Riding On Graves.

[Tomm]

Your post = my post

Except you used loads of long words to make you look clever?

[Concussion]

Disgraceful... tempting though!

[harrylumley]

I don't understand why people seem so angry?

they look quite old, (hundreds of years probably, so its highly unlikley to upset anyone) and its not like people don't walk all over graves in cathedrals and such, so long as no damage is caused.

This guy hasnt bummed into the "oooooooo its well bad" lane , Who says they arnt my ancestors or relations of me?

No disrespect to the guy riding (not that he had much respect) but the lines were not even impressive.

If it were the most amazing line ever, something seriously impressive and original, then perhaps those of us with less regard for others may consider such a line.

but for a few wank 4 ft gaps, its just wrong.

8.5 foot actually!

Dont really give a f**k were i ride and unless some fanny brays me im not gonna stop, if i like the place, im riding

Dont really give a f**k what people think of me either

[Ticker]

I would just like to emphisize that these graves are EMPTY and have no one in them fare enough if they were, but

there not and i find this hole topic annoying. Its his first vid and spent a bit o time on it an all you can do is critisise.

edit.

Also the church people have seen us riding there and have never said anything. It seems to me that a lot of people on

this forum are just looking for things to post up critisiseing others.

Edited March 5, 2008 by Ticker

[spode@thinkbikes]

Your post = my post

Except you used loads of long words to make you look clever?

You could argue your post was very similar to mind too. What matters is we all felt the same way.

I have to admit, I found myself looking up "solipsistic". I'm sure a simpler word could have been used, but that will come in handy next time I play scrabble

[Gavyn.]

some grave stones look well impressive to ride. The temptation is definatly there, I just wouldn't do it out of respect.

I guess riding a grave stone is just like riding someones garden wall. For some people it's respectable to others it's disgusting. I just think even if my friends were riding one I'd just cycle off because I'd no way want to be a part of vandalising what is possibly the last remaining thing to exist that marks that the person was here.

It's all down to opinion and society really. For me It's disrespectful for someone elses it's just an object which is good for riding on.

I think next time you think about riding one, read it first, see if you want to carry on upsetting the people named on it or relations of them.

[1a2bcio8]

Your own feelings on whether you'd be bothered if someone rode across your/a family members grave don't come into the argument about whether it is right or wrong or not. If it matters to the family of the people whose grave you're riding over then that's the issue, and judging by responses on here, it clearly does matter.

A grave is, to many people, a symbolic earthly representation of someone who is no longer of this earth. By appreciating the etymology of expressions such as 'dancing on someone’s grave' you would understand why it is a deeply disrespectful thing to do for this very reason.

What angers me more and more in modern society is the increasingly solipsistic existence people are choosing to lead. Some would put this down to the demise of religion, but religion has been the cause of many ills too. I am agnostic, yet believe I live a morally just life, perhaps I am not as charitable as I should be, but I have not slipped into the lowest-common-denominator selfishness that seems so pervasive in an alarming number of people today. Don’t get me wrong, I am not acting out of altruism, I feel good when I feel as though I am being kind, considerate, social, etc. I also believe that if karma does exist it is bestowed on those who do deserve it, and have earned it.

I don’t prescribe we should all live like saints, but who benefits from acting like a jerk to others?

Do you mean nihilism rather than solipsism? Although I guess nihilism can easily follow solipsism. I am actually a moral nihilist in that I don't think there are any intrinsic morals to the universe. Morals are constructs by humans, and only in as much humans are aspects of the universe, the universe has morals. In the first instance, there only is. It seems somewhat ironic but by realising this and releasing ourselves from the bondage of conceptual (value), right and wrong we end up in a better position to do 'better' for others. This is often the basis of morals, which typically fall into a method of judging one another. The individual who doesn't scorn somebody else for their 'wrongs' is best equipped to help that individual, as opposed to the individual who looks down on him or her. As moral systems can never really be (intrinsically) fulfilled, we end up in a much better position to help one another in opposition to a world where everyone else hates each other because they haven't done the 'right' thing. This doesn't mean we can't having guiding principles, only that we realise the nature of those principles, which are conceptual ideals.

Therefore, neither the grave riders or the angry onlookers are doing right or wrong. This is just an occurrence. The more we realise this, the more release we find from conceptual constraint which frees us from the anger that inhibits helping one another. I do sound like a hippy, as previously mentioned, but I'm pretty sure this is how it goes based on my own experience with altering my outlook. Basically everything is already fine, we just have to realise that, then it can get even better.

