https://www.flickr.com/gp/g3zvt/S210r9

On 04/02/2017 19:10, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2017 19:03:35 +0000, Graham.
wrote:



https://www.flickr.com/gp/g3zvt/S210r9

Hmm...the whole* looks bigger than the hole!

*(area of the bits)


Agreed. But if it was if it was smaller it would fall into the hole:-).

I would have just used gaffer tape or one of the traffic cones I stole
[1] the other night to fix it.


[1] I am sure that they were just put there by a local resident who is
annoyed by people parking on the street when using the shop next door to
his house.

--
Adam

Graham. wrote

https://www.flickr.com/gp/g3zvt/S210r9

I'd have you publicly flogged if you hadn't
so obviously enjoyed that the last time, boy.

On Sun, 5 Feb 2017 06:25:51 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

Graham. wrote

https://www.flickr.com/gp/g3zvt/S210r9

I'd have you publicly flogged if you hadn't
so obviously enjoyed that the last time, boy.

This is it on Streetview for context.

https://tinyurl.com/hmuga3l

On 04/02/2017 19:10, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2017 19:03:35 +0000,
wrote:



https://www.flickr.com/gp/g3zvt/S210r9

Hmm...the whole* looks bigger than the hole!

*(area of the bits)


Indeed. The are parts of at least two covers there!
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

An intriguing thread for those not able to see pictures, the mind boggles as
to what part a traffic cone might play in such things..
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"ARW" wrote in message
...
On 04/02/2017 19:10, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2017 19:03:35 +0000, Graham.
wrote:



https://www.flickr.com/gp/g3zvt/S210r9

Hmm...the whole* looks bigger than the hole!

*(area of the bits)


Agreed. But if it was if it was smaller it would fall into the hole:-).

I would have just used gaffer tape or one of the traffic cones I stole [1]
the other night to fix it.


[1] I am sure that they were just put there by a local resident who is
annoyed by people parking on the street when using the shop next door to
his house.

--
Adam

Brian Gaff wrote

An intriguing thread for those not able to see pictures, the mind boggles
as to what part a traffic cone might play in such things..

Adam has it up his arse and is well away...

Just be grateful you cant see it.

"ARW" wrote in message
...
On 04/02/2017 19:10, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2017 19:03:35 +0000, Graham.
wrote:



https://www.flickr.com/gp/g3zvt/S210r9

Hmm...the whole* looks bigger than the hole!

*(area of the bits)


Agreed. But if it was if it was smaller it would fall into the hole:-).

I would have just used gaffer tape or one of the traffic cones I stole
[1] the other night to fix it.


[1] I am sure that they were just put there by a local resident who is
annoyed by people parking on the street when using the shop next door to
his house.

--
Adam

On Sun, 5 Feb 2017 08:49:36 -0000, "Brian Gaff"
wrote:

An intriguing thread for those not able to see pictures, the mind boggles as
to what part a traffic cone might play in such things..
Brian


I was primarily thinking about blind people when I took the picture.
It's a shattered cast iron duct cover (I hesitate to say manhole)
The fragments of which, augmented with the fragments of a second
cover, have been laid in a sort of lattice making a surprisingly
effective man-trap.

It's bang in the middle of the footpath of a busy arterial route.

On 05/02/2017 08:49, Brian Gaff wrote:
An intriguing thread for those not able to see pictures, the mind boggles as
to what part a traffic cone might play in such things..
Brian


We are all aware that you are blind.

But there's no need to mention it every time someone posts a picture.

FFS.


--
Adam

On 05/02/2017 15:28, ARW wrote:
On 05/02/2017 08:49, Brian Gaff wrote:
An intriguing thread for those not able to see pictures, the mind
boggles as
to what part a traffic cone might play in such things..
Brian


We are all aware that you are blind.

But there's no need to mention it every time someone posts a picture.

FFS.



