flyguy

active 4 months, 1 week ago
active 4 months, 1 week ago
  • flyguy posted a new activity comment 4 months, 1 week ago

    If a politician states something, it’s a lie and if a report contradicts it, then the report is true?

    Perhaps there’s a grey area in between, is every report automatically the truth?

  • It’s important to keep your toaster clean and free from crumbs which stick to the elements and can catch fire. I have just such a fire (fortunately minor, although it set off the smoke alarms) last week when a bit of of sultana from a previously toasted hot cross bun caught fire. I wasn’t in the room and was alerted by the alarms. It produced a surprisingly large flame.

  • flyguy posted an update 4 months, 2 weeks ago

    Happy Easter everyone!
  • flyguy posted a new activity comment 4 months, 2 weeks ago

    Not really as there is a big chance that they could be released/broken out in Syria which is after all a very unstable war torn country. Best to send them to Guantanamo bay never to be seen again.

  • flyguy posted a new activity comment 4 months, 3 weeks ago

    Considering Jewish history- yes it is offensive.

    I would watch Simon Schamas’ last programme on Civilisations about Art in the machine world to gain an understanding of why.

    You come across as a thoughtful person.To be honest I am even amazed you are asking the question.

    • I didn’t say it wasn’t offensive, I wanted to know if it was anti-Semitic.

      Assuming it might be, I don’t really know hence the question, what if the MP had said it himself?

      Is it offensive then? If it was anti-Semitic when someone else says it, is it still anti-Semitic when a Jew says it.

      Like I said, I have many example of my Jewish friends saying something similar and “other” groups saying roughly the same thing, playing on stereotypes people might put on them.

      • I think the big issue with this sort of stuff is when it feeds into a culture that does real harm, or reinforces the idea that such a culture exists and is acceptable. So with the Hartlepool example I’d probably consider it to be harmless piss-taking among mates in Middlesborough, but totally unacceptable from, say, a posh tutor to a student at Oxford, where you might genuinely feel like you weren’t fitting in and being taking seriously because you aren’t posh and southern enough. Anti-semitism is very obviously problematic under most circumstances because anti-semitic cultures have a nasty habit of committing mass-murder.

        Regarding people taking the piss out of themselves, I think the question of when you start to feed into or reinforce a genuinely harmful culture is context…[Read more]

        • I’d say it has to do with intent, at least for some instances. But in same vein, some people want to be offended, then obviously there’s the deliberate intention to abuse.

          One of my difficulties, is offence always anti-Semitic? Or is there still a place to be offend and not claim anti-Semitism.

          And of course your correct in the general usage of words, and indeed groups taking offensive language for themselves.

          Case in point, group of lads on a train, looking at their phone discussing girls, “I’m telling you man she’s a Paki”, they were Asian lads, but how do you tell where someone comes from.

          I called them out and suggested they not use the term Paki, they pointed out they were Paki’s. We then talked about how come they don’t mind the word, what about if I called them Paki’s…[Read more]

  • flyguy posted a new activity comment 4 months, 3 weeks ago

    They elected the football club mascot as mayor. The mascot is a man in a monkey suit called “Hangus”. This is because during the Napoleonic Wars a live monkey was washed on the shores of Hartlepool, captured then tried and hung as a French spy.

  • flyguy posted a new activity comment 4 months, 3 weeks ago

    Should sue youtube for taking the video down for no legal reason only subjective opinion.

    • I imagine that a clip that causes a lot of complaints because it’s construed as racist or antisemitic breaks their guidelines and they can take it down if it’s giving them a bad name. Their sandpit and all that.

      While it’s the role of the law to ensure support freedom of speech (first and foremost by not making jokes or opinions illegal) it’s not the role of YouTube. People who complain that if you can’t post whatever you want on the internet without someone else deciding to take it down, then that’s an infringement of free speech simply don’t understand what free speech means.

      • > they can take it down if it’s giving them a bad name. Their sandpit and all that.

        Last time I looked, just after the verdict, the original video had been blocked or removed but several other people had uploaded copies of it that appear when you search for it. It could be that the original author had chosen to take it down but it seems more likely that YouTube did it. They’re obviously not bothered enough to make it hard for people to share copies of it though.

        > While it’s the role of the law to ensure support freedom of speech (first and foremost by not making jokes or opinions illegal) it’s not the role of YouTube. People who complain that if you can’t post whatever you want on the internet without someone else deciding to take it down, then that’s an infringement of free…[Read more]

    • Youtube, control what you can and can’t say on their platform. We should be, and generally are, free to say pretty much what we want, but no one is required to provide us with a megaphone with which to broadcast our views. And if you own the megaphone, then it’s your choice who to give it to.