With regards to the validity of my talking about the right or wrong of somebody riding over my dad's grave, there's only a problem if you believe you've found the 'true' right and wrong. Why are my opinions invalid but the people who are bothered by this valid? We're both valid with regards to ourselves and that's the basis of right and wrong which is a subjective construct and at best, inter-subjective when shared by other people. Shared opinions of right and wrong doesn't make those opinions more valid it only means they are shared. Of course if you believe there are morals away from moral ideas, then you'll probably think I am wrong.

[Simpson]

This guy hasnt bummed into the "oooooooo its well bad" lane , Who says they arnt my ancestors or relations of me?

8.5 foot actually!

Dont really give a f**k were i ride and unless some fanny brays me im not gonna stop, if i like the place, im riding

Dont really give a f**k what people think of me either

8.5 foot f**k! i couldn't see it very well on this laptop but i highly doubt it was 8.5 foot, more like TF tapemeasure!

You just sound like an arrognat coont who needs a talking to

[Captain Scarlet]

I think the first instance at 00:21 seems familiar to a place in a nearby town I have riden a few times.

This video contains riding of Tomb-like memorials, and its out in the open not like a cemetary with its gates, people hang about and sit on them.

I don't find this disrespectful as it is old structures, also in the same town is "Colchester castle", which contains remains of the original castle that was there hundreds of years ago, again I do not find it disrespectful riding these.

But when you come to individual every day grave stones then I draw the line at that point, as those usually belong to someone and are of expense to someone, as well as being on private property.

Similar to this argument is riding on benches with a name plaque on them, my dad always dispised upon me for riding benches like this, but to be honest people sit on them, whats more disrespectful?, your arse or a soft tyre?

(Assuming no damage is caused. =D)

[sfboy]

Do you mean nihilism rather than solipsism? Although I guess nihilism can easily follow solipsism. I am actually a moral nihilist in that I don't think there are any intrinsic morals to the universe. Morals are constructs by humans, and only in as much humans are aspects of the universe, the universe has morals. In the first instance, there only is. It seems somewhat ironic but by realising this and releasing ourselves from the bondage of conceptual (value), right and wrong we end up in a better position to do 'better' for others. This is often the basis of morals, which typically fall into a method of judging one another. The individual who doesn't scorn somebody else for their 'wrongs' is best equipped to help that individual, as opposed to the individual who looks down on him or her. As moral systems can never really be (intrinsically) fulfilled, we end up in a much better position to help one another in opposition to a world where everyone else hates each other because they haven't done the 'right' thing. This doesn't mean we can't having guiding principles, only that we realise the nature of those principles, which are conceptual ideals.

Therefore, neither the grave riders or the angry onlookers are doing right or wrong. This is just an occurrence. The more we realise this, the more release we find from conceptual constraint which frees us from the anger that inhibits helping one another. I do sound like a hippy, as previously mentioned, but I'm pretty sure this is how it goes based on my own experience with altering my outlook. Basically everything is already fine, we just have to realise that, then it can get even better.

With regards to the validity of my talking about the right or wrong of somebody riding over my dad's grave, there's only a problem if you believe you've found the 'true' right and wrong. Why are my opinions invalid but the people who are bothered by this valid? We're both valid with regards to ourselves and that's the basis of right and wrong which is a subjective construct and at best, inter-subjective when shared by other people. Shared opinions of right and wrong doesn't make those opinions more valid it only means they are shared. Of course if you believe there are morals away from moral ideas, then you'll probably think I am wrong.

Universally speaking, you are totally correct. Morals are just a human construct, but are a requirement for society to function.

What nihilism denies us are our humanistic qualities, fundamental nihilists don’t exist because they’ve all killed themselves once they come to the realisation of their own non-existence.

I cast no dispersions on people’s inward perspective on reality, I am an old fashioned dualist in this respect. What is a problem is when this impacts on the way people behave outwardly in society. Could you really rationalise some abhorrent act on a friend or family member if you and/or the perpetrator are nihilists, what hope is there for humanity?

[Revolver]

fundamental nihilists don’t exist because they’ve all killed themselves once they come to the realisation of their own non-existence.

[squince]

virtually everytime ive rode sheff, we have gone on that grave yard, with loads of box graves, like the 1 in that vid.

