"Nick Cooper" wrote in
message ...
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 12:24:37 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

On 21 Oct 2004 13:03:50 -0700, (Nick
Cooper 625) wrote in message
:

Obviously we're back to your 11th Commandment again: "Thous shalt not
criticise cyclists."

Is the wrong answer. You started this subthread by advancing the bad
behaviour of cyclists as some kind of defence or excuse for the bad
behaviour of bus drivers.

yawn No I didn't. Why should I? Stop doggedly sticking to you own
misassumption.

It's a pretty common misassumption. Why didn't you even bother to change the
thread title?

clive

On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 13:55:45 +0100, "Clive George"
wrote:

"Nick Cooper" wrote in
message ...
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 12:24:37 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

On 21 Oct 2004 13:03:50 -0700, (Nick
Cooper 625) wrote in message
:

Obviously we're back to your 11th Commandment again: "Thous shalt not
criticise cyclists."

Is the wrong answer. You started this subthread by advancing the bad
behaviour of cyclists as some kind of defence or excuse for the bad
behaviour of bus drivers.

yawn No I didn't. Why should I? Stop doggedly sticking to you own
misassumption.

It's a pretty common misassumption.

Which says far more about the over-sensitivity of those making it.
Just because five people jump to the same false conclusion, it doesn't
mean it is no longer false.

Why didn't you even bother to change the thread title?

Perhaps because at that stage I didn't even remotely consider such an
irrationally over-defensive reaction. It was just a tangential
observation I would have been surprised had it resulted in more than
half a dozen follow-ups. In fact, it's been a bit like a doctor
tapping a patient's knee, only for the whole body to go into spasm.
--
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

On 22 Oct 2004 16:56:37 GMT, Monkey Hanger wrote:

(Nick Cooper 625) wrote in
. com:

"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message
. ..

So once again, any rational measure of risk leaves tackling cyclists
well down on the "if we get around to it" pile.

Again we come back to your weird "worst first" set of priorities....

Can you justify *not* setting your priorities this way?

So you would advocate, say, stopping funding on all types of medical
research bar that into cancer, and concentrate entirely on that?
--
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

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 12:49:50 +0000 (UTC), Ian Smith
wrote:

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 08:07:51 GMT, Nick Cooper wrote:
I'd ask you to identify this mythical statement that
"cyclists are as bad,"

Ooh, ooh, I know this one!

Message-ID:
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 08:13:11 GMT
However, I see just as many cyclists behaving like aresholes as
car/van/lorry drivers,

That appears to be by you in a direct ancestor of this post. Do you
deny you said it?

Actually, yes because what I disputed (somewhat imperfectly) was
Clive's assertion that, "it is unreasonable to excuse bad bus drivers
by claiming that cyclists are as bad." I certainly made an
observation on the conduct of some cyclists, but this was never an
explicit or implicit "excuse" for bus drivers or anyone else. The "as
bad" bit isn't the issue, the supposed "excuse" bit is.

--
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

(Nick Cooper) wrote in
:

On 22 Oct 2004 16:56:37 GMT, Monkey Hanger wrote:

(Nick Cooper 625) wrote in
.com:

Again we come back to your weird "worst first" set of priorities....

Can you justify *not* setting your priorities this way?

So you would advocate, say, stopping funding on all types of medical
research bar that into cancer, and concentrate entirely on that?

Obviously not. Setting one priority higher than the others does not mean that
everything else is ignored completely.

--
Chris

In article , nick.cooper-
says...
So you would advocate, say, stopping funding on all types of medical
research bar that into cancer, and concentrate entirely on that?

How about banning research into new cosmetics and putting the money into
cancer research? I'm sure that I can find a suitable (small) selection
of people who have died as a result of not looking good, but I certainly
wouldn't consider it to be an equal priority.

It's a simple system really. When saving lives, divide effort according
to the number of lives that can be saved. You would presumably put equal
effort into all areas regardless of threat?

Jon

On Sat, 23 Oct, Nick Cooper wrote
(or did he? maybe he'll shortly deny it):
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 12:49:50 +0000 (UTC), Ian Smith
wrote:

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 08:07:51 GMT, Nick Cooper wrote:
I'd ask you to identify this mythical statement that
"cyclists are as bad,"

Ooh, ooh, I know this one!

Message-ID:
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 08:13:11 GMT
However, I see just as many cyclists behaving like aresholes as
car/van/lorry drivers,

That appears to be by you in a direct ancestor of this post. Do you
deny you said it?

Actually, yes

You deny you said what I quoted? Who did, and why do you let them use
your identity to post things you don't mean?

because what I disputed (somewhat imperfectly) was
Clive's assertion that, "it is unreasonable to excuse bad bus drivers
by claiming that cyclists are as bad." I certainly made an
observation on the conduct of some cyclists, but this was never an
explicit or implicit "excuse" for bus drivers or anyone else. The "as
bad" bit isn't the issue, the supposed "excuse" bit is.