Calm down, Adam! He mainly mentions it in cases like this where someone
links to a picture which he cannot see. I don't have a problem with
that. I only hope that I shall manage to do the things which Brian still
does if I ever lose my sight.
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

Roger Mills wrote:
On 05/02/2017 15:28, ARW wrote:
On 05/02/2017 08:49, Brian Gaff wrote:
An intriguing thread for those not able to see pictures, the mind
boggles as
to what part a traffic cone might play in such things..
Brian


We are all aware that you are blind.

But there's no need to mention it every time someone posts a picture.

FFS.



Calm down, Adam! He mainly mentions it in cases like this where someone
links to a picture which he cannot see.

Well, he does mention it with tedious regularity. Now I know being blind
sucks but I sincerely hope that if it ever happens to me I don't go
whinging about every photograph that I can't see. It's ****, but ****
happens.

Maybe Brian hopes that everyone will post descriptions of every photograph
linked in Usenet. Well, he can hope, but I doubt it will happen. Perhaps
if Brian ceased engaging with trolls and worked on improving the signal to
noise ratio in his posts more of us would make the effort to describe
photos. Respect needs to be earned, not demanded.

Now if for example (god forbid) John Rumm became blind but continued to
post intelligently and helpfully I'm sure that most of us would show him
consideration and willingly describe photographs if appropriate.

Tim

--
Please don't feed the trolls

On 2/5/2017 4:02 PM, Roger Mills wrote:
On 05/02/2017 15:28, ARW wrote:
On 05/02/2017 08:49, Brian Gaff wrote:
An intriguing thread for those not able to see pictures, the mind
boggles as
to what part a traffic cone might play in such things..
Brian


We are all aware that you are blind.

But there's no need to mention it every time someone posts a picture.

FFS.



Calm down, Adam! He mainly mentions it in cases like this where someone
links to a picture which he cannot see. I don't have a problem with
that. I only hope that I shall manage to do the things which Brian still
does if I ever lose my sight.

+1

On Sunday, 5 February 2017 18:19:13 UTC, newshound wrote:
On 2/5/2017 4:02 PM, Roger Mills wrote:
On 05/02/2017 15:28, ARW wrote:
On 05/02/2017 08:49, Brian Gaff wrote:
An intriguing thread for those not able to see pictures, the mind
boggles as
to what part a traffic cone might play in such things..
Brian


We are all aware that you are blind.

But there's no need to mention it every time someone posts a picture.

FFS.



Calm down, Adam! He mainly mentions it in cases like this where someone
links to a picture which he cannot see. I don't have a problem with
that. I only hope that I shall manage to do the things which Brian still
does if I ever lose my sight.

+1

+2
I don't mind in the slightest.
There but for the grace of God........

Don't be such miserable *******s to the poor bloke.

On 05/02/2017 16:02, Roger Mills wrote:
On 05/02/2017 15:28, ARW wrote:
On 05/02/2017 08:49, Brian Gaff wrote:
An intriguing thread for those not able to see pictures, the mind
boggles as
to what part a traffic cone might play in such things..
Brian


We are all aware that you are blind.

But there's no need to mention it every time someone posts a picture.

FFS.



Calm down, Adam! He mainly mentions it in cases like this where someone
links to a picture which he cannot see.



And can you cite a post where has someone posted a picture he could see?



--
Adam

On 05/02/2017 18:27, harry wrote:
On Sunday, 5 February 2017 18:19:13 UTC, newshound wrote:
On 2/5/2017 4:02 PM, Roger Mills wrote:
On 05/02/2017 15:28, ARW wrote:
On 05/02/2017 08:49, Brian Gaff wrote:
An intriguing thread for those not able to see pictures, the mind
boggles as
to what part a traffic cone might play in such things..
Brian


We are all aware that you are blind.

But there's no need to mention it every time someone posts a picture.

FFS.



Calm down, Adam! He mainly mentions it in cases like this where someone
links to a picture which he cannot see. I don't have a problem with
that. I only hope that I shall manage to do the things which Brian still
does if I ever lose my sight.

