Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Peter Lloyd: 'Why I'm suing my gym over their sexist women-only hours' Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by balotelli12)
    Gym attendance is for tossers anyway.
    why do you say that?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
    thats not referencing treating a person specifically, thats just being convenient... what you say impacts everyone, and does not directly impact a particular group of people, like kicking men out at certain times but still charging them... having 24/7 access for everyone is convenience for everyone, no one is treated different to another, giving preferential treatment to one sex and not giving a rats ass about the other regards how people are actually treated...

    all i did was give an example using the same logic as you...

    if i were in such a scenario, i would be screwed, as would you or anyone else... such a scenario is not impossible... this emphasises the need for the law to step in...
    "maybe the government should intervene to stop discrimination"? the government definitely should... whether a company is a monopoly or not is irrelevant, youre just making random excuses... using your strange city example, you would still be screwed whether all these businesses were monopolising companies or not... its not fair, especially if it concerns something you cannot change about yourself...

    face it, discrimination must be in the law, it must be in there just as how theft, murdering, offense, is in there... it may not be as significant as murder but that is NOT justification for it not being in the law... dopey justification such as it not being physical like assault/murder is not significant justification, just a poor excuse...

    this most likely involves the city council of wherever he lives or something...regardless of the result:
    1) discrimination needs to be in the law just like anything e, AND apply to everyone...
    2)just because there are other gyms that dont discriminate, does NOT mean that gym should be allowed to get away with discrimination. period.

    discrimination isnt like having a different favourite colour to everyone else, why is it so hard for you to understand that it should not be condoned?
    Sorry for the delayed response,

    I see you could make a distinction between gym policies that effect everyone and ones that effect only a certain groups, but I don't see why you would want to. This may just be me, but if I wasn't allowed into my gym, I wouldn't care whether it was just for cleaning or because it was a women only hour - all I'd care about would be the fact that it's closed and I have to think of something else to do.

    All I was trying to say was that in that instance you'd misunderstood my opinions and that wasn't my 'logic'. Ie. I never believed the (ridiculous) opinion that other people's property becomes your property because it's on your land.

    OK, I worded this badly. By discrimminating companies having a monopoly I meant put together they control most/all of the market, so it would be hard to find a company that doesn't discrimminate. I didn't mean that the individual companies that discrimminate each have monopolies in their field.

    I never said that only physical crimes should be illegal.

    Out of interest do you believe that other things simmilar to discrimmination - such as adultery- (both non-violent 'crimes', take place in private/on private property, seen as morally wrong by almost everyone) should be illegal? Adultery is a really nasty thing to do and causes lots of suffering/anguish etc., but if it became illegal you'd hear screams of Britian being a repressive police state or something.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    I think private businesses should be able to serve only the people they want to, with no reason required.

    He should ask for the money equivalent to the hours he is unable to access the gym, and he should cancel his membership as soon as he can and go somewhere else. They should be free to reduce the access time for any individual, assuming the individual is refunded for the decreasing access time. He should be free to take his patronage elsewhere.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by balotelli12)
    Gym attendance is for tossers anyway.
    You're right. The gym is for fat lossers.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Good on him. It's about time that women stop being treated as some ****ing deity and they are brought back down to reality.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Danehill897)
    Sorry for the delayed response,

    I see you could make a distinction between gym policies that effect everyone and ones that effect only a certain groups, but I don't see why you would want to. This may just be me, but if I wasn't allowed into my gym, I wouldn't care whether it was just for cleaning or because it was a women only hour - all I'd care about would be the fact that it's closed and I have to think of something else to do.

    All I was trying to say was that in that instance you'd misunderstood my opinions and that wasn't my 'logic'. Ie. I never believed the (ridiculous) opinion that other people's property becomes your property because it's on your land.

    OK, I worded this badly. By discrimminating companies having a monopoly I meant put together they control most/all of the market, so it would be hard to find a company that doesn't discrimminate. I didn't mean that the individual companies that discrimminate each have monopolies in their field.

    I never said that only physical crimes should be illegal.

