Ian-S

Ah yes that's a very good point Benin, you are correct and I acknowledge my error, as you point out, somewhat ironic, that fact is not missed upon me. However, it would have been better had Mark pointed that out himself rather than continuing to discuss the matter then resorting to using admin powers which, until I acknowledged such, prevented me from responding to your post, and frankly, if disagreeing with another member and pointing out perceived flaws in their viewpoint is considered threatening behaviour then I suggest Mark grows a thicker skin (and if Mark didn't appoint himself, it is still incorrect that he be issuing the sanction because of his heavy involvement in the discussion, in the real world that's called a conflict of interest).. Perhaps in future if an admin member is offended by something a member says to them they should do the logical thing and pass on their complaint to a fellow mod to decide upon, rather than appointing themselves victim, judge, jury and executioner, this being especially ironic given the subject matter at hand. So, I'll bid the forum farewell as there are other places on the net where the subject matter can be discussed at length, maturely like adults where the mod team understand the concept of discussion without resorting to the very tactics they aparantly despise so much.

Its not important Mark, it called humourous rhetoric, something your generation seem not to have grasped yet. Benijn, Lol wut yourself, Mark said Trump would target LGBT rights and removing the first amendment wouldn't affect single white males, he then denied saying the first and only response to the second was some unintelligible comment I can only assume stems from watching/reading/digesting too much fear porn. Of course it's immaterial to you the factual context of what he said is utter horse**** or the thing he denied saying was quoted directly under my comment. Come on kids, I thought they taught you how to argue properly at school nowadays. Try to present facts rather than heresay and don't deny things everybody can see and you might find my responses are a little less sarcastic in their nature.

My assumptions are based in no more fact than yours, you also said he'd go for easy targets like LGBT, so yes and no, you're splitting hairs at the atomic level by now trying to say you didn't say he'd only go for LGBT rights... I see that as offended as you seem to be, you don't actually deny watchg Sky News.

The forum won't let me edit (probably this crap tablet) so I'll just add this bit about the first amendment, it has absolutely naff all to do with gay, women, black or orange rights and relates to the freedom of expression (what gives an American the right to call me a cock), the freedom of the press (the right reporters have to call Trump a bankrupt) and the right to peaceful protest and redress. If you believe Trump can simply withdraw this amendment then I suggest you stop watching Sky News, he can't, and even if he did try, the Supreme Court can just rule the executive order as unconstitutional and it'll be dead in the water. Here is the Amendment itself, you see it relates not to color, sex or sexual preference so yes, single white males will be just as ****ed as the next person if that amendment ever gets gutted, stop making it an LGBT issue because it isn't. Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

1) not directly but every opportunity given they say "we don't want to overthrow the result, we just don't agree with it" might as well piss upwind for all the good that is going to do. 2) Fair point that's understandable, but one could easily argue that restricting civil partnerships to just gay couples is as repressive as allowing marriage only for straights... 3) removal of the first amendment will affect every living being in the USA, not just one particular sexual or racial group.

No arrests yesterday probably cos the 200 they arrested the day before hadn't yet been released....

A causality paradox is where your own actions trigger the very events you are trying to prevent, in the case of these protests, they are presumably protesting because they can and will in all likelihood result in draconian measures to prevent future protest, not because Trump is a Nazi, but because some of the protesters are incapable of protesting peacefully. Do you honestly think protesting is going to change the result of the election? As Obama said, if you don't like the result, grab a clipboard and put yourself out there for office. As for LGBT I don't real know enough about the rights that are under threat, but I know several gay couples who have never married and are quiet happy with their civil partnerships because to them it is their thing, straight couples have marriage, gay couples civil partnerships, at the end of the day both mean pretty much the same thing so I don't understand why so many knickers get twisted over 'gay marriage' when most of the time is spent trying to break away from conventional 'straight' customs like marriage and whatnot. Isn't the first amendment the freedom of speech one? If so then I think the removal of that can hardly be classed as anti-LGBT since it will affect everybody.

In what way will he go for LGBT rights? Regarding the protests, its like nobody involved has ever heard of a causality paradox.

There are ways and means of conveying solidarity that don't involve protesting or throwing bricks through the nearest window akin to a two year old laying in the supermarket screaming because mummy said no to chocolate. As pluk said it's always amusing to see people protest in the name of democracy the result of a democratic election, makes you wonder if these people actually understand the concept of democracy or whether they voted, I'd hazard a guess a percentage of the protesters didn't even vote and the other half are there for the carnage and free food, after all who takes a claw hammer to a 'peaceful protest'?

Or shock horror it turns out OK and they decide not to send anyone back just in case Pence is worse...

Merlin doesn't own anything, they lease it all, but having said that the deal is a bit like a leasehold on land for an individual, most of the Farm buildings are listed however, which pretty much precludes any development of that area.

Nope they havnt fixed it, the lack of weight is also the reason it stalls so often before the second lift hill and why they can't send the trains out if the first six rows aren't filled. Mind you given the black hole Surrey is in financially at the moment they might be more amenable to changes at Chessie than they usually are if Merlin help them out with a few things, maybe they should ask?

It can still leach into the surrounding grounds and the World is much more dye shy nowadays, which is ironic considering the other crap that goes into the ground by the ton, but yeah it was probably cost related though.

First ride? Thunder River - April 1987 (perk of having family high up at RMC at the time) infact my uncle told me I was one of the first people to ever ride it so you can imagine how my mum reacted when the kid was injuried a few weeks later lol, genie was out that bottle though. The ride was rough back then, took my first girlfriend on it later that year and she puked all over me in the tunnel but it didn't matter as the water washed it off before we'd got back to the station. In the modern era Swarm at the Feb half term event a couple of years ago, for various reasons I had not visited the park since 1989 (but nothing to do with mum) but I was determined to drag my son on as soon as he was tall enough, he's not a chicken like his mum lol

Charlie's had all the branding removed and the entrance boarded up iirc, if you didn't know what was supposed to be there you'd think it was just a plain unused building.