+1

+2
I don't mind in the slightest.
There but for the grace of God........

Don't be such miserable *******s to the poor bloke.


The only thing that annoys me more than a blind bloke telling me for the
30th time that he is still blind are your racist posts.



--
Adam

On 05/02/2017 18:52, ARW wrote:
On 05/02/2017 16:02, Roger Mills wrote:
On 05/02/2017 15:28, ARW wrote:
On 05/02/2017 08:49, Brian Gaff wrote:
An intriguing thread for those not able to see pictures, the mind
boggles as
to what part a traffic cone might play in such things..
Brian


We are all aware that you are blind.

But there's no need to mention it every time someone posts a picture.

FFS.



Calm down, Adam! He mainly mentions it in cases like this where someone
links to a picture which he cannot see.



And can you cite a post where has someone posted a picture he could see?




Silly question!

But the point is that, as far as I'm aware, he doesn't dwell on his
blindness ordinarily - only when there's a picture involved. And he does
make a useful contribution to this NG on subjects in which he is
knowledgeable.
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

"ARW" wrote in message
...
On 05/02/2017 16:02, Roger Mills wrote:
On 05/02/2017 15:28, ARW wrote:
On 05/02/2017 08:49, Brian Gaff wrote:
An intriguing thread for those not able to see pictures, the mind
boggles as
to what part a traffic cone might play in such things..
Brian


We are all aware that you are blind.

But there's no need to mention it every time someone posts a picture.

FFS.



Calm down, Adam! He mainly mentions it in cases like this where someone
links to a picture which he cannot see.



And can you cite a post where has someone posted a picture he could see?

Quite a few have described what a photo he can't see shows
so he can understand the comments made about the photo.

On 05/02/2017 21:26, Rod Speed wrote:


"ARW" wrote in message
...
On 05/02/2017 16:02, Roger Mills wrote:
On 05/02/2017 15:28, ARW wrote:
On 05/02/2017 08:49, Brian Gaff wrote:
An intriguing thread for those not able to see pictures, the mind
boggles as
to what part a traffic cone might play in such things..
Brian


We are all aware that you are blind.

But there's no need to mention it every time someone posts a picture.

FFS.



Calm down, Adam! He mainly mentions it in cases like this where someone
links to a picture which he cannot see.



And can you cite a post where has someone posted a picture he could see?

Quite a few have described what a photo he can't see shows
so he can understand the comments made about the photo.


Yes, but only after he reminds us that he can't see. Some people have
rather uncharitably suggested that he shouldn't remind us.
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

On Sunday, 5 February 2017 19:06:35 UTC, ARW wrote:
On 05/02/2017 18:27, harry wrote:
On Sunday, 5 February 2017 18:19:13 UTC, newshound wrote:
On 2/5/2017 4:02 PM, Roger Mills wrote:
On 05/02/2017 15:28, ARW wrote:
On 05/02/2017 08:49, Brian Gaff wrote:
An intriguing thread for those not able to see pictures, the mind
boggles as
to what part a traffic cone might play in such things..
Brian


We are all aware that you are blind.

But there's no need to mention it every time someone posts a picture.

FFS.



Calm down, Adam! He mainly mentions it in cases like this where someone
links to a picture which he cannot see. I don't have a problem with
that. I only hope that I shall manage to do the things which Brian still
does if I ever lose my sight.

+1

+2
I don't mind in the slightest.
There but for the grace of God........

Don't be such miserable *******s to the poor bloke.


The only thing that annoys me more than a blind bloke telling me for the
30th time that he is still blind are your racist posts.



I see you're also blind in your own way

On Sunday, 5 February 2017 18:52:03 UTC, ARW wrote:
On 05/02/2017 16:02, Roger Mills wrote:
On 05/02/2017 15:28, ARW wrote:
On 05/02/2017 08:49, Brian Gaff wrote:
An intriguing thread for those not able to see pictures, the mind
boggles as
to what part a traffic cone might play in such things..
Brian


We are all aware that you are blind.

