Pet Hates

[V671 DVU]

RE: Pet Hates
People who sl*g people and their mates off behind their backs, quite ridiculous and to be honest they need to get a life.

[M113 YKC]

RE: Pet Hates
When somebody blocks you on Flickr... I mean, what's the point?! Some sad people out there...

[V671 DVU]

RE: Pet Hates
I hate that as well, i've had someone block me on Flickr before. Really got on my nerves.

[M113 YKC]

RE: Pet Hates

(21/06/2012 15:09)V671 DVU Wrote:  I hate that as well, i've had someone block me on Flickr before. Really got on my nerves.

I just can't see any point in it at all! They're photos! I can still see them - just not "Favourite" or comment on them. If somebody hates me that much, then... LOL!

[M113 YKC]

RE: Pet Hates
When you don't want any enemies with anybody...
When you just want to be friends with people!

[DVL418]

RE: Pet Hates
People that post gossip and rumour on public forums - if they only realiised the potential harm they can cause by trying to be first and/or letting their imaginations run away with them by putting 2 and 2 together and getting 22 rather than 4!

Examples are depot closures that never happen (Runcorn is a regular on this theme) - it creates hell for managers and unions once their drivers etc pick up on this drivel posted by so-called enthusiasts. Is it any wonder some drivers dislikebus enthusiasts and photographers so much these days?

Another one is phantom new vehicle orders - Halton's deckers is the most recent fairy tale aired on this forum.

I would liketo see mods insisting on actual evidence being produced by posters to support threads of this nature before letting them out into the public gaze - especially for those small number of posters with form for this kind of thing, as it were.

Rant over!

[buses7675 (Website Founder)]

RE: Pet Hates

(25/06/2012 14:30)DVL418 Wrote:  I would liketo see mods insisting on actual evidence being produced by posters to support threads of this nature before letting them out into the public gaze - especially for those small number of posters with form for this kind of thing, as it were.

I agree in a way on this one, and with the Halton one for example I was sceptical, with the member in question being a newbie but let it go as sometimes it is difficult to decide either way on such matters.

What I think I will do in regard to this is to add another part to to the guidelines asking members to not post intentionally untrue information onto the forum. If something really is speculation to make it clear in the posts.

Most members do do this however, it is just the odd ones sometimes that do not.

[K853 MTJ]

RE: Pet Hates
And DVL's 'rant' was no doubt partially aimed at me! It seems Im not allowed to post 'what ifs' based on stuff thats been previously posted.
I think that people really have a right to go along with things like this if they want to and post what their view of the situation is, whether it be posting their thoughts and feelings on the apparent info posted, or it be speculation as to what may happen if the info did turn out to be true. I remember last year when 3293 as he was posted that Streetlites were going to Supertravel that countless members posted how it was going to be Mr Clarke's usual brand of bull. What Im trying to say is no matter how unproven a member is or how proven they are at lying as they case may be, that their info shouldn't be written off straight away.

[MTL0201]

RE: Pet Hates

(25/06/2012 16:31)K853 MTJ Wrote:  And that 'rant' was no doubt partially aimed at me! It seems Im not allowed to post 'what ifs' based on stuff thats been previously posted.
I think that people really have a right to go along with things like this if they want to and post what their view of the situation is, whether it be posting their thoughts and feelings on the apparent info posted, or it be speculation as to what may happen if the info did turn out to be true. I remember last year when 3293 as he was posted that Streetlites were going to Supertravel that countless members posted how it was going to be Mr Clarke's usual brand of bull. What Im trying to say is no matter how unproven a member is or how proven they are at lying as they case may be, that their info shouldn't be written off straight away.

Don't think he was having a go at you, i posted a similar post the other day, think its FMs who constantly post i've heard of a mate, ecc this is happening, only to be mostly wrong[one FM is particularly notorious for this].

[MTL0201]

RE: Pet Hates

(25/06/2012 14:36)buses7675 Wrote:  

(25/06/2012 14:30)DVL418 Wrote:  I would liketo see mods insisting on actual evidence being produced by posters to support threads of this nature before letting them out into the public gaze - especially for those small number of posters with form for this kind of thing, as it were.

I agree in a way on this one, and with the Halton one for example I was sceptical, with the member in question being a newbie but let it go as sometimes it is difficult to decide either way on such matters.

What I think I will do in regard to this is to add another part to to the guidelines asking members to not post intentionally untrue information onto the forum. If something really is speculation to make it clear in the posts.

Most members do do this however, it is just the odd ones sometimes that do not.

Wonder if such posts based on rumour could be deleted in future until if or when, official confirmation is announced.

[insert company] could/should buy Avon only to be BS, rears up every few months & that's just as annoying when it's only speculation.