March 2008)

People who talk about the economy and know **** about it. I still think an economics class should be a prerequisite to vote.

People who say "yous" - adding an "s" doesn't make it bloody plural.

People who give ethnicities a bad name through their behaviour that causes stereotypes

People who write "spelt" instead of "spelled"

Basically anyone who degrades the English language

"My" is pronounced with an extended "iiiiiiii" sound, like sky and fly and high, not Mi with a short i, bloody footballers ruin the word everytime they talk about the game "Mi kicking was good, mi team put in a good effort, mi folks are proud" too many hits to the head for them


----------



## stockGURU (28 March 2008)

People who feel the need to add an apostophe before the 's' in plurals.

e.g. plural's, banana's, car's

Also, those who put the apostrophe in the wrong place.

e.g. did'nt, ca'nt

Actually, any misuse of the apostrophe. How hard is it?


----------



## SenTineL (28 March 2008)

Grinder said:


> only one driving one for me....... it's logical! Your crusing to a red knowing it will be green any moment, so your off the brakes saving fuel & pads, only to find the driver abrubtly overtake and speed up to the red. WHAT FOR, ITS RED!
> 
> actually does feel better to have written that.




People who ignore other posts about grammar 

I think some people just don't know the difference between 'your' and 'you're'
I think you mean "You are cruising..." therefore it's written "You're cruising..." same as "you're off the brakes"

 again


----------



## rhen (28 March 2008)

Joe Blow said:


> If something posted in a stock thread can be shown to be factually incorrect, either myself or one of the moderators will happily remove it.
> 
> However, if you mean a view that is different to yours, well that's another matter entirely. Differing views are what makes a market. Also, I don't know why it matters whether someone is a holder of a stock or not. Anyone is entitled to discuss any stock and present any view, as long as they can back it up with some factual information or analysis.
> 
> If anyone is posting anything that is factually incorrect, and you can demonstrate that it is, then please report the post in question using the report a post feature. Please also report posts that contain no meaningful content.




do you mean "different *from*"?


----------



## Sprinter79 (28 March 2008)

PP: Doing an hour's work in the garden and not even really being able to see the difference. 

Anti-peeve (AP): The new mulcher I bought, it tears through branches just as nicely as pizza boxes hahaha


----------



## wayneL (28 March 2008)

phoenix_gr said:


> P
> 
> People who write "spelt" instead of "spelled"




Both are correct.







My pet peeve. People who are pedantic about spelling and grammar and get it all wrong anyway... like me!


----------



## tigerboi (28 March 2008)

The word....like,like,like,like...my daughter says like 50 million in one day
drives me crazy..tb


----------



## Joe Blow (28 March 2008)

Here are a few of my pet peeves, while we're at it.

Those who use all capitals is thread titles or posts. This is the forum equivalent of shouting and is rude.

Those who have never bothered to understand how to use and appreciate the infinitely useful 







> tags. You can find out all about them here: https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2737
> 
> Rampers.
> 
> ...


----------



## Joe Blow (28 March 2008)

rhen said:


> do you mean "different *from*"?




Probably.


----------



## phoenix_gr (29 March 2008)

wayneL said:


> Both are correct.




learn something every day.


----------



## Julia (29 March 2008)

Re grammar:  yes, agree bad grammar is very annoying, but for me the level of annoyance is the context.  Here, on a stock forum, I'd expect the participants to be able to spell and punctuate properly.

But if someone is looking for help with literacy (I tutor adult literacy) then they simply reflect usually unfortunate circumstances where they've never been taught grammar, either by parents or the education system.

Another gripe from me is the use of cliches, most notably by the media.
Example:   "The 18 year old driver of the car is *fighting for his life*.  How about "doctors are working to save the life of"?  

"Following the accident he is *confined to a wheelchair*.

Lots more where people just can't be bothered to think of something other than a tired cliche.  "The ball's in his court", is another particularly irritating one.
Probably you can think of more???


----------



## rhen (29 March 2008)

Julia said:


> Re grammar:  yes, agree bad grammar is very annoying, but for me the level of annoyance is the context.  Here, on a stock forum, I'd expect the participants to be able to spell and punctuate properly.
> 
> But if someone is looking for help with literacy (I tutor adult literacy) then they simply reflect usually unfortunate circumstances where they've never been taught grammar, either by parents or the education system.
> 
> ...




Now this is more than a "pet peeve"! This has graduated to annoying... those people who use (read "reinvent", relentlessly) the expression:
"reinvent the wheel"
aaaaarrrrgghhhh!!!!


----------



## justjohn (29 March 2008)

Is how come some people can get away with 100 letters or less all the time on this forum and as soon as I do it the MODS act like the SS.Sh-t I hope thats a 100:run:


----------



## justjohn (29 March 2008)

OLD-PEOPLE :They have all day to do things but still line up outside stores/banks well before they open,plus old farts chatting to tellers (banks)for ages about crap while your waiting in line to be served:horse::swear:


----------



## tigerboi (29 March 2008)

Young people who disrespect the oldies,the people who have earnt the respect they deserve...tb


----------



## cuttlefish (29 March 2008)

Traffic - When a red light goes green, the amount of time it takes for the car at the front of the queue to actually start moving  - what are they doing during that time - looking for the steering wheel? - its green so go ffs.  And then person behind then does the same thing.


People - Stupid people that don't know they're stupid.  (I'm probably one of them lol).


Trading - when you try to jump the buy queue by buying in the closing price auction but end up crossing the spread instead because someone pulls a sell or adds a buy at the last second.


----------



## bunyip (29 March 2008)

One of my pet gripes are inconsiderate people who smoke while walking down the street, or outside shops and businesses, or in public places generally that have not been set aside for smokers. Cigarette smoke smells absolutely foul to a non-smoker, not to mention the fact that it's poisonous. Even worse, some people have medical conditions that are adversely affected by cigarette smoke.

And on a different subject.......like Julia and some others here I grind my teeth at the atrocious spelling and grammar used by some on this forum. But...spelling and grammar, and writing skill generally, are something that you either have or don't have. Two people can go to the same school and have the same English teacher, yet one of them is articulate while the other never is. But the inarticulate person is not necessarily stupid. Quite the contrary in some cases.....I know several intelligent, well educated and very capable people who are woefully inept when it comes to putting words on paper.


----------



## wayneL (29 March 2008)

Julia said:


> Re grammar:  yes, agree bad grammar is very annoying, but for me the level of annoyance is the context.  Here, on a stock forum, I'd expect the participants to be able to spell and punctuate properly.
> 
> But if someone is looking for help with literacy (I tutor adult literacy) then they simply reflect usually unfortunate circumstances where they've never been taught grammar, either by parents or the education system.
> 
> ...



Julia, you've indirectly highlighted what should be everyone's pet peeve; the pervasiveness of the ubiquitous media. They ruin everything.

They take what can be a useful turn of phrase, to be used sparingly and alternating with other phrases, and turn it into a bloody cliche'.

I remember when Diana croaked, "particularly poignant" was the phrase of the day. It was used relentlessly and _ad nauseum_. Now we have a perfectly useful word/phrase that shall never be used again.

Fortunately, we have a wide selection of words from the hodgepodge of what is the English language. We can use another word/phrase... until the "medja" get hold of it. 

***Checked for cliche useage


----------



## tigerboi (29 March 2008)

bunyip said:


> One of my pet gripes are inconsiderate people who smoke while walking down the street, or outside shops and businesses, or in public places generally that have not been set aside for smokers.




Get realso what you can ONLY smoke in public in designated ares now?
its not illegal to smoke & walk down the street....

Im sick of the social engineers ring holes,no xmas we might upset other people,no this no that.

Tobacco is legal & highly taxed,which goes into consolidated revenue so dont go on about having to treat people with cancer either,treatment paid in full....tb


----------



## Julia (29 March 2008)

tigerboi said:


> Get realso what you can ONLY smoke in public in designated ares now?
> its not illegal to smoke & walk down the street....
> 
> Im sick of the social engineers ring holes,no xmas we might upset other people,no this no that.
> ...




Yes, you are right.  Smoking is not (yet) illegal in the street.  It's not something I usually notice at all in my home town.  But when recently spending a week in Sydney and walking in the CBD just after the offices closed about 5.30 pm, it was simply hazardous to walk down the street because of the number of people puffing furiously on their cigarettes then resuming the cigarette holding hand at their side.  There was a crush of people and we had to be pretty sharp of foot to weave around the burning cigarettes.  So, I'd say they are being pretty inconsiderate of other people in this circumstance.


----------



## Wysiwyg (29 March 2008)

Definately the age of - it`s gotta happen now, get out of my way and give me,give me, give me.


----------



## Julia (29 March 2008)

cuttlefish said:


> Traffic - When a red light goes green, the amount of time it takes for the car at the front of the queue to actually start moving  - what are they doing during that time - looking for the steering wheel? - its green so go ffs.  And then person behind then does the same thing.



Oh yes.  Particularly if you were the last to pull up on the previous phase.
You can sit there cursing while they think about what they might do and as your turn finally comes up, the light turns red.  Of course.


----------



## tigerboi (29 March 2008)

Julia said:


> Yes, you are right. Smoking is not (yet) illegal in the street. It's not something I usually notice at all in my home town.




What dont people smoke in your town?it wont ever be illegal simply because its a legal substance that(just light up another capstan!!)pays the government a lot of money.

I wont smoke where it is not allowed but everywhere else,<edited>...tb

by the way my old man at 53 went by the way of lung cancer,dirty habit but one of my last few vices i enjoy,with the punt & a few jd's...tb


----------



## Julia (29 March 2008)

tigerboi said:


> What dont people smoke in your town?it wont ever be illegal simply because its a legal substance that(just light up another capstan!!)pays the government a lot of money.
> 
> I wont smoke where it is not allowed but everywhere else,<edited>...tb
> 
> by the way my old man at 53 went by the way of lung cancer,dirty habit but one of my last few vices i enjoy,with the punt & a few jd's...tb



I didn't say people don't smoke here.  They simply rarely seem to smoke in the street.
Sorry that you seemed to miss my point which was that - presumably because of the no smoking rules in almost all office environments - when the occupants escape at the end of the day they can't wait to light up.  Hence the hordes in the mid-city puffing madly as they pour out onto the city streets.  
I'm not sure that you're right about smoking never being made illegal.
Just look at how all the time those places you can smoke are being reduced.
If you like, I'll bet you $100 that two years from now it will be illegal to smoke on the street.  And before then it will be illegal to smoke in your car.  And before then it will be illegal to smoke in your car if you are carrying children.
Enjoy it while you can.


----------



## tigerboi (29 March 2008)

Of course people puff madly at 5.30,they might have had 1 smoke in 8 hours,nicotine blast is whats doing there,no point missed..
$100 bucks it will be illegal to smoke on the street??too easy like taking candy from a baby,it wont be made illegal in the street,it also wont be illegal in your car,yes with kids in it but what if you got your 18 year old in the car with you???he can vote,drink,smoke...
who will police it??bit of a laugh really,wait for double demerit smoking points...

you owe me $100 in 2 years...tb


----------



## nioka (29 March 2008)

phoenix_gr said:


> People who talk about the economy and know **** about it. I still think an economics class should be a prerequisite to vote.:



 Why deny half the socalled economists the right to vote.


----------



## Julia (29 March 2008)

OK, TB.  The bet is on.

Julia


----------



## Sprinter79 (30 March 2008)

As far as I'm aware, it is already illegal in WA to smoke in a car when there's kids in it. 

It is also illegal to smoke within 5m of ANY entrance to a public building. It is also already illegal to smoke in any vehicle that someone uses for a work purpose such as the ute that the tradie carries his tools in, a taxi, a courier vehicle etc, REGARDLESS of how many people are in the vehicle.

I'd rather they police the littering side of ciggarette smoking in public places first, rather than the actual smoking.

PP: Subway closing at 9pm!!!!!! It's a Saturday night you slack pricks hahaha. No wonder McD's do so well, they have no competition after the sun goes down!

PP2: McD's hahaha


----------



## Birdster (30 March 2008)

Sprinter79 said:


> ...
> 
> It is also illegal to smoke within 5m of ANY entrance to a public building. ...




Just went through that 5 metre boundry at Perth Airport. There is NO WAY to get in that place w/out having to go through the smoke haze. Every entrance is blocked by people smoking.  <--- PP

Bag me if you want, but I am an "ex-smoker" from many moons ago. I do not want to give the impression I'm the reformed smoker out to convert all who smoke. But I can smell the smoke it seems in the tiniest amounts. I almost could change my career and become a customs dog. 

BTW, my reason for giving up smoking was purely lost the enjoyment.


----------



## justjohn (30 March 2008)

tigerboi said:


> Young people who disrespect the oldies,the people who have earnt the respect they deserve...tb




Then again a lot of old people are rude, disrespectful and single minded but thankfully not all:


----------



## Julia (30 March 2008)

A couple more:

The "Nanny State".  We are becoming more and more over-regulated.
The latest addition is the suggestion that poker machines (which I never use so don't personally care) may be regulated to limit maximum bet/maximum payout.
This is to save gamblers from themselves.

Back to the language thing:  use of abbreviated or slang English on internet forums, i.e. r u instead of 'are you', and my particular hate:  'm8'.
How hard is it to type the full word, for heaven's sake?


----------



## prawn_86 (30 March 2008)

justjohn said:


> Then again a lot of old people are rude, disrespectful and single minded but thankfully not all:




Yeh you could add that to my PP's.

Older people who think they can command respect just because of their age. I will respect people on their actions, not age.


----------



## tigerboi (30 March 2008)

Julia said:


> OK, TB. The bet is on.
> 
> Julia




no,i accepted your bet...tb 

its on alright..


----------



## Mofra (30 March 2008)

wayneL said:


> I remember when Diana croaked, "particularly poignant" was the phrase of the day. It was used relentlessly and _ad nauseum_. Now we have a perfectly useful word/phrase that shall never be used again.



Aha, one of my pet peeves - the glorification of people who didn't deserve it.
"Oh but she's such a good person". 
Yeah? Well why was there barely a ripple said about Mother Theresa who dedicated her life to the less fortunate, and whom unfortunately died at the same time?
Not pretty enough, didn't look good enough in the glossy magazines.


----------



## Sprinter79 (30 March 2008)

Birdster said:


> Just went through that 5 metre boundry at Perth Airport. There is NO WAY to get in that place w/out having to go through the smoke haze. Every entrance is blocked by people smoking.  <--- PP




The Perth Airport, is not technically, a public building. It is privately owned. But yeah, having to walk through smokers to get inside a building does suck. There is legislation in the works in WA to widen the scope to 5m from ANY building.


----------



## Sprinter79 (30 March 2008)

PP: The over use of 'buzz words' such as synergy, paradigm, buzz word, etc hahaha


----------



## Julia (30 March 2008)

Richard Branson, founder of Virgin Airlines, is in Brisbane at present.
I have never read any article about him which fails to precede his name with the words "flamboyant entrepreneur".


----------



## bunyip (30 March 2008)

tigerboi said:


> Get realso what you can ONLY smoke in public in designated ares now?
> its not illegal to smoke & walk down the street....
> 
> Im sick of the social engineers ring holes,no xmas we might upset other people,no this no that.
> ...




It's you smokers, not us non-smokers, who will sooner or later be forced to 'get real'. 
In fact it's already happening....smoking has been banned in pubs and clubs - and a damn good thing too. 
It's been a long time coming, but at last the rights of non smokers have been recognised....the right to go out for a few drinks in a pub or wherever without being forced to inhale toxic cigarette smoke, the right of pregnant women to safeguard the health of their unborn babies by not exposing them to cigarette smoke. 
Not only is cigarette smoke harmful, it's actually quite distressing to many people.
The comfort and safety of pregnant women or anyone else in the street or in any other public location, is no less important than the comfort and safety of people in pubs and clubs. 
No, it's not illegal and it probably never will be. Nobody is suggesting that smoking be made illegal, only that smokers consider the comfort and safety of those who choose not to smoke.
Considering the fact that your father died young of lung cancer, and further that you admit smoking is a dirty habit, I do have to wonder why you consider it your right to impose your dirty and dangerous habit on everyone around you.


----------



## Sprinter79 (30 March 2008)

There are plenty of smokers who are painfully aware that their habit has adverse effects on other people, and I think that needs to be recognised. But on the other side of the coin, there are those smokers who have the 'too bad, if you don't like it, get stuffed' attitude, and they are the ones who grind my goat.


----------



## Mouse (30 March 2008)

Tv shows that go past their finishing time making every show after them start late, especially when you have set the recorder.

Shops that keep stuff past it's use by date on the shelf.

People that walk dogs off leash.  

Tv shows & movies that have ads over the final credits, especially when one actor has a face that you know but you just can't think of the name so you are watching at the end for it.

cheers
Mouse


----------



## juddy (30 March 2008)

sam76 said:


> People who brake before indicating.




You and me both. Grrrrrrr!!  Though I don't see much traffic anymore.


----------



## GreatPig (30 March 2008)

Mouse said:


> People that walk dogs off leash.



Yes, I can see how that would be a _pet_ peeve. 

GP


----------



## wayneL (30 March 2008)

Mouse said:


> Tv shows & movies that have ads over the final credits, especially when one actor has a face that you know but you just can't think of the name so you are watching at the end for it.
> 
> cheers
> Mouse



Oh yes!!! That drives me blinkin' bananas that does. Thank Christ for imdb.com.