So what you're saying is that you did say that cyclists are as bad,
and somehow accidently in all the numerous times you denied saying
that cyclists were as bad, you were actually denying something
different, just electing not to say what you were denying, but rather
expecting us to work out what you actually intending denying (but
didn't).

That's alright then, why didn't I think of that.
Silly of me, assuming you meant what you said.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

"Nick Cooper" wrote in
message ...
It's a pretty common misassumption.

Which says far more about the over-sensitivity of those making it.
Just because five people jump to the same false conclusion, it doesn't
mean it is no longer false.

Why didn't you even bother to change the thread title?

Perhaps because at that stage I didn't even remotely consider such an
irrationally over-defensive reaction. It was just a tangential
observation I would have been surprised had it resulted in more than
half a dozen follow-ups. In fact, it's been a bit like a doctor
tapping a patient's knee, only for the whole body to go into spasm.

Well now you know - whining about cyclist's behaviour on u.r.c will result
in robust rebuttals, because we're so used to people attempting to justify
motorist's bad behaviour by saying cyclists are as bad.

This will happen whether or not you mean to.

clive

On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 20:16:47 +0100, "Clive George"
wrote:

"Nick Cooper" wrote in
message ...
It's a pretty common misassumption.

Which says far more about the over-sensitivity of those making it.
Just because five people jump to the same false conclusion, it doesn't
mean it is no longer false.

Why didn't you even bother to change the thread title?

Perhaps because at that stage I didn't even remotely consider such an
irrationally over-defensive reaction. It was just a tangential
observation I would have been surprised had it resulted in more than
half a dozen follow-ups. In fact, it's been a bit like a doctor
tapping a patient's knee, only for the whole body to go into spasm.

Well now you know - whining about cyclist's behaviour on u.r.c will result
in robust rebuttals, because we're so used to people attempting to justify
motorist's bad behaviour by saying cyclists are as bad.

This will happen whether or not you mean to.

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, and you characterise
it as "whining"? Yeah, right....
--
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

On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 19:06:52 +0000 (UTC), Ian Smith
wrote:

On Sat, 23 Oct, Nick Cooper wrote
(or did he? maybe he'll shortly deny it):
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 12:49:50 +0000 (UTC), Ian Smith
wrote:

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 08:07:51 GMT, Nick Cooper wrote:
I'd ask you to identify this mythical statement that
"cyclists are as bad,"

Ooh, ooh, I know this one!

Message-ID:
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 08:13:11 GMT
However, I see just as many cyclists behaving like aresholes as
car/van/lorry drivers,

That appears to be by you in a direct ancestor of this post. Do you
deny you said it?

Actually, yes

You deny you said what I quoted?

No, I deny that it was an "excuse" for bad drivers, which is the way
various posters here have tried to misrepresent it.

because what I disputed (somewhat imperfectly) was
Clive's assertion that, "it is unreasonable to excuse bad bus drivers
by claiming that cyclists are as bad." I certainly made an
observation on the conduct of some cyclists, but this was never an
explicit or implicit "excuse" for bus drivers or anyone else. The "as
bad" bit isn't the issue, the supposed "excuse" bit is.

So what you're saying is that you did say that cyclists are as bad,
and somehow accidently in all the numerous times you denied saying
that cyclists were as bad, you were actually denying something
different, just electing not to say what you were denying, but rather
expecting us to work out what you actually intending denying (but
didn't).

I think you should go back and read what actually read what I said.
Guy has repeatedly made claims such as the following:

Please jsutify the use of illegal cyclist behaviour to excuse illegal
and potentially lethal bus driver behaviour.

So you feel it's perfectly acceptable to use the behaviour of crap
cyclists to excuse that of crap drivers, but not vice-versa?
Fascinating.

And yet you seek to prosecute cyclists for the tiny risk they pose,
without at the same time commenting on the equally commonplace and far
more dangerous lawbreaking of motorised road users.

Is the wrong answer. You started this subthread by advancing the bad
behaviour of cyclists as some kind of defence or excuse for the bad
behaviour of bus drivers.

Of course, this isn't the limits of Guy's fantasy accusations:

Read it again. These are deaths /on the footway/. You have asserted
that large numbers of cyclists ride on the footway for much of their
journey...

Which I never said anywhere!

I made ten posts in this thread before Clive claimed:

Fundamentally, a bad cyclist would have to try incredibly hard to be more
dangerous than a bad bus driver, so it is unreasonable to excuse bad bus
drivers by claiming that cyclists are as bad. Which is what the comment that
sparked all this nasty disagreement was doing.

My response was badly worded, as I have acknowledged that (twice).
However, the fact remains that I have _never_ anywhere used the
behaviour or bad cyclists as an "excuse" for bad drivers. That's what
I'm denying I ever said, and the fact that none of you lot can quote
such a statement proves my point.
--
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