[basher]

Honestly ive rode on graves myself, in blackburn theres a disused church and there are some mint lines on old grave stones. I do think to myself yeah it is disrespectful but the church isnt used and the graves are really old, I dont think i could ever ride in a grave yard where people go and grieve and leave flowers ect as that is just wrong. But under the circumstances we ride the one in balckburn.

[ogre]

gravestones didn't seem that epic after lincoln councel cut them up to make a seating thing [to be honest i think actually cutting the headstones up was worse than the odd ding] my two cents

[Mark W]

Do you mean nihilism rather than solipsism? Although I guess nihilism can easily follow solipsism. I am actually a moral nihilist in that I don't think there are any intrinsic morals to the universe. Morals are constructs by humans, and only in as much humans are aspects of the universe, the universe has morals. In the first instance, there only is. It seems somewhat ironic but by realising this and releasing ourselves from the bondage of conceptual (value), right and wrong we end up in a better position to do 'better' for others. This is often the basis of morals, which typically fall into a method of judging one another. The individual who doesn't scorn somebody else for their 'wrongs' is best equipped to help that individual, as opposed to the individual who looks down on him or her. As moral systems can never really be (intrinsically) fulfilled, we end up in a much better position to help one another in opposition to a world where everyone else hates each other because they haven't done the 'right' thing. This doesn't mean we can't having guiding principles, only that we realise the nature of those principles, which are conceptual ideals.

Regarding the bit in bold - I don't really see how, if you "release" yourself from the "bondage" of conceptual morals that you're "in a better position" to do "better" for others? Surely, if you're releasing yourself from a conceptual moral framework there's no real way you can accurately judge someone else's situation, which you would need to do at some level to work out how to "help" them? Which leads on to my next point...

Regarding the bit in bold/italic, by suggesting that by not "scorning" someone for their wrongs you're better able to help them, it seems kinda strange? It seems like you're implying that we'd be seeing someone doing wrong, but not chastising someone for them, just trying to 'help' them? Sounds mightily condescending to me?

Regarding the underlined bit, I don't really understand how what you're saying there differs from anything else we've been talking about in this thread? It's obvious that morals are conceptual ideals, it's not like they're something like Plato's forms that we have to 'discover', or that they're tangible things we can feel/touch/see, so it's pretty obvious they're conceptual ideals, it's just that as humans we each have our own set of personal ideals that we have to try adjust to try and be more cohesive with our 'neighbours' (or whatever you want to call other people), either to further our own goals or simply to live in a more harmonious way with other people. The ability to understand other people's viewpoints and at times be accomodating of them is better than just possessing the ability to work out the blindingly obvious fact that morals are something we've all made up. Sorry, "constructed".

This guy hasnt bummed into the "oooooooo its well bad" lane , Who says they arnt my ancestors or relations of me?

8.5 foot actually!

Dont really give a f**k were i ride and unless some fanny brays me im not gonna stop, if i like the place, im riding

Dont really give a f**k what people think of me either

It's funny. From my experience, the people who profess the most to "not giving a f**k what people think of them" tend to be the people who try hardest to please other people.

Also, assuming your profile is correct, I managed to guess your age purely from your post.

[1a2bcio8]

Universally speaking, you are totally correct. Morals are just a human construct, but are a requirement for society to function.

What nihilism denies us are our humanistic qualities, fundamental nihilists don’t exist because they’ve all killed themselves once they come to the realisation of their own non-existence.

I cast no dispersions on people’s inward perspective on reality, I am an old fashioned dualist in this respect. What is a problem is when this impacts on the way people behave outwardly in society. Could you really rationalise some abhorrent act on a friend or family member if you and/or the perpetrator are nihilists, what hope is there for humanity?

I've always asked the question, "could we possibly not exist?". The fact I asked it probably answers it, however, 'things' could be so out of our comprehension that some form of non-existence, despite the apparent paradoxical difficulties of asking the question but then denying it, might enable us to not exist. Anyway, I only resort to that avenue for amusement these days, much the same with solipsism, although to that, I give more credence. It's great to think that perhaps I'm just chatting to myself

Now, regarding your very valid question about "abhorrent behaviour". I think the initial method of removing this type of behaviour relates to an acceptance of it. The response to this is usually that chaos will ensue as most people perceive acceptance as synonymous with inaction. However, this is not so. Acceptance is a realisation of the nature of the situation, regardless of if you find it desirable or not. It simply is. In a sense, this is the way it is meant to be because this is the way it is. You may prefer it another way, but it is not. To not accept it is to deny reality. To perceive in terms of labels of right and wrong is to deny the reality which underlies those labels. Once we have accepted it, we no longer need to hate anyone. Realising this doesn't lead you to no longer contribute, but allows you to contribute in a much better sense. I can accept the killer and still stop him from killing and for this I suffer less than for stopping him and hating him. My hate doesn't do me any good and it doesn't anybody else any good.