    Out of interest do you believe that other things simmilar to discrimmination - such as adultery- (both non-violent 'crimes', take place in private/on private property, seen as morally wrong by almost everyone) should be illegal? Adultery is a really nasty thing to do and causes lots of suffering/anguish etc., but if it became illegal you'd hear screams of Britian being a repressive police state or something.
    i want to make that distinction because of empathy... being able to put myself into other peoples shoes. if it feels bad to be treated badly, why should i do the same to others?... its a prat thing to treat certain people different especially if its based on things like sex, colour etc... im fairly sure most of tsr would think the same way regarding discrimination.. the law is based on this, and its half the reason there isnt chaos running amok...

    i will clear some things up as to my knowledge i have not misunderstood anything....
    stop saying you have not said this or that, youve mentioned this already... i am NOT putting words in your mouth... your way of thinking is morally flawed. i have been giving examples of what such flawed thinking can also lead to... i am NOT saying you support the examples i have mentioned :lolwut: im trying to show you how stupid this is... people should be protected from the law...

    regardless of your wording, no one should be able to discriminate or get away with anything of the sort... a small independant business should not be allowed to discriminate, your kind of monopolising business should not be able to discriminate... no one should be allowed, no one should tolerate it

    I never said that only physical crimes should be illegal.
    then you should really add more to your replies. out of all the examples i have given, you mainly just use the 'physical or damage' reason and ignore other reasons such as the fact that it is morally corrupt to do so, regardless of whether it is physical or not....
    such as here:
    Spoiler:
    Show

    (Original post by Danehill897)
    I never said murdering/raping someone on your property is acceptable. This is because although it's taking place on your land you're still damaging their bodies (their property). If you discrimminate against someone on your land you're not damaging their any of their property - you're just telling them to go away (for an arbitary reason).
    In my opinion no-one has a right to be on anyone else's property, visitors should be there on the permission of the owner and should leave there if the owner tells them to go.

    no, i dont believe adultery should be illegal despite it being a stupid thing to do... explain to me how adultery and discrimination is similar... why should discrimination in your business not be illegal the same way as adultery in your private life shouldnt? hell, what if all schools/colleges/unis/etc discriminate against you so you receive no education whatsoever. what if all employers also discriminate against you, you would be screwed completely... show me how all this should be as tolerable as adultery is within the law? On the extreme end, a relationship will damage you mentally, but with discrimination, you will die... not being able to feed yourself, pay for things, or have an education... youre screwed... i would rather have my love life ruined than my actual life...

    discrimination being in the law is such a cut and dry topic, why you still have an issue with this is beyond me...


    summary of the justifications brought up so far:
    Spoiler:
    Show

    so far, from what i can gather, there are 4 sort-of justifications that were brought up for tolerating discrimination
    1) it is not physical
    2) you should go elsewhere, if you dont like it
    3) owner is losing control
    4) should be no different to say...changing opening times...

    i have talked about how all four are foolish justifications...

    okay, so you didnt say "only physical crimes should be illegal", then i guess that means you agree that there can be non-physical crimes that should be illegal so point 1) on the above list can be crossed off already...

    for point 2), i have already countered this.... this is not justification, this is a stupid cop out...
    look at that restaurant/food example i gave.... wouldnt you be pissed off if the entire country decided to not feed you? how would you eat? surely this should be enough to convince you that its bloody stupid to tolerate discrimination... do you perhaps have an issue with apathy or something?

    for point 3, i have also countered this... you believe the owner cannot mug, rape or steal from his customers... These actions can be thought of as limiting their control... if you have no problem with them not being able to these, then why do you state losing control as justification? they have lost control with rape, mugging and stealing, so why cant discrimination be the same (no, dont mention the 'physical' crap)

    for point 4) i have countered this, in that it impacts everyone not just a specific group of people, and why i care/should make such a distinction is mentioned above at the top of this post....

    all these points have been countered, why are you so adamant about having discrimination tolerable within the law? ... none of what you said is sufficient enough to tolerate it...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'm a woman, and I don't o agree with women only hours. It is sexist.

    Havingd said that, I always make sure I go at the women only hours. Two reasons or this.

