[Tony]

Forgive me if its buried somewhere in the arguments about water quality, but I thought the cost was £180k, and 49k has been raised.  So who's making up the £131k shortfall

It is not generally in my nature to reward sloth but…

The PDNP Foundation is not the PDNP Authority. My response was to a query regarding the funds raised by the former. The latter made the estimate of £180k for the work that they were seeking to have undertaken.

You can see some approximations of whence the Authority hoped the funding would come by using an internet search engine.

[Fultonius]

Forgive me if its buried somewhere in the arguments about water quality, but I thought the cost was £180k, and 49k has been raised.  So who's making up the £131k shortfall

It is not generally in my nature to reward sloth but…

The PDNP Foundation is not the PDNP Authority. My response was to a query regarding the funds raised by the former. The latter made the estimate of £180k for the work that they were seeking to have undertaken.

You can see some approximations of whence the Authority hoped the funding would come by using an internet search engine.

Do you ever actually answer a question Tony?

[SamT]

It is not generally in my nature to reward sloth but…

FFS Tony.. do you get the point of internet forums like this.  The point is that you can ask a question, and due to the high numbers of users/posters, there is the likelyhood that there is someone out there that knows the answer off the top of their head, cause they're an expert or closely involved or what ever. And in lovely places like UKb, there will be a good bit of banter/humour involved along the way.

Yes I could go and google everthing I ever wanted to know, on my own, waste hours of time sifting through the intenet for the answers.

However, UKb is flipping amazing, cause on the whole, it tends be occupied with likeminded erredites who are helpful and forthcomeing.  I try to do my bit when I see something that I have knowledge of and chip in where appropriate.

However, I'm getting increasingly apathetic about coming on here, and self proclaimed trolls/wind up merchants like yourself Tony really don't help.  The more people that get pissed off with wind up merchants like yourself and lose interest and stop coming on here, the more it becomes a less useful place to come and ask questions and so it just spirals down.

I guess its in your nature to wind folks up.  Well you can go away now feeling all cosy with a warm glow, knowing you've wound someone up.  Pathetic really.  Have a good look at yourself in the mirror Tony.  Like what you see??

And note, I'll not be biting back at any maggots you dangle in the hope of a rise so don't waste your time.

[Tony]

do you get the point of internet forums like this.

A common dictionary definition of “forum” is:

a meeting or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged.

Ideas and views are not facts.

If you want facts, try a search engine and choosing reputable sources. Then, if you can’t find the information, ask others. You’re not a child - and even if you were - don’t be so lazy.

[JamieG]

I am by no means an expert on this! But this BBC article (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-68084372) suggests the shortfall could be made up by something called the 'Farming in Protected Landscapes fund',  https://www.gov.uk/guidance/funding-for-farmers-in-protected-landscapes  which by the looks of it is a government scheme for areas of oustanding natural beauty. I assume there are other similar schemes that could potentially be applied to as well.

[Fultonius]

do you get the point of internet forums like this.

A common dictionary definition of “forum” is:

a meeting or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged.

Ideas and views are not facts.

If you want facts, try a search engine and choosing reputable sources. Then, if you can’t find the information, ask others. You’re not a child - and even if you were - don’t be so lazy.

We've met once in real life Tony (as far as I'm aware) with Smally and others at the pub up the pass. You seemed alright. We've got plenty of mates in common, never heard you being called a total cunt. So why are you one on here?

I don't understand what you get out of it?

The thing is, we love a sharp put-down every once in a while, when people deserve it or are getting above their station. But it's mainly in jest, and mainly amongst people that know each other and have some history so it can be taken in the manner in which it's intended.

But what's your fucking agenda? Trying to get the site to die a death by making it an unpleasant place?

You know....if someone asks a question you find "lazy and easily searchable" in response to a post you have written, you can just ignore it...they're not holding you at gun point, but instead you just post weird non-answers and pointless personal attacks. You have the time to do that, but not the time to ... you know ... just answer the fucking question!

 

[Tony]

what's your f*cking agenda?

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach him how to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.

just answer the f*cking question!

I did, in any case, answer the original question and received not a hint of gratitude from the questioner. Instead they posted another (inane) question, which was asked with an agenda for which I do not care. I still provided the solution to that.


You appeal for courtesy on an internet forum whilst you swear at me and name individuals with whom you believe I associate (doxing)? Don’t write to me about unpleasantness.

[Will Hunt]

You are being a dickhead though, Tony 

[Fultonius]

Doxxing    no, was just jogging the memory but it's fine. Mods, take that reference out if Tony deems it poor show.

I didn't see an agenda in Sam's reply, just a bit of banter.

Either way, the finer details of the PNDP and PNDwhatever are probably lost on lot of us. FFS I couldn't even remember what "cragx" is.

You came across as a "man in the know" so I guess Sam thought you might be able to quickly give some additional insight into the process.