Imagine a complete society of accepting people and then imagine a society with non-accepting people who continually judge each other, get annoyed with each other and even hate each other. What do these emotions drive us toward other than more of the same? The basis of what you desire is an acceptance of it. Acceptance leaves a lot more room for love, which I think everyone would agree is the basis of a happier people?

[Gavyn.]

^ You take way to many drugs!

[Mark W]

I've always asked the question, "could we possibly not exist?". The fact I asked it probably answers it, however, 'things' could be so out of our comprehension that some form of non-existence, despite the apparent paradoxical difficulties of asking the question but then denying it, might enable us to not exist. Anyway, I only resort to that avenue for amusement these days, much the same with solipsism, although to that, I give more credence. It's great to think that perhaps I'm just chatting to myself

Now, regarding your very valid question about "abhorrent behaviour". I think the initial method of removing this type of behaviour relates to an acceptance of it. The response to this is usually that chaos will ensue as most people perceive acceptance as synonymous with inaction. However, this is not so. Acceptance is a realisation of the nature of the situation, regardless of if you find it desirable or not. It simply is. In a sense, this is the way it is meant to be because this is the way it is. You may prefer it another way, but it is not. To not accept it is to deny reality. To perceive in terms of labels of right and wrong is to deny the reality which underlies those labels. Once we have accepted it, we no longer need to hate anyone. Realising this doesn't lead you to no longer contribute, but allows you to contribute in a much better sense. I can accept the killer and still stop him from killing and for this I suffer less than for stopping him and hating him. My hate doesn't do me any good and it doesn't anybody else any good.

Imagine a complete society of accepting people and then imagine a society with non-accepting people who continually judge each other, get annoyed with each other and even hate each other. What do these emotions drive us toward other than more of the same? The basis of what you desire is an acceptance of it. Acceptance leaves a lot more room for love, which I think everyone would agree is the basis of a happier people?

Bit in bold: The first bit is vaguely true, but only because of how ambiguous you put across that statement. It's pretty obvious the first step to over-coming a problem is to accept it, but anyone who's been to an AA meeting could tell you that. Similarly, with the second bold bit, you haven't at any point said that acceptance isn't the form of inaction people suggest it is. If the "Action" you speak vaguely out is the bold/underlined part, that's not acceptance, that'd be reconciliation of it? Your use of the term of "accepting actions" is basically just reconciling yourself that these things are occuring. I'd imagine that 99.9% of people would accept that things were happening, and would - as you state in the bold/italicised bit - not be "denying reality" by "not accepting it", and using your moral framework to decide whether an action is right/wrong isn't denying the fact it happened, because you're wholeheartedly accepting that it happened by judging the situation. You can't judge things you don't think happened, or haven't happened?

Either way, I'd still argue that you're actually refering to reconciliation, in that you can accept that the action occured (which is blatantly obvious to the vast majority), and that you aren't judging the person who did it (even though you have to actively have judged the situation to understand it? And then to say you aren't judging the person still suggests that you did judge them even if you aren't acting upon that idea). Your point about "stopping a killer from killing" means you are using morals/judging him simply because if you didn't, why would you be stopping him? If there aren't any morals or "rights" or "wrongs", what means you have to alter someone elses behaviour? Just seems largely hypocritical, or again condescending.

People "accept" that there are gangs of "hoodies" and that there are a shitload of chavs about the place going round being naughty and hurting people, and accept that the police are largely powerless to do anything. That hasn't reduced the problem, if anything it's increased the scale of it. Reconciliation isn't enough alone (or even realistically as a catalyst) to change.

[Dr. Nick Riviera]

f**king students...

[*Tom*]

LOL!

