Things that piss you off that shouldn't

[tonyh29]

10 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

The booking practices and overall customer experience of flying with airlines from north America. 

when we did our US road trip that involved flying rather than driving I thought on the whole they were pretty decent

Even allowing for Dallas airport being shut for the day AA routed me New Orleans to Houston to LA to Vegas  with minimum fuss and got me there as quickly as they could with no delays at the airports  , even upgraded me to business for 2 of the legs

(Plan was I wanted 10  hours in Dallas to go see the JFK stuff before meeting my 2 mates in Vegas , they flew Southwest New Orleans to Vegas as they weren't that fussed about Dallas )

even Frontier air Vegas to Denver was on time , though the flight was a tad crowded

was surprised Delta charged to book a suitcase on the flight though , thought it was only cowboys like Ryan air that did that

[BOF]

On 02/04/2016 at 05:22, HanoiVillan said:

Do you leave your coat on as well?

No but I do leave my clothes on.

[HanoiVillan]

1 hour ago, BOF said:

No but I do leave my clothes on.

We're not going to agree on this. Getting rid of those is the first thing I do when I get home.

[BOF]

We're not going to agree on this. Getting rid of those is the first thing I do when I get home.

I was going to say I leave my clothes on 'most of the time'. Sometimes you just gotta let him breath. I'll leave that image with you.

[blandy]

On 01/04/2016 at 09:45, Dr_Pangloss said:

[regarding tennis prize-money] In a lot of circumstances equality really isn't desirable, rather it should be a matter of equity. In this case women should be getting an equitable share of the pie, not an equal one. 

It's interesting. One point of view says that men players have to "work harder" to win the final (or get to a prize money position) because their matches consist of more sets ( 5 v 3). Yes how would that tally with say Timmy Murray winning 6-0, 6-0, 6-0 in an hour v say Serena Venus winning 7-5, 5-7, 11-9 in 3 hours? I know it's not very often that kind of thing happens, but being paid "by the game" is the ultimate logical conclusion of that argument.

Another argument says that "Well men's tennis is more popular". Maybe. Perhaps TV viewing figures are higher, but in the Wimbledon and major tournies the stands are full for all the matches. And some women tennisers are more popular than some male tennisers. So should they get more prize money for being more popular than some men - do you divvy out prize money based on popularity of the winner? really?

Another argument says that any tournament can and does decide to offer whatever prize money it likes. So Wimbledon decides to offer a prize of (say) a million dollars to win the singles trophy for men and the same to win the singles title for women. It's a prize for winning the trophy. Then if you were to look at doubles tennis, there's a good argument to say mixed doubles is the most popular, so how does that equate to mens doubles prize money?

And there's a point about sport being not about money, anyway. It should be about competing and entertaining and winning, and that a women's match, even if shorter can be better to watch than a men's match which is largely (in some cases) about power serving with few rallies.

Ultimately equity just means fairly, and I think it's fair that the women's singles prize is the same as the men's singles prize.

 

 

[Davkaus]

Quote

Another argument says that "Well men's tennis is more popular". Maybe. Perhaps TV viewing figures are higher, but in the Wimbledon and major tournies the stands are full for all the matches

I'd say that's more just because the stands aren't large enough than because the women's tennis is as popular.

If you put the England women's and England men's football teams in front of stands with Wimbledon's capacity, they'd both sell out, but it'd be absurd to claim that men and women's football are equally popular.

[Stevo985]

How do people manage if they're really ill and need to see their GP?

I just rang to make an appointment and the soonest one available was 26th April.

Now, it doesn't really matter because mine isn't massively urgent. But what if it was?

A&E?

[StefanAVFC]

5 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

How do people manage if they're really ill and need to see their GP?

I just rang to make an appointment and the soonest one available was 26th April.

Now, it doesn't really matter because mine isn't massively urgent. But what if it was?

A&E?

I call at 8:30 (when they open) and get a same day. 

Get one pretty much every time.

[tonyh29]

7 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

How do people manage if they're really ill and need to see their GP?

I just rang to make an appointment and the soonest one available was 26th April.

Now, it doesn't really matter because mine isn't massively urgent. But what if it was?

A&E?

 

walk in clinic  .. I used one last week to have my stitches removed cause my Doctors couldn't fit me in for 4 days !!

 

[Dr_Pangloss]

47 minutes ago, blandy said:

It's interesting. One point of view says that men players have to "work harder" to win the final (or get to a prize money position) because their matches consist of more sets ( 5 v 3). Yes how would that tally with say Timmy Murray winning 6-0, 6-0, 6-0 in an hour v say Serena Venus winning 7-5, 5-7, 11-9 in 3 hours? I know it's not very often that kind of thing happens, but being paid "by the game" is the ultimate logical conclusion of that argument.

Another argument says that "Well men's tennis is more popular". Maybe. Perhaps TV viewing figures are higher, but in the Wimbledon and major tournies the stands are full for all the matches. And some women tennisers are more popular than some male tennisers. So should they get more prize money for being more popular than some men - do you divvy out prize money based on popularity of the winner? really?

Another argument says that any tournament can and does decide to offer whatever prize money it likes. So Wimbledon decides to offer a prize of (say) a million dollars to win the singles trophy for men and the same to win the singles title for women. It's a prize for winning the trophy. Then if you were to look at doubles tennis, there's a good argument to say mixed doubles is the most popular, so how does that equate to mens doubles prize money?

And there's a point about sport being not about money, anyway. It should be about competing and entertaining and winning, and that a women's match, even if shorter can be better to watch than a men's match which is largely (in some cases) about power serving with few rallies.