    1) Its so quiet, I don't have to wait for any machines

    2) I can actually use the 'man' machines. As In the cable machines, not just machines. Ok, I have no idea what you call these machines? I must seem like such a gym newbie, but I have been going for a year!
    Our gym has a separate room for the free weights and certain other machines. Also known as the 'testosterone' room. And I do not feel comfortable going in there. It's not helped by the fact that guys go to the gym in pairs (fair enough, I understand the reason). But they stand by the machine I'm using, and I feel like I'm butting into their workout.
    And I know it's not just me. I see loads of other girls go into that room in women's only hours, who arent in there normally.

    EDIT: I actually just read the article. And the guy in question is actually talking about my gym! Haha.

    Having thought more about it. I would fine with it, and wouldn't be annoyed by the disappearance of the women only hours, if they get rid of the separate room for certain machines. If it was all in one room (as the majority of machines are) I wouldn't feel uncomfortable using those machines.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dirac Delta Function)
    Well, there's clearly demand for this kind of thing from women, it's up to the gym to decide how it sells it services.
    You can't discriminate on gender, can you? Is there some kind of exemption you can apply for in order to let you? I can understand why in some cases it'd be fine, acceptable etc to discriminate on gender but for a gym it doesn't seem right.

    The gym should charge men less, because they're being given less gym time for (presumably) the same amount of money...
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I'd quite gladly have a "no women but me" hour in the gym. Shock of my life the other day when I went swimming at DW for the first time, trying to figure out where to change, turn around to ask someone and there's a group of women just stripping off and showing their menenehs (and they hadn't bothered to tidy them either). They can't be that insecure about their bodies if they're happy to do that.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dirac Delta Function)
    He's being a right little princess.

    So they have female-only hours, big deal, go some other time, or go to some other gym.
    If your a man, you are a disgrace to us. Go take your beta rhetoric somewhere else.

    Women want equality, but only when it suits them. I hope he wins the case, because it's an absolute joke.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by balotelli12)
    Gym attendance is for tossers anyway.
    do you even lift?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    At least it's not Planet Fitness.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
    i want to make that distinction because of empathy... being able to put myself into other peoples shoes. if it feels bad to be treated badly, why should i do the same to others?... its a prat thing to treat certain people different especially if its based on things like sex, colour etc... im fairly sure most of tsr would think the same way regarding discrimination.. the law is based on this, and its half the reason there isnt chaos running amok...

    i will clear some things up as to my knowledge i have not misunderstood anything....
    stop saying you have not said this or that, youve mentioned this already... i am NOT putting words in your mouth... your way of thinking is morally flawed. i have been giving examples of what such flawed thinking can also lead to... i am NOT saying you support the examples i have mentioned :lolwut: im trying to show you how stupid this is... people should be protected from the law...

    regardless of your wording, no one should be able to discriminate or get away with anything of the sort... a small independant business should not be allowed to discriminate, your kind of monopolising business should not be able to discriminate... no one should be allowed, no one should tolerate it



    then you should really add more to your replies. out of all the examples i have given, you mainly just use the 'physical or damage' reason and ignore other reasons such as the fact that it is morally corrupt to do so, regardless of whether it is physical or not....
    such as here:
    Spoiler:
    Show


    no, i dont believe adultery should be illegal despite it being a stupid thing to do... explain to me how adultery and discrimination is similar... why should discrimination in your business not be illegal the same way as adultery in your private life shouldnt? hell, what if all schools/colleges/unis/etc discriminate against you so you receive no education whatsoever. what if all employers also discriminate against you, you would be screwed completely... show me how all this should be as tolerable as adultery is within the law? On the extreme end, a relationship will damage you mentally, but with discrimination, you will die... not being able to feed yourself, pay for things, or have an education... youre screwed... i would rather have my love life ruined than my actual life...

    discrimination being in the law is such a cut and dry topic, why you still have an issue with this is beyond me...


    summary of the justifications brought up so far:
    Spoiler:
    Show

    so far, from what i can gather, there are 4 sort-of justifications that were brought up for tolerating discrimination
    1) it is not physical
    2) you should go elsewhere, if you dont like it
    3) owner is losing control
    4) should be no different to say...changing opening times...