Sprinter79 said:


> PP: The over use of 'buzz words' such as synergy, paradigm, buzz word, etc hahaha




Oh No!!! I like "paradigm" for occasional use. My vocab is diminishing by the second here. LOL


----------



## bunyip (30 March 2008)

Julia said:


> Richard Branson, founder of Virgin Airlines, is in Brisbane at present.
> I have never read any article about him which fails to precede his name with the words "flamboyant entrepreneur".




So what's your peeve, Julia....that he gets called 'flamboyant entrepreneur'?
But isn't that an apt description of the man? I mean, he _*is*_ an entrepreneur and he does have rather a flamboyant style about him, does he not?


----------



## cashcow (30 March 2008)

*chuckle*

Many who have already posted in this thread have saved me a lot of typing.

I'll chime in by adding;

people who do not treat the _*privilege*_ of being a road user with the respect it deserves (in terms of safety and courtesy).


----------



## Bill M (30 March 2008)

My pet peeve is people who don't eat their meals in restaurants. My wife and I were brought up to take what you want but eat what you take. People who order heaps and then chuck out half of it out (all top notch stuff) really gets up our noses. No respect for food we say, if you can't eat it, don't order it.:nono:


----------



## Smurf1976 (30 March 2008)

nioka said:


> My pet hate is the driver who holds up traffic on the highway at 85 kmh until the overtaking line gets close then speeds up to 110 kmh only to drop back to 85 at the end of the second lane.



Yep. And the ones that tailgate when you _don't_ cut in half a metre infront of another car when overtaking. I'd actually rather travel in busy traffic than on the same road with little traffic just to avoid this - I've had far too many near misses due to others' stupidity.


----------



## Julia (30 March 2008)

bunyip said:


> So what's your peeve, Julia....that he gets called 'flamboyant entrepreneur'?
> But isn't that an apt description of the man? I mean, he _*is*_ an entrepreneur and he does have rather a flamboyant style about him, does he not?



Yes, of course it's apt.  I'm just pleading for a bit of variety in journalism.
These people are supposed to be wordsmiths.  My objection is that every one of them appears to be too lazy to think of some synonym for these oh so oft used words.

Wayne earlier commented on the repetitive use of 'poignant' when Diana died.
I'm on about the same sort of thing.  

You - being the crack wordster (is that a word?) you are, could undoubtedly come up with some pretty good alternatives to "flamboyant entrepreneur", I'm sure.


----------



## StockyGuy (30 March 2008)

Losing money


----------



## Smurf1976 (30 March 2008)

Julia said:


> IIf you like, I'll bet you $100 that two years from now it will be illegal to smoke on the street.  And before then it will be illegal to smoke in your car.  And before then it will be illegal to smoke in your car if you are carrying children.



It already is illegal to smoke in a car carrying children in Tas. I'm sure it will spread to the other states within a year or two if not already.


----------



## Smurf1976 (30 March 2008)

tigerboi said:


> Young people who disrespect the oldies,the people who have earnt the respect they deserve...tb



Works both ways that one. If the young have a lack of respect then I wonder who brought them up to be like that...


----------



## wayneL (30 March 2008)

Julia said:


> come up with some pretty good alternatives to "flamboyant entrepreneur", I'm sure.




Toothy Sheister
Smiling Corporate Assassin
Flashy Impresario
Corporate Mercenary
Ostentatious Tycoon
Billionaire Swank



The adjectival possibilities are endless with that guy. lol


----------



## Julia (30 March 2008)

wayneL said:


> Toothy Sheister
> Smiling Corporate Assassin
> Flashy Impresario
> Corporate Mercenary
> ...



See, Bunyip?  So many options!
Thanks, Wayne.


----------



## Sprinter79 (31 March 2008)

PP: Soccer, yes soccer. There is no way I'm calling it football. Anyway, the reason it sh!ts me is that they're always falling down, faking, whinging, and the worst thing is that whenever there's a free kick, they take it 5m forward of the point where the free was awarded!!!! And don't get me started about the throw ins...


----------



## rhen (31 March 2008)

wayneL said:


> Toothy Sheister
> Smiling Corporate Assassin
> Flashy Impresario
> Corporate Mercenary
> ...




True. Yet my peeve at this moment is that the man deserves some balance in this lesson on journalism...how about we throw in "Humanitarian Homme du Monde"...doesn't quite have the panache of the others.


_The male is a domestic animal which, if treated with firmness, can be trained to do most things. 
Jilly Cooper_


----------



## sam76 (31 March 2008)

Young peoples lack of respect for all things generally

A smack behind the ears usually sorted me and my mates out.


----------



## theasxgorilla (31 March 2008)

Right now my pet peev is impatient Swedes.  They tailgate like mad on the motorways, they shove in front of you in a queue if you leave even the slightest gap, and they huff and puff and sigh if you keep them waiting for anything.  I've never seen anything like it.  New Yorkers or Londoners I can understand, but in little old Scania, please.


----------



## wayneL (31 March 2008)

theasxgorilla said:


> Right now my pet peev is impatient Swedes.  They tailgate like mad on the motorways, they shove in front of you in a queue if you leave even the slightest gap, and they huff and puff and sigh if you keep them waiting for anything.  I've never seen anything like it.  New Yorkers or Londoners I can understand, but in little old Scania, please.



That blows away my preconception of Swedes.

The Poms are incredibly polite drivers... and they just love a queue. They would quite happily and without complaint spend the rest of their lives in a queue. LOL

My big peeve with Poms is they are pigs with litter. The amount of rubbish that people drop all over the place is disgraceful. Such a shame in such an otherwise pretty country.


----------



## sam76 (31 March 2008)

I agree with the driving, Wayne.

I love the flash of the lights to let you in/out etc....

I wish Aussies would do the same....


----------



## dutchie (31 March 2008)

Relating to phones -

1. Getting unsolicited calls (to sell you something or build up their data base)

2. Having to hold for a looooooooong time before you actually speak to a person. (IB)

3. Getting a foreigner at the other end with limited English and you need to ask them to repeat what they say and they don't understand you (call centres etc).

4. Getting bounced from one department to another, and having to wait for long periods between each of the transfers (Optus big time!).

5.  Having to explain your problem/query to 10 people before you get the right one.

6. Phone companies requesting you to punch in your phone number and then when you get a real person the first thing they ask you for is your number! (Telstra)

Don't get me started.

Service from big companies is probably much worse in other countries but you really have to wonder sometimes whether a company you want to deal with wants your business with their pathetic attempts at (non)service.

Some companies should spend less on advertising to get new customers and spend more on servicing the ones they have already got!

Heres a list of my current companies (and why) - feel free to add your own experiences.

Optus - long waits/department shuffling/drop outs/non action on agreed matters/
Telstra - long waits to get right person.
InteractiveBrokers - looong waits for phone contact/non reply to emails 


Thanks Joe for opportunity to get that off my chest


----------



## Sprinter79 (31 March 2008)

I'm pretty sure the reason companies spend more money on attracting new customers rather than concentrating on their existing customers is that they get more money from new customers than keeping existing customers. They also count on the fact that people are generally lazy and don't really want to change companies unless they really really have to.


----------



## Julia (31 March 2008)

Dutchie, yes, yes, all you've listed is beyond irritating.
But even worse are the companies who use that recorded "voice" which asks you to say what you want.  The computer behind the voice can never actually understand what you say, despite your enunciating clearly and using a single word or at the most two words.  So then you are asked to repeat it.
Still doesn't comprehend.  So then it asks you to "say it another way".
By this time most people's rage will have distorted their voices beyond being comprehensible!  Now when I get one of these disembodied voices I just say nothing and eventually a real person comes on.

Re unsolicited calls.  By registering with the Unwanted Calls Register you can eliminate these except for the odd charity.  It's a great relief.


----------



## nioka (31 March 2008)

Julia said:


> Dutchie, yes, yes, all you've listed is beyond irritating.
> But even worse are the companies who use that recorded "voice" which asks you to say what you want.  The computer behind the voice can never actually understand what you say, despite your enunciating clearly and using a single word or at the most two words.  So then you are asked to repeat it.
> Still doesn't comprehend.  So then it asks you to "say it another way"



 I just say "blah, blah, blah" and they put you through to a real human.


----------



## doctorj (31 March 2008)

My pet peeve is babies on long haul flights.  Come on people!  It's tough enough for the best of us to sit still in a noisy, confined space for hours at a time.  How can anyone expect a baby that doesn't know what's going on to cope?

Get the Grandparents to come to you.  Don't put hundreds of others through hours of pain just so you can show off the product of your loins.



wayneL said:


> The Poms are incredibly polite drivers... and they just love a queue. They would quite happily and without complaint spend the rest of their lives in a queue.




Come on Wayne! The Pom's aren't happy unless they're complaining about one thing or another. I am firmly of the belief though that if you get three people to stand in a line anywhere in the UK, before long you'll have many happy brits queuing behind you. They'd still be complaining though, it's just the way it is 

The only thing it doesn't seem to apply to is the tube or other public transport. A Londoner can't wait more than 2 mins for the tube without moaning about how bad the system is and when it does finally arrive I swear someone must say "crouch, touch, pause, engage" just as the doors open.



theasxgorilla said:


> they shove in front of you in a queue if you leave even the slightest gap




I've always thought of this as European queing - it's not your position in the line that matters but your proximity to the front. The Italians have it down to a fine art. A queue is somehow a semi-circle centered around whatever the objective is with people jumping in even the smallest gap to get a few inches closer. Patience and personal space are just foreign concepts.


----------



## Happy (31 March 2008)

bunyip said:


> I know several intelligent, well educated and very capable people who are woefully inept when it comes to putting words on paper.




Are they saying it is time to upgrade, update and make language easier to master?

Why do we need:

go, went, gone instead of go, goed ?


Looks strange, but once you get a grip, and all words do the same little thing, you can concentrate on what is more important, you could even have more time to learn another language?


----------



## Happy (31 March 2008)

tigerboi said:


> Get realso what you can ONLY smoke in public in designated ares now?
> its not illegal to smoke & walk down the street....
> 
> Im sick of the social engineers ring holes,no xmas we might upset other people,no this no that.
> ...




What about rights of non-smokers?
Maybe we need new type of apartheid?


----------



## Happy (31 March 2008)

Sprinter79 said:


> PP: Soccer, yes soccer. There is no way I'm calling it football. Anyway, the reason it sh!ts me is that they're always falling down, faking, whinging, and the worst thing is that whenever there's a free kick, they take it 5m forward of the point where the free was awarded!!!! And don't get me started about the throw ins...




Funny, calling football games that you hardly ever kick it and socker that you almost all the time kick it.


----------



## tigerboi (31 March 2008)

As ive already pointed out,its a legal substance....

non smokers can suit themselves,simple as...

not illegal to walk the street smoking,i know all the wowsers would like it to be but until its an offence to do so,non smokers can go to hell..

dont forget non smokers drive cars that pollute the atmosphere,you know the go greenhouse,global dribble etc...

If non smokers give up polluting(hypocrites...same deal as smokers who pollute...tb)

Did you know that during the boxer rebellion in china,smokers where executed..why dont we do that??? lets start with the wowsers,social engineers of this country who are destroying the australian culture,
you all know who they are,the clover (no more xmas decorations we might offend someone)moores of the world,hey you & other non smokers go for your life non smoke all you want,i dont blow smoke in anyones face,i smoke in the places thats allowed,once again its a legal product....tb

Put your $100 up if you like just like julia...


----------



## cuttlefish (31 March 2008)

doctorj said:


> My pet peeve is babies on long haul flights.  Come on people!  It's tough enough for the best of us to sit still in a noisy, confined space for hours at a time.  How can anyone expect a baby that doesn't know what's going on to cope?
> 
> Get the Grandparents to come to you.  Don't put hundreds of others through hours of pain just so you can show off the product of your loins.




This used to one of my pet peeve's as well ... until I became a parent ... you think its bad sitting next to it all, try being the actual parent trying to deal with it.  

(and parents like having holidays too, and not all elderly relatives are capable of long flights.)


----------



## Prospector (31 March 2008)

Julia said:


> But even worse are the companies who use that recorded "voice" which asks you to say what you want.  The computer behind the voice can never actually understand what you say, despite your enunciating clearly and using a single word or at the most two words.  So then you are asked to repeat it.
> Still doesn't comprehend.  So then it asks you to "say it another way".
> By this time most people's rage will have distorted their voices beyond being comprehensible!  .




After a few attemtps at trying to make 'the machine' understand what I wanted, I used a nasty word and immediately got a human on the other end!

Recently my son took a call where we had 'won' a holiday; except my son decided to have some fun with the caller.  The caller hung up, then rang back to complain that my son had 'messed with his mind'.  So I got the chance to hang up on him too!

Another time, we were rung about buying something - cant remember what now.  So my son went into Biblical mode, quoting the bible and going off completely in a tangent.  Held them on the phone for 10 minutes. And at the very end, said 'God Bless' and hung up.  Maybe it was for alcohol?  

Peeves  -  "tributes are pouring in" when someone had died.  Where do they pour to?

When something happens to an individual, unless high profile, we never hear about it, obviously.  When the same thing happens, to a big group of people, then they are given all sorts of entitlements, benefits etc etc.  eg - people are being made redundant all the time, not much of a ripple, certainly no public acknowledgement of their situation; the Mitsubishi people are now being redundant and all manner of public and private funds have been thrown at them, as well as the media voice of public sympathy.  Sam Newman was the first man to get prostate cancer.

Soccer players, when injured, carrying on like they have been pole-axed.

Alcohol companies sponsoring car races.

People not understanding that sometimes parents with babies have to travel   The peeve is parents who couldn't give a toss whether the baby is bothering others; the ones who deserve sympathy are those trying to stop the baby crying.

Having to go through all kinds of questions when you need to buy Sudafed when you feel like absolute C$#p, just because some idiots use it to make illicit drugs (my whinge today!)

Politicians who refuse to answer a direct question and think we won't notice

Sportspeople and celebrities who think they are above the law; they break the law and then apologise for things that even Joe Blow  knows are very wrong.

Um, just a start.....


----------



## Happy (31 March 2008)

tigerboi said:


> dont forget non smokers drive cars that pollute the atmosphere,you know the go greenhouse,global dribble etc...
> 
> If non smokers give up polluting(hypocrites...same deal as smokers who pollute...tb)




Non-smokers fart too, but driving cars and everything else is separate issue.

I couldn't go to pub, but wheels are turning my way now, so no need for bets.


----------



## wayneL (31 March 2008)

doctorj said:


> Come on Wayne! The Pom's aren't happy unless they're complaining about one thing or another. I am firmly of the belief though that if you get three people to stand in a line anywhere in the UK, before long you'll have many happy brits queuing behind you. They'd still be complaining though, it's just the way it is



ROFL Tooooooooo true Doc. The Poms have the audacity to complain about driving standards here.  Missus and I just shake our heads and giggle and mumble something like "you know not what you say".

You can't stand at a corner for more than two seconds before some driver stops and insists (via a quick flash of the headlights) that you must cross the road before could possibly continue on. 

On queues. Ive seen queues of cars waiting patiently behind somebody who's clearly parked on the side of the road... and hilariously, a queue of cars behind a car broken down at a roundabout with AA (equivalent of RAC) in attendance hazard lights flashing etc. True story! Missus and I had the giggles for hours LOL.


----------



## bunyip (31 March 2008)

Julia said:


> Yes, of course it's apt.  I'm just pleading for a bit of variety in journalism.
> These people are supposed to be wordsmiths.  My objection is that every one of them appears to be too lazy to think of some synonym for these oh so oft used words.
> 
> Wayne earlier commented on the repetitive use of 'poignant' when Diana died.
> ...




A 'crack wordster' eh Julia? Not so sure about that...but you did manage to put a grin on my face!
Yes, I guess I could come up something better if I put my mind to it, but I doubt I could match Wayne's superlative selection of dynamically descriptive adjectives to flatter the flamboyant entrepreneur.


----------



## nioka (31 March 2008)

tigerboi said:


> As ive already pointed out,its a legal substance....
> 
> non smokers can suit themselves,simple as...
> 
> not illegal to walk the street smoking,i know all the wowsers would like it to be but until its an offence to do so,non smokers can go to hell...




Ah! A caring person who is considerate of others I see. Congratulations for your neighbourly attitude and goodwill to others.

Now what I really think....................is........... (censored.)


----------



## bunyip (31 March 2008)

Talking of drivers who peeve you, truckies must surely rate up there with the worst of the worst. 
They rarely if ever obey the speed limit, they cut in front of you, fail to give right of way, frequently drift over the centre line, they tailgate you, sitting just a few metres behind you in some cases.....no chance of stopping their massive rigs before they steamroll you if you ever had to stand on the brakes for some reason.
They generally show disdain for other drivers and for the rules of the road. 
No wonder there is a disproportionate number of crashes involving trucks.


----------



## Spaghetti (1 April 2008)

Truck drivers that tailgate are a worry. People who speed are a huge worrry. Everyday by my house 98% of cars are over the speed limit. We have 20kmh speed limit for a good reason yet everyone feels they are more expert than those that set the limit. 

Smokers/non-smokers? Don't like that argument as both sides have rude members.

My current annoyance is why do I keep buying conditioner instead of shampoo? ATM have 5 bottles conditioner and NO shampoo. Must be a sneaky way retailers get rid of excess stock...cannot be my fault.:


----------



## Happy (1 April 2008)

Spaghetti said:


> We have 20kmh speed limit for a good reason yet everyone feels they are more expert than those that set the limit.




20kmh speed limit looks bit tough.