Ultimately equity just means fairly, and I think it's fair that the women's singles prize is the same as the men's singles prize.

I'm not sure I find these arguments convincing. I guess I'd like to see data on average match lengths (in terms of time) at Grand Slams to fully judge "hard work". In your example, it's rare to have 6-0 for 3 sets in advanced stages of Slams, just as it's rare to have Serena spend 3 hours on court outside of a semi and or a final. I'd also like to see more analysis on whether men are a bigger economic draw, if so then they clearly justify more prize money. 

I don't really care enough about this to really investigate but my hunch is that men 'work' harder and on average and draw more money, so on that basis I think the gap is more than justified. 

But anyway, on the list of so called 'injustices' this really is at the bottom of it. 

Edited April 4, 2016 by Dr_Pangloss

[blandy]

2 minutes ago, Dr_Pangloss said:

But anyway, on the list of so called 'injustices' this really is at the bottom of it. 

 

Definitely. I don't even like tennis. Just thought the notion you put forward was interesting and thought I'd write down some brainwords.

[Stevo985]

11 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

I call at 8:30 (when they open) and get a same day. 

Get one pretty much every time.

 

10 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

 

walk in clinic  .. I used one last week to have my stitches removed cause my Doctors couldn't fit me in for 4 days !!

 

I didn't even know either of these things existed. I don't need the doctor's very often (touch wood)

[StefanAVFC]

They block out like 2 hours a day at my practice for same day appointments.

[dAVe80]

10 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

 

walk in clinic  .. I used one last week to have my stitches removed cause my Doctors couldn't fit me in for 4 days !!

 

Yep. I don't even try and get in the docs now, I just go to the walk in.

[Davkaus]

20 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

They block out like 2 hours a day at my practice for same day appointments.

And they're somehow not all taken up by pensioners who fancy some company?

[choffer]

1 hour ago, Davkaus said:

And they're somehow not all taken up by pensioners who fancy some company?

I think you'll find they're full of illegals who are only in the country for the healthcare and free housing these days.

Edited April 4, 2016 by choffer
Added smiley to confirm I'm not serious.

[HanoiVillan]

Stefan is right, the key is to find out exactly when the phoneline is open and ring within minutes.

EDIT: If you feel desperately ill later in the day, you have to choose a walk-in clinic if there's one nearby, a trip to A&E where they might be angry with you, or a night of discomfort.

Edited April 4, 2016 by HanoiVillan

[blandy]

1 hour ago, Davkaus said:

I'd say that's more just because the stands aren't large enough than because the women's tennis is as popular.

If you put the England women's and England men's football teams in front of stands with Wimbledon's capacity, they'd both sell out, but it'd be absurd to claim that men and women's football are equally popular.

I agree. In terms of revenue for the tournament organisers the centre court is full to capacity for womens matches as it is for mens - so the same revenue (for redistribution in prize money) is raised. TV contracts similarly, because the TV packages are for the whole tournament, so there's no split for men to get more than women there. Same for sponsorship. So financially there is little if any argument that men's games raise more revenue at Wimbledon than do womens games. That was my point on that argument. They raise the same income from people paying to watch or view the games, so give them the same prize money.

[MakemineVanilla]

2 hours ago, blandy said:

It's interesting. One point of view says that men players have to "work harder" to win the final (or get to a prize money position) because their matches consist of more sets ( 5 v 3). Yes how would that tally with say Timmy Murray winning 6-0, 6-0, 6-0 in an hour v say Serena Venus winning 7-5, 5-7, 11-9 in 3 hours? I know it's not very often that kind of thing happens, but being paid "by the game" is the ultimate logical conclusion of that argument.

Another argument says that "Well men's tennis is more popular". Maybe. Perhaps TV viewing figures are higher, but in the Wimbledon and major tournies the stands are full for all the matches. And some women tennisers are more popular than some male tennisers. So should they get more prize money for being more popular than some men - do you divvy out prize money based on popularity of the winner? really?

Another argument says that any tournament can and does decide to offer whatever prize money it likes. So Wimbledon decides to offer a prize of (say) a million dollars to win the singles trophy for men and the same to win the singles title for women. It's a prize for winning the trophy. Then if you were to look at doubles tennis, there's a good argument to say mixed doubles is the most popular, so how does that equate to mens doubles prize money?

And there's a point about sport being not about money, anyway. It should be about competing and entertaining and winning, and that a women's match, even if shorter can be better to watch than a men's match which is largely (in some cases) about power serving with few rallies.

Ultimately equity just means fairly, and I think it's fair that the women's singles prize is the same as the men's singles prize.

 

 

The only fair basis to divvy up the prize money is how much revenue the sport earns from selling the broadcast rights.

The amount of money a broadcaster is willing to pay will be based upon how much they can charge for advertising during that broadcast.

The amount they are able to charge varies considerably and advertisers will have a very good idea of the size of the audience they can expect and charge accordingly.

If the women want to play five sets to maximise the advertising and therefore their prize money, they should be allowed to do so - that would be fairness and that would be equitable.

 

Edited April 4, 2016 by MakemineVanilla

[KHV]

1 hour ago, StefanAVFC said:

They block out like 2 hours a day at my practice for same day appointments.

You book on the day at my doctors, you call at 8:00 for morning appointments and 12:30 for afternoon appointments. They have a sit and wait period from 5pm for emergencies, usually takes about 40 mins to be seen so not too bad after 5pm