    i have talked about how all four are foolish justifications...

    okay, so you didnt say "only physical crimes should be illegal", then i guess that means you agree that there can be non-physical crimes that should be illegal so point 1) on the above list can be crossed off already...

    for point 2), i have already countered this.... this is not justification, this is a stupid cop out...
    look at that restaurant/food example i gave.... wouldnt you be pissed off if the entire country decided to not feed you? how would you eat? surely this should be enough to convince you that its bloody stupid to tolerate discrimination... do you perhaps have an issue with apathy or something?

    for point 3, i have also countered this... you believe the owner cannot mug, rape or steal from his customers... These actions can be thought of as limiting their control... if you have no problem with them not being able to these, then why do you state losing control as justification? they have lost control with rape, mugging and stealing, so why cant discrimination be the same (no, dont mention the 'physical' crap)

    for point 4) i have countered this, in that it impacts everyone not just a specific group of people, and why i care/should make such a distinction is mentioned above at the top of this post....

    all these points have been countered, why are you so adamant about having discrimination tolerable within the law? ... none of what you said is sufficient enough to tolerate it...
    Right, just to sum up my views:
    1) Consumers have a right to be able to buy any type of service
    2) Consumers don't have the right to buy that service from absolutely any of the companies that offer it.
    3) If there's a contradiction between 1) and 2) (ie. everyone's discrimminating against you) then the state should intervene to ensure the consumer can buy that service.
    4) Actions, such as adultery, may be morally wrong and show a lack of empathy- but this doesn't nessicarily mean they should be illegal
    5) Discrimmination is morally wrong, but it should not be illegal ( apart from the circumstance given in 3) ) as if there are some buisnesses that don't discrimminate then none of your rights as outlined in 1), 2) and 3) are being violated (ie. you may have to go somewhere else to buy food, but you're not going to starve to death).

    Looking at the summary of justifacations you gave in your post:
    1) -
    2) Like I just outlined, I only believe in the 'you should go elsewhere if you don't like it' when you have other places to go.
    3) In the list of crimes you gave 'the owner losing control' cuts both ways. If you steal from someone then they're losing control of their own property, making it wrong. Peter Lloyd doesn't own a spot in that gym in the first place, so he doesn't have anything to 'lose control' of. He's not losing anything, he's just having something not being given to him.
    4) So you're against children only swimming lessons and OAP pilate classes as well then?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Danehill897)
    Right, just to sum up my views:
    1) Consumers have a right to be able to buy any type of service
    2) Consumers don't have the right to buy that service from absolutely any of the companies that offer it.
    3) If there's a contradiction between 1) and 2) (ie. everyone's discrimminating against you) then the state should intervene to ensure the consumer can buy that service.
    4) Actions, such as adultery, may be morally wrong and show a lack of empathy- but this doesn't nessicarily mean they should be illegal
    5) Discrimmination is morally wrong, but it should not be illegal ( apart from the circumstance given in 3) ) as if there are some buisnesses that don't discrimminate then none of your rights as outlined in 1), 2) and 3) are being violated (ie. you may have to go somewhere else to buy food, but you're not going to starve to death).

    Looking at the summary of justifacations you gave in your post:
    1) -
    2) Like I just outlined, I only believe in the 'you should go elsewhere if you don't like it' when you have other places to go.
    3) In the list of crimes you gave 'the owner losing control' cuts both ways. If you steal from someone then they're losing control of their own property, making it wrong. Peter Lloyd doesn't own a spot in that gym in the first place, so he doesn't have anything to 'lose control' of. He's not losing anything, he's just having something not being given to him.
    4) So you're against children only swimming lessons and OAP pilate classes as well then?
    is this never ending? :lolwut:

    if i want to buy something from argos then i should be able to... the fact that there are other shops that sell what i want is irrelevant and is just a stupid cop out as i already said.... the government shouldnt just intervene in exceptionally extreme circumstances...there may be some circumstances that forbid me from buying something like buying an 18+ movie when i am 12 or something, but that is not that case with being black, or straight, or a man...