But there's no need to mention it every time someone posts a picture.

FFS.



Calm down, Adam! He mainly mentions it in cases like this where someone
links to a picture which he cannot see.



And can you cite a post where has someone posted a picture he could see?



--
Adam

I have done it myself.
But if he asks, I post a description.
Have you no charity?

On Saturday, 4 February 2017 19:21:50 UTC, ARW wrote:
On 04/02/2017 19:10, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2017 19:03:35 +0000, Graham.
wrote:



https://www.flickr.com/gp/g3zvt/S210r9

Hmm...the whole* looks bigger than the hole!

*(area of the bits)


Agreed. But if it was if it was smaller it would fall into the hole:-).

I would have just used gaffer tape or one of the traffic cones I stole
[1] the other night to fix it.

I knew I shouldn't spend to much time on amazon as I brought this T-shirt

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00OD2NN...051_TE_3p_dp_2



[1] I am sure that they were just put there by a local resident who is
annoyed by people parking on the street when using the shop next door to
his house.

--
Adam

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
Brian Gaff wrote

An intriguing thread for those not able to see pictures, the mind boggles
as to what part a traffic cone might play in such things..

Adam has it up his arse and is well away...

Just be grateful you cant see it.

I second that. I never bother going to links posted without comment - they
are usually something that the poster finds incredibly funny but leaves
everybody else cold. I clicked on this one after seeing the long trail of
replies, only to find something that has no joke, is completely
unremarkable, and leaves me cold.
--
Dave W

On 06/02/2017 11:21, whisky-dave wrote:
On Saturday, 4 February 2017 19:21:50 UTC, ARW wrote:
On 04/02/2017 19:10, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2017 19:03:35 +0000, Graham.
wrote:



https://www.flickr.com/gp/g3zvt/S210r9

Hmm...the whole* looks bigger than the hole!

*(area of the bits)


Agreed. But if it was if it was smaller it would fall into the hole:-).

I would have just used gaffer tape or one of the traffic cones I stole
[1] the other night to fix it.

I knew I shouldn't spend to much time on amazon as I brought this T-shirt

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00OD2NN...051_TE_3p_dp_2

I want one.

So have just emailed the gf and asked her to order one for me.


--
Adam

On Monday, 6 February 2017 17:51:10 UTC, ARW wrote:
On 06/02/2017 11:21, whisky-dave wrote:
On Saturday, 4 February 2017 19:21:50 UTC, ARW wrote:
On 04/02/2017 19:10, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2017 19:03:35 +0000, Graham.
wrote:



https://www.flickr.com/gp/g3zvt/S210r9

Hmm...the whole* looks bigger than the hole!

*(area of the bits)


Agreed. But if it was if it was smaller it would fall into the hole:-).

I would have just used gaffer tape or one of the traffic cones I stole
[1] the other night to fix it.

I knew I shouldn't spend to much time on amazon as I brought this T-shirt

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00OD2NN...051_TE_3p_dp_2

I want one.

I'll let you have one of those, but you can't have one of these and wear it like wot I can

https://www.amazon.co.uk/123t-Mens-C...s=dave+t-shirt



So have just emailed the gf and asked her to order one for me.


--
Adam

On 07/02/2017 11:58, whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 6 February 2017 17:51:10 UTC, ARW wrote:
On 06/02/2017 11:21, whisky-dave wrote:
On Saturday, 4 February 2017 19:21:50 UTC, ARW wrote:
On 04/02/2017 19:10, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2017 19:03:35 +0000, Graham.
wrote:



https://www.flickr.com/gp/g3zvt/S210r9

Hmm...the whole* looks bigger than the hole!

*(area of the bits)


Agreed. But if it was if it was smaller it would fall into the hole:-).