I'm still a loss as to where the additional funding might come from. Jamie's link gives some idea but 

I'm only vaguely interested as it's a bridge I've never used, in a county I've never been to and not in a rush to visit, but it still would probably help people understand the process and, you know, maybe consider donating more...

[Duma]

Hey Tony, have you heard of the UKC forums? Maybe fuck off over there, it's full of pricks like you

[Wellsy]

Yeah why are you even here? Like what are you getting out of this?

[SamT]

Guys,.. just don't rise to the bait.  Resorting to abusive comments, even though I might agree with them, just gives the Trolls the moral high ground.  Just ignore, cancel culture and all that.  If repeated trollers/wind up merchants come on UKb, maybe to ask a question they might have, on a topic they think a regular poster on here might have a quick answer to, just ignore it completely, don't even bother  .     
They'll soon grow bored a fuck off to UKc.

[mrjonathanr]

Hey Tony, have you heard of the UKC forums? Maybe fuck off over there, it's full of pricks like you

Have another read of what you just posted. 

[Tony]

have you heard of the UKC forums? Maybe f*ck off over there, it's full of pr*cks like you

When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the losers.


UKC is actually far more inclusive than UKB (and moderated). There is often far greater variety in views in the other place than here.

You could take your own medicine and - do as SamT sagely suggested - and not respond to content to which you take offence. Or, you could argue for why you think it is wrong.

I’ve not written anything hateful about any individual; I have questioned their responses, judgment and logic. I’ve contributed widely to a variety of fora; you may not agree with my contributions: that is the point of fora.

That so many get upset on behalf of their online friends and resort to slander/cursing is, perhaps, a good demonstration of the cliquey, bullying and group-think nature of many UKB users. That’s an observation, not a complaint.

I respond equally to all comers. As do several other users. Bring me a good argument against that.

[Sam R]

I've been casting an eye over this forum now and then for, well, too long, so it's good to see Fultonious confirm that there is a coda of interaction to which can be flexed and adapted depending on the user's status within the group. The mini pile on for a fairly banal, albeit obtuse and pedantic, reply which could easily be summarised as "let me Google that for you", is a case in point. The the ukb edgelords getting their kickers twisted until the testes pop should perhaps think about why it's OK to call someone a "cunt" because their humour/button pushing/pedantry does not fit within a opaque set of boundaries which as above can be moderated toward the poster. Tl;dr it's OK to indulge in bants with faux gangster patois but not be mildly pedantic with good grammar.

So what's with the bridge anyway? I couldn't be arsed reading anything

[Will Hunt]

It's not as complicated as a flexible and adaptive coda of interaction, it's as simple as "don't be disproportionately nasty", which applies to all social interactions. If you look back through Tony's post history he's been needlessly rude quite a bit lately.

I too have met Tony in person a few times and he was fine.

[Sam R]

Has he called anyone a cunt?

[remus]

Has he called anyone a cunt?

You don't need to call someone a cunt to be a twat.

That's the most poetic thing I've ever written.

[Sam R]

Has he called anyone a cunt?

You don't need to call someone a cunt to be a twat.

So it would seem.

But do you not think Will Cunt's post above demonstrates flexible and adptable rules?

Further, you don't say say why Cunty is a twat, which goes some way to my point about the group coda.

[tomtom]

tony/sam (are you the same person? Anyway..) - so what if this forum is a cliquey banter ridden cess pit that you don’t like?

Who made you the forum police? Why should your view be more important than anyone else’s?

If you don’t like what you read go elsewhere - or don’t read it!

[Tony]

If you look back through Tony's post history he's been needlessly rude quite a bit lately.

Care to quote any (together with their context in full)?

Perhaps I can make amends mein Führer, if I only knew where I had erred in your eyes.

Who made you the forum police?

Erm, I think you’ve got confused as to whose side you’re meant to be on. It’s your mates who are arguing for policing of the forum and that you should not read the terrible posts I write.

[Wellsy]

This is actually embarrassing

[abarro81]

Tony, I can't believe you genuinely think you've not been being a cantankerous bugger on here recently. If you genuinely do then you're on crack. We're all dickheads online sometimes, it's fine, just be nice a decent proportion of the time and no one will mind you being a knob occasionally...

[Tony]

Tony, I can't believe you genuinely think you've not been being a cantankerous b*gger on here recently. Etc.

At last, a post with a reasoned view.

Cantankerous, in the argumentative sense, absolutely. (The “b*gger” bit, not so much.) As I wrote, that was the purpose of fora. Perhaps usage has changed. I’d argue - - I have been consistent in this throughout all my posts, not just recently.

Now completely off-topic the original topic: have you considered that my UKB profile may appear more argumentative than many since my posts are restricted to topics which are liable to give rise to strong emotions / polarised views? I don’t tend to post on topics on which there is broad consensus (with which I may agree). That may go some way to skewing the views some may have formed.

Regardless, I maintain that I do - in general - respond reasonably to polite arguments (which are posed as a view rather than a fact) and politely asked questions.