Having said that, sometimes in 60k or 40k area I just drive much slower, for a reason of course, and I do not understand why people insist to stick to speed limit or go above, as if road rules take over common sense, civil responsibility and good mannered social behaviour.


----------



## tigerboi (1 April 2008)

bunyip said:


> Talking of drivers who peeve you, truckies must surely rate up there with the worst of the worst.
> They rarely if ever obey the speed limit, they cut in front of you, fail to give right of way, frequently drift over the centre line, they tailgate you, sitting just a few metres behind you in some cases.....no chance of stopping their massive rigs before they steamroll you if you ever had to stand on the brakes for some reason.
> They generally show disdain for other drivers and for the rules of the road.
> No wonder there is a disproportionate number of crashes involving trucks.




You been watching too much TT & ACA...hows this for a stat:80% of accidents involving a truck & car is the car drivers fault...

If you ever want to see how uneducated car drivers are around trucks you can come in the truck with me next time i do a clybucca changeover,
we go north to clybucca swap trailers then head back to sydney,thats if you are in sydney.

Car drivers havent got a clue how to drive with heavy vehicles,its a skill that all car drivers should be made to learn when getting their licence.

I'll give you an example of their stupitidy that never ends,i drive a b/double,2 trailers,26 metres long,now when i have to turn left i have to use 2 lanes & legally i am allowed,when i am turning i cannot see down the left side of the truck,i need 2 lanes to straighten up,but what do car drivers do??? try do dive up the inside...crunch,bike riders as well..

This is what is required from the car drivers,if i have straddled(they call it lane sharing)the 2 lanes to turn,say into another 2 lane highway,my trailers will take both lanes until i get straight,wait til he gets straight by then he will have got into the inside lane,car drivers just take a deep breath,then you will be ok.

Now if im turning from 2 lanes into a 3 lane highway,i usually go into the middle lane to avoid inside traffic & outside right hand turns,so then the cars have got the inside lane & outside lane to go past,but go past when you can,as some sit in your blind spot right besides the cab...


Bring your video camera & you can post it on here...tb


----------



## dutchie (1 April 2008)

G'day tigerboi

Don't know about you but most truck drivers attitude I come across on the highway (and towns) is "might is right".

Cheers

Dutchie

PS I never drive on the highway at night when truckies are at their worst.


----------



## Happy (1 April 2008)

dutchie said:


> G'day tigerboi
> 
> Don't know about you but most truck drivers attitude I come across on the highway (and towns) is "might is right".




I do not want to make excuses for cowboy truck drivers, but I always try to give them right of way, just because of their size, weight, number of gears they have to go to increase speed from 0 or 10 to 60 and because of the hours they spend on the road.

What I am yet to see is truck cruising at or below speed limit, and what makes me wander, how do they manage to fool their on-board system that is designed to register their actual speed.


----------



## tigerboi (1 April 2008)

dutchie said:


> G'day tigerboi
> 
> Don't know about you but most truck drivers attitude I come across on the highway (and towns) is "might is right".
> 
> ...




There you go mate,you are talking about local drivers,what highway you talking about?

Highway at night is for trucks,thats how your cornflakes are at woolies on time...if you are going to be on the highway then get yourself a 2way/cb
call up a driver & ask him what the go is,as the stat shows car drivers around trucks are very foolish,dont forget we drive cars as well.

The might is right is yours & the publics perception,mate its rubbish just not like that,as i said car drivers have got no idea how to drive with heavy vehicles.go to this site i am a member & have a look around...
www.ozprodrivers.com.au

The best drivers site going,go have a look at the threads..

Night time on the highway is what i run,overnight express.to all capitals on the eastern seaboard & adelaide,see 1 thing car drivers rarely know is we cant sit behind a car who wants to do 80 in a 100 for 50 kms,most drivers have got 12 hours(i got 14) to get to say brisbane you gotta do 100 when possible & yes if you got a p plater on 90 kms on the 2 lane highways the drivers will give him a hard time to get out of the way,

 If he looks behind him he will have 30 trucks climbing over the backs of each other,then what happens at the 3 laner,numbskull will speed up,seen it 100s of times.

So because of numnuts wanting to be smart when the drivers get to the gold coast highway,they have got no driving hours left..

imagine if all the drivers just parked their trucks as is instead of driving into brisbane the last hour illegal?

Thats why you see trucks in a hurry,we carry time sensitive freight(not my words)so that you the shopper gets his milk,papers,lampshade from ikea,take a look around your house & ask yourself,what item has not at some stage been on a truck?

The only thing i havent delivered is a baby!..TB


----------



## tigerboi (1 April 2008)

Happy said:


> I do not want to make excuses for cowboy truck drivers, but I always try to give them right of way, just because of their size, weight, number of gears they have to go to increase speed from 0 or 10 to 60 and because of the hours they spend on the road.
> 
> What I am yet to see is truck cruising at or below speed limit, and what makes me wander, how do they manage to fool their on-board system that is designed to register their actual speed.




Dont really know what you are on about cruising below the speed limit?
Do you mean on the highway doing less than the limit? or around town?

All heavy vehicles are fitted with speed limiters at 100kmh,once the vehicle hits 100kmh,you can pump the accelerator a 100 times & you wont get any power,when it drops back to 100(most cut at 100-105kmh)so say it cuts in at 102mh you then coast until it gets back to 100kmh then you got gas again,by having it set a little over 100kmh it lets you sit on 100kmh without the limiter cutting in,its better on fuel consumption.

We have 23 safety cam sites which photograph our faces & number plates,S.A. also has cameras but not VIC.we have to know the 100's of combinations between those sites,on the rta website at travel time information it has the times between each camera,if we go through the camera too quick,which means you were speeding,the rta sends your boss a letter asking him for the copy of your log book page,which you hand in each week,if your logbook times dont match the camera times you get fines up to $2800 & 1 mark on your licence,3 marks & you lose your licence for 3 months...

Here is the rta camera times,which gives you an idea of the rules we have to follow..

http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/cgi-bin/index.cgi?action=safetcamcalc.form

http://www.transport.sa.gov.au/freight/safetcam/calculator.asp

http://www.transport.sa.gov.au/freight/safetcam/safetcam_sites_02.asp

Despite what you might think there is not alot we get away with,but listen to the meedja & we are all on drugs looking to kill car drivers.

Since the 2 big accidents up north in '89 the road authorities have had a microscope all over us.....tb


----------



## Julia (1 April 2008)

Well, Tiger, if you are so tightly regulated and your speed so fixed, I wonder how it is that every time I'm on a major highway, the big trucks are passing us when we're doing about 105kmh?

That said, I'm happy to sit on the tail of a truck any time and have never seen any reckless driving.

One more thing:  years ago when I had a completely smashed windscreen I'd pulled over to the side of the road as I couldn't see a thing.  Countless cars sped past (I was on my own standing outside the car).  It was a truckie who stopped and patiently removed all the glass and gave me an emergency screen to get a garage.


----------



## Aussie2Aussie (1 April 2008)

bunyip said:


> Talking of drivers who peeve you, truckies must surely rate up there with the worst of the worst.
> They rarely if ever obey the speed limit, they cut in front of you, fail to give right of way, frequently drift over the centre line, they tailgate you, sitting just a few metres behind you in some cases.....no chance of stopping their massive rigs before they steamroll you if you ever had to stand on the brakes for some reason.
> They generally show disdain for other drivers and for the rules of the road.
> No wonder there is a disproportionate number of crashes involving trucks.




My favourite - 3 lanes and trucks in each of them, side by side and going at the same speed.


----------



## Happy (1 April 2008)

tigerboi said:


> Dont really know what you are on about ... Since the 2 big accidents up north in '89 the road authorities have had a microscope all over us.....tb




If you said 120 instead 102 I would be more inclined to believe you.
Since you said 102 all I can say is  -  Yea right.


----------



## Spaghetti (1 April 2008)

Happy said:


> 20kmh speed limit looks bit tough.
> 
> Having said that, sometimes in 60k or 40k area I just drive much slower, for a reason of course, and I do not understand why people insist to stick to speed limit or go above, as if road rules take over common sense, civil responsibility and good mannered social behaviour.




Well the law says to drive to conditions, speed limit is only an upper guide. We live on a very narrow road with a crest. Every time we pull out of our driveway is scary. Cannot see if anyone is coming and when they do always a brake squealing event. Need a second person to wave the coast clear.


----------



## korrupt_1 (1 April 2008)

> always a brake squealing event.




geezeeee, that sounds fun... considered getting council to install mirrors or something akin?

my parents lives 1 house from a 50deg blind bend. that too is a scary event when reversing out of the driveway.

PP: hoons driving around blind bends at speeds without thought to possible accident.


----------



## tigerboi (1 April 2008)

Julia said:


> Well, Tiger, if you are so tightly regulated and your speed so fixed, I wonder how it is that every time I'm on a major highway, the big trucks are passing us when we're doing about 105kmh?
> 
> That said, I'm happy to sit on the tail of a truck any time and have never seen any reckless driving.
> 
> One more thing: years ago when I had a completely smashed windscreen I'd pulled over to the side of the road as I couldn't see a thing. Countless cars sped past (I was on my own standing outside the car). It was a truckie who stopped and patiently removed all the glass and gave me an emergency screen to get a garage.




Dont surprise me a truckie stopped to help you as we as profesionals we just do it,look i wont deny there are a few jerks who think they are big twuck drivers,they are usually the ones ive dragged out of their trucks,dead & mangled...see safety is paramount to 99.99% of us,we drive vehicles fully loaded(in the roadtrain areas) at 115t,doing 100kmh,if i do one stupid numbskull act like car drivers,i can kill alot of people & myself...

See the above post re the speed limiters,you will find on the straight part of the road single trailers are right on 100-101 kms,but with a b/double even on a straight stretch the extra 20 tonne pushes you up to 105kmh,thats why a double(62.5t) is quicker than a single(42.5t) on a flat road,see to the inexperienced car driver you would think the opposite,but thats why you will see the guy doing 105kmh,but when a hill comes like the dipper near mittagong,slow lane on the inside,the single pulls away from me,but on the flat i go past him again.

Thats why b/doubles are safer than a single trailer,it has 20 more tonne is longer but it has a 2nd articulation point(turntable)they handle better around bends.As a b/double driver i go through a very strict medical every three years including clour blind tests,when you hit 50 you gotta have a medical every three years,b/doubles can only go on certain roads they are RAV restricted access vehicles that must stick to specific routes,i have to know the routes of every state & territory,if i get caught in a non b/double route its a $900 fine.

Funnily i went to renew my licence yesterday this time we can get 5 years before only 3 years,old duck made me do it again this time on another screen & with one eye covered,very strict trendsetters,we get away with very little,as i said dont believe the TT & ACA stitch ups,they are just looking for headlines..

One thing to remember about the dipper,car drivers always get in the outside lane,as us doubles go on the slow inside & the faster singles go up the middle,so put your foot down as when it goes back to 2 lanes at the top,the singles get over into your lane to give us doubles a hassle free run into the slow lane.As for 3 abreast yep it happens more on three laners in the city where the guy gets in early for a right turn,you get a few numbskulls but generally we try to get out of the way asap....tb

The truck at 105kmh is just the force,any tuck that does 115 on the flat will pass through the cameras too quick,that is the consistent speed the rta regard as suss,they will then inspect your truck to see if the limiter has been tampered with.

Here is a typical run for me from melb.syd.,leave somerton in a b/double around 50t gross,get to avenel in 1 hour,glenrowan 2 hours,the border in 3 hours,then into holbrook in 3h40m total have a leak,do a walk around the trailers to see that everything is good,fill up the billy have a sanga,do my logbook for 15 mins stop,i then get to gundagai in 5 hours driving time where i am required to have another 15 min.break(or 30 mins at holbrook).

The first camera went through was at table top just north of albury,the next camera is out the front of the BP at gundagai north,but im sweet i had 15 mins at holbrook,i get 1 h46m from albury(table top) to gundagai but must stop for 15 mins so i dont drive more than 5 hours in a 5h30m period.

I leave gundagai with my next 5 hour period just started(sydney 4 hours away) the next camera is the marulan weighbridge,the camera time from the gundagai to the weighbridge is 2h5m,but because i had 15 minutes after going through both cameras i got no worries,but heres where lots get caught,at marulan(cameras are right across thehighway so you cant do a runner.)every heavy vehicle must go down whats called the screening lane so even if the bridge is closed everyone gets phtographed.

So if its open & you are naughty you got 200 or so metres to go where the rta put up an arrow to come in or arrow back to highway,they got technology now in that 200m before the arrow,if you get red flagged they bring you in for the full monty,licence logbook check.so im sweet i go back out to the highway.

The next & last camera is the cameras on the bridge at bargo,you get 45 m & the only one where if i run off the dipper im usually right on 45m,from mittagong to the bargo camera its all down hill so you have to watch your clock carefully.thats how its done legally with no dramas...as for the pacific your times are always pretty right as you got lot of towns to go through...on the f3 coming up to the newcastle link road always sit on a 100,bluey sits there most nights looking for customers...tb


----------



## tigerboi (1 April 2008)

Happy said:


> If you said 120 instead 102 I would be more inclined to believe you.
> Since you said 102 all I can say is - Yea right.




Mate you dont know what you are talking about,go have a look at my latest post regards speed limiters,tell me where you see trucks doing 120kmh consistently???you wont see it on the flat,off hills maybe.
you are like alot of people that dont understand the regulations we go through,you watch the TT & ACA stitch ups & think that is the norm,not the case...

all trucks are speed limited & cannot do 120kmh on the flat anywhere,any truck caught 3 times at the 115kmh suss speed is deregistered...

Take it from a professional heavy vehicle driver,you are talking out of your ring hole...tb


----------



## tigerboi (1 April 2008)

Spaghetti said:


> Well the law says to drive to conditions, speed limit is only an upper guide. We live on a very narrow road with a crest. Every time we pull out of our driveway is scary. Cannot see if anyone is coming and when they do always a brake squealing event. Need a second person to wave the coast clear.




Do you drive your car in or back it in?as a truck driver i always back it in anywhere i go,if you can...best coming out frontways,get into the habit & you will find you are a better driver for it...tb


----------



## cuttlefish (1 April 2008)

Tigerboi there is a lot in your attitude that seems to imply you have some kind of right as a truck driver to drive in a way that is intimidating to others because of the precious value of your payload and the delivery times.

Trucks have no right to intimidate and tailgate anybody - regardless of the speed they are doing - and especially not a P plater doing 90 - they are forced to drive this speed by the idiots that make the laws and they are already uncomfortable on the road so intimidating them is only creating an accident risk.  (I still can't believe the bureaucratic twits that come up with this stuff which just endagers the lives of P platers imo).

Completely agree about the overtaking lane stuff - why people speed up then slow down again is beyond me and it happens so consistenly.

In relation to trucks never exceeding 100km/h I've done a lot of highway driving for a variety of reasons both work and recreational, at different times of day and night and inside and outside of holiday periods and find it hard to believe this is true, but for now I'll take your word for it and see if I can find some concrete examples of speeding for you next time I'm out of town and report back.


----------



## Birdster (1 April 2008)

Okay... another PP about truck drivers (sorry TB). 

Exhaust brakes in my residential area, where up the road at the top of the slight incline, a sign asks to "please" limit exhaust braking. 

I have to believe that at least one of these things happen here;

1. The driver likes the sound of his/her exhaust brakes.

2. The driver has no regards for road signs with the word "please".

3. There is a club of P platers constantly doing a loop of my hood causing truck drivers to use their exhaust brakes to the extreme limit that you would think the truck is going to stall! 

Having said that, I used to drive a 12T metro and would get upset that drivers (in cars) would assume that the space I was leaving in front of my cab to the next car was for them, when in fact it was my safty zone/ speed up area as not to hold up the other drivers behind me.

I think you, TB, can identify with both there.


----------



## Bill M (1 April 2008)

A week ago I drove back from Queensland to Sydney on the Pacific Highway. I was doing 110 KPH in the few areas that we were permitted too. On at least 3 occasions I had to pull off the right lane whilst I was overtaking because a semi was tailgating me. They wouldn't have been more than 2 metres off my rear end. They passed me doing at least 112 to 115 KPH. They were pretty much on flat roads. They can have as many cameras as they like but the truckies all know where they are so there is no need for them to adhere to speed limits where there aren't any. As far as I am concerned it is really dangerous driving so much so that I had to break the 110 KPH speed limit just so I could get out of their way. Why the tailgating, it's just so bloody dangerous.


----------



## tigerboi (1 April 2008)

Give yourself a few uppercuts cuttlefish

Where do i condone tailgating & intimidation???? attitude to imply??

Mate i am a professional b/double driver,never had an accident,always kept it shiny side up,your implication is way off,your not even close.if you go back & read all my posts carefully you will see ive admitted there are a few numnut truck drivers,but what im trying to say here is to set the car drivers right by giving them some good info/tips,see what i say on speeding/speed limiters.

See julia wanted to know why if we are limited to 100kmh why some do 105kmh...explained,on the flat a speed limited truck cannot do much more than 100,but a double will do around 105kmh as the extra 20t just keeps pushing you along...

Dont forget this stat:80% of accidents involving a truck & car is the cars fault,i am a profesional driver,i do it for a living,from sydney to brisbane & melbourne & way out to dubbo,i know the speed limit,type of road conditions,red light cameras,speed cameras,all the speed limits from brisbane to adelaide,do you know what type of driving skill is required to drive a 62.5t monster from sydney-brisbane,you cant be just a driver.