I would have just used gaffer tape or one of the traffic cones I stole
[1] the other night to fix it.

I knew I shouldn't spend to much time on amazon as I brought this T-shirt

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00OD2NN...051_TE_3p_dp_2

I want one.

I'll let you have one of those, but you can't have one of these and wear it like wot I can

https://www.amazon.co.uk/123t-Mens-C...s=dave+t-shirt

My gf tells me what I can wear not you:-)

I am allowed an opinion on what I want to wear but I am not allowed to
voice it.


--
Adam

On Tuesday, 7 February 2017 21:12:04 UTC, ARW wrote:
I'll let you have one of those, but you can't have one of these
and wear it like wot I can
My gf tells me what I can wear not you:-)

Perhaps she'll buy you an "Adam came before Eve" one instead.

Owain

On 06/02/2017 08:20, harry wrote:
On Sunday, 5 February 2017 18:52:03 UTC, ARW wrote:
On 05/02/2017 16:02, Roger Mills wrote:
On 05/02/2017 15:28, ARW wrote:
On 05/02/2017 08:49, Brian Gaff wrote:
An intriguing thread for those not able to see pictures, the mind
boggles as
to what part a traffic cone might play in such things..
Brian


We are all aware that you are blind.

But there's no need to mention it every time someone posts a picture.

FFS.



Calm down, Adam! He mainly mentions it in cases like this where someone
links to a picture which he cannot see.



And can you cite a post where has someone posted a picture he could see?



--
Adam

I have done it myself.
But if he asks, I post a description.





Have you no charity?


I have plenty of charity. I'll just not spend it on a blind bloke
telling me for the 30th time that he cannot see a picture.

--
Adam

On 05/02/2017 19:11, Roger Mills wrote:
On 05/02/2017 18:52, ARW wrote:
On 05/02/2017 16:02, Roger Mills wrote:
On 05/02/2017 15:28, ARW wrote:
On 05/02/2017 08:49, Brian Gaff wrote:
An intriguing thread for those not able to see pictures, the mind
boggles as
to what part a traffic cone might play in such things..
Brian


We are all aware that you are blind.

But there's no need to mention it every time someone posts a picture.

FFS.



Calm down, Adam! He mainly mentions it in cases like this where someone
links to a picture which he cannot see.



And can you cite a post where has someone posted a picture he could see?




Silly question!

But the point is that, as far as I'm aware, he doesn't dwell on his
blindness ordinarily - only when there's a picture involved. And he does
make a useful contribution to this NG on subjects in which he is
knowledgeable.


So Brian only dwells on his blindness "only when there's a picture
involved". So that's EVERY time a picture is posted. I know he cannot
see them but to be constantly told by him that he cannot see them is not
going to get his eyesight back.



--
Adam

On 07/02/2017 22:06, ARW wrote:
On 05/02/2017 19:11, Roger Mills wrote:


But the point is that, as far as I'm aware, he doesn't dwell on his
blindness ordinarily - only when there's a picture involved. And he does
make a useful contribution to this NG on subjects in which he is
knowledgeable.


So Brian only dwells on his blindness "only when there's a picture
involved". So that's EVERY time a picture is posted. I know he cannot
see them but to be constantly told by him that he cannot see them is not
going to get his eyesight back.



And that usually prompts someone to post a few words saying what the
picture is about so that he can join in more meaningfully. Would you
deny him that?
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

On Sun, 05 Feb 2017 16:28:39 -0000, Tim+ wrote:

Roger Mills wrote:
On 05/02/2017 15:28, ARW wrote:
On 05/02/2017 08:49, Brian Gaff wrote:
An intriguing thread for those not able to see pictures, the mind
boggles as
to what part a traffic cone might play in such things..
Brian


We are all aware that you are blind.

But there's no need to mention it every time someone posts a picture.

FFS.



Calm down, Adam! He mainly mentions it in cases like this where someone
links to a picture which he cannot see.