[1a2bcio8]

Regarding the bit in bold - I don't really see how, if you "release" yourself from the "bondage" of conceptual morals that you're "in a better position" to do "better" for others? Surely, if you're releasing yourself from a conceptual moral framework there's no real way you can accurately judge someone else's situation, which you would need to do at some level to work out how to "help" them? Which leads on to my next point...

Regarding the bit in bold/italic, by suggesting that by not "scorning" someone for their wrongs you're better able to help them, it seems kinda strange? It seems like you're implying that we'd be seeing someone doing wrong, but not chastising someone for them, just trying to 'help' them? Sounds mightily condescending to me?

Regarding the underlined bit, I don't really understand how what you're saying there differs from anything else we've been talking about in this thread? It's obvious that morals are conceptual ideals, it's not like they're something like Plato's forms that we have to 'discover', or that they're tangible things we can feel/touch/see, so it's pretty obvious they're conceptual ideals, it's just that as humans we each have our own set of personal ideals that we have to try adjust to try and be more cohesive with our 'neighbours' (or whatever you want to call other people), either to further our own goals or simply to live in a more harmonious way with other people. The ability to understand other people's viewpoints and at times be accomodating of them is better than just possessing the ability to work out the blindingly obvious fact that morals are something we've all made up. Sorry, "constructed".

That's a fair point Mark. I wasn't very lucid there - in fact I contradicted myself. Please accept my excuses of a head cold and codeine withdrawal Hopefully though I've been a bit clearer in the post I just made. What I meant was freedom from the concepts of right and wrong, of the type that motivate us to judge and dislike/hate one another. Dropping these morals, or concepts, allows us to consider the situation how it is. We find a freedom from the negative emotions that are deeply ingrained with those ideas. Guiding principles are just ideas that we can use to help us decide in a situation, of what might make people happier. They don't carry the either/or absolute attitude of right and wrong.

However, I do think there is an awareness that informs us of a 'deepness' to reality that arises when and if we can, drop all concepts. Concepts typically shroud our perceptions as we constantly get them confused with the things they represent.

With regards to "scorning", I don't entirely understand what you mean but I'll try and redefine the point. My point was an individual who realises a reality with no right and wrong doesn't scorn because he has no reason. Thus, he doesn't become loaded with dislike or hate. Minus these qualities there is more room for positive qualities which allow him to better interact and contribute to those things that, I am assuming we generally find desirable. I prefer it when somebody doesn't hate me... I see that as a contribution, to a more desirable society, which is probably what I should have said rather than "help". There's no assumption of being a 'better' person, just more able in the sense of certain emotions are less likely to interfere with certain actions.

Finally, with regards to my emphasis on morals as "constructs" (am I detecting some animosity here?). The point is that I think we forget that fact. I have pointed this out (I think) on several occasions. The idea of morals existing outside of is an example. An additional example is people that think a piece of music is rubbish. Something is not rubbish, you think it is rubbish. You are describing your sensations of that music, rather than a quality in the thing itself. People have lost the distinction between the symbol and thing it symbolizes. This causes a lot of confusion, stress and suffering. I'm fascinated by it and I like to discuss it. It's also my preference that people get reminded. I'm not telling you to think the same way as me though. Please, do what you like. I adopt somewhat of a hindu philosophy alongside my ideas of 'attempting' at getting to the root of understanding. That former philosophy is that we're the godhead, but we're bored of being omnipotent, omniscient, etc. so we've deliberately confused ourselves - we're playing a game. The godheads that most confuse themselves are to be given the most respect - they are really going for it! I bow down to conceptual confusion, although I always put forward an alternative way of dealing with it.

Can't be bothered to check this so apologies for any incoherrence. I can;t imagine my being able to sleep now for the next 4-5 hours

[Dan6061]

Enough with the essays? I don't understand most of them...

Anyway, riding on gravestones is just a big no for me. Despite how old they are, or wether anyone, anywhere knows who the person on the gravestone is.

I've read people on here saying they'd let people ride on theirs, and others saying they wouldn't. Well to those saying they would, it doesn't give you the excuse that it's okay to ride on other peoples, maybe the people that once were below the stone would've said they wouldn't want you to ride on them?

In Oxford we ride at the church, just on the walls and benches. Never on the gravestones. I've ridden there many times and no one else on the ride has touched the graves at all, and we don't get any angry looks or anything.

I like Simpson's point about pissing on people or whatever. There's just certain things in life you just don't do. Despite wether you can find a good excuse or not.