CF you would be blown away by some of the things car drivers do,fair dinkum you have to see it to believe it...absolute suicide actions..tb



tigerboi said:


> All heavy vehicles are fitted with speed limiters at 100kmh,once the vehicle hits 100kmh,you can pump the accelerator a 100 times & you wont get any power,when it drops back to 100(most cut at 100-105kmh)so say it cuts in at 102mh you then coast until it gets back to 100kmh then you got gas again,by having it set a little over 100kmh it lets you sit on 100kmh without the limiter cutting in,its better on fuel consumption.
> 
> We have 23 safety cam sites which photograph our faces & number plates,S.A. also has cameras but not VIC.we have to know the 100's of combinations between those sites,on the rta website at travel time information it has the times between each camera,if we go through the camera too quick,which means you were speeding,the rta sends your boss a letter asking him for the copy of your log book page,which you hand in each week,if your logbook times dont match the camera times you get fines up to $2800 & 1 mark on your licence,3 marks & you lose your licence for 3 months...
> 
> ...






tigerboi said:


> See the above post re the speed limiters,you will find on the straight part of the road single trailers are right on 100-101 kms,but with a b/double even on a straight stretch the extra 20 tonne pushes you up to 105kmh,thats why a double(62.5t) is quicker than a single(42.5t)


----------



## tigerboi (1 April 2008)

Bill M said:


> A week ago I drove back from Queensland to Sydney on the Pacific Highway. I was doing 110 KPH in the few areas that we were permitted too. On at least 3 occasions I had to pull off the right lane whilst I was overtaking because a semi was tailgating me. They wouldn't have been more than 2 metres off my rear end. They passed me doing at least 112 to 115 KPH. They were pretty much on flat roads. They can have as many cameras as they like but the truckies all know where they are so there is no need for them to adhere to speed limits where there aren't any. As far as I am concerned it is really dangerous driving so much so that I had to break the 110 KPH speed limit just so I could get out of their way. Why the tailgating, it's just so bloody dangerous.




Tell me where you can do 110kmh on the pacific???


----------



## tigerboi (1 April 2008)

Birdster said:


> Okay... another PP about truck drivers (sorry TB).
> 
> Exhaust brakes in my residential area, where up the road at the top of the slight incline, a sign asks to "please" limit exhaust braking.
> 
> ...




Do you live in a city?is the street level or does it run down a hill?is it a single lane road or dual?mate i hear ya,i live 100m from a main road & it comes to a set of lights but the boys still leave the jake brakes on hey i cop it too...

What us interstaters do is turn them off at night but you see some trucks it is hard to find the switch at night,so what i do with the kenworth conventionals(truck with a nose) because all those type of instruments are overhead,i get a pen,take out the guts & stick it over the toggle switch so all i gotta do is just put my hand in that direction & it flicks it on!!

Matey if you live at the bottom of a hill it just cant be helped,ive tried it with out the jakes & in a double its too dangerous to turn them off,take fredlington(fredo) for example,2 kms north of kempsey on the pacific,you got heaps of houses each side & it runs real steep into a tight hair pin & us b/doubles have gotta use all the road to get around,i feel sorry for the residents,but i tried it without the jakebrake & it is too dangerous,but as for the knuckleheads on metro at night,just dumbos.

Yep us overnighters turn them off going through towns if its flat like going through say nambucca heads macksville & all the others like broadwater ballina through the main drag near the motels but once out you put it back on ...yep i hear ya mate i cop it too...tb


----------



## Bill M (1 April 2008)

tigerboi said:


> Tell me where you can do 110kmh on the pacific???




From the area south of Tweed Heads bypassing Murwillumbah, new section.

Small section between Grafton and Woolgoolga.

The new bypass near Taree, Coopernook area.

From Newcastle to Sydney metro.

There is a couple of other newer sections where it's allowed. I don't know the other exact locations as there are no towns about. Maybe I should have said National Highway 1 instead of Pacific Highway.


----------



## tigerboi (1 April 2008)

Bill M said:


> From the area south of Tweed Heads bypassing Murwillumbah, new section.
> 
> Small section between Grafton and Woolgoolga.
> 
> ...




newcastle to sydney is the f3 not the pacific, tweed heads murwillumbah?you mean chinderah? any 110kmh for cars is dual carriage so trucks are still 100kmh it would have been a single trailer...was he on your hammer waiting for the 3 laner?,see car drivers get spooked but you gotta be sitting right on their tail if you wanna get passed,then you will have one behind you as well saying hook in so i can get around as well,otherwise you get held up for too long,dont forget the 3 laners are not that long...

Mate if you get a numbskull being an **** all you gotta do is get the company name off the curtain ring the no or ring 12455 get the no.ring it & ask for the linehaul manager just tell listen tell your driver to pull his head in,thats all you do if it happens again...tb


----------



## Bill M (1 April 2008)

tigerboi said:


> Mate if you get a numbskull being an **** all you gotta do is get the company name off the curtain ring the no or ring 12455 get the no.ring it & ask for the linehaul manager just tell listen tell your driver to pull his head in,thats all you do if it happens again...tb




Thanks, I will do that, take care out there.


----------



## tigerboi (1 April 2008)

Bill M said:


> Thanks, I will do that, take care out there.




mate if you must come down at night,if you can do it on a saturday night or better still run down the new england if you got the time...

With the 3 laners you either gotta hook in like we do or let the boys around...yep we get close but if you wanna get around then when the lane starts you gotta be going hard,see i know tailgating in that instance is a bit hairy,but people forget we sit up higher so what might seem very close is not as close..

Get yourself a portable cb or put one in your car,channel 29 on the pacific,40 on the hume & call up a few of the drivers if you are unsure about what to do,& the guys will say yep your right& you will find out were the blueys are waiting..tb


----------



## theasxgorilla (1 April 2008)

doctorj said:


> I've always thought of this as European queing - it's not your position in the line that matters but your proximity to the front. The Italians have it down to a fine art. A queue is somehow a semi-circle centered around whatever the objective is with people jumping in even the smallest gap to get a few inches closer. Patience and personal space are just foreign concepts.




Thats exactly what it is DoctorJ.  It pays to remind yourself when in Sweden that inspite of all the preconceived notions you have about the Swedes that it is indeed Europe and they are Europeans.  It's an elbows society.  Indecision is quickly detected and those that know what they want will sieze their moment just like that.

This whole impatients thing manifests in the funniest ways too.  Like on the motorway the other week a copper decided to adhere to the speed limit (must have been driving under instruction cos that like NEVER happens).  20-something Swedes and Germans and Danes were banked up behind said copper, each leaving about 5 cms between them and the vehicle in front.  I'm in hysterics at the idea that they were safe from being done for speeding but by law they were way too close to the car in front, and if the copper decided to brake suddenly we'd have had one of those massive autobahn-esque pileups that only the Europeans can seem to manage.

Still, the number of times the coppers have passed me while I was doing $1.30-something and they're doing $1.60-plus makes me happy that unlike their Victorian police equivalents they appear to actually have something more important to do.

Have I mentioned how much I HATE speed cameras?


----------



## bunyip (1 April 2008)

Here in QLD we keep hearing that trucks are speed limited to 100 km. But on the 15 minute drive to town, on the Warrego Highway, on flat ground and with my cruise control set exactly on 100, I frequently have trucks going past me at least 10 km above my speed. I actually sped up to clock one truck that passed me.....he was doing 115 on level ground.
Believe it or don't believe it, but that's what happens.


----------



## Spaghetti (2 April 2008)

tigerboi said:


> Do you drive your car in or back it in?as a truck driver i always back it in anywhere i go,if you can...best coming out frontways,get into the habit & you will find you are a better driver for it...tb




No, we have and in and out semi circle, only option. Even my neighbour uses our driveway because it is the quickest way off the road.


----------



## Happy (2 April 2008)

tigerboi said:


> Mate you dont know what you are talking about
> 
> 
> tell me where you see trucks doing 120kmh consistently???you wont see it on the flat,off hills maybe.




I do not want to have pissing contest with professional truck driver, but don't want to be accused of lying without little protest.

I get always overtaken by almost all trucks and cars, only because I decided to drive touch uner speed limit.

As you and I know that truck does not have to be doing 120 consistently to 
get up to 130 or 140
Smart cookies like you, know that if you have a 20 min leak instead of 15 you have 5 minutes spare between the flags, make it 40 min and you can step up bit more.




tigerboi said:


> all trucks are speed limited & cannot do 120kmh on the flat anywhere,any truck caught 3 times at the 115kmh suss speed is deregistered...




Yea right, all trucks are speed limited and I am the only person who imagined seeing truck doing 130 or more




tigerboi said:


> Take it from a professional heavy vehicle driver,you are talking out of your ring hole...tb




I do not spend 24/7 in my  - ring hole- whatever it means, but if you know better, I'll leave it at that.

I admire truck drivers, to be able to drive around for 20 or 40 years or even more and be able to put up with all the b..s that regulators, employers, customers not to mention majority of little road user idiots give them.

And as far as I am concerned, they shoud have better deal, but all I can do, is do my little bit of courtesy whenever I can.

Hope I did not upset you too much.


----------



## cuttlefish (3 April 2008)

tigerboi said:
			
		

> Night time on the highway is what i run,overnight express.to all capitals on the eastern seaboard & adelaide,see 1 thing car drivers rarely know is we cant sit behind a car who wants to do 80 in a 100 for 50 kms,most drivers have got 12 hours(i got 14) to get to say brisbane you gotta do 100 when possible _*& yes if you got a p plater on 90 kms on the 2 lane highways the drivers will give him a hard time to get out of the way,*_
> 
> If he looks behind him he will have 30 trucks climbing over the backs of each other,then what happens at the 3 laner,numbskull will speed up,seen it 100s of times.
> 
> ...




Tigerboi - the above post is what prompted my previous posts about seeming to justify intimidating driving practises due to the cargo/timeframes. To me it gives the impression you encourage intimidating the P-plater (see italicised/bolded section).

I'm going to observe the speed liimited trucks more - I drove for 6 hours yesterday but not on a truck route.  I did sit behind  a truck for a while that appeared to be tailgating/speeding but they were doing exactly 100. However they were sitting right on the tail of the car in front through varying terrain, and the car driver clearly didn't feel comfortable doing 100km continously through that terrain. When the car would slow to 90/95 for a bend etc. - often a bend signposted with the obligatory yellow 85km/h sign - the truck would end up right on its tail so the car was probably approaching the bends at speeds that they weren't comfortable with due to the intimidating driving by the truck.

Now I know that a professional driver is aware of the roads and knows what speeds they can safely drive through the areas in differing conditions etc. but the fact is that roads are also there for all users, and recreational drivers do need to use roads to get where they want to go, but do not have a need or obligation to get from A to B in the fastest possible timeframe and are perfectly entitled to drive (within reason) at speeds they are comfortable with. This would include slowing down to speeds a little closer to guidance speeds for curves shown on the yellow signs.

Its a difficult situation the sharing of the two on the same roads.  The real issue imo is the fact that there is so much timeframe pressure in the trucking industry but I can't see any way to eliminate it.  I'm sure the speed limiting and log books have helped a lot.  I remember back in the day (probably over 15 years ago) seeing quite a few trucks doing 140km/h on overnight drives.


----------



## Julia (3 April 2008)

Is anyone else becoming increasingly irritated by the constant reference by all members of the Rudd government to "Australian Working Families"?

Whether talking about interest rates, tax or anything else, there is never any reference to single people, retirees, or couples without children.

I'm wondering if they are no longer even hearing themselves properly, so ingrained has become this mantra.  I've sent them an email making this point but won't be holding my breath for any change.


----------



## wayneL (3 April 2008)

It's a Labor thing. 

We get "Hard working British families" from Crash Gordon at least twice a day. It drives everyone nuts.


----------



## Sprinter79 (3 April 2008)

Don't kid yourself, the Libs were using something similar prior to the election, and have been using it since.

PP: People who take generalised criticism personally


----------



## Prospector (3 April 2008)

Julia said:


> Is anyone else becoming increasingly irritated by the constant reference by all members of the Rudd government to "Australian Working Families"?




Yes Yes Yes!  It has always been an issue for me and Labor Party/Governments because they believe the only people on this planet are those involved in manual work, because they sure don't think that white collar people do!  And now, instead of 'workers' we now have 'families'.  The new catch cry!

Good to see also we have moved off truckies!  Getting a bit sick of that peeve, so thanks Julia!


----------



## Julia (3 April 2008)

Sprinter79 said:


> Don't kid yourself, the Libs were using something similar prior to the election, and have been using it since.
> 
> PP: People who take generalised criticism personally



I don't recall the Libs using any similar catchphrase.  Perhaps you can remind us of what it was that they used to the same endless extent?


----------



## tigerboi (3 April 2008)

cuttlefish said:


> Tigerboi - the above post is what prompted my previous posts about seeming to justify intimidating driving practises due to the cargo/timeframes. To me it gives the impression you encourage intimidating the P-plater (see italicised/bolded section).
> 
> I'm going to observe the speed liimited trucks more - I drove for 6 hours yesterday but not on a truck route. I did sit behind a truck for a while that appeared to be tailgating/speeding but they were doing exactly 100. However they were sitting right on the tail of the car in front through varying terrain, and the car driver clearly didn't feel comfortable doing 100km continously through that terrain. When the car would slow to 90/95 for a bend etc. - often a bend signposted with the obligatory yellow 85km/h sign - the truck would end up right on its tail so the car was probably approaching the bends at speeds that they weren't comfortable with due to the intimidating driving by the truck.
> 
> ...




Hi mate you are right about the 140kmh days,it did happen & after the grafton & kemsey bus smashes(only i involved a truck)the industry was forced to change those practices,as a direct result of those accidents we had speed limiters introduced & the 23 safety cam sites(dont let anyone tell you they can get around them,some drivers turn their lights off thinking the camera wont go off!wrong firstly the highway is scanned for a vehicle larger than a utility,when it has a large vehicle sighted,then the now digital camera snaps your no.plate)

This year coming in september we have the introduction of a new logbook/work diary where we are required to record speedo readings(more paperwork)at the same time new work hours of only 12 will come in.

Current work hours under standard driving hours are 12 hours driving plus 2 hours working.
With TFMS(transitional fatigue management scheme) i can drive for 14 hours,then i have 9 hours rest as i have already had 1 hours rest,2 x 30 minutes in the 2 blocks of 5 hours ive driven.

I maintain my 14 hours in a new system called BFM..basic fatigue management,but the guys on the standard 12 hours driving as of september can only work or drive for 12 hours,no more so that is looking to eliminate the guys who have driven all night & because of the work they do(wooloies & coles were found to be the biggest culprits)they will unload say at penrith go to botany then load for back to melbourne(no sleep)most fatigue related are outbound not inbound as most would think.

These new hours will force woolies & coles to have separate areas for guys that have whats called an interstate timeslot,if you run say sydney to melbourne woolies & are late by even 30 mins they will make you wait up to another 24 hours to get unloaded..true,if you get unloaded in a DC distribution centre within 6 hours wow you must be the bosses mate..
the inefficiencies are enormous...

I am a TFMS driver or we just say 14 hour book,i wont do DC as they muck you around too much especially the interstate guys,the inquiry into the driving hours that brought about these changes recommended DC'S provide separate sleeping areas for those guys(dont have)so they can come in drop their trailers(if they are getting a load out of there back) go to bed come back 6-8 hours later ready to go..

Seen a very stupid thing done by a cement truck today,he went up the inside of a semi that had legally taken the 2 lanes to turn left into a highway that only had the 1 lane to swing the prime mover into,very dangerous thing,when i got home i rang his boss & gave him up,i see that from car drivers all the time but dont expect it from trucks...

by the way i didnt italicise those letters...

I just taught my 17 year old daughter to drive,she is on her p's...tb


----------



## Sprinter79 (3 April 2008)

Julia said:


> I don't recall the Libs using any similar catchphrase.  Perhaps you can remind us of what it was that they used to the same endless extent?




We only remember what we choose to remember


----------



## tigerboi (3 April 2008)

Working families is a bit old hat,during the campaign yep big worries for all,now ho hum...what about some words like closure,showcase,upskill,fully sick,any of them give you the worries??tb


----------



## chops_a_must (3 April 2008)

Julia said:


> I don't recall the Libs using any similar catchphrase.  Perhaps you can remind us of what it was that they used to the same endless extent?




Howard's Battlers?


----------



## wayneL (3 April 2008)

chops_a_must said:


> Howard's Battlers?



Yeah, we live in the era of the 4 second sound bite. (it used to be eight, but we can't concentrate that long now) They need a short catchy term that will occupy 3 of those seconds, so they don't have time to say anything else of import. :


----------



## prawn_86 (3 April 2008)

chops_a_must said:


> Howard's Battlers?




Wasnt that a media coined term rather than from the political party?

Disclaimer - I dont follow politics


----------



## tigerboi (3 April 2008)

Ok trendsetters what about 'ease the sqeeze'...tb


----------



## chops_a_must (3 April 2008)

My biggest PP with catch phrases is with that chest nut, "going forward".

Seems to have been the legacy from that loser Chris Connolly. Even the yanks are saying it now!

How about:
Comportmentally oriented;
Beyond the present;
In futurity;
Our outlook;
Anticipation;
Forthcoming.

Or perhaps the most apt replacement of this catchphrase at the present moment is:

With the same ****, just with a different bucket...

Cheers.


----------



## sails (3 April 2008)

Haven't read through the whole thread so not sure if these have already been said.  One of mine is the oldies here on the Gold Coast.  One of them today was turning left and just slowly cruised on in front of me.  Had to brake.  Then a short time later, they decide to turn left.  So, instead of moving off to the left, they come to a grinding halt stopping all the traffic behind them, then with apparent great effort, the vehicle slowly goes to the left. All this in peak school traffic - and it happens regularly.

