shower problem

[Goldberg]

Please explain why my motive has any relevance when the objective is truth and accuracy.

Please then state whether or not you were being untruthful or inaccurate, because you sure as hell were being one of those.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Please explain why my motive has any relevance when the objective is truth and accuracy.

OK - then please explain what is truthful or accurate about rebutting the use of a phrase with "spring" as a verb by saying "Since there's no spring..."

Are you going to tell us if you've always thought that when people say things like "he sprang into action", or "the boat sprung a leak", or "Hope springs eternal in the human breast" that they were talking about events involving springs?

Please then state whether or not you were being untruthful or inaccurate, because you sure as hell were being one of those.

I was being neither - it was truthful and accurate to say that anyone who thinks that the operation of a PRD would result in a small trickle of water coming out of the shower casing has never seen one operate.

 

[sparkyspike]

To the OP - buy a new shower. It will be cheaper. You can replace all the electrical components on an old shower and stilll end up with a leak on the flow valve assembly, so don't bother!

 

[Goldberg]

Please explain why my motive has any relevance when the objective is truth and accuracy.

OK - then please explain what is truthful or accurate about rebutting the use of a phrase with "spring" as a verb by saying "Since there's no spring..."

Oh - I apologise for being unclear. I was referring to the relevance of my motive at the instant that the motive arose, i.e. at the instant of reading your untruthful and/or inaccurate statement.

Nevertheless, in the interests of fair play, I'm happy to do my best to answer - it was to be whimsical, which I thought was an acceptable attribute, but one that you dropped when you started spouting the contents of the dictionary.

Removing the whim, the word "spring" becomes contextually wrong because you used it in the phrase "spring into action", which I was careful to highlight for you.

Are you going to tell us if you've always thought that when people say things like "he sprang into action", or "the boat sprung a leak", or "Hope springs eternal in the human breast" that they were talking about events involving springs?

I hereby predict that I will never tell you that, although I'm slightly uneasy to see that you refer to yourself as "us".

Please then state whether or not you were being untruthful or inaccurate, because you sure as hell were being one of those.

I was being neither - it was truthful and accurate to say that anyone who thinks that the operation of a PRD would result in a small trickle of water coming out of the shower casing has never seen one operate.

The balance of probabilities is that you were being truthful, because nobody would be so stupid as to repeat the lie so painstakingly.

Logically, this simply means that you're wrong. This is innocuous, since to err is human, but it's worth noting that you're writing as if knowledgable on a subject about which you are not sufficiently knowledgable.

Some people would term this as bullsh*t, and you a bullsh*tter, and leave it there. If you were the observer, then my expectation, based on a rapidly growing count of recent posts, would be to see the T word, or the W word, or the L word, or perhaps all three in a glorious concert of unintelligent abuse.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Oh - I apologise for being unclear. I was referring to the relevance of my motive at the instant that the motive arose, i.e. at the instant of reading your untruthful and/or inaccurate statement.

1) What was untruthful and/or inaccurate about saying that someone who wondered if a PRD had operated when the symptom described was a "small trickle" had clearly never experienced a PRD operating?

2) Why, at the instant of reading what I wrote, did you feel compelled to say that because no spring was involved then nobody could ever have seen a PRD "spring into action"?

Nevertheless, in the interests of fair play, I'm happy to do my best to answer - it was to be whimsical, which I thought was an acceptable attribute, but one that you dropped when you started spouting the contents of the dictionary.

Can the readers of this forum look forward to more impulsive, fickle, and sudden unpredictable changes in behaviour from you?

Removing the whim, the word "spring" becomes contextually wrong because you used it in the phrase "spring into action", which I was careful to highlight for you.

Will you explain what is contextually wrong with the phrase "spring into action" when used in the context of an event not involving a spring?

I hereby predict that I will never tell you that,

Is that because you cannot answer the question, or because you refuse to?

The balance of probabilities is that you were being truthful, because nobody would be so stupid as to repeat the lie so painstakingly.

Will you please clarify what lie you originally thought I was telling?

Logically, this simply means that you're wrong. This is innocuous, since to err is human, but it's worth noting that you're writing as if knowledgable on a subject about which you are not sufficiently knowledgable.

Will you please explain why I am wrong to say that when a PRD operates it creates more than a "small trickle" of water coming from the shower casing?

Some people would term this as bullsh*t, and you a bullsh*tter, and leave it there.

Will you please explain what is bullsh*t about saying that when a PRD operates it creates more than a "small trickle" of water coming from the shower casing?

If you were the observer, then my expectation, based on a rapidly growing count of recent posts, would be to see the T word, or the W word, or the L word, or perhaps all three in a glorious concert of unintelligent abuse.

Could you please let us know how long you intend to continue behaving like this - there may be some people who would appreciate guidance on whether to click this:

...bearing in mind that the shower unit in question is a Newteam/Bristan 'ten.three'.

Will you please explain what difference that makes?

If it transpires that you were behaving like a "tw@" (sic.) or a "w*nker" (sic.), then it would be interesting to know whether or not you agree that it's acceptable to consider you to be a pathetic hypocrite and to tell you to "**** off" (sic.).

Could you please let us know how long you intend to continue behaving like this - there may be some people who would appreciate guidance on whether to click this:

 

[securespark]

Ban: I have had several PRD's open on me.

Some have caused a huge leak, others have only caused a dribble, while the shower still had effective flow through the handset.

In fact, I have ordered a replacement PRD for my current shower unit, which has failed, causing a small leak down the wall, while the handset still gives a half-decent flow rate. Sorry to disappoint.

 

[Goldberg]

If you're unable to ignore my posts and want to use some software to filter them out, then please go ahead. I don't know why you haven't done so already, since there are only three probable outcomes from continuing the debate:

1. You'll abuse me, but the topic won't be locked.
2. You'll abuse me, then the topic will be locked.
3. The topic will be locked before you abuse me.

The only uncertainties in my mind are (a) how long it will take you to accept that you're wrong, and (b) how long it will be before you default to your particular brand of profanity.

1) What was untruthful and/or inaccurate about saying that someone who wondered if a PRD had operated when the symptom described was a "small trickle" had clearly never experienced a PRD operating?

The stark fact that it's commonplace for the PRD on the shower unit being discussed to produce a small trickle.

2) Why, at the instant of reading what I wrote, did you feel compelled to say that because no spring was involved then nobody could ever have seen a PRD "spring into action"?

I felt no such compulsion.

I hereby predict that I will never tell you that,

Is that because you cannot answer the question, or because you refuse to?

You've listed a subset of all the possible reasons, and it's neither of those. You asked me if something is going to happen, and I replied that it isn't. I was merely being precise.

Will you please explain what is bullsh*t about saying that when a PRD operates it creates more than a "small trickle" of water coming from the shower casing?

I'll explain it with a question: How much do you know about the Newteam/Bristan 10.3 shower unit?


oOo


Much of the rest of your post is an attempt at a distraction from the point being discussed. I choose not to rise to it.

Nor will I be attempting to intimidate, entrap, bully, or abuse you. In support of the objectives of truth and accuracy it's sufficient to point out your advice on the subject is wrong, and that it's wrong because you have insufficient knowledge. But nobody knows everything.

Don't worry about it - you're allowed to be wrong.

 

[ColJack]

OK.. enough.. settle this like men...

you will require..

a digital camera or phone capable of taking pictures
a 12inch rule ( plastic will do but wooden is prefered, and MUST be marked in inches.. )
a flat surface at about crotch height..

now whip em out and post the photos ( ruler alongside for scale ) and we'll vote who has the biggest...

 

[LiamPope]

But please, please could that happen on some different forum?

 

[Goldberg]

How about "Tools and Materials"?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

If you're unable to ignore my posts and want to use some software to filter them out, then please go ahead.

The same facility is available to you - it might be better for you, and the rest of the forum, if you clicked that instead of frequently trying to turn your dislike of me into a gratuitous argument.

I don't know why you haven't done so already, since there are only three probable outcomes from continuing the debate:

1. You'll abuse me, but the topic won't be locked.
2. You'll abuse me, then the topic will be locked.
3. The topic will be locked before you abuse me.

The only uncertainties in my mind are (a) how long it will take you to accept that you're wrong, and (b) how long it will be before you default to your particular brand of profanity.

How long do you intend to continue behaving like this?

The stark fact that it's commonplace for the PRD on the shower unit being discussed to produce a small trickle.

In the post following the one where I asked you what difference the make of shower made you wrote:

Please then state whether or not you were being untruthful or inaccurate, because you sure as hell were being one of those.

When I replied that I was being neither, your response was

The balance of probabilities is that you were being truthful, because nobody would be so stupid as to repeat the lie so painstakingly.

Logically, this simply means that you're wrong. This is innocuous, since to err is human, but it's worth noting that you're writing as if knowledgable on a subject about which you are not sufficiently knowledgable.

Some people would term this as bullsh*t, and you a bullsh*tter, and leave it there. If you were the observer, then my expectation, based on a rapidly growing count of recent posts, would be to see the T word, or the W word, or the L word, or perhaps all three in a glorious concert of unintelligent abuse.

Wouldn't it have been simpler, and a lot less confrontational, to have said, when I asked what difference the model of shower made, that on that model the PRD does generate a small trickle?

Why didn't you do that?

2) Why, at the instant of reading what I wrote, did you feel compelled to say that because no spring was involved then nobody could ever have seen a PRD "spring into action"?

I felt no such compulsion.

Will you explain what is contextually wrong with the phrase "spring into action" when used in the context of an event not involving a spring?

You've listed a subset of all the possible reasons, and it's neither of those. You asked me if something is going to happen, and I replied that it isn't. I was merely being precise.

I asked you a question, and you confidently predicted that you would never answer it.

If you are able to answer it, but confidently predict that you never will, what else is that other than a refusal to answer it?

I'll explain it with a question: How much do you know about the Newteam/Bristan 10.3 shower unit?

Nothing.

Will you now explain why you felt that "bullsh*t" was an appropriate term to use, rather than "wrong", or "mistaken", and why choosing to use it was not abusive?

Nor will I be attempting to intimidate, entrap, bully, or abuse you.

So do you think that your behaviour here has been as far from any of those as you are capable of?

In support of the objectives of truth and accuracy it's sufficient to point out your advice on the subject is wrong, and that it's wrong because you have insufficient knowledge.

So why, when I said something wrong (and you do say I'm allowed to be wrong), and even asked what difference the shower model made did you not simply explain in what way I was wrong?

Why, instead, did you reply with stuff like

• "Please then state whether or not you were being untruthful or inaccurate, because you sure as hell were being one of those."
  
• "Some people would term this as bullsh*t, and you a bullsh*tter"
  
• "If it transpires that you were behaving like a "tw@" (sic.) or a "w*nker" (sic.), then it would be interesting to know whether or not you agree that it's acceptable to consider you to be a pathetic hypocrite and to tell you to "**** off" (sic.)."
  
• "If you were the observer, then my expectation, based on a rapidly growing count of recent posts, would be to see the T word, or the W word, or the L word, or perhaps all three in a glorious concert of unintelligent abuse."

?

In what way were those responses non-intimidating, entrapping, bullying or abusive ways to point out, in support of the objectives of truth and accuracy, that I was wrong?

Much of the rest of your post is an attempt at a distraction from the point being discussed. I choose not to rise to it.

If the point being discussed was how much water comes out of the PRD when it operates, and I said "You've obviously never had one of those spring into action" was not your "whimsical" "Since there's no spring, neither has anyone else" a distraction from the point being discussed?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Ban: I have had several PRD's open on me.

Some have caused a huge leak, others have only caused a dribble, while the shower still had effective flow through the handset.

I haven't had "several", but I have had more than one, and it always generated a huge leak.

Given that it's purpose is to provide an escape route for the mains pressure water being supplied to the shower if the outlet becomes blocked and continuing to heat the water trapped in the can would be catastrophic, and that enough incoming water needs to be diverted to cause the pressure detector to cut off the electrical supply to the heater, I'm surprised to find, and curious to understand how, it can do that by only releasing a small trickle.

In fact, I have ordered a replacement PRD for my current shower unit, which has failed, causing a small leak down the wall, while the handset still gives a half-decent flow rate. Sorry to disappoint.

Could the PRV have operated?

You didn't ask if it could have failed and started producing a small leak....

 

[Goldberg]

words

I note your apparent disapproval of gratuitous arguments, gratuitous complexity, confrontation, pedantry, obstinacy, abuse, bullsh*t, intimidation, entrapment, bullying, distractions, and hypocrisy.