      The state has, I think, responsibility to ensure that we have unimpeded access to diverse views, and so should obviously not control the media and internet. The state also has some responsibility to ensure that the media and internet aren’t used to harm those who can’t fight back or to undermine democracy and the rule of law. I tend to find arguments about free speech often ignore the balance that I think needs to be struck – if everyone’s free to broadcast whatever they want then we…[Read more]

  • flyguy posted a new activity comment 4 months, 3 weeks ago

    No, it really doesn’t. YouTube is a perfectly convenient way of sharing video content with a group of friends. For every famous new-media celebrity getting millions of views, there are thousands of low-profile people using the platform to share things with a handful of mates.

  • flyguy posted a new activity comment 4 months, 4 weeks ago

    At the risk of sounding like a dullard (and I appreciate it might not be possible to explain all aspects of physics to non scientists such as myself) – how do we know that the Universe isn’t shaped like a rubber glove?

  • flyguy posted an update 4 months, 4 weeks ago

    Where is the center of the Universe? Reading a copy of Focus magazine, it says…

    “As the Universe may not have a physical edge, there is no sense in the idea of an ‘absolute’ position. Hence, it is meaningless to think of the ‘centre’ of the Universe; something of infinite extent has no ‘centre’ as the point at which it began is also meaningless. The Big Bang happened everywhere at once and the Universe has been expanding ever since. Every point can be regarded as being the ‘centre’ of this expansion. So, the centre of the Universe is nowhere, and everywhere!”

    A couple of points:

    How can something infinite expand?
    How can it be that something might have a physical edge?

    It doesn’t sound to me like anyone knows what’s going on.

    It’s discombobulating.

    • Think about where is the center of the surface of a sphere.

    • For a simple 2D model draw some dots on a party balloon and inflate. All dots will increase their distance from each other. Now imagine that the balloon was initially so small that all dots overlapped.

      Also, popular science is often sloppy in distinguishing between “infinite in size” and “having no boundary”, these are two independent properties: The surface of the balloon has no boundary (you can draw a line going around it without interrupting) but is clearly finite in size. Pop the balloon, and you end up with a plane that is still 2D but does have an edge.

      • At the risk of sounding like a dullard (and I appreciate it might not be possible to explain all aspects of physics to non scientists such as myself) – how do we know that the Universe isn’t shaped like a rubber glove?

    • The center of the knowable universe is centered on the observer, no matter where they are. The knowable universe is limited by the fact that the universe is expanding (in all directions, from all observers as best we can tell) – faster than light speed (note that’s space expanding faster than light speed, NOT that galaxies are moving in space faster than light speed, which is not possible).

      This means that beyond a a certain distance, galaxies are receding from us too fast for their light to get to us so they are not in our knowable universe, but for someone else their knowable universe would be different

      • Not at all sure about this, if the universe began with the big bang, and nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, the suggestion that galaxies are receding to quickly for their light to reach us to me implies that they are traveling faster than light…

        • No, it implies that space is expanding faster than light speed. Nothing is moving in that space faster than light speed. Bit of a mind bender, really.

        • “if the universe began with the big bang, and nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, the suggestion that galaxies are receeding to quickly for their light to reach us to me implies that they are traveling faster than light…”

          They are traveling faster than light away from us in the sense that (increase in separation)/(increase in time) gives a value greater than the speed of light.

          But, that’s not a problem. The statement “nothing can travel faster than light” is more pedantically stated as “no thing can travel from one location in space to another location in space at faster than light”.

          In the above scenario the galaxies are not moving from one region of space to another, they are stationary within their local bit of space, but the space between them is expanding.

    • “How can something infinite expand?”

      Even if the universe is infinite*, there is no reason why it should not be expanding – all points in space would just be moving apart.

      If it is infinite, then it must always have been infinite, since something cannot expand from nothing to infinity in a finite time. So it must have been infinite at the time of the big bang, so the big bang would have happened at all points in infinite space simultaneously – which seems a bit weird but I believe there is nothing known which rules this possibility out.

    • “How can it be that something might have a physical edge?”