The other annoying thing here on the Gold Coast roads is the median strips that are attractively built around the areas where one can turn right at lights, etc.  All very pretty, but so frustrating when you can't get into that lane due to a long line of traffic going straight ahead plus the large lump of concrete blocking you.  Then the green arrow comes and you have no choice but to sit there  and watch it and wait another full round of lights.  No help at all in keeping the traffic flowing and let alone adding to driver frustration.  I have seen 4WDs mount it and go anyway, but not possible in my car.


----------



## Julia (3 April 2008)

Sprinter79 said:


> We only remember what we choose to remember



So, how does that remark advance your argument?
You have still to tell us the phrase used by the Libs to the same nauseating extent we are currently enduring "Australian Working Families" from the current government.

And yes, thanks Prawn.  The term "Howard's Battlers" was indeed a phrase coined by the media.

So, Sprinter, we await your clarification to aid our apparently ailing memories.


----------



## Sprinter79 (3 April 2008)

"Who do you trust..."

"Union domination.."

"Working families..."

"Record growth..."

"We are the best friend working Australians have ever had..." hehe

I didn't say that your memeories were ailing, I was just saying that we only remember what we choose to. Just like we refuse to acknowledge faults in people whom we place on pedestals.


----------



## Whiskers (4 April 2008)

chops_a_must said:


> My biggest PP with catch phrases is with that chest nut, "going forward".
> 
> Seems to have been the legacy from that loser Chris Connolly. *Even the yanks are saying it now!*




Everywhere... like people have found a new favourite, fashionable toy.

I refuse to use the term.


----------



## dalek (4 April 2008)

use of derisive words like...

"punter"
"mum's and dad's"
"sheeple"
"muppets"

being used to describe everyone else who doesn't have the self proclaimed superior intellect of the writer and a share in his/her opinions.


----------



## tigerboi (4 April 2008)

This drives me mad.

.......gate,all scandals get the watergate moniker

Irangate,
Nipplegate...wardrobe malfuction...gggrrr....tb


----------



## AnDy62 (4 April 2008)

Another driving one... when people pull out onto a road and cause you to have to brake sharply... what the hell? Another major pet peeve of mine is idiots who don't lock up their aggressive dogs... countless times my golden retriever and I have had to beat a hasty retreat... that is really disrespectful


----------



## tigerboi (4 April 2008)

AnDy62 said:


> Another driving one... when people pull out onto a road and cause you to have to brake sharply... what the hell? Another major pet peeve of mine is idiots who don't lock up their aggressive dogs... countless times my golden retriever and I have had to beat a hasty retreat... that is really disrespectful




You mean back out into traffic when they could have reversed in then leave forward?that gives me the 5hitzers...tb


----------



## csiderob (5 April 2008)

Quote If electricity comes from electrons , does that mean morality comes from morons???

Considering most religions think they have a monopoly on morality, I reckon this statement is true, as all religious folk who believe in a fantasy with absolutely no credible evidence to support their argument are morons!!!


----------



## Sean K (5 April 2008)

csiderob said:


> Considering most religions think they have a monopoly on morality, I reckon this statement is true, as all religious folk who believe in a fantasy with absolutely no credible evidence to support their argument are morons!!!



Like a person in Central America believing in the Abrahamic God? 

LMFAO!!!


----------



## csiderob (5 April 2008)

Another funny one to consider is why do religious folk pray to an unknown but almighty & powerful god to save one's life from a terrible terminal disease like cancer but don't ever bother to pray for someone to grow back a limb from a car accident etc, which on the face of it would seem a much easier task for the almighty especially as other animal species can do this on their own. IMO this is yet another good example of the moron behaviour


----------



## Sean K (5 April 2008)

And, why do religious folk praise the Lord when a couple of people survive a disaster, and heaps die?


----------



## tigerboi (5 April 2008)

Religion:A crutch for weak minded people(imo)

Thats why its called faith... anyway bit of a contentious subject that

can get out of hand,sometimes...tb


----------



## Spaghetti (5 April 2008)

AnDy62 said:


> Another driving one... when people pull out onto a road and cause you to have to brake sharply... what the hell? Another major pet peeve of mine is idiots who don't lock up their aggressive dogs... countless times my golden retriever and I have had to beat a hasty retreat... that is really disrespectful




lol, Did you read my pet peeve. We often pull out onto the road causing drivers to brake sharply. Maybe you live in my neighbourhood.:


----------



## sam76 (5 April 2008)

Drivers who don't wave when you let them in.


----------



## trinity (5 April 2008)

On driving pet peeves:

  We were approaching a roundabout when a car of our left (which was supposed to give way to us) as we were about to enter the roundabout, just dashed in.  It would have been a forgettable incident if the car did not have one of those Learning to Drive Institutions advertisement on the roof.  I should have taken note of the driving school!




> Drivers who don't wave when you let them in.



Am with you on this one, I think as a matter of courtesy one should wave, when safe to do so of course.


----------



## Julia (5 April 2008)

On over-used catchwords:   "seachange" when it has nothing to do with the sea.  What's wrong with the simple "change"?
Ever since that very silly TV programme.


----------



## Blitzed (5 April 2008)

trinity said:


> On driving pet peeves:
> 
> We were approaching a roundabout when a car of our left (which was supposed to give way to us) as we were about to enter the roundabout, just dashed in.  It would have been a forgettable incident if the car did not have one of those Learning to Drive Institutions advertisement on the roof.  I should have taken note of the driving school!
> 
> ...


----------



## trinity (5 April 2008)

Blitzed,

of course, the rule is, whoever is in the roundabout has right of way, then, next is the car on the right.  As I said earlier, we were about to enter the roundabout when the car on left stepped on the pedal and rushed in, it was a small roundabout and not your double lane roundabout.  We were definitely closer to the roundabout than the car on the left.  If it was a smooth transition we would not have to step on the brakes ei?


----------



## Tysonboss1 (5 April 2008)

Julia said:


> As above from Spaghetti, and also people who use Express check-outs with about 50 items in their trolley instead of 15.  Apparently the check-out staff are not allowed to turn them away to an ordinary check-out.
> 
> .




I would lie to go 1 step further and say I hate people that take trolleys through the expess lane full stop,...

Express lane should be for hand baskets only... Even if you have a couple of extra items if it fits in a hand basket hat ok in my book.


----------



## tigerboi (5 April 2008)

Julia said:


> On over-used catchwords: "seachange" when it has nothing to do with the sea. What's wrong with the simple "change"?
> Ever since that very silly TV programme.




Tree change!!......ggrrhhh...tb


----------



## tigerboi (5 April 2008)

trinity said:


> On driving pet peeves:
> 
> We were approaching a roundabout when a car of our left (which was supposed to give way to us) as we were about to enter the roundabout, just dashed in. It would have been a forgettable incident if the car did not have one of those Learning to Drive Institutions advertisement on the roof. I should have taken note of the driving school!
> 
> ...




Some drivers are confused on the rules at roundabouts,always must give way to vehicles on the roundabout,where you get problems is drivers misjudging the space they have to merge,same thing happens on merging lanes with inexperienced drivers slowing down instead of accelerating,indicate early enough so that the inside lane can move over to let you in...tb


Roundabouts





*The roundabout sign*

The roundabout sign means *Slow Down*, prepare to *Give Way* and if necessary stop to avoid a collision.
So, as you're approaching a roundabout, you must get into the correct lane, indicate if turning, and give way to traffic already on the roundabout.
Enter the roundabout when there is a safe gap in the traffic.
*Giving way*

Slow down as you approach a roundabout. You must give way to traffic already on the roundabout if there is a risk of collision. Enter the roundabout when there is a safe gap in the traffic.
*Indicating*

When *approaching a roundabout*, if you are turning left or right, you must indicate left or right.
When *exiting a roundabout*, whether you are turning left, right or even going straight ahead, you must always indicate a left turn just before you exit, unless it is not practical to do so.
*Single lane roundabouts*

The rules for slowing down, giving way and indicating when approaching and exiting at roundabouts are the same for single lane and multi-lane roundabouts.
*Cyclists and roundabouts*

At roundabouts with two or more marked lanes or lines of traffic, a cyclist has the option of turning right by entering the roundabout from either left or right lanes. However, if the cyclist chooses to enter from the left lane, the cyclist must take care to give way to any vehicle leaving the roundabout.





*Going left*

Slow down and prepare to give way as you approach the roundabout.
On approach you must be in the left lane unless otherwise marked on the road, and indicate a left turn.
You must give way to traffic already on the roundabout if there is any risk of a collision.
Enter the roundabout when there is a safe gap in the traffic.
Stay in the left lane.
Keep your left indicator on until you have exited the roundabout.
*Going right*

Slow down and prepare to give way as you approach the roundabout.
On approach you must be in the right lane unless otherwise marked on the road, and indicate a right turn.
You must give way to traffic already on the roundabout if there is any risk of a collision.
Enter the roundabout when there is a safe gap in the traffic.
Stay in the right lane.
You must indicate a left turn just before your exit unless it is not practical to do so.
*Going straight ahead*

Slow down and prepare to give way as you approach the roundabout.
On approach you can be in either lane, unless otherwise marked on road.
When going straight ahead you do not need to indicate on approach.
You must give way to traffic already on the roundabout if there is any risk of collision.
Enter the roundabout when there is a safe gap in the traffic.
You must indicate a left turn just before you exit unless it is not practical to do so


----------



## tigerboi (5 April 2008)

What about the right hand lane hogs,the ones who think if they are doing the speed limit they can just carry on holding up the fast lane...tb

http://www.rightlanehog.com/The-Right-Lane-Hog.htm

*The Right Lane Hog*

*So who is a Right Lane Hog?*
This is probably best explained by examples.

You are on a dual lane road with no intention of turning right in the next few hundred meters. You are in the right hand lane, travelling on or below the speed limit. *Hello, Right Lane Hog.*
You are on a single lane road with no intention of turning right in the next few hundred meters. There is room for two cars, and you are in the right hand lane, travelling on or below the speed limit.
*BZZZT! Right Lane Hog.*
My favourite! You are on a dual lane road with no intention of turning right in the next few hundred meters. The road expands into a third lane. You immediately drift over into the right lane until you see the arrows indicating that this is a right turn only lane, when you panic, apply your bakes, and try to resume your spot in the "old" right lane. 
*KAPOW! You are the worst kind of Right Lane Hog!*
If you happen to be one of "the worst kind" of Right Lane Hogs, and somebody appears to be impeding the return to your Right Lane Home (after you realise you should not be in the right turn lane), its possibly me, or one of the other drivers you have pissed off in the last few kilometers. I know you will not learn your lesson though. You will do the same thing tomorrow, and I will be waiting for it. 
*Learner Drivers*
While you can't blame the learner drivers directly, it is frustrating to see learners being taught to sit in the right hand lane. It is the responsibility of the driving instructor, whether they be a parent/guardian or hired, to instruct young drivers on road ettiquette, not just road rules. Drivers build habits. If a learner builds a habit of driving in the right lane, they will carry that habit throughout their driving career. In the last 10 years I have seen an increase in Right Lane Hogs, and I believe driving instructors are a major cause of this.
I can remember seeing learners using the left lane a couple of times lately, and both times have been with parents instructing. I can't say I have seen a hired driving instructor lately in the Sydney area instructing their student to keep left


----------



## Julia (5 April 2008)

Tysonboss1 said:


> I would lie to go 1 step further and say I hate people that take trolleys through the expess lane full stop,...
> 
> Express lane should be for hand baskets only... Even if you have a couple of extra items if it fits in a hand basket hat ok in my book.




Tyson, I don't think the size of the items should be a qualifier.  It's the time taken to scan each item that is the issue.
I wouldn't mind having at least one express checkout which is cash only, rather than have to wait for the credit card routine to happen.

Isn't a trolley OK if, e.g. you are buying a dozen bottles of soda water?
Then you would need a trolley to carry them but the scanning time would be just one item x 12.


----------



## Prospector (6 April 2008)

Tysonboss1 said:


> I would lie to go 1 step further and say I hate people that take trolleys through the expess lane full stop,...
> 
> Express lane should be for hand baskets only... Even if you have a couple of extra items if it fits in a hand basket hat ok in my book.




I think that little old gents/ladies should be allowed to wheel their trolleys through.  They cant carry baskets.  Nor can people with a disability.

Woolies I notice have made sure trolleys cant go through their express by making the lanes too narrow.



tigerboi said:


> What about the right hand lane hogs,the ones who think if they are doing the speed limit they can just carry on holding up the fast lane...tb




Ok, that is certainly the law, but as long as they are doing the speed limit, in what way are they disadvantaging you?


----------



## rhen (6 April 2008)

Prospector said:


> Ok, that is certainly the law, but as long as they are doing the speed limit, in what way are they disadvantaging you?




Hear! Hear!


----------



## Sprinter79 (6 April 2008)

PP1: People who think school zones are in force on the weekend!!!!!

PP2: West Coast Eagles supporters whinging like little bitches hahaha, actually, that's more of an AP :


----------



## Prospector (6 April 2008)

Sprinter79 said:


> PP1: People who think school zones are in force on the weekend!!!!!



They are in South Australia, 24/7! Even on public holidays!

PP1.  People who dont realise that road rules are different throughout Australia!


----------



## doctorj (6 April 2008)

Sprinter79 said:


> PP2: West Coast Eagles supporters whinging like little bitches hahaha, actually, that's more of an AP :



And then there's the sell outs that jumped ship from the Eagles when the Dockers came along.   They give me the right ****s.


----------



## tigerboi (6 April 2008)

Prospector said:


> Ok, that is certainly the law, but as long as they are doing the speed limit, in what way are they disadvantaging you?




Exactly what i said,hogs who think that if they do the speed limit they can not move over,i think its 3 points & $240...it is a big traffic hazard,prospector...

The disadvantage is the traffic flow that is held up in the fast lane,it is an offence to hog the lane,what you have then is people attempting to then undertake on the inside which causes many prangs...

When you overtake if you are not overtaking say for another 200m,get over to let the fast lane bring the faster through traffic.

When you have drivers getting out of the way asap the traffic flows as it should,the faster overtaking traffic keeps the lane moving as it should,see as a heavy vehicle driver i have to plan to use the fast lane well in advance as opposed to a car driver,so i can see far uphead how it can affect the flow...do you drive???...tb


http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/rulesregulations/downloads/p11.pdf


Law*KEEPING LEFT*

Disobey keep left unless overtaking sign$2383 Australian Road Rules
Rule 130 (1)(b)&(2)

*KEEPING LEFT*
Drive in right lane on road with speed-limit over 80 km/h$2383 Australian Road Rules
Rule 130 (1)(a)&(2)

*KEEPING LEFT*
Drive on dividing strip$1852 Australian Road Rules
Rule 137 (1)

*KEEPING LEFT*
Drive on/over continuous line near painted island$1852 Australian Road Rules
Rule 138 (1)

*KEEPING LEFT*
Drive wrong way on one-way service road$2383 Australian Road Rules
Rule 136
*KEEPING LEFT*
Not drive on far left side of road$1852 Australian Road Rules
Rule 129 (1)

*KEEPING LEFT*
Not keep left of centre on two-way road$2383 Australian Road Rules
Rule 132 (1)

*KEEPING LEFT*
Not keep left of dividing line$2383 Australian Road Rules
Rule 132 (2)

*KEEPING LEFT*
Not keep left of median strip$2383 Australian Road Rules
Rule 135 (1)

*KEEPING LEFT*
Not keep left of oncoming vehicle$2383 Australian Road Rules
Rule 131


Go here...

http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/cgi-bin/i...ping+left&SubmitButton.x=89&SubmitButton.y=11


----------



## tigerboi (6 April 2008)

See the explanation re:"im doing the speed limit i can stay in the fast lane"

many accidents happen as a result of this attitude,just keep this in mind if you only have 6 points on your licence,you could lose your licence for this offence on a public holiday...for 3 months...tb




rhen said:


> Hear! Hear!






tigerboi said:


> Exactly what i said,hogs who think that if they do the speed limit they can not move over,i think its 3 points & $240...it is a big traffic hazard,prospector...
> 
> The disadvantage is the traffic flow that is held up in the fast lane,it is an offence to hog the lane,what you have then is people attempting to then undertake on the inside which causes many prangs...
> 
> ...


----------



## Sprinter79 (6 April 2008)

Prospector said:


> They are in South Australia, 24/7! Even on public holidays!
> 
> PP1.  People who dont realise that road rules are different throughout Australia!




My apologies, I was only referring to WA. The signs have "On School Days" written on them haha.


----------



## Sprinter79 (6 April 2008)

doctorj said:


> And then there's the sell outs that jumped ship from the Eagles when the Dockers came along.   They give me the right ****s.




I've always been a Freo boy. Was a member of the Eagles until Freo came in. My Mum's family was South Freo, and my Dad's family was East Freo, so, I think I'm allowed to be a Freo member :


----------



## Sprinter79 (6 April 2008)

I got done in the very early days of the 'Keep Left Unless Overtaking' laws. 2 points and $100, back in 97. I was going down Canning Hwy in Perth, taking directions from my drunk mates in the back seat.. you know... "Turn left up here somewhere".... "Man I'm so drunk, I don't know where I am" hahaha


FTR, it is also an offense to travel slower than 20km/h of the speed limit on major roads, except in heavy traffic, in any lane!


