On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 21:17:33 +0000 (UTC), Ian Smith
wrote:

On Sun, Nick Cooper wrote:
On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 13:26:38 +0000 (UTC), Ian Smith
wrote:

Nick Cooper wrote:

You see, this is the problem. I made one throwaway comment/
observation and then had to elaborate or defend myself from a bunch of
over-sensitive and trigger-happy cyclists who leapt spectacularly to
the wrong conclusion about what I actually said,

ITYM "leapt to the conclusion I meant what I actually said".

No. Let's consider what I actually said in my first post

I was commenting on what you said on a particular occasion. An
occasion that you subsequently repeatedly denied occurred. That you
said something slightly differnet on other occasions doesn't alter the
fact that you said what you did in fact say, and what you subsequently
denied saying.

Now, for you benefit, Ian, I've just gone back and re-read all 22 of
my previous posts in this thread. The one you are taking issue with
was the 11th (posted 22/10/04 09:07). The following day (23/10/04
13:29) I corrected myself, as I recognised that in my haste previously
I'd not been specific enough in my answer. I don't deny I made the
post on 22/10, just that it wasn't clear. I note that you are doing
you best not to acknowledge my clarification the following day, and in
fact the only sense I have "repeatedly denied" anything is on two
occasions, both drawing _your_ attention to my post of 23/10 that you
can't or won't acknowledge.

You _did_ say cyclists were as bad as various motor vehicles drivers.

Operative word "some" missing twice there.

"just as many" was what you actually said, I believe. The word 'some'
did not feature in teh statement I recal.

Is English your first language? I only ask because you seem to be
quibbling over two things that are not actually contradictory. The
evidence of my own eyes is that cyclists are no less inclined to bad
behaviour as drivers, but obviously neither represent the totality of
either group.

No, I've said I did _not_ mean more than I said, and that I did _not_
say what Guy and various others have repeatedly either implied or
directly suggested, i.e. that I was making "excuses" or offering
"justification" for the behaviour of bad drivers.

I haven't claimed you did. I said you did say something you
subsequently claimed not to have said. That this is fact is a matter
of public record. I'm not sure why you keep denying you said it -
even when furnished with the message-id and quote, you bizarrely
claimed you didn't say what you said.

I'm not quite sure why _you_ keep failing to even acknowledge my
subsequent correction/clarification. You seem very keen on fixating
on the thing I said that suits your agenda, but incapable of
recognising the other.

Tell me, Ian, can you now - hand-on-heart - steadfastly stick by every
single thing you have ever said on Usenet? Have you never given an
answer only to realise later that it wasn't complete, or you'd
overlooked some detail, and so it gave a completely different
impression to to the one you intended?
--
Nick Cooper

[Carefully remove the detonators from my e-mail address to reply!]

The London Underground at War:
http://www.cwgcuser.org.uk/personal/...ra/lu/tuaw.htm
625-Online - classic British television:
http://www.625.org.uk
'Things to Come' - An Incomplete Classic:
http://www.thingstocome.org.uk