    your summary list of my justifications is flawed...
    2) and like i already said, that is a stupid cop out, just because you have other places to go doesnt mean you should tolerate discrimination...
    3)what kind of primitive reasoning is that...Lloyd loses control of having access to the gym, hes losing more than 400 hours every year, something he is paying for... (and the fact that there are other gyms is irrelevant... look at point 2 above...)
    4) you havent provided much information, why are children allowed in? are they paying members like others? are they going in free like some sort of initiative to get the youth more active? if i am paying for something i expect to be treated the same as everyone else is... it isnt fair for others to gain more access despite paying the same as me...unless there is some sort of adequate reasoning, it is just discrimination...

    in my gym, they reserve some of the equipment, not all of it. in my swimming centre, they reserve a few lanes, not all of them
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
    is this never ending? :lolwut:

    if i want to buy something from argos then i should be able to... the fact that there are other shops that sell what i want is irrelevant and is just a stupid cop out as i already said.... the government shouldnt just intervene in exceptionally extreme circumstances...there may be some circumstances that forbid me from buying something like buying an 18+ movie when i am 12 or something, but that is not that case with being black, or straight, or a man...

    your summary list of my justifications is flawed...
    2) and like i already said, that is a stupid cop out, just because you have other places to go doesnt mean you should tolerate discrimination...
    3)what kind of primitive reasoning is that...Lloyd loses control of having access to the gym, hes losing more than 400 hours every year, something he is paying for... (and the fact that there are other gyms is irrelevant... look at point 2 above...)
    4) you havent provided much information, why are children allowed in? are they paying members like others? are they going in free like some sort of initiative to get the youth more active? if i am paying for something i expect to be treated the same as everyone else is... it isnt fair for others to gain more access despite paying the same as me...unless there is some sort of adequate reasoning, it is just discrimination...

    in my gym, they reserve some of the equipment, not all of it. in my swimming centre, they reserve a few lanes, not all of them
    Your justification that companies should be selling their services to absolutely anyone was that you're treating people badly if you deny them the chance to buy that service based on their colour/gender etc. I agree you're treating someone badly if you do that, but I used the adultery example to show that 'bad' actions don't necessarily have to be illegal. You then said the adultery is different to discriminating against customers as adultery takes place in private - but surely the gym is private property (you have to pay to go in there). p
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
    is this never ending? :lolwut:

    if i want to buy something from argos then i should be able to... the fact that there are other shops that sell what i want is irrelevant and is just a stupid cop out as i already said.... the government shouldnt just intervene in exceptionally extreme circumstances...there may be some circumstances that forbid me from buying something like buying an 18+ movie when i am 12 or something, but that is not that case with being black, or straight, or a man...

    your summary list of my justifications is flawed...
    2) and like i already said, that is a stupid cop out, just because you have other places to go doesnt mean you should tolerate discrimination...
    3)what kind of primitive reasoning is that...Lloyd loses control of having access to the gym, hes losing more than 400 hours every year, something he is paying for... (and the fact that there are other gyms is irrelevant... look at point 2 above...)
    4) you havent provided much information, why are children allowed in? are they paying members like others? are they going in free like some sort of initiative to get the youth more active? if i am paying for something i expect to be treated the same as everyone else is... it isnt fair for others to gain more access despite paying the same as me...unless there is some sort of adequate reasoning, it is just discrimination...