----------



## tigerboi (6 April 2008)

Prospector said:


> They are in South Australia, 24/7! Even on public holidays!
> 
> PP1. People who dont realise that road rules are different throughout Australia!




I run to S.A. on weekends & weekdays,i love going there & wish i could see more,truro is a creepy place & i always wonder how many girls are still there when i drive through ???,as for the school zones they are 25kmh over there but only when children are present(so if its sunday & a child is present its 25kmh),i have to know alot of these rules in all the states i visit so i dont get caught out especially the variable speed cameras they put in school zones...tb

S.A. drivers are very friendly & always do the right thing by me anyway,give you plenty of room & ive never had any dramas when ive been to adelaide,i come down main north road into the transport areas of athol park,regency park,cavan,wingfield..yep good drivers down there...tb


----------



## tigerboi (6 April 2008)

Sprinter79 said:


> I got done in the very early days of the 'Keep Left Unless Overtaking' laws. 2 points and $100, back in 97. I was going down Canning Hwy in Perth, taking directions from my drunk mates in the back seat.. you know... "Turn left up here somewhere".... "Man I'm so drunk, I don't know where I am" hahaha
> 
> 
> FTR, it is also an offense to travel slower than 20km/h of the speed limit on major roads, except in heavy traffic, in any lane!




Yep you will get knocked off if you think you are clever,mate it is very annoying in a truck to be climbing over the rear end of vehicles as some knob sits in the fast lane.. as i said i plan well ahead to change into the fast lane & being in a truck i am well aware ive got cars behind me looking to get past,so i try to use it as quick as i can(car drivers please dont try to rush up the inside,just wait a sec...) so i expect others to move over when anyone comes up behind...

I am back onto sydney-melbourne as of tomorrow for a month solid so its a very easy run for me,all dual carriageway except for the coolac part that is now being duplicated,into tarcutta then 30 kms south before the tumbarumba turn off(roadworks in progress for duplication),into & out of holbrook & up to table top(albury),thats all the oneway which by next year should be all 2 lanes to melbourne...

Here is a curly one,from moore park to somerton about 860 kms,where istheonly set of lights???...tb


----------



## Logique (6 April 2008)

1.  I'm currently peeved by the CommSec website.

The watchlists now take forever to open. And what is the point of a row of click options if the Back button doesn't bring you back to this watchlist?
CommSec - it was better before you started tinkering with it.

2.  And I don't like the people who blow smoke in my face as I walk the city streets.


----------



## Prospector (7 April 2008)

Logique said:


> 2.  And I don't like the people who blow smoke in my face as I walk the city streets.




Or out the front of the building where they congregate for their smokos!


----------



## Julia (7 April 2008)

TV and radio presenters who say:

"Join (insert name) and *I* again tomorrow when we bring you another fantastic show."
Grrr!


----------



## dalek (7 April 2008)

Julia said:


> TV and radio presenters who say:
> 
> "Join (insert name) and *I* again tomorrow when we bring you another fantastic show."
> Grrr!




That's right, me and my friend agree, they never deliver a fantastic show...Grr!! ...Grr!!


----------



## wayneL (7 April 2008)

Julia said:


> TV and radio presenters who say:
> 
> "Join (insert name) and *I* again tomorrow when we bring you another fantastic show."
> Grrr!



I was always taught that this was correct Julia. But that was in America, perhaps it's a Yankee bastardization?


----------



## GreatPig (7 April 2008)

wayneL said:


> I was always taught that this was correct Julia. But that was in America, perhaps it's a Yankee bastardization?



I don't think so. I know a number of Americans with cause to care (they're writers) who would all tell you that's incorrect.

I is used in the subject position and me in the object position. More simply, remove the other person and see if it sounds correct with just the me or I alone:

Join I again tomorrow...
Join me again tomorrow...

Same basic rule for he/him and she/her.

GP


----------



## wayneL (7 April 2008)

GreatPig said:


> I don't think so. I know a number of Americans with cause to care (they're writers) who would all tell you that's incorrect.
> 
> I is used in the subject position and me in the object position. More simply, remove the other person and see if it sounds correct with just the me or I alone:
> 
> ...




That makes total sense GP. But I distinctly remember being told off for saying:

Join me and xyz tomorrow.

I also distinctly remember thinking to myself "that sounds really dumb" ( the xyz and I thing).

xyz is now firmly rooted in my noggin, and now I find out is DOES sound dumb. 

*** But what about dalek's example? 


> That's right, me and my friend agree, they never deliver a fantastic show.



You wouldn't say " That's right, me agree, they never deliver a fantastic show. Would it be proper to say "my friend and I" in that case?

I wish I'd paid attention in my English classes.


----------



## Julia (7 April 2008)

Wayne, GP is right.  I can't remember the grammatical rules now, but you don't use "me" as you have suggested at the beginning of a sentence, e.g. "Me and Tom are going out".
Think of it similarly to what an accountant once told me about a tax return:
"if it looks right, it probably is".  With grammar, think "if it sounds wrong, it probably is".

As GP has suggested, the easiest way to check if you are right is to simply say the sentence removing the other person.  viz  "join I tomorrow" is obviously wrong.

With the example "me and Tom are going out" again remove "and Tom" and obviously you are not going to say "me are/am going out", but "I am going out".
If you and Tom are both going out, then it should be "Tom and I are going out", again decided by removing "and Tom" from the sentence.

Someone will be able to elaborate on the actual rule of grammar which describes this.

Is that any clearer?  I suspect I may have muddled you further.


----------



## wayneL (7 April 2008)

Julia said:


> Is that any clearer?  I suspect I may have muddled you further.




No that makes perfect sense. I probably wasn't listening properly (90% probability ).

**More grammatical revision for me.


----------



## 2020hindsight (7 April 2008)

Charley Pride - me & Bobby Mcgee

PS warning - don't pick this to sing at the pub's Kareoke night 
 those bludy " ladada de dadada , ladada de , etc" go on for hours 

"good enough for bobby mcgee and me "


----------



## wayneL (7 April 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> Charley Pride - me & Bobby Mcgee
> 
> PS warning - don't pick this to sing at the pub's Kareoke night
> those bludy " ladada de dadada , ladada de , etc" go on for hours




Only Janis Joplin should be permitted to sing this ( a bit hard now I guess)... or Kristofferson himself.

One of the great songs.


----------



## 2020hindsight (7 April 2008)

wayneL said:


> Only Janis Joplin should be permitted to sing this ( a bit hard now I guess)... or Kristofferson himself.
> 
> One of the great songs.



here ya go wayne 

 JANIS JOPLIN - ME & BOBBY MC GEE

good enuf fer mee - nnnnnnnnnnnn mar bobeeeeer   mcgee

good enuf fer myanmar(?) bobeeeeer   mcgee


----------



## chops_a_must (7 April 2008)

wayneL said:


> Only Janis Joplin should be permitted to sing this ( a bit hard now I guess)... or Kristofferson himself.
> 
> One of the great songs.




The dad took me to see him at the concert hall when I was about 10. I remember Kris singing this. He is actually of genius level intelligence. Great experience. As was Mr. Cash the 2 times I saw him and Waylon Jennings, Emmylou Harris. Good times.


----------



## GreatPig (7 April 2008)

Julia said:


> Someone will be able to elaborate on the actual rule of grammar which describes this



I already did, briefly. "I" is a subject, "me" is an object (or part of one when more than one person).

With transitive verbs you have an actor (the subject) and a thing acted on (the object).

Tom [subject] kicked the cat [object].
He [subject] hates me [object].
I [subject] hate him [object] too.
Bob and I (plural subject) love seeing her [object].
She [subject] gave the present to Jack and me [plural object].

Note though that if you turn these into passive statements, the subject and object change:

I [subject] am hated by him [object].
Jack and I [plural subject] were given the present by her [object].

In imperative statements, where it's written like a command to do something, the subject is an implied "you":

[you] Leave him [object] alone!
[you] Join her [object] tomorrow.
[you] Join Tom and me [plural object] later tonight.

Some transitive verbs have both direct and indirect objects:

He [subject] gave me [indirect object] the ball [direct object].
They [subject] offered us [indirect object] her [direct object] in exchange.

Subject: I, you, he, she, we, they
Object (direct or indirect): me, you, him, her, us, them

Wayne


----------



## wayneL (7 April 2008)

chops_a_must said:


> The dad took me to see him at the concert hall when I was about 10. I remember Kris singing this. He is actually of genius level intelligence. Great experience. As was Mr. Cash the 2 times I saw him and Waylon Jennings, Emmylou Harris. Good times.




Emmylou should be canonized.


----------



## chops_a_must (8 April 2008)

wayneL said:


> Emmylou should be canonized.




That's a bit harsh!

I'm not sure if she could cope with that kind of treatment these days.

As long as the netting is there to catch her I spose...


----------



## 2020hindsight (8 April 2008)

would you believe caramelised then?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SqIH59QMeg  Emmylou Harris, Chet Atkins - Precious Memories
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TU97vLkxxtY Emmylou Harris - Two More Bottles of Wine


----------



## 2020hindsight (8 April 2008)

chops...here's johnny cash m8

two of my pet peeves 
drugs, and 
the music kids like  ("fu*k you I won't do what you tell me" etc  Rage Against the  bullsh1t etc)  

  Johnny Cash: What Is Truth?


----------



## 2020hindsight (8 April 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> the music kids like  ("fu*k you I won't do what you tell me" etc  Rage Against the  bullsh1t etc)




PS more so, or at least equally, the way you set out on a road trip, and each of the kids has their own set of earphones - listening to some "personalised noise" that barely rates as music - at some noise level so they can't hear you ask them anything - sure to kill their  hearing - and offended if you interrupt them to ask them what they did for the last 6 months , or if they can spy anything starting with "iPod".....

.."hey mate - I can download 12,5000  hours of Rage Against the Machine!! and stuff - enough to travel around Australia 8 times and not listen to the same song twice!!".  

(I can understand why you wouldn't want to hear some of those songs twice thas for sure.

Bit like mobile phones - I remember seeing a table of 4 men sitting having dinner at a table in a hotel somewhere - all with mobile phones - my companion posed the question - I wonder if they're talking to each other?

PS Missy Higgins etc ? - different story 
reggae, etc? - maybe - (caught a taxi the other day - bloke had bongo drums in the car - played em at red lights - was great ) 
american rap, and/or all-t1ts-and-bums?. ... what's on the next channel ~!
(the kids reckon I have a high 2CH factor)


----------



## 2020hindsight (8 April 2008)

....
a couple of songs (?) referenced back there (stark comparison). 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWuWEwwwIEk  "Fu ck You I Won't Do What Ya Tell Me" Melb. BDO 2008 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If8_8yLWMIE&NR=1 ditto Sydney

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wc6FgyC7rwU  Missy Higgins - Scar (Live 2004)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJ4XUESnCwI Peachy etc


----------



## Sprinter79 (8 April 2008)

PP: That stupid song on the Sky News Business Channel.... GRRRRRR.

I know economists have absolutly no taste, but even to them, that must suck.


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 April 2008)

Sprinter , I forgot to mention that a couple of those kids in that crowd watching Rage Against the Machine in Sydney were mine. 

pet peeve?  maybe one for the building industry - moral of the story - don't be perfect ! .... 

*Tough Clients*! - like the fellow who commissioned the building of the Taj Mahal - and then cut off the hands of the workers "so that no one would ever be able to build such a marvelous monument again."   

http://library.thinkquest.org/27638/tajmahal.html


> The Mughal Emperor Shahjahan ordered it built in memory of his favorite wife Mumtaz Mahal, who died in 1629A.D.
> ......
> The construction of the Taj commenced in 1631 and was completed in  1653.Workers were gathered from all over the country (India) and central  Asia.The main architect was Isa Khan. Shahjahan *cut off the hands of  the workers after the completion of the Taj Mahal so that no one would ever be able to build such a marvelous monument again*.


----------



## Prospector (10 April 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> Sprinter , I forgot to mention that a couple of those kids in that crowd watching Rage Against the Machine in Sydney were mine.




Who were. no doubt, sitting next to mine (except that mine were in Adelaide!


----------



## sam76 (10 April 2008)

getting suspended on other forums


----------



## cuttlefish (10 April 2008)

tigerboi - after your comments I've been watching trucks and speed limits closely and after a recent drive up the pacific highway at night there is simply no doubt in my mind that many trucks are still consistently driving at speeds of at least the 110->120km/h range in 100km/h zones.


----------



## Prospector (10 April 2008)

cuttlefish said:


> tigerboi - after your comments I've been watching trucks and speed limits closely and after a recent drive up the pacific highway at night there is simply no doubt in my mind that many trucks are still consistently driving at speeds of at least the 110->120km/h range in 100km/h zones.





Pet peeve - bringing back a (hoped for) forgotten topic


----------



## Bushman (10 April 2008)

I cannot stand the term 'girly girl'. I mean what does that mean?


----------



## prawn_86 (10 April 2008)

People who criticise others musical tastes without even trying to understand why it is good/liked ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 April 2008)

prawn_86 said:


> People who criticise others musical tastes without even trying to understand why it is good/liked ...




hey prawn - if you're saying I should like Rage Against the Machine - 
 then all I can say is ........
"F*** you I won't do what you tell me!!"

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=173885&highlight=comedian#post173885


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 April 2008)

Prospector said:


> (except that mine were in Adelaide!



prospector, just for completeness then ..  
 Rage Against The Machine - Live @ The Adelaide Big Day Out


----------



## Sprinter79 (14 April 2008)

PP: Going through salary negotiations and knowing that the company is low-balling. 65k for a state manager's position, they can go and jump!! haha


----------



## derty (14 April 2008)

I love most types of music, you can find me at an orchestra or in the front row of a Slayer concert. I listen to classical, blues, jazz, folk, pop, dance, trance, techno, (some) rap, rock, punk, indie,  all sorts of metal. 

There are times when you need some laid back blues and times when you need crank something loud and fast. 

I find it hard to understand why people choose to limit themselves so tightly to such a narrow spectrum of what is available and declare all else to be utter rubbish. Though my abhorrence to the blight that comprises most of the Country Music scene does give me a little insight into this point of view :


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 April 2008)

derty said:


> I love most types of music, you can find me at an orchestra or in the front row of a Slayer concert. I listen to classical, blues, jazz, folk, pop, dance, trance, techno, (some) rap, rock, punk, indie,  all sorts of metal.
> 
> There are times when you need some laid back blues and times when you need crank something loud and fast.
> 
> I find it hard to understand why people choose to limit themselves so tightly to such a narrow spectrum of what is available and declare all else to be utter rubbish. Though my abhorrence to the blight that comprises most of the Country Music scene does give me a little insight into this point of view :




derty,   suggestion..
How about posting some of your favourite tunes on the tunes thread. 

PS I don't like RATM's music (at all), but I'm told by the kids that there is a lot of "legitimate political anger" expressed in there - so yes,  maybe I should give Zac De la Rocha a fairer trial.  Just that that particular song (F*** you etc) has come to symbolise (in this house anyway) the generation gap - albeit with a grin when we say it   As long as kids appreciate that songs are written for other reasons than hating the establishment I guess. 

PS I suspect that he's experienced plenty of police brutality over the years - and probably "US style" brutality into the bargain = shoot first, ask questions later.   

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zack_de_la_Rocha



> Rage Against the Machine
> Before long, Rage Against the Machine was on the main stage at Lollapalooza, in 1993, and was one of the most politically charged bands ever to receive extensive airplay from radio and MTV. Rage will also be appearing at Lollapalooza in August, 2008. De la Rocha became one of the most visible champions of left-wing political causes around the world, advocating in favor of Leonard Peltier and Mumia Abu-Jamal, and supporting the Zapatista movement in Mexico. He even spoke on the floor of the UN, testifying against the United States and its treatment of Abu-Jamal. The music and the message were so intertwined for him that he did not consider any of Rage's albums a success unless they provoked tangible political change.
> 
> Rage's second and third albums peaked at number one in the United States, but did not result in the political action de la Rocha had hoped for. He became increasingly restless and undertook collaborations with artists like KRS-One, Chuck D, and Public Enemy.
> ...






> “ So who went out and joined us for the Democratic National Convention? I've never seen so many ****ing cops in my life. It's like everybody knows that everybody went out there; the only thing we were out there to do is express how much we hate both the Democrats and Republicans because they sold this ****ing country out. And by expressing our rights to resist, what do they do? They open fire on the crowd. I don't care what ****ing television station said the violence was caused by the people at the concert; those mother****ers unloaded on this crowd. And I think it's ridiculous considering, you know, none of us had rubber bullets; none of us had M16s; none of us had billy clubs; none of us had face shields. *All we had was our fists, our voices, our microphones, our guitars, our drums, our timbales and whatnot. And anytime we get beaten in the streets for protesting, we take it to the court system, but the court system don't wanna hear it. Look what happened to Amadou Diallo in New York. They shot that brother 41 times and let all four officers go. It's time for a new type of action in this country*.





> A new collaboration between de la Rocha and DJ Shadow, the song "March of Death" was released for free online in 2003 in protest against the imminent invasion of Iraq. De la Rocha released a statement along with his song:
> 
> “ *Without just cause or reason, without legal or moral justification, and without a thread of proof that Iraq directly threatens the security of the United States, the Bush administration has headed to war. As I am writing this, bombs are raining upon the defenseless civilians of Baghdad in a continuation of a policy that has already claimed the lives of over 1 million innocent Iraqi people. People just like us who want democracy but find themselves cornered by a dictator on one side, naked U.S. aggression on another, and the oil beneath their country; for which it appears they are to be massacred*.
> 
> Lies, sanctions, and cruise missiles have never created a free and just society. Only everyday people can do that, which is why I'm joining the millions world wide who have stood up to oppose the Bush administration's attempt to expand the U.S. empire at the expense of human rights at home and abroad. In this spirit I'm releasing this song for anyone who is willing to listen. I hope it not only makes us think, but also inspires us to act and raise our voices.[6]



hell I agree with him on those last couple of paras at least .