[Revolver]

this is funny, it's getting far too in-depth

[Mark W]

That's a fair point Mark. I wasn't very lucid there - in fact I contradicted myself. Please accept my excuses of a head cold and codeine withdrawal Hopefully though I've been a bit clearer in the post I just made. What I meant was freedom from the concepts of right and wrong, of the type that motivate us to judge and dislike/hate one another. Dropping these morals, or concepts, allows us to consider the situation how it is. We find a freedom from the negative emotions that are deeply ingrained with those ideas. Guiding principles are just ideas that we can use to help us decide in a situation, of what might make people happier. They don't carry the either/or absolute attitude of right and wrong.

However, I do think there is an awareness that informs us of a 'deepness' to reality that arises when and if we can, drop all concepts. Concepts typically shroud our perceptions as we constantly get them confused with the things they represent.

With regards to "scorning", I don't entirely understand what you mean but I'll try and redefine the point. My point was an individual who realises a reality with no right and wrong doesn't scorn because he has no reason. Thus, he doesn't become loaded with dislike or hate. Minus these qualities there is more room for positive qualities which allow him to better interact and contribute to those things that, I am assuming we generally find desirable. I prefer it when somebody doesn't hate me... I see that as a contribution, to a more desirable society, which is probably what I should have said rather than "help". There's no assumption of being a 'better' person, just more able in the sense of certain emotions are less likely to interfere with certain actions.

Finally, with regards to my emphasis on morals as "constructs" (am I detecting some animosity here?). The point is that I think we forget that fact. I have pointed this out (I think) on several occasions. The idea of morals existing outside of is an example. An additional example is people that think a piece of music is rubbish. Something is not rubbish, you think it is rubbish. You are describing your sensations of that music, rather than a quality in the thing itself. People have lost the distinction between the symbol and thing it symbolizes. This causes a lot of confusion, stress and suffering. I'm fascinated by it and I like to discuss it. It's also my preference that people get reminded. I'm not telling you to think the same way as me though. Please, do what you like. I adopt somewhat of a hindu philosophy alongside my ideas of 'attempting' at getting to the root of understanding. That former philosophy is that we're the godhead, but we're bored of being omnipotent, omniscient, etc. so we've deliberately confused ourselves - we're playing a game. The godheads that most confuse themselves are to be given the most respect - they are really going for it! I bow down to conceptual confusion, although I always put forward an alternative way of dealing with it.

Can't be bothered to check this so apologies for any incoherrence. I can;t imagine my being able to sleep now for the next 4-5 hours

Regarding the bit in bold - things we find desireable, and how other people act are in no way, at all, mutually exclusive. I'd also suggest that by deciding that someone's action should require no scorning on your behalf, that you'd be judging it anyway? We aren't all objective observers.

Regarding the bit in bold/italics - I'm pretty sure people are aware of it, it's just that if someone's making a point, it's pretty obvious it's them saying it, if you see what I mean? Like now, I'm not going to drop a bit old "IMO" at the end of this post, because I'm saying it and therefore it's obviously my opinion. If someone says "____ is wrong", that's obviously their opinion, and because it is so obviously their opinion, people don't feel the need to bother stating the obvious? Whether that's right or wrong is neither here nor there - no-one talks in terms of absolute truth, so until they do we'll all just have to take it as read that what people are saying is their own opinion.

Enough with the essays? I don't understand most of them...

Anyway, riding on gravestones is just a big no for me. Despite how old they are, or wether anyone, anywhere knows who the person on the gravestone is.

I've read people on here saying they'd let people ride on theirs, and others saying they wouldn't. Well to those saying they would, it doesn't give you the excuse that it's okay to ride on other peoples, maybe the people that once were below the stone would've said they wouldn't want you to ride on them?

In Oxford we ride at the church, just on the walls and benches. Never on the gravestones. I've ridden there many times and no one else on the ride has touched the graves at all, and we don't get any angry looks or anything.

I like Simpson's point about pissing on people or whatever. There's just certain things in life you just don't do. Despite wether you can find a good excuse or not.

Apparently these people are incapable of understanding the fact they're a part of a family, and that if they weren't, they wouldn't have the potentially rideable gravestone...

[Dan6061]

Apparently these people are incapable of understanding the fact they're a part of a family, and that if they weren't, they wouldn't have the potentially rideable gravestone...

Well yeah, obviously. But I still wanted to say it.