Well, he does mention it with tedious regularity. Now I know being blind
sucks but I sincerely hope that if it ever happens to me I don't go
whinging about every photograph that I can't see. It's ****, but ****
happens.

Maybe Brian hopes that everyone will post descriptions of every photograph
linked in Usenet. Well, he can hope, but I doubt it will happen. Perhaps
if Brian ceased engaging with trolls and worked on improving the signal to
noise ratio in his posts more of us would make the effort to describe
photos. Respect needs to be earned, not demanded.

Now if for example (god forbid) John Rumm became blind but continued to
post intelligently and helpfully I'm sure that most of us would show him
consideration and willingly describe photographs if appropriate.

If I went blind I'd commit suicide. I cannot imagine how he lives. So show some ****ing respect.

--
Why are they called buildings, when they're already finished? Shouldn't they be called builts?

On Sun, 05 Feb 2017 19:06:33 -0000, ARW wrote:

On 05/02/2017 18:27, harry wrote:
On Sunday, 5 February 2017 18:19:13 UTC, newshound wrote:
On 2/5/2017 4:02 PM, Roger Mills wrote:
On 05/02/2017 15:28, ARW wrote:
On 05/02/2017 08:49, Brian Gaff wrote:
An intriguing thread for those not able to see pictures, the mind
boggles as
to what part a traffic cone might play in such things..
Brian


We are all aware that you are blind.

But there's no need to mention it every time someone posts a picture.

FFS.



Calm down, Adam! He mainly mentions it in cases like this where someone
links to a picture which he cannot see. I don't have a problem with
that. I only hope that I shall manage to do the things which Brian still
does if I ever lose my sight.

+1

+2
I don't mind in the slightest.
There but for the grace of God........

Don't be such miserable *******s to the poor bloke.


The only thing that annoys me more than a blind bloke telling me for the
30th time that he is still blind are your racist posts.

I never took you for a politicly correct moron.

--
"The knack to flying is learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."

On Sat, 04 Feb 2017 19:03:35 -0000, Graham. wrote:

https://www.flickr.com/gp/g3zvt/S210r9

I almost fell into something like that on someone's drive. I hope their car goes over it and kills them.

--
Law of mechanical repair: After your hands become coated with grease, your nose will begin to itch and you'll have to pee.

On 07/02/17 21:55, ARW wrote:
I have plenty of charity. I'll just not spend it on a blind bloke
telling me for the 30th time that he cannot see a picture.

Indeed. That's why I posted as 'his song' the late great blind Canadian
blues guitarist, Jeff Healey.

Who just got on and played till cancer got him.


--
"If you dont read the news paper, you are un-informed. If you read the
news paper, you are mis-informed."

Mark Twain

On 07/02/2017 22:36, Roger Mills wrote:
On 07/02/2017 22:06, ARW wrote:
On 05/02/2017 19:11, Roger Mills wrote:


But the point is that, as far as I'm aware, he doesn't dwell on his
blindness ordinarily - only when there's a picture involved. And he does
make a useful contribution to this NG on subjects in which he is
knowledgeable.


So Brian only dwells on his blindness "only when there's a picture
involved". So that's EVERY time a picture is posted. I know he cannot
see them but to be constantly told by him that he cannot see them is not
going to get his eyesight back.



And that usually prompts someone to post a few words saying what the
picture is about so that he can join in more meaningfully. Would you
deny him that?


Not if I have time to do so. But a picture is worth a 1000 words.

--
Adam

On 07/02/2017 22:43, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:

If I went blind I'd commit suicide.

Kylie sang a song about that.


--
Adam

On Wed, 08 Feb 2017 20:00:47 -0000, ARW wrote:

On 07/02/2017 22:43, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:

If I went blind I'd commit suicide.

Kylie sang a song about that.

Which one? I haven't listened to her for decades.

--
Why do they call it a TV set when you only get one?