      Basically, in the case of the universe, because we can’t just nip over there and have a look. We have to come up with mathematical models for how the whole operation might work, and then see whether a) they accurately describe the stuff that we _can_ see and b) whether the universe that they predict has an edge and ultimately c) whether we can prove that any reasonable model that does a) properly will give the same answer for b). But given that we’re still working on a), c) is probably some way off.

    • I just can’t accept the universe is infinite, or what I should say is that my limited understanding of the evidence for it is not enough to convince me it’s true.

      By infinite, I mean containing a truly never ending number of things whether that be atoms, stars or galaxies however thinly spread they might be. The implications would be that everything physically possible would exist right now and there would be infinite copies of it all as well, including an unlimited number of atom perfect copies of earth and everyone on it as well as every possible variation. It’s just too much to comprehend for me at this stage.

      • Why are you unconvinced about this?

        • I know it’s not very scientific but it just seems too mind blindingly far out to be true. If eventually we find indisputable proof that it truly is the case then okay but right now I think you need some pretty extraordinary proof for such extraordinary claims.

          Odds or rarity would no longer have any meaning, if the chance of it happening is more than absolutely zero then it is happening all the time and there are an infinite number of them. You’d get things like near god like beings (within the bounds of physics) and freak quantum things happening such as super powered brains spontaneously popping into existence and the like. In fact everything that could ever be will happen constantly.

      • I have more trouble getting my head round a finite universe than an infinite one!

        • I’m not a scientist, but I thought this idea of a centre of the universe, or of some kind of possibly infinite ‘body’, was something we were meant to have got out of our heads, post-Einstein (and, at the other extreme, post quantum physics, for that matter). Because it still makes us think of the universe as some kind of huge, expanding Newtonian ping-pong ball. From a philosophical point of view, it’s a very odd question too, because it has no conceivable interest beyond the totally theoretic. With the obvious concomitant mistake that the ‘centre’ has some kind of special importance, and that everything revolves around it (as in the Ptolemaic and Copernican way of seeing things). I suspect, when applied to ‘the universe’ (whatever we quite mean by that), it makes a lot less sense…[Read more]

        • There are privileged positions on the number line. If we consider multiplication for example, 0 is the only number that gives you the same result no matter what you multiply it by, and 1 is the only number that always gives you back the other number. -83.24 whilst I’m sure interesting doesn’t as far as I’m aware fulfill any of these special functions.

          Re the universe being infinite, my understanding (particle physicist not cosmologist, so I defer to more appropriately learned colleagues if they come and contradict me) is that it’s not infinite, it’s been expanding from a size of effectively zero at finite rate for a finite time, so it can’t be infinite. However, it does extend out past the distance we can see because at some points in the history of the universe the rate of…[Read more]

          • “Re the universe being infinite, my understanding […] is that it’s not infinite, …”

            Well we don’t really know, since we can’t see further than the observable horizon. The default model assumes that it is infinite (but that just means “large compared to the observable horizon”).

            ” … it’s been expanding from a size of effectively zero at finite speed for a finite time, so it can’t be infinite.”

            Not really. We don’t have physics that would apply at time=0, size=0, since we know that currently known physics breaks down at the Planck scale and we don’t have working quantum-gravity theories. The default model would thus assume an infinite extent of stuff round about the Planck time.

            “However, it does extend out past the distance we can see because at some points in the…[Read more]

            • “Well we don’t really know, since we can’t see further than the observable horizon. The default model assumes that it is infinite (but that just means “large compared to the observable horizon”).”

              Exactly, just like no one in particle physics believes that the results of the Standard Model of particle physics will hold up to infinite energy scales, I presume no one in cosmology believes that the Standard Model of the universe actually works perfectly outside the region we have data.

              “Not really. We don’t have physics that would apply at time=0, size=0, since we know that currently known physics breaks down at the Planck scale and we don’t have working quantum-gravity theories. The default model would thus assume an infinite extent of stuff round about the Planck time.”

              Yes,…[Read more]

    • “As the Universe may not have a physical edge, there is no sense in the idea of an ‘absolute’ position. Hence, it is meaningless to think of the ‘centre’ of the Universe; something of infinite extent has no ‘centre’ as the point at which it began is also meaningless.”

      That seems a bit casual. Take the integer number line, it is infinite in extent but there are absolute positions and it does have a centre at ‘0’.

      • I’ve arbitrarily decided that the centre of my number line is at -83.24. But you stick with 0 if you like. I actually think it has no centre.

  • flyguy posted a new activity comment 5 months ago

    Here is another guide written by an idiot.

    So the position of each piston is determined by the position of the crankshaft, ok?