----------



## Julia (14 April 2008)

This has been raised before on the "Grammar" thread.

If only I 'had of' done that.

Please, people.  Drop the 'of'.  Just say "If only I had done that".
Ditto "should of".  Damn it, it's "should have".
These two mistakes are made over and over again.  

OK again:  "Everything would of been different if only we'd of done that".
WRONG:
"Eveything would have been different if only we'd done that".

Please, people, please!


----------



## Sprinter79 (14 April 2008)

Julia said:


> This has been raised before on the "Grammar" thread.
> 
> If only I 'had of' done that.
> 
> ...




Won't somebody think of the children hahahaha


----------



## bassmanpete (14 April 2008)

Whenever there's a tragedy in a small town it's described as a "close knit community" when, in at least 50% of cases, they probably hate each other's guts


----------



## bassmanpete (14 April 2008)

> If only I 'had of' done that.




I thought this was fairly recent usage but not too long ago I read a Raymond Chandler novel written in the '40s and found a couple of examples of 'should of'.


----------



## Sprinter79 (18 April 2008)

PP: All this rain we had today hahahaha


----------



## 2020hindsight (18 April 2008)

bassmanpete said:


> I thought this was fairly recent usage but not too long ago I read a Raymond Chandler novel written in the '40s and found a couple of examples of 'should of'.




then again m8, you read Pygmalion you find a few as well  

Actually one for the AntiPeeve thread - accents, particularly the miriad accents of the UK and Europe 
- love accents -
And I really admire those actors who can read a book in multiple accents , and/or character parts - sometimes six or seven (libraries have heaps of these Audio Books - great company on a long interstate car drive - in fact I usually drive around the block a couple of hundred times when I get there just to finish the story) 

Every suburb of London has its accent (according to Higgins anyways) 

:topic a few meanings for "Pygmalion" ( gee I like this internet )


> 1. Pygmalion (mythology), in ancient Greek mythology, a sculptor who fell in love with his statue
> 
> In psychology:
> 2. The pygmalion effect, a concept in psychology *describing the behavior of individuals as people expect them to behave *
> ...




I'm guessing the "pygmalion effect" is so-named to reflect the play - i.e. FOLLOWED the play.


----------



## Julia (18 April 2008)

A current peeve for me is the extraordinary amount of packaging on most retail goods.  Lots of cardboard to make it look as though we are getting more for our money, then when you finally make it through to the actual product, more shrink-wrapping to be prised off.

And the newspapers!  Not only are they wrapped in about 6 metres of shrink wrap, then they twist the ends so it's nigh impossible to unroll.

Bouquet to Australia Post for producing terrific post packages.  Protective of what one is sending and simple for both sender and recipient.


----------



## Sprinter79 (18 April 2008)

Julia said:


> A current peeve for me is the extraordinary amount of packaging on most retail goods.  Lots of cardboard to make it look as though we are getting more for our money, then when you finally make it through to the actual product, more shrink-wrapping to be prised off.
> 
> And the newspapers!  Not only are they wrapped in about 6 metres of shrink wrap, then they twist the ends so it's nigh impossible to unroll.
> 
> Bouquet to Australia Post for producing terrific post packages.  Protective of what one is sending and simple for both sender and recipient.




I second that!

Especially when they double wrap meat, and after unwrapping the first layer you see the previous use by date!!!!


----------



## 2020hindsight (18 April 2008)

Sprinter79 said:


> I second that!
> 
> Especially when they double wrap meat, and after unwrapping the first layer you see the previous use by date!!!!



lol could be worse mate - a rough pub I was in a few weeks back - and they went round selling tickets in the meat tray 
 - and there under the cellophane was a bloody great fly


----------



## Sprinter79 (22 April 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> lol could be worse mate - a rough pub I was in a few weeks back - and they went round selling tickets in the meat tray
> - and there under the cellophane was a bloody great fly




Hahaha, that's gross man!!!

PP: Migraines, nuff said...


----------



## 2020hindsight (22 April 2008)

Sprinter79 said:


> Hahaha, that's gross man!!!
> 
> PP: Migraines, nuff said...



yeow! I only get headaches - usually after a bit of festivity

personally I blame the weather - being under it's influence. 
(as against "under the weather" )

PS as for that meat tray - the carpet in the pub looked like it was long since threadbare ! lol  .    And  the bloke carrying the meat tray around - staggering from one person to the next - was dribbling as I recall.

In the same vein ,   Remember I went out to St George (Qld) shooting pigs once with some mates - way back - this pub had beer cans scattered for as far as the eye could see - reminded me of a little soldier crab's hole, where they turf out the little round balls of wet sand in all directions -  anyway it was about midday -  as hot as hell, and we screeched to a halt when we saw this sign with a giant icecold beer - with frost and stuff 

then we went into the bar, and one lone old bloke sitting there , head on his arms which were folded on the bar ,  looking down at his shoes.  (which had a lot of really colourful lumps hanging on em lol)
we stood a couple of metres away and ordered,  suddenly he spewed on his hand , and 
 almost immeditaely - 
staggered up with his hand extended " g'day , My name's McGooley hic "


----------



## 2020hindsight (22 April 2008)

speaking of hygiene
this from Julia's sydney holiday accommodation thread ...
(someone, brought up the subject of cleanliness in hotel rooms - same cloth to wipe the toilet as the washbasin etc   )
personally that doesn't worry me. or lol - what I don;t know won't hurt me maybe, whatever . 

but ... I recalled this little number .. (which always makes me smile - the Ambos happily holding the giant jar of this stuff , people "handing" it out )  :eek3:
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=247600&highlight=juices#post247600


----------



## 2020hindsight (22 April 2008)

knew a bloke once, used to wash his hands after going to the toilet (like most would do lol) - cept that he figured the last person to use those taps had dirty hands - so  he'd use a paper towel to turn the tap on with . 

turned a simple trip to the toilet into one of those theatre scenes from  Grey's flaming anatomy. 

perhaps I should have challenged him that someone might have accidentally touched the paper towel in the course of getting the previous one.


----------



## 2020hindsight (22 April 2008)

PS.  I assume that bloke would not have patted a dog for instance -
 knowing what it probably rolled in a half hour before


----------



## nioka (22 April 2008)

People wanting a ban on plastic bags.


----------



## Spaghetti (22 April 2008)

Well back to earlier pet peeve about speeding motorists going by my house in a 20km zone (crest).

The council cannot place speed bumps because there is insufficient distance for the warning sign so there is a risk a speeding motorist will flip his car.

So they are protecting the speeding motorist rather than those who live here.

Since posting a dog was killed after escaping his house, next maybe a child but as long as speeding motorists can do so safely then that is all that matters to council.

I am past peeved, now I am angry.


----------



## Sprinter79 (29 April 2008)

PP: Trucks taking shortcuts along my street all all hours of the night, rather than go on the dual carriage way 1km up the road. I might have to get double glazing just to keep the truck noise out!!!!!


----------



## doctorj (29 April 2008)

*deep breaths*

On one hand we have a government that amidst all the fan fare of the 20-20 summit announced an inclination to simplify the tax system who were elected, partly, on a promise of no increased taxes.

On the other, we have them raising taxes on alcohol while shouting from the rooftops “won’t somebody think of the children!” as if that’s meant to justify it.  Anyone who speaks ill of it (as I expect to happen to me) is charged with neglecting the best interests of our children.

What we have here is a systemic failure in parenting and the public outsourcing responsibility to a government all too happy to bolster their coffers with increased taxes.

The reality?
Alcohol has long been proven VERY price in-elastic.  Large increases in cost do little to reduce demand.  

The cost?
Responsible people, such as you and I, are made to pay even more taxes than we already do for little or no REAL benefit to anyone but a government wanting to ‘look good’ and parents that lack the will to take responsibility for their children.

Governments should be responsible for providing what we as individuals can’t – they should not be responsible for making decisions for us.


----------



## Julia (29 April 2008)

Great post, Doc.  The fact that this additional tax will provide a very nice little additional revenue stream for the government wouldn't, of course, have anything to do with this policy.

Yet another example of a gesture designed to look all very caring and sharing which is most unlikely to make any difference to kids binge drinking.


----------



## prawn_86 (29 April 2008)

Hear, hear Doctor.


----------



## reece55 (29 April 2008)

doctorj said:


> *deep breaths*
> 
> On one hand we have a government that amidst all the fan fare of the 20-20 summit announced an inclination to simplify the tax system who were elected, partly, on a promise of no increased taxes.
> 
> ...




HAHAHA... God do I agree with you Doc, I had a debate with my wife about this only 2 nights ago...

The only thing that is going to happen is an increase of funds in the coffers - as you say, alcohol, like cigarettes, have an inelastic demand curve... Price shifting, unless a price shock, is not likely to reduce consumption.

Basics of Govt thinking:

We need to be seen to be doing something here, I know what we will do, lets put a spin on increasing revenue to the Federal Government!

Cheers


----------



## nomore4s (29 April 2008)

reece55 said:


> HAHAHA... God do I agree with you Doc, I had a debate with my wife about this only 2 nights ago...
> 
> The only thing that is going to happen is an increase of funds in the coffers - as you say, alcohol, like cigarettes, have an inelastic demand curve... Price shifting, unless a price shock, is not likely to reduce consumption.
> 
> ...




Won't this also have an effect on inflation?:

<tongue in cheek>


----------



## Sprinter79 (29 April 2008)

I've done some post grad studies in public health, and during my research, it was found that the single best way to reduce the number of people smoking, and the number of ciggarettes smoked is via increased price. The removal of ads, all the education, all the anti-smoking promotion, all the health warnings on packs, had significantly less impact than simple price rises.

The same is true for alcohol consumption. Increase the price, reduce the consumption.


----------



## doctorj (29 April 2008)

Sprinter79 said:


> The same is true for alcohol consumption. Increase the price, reduce the consumption.



The attached chart (taken from a UWA paper on the issue) summarises the observed price elasticity of beer over numerous studies conducted both in Australia and around the world.  It clearly shows that beer is very inelastic and that changes in price would have a very small impact on consumption levels.


----------



## Birdster (29 April 2008)

Sprinter79 said:


> I've done some post grad studies in public health, and during my research, it was found that the single best way to reduce the number of people smoking, and the number of ciggarettes smoked is via increased price. The removal of ads, all the education, all the anti-smoking promotion, all the health warnings on packs, had significantly less impact than simple price rises.
> 
> The same is true for alcohol consumption. Increase the price, reduce the consumption.




Going into politics Sprinter?   LOL

"Increase the price, reduce the consumption" True...but unfortunatley, the formula doesn't work for petrol or food. Unless Rudd's ultimate goal is to force fitness to the masses? Walk more and eat less.


----------



## prawn_86 (29 April 2008)

Sprinter79 said:


> The same is true for alcohol consumption. Increase the price, reduce the consumption.




As others have said, alcohol is very price inelastic.

A large increase in price creates a small reduction in consumption. Same with cigarettes and petrol.

However with elastic goods, a large increase in price would result in a large drop in demand.

I have to say that i dont agree with you on this one Sprinter


----------



## chops_a_must (29 April 2008)

doctorj said:


> The attached chart (taken from a UWA paper on the issue) summarises the observed price elasticity of beer over numerous studies conducted both in Australia and around the world.  It clearly shows that beer is very inelastic and that changes in price would have a very small impact on consumption levels.




More economics nonsense.

Just because something is "inelastic" doesn't mean consumption doesn't change. Elasticity being a relative measure, has little meaning in practice anyway, especially in issues such as these.

Anyway, when a bar has a happy hour, do people's drinking habits change? Of course they do. So consumption CAN be changed, that's the whole point.

And by the way, the statement was: "the single best way to reduce the number of people smoking, and the number of ciggarettes smoked is via increased price. The removal of ads, all the education, all the anti-smoking promotion, all the health warnings on packs, had significantly less impact than simple price rises."

It's irrelevant if this or that is price inelastic if price has the biggest impact on consumption, aside from any other factors, and then that becomes the policy of choice. No-one should give a damn if something is price inelastic, it's what affects that individual item most that counts.

By the way, petrol prices are meant to be inelastic as well. But just about everywhere in the world is noticing record public transport patronage. So economists can mull on that as well. Complete price inelasticity indeed.


----------



## prawn_86 (29 April 2008)

No one said anything about complete inelasticity Chops.

As price of inelastic goods rise, demand will fall, but proportionally that fall will be much less than that of an elastic good.

The gov (imo) would be better off spending money on education rather than through tax hikes. Supposedly the money raised will go to education, but i'll believe that when i see it.

Also, why should people who do not binge drink be punished for those who do. Politicians once again saying 'screw you' to the educated people of this nation and doing what will keep the plebs (parents who cannot keep their children under control) happy


----------



## rub92me (29 April 2008)

1. Having to sit on an 8 hour flight in between two people too large to fit in their seats. 
2. When I figured out I could reduce the exposure by insisting on an aisle seat, sitting next to two people that need to go to the toilet every 15 minutes on an overnight flight.
3. The grocer's apostrophe. I saw a great one the other day at my local butchershop. Leg's of lamb 17.90/kg. I kid you not.


----------



## chops_a_must (29 April 2008)

prawn_86 said:


> No one said anything about complete inelasticity Chops.
> 
> As price of inelastic goods rise, demand will fall, but proportionally that fall will be much less than that of an elastic good.



That's what I mean when I say it's irrelevant, meaningless and relative. Because you can't compare apples with oranges, they all have their own dynamics. It's what affects things MOST that counts. If it is price, elasticity becomes irrelevant.


prawn_86 said:


> The gov (imo) would be better off spending money on education rather than through tax hikes. Supposedly the money raised will go to education, but i'll believe that when i see it.



Mate... do you even read? Or take in?:



chops_a_must said:


> And by the way, the statement was: "the single best way to reduce the number of people smoking, and the number of ciggarettes smoked is via increased price. The removal of ads, all the education, *all the anti-smoking promotion, all the health warnings on packs, had significantly less impact than simple price rises.*"





prawn_86 said:


> No one said anything about complete inelasticity Chops.



Good, then we all agree that price rises will alter consumption. End of debate


As long as it keeps the wowsers from the door, and allows me to listen to music in a pub after 730pm, I am happy.

As far as I'm aware, the tax is only being applied to pre-mixed drinks anyway. So unless you are a you know what, : then it shouldn't affect you.


----------



## doctorj (29 April 2008)

chops_a_must said:


> More economics nonsense.
> 
> Just because something is "inelastic" doesn't mean consumption doesn't change. Elasticity being a relative measure, has little meaning in practice anyway, especially in issues such as these.
> 
> ...



Never said alcohol was completely price inelastic (clearly any non-zero measure shows that demand will change somewhat in response to a price change).

The question really should be is what change in price will it take to have any appreciable impact on alcohol consumption.  

Take elasticity at 0.09 - this means that in order to reduce alcohol consumption by 20%, you'd need to increase the price by more than 200%.  The latest data I could find is 2004/5 which shows in that year the govt collected $5.1b in taxes from alcohol sales.  That's already $230 from every man, women and child in Australia each year.

So, looking at the numbers - if the government increases tax on beer by the same 70% as they did on the lollywater, then consumption is likely to fall by only 6%.  Is this really very much?  

Is a 6% fall in consumption worth a cost of $3.57BILLION to Australia's taxpayers?

The extra $3.57BILLION the government would collect in such a situation is a hell of a lot of advertising and eduction and what not - what impact would spending that same amount on education have?

This isn't real policy - it's headline grabbing crap.


----------



## chops_a_must (29 April 2008)

Well, what level of spending on education has an impact on consumption?

Apparently a hell of a lot has to be spent to get the same result.

Anyway, wouldn't underage alcoholic drinks be more of a discretionary/ luxury item? 

Peach goon and passion pop got me through high school parties and first year uni. So I have no idea how these kids can afford this crap.

I'd much prefer a tax on baby bonus type parents, who have dumb rich teenage girls with 3 mobile phones and the like. But the reality of the situation is, and the stupidity of Australians is such that any real action is simply not going to happen. So price rises for Roland Rockachelli drinks will go up.

Just get the rich teenage girls back on eccies, like in the late 90s, and cut this crap out.

P.S. - I think most people would be happy with a 6% increase in demand from China, or a 6% increase in earnings for a company above expectation. I don't think you would ever see such a massive price rise in real men's drinks anyway. Because adults who drink adult's drinks, vote.


----------



## 2020hindsight (29 April 2008)

maybe the way you get a "scratch" or small dent on a car's bumper, and "the system" expects you to spend a fortune getting it panel beaten out.  

(and/or draw on your insurance - which drives up premiums for all etc) 

What the hell are bumpers for anyways?

Why do we lock ourselves into a system where a car has to look like a perfectly metallic-coat-painted piece of jewellery?  I mean, was similar trouble taken over the safety? - like the buckling strength etc?

I know someone who bought a car with a mass of hail damage - (obviously big discount) - he simply left it like that!
He explained to curious enquirers that he had heard that dimples were good for the aerodynamics of a golfball - and he was trying it out on a car!


----------



## Sprinter79 (29 April 2008)

Wow, I started a bit of a storm huh!

