Well the protestors are not making the argument you are. Their agenda is somewhat more radical, from what I have read. I personally think it is silly that the store let some protestors change their policy as spikes like this were placed outside other stores in the chain too. Now because of this one doorway, the chain will get to foot the bill to have them removed at all their locations and some other less sensible but more "sensitive" solution to achieve the same results will be necessary. I see these things all over the place and yes they are usually by doors to businesses, I assume to deter loitering by their doors. We have these kinds of spikes here at my workplace. They are placed in spots on our loading dock and towards the edges of the loading bays. To accomplish a number of things, but I suppose we might have to remove them if any activist for the homeless figures out we are trying to make our loading dock a "hostile environment" to homeless people sleeping out there.
Well the protestors are not making the argument you are. Their agenda is somewhat more radical, from what I have read. I personally think it is silly that the store let some protestors change their policy as spikes like this were placed outside other stores in the chain too. Now because of this one doorway, the chain will get to foot the bill to have them removed at all their locations and some other less sensible but more "sensitive" solution to achieve the same results will be necessary. I see these things all over the place and yes they are usually by doors to businesses, I assume to deter loitering by their doors. We have these kinds of spikes here at my workplace. They are placed in spots on our loading dock and towards the edges of the loading bays. To accomplish a number of things, but I suppose we might have to remove them if any activist for the homeless figures out we are trying to make our loading dock a "hostile environment" to homeless people sleeping out there.
You see the problem with your logic here is that you hold to the belief that these spikes exist to screw with the dignity of homeless people. That is not the reason they were created, but it is one benefit or side effect of their use. This invention is extremely effective in performing the task they were created to fulfill. Keeping areas clear from traffic, human or otherwise. In non human cases, such as aforementioned loading docks, any vehicles that come across them are jarred, noticeably signaling the vehicle or hand truck operator that they are near the edge of the platform or in a restricted zone. Likewise these spikes keep people from milling about in places they should not be and so businesses have made use of them all over the globe for that reason too. If Tesco wants to give into pressure from these activist with your mind set they are certainly free to do so. I think it was a stupid move on their part and if the activist that was threatening to camp out 24/7 in that space tried to do so? Let the bobbies take said activist to a comfortable cot in a warm building with bars.
I think you got that backwards there mate. You blithely ignored the entirety of my post in #27 yet quoted it. And now you have done it again. So you think I should "try" what again? Getting you to read and engage honestly to the post of mine you are bothering to quote as you ignore them and dodge my points?
Tell me, which thread is it that you think you read where I repeated the same argument to you? Because it is not in this thread, what it looks pretty obviously like is happening is that you are just prevaricating. Delving into fictional accounts of events that have not occurred. You do know this is not really a very big or long thread so far right? Four pages and only 36 posts right? So it is not as if there is a large amount of posts to comb through to find these "repeated" arguments you allude to. Right? I mean, you get that at least? Right? :thinking
You just claimed I had done so, twice. I asked a simple question? Where? And if in one post you are going to claim I've addressed the topic twice, but in the next post you are going to claim I've not addressed it at all? Maybe it is time to open back up the asylums! :2razz:
We both know you are pretty much done here, going off into a tone excuse. Followed by a "what questions" excuse. Now if only the thread were not just 5 pages old with only 41 post in it so far? And all of the exchanges between us less than an hour old and literally right up the scroll? Your deflections and dodges might not look so anemic. So just spare us all the empty posturing, if you had a rational argument or comment to make you would have done that already. Instead what we have is posts #32,34, 37, etc, etc. And you have even gone back and edited your comments in one of them, after I had replied to it. I guess to make it looks less like the "tone" it was offered in, following your use of the tone excuse. So I'd place the chances that you are going to honestly engage or "debate" this topic at about zero percent right now. You could of course prove me wrong and drop the stupid shenanigans. But if I were a betting man.................
We both know you are pretty much done here, going off into a tone excuse. Followed by a "what questions" excuse. Now if only the thread were not just 5 pages old with only 41 post in it so far? And all of the exchanges between us less than an hour old and literally right up the scroll? Your deflections and dodges might not look so anemic. So just spare us all the empty posturing, if you had a rational argument or comment to make you would have done that already. Instead what we have is posts #32,34, 37, etc, etc. And you have even gone back and edited your comments in one of them, after I had replied to it. I guess to make it looks less like the "tone" it was offered in, following your use of the tone excuse. So I'd place the chances that you are going to honestly engage or "debate" this topic at about zero percent right now. You could of course prove me wrong and drop the stupid shenanigans. But if I were a betting man.................
Yeah you stated that the spikes should be made illegal. If there was any industrial use for them, they could apply for a special permit. And how would getting rid of or causing less use of these spikes not then at some point make some people unemployed? And then possibly homeless too? This helps the homeless how? That and several other common sense questions which I was able to locate for you, were asked before. These questions were obviously so intimidating to you that you were off to the races with dodges and deflections instead. Now we have you, the poster who used the "you're repeating yourself" excuse repeating himself and still dodging and avoiding everything else. Oh bravo, you are a clever one!:spank: