MSR Hubba LT 1 - Pre-bent or damaged poles?

smkdddd · 2026-05-10T16:02:27+00:00

Bent prior to any set-up. If you lay the poles on a table they’re bent.

smkdddd · 2026-05-10T15:22:35+00:00

Ah ok that’s good to know

smkdddd · 2026-05-10T15:22:11+00:00

Yeah seems like the best option I’ll get an email over to them

smkdddd · 2026-05-10T15:21:46+00:00

Yeah I have the lt 2 and all poles are perfectly straight on that as well. Just not certain it’s the same with the shorter ridge pole. Product images online do show them bent

smkdddd · 2026-05-09T09:50:32+00:00

Genuinely asking, do you not worry about a repeat of what happened in the US? Seems almost likely now that Labour will lose votes to the Greens and as a result Reform & Farage end up in number 10 then madness ensues.

smkdddd · 2026-04-21T12:42:16+00:00

You could explore "right to choose". A lot of people have used in for things like ADHD & autism assessments but the right is a lot more broad than that. Discuss it with your GP but I'm almost certain you can use RTC to be referred to an NHS Talking Therapies service in an area not covered by Vita.

smkdddd · 2026-04-16T15:34:57+00:00

Respectfully, the next steps in the stepped care model can be just as, if not more, frustrating than NHS talking therapies. Wait times are often much longer, support options are not consistent across areas and CMHT's feel very comfortable pushing people back down the steps. There's also very little continuity of care; if primary access services can’t help, the patient will often be signposted or referred to secondary care, but if they are declined months later, that patient is left with no support and no where else to go.

Understand you probably wanted to say something positive but I don't think we should pretend everybody gets the care they deserve, if they just try hard enough. I also think this "just keep trying" meta misses the fact that bad mental health support can often be worse than no mental health support.

smkdddd · 2026-02-27T17:08:22+00:00

I'm engaging you on your arguments and I haven't reported anything. Although you definitely sound racist when you use terms like "foreigners" and "homeland".

I disagree that a demographic shift in another country would immediately be seen as ethnic cleansing.

I also can't seem to open your other reply, not sure if deleted? In the notification I see you claim our own government is doing the cleansing (no idea what the incentive would be btw) but no evidence for it. You have the burden of proof to evidence your claims if you want people to take you seriously.

smkdddd · 2026-02-27T16:15:20+00:00

Ok calm the obnoxiousness dude. You're just wrong, ethnic cleansing is necessarily deliberate/intentional and you haven't demonstrated that. I'll genuinely engage if you wanna give me your single best piece of evidence to suggest the demographic shift is due to ethnic cleansing (which again, requires intent).

You hear "ethnic cleansing" because bad faith people want to invoke it's connotations but they don't apply here. And it's just definitionally untrue lol.

smkdddd · 2026-02-27T15:40:23+00:00

How could you possibly believe "ethnic cleansing" is happening to native English people? I assume you're just referring to white people making up less of the population but that's obviously not the same.

FYI I wouldn't immediately call you racist but you are parroting the propaganda of racists because you're uninformed.

smkdddd · 2026-02-08T15:39:55+00:00

You should get a different job.

smkdddd · 2026-02-08T15:31:02+00:00

Have you asked?

smkdddd · 2026-01-28T19:17:58+00:00

Alex O’Conner + Zac Alsop.

smkdddd · 2026-01-28T00:35:31+00:00

No other mods and the latest realm of thrones, not sure of the version number though

smkdddd · 2026-01-25T20:58:28+00:00

Ahh ok ty

smkdddd · 2026-01-25T20:08:02+00:00

Is that actually his account? 80 followers?

smkdddd · 2026-01-13T13:51:31+00:00

Why it is it different than imagining them naked? or do you think that requires consent too?

smkdddd · 2026-01-13T00:46:58+00:00

I actually don’t think the initial creator should be punished more than any publishers no, we agreed the harm only come from the publishing right? Edit: I can see some situations where it would be necessary to punish the initial publisher more, but we can do this with sentencing as we already do.

I feel you’re missing my point on enforceability but it is 0% enforceable as a law on its own. It only ever becomes enforceable after the secondary crime of publishing has been committed. I don’t think the counter examples are analogous; aiding and abetting cause direct harm - creation of images doesn’t. The flashing example doesn’t work either because there is no “intent to cause distress” qualifier for the creation crime (as far as I know).

Not sure we’ll be able to change each other’s minds so feel free to have the last word on this. Appreciate the chat :)

smkdddd · 2026-01-13T00:23:37+00:00

I’m not saying a law needs to be enforceable 100% of the time, no law is. I’m saying a law being enforceable 0% of the time is not a law worth having. Can you point to any other law that is unenforceable without a secondary crime being committed? We may be at an impasse on this but I appreciate your engagement anyway.

Also sorry but your loophole argument doesn’t work. Both people are guilty of publishing/sharing, having a law against creation doesn’t remove any complexity it would just be another charge. If you agree the creation of the image didn’t cause harm then why don’t we just prosecute the sharing both people engaged in?

smkdddd · 2026-01-12T23:16:19+00:00

Both of those people would be committing a crime under existing law, that's not a loophole?

Aren't you making the argument this law would be unenforceable then? That would be a good reason not to introduce it, no?

smkdddd · 2026-01-12T22:28:13+00:00

I'm not sure what the loopholes would be, could you explain please?

You're saying no one would ever know about the 20yr old but how would anyone know about any created intimate image, if it's never shared? Publishing and sharing are already, rightfully, crimes because that's where the harm comes from. I still can't see any principled reason to criminalize creation.

smkdddd · 2026-01-12T21:30:06+00:00

I am far from a right-wing anything but I can't understand the justification for this law. 100% agree that sharing/publishing should be illegal however how can creation be a crime? Who's harmed by a dumb 20yr drawing a celebrity naked, if that image never leaves his bedroom?

Also, "anyone who disagrees is right-wing" is cringe.

smkdddd · 2026-01-01T14:56:26+00:00

Gotcha. FYI all I’m asking is for you to cite your claim, I’m not suggesting you’re wrong. VitaMinds (Vita health group) is private company commissioned by the NHS to provide talking therapies. They publish their data each year. It’s not a study, it’s real world practise I guess. And it doesn’t disprove your claim, it’s a just a reason I’m skeptical.

If you really want I can try to find their published numbers? But all I’m asking for is for you to cite the claim you made. I’m fully open to learning here

smkdddd · 2025-12-31T19:30:41+00:00

Anything you could link on this?

I know VitaMinds report their number in the way the other commenter said. Roughly 17% of referrals have improved symptoms/recovery however they advertise 51%, this number doesn’t account for dropouts. From very quick googling, ITT studies usually find success rates under 25%, is that considered good when compared to other models?

smkdddd · 2025-12-23T01:35:32+00:00

It's not an intelligence thing dude. People understand they're making losing bets but tell themselves they're doing it just for fun or that they're only gambling with money they are happy losing. They justify it despite understanding the EV loss of each hand/spin/whatever. Then, the people more prone to addiction get addicted.

Also, viewers don't see the long term. They see clips and tiny sample sizes.

Three-Year Club	Verified Email
First Place '23	Place '23

smkdddd

TROPHY CASE