    If a piston is at the top of the cylinder, in the first revolution of the crankshaft it goes down and then up (induction and compression strokes).

    The spark plug fires, igniting the fuel/air mixture, and during the next revolution of the crankshaft the piston goes down and then up again

    (ignition and exhaust strokes).

    So the spark plug in each cylinder needs to spark at a precise point every 2 revs of the crankshaft.

    The crankshaft also drives a distributor shaft, which is geared to rotate once for each 2 rotations of the crankshaft.

    At the end of the distributor shaft is an arm/lobe, which is essentially a position sensor. At 5 points during each…[Read more]

  • flyguy posted a new activity comment 5 months ago

    OK, very simply, and probably a bit inaccurate…

    Inside the engine is a crankshaft. Initially this gets spun by the starter motor.

    The crankshaft is connected to the pistons by..er..connecting rods. As the crankshaft goes round a clever bit of mechanics means the pistons go up and down in the cylinders. The movement and position of the pistons is fixed depending on the position of the crankshaft as it goes round. The only way it can change is if something goes horribly wrong, and trust me it’d be a lot more than a judder.

    Ignoring the timing belt and valves and stuff, this happens:

    Piston pulled down by crankshaft – air goes in with a squirt of petrol.

    Piston pushed up by crankshaft – petrol and air compressed, spark plug sparks, mixture goes bang.

    Force of explosion shoves…[Read more]

    • Thanks for the idiots guide to the internal combustion engine)). That has helped my understanding.

      What makes the plugs fire each time? The ignition coils on every bang?

      • Here is another guide written by an idiot.

        So the position of each piston is determined by the position of the crankshaft, ok?

        If a piston is at the top of the cylinder, in the first revolution of the crankshaft it goes down and then up (induction and compression strokes).

        The spark plug fires, igniting the fuel/air mixture, and during the next revolution of the crankshaft the piston goes down and then up again

        (ignition and exhaust strokes).

        So the spark plug in each cylinder needs to spark at a precise point every 2 revs of the crankshaft.

        The crankshaft also drives a distributor shaft, which is geared to rotate once for each 2 rotations of the crankshaft.

        At the end of the distributor shaft is an arm/lobe, which is essentially a position sensor. At 5 points during each…[Read more]

  • flyguy posted a new activity comment 5 months ago

    Yes. If was a diesel I’d suspect a clogged fuel filter due to the cold weather, but that’s unlikely with petrol.

  • flyguy posted a new activity comment 5 months, 1 week ago

    No matter what the potential “benefit” I think it’s rather doomed to fail unless an element of personal responsibility, and self respect, is engendered at the same time. Just taking away choice, or prohibition, will not work, and will heartily piss off people who do not need nor want Nanny State in their dining room.

  • flyguy posted a new activity comment 5 months, 1 week ago

    But is that any reason for us all to have state imposed limits on our choices?

    • Well it is, isn’t it? There’s a reason we don’t allow under 18s to buy addictive substances and it’s partially around their lessened capacity to cope in the face of addiction. Part of the accepted public understanding on addiction is that part of the reason we ban, say, heroin, is because people cannot control whether they get addicted or how they’ll respond. (I don’t think addiction is this simple, but it’s not that important to this debate and I’m just trying to highlight a point).

      That’s not to say that I think we should impose similar restrictions on food, or that food and heroin are remotely similar. I’m just arguing that the debate is about where we draw the line.

      We need better labelling and education etc… I think, as the debate around smoking shows, people are…[Read more]

    • @nutter You’re absolutly correct to compare it to addiction.

      Its all about addiction to food. It’s our environment making us unhappy which makes us eat. It’s the reward chemicals the food ‘industry and manufacturers’ are loading the food with. It’s the constant bombardment by advertisers that push us to eat when we are not hungry.

      Telling an obese person to take control and eat less and move more is exactly like telling a heroin addict to stop taking heroin.

      Restricting calories probably won’t make a difference but making manufacturers think a bit about what they’re putting in their food may.

      I’m sceptical. Food growing and production shouldn’t be a massive privatised industry concerned only with making profit. It’s one of the only ‘industries’ that should be privatised…[Read more]

    • Doesn’t it come down to ‘net harm’ and ‘net benefit’ in the end, though? The cost of alcohol going very high in Norway may have resulted in more people brewing their own alcohol, and in people going over the border to get drunk, but overall it’s improved the health of the population.

