On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 12:41:20 GMT, Nick Cooper wrote:
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?

I think you should go back and read what actually read what I said.

OK - "I'd ask you to identify this mythical statement that "cyclists
are as bad"". Yep, read that, parsed it, reached conclusions about
the only thing it can possibly mean, compared it with teh statement "I
see just as many cyclists behaving like aresholes as car/van/lorry
drivers", and I don't see any need to revise anything I said.

You _are_ moaning about people believing what you said.

Guy has repeatedly made claims such as the following:

I'm not talking about what Guy has said. He may or may not be talking
rubbish. He may or may not be lying about what he has previously
said. I fail to see how that has any relevance to teh fact that you
said "I see just as many cyclists behaving like aresholes as
car/van/lorry drivers", and also that you never said that.

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

I don't care. I was considering what you said. You said "I see just
as many cyclists behaving like aresholes as car/van/lorry drivers" and
you also said that claims you said cylists are as bad was a "mythical
statement".

You seem to be claiming that if anyone else ever said something that's
not true, you should not be questioned about saying things that aren't
true. Two wrongs, apparently, make a right.

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.

Fine. I didn't claim you did. I claimed you said "I see just as many
cyclists behaving like aresholes as car/van/lorry drivers" after you
denied saying that cyclists were as bad as motorists. Specifically,
you asked "I'd ask you to identify this mythical statement that "cyclists
are as bad"". I did so. I thought you'd be pleased, since I did what
you asked.

That's what I'm denying I ever said,

That's what you're denying you said _now_. It's not what you denied
you said when you said "I'd ask you to identify this mythical
statement that "cyclists are as bad"", is it.

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

On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 13:36:40 +0000 (UTC), Ian Smith
wrote:

[snip now totally boring repetition of something I said, ignoring my
own correction the day after I said it, as follows]

On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 12:29:30 GMT,
(Nick Cooper) wrote:

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 10:31:14 +0100, "Clive George"
wrote:

"Nick Cooper" wrote in
message ...
So every time someone makes an adverse comment about a cyclists
behaviour, they should include an apologetic, "but, of course,
car/van/lorry/bus drivers as as bad/worse"? Yeah, right....

If you look at the title/beginning of the thread, I think you'll find
it
was
the other way round : somebody made an adverse comment on bus
drivers,
and
somebody else said 'cyclists are as bad/worse'.

So you think there is something fundamentally wrong with saying some
cyclists as "as bad" ("worse" was never mentioned)? Are cyclists
beyond reproach?

Yes, no.

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.

This is starting to develop into a theme of cyclists leaping
spectacurly to the conclusion they want, rather than actually reading
what was said. I'd ask you to identify this mythical statement that
"cyclists are as bad," but I'm getting a bit bored with this obsessive
over-defensiveness from the Lycra Lobby....

Your first post in this thread, I believe. Google groups confirms. You imply
that the cyclist behaviour you complain about is as bad as the bus driver
behaviour originally complained about.

That was unclear of me. I should have said I'd ask you to identify
this mythical statement that "cyclists are as bad... to _excuse_ bad
bus drivers" (my emphasis). I wasn't making any excuses for motor
vehicle drivers, and I have no reason to do so. I'm not a driver
(never have been), and I'm not a cyclist (at least not for a long
time) - I don't owe any allegiance to either group.

The posting you are persisting in referring to was made just after
9am, when I was just leaving home. I did it in a hurry, I wasn't
clear, so sue me. My correction makes my position clear. If you
won't accept it, then I couldn't care less.
--
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