Wouldn't it have been simpler, and a lot less confrontational, to have said, when I asked what difference the model of shower made, that on that model the PRD does generate a small trickle?

You seem fond of quoting fragments of my first post to you, but I hadn't realised your reluctance to fully read the rest of it. Here it is:

The PRD is a one shot device that opens and never closes again. On this Newteam/Bristan unit water merely dribbles from it.

Here's another opportunity to read some information that you later imply I was withholding from you:

...please state why you think the operation of the PRD on this shower unit is an obvious event, bearing in mind that it isn't.

If you were mistaken about the obviousness, then it would be interesting to know how you came to make such a mistake.

If it was an attempt to mislead, i.e. a pretence of knowing more than you do, then it would be interesting to know why you think it's socially acceptable for you do that.

And as for the dyadic dislike that you believe I harbour, I think the boot is very much on the other foot. I like a lot of your opinions, but I have little respect for the way you go about expressing them and for the way that you treat other people.

How much do you know about the Newteam/Bristan 10.3 shower unit?

Nothing.

In that case the forum, whose interests you imply are important to you, would have benefited from you saying nothing (sic.).

 

[ban-all-sheds]

words

I note your apparent disapproval of gratuitous arguments, gratuitous complexity, confrontation, pedantry, obstinacy, abuse, bullsh*t, intimidation, bullying, distractions, and hypocrisy.

Do you think that your behaviour has been as far from any of those as you are able to achieve?

You seem fond of referring to fragments of my first post to you, but I hadn't realised your reluctance to fully read it. Here it is:

The PRD is a one shot device that opens and never closes again. On this Newteam/Bristan unit water merely dribbles from it.

Since I did not (and still don't) see how a PRD can remove pressure from the system by only diverting a small trickle, I took that to refer to the symptoms exhibited by this shower, i.e. the OP's one, not all of them.

You knew that I was wrong, and it was clear to you that I hadn't recognised your explanation for what it was.

When I asked what difference the model of shower made, you could have re-iterated your explanation - you could have tersely, (or even sarcastically if you wanted to be confrontational and abusive), have made the point that you had told me what difference it made.

But instead you chose to say things like

• "Please then state whether or not you were being untruthful or inaccurate, because you sure as hell were being one of those."
  
• "Some people would term this as bullsh*t, and you a bullsh*tter"
  
• "If it transpires that you were behaving like a "tw@" (sic.) or a "w*nker" (sic.), then it would be interesting to know whether or not you agree that it's acceptable to consider you to be a pathetic hypocrite and to tell you to "**** off" (sic.)."
  
• "If you were the observer, then my expectation, based on a rapidly growing count of recent posts, would be to see the T word, or the W word, or the L word, or perhaps all three in a glorious concert of unintelligent abuse."

Why was that?

In that case the forum, whose interests you imply are important to you, would have benefited from you saying nothing (sic.).

I've explained why I said what I did about the operation of PRDs.

Are you able to explain why, in response to 10 words which you didn't like, you've produced all these subsequent posts in which you did not strive to avoid gratuitous arguments, confrontation, obstinacy, abuse, distractions etc?

I note your apparent disapproval of gratuitous arguments, gratuitous complexity, confrontation, pedantry, obstinacy, abuse, bullsh*t, intimidation, bullying, distractions, and hypocrisy.

• "Some people would term this as bullsh*t, and you a bullsh*tter"
  
• "If it transpires that you were behaving like a "tw@" (sic.) or a "w*nker" (sic.), then it would be interesting to know whether or not you agree that it's acceptable to consider you to be a pathetic hypocrite and to tell you to "**** off" (sic.)."
  
• "If you were the observer, then my expectation, based on a rapidly growing count of recent posts, would be to see the T word, or the W word, or the L word, or perhaps all three in a glorious concert of unintelligent abuse."

I asked you a question, and you confidently predicted that you would never answer it.

If you are able to answer it, but confidently predict that you never will, what else is that other than a refusal to answer it?


If the point being discussed was how much water comes out of the PRD when it operates, and I said "You've obviously never had one of those spring into action" was not your "whimsical" "Since there's no spring, neither has anyone else" a distraction from the point being discussed?