ADUK Archive

Mr Cholmondeley-Warner wrote:It's one of those internet acronyms. The word represented by the "S" is ''sake". Does that help?

FFS

Oh yes, thanks, I get it, silly me! Internet acronym; internet forum, obvious when one thinks about it. FFS = For Forum's Sake.

I see what Dave was getting at. He was suggesting that For the Forum's Sake this discussion should cease.

And I totally agree. FFS

Do I always have to put FFS at the end of a sentence or can it go at the beginning? As, for example... FFS why don't I understand anything that's been written in this thread since it started?

... presumably I fall into the mischievous category, FFS?

By George, I think he's got it!

FFS, that took a while!

Mr Cholmondeley-Warner wrote:By George, I think he's got it!

FFS, that took a while!

Nick, FFS I do hope this silly banter and feigned ignorance about acronyms isn't putting-off the serious debaters on this thread. I've noticed we haven't had a serious response now for almost two hours. I'm begining to feel just a little bit guilty; I've never hijacked a thread before!

GJD wrote:

Grahar wrote:

GJD wrote:Clearly [sic] "stop in the distance you can see to be clear" is not going to be of any use to him. What value is a rule that tells the Focus driver in that situation, "you definitely can't do more than 90mph"?

None; I agree. But what about a stretch of road where there are no lateral hazards or things obscuring your view of the tarmac; here the rule is very useful? Because these instances might be rarer doesn't mean that the rule is never useful.

But that's just a special case where the distance you can reasonably expect to remain clear happens not to be less than the distance you can see to be clear.

The principle that appropriate speed needs consideration of the distance you can reasonably expect to remain clear as well as the distance you can see to be clear covers equally well the case where those two distances happen to coincide and the case where they don't.

Whether you think it a special case or not, it is easily and clearly applied.

Grahar wrote:Whether you think it a special case or not, it is easily and clearly applied.

Is that your point - driving well is easier when there are fewer hazards around? Well... durrrr! What's your specialist subject - the albeit-somewhat-beside-the-point bleeding obvious? You are Sybil Fawlty AICMFP

Would you like to spend 14 pages arguing that the Pope is Catholic now?

FFS

Grahar wrote:Whether you think it a special case or not, it is easily and clearly applied.

Is that your point - driving well is easier when there are fewer hazards around? Well... durrrr! What's your specialist subject - the albeit-somewhat-beside-the-point bleeding obvious? You are Sybil Fawlty AICMFP

Would you like to spend 14 pages arguing that the Pope is Catholic now?

FFS

No doubt a good point, Kryten, but was there any need to make it twice?

Shall we just close this now? Any objections?

GJD wrote:

Grahar wrote:Whether you think it a special case or not, it is easily and clearly applied.

Is that your point - driving well is easier when there are fewer hazards around? Well... durrrr! What's your specialist subject - the albeit-somewhat-beside-the-point bleeding obvious? You are Sybil Fawlty AICMFP

Obviously not. So think again.

Now that I have thought about it some more, I would now say that the rule is useful for calculating a minimum stopping distance where hazards don't dictate a definite set speed.

I would say that the rule sums up how to use the limit point.

When I posted my initial question, I expected the discussion to stop quite soon thereafter. However, I failed to take into account what could be reasonably expected to happen.

For that, I can only apologise.

Grahar wrote:Now that I have thought about it some more, I would now say that the rule is useful for calculating a minimum stopping distance where hazards don't dictate a definite set speed.

I would say that the rule sums up how to use the limit point.

What do you mean by "thought"?

Custom24 wrote:When I posted my initial question, I expected the discussion to stop quite soon thereafter. However, I failed to take into account what could be reasonably expected to happen.

For that, I can only apologise.

Always expect the unexpected!

How about, "If you can't stop, you're travelling too fast."

My head hurts!

Too many pages here! I jumped to the end. Doesn't look like I missed anything vital.