    in my gym, they reserve some of the equipment, not all of it. in my swimming centre, they reserve a few lanes, not all of them
    Also, 2) comes under what I just said. For 3), Lloyd's only entitled to what he's paying for. If he's paying for male membership, (which gives him less services for the same price as the female membership) which only allows him in during certain hours, then he's only entitled to come in during those certain hours. For 4), to be honest I don't know what the prices are, but the point is that the gym's discriminating (based on age). You may expect for a company to treat you the same as everyone else, but that doesn't mean you're entitled to it.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Danehill897)
    Right, just to sum up my views:
    1) Consumers have a right to be able to buy any type of service
    2) Consumers don't have the right to buy that service from absolutely any of the companies that offer it.
    3) If there's a contradiction between 1) and 2) (ie. everyone's discrimminating against you) then the state should intervene to ensure the consumer can buy that service.
    Just how many companies have to discriminate before you think the law should intervene? Every single company in the country? 90%? 50%? Even if only 50% of companies refuse to serve you that would still place you at a significant disadvantage. I don't see any non-arbitrary way that you can pick a cutoff point.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by incipientT)
    Just how many companies have to discriminate before you think the law should intervene? Every single company in the country? 90%? 50%? Even if only 50% of companies refuse to serve you that would still place you at a significant disadvantage. I don't see any non-arbitrary way that you can pick a cutoff point.
    To be honest I'm not sure where I'd draw the line, and yes it would be very arbitrary - but then so much in the law is arbitrary. When judges give prison sentences they don't use a formula that say ... converts the number of people burgled into a time to serve in prison, they just pick a sentence that seems appropriate to them.

    Your second point is interesting - but in my opinion those companies which may be discriminating against you don't owe you anything (ie. they don't owe you the opportunity to be served, it's their prerogative to offer any services they want).
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Danehill897)
    Your justification that companies should be selling their services to absolutely anyone was that you're treating people badly if you deny them the chance to buy that service based on their colour/gender etc. I agree you're treating someone badly if you do that, but I used the adultery example to show that 'bad' actions don't necessarily have to be illegal. You then said the adultery is different to discriminating against customers as adultery takes place in private - but surely the gym is private property (you have to pay to go in there). p
    i already know bad actions dont necessarily have to be illegal, the same way being a douchebag isnt illegal... but that doesnt mean discrimination is the same those... you havent shown me how discrimination and adultery are the same regarding not being illegal...
    adultery is frivolous compared to discrimination... that is why the former is not illegal while the latter is... it would be considered general knowledge that adultery is frivolous... why do you think people campaign for people to be protected from discrimination and not adultery? youre just using an arbitrary common point they both share(that they are both bad) as justification, they arent that similar...just because it is not physical or involve damage or some kind, does not mean discrimination should be lumped into childish bullying, adultery and being mean... thats not exactly private property if its treated as a business is it now? letting in random people and whatnot...

    (Original post by Danehill897)
    Also, 2) comes under what I just said. For 3), Lloyd's only entitled to what he's paying for. If he's paying for male membership, (which gives him less services for the same price as the female membership) which only allows him in during certain hours, then he's only entitled to come in during those certain hours. For 4), to be honest I don't know what the prices are, but the point is that the gym's discriminating (based on age). You may expect for a company to treat you the same as everyone else, but that doesn't mean you're entitled to it.
    What do you mean comes under what you just said? explain yourself... 'saying to go elsewhere' is a stupid argument, also adding the exception that the government should intervene when everyone discriminates, is a stupid exception...

    Lloyd is entitled to be treated the same as any other customer that pays the same membership as him... he isnt paying for "male membership".. dont add in information to suit your argument...... he just got a membership, the same kind as a girl would get... there is no male membership... do you think that if he doesnt like it, then he can just go for the female membership or something? :lolwut: even if it does exist, it is still irrelevant. The owner can tell him when he first enters the gym that the male memberships are inferior, but that doesnt mean he is allowed to get away with it....

    if he allows minors or something, i can kind of understand, attract youth to be healthy and blah... however if they let 20 year olds have a cheaper price than 40 years for example, then that is age discrimination...

    so far, i have not seen a single significant reason that supports you thinking discrimination should not be illegal, that has not been countered already...
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Danehill897)
    To be honest I'm not sure where I'd draw the line, and yes it would be very arbitrary - but then so much in the law is arbitrary. When judges give prison sentences they don't use a formula that say ... converts the number of people burgled into a time to serve in prison, they just pick a sentence that seems appropriate to them.

    Your second point is interesting - but in my opinion those companies which may be discriminating against you don't owe you anything (ie. they don't owe you the opportunity to be served, it's their prerogative to offer any services they want).
    prison sentence is not an arbitrary number... it is one they seem to think is appropriate for the crime details... this leans more towards having a formula then it is to picking something arbitrary...
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: May 27, 2013
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.