      It’s not so fair, one might say, on the more responsible people, but any changes in society often seem to be broad brush when it comes to legislation. Smaller burgers and reduced sugar in things aren’t that much of an attack on one’s freedoms anyway really. 😉

    • No matter what the potential “benefit” I think it’s rather doomed to fail unless an element of personal responsibility, and self respect, is engendered at the same time. Just taking away choice, or prohibition, will not work, and will heartily piss off people who do not need nor want Nanny State in their dining room.

    • ‘ But it has to be a blanket thing doesn’t it? Smaller burgers, less sugar, less fats, low alcohol, it’s not like we have the ability to exercise personal choice in our diet, exercise or drinking habits, Nanny State must choose for us.’

      @flyguy To think about this earlier post of your’s, except for the smaller burgers, there’s nothing to stop anybody ‘adding’ sugar or salt to their food, or choosing something with more alcohol in, so it’s not as if it’s taking away any choice in what people put into their bodies at all, not in the bigger picture.

      Which makes me ask so what if sugar and salt are reduced in commonly consumed foods, why should a certain amount of sugar or salt by the ‘right’ amount – that is – why does it matter if levels are reduced with health reasons in mind if…[Read more]

  • flyguy posted a new activity comment 5 months, 1 week ago

    But it has to be a blanket thing doesn’t it? Smaller burgers, less sugar, less fats, low alcohol, it’s not like we have the ability to exercise personal choice in our diet, exercise or drinking habits, Nanny State must choose for us.

    • At what point might it change from it being the Nanny State, to it being an act of compassion to help lessen any suffering people experience because, despite the information being out there, which it clearly is imho, they’re not making the choices to make themselves healthier? I’m not pointing the finger here, btw, in saying the information is out there.

      Collectively, we’ll all pay the price too if things don’t change, in more pressure on the NHS and the health services in general, potentially meaning less tax for other things, within a society few freedoms are absolute, and most impact upon others. It might lead to an increase in national GDP if we become healthier, due to being physically more able and having less time off work, and being more together mentally too (physical…[Read more]

    • I’m not hugely pro “nanny state”, however I don’t think it’s fair to say we either have total freedom or govt intervention.

      Basically, certain private companies have engaged in a race to the bottom, producing food loaded with salt and sugar that we’re wired to crave and to a degree bypasses our capacity for rational self-control. At a certain point, government intervention is about mitigating the other forces acting on a person. For a much more extreme example, that’s why we have minimum wage laws (I in no way think these are equivalent).

      Alternatively, if you want people to be truly free to choose, then they need to bear the weight of their choice. The NHS currently spends ~£16 billion on obesity and diabetes related interventions. That’s £300 per person per year in taxes. C…[Read more]

      • A couple of flaws in your (otherwise good) plan

        1. Tax is not hypothecated, so £300 pppy raised may not all be spent on the NHS

        2. It would be a regressive tax – a millionaire wouldn’t notice, somebody on benefits definitely would.

        3. The obesity problem has taken years to build up, if taxation affects consumption then your tax take would drop but demand may very well remain

        At least you’ve come up with an idea though, I’m buggered if I can think of a solution!

        • it’s not really intended to be a serious solution. Human behaviour is complex. Government intervention is essentially a hammer and often unsuited to nuanced problems.

          I’m primarily trying to highlight two things.

          First, doing nothing isn’t really an option. 2/3 (let that sink in) of adults in England are obese and the problem is growing.

          Second, it’s going to have to be govt intervention, the private sector isn’t interested in us being thin (that’s fine) because they don’t bear the costs of it.

          Long and short of it, I would expect to see a sugar tax (beyond the current SSB plans) in the UK in the next 10 years. It would have been sooner, but other things have derailed govt business over the last two years.

    • We do. But the evidence would suggest the majority of the populace neither have the inclination to exercise or control their food habits.

      • But is that any reason for us all to have state imposed limits on our choices?

        • Well it is, isn’t it? There’s a reason we don’t allow under 18s to buy addictive substances and it’s partially around their lessened capacity to cope in the face of addiction. Part of the accepted public understanding on addiction is that part of the reason we ban, say, heroin, is because people cannot control whether they get addicted or how they’ll respond. (I don’t think addiction is this simple, but it’s not that important to this debate and I’m just trying to highlight a point).

          That’s not to say that I think we should impose similar restrictions on food, or that food and heroin are remotely similar. I’m just arguing that the debate is about where we draw the line.

