People that park their cars on pavements.....

hollydays

Which bit.....

System

hollydays wrote: »

Which bit.....

The 12%. I thought it would be higher

I remember the days of "bread" with the cones outside they moved when their cars turned up!

lazer

goater78 wrote: »

The 12%. I thought it would be higher

I remember the days of "bread" with the cones outside they moved when their cars turned up!

People that live where I used to do the cones - whenever they move the car, they put th ehazard warning lights on, get out of the car to move the cones into "their" space, and then when they returned home they would move the cones again and park in the space.

I'm sure you can guess how much attention I paid to the cones - if tha was the only space I moved them and parked!

shaun_from_Africa

I remember the days of "bread" with the cones outside they moved when their cars turned up!

You'll have to explain this? I must be missing something here.

System

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

You'll have to explain this? I must be missing something here.

It was an 80's sitcom

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_(TV_series)

shaun_from_Africa

I see.
I was out of the UK for most of the 80's so didn't get to see much UK television, and what I did see was generally heavily censored.

hollydays

goater78 wrote: »

The 12%. I thought it would be higher

I remember the days of "bread" with the cones outside they moved when their cars turned up!

I've seen higher with other surveys like up to 30% but AA members are slightly more sane

PLog86

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

No it doesn't.
However, if you had stated "People will get mugged in Acton", with a special emphasis placed on the word "will", then the way that that sentence is interpreted is totally different.

This is exactly what you did with your comment about the police acting.


So no, I don't think that I am making an argument for the sake of it.
I am making an argument based on how you use and emphasise certain words when it suits you.

Sorry, Shaun, your argument is nonsense.

Emphasizing the word "will" in those contexts is emphasizing the contradiction, not implying that something happens in every case.

If someone said: "Surgeons will not operate for a broken leg", someone responding "Surgeons WILL operate on a broken leg" is being categorical that it DOES happen, not stating that it will always happen.

Are you seriously suggesting that azari was telling you that under ANY circumstances the police would ALWAYS respond to EVERY call about a car on the pavement? Because that it what your argument seems to be suggesting.

earthstorm

goater78 wrote: »

Driving 71 miles an hour on the motorway is a breach of the law and the police will not enforce that

some will enforce this, it is left to the officer on the ground. you can be driving at 71MPH in a straight and sensible manor or you could be driving at 71MPH and weaving in and out of traffic in a dangerous manor, just like any speed.
so just like parking on a pavement it is ENFORCEABLE, but it is left to the discretion of the police officer or local authority enforcement officers that attends or it is reported too.

Azari

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

No it doesn't.
However, if you had stated "People will get mugged in Acton", with a special emphasis placed on the word "will", then the way that that sentence is interpreted is totally different.
This is exactly what you did with your comment about the police acting.
So no, I don't think that I am making an argument for the sake of it.
I am making an argument based on how you use and emphasise certain words when it suits you.

Seems to me that all you are doing is putting your own (slightly weird) interpretation on what I wrote and then insisting that is what I meant.

You can take what I wrote to mean either that the police will, under some circumstances, enforce the particular law or that the they will always and under all circumstances enforce it.

One is a perfectly sensible (and correct) interpretation, the other is so ludicrous as to be laughable. And yet you are trying to insist that the ludicrous interpretation is the one intended.

On the bright side (for you, anyway), at least Goater seems to agree with you.