I'm comfortable with my research, and apparently, so was my lecturer, who gave me 99% for that effort  I only lost a mark 'cause I left a full stop off one of my references, bloody typo nazis!

As I said earlier, there is no better way than increasing the price to reduce consumption. Simple economics isn't it?


----------



## doctorj (29 April 2008)

Sprinter79 said:


> As I said earlier, there is no better way than increasing the price to reduce consumption. Simple economics isn't it?



Happy to take your word for it - but whether or not there is a better way isn't the issue at all (and its not something anyone's attempted to debate).

The issue is whether or not the large cost of increasing the cost of alcohol is worth the small benefit you're likely to get from it.  

Research indicates it takes a VERY LARGE increase in the cost to achieve a VERY SMALL decrease in consumption.


----------



## Julia (29 April 2008)

chops_a_must said:


> Anyway, wouldn't underage alcoholic drinks be more of a discretionary/ luxury item?



No.  The age group appears to have plenty of discretionary funds.




> I'd much prefer a tax on baby bonus type parents, who have dumb rich teenage girls with 3 mobile phones and the like.



As you have just observed:  if they can afford 3 mobile phones (which they don't appear to use sparingly), then of course they can afford increased cost of their alcohol of choice.


----------



## Julia (29 April 2008)

rub92me said:


> ht.
> 3. The grocer's apostrophe. I saw a great one the other day at my local butchershop. Leg's of lamb 17.90/kg. I kid you not.




Oh yes, indeed.  Banana's for sale.
Or in real estate advertising:  "Just a short stroll to local cafe's".
Grrrr!


----------



## Sprinter79 (29 April 2008)

Well, the fewer people consuming a deadly drug, the better for the economy, with less spent on health care to treat those with preventable diseases and illnesses. The load on the public health system due to alcohol and tobacco is massive, and if an increase in tax for certain products reduces this load, well, I welcome it.


----------



## chops_a_must (29 April 2008)

doctorj said:


> Research indicates it takes a VERY LARGE increase in the cost to achieve a VERY SMALL decrease in consumption.




Research also indicates it's the most effective way of reducing consumption. Plus it doesn't cost the government anything.

Love how economists can't get out of their little hole.

All these charts and crap are great until confronted with an actual circumstance that requires just a smidgen of lateral thinking.

PP: Economists with no ability to draw on anything outside of their little arena.


----------



## chops_a_must (29 April 2008)

Julia said:


> No.  The age group appears to have plenty of discretionary funds.



Yes, but it's discretionary whether their parents give them the money or not. :



Julia said:


> As you have just observed:  if they can afford 3 mobile phones (which they don't appear to use sparingly), then of course they can afford increased cost of their alcohol of choice.



I think you know I was being facetious there Julia. :

But like I said, get these rich girls back onto eccies again, and all this will go away...


----------



## doctorj (29 April 2008)

chops_a_must said:


> Research also indicates it's the most effective way of reducing consumption.



The problem isn't consumption.

The problem is excess consumption.

How do we get those in our community that lack the necessary self restraint to moderate their consumption without placing undue burden on those that are capable of looking after themselves?

The government doesn't need (nor should it try) to manage the consumption of the majority that do so responsibly.

Clearly this is where tax fails.  The failure of economists is not in saying that something won't work (they're right, it won't), it's that they don't come up with alternatives.

Those that jump up and down and say economists lack lateral thinking clearly lack the ability at a robust arguement that considers any solutions beyond what the mass media drums out.


----------



## prawn_86 (29 April 2008)

On a similar topic to the good DoctorJ a PP which came about by watching Insight tonight:

Politicians who "assess alternatives" or "weigh up options" for years on end without actually doing anything. 

Politicians who dodge questions

PP = POLITICIANS


----------



## reece55 (29 April 2008)

Can I just remind everyone who actually think this tax on booze is a good thing:

THEY ARE MAKING OUR BEER MORE EXPENSIVE...

Forget about the stats, next time you buy a six pack to have at home responsibly, you are paying more because someone's parents can't be bothered supervising their kids because they are too busy with their own lives. Does this seem in the least bit fair?

Cheers :drink:


----------



## chops_a_must (29 April 2008)

doctorj said:


> The problem isn't consumption.
> 
> The problem is excess consumption.
> 
> ...




Well, the same could be said for illicit drugs, speeding, any other issue you want to mention. It's never the ones keeping control in anything that are the problem

But great work attempting to shift the goal posts.

Clearly robust argument there. :

For mine, the problem isn't excess consumption, the issue is teenagers never having anything to do. For those that don't play sport, what is there to do as a teenager that doesn't cost you much money on the weekend? Probably nothing. You can't even go to the suburban speedways anymore, they've all gone. And anything that's worth doing as a teen costs 30-40 bucks. You can get absolutely trashed for half that. So, it's an easy choice.

Give teens something to do, and they wont drink as much. Simple.


----------



## reece55 (29 April 2008)

chops_a_must said:


> Give teens something to do, and they wont drink as much. Simple.




Agreed.....

Now please explain how increasing tax achieves this outcome? The fact is it won't.......

My other point, how many kids do you know drink a glass of red? Still getting taxed....

Cheers


----------



## doctorj (29 April 2008)

chops_a_must said:


> Give teens something to do, and they wont drink as much. Simple.



Same could be said for people in general.  Perth is so boring!


----------



## Kauri (29 April 2008)

Putting up the price of grog!!!  thats akin to charging for the air we breathe...  



chops_a_must said:


> But great work attempting to shift the goal posts.
> Clearly robust argument there. :
> .




  AAHH.. another Dockers trajic... I'm chairman..ooopps.. chairperson .. of that particular club....



doctorj said:


> Same could be said for people in general. Perth is so boring!




  Over 20 years I've been trying to get back out... butt it's hard going ploughing through the sand...


----------



## chops_a_must (29 April 2008)

reece55 said:


> Agreed.....
> 
> Now please explain how increasing tax achieves this outcome? The fact is it won't.......
> 
> ...



I didn't think anything other than pre-mixers were having this massive tax hike.

If price rises are the most effective method of reducing demand, even slightly, out of the "easier" possibilities, then that's what they will do. There are arguments here saying it wont and it will affect demand... can't you guys make up your mind?

Considering the religious extremists are predominantly the reason for all this hoo ha, they should cop equal blame as well. Funny that, considering some of the biggest alcos of all time have been priests... 

I knew one of those kids very well. An ex of mine, drank a bottle of red every day from the age of 14. Ended up being a massive alco.

Doctorj
Until they sort out the liquor licensing laws, which encourages pubs to be situated into a tiny area, and have secure prior use legislation to encourage making money from entertainment, rather than volume alcohol selling, it will always be the case in Perth. Entertainment entrepreneurs are scared to start things up because of the old fogies complaining here, and the regulatory environment that creates. You only have to look at the dramas the Bakery and HQ (probably the only decent underage thing around in Perth) constantly face to see how hard it is. WOW and now WES owning 80% of pubs and bottle o's doesn't help either. And that severely limits the variety on offer.


----------



## chops_a_must (29 April 2008)

Kauri said:


> AAHH.. another Dockers trajic... I'm chairman..ooopps.. chairperson .. of that particular club....




If only we had Doctorj shifting the goal posts on Friday night.  Haven't ever heard the crowd that loud and fired up before though.

I'm suing the Dockers as well. I'm going grey and bald at a very young age. And the only thing I can put it down to is the absolute frustration of being a Dockers supporter. If I don't have a heart attack at a Dockers' game in my lifetime, I think I will donate it to science as a wonder of the world.

PP: The ****ing Dockers!! Grrrrrrrrrrr...


----------



## doctorj (29 April 2008)

chops_a_must said:


> I didn't think anything other than pre-mixers were having this massive tax hike.



What got my knickers in a knot is that the press today were talking about hiking the prices on all booze.

... something we all can agree is a bad thing


----------



## Sprinter79 (29 April 2008)

Before we all get our undies so far up our **** that we start prancing around like Warrick Capper, this increased tax is purely for so the called 'alcopops', or pre-mixed drinks. Alcopops will now be taxed AT THE SAME RATE as straight spirits. Don't worry lads, your six-packs of Cascade Light won't be affected.

Tony Abbot: "I am always a reluctant taxer but certainly increasing the tax, increasing the prices usually [is a] very effective way of reducing the consumption."

DSIC (Distilled Spirits Industry Council) Spokesman: "Normally when the price goes up, sales go down, so it'll have an impact there."

Hmm, price elasticity anyone?

Source: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/04/27/2228252.htm


----------



## chops_a_must (30 April 2008)

doctorj said:


> What got my knickers in a knot is that the press today were talking about hiking the prices on all booze.
> 
> ... something we all can agree is a bad thing




Indeed.

If you can get these pre-mixers, which seem to be pretty cheap, as expensive or more expensive than alcohol drinks that aren't as strong, then that will have an impact on their choices as well.

And that will probably have an impact on drunkenness outside of pubs and clubs as well, as everyone goes back to buying tap beer. I miss EB on tap as well.


----------



## Kauri (30 April 2008)

If they increase taxes on meths I swear I'm going to change my vote!!!
   KRudd... take note...

  Labo*U*ring
.................Kauri


----------



## doctorj (30 April 2008)

Sprinter79 said:


> Before we all get our undies so far up our **** that we start prancing around like Warrick Capper, this increased tax is purely for so the called 'alcopops', or pre-mixed drinks. Alcopops will now be taxed AT THE SAME RATE as straight spirits. Don't worry lads, your six-packs of Cascade Light won't be affected.




Not what was in the press today if you RTFM...



			
				news.com.au said:
			
		

> *The proposal*
> The Federal Government's preventive health taskforce made the call for increased taxes following the surprise 70 per cent tax increase on spirit-based alcopop drinks on the weekend to combat teenage binge drinking.
> 
> Australian General Practice Network chief Kate Carnell said it was time all alcohol was taxed at the same rate to cut drinking and improve national health.
> ...






> Tony Abbot: "I am always a reluctant taxer but certainly increasing the tax, increasing the prices usually [is a] very effective way of reducing the consumption."
> 
> DSIC (Distilled Spirits Industry Council) Spokesman: "Normally when the price goes up, sales go down, so it'll have an impact there."
> 
> Hmm, price elasticity anyone?



I'm beginning to think you just like arguing.  

The point that you, the former minster for health and the DSIC fail to grasp is HOW MUCH consumption will fall per unit of price increase and whether or not that's worth it.

There's also plenty of research to suggest that education does work...


> Successful programs use ‘social influence strategies’ to inform students about peer andmedia influence on alcohol and other drug use and provide strategies for resisting this influence. Life-skills training is the best known and most effective of the social influence approaches. It teaches secondary school students social and problem solving skills that focus on decision making and resisting peer and other influences (Botvin et al 1990; Holder 2002; Sanci et al 2002).




To quote someone else on the issue 'The point is that the tax is a rather blunt policy instrument for alcohol regulation. Like rain it falleth equally on the just and the unjust.'

If we're worried about our youth drinking to excess, I have good news - we could make a "law" to limit access to alcohol until they're adult.  Oh wait... we have one of those already.

The fact is kids get grog from somewhere.  Sure there is the occassional young'n with big brother's ID that is lucky enough to be served by someone that doesn't notice that little Billy is not infact 25, but the reality is that a good amount of alcohol these kids drink is given to them by their parents.


----------



## Sprinter79 (30 April 2008)

doctorj said:


> Not what was in the press today if you RTFM...
> 
> 
> 
> ...




RTFM? 

I love arguing.

Nope, I don't fail to grasp it. A fall in consumption is a good thing, and as I stated from the outset, price increases are the single most significant factor in reducing consumption. 

I'm not saying that education doesn't work, it just doesn't work as well as price rises.

As for the taxes, your Cascade Light, or West Coast Cooler (hang on, is that an alcopop? : ) will not be affected by this recent change. What you quoted is a 'call' for increased taxes across the board, not actually increased taxes.


----------



## Sprinter79 (13 May 2008)

PP: The continued use of GLASS in those bus shelters with the advertising panels inside them. What's wrong with perspex? Surely the replacement costs of glass would make it uneconomical...


----------



## jaster (15 May 2008)

First time looking at this thread and I find the topics very interesting and life changing.....so I will definitely be back!

On an aside I noticed that there are a CONSIDERABLE number of Sandgropers who are regular contributors.....what does that tell us???? By the way YES I also live in Perth..hmmmm

I agree with Sprinter in regards to the replacement of the glass bus shelters....you gotta love those morons on the councils wasting our hard earned coin....they are now spending / investing / punting on the ASX....


----------



## doctorj (15 May 2008)

jaster said:


> On an aside I noticed that there are a CONSIDERABLE number of Sandgropers who are regular contributors.....what does that tell us???? By the way YES I also live in Perth..hmmmm



Not entirely surprising.  A significant percentage of the listed companies (by number) are based in Perth.  It's very hard to work in Perth without working for or with a listed mining company - it's only natural that people get an interest in it.


----------



## professor_frink (15 May 2008)

doctorj said:


> *deep breaths*
> 
> On one hand we have a government that amidst all the fan fare of the 20-20 summit announced an inclination to simplify the tax system who were elected, partly, on a promise of no increased taxes.
> 
> ...




Just on the subject of this tax hike, went into my local bottle shop last weekend to pick up some pre mixed stuff for Mrs Frink, she prefers the pre mixed ones to buying a bottle and mixing it herself, and was absolutely gobsmacked at the price. What used to cost $65 now costs $90! Decided to go the bottle instead. She'll have to learn how to pour a drink herself!

Speaking to the employee at the counter and asked what had happened since the hike. He laughed a little and said they weren't going to order half as much pre mixed stuff now, and will be getting in extra spirits in the bottle, as most had simply switched from pre mixers to buying a whole bottle at a time.

So much for promoting the responsible consumption of alcohol - instead of buying a 6 pack of cans, people will go off and buy a whole bottle instead:drink:


----------



## cuttlefish (15 May 2008)

The metal teapots they use in cafe's.

I challenge anybody to pour a cup of tea from those stupid little metal teapots they use in some cafe's without spilling anything.


----------



## stockGURU (15 May 2008)

professor_frink said:


> Speaking to the employee at the counter and asked what had happened since the hike. He laughed a little and said they weren't going to order half as much pre mixed stuff now, and will be getting in extra spirits in the bottle, as most had simply switched from pre mixers to buying a whole bottle at a time.
> 
> So much for promoting the responsible consumption of alcohol - instead of buying a 6 pack of cans, people will go off and buy a whole bottle instead:drink:




Surely nobody thought this tax hike was about encouraging responsible drinking? It's simply a cynical money grab by the Labor government that will lead to even more irresponsible drinking habits by teens and young adults. At the same time it punishes responsible drinkers who have done and continue to do absolutely nothing wrong.

Instead of drinking premixes which control the amount of alcohol in each drink teens will now be buying bottles and free pouring spirits into their drinks. So instead of 5-8% alcohol they will be consuming drinks with more than 10% and probably more than 20% alcohol! When you pour spirits out of a bottle you can pour in as much as you like. Sheer genius from the nanny state masters, the Labor government.

On top of all that it will also lead to the increased consumption of moonshine or home made spirits which is already becoming more common. I can't even begin to imagine what the long term impact of this will be.

Instead of leading to more responsible drinking habits this tax hike will lead to more irresponsible drinking. 

Thanks Kevin Rudd, you idiot! :bonk:


----------



## derty (15 May 2008)

GladWrap  - the stuff hates me, i'm sure of it.


----------



## Jetson (15 May 2008)

Pedestrians who walk on the right!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! GGGGGGGGGGRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and people who try to get in a lift before the people inside have got out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! SSSSSSSSSOOOOOOOOOO AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANOYING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## wayneL (15 May 2008)

Excessive use of exclamation marks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## peter2 (15 May 2008)

People showing off their big screens.


----------



## doctorj (15 May 2008)

Jetson said:


> Pedestrians who walk on the right



The fact that people drive on the left in the UK, but stand on the right side of the escalator.  Constantly confusing!


----------



## nomore4s (15 May 2008)

jaster said:


> First time looking at this thread and I find the topics very interesting and life changing.....so I will definitely be back!
> 
> On an aside I noticed that there are a CONSIDERABLE number of Sandgropers who are regular contributors.....what does that tell us???? By the way YES I also live in Perth..hmmmm






doctorj said:


> Not entirely surprising.  A significant percentage of the listed companies (by number) are based in Perth.  It's very hard to work in Perth without working for or with a listed mining company - it's only natural that people get an interest in it.




lol, Doc I think jaster means contributors to this thread.

Jaster might be hinting at something about sandgropers being whingers maybe?:

But with only the Dockers & Eagles to support over there who can blame you!:


----------



## wayneL (15 May 2008)

nomore4s said:


> lol, Doc I think jaster means contributors to this thread.
> 
> Jaster might be hinting at something about sandgropers being whingers maybe?:
> 
> But with only the Dockers & Eagles to support over there who can blame you!:




Maybe because WA is full of Poms.


----------



## Wysiwyg (1 February 2015)

No biggie but --- requoting (e.g.) a 25 paragraph post to make a one sentence reply. Especially the very next post when it is clear what the reply or comment is about. Quotes for large posts can be scaled back significantly or dissected so the intended reader knows.


----------



## bellenuit (1 February 2015)

The big banner some TV news channels like SKY and CNN display across the screen taking up as much as 20% of the screen real estate that only tells us who the channel is. This banner often hides a crucial aspect of the video footage they are showing. A small translucent logo in the corner, like our ABC News, would suffice instead.


----------