          We need better labelling and education etc… I think, as the debate around smoking shows, people are…[Read more]

        • @nutter You’re absolutly correct to compare it to addiction.

          Its all about addiction to food. It’s our environment making us unhappy which makes us eat. It’s the reward chemicals the food ‘industry and manufacturers’ are loading the food with. It’s the constant bombardment by advertisers that push us to eat when we are not hungry.

          Telling an obese person to take control and eat less and move more is exactly like telling a heroin addict to stop taking heroin.

          Restricting calories probably won’t make a difference but making manufacturers think a bit about what they’re putting in their food may.

          I’m sceptical. Food growing and production shouldn’t be a massive privatised industry concerned only with making profit. It’s one of the only ‘industries’ that should be privatised…[Read more]

        • Doesn’t it come down to ‘net harm’ and ‘net benefit’ in the end, though? The cost of alcohol going very high in Norway may have resulted in more people brewing their own alcohol, and in people going over the border to get drunk, but overall it’s improved the health of the population.

          It’s not so fair, one might say, on the more responsible people, but any changes in society often seem to be broad brush when it comes to legislation. Smaller burgers and reduced sugar in things aren’t that much of an attack on one’s freedoms anyway really. 😉

        • No matter what the potential “benefit” I think it’s rather doomed to fail unless an element of personal responsibility, and self respect, is engendered at the same time. Just taking away choice, or prohibition, will not work, and will heartily piss off people who do not need nor want Nanny State in their dining room.

        • ‘ But it has to be a blanket thing doesn’t it? Smaller burgers, less sugar, less fats, low alcohol, it’s not like we have the ability to exercise personal choice in our diet, exercise or drinking habits, Nanny State must choose for us.’

          @flyguy To think about this earlier post of your’s, except for the smaller burgers, there’s nothing to stop anybody ‘adding’ sugar or salt to their food, or choosing something with more alcohol in, so it’s not as if it’s taking away any choice in what people put into their bodies at all, not in the bigger picture.

          Which makes me ask so what if sugar and salt are reduced in commonly consumed foods, why should a certain amount of sugar or salt by the ‘right’ amount – that is – why does it matter if levels are reduced with health reasons in mind if…[Read more]

  • flyguy posted a new activity comment 5 months, 3 weeks ago

    It excludes primary carers so borderline discrimination in my book, depending on whether missing the session will impact on your ability to perform more effectively, get promotion etc

    At the least, it’s ridiculously inconsiderate.

  • flyguy posted a new activity comment 5 months, 3 weeks ago

    A stay at Le Manoir Aux Quat’ Saisons

    https://www.belmond.com/hotels/europe/uk/oxfordshire/belmond-le-manoir-aux-quat-saisons/

    It is sublime. It really is the best place I have stayed. The rooms are magnificent, the ambiance is outstanding, the food incredible, the staff amazing.

    Oxford isn’t far if you want to have a wander about.

  • flyguy posted a new activity comment 6 months ago

    A man smashed a side window and was searching my car in a back street when I approached. He chased me to the main road with an 18 inch blade. The police took an hour to arrive and were not really interested. But when Mr Nasty rang to say I had written on his windscreen with a felt tip pen, instead of laughing, they sent 2 officers. So why wouldn’t they come and tell you to remove your sturdy steel stakes ?

    • They very possibly would. It was not a really serious suggestion. It seems that common sense would say that if someone wilfully parks on your private property without your consent, then there would be some action which you could take. I assume there’s a good reason why not – that it would leave a loophole for someone unscrupulous to exploit, but I struggle to see what it is in this case.

      I certainly feel your pain – whilst in no way comparable, there’s someone who feels that the zig-zag lines in front of our driveway entrance don’t apply to him and is more than happy to park there. Whilst it’s not been a problem yet (i.e. we’ve not needed to access in the time he has been there), it makes my blood boil that people can be so inconsiderate. Fortunately, out town has some fairly…[Read more]

  • Wait until the parcel come back and just refund.

    Yep, this. You will have to refund the money as the buyer doesn’t have the goods. Even if they’re a total PITA, they can’t be expected to pay for something they haven’t got.

    I’ve had a pretty good relationship with e-bay apart from one incident with a set of dog clippers. Buyer reckoned they were damaged in post and even sent me a picture. They must have been trampled by a herd of elephants to be THAT damaged!! I didn’t see the point in asking for them back. Even if you think you’re being scammed, you just have to suck it up and do a full refund. E-bay will always side with the buyer.

  • Load More