When I did my driving test, and subsequent ADT,
happy to pose an unacceptible risk to pedestrians, eh? There's nothing
like having principles, and that's nothing like having principles. You

When you find yourself logically out-argued, do you always resort to
character assassination on a related idea?

You don't warrant a more reasoned response as you did not answer the actual
point of the OP which demolished your erroneous line of argument.

When you answer that post, I will respond more logically.

In article ,
Richard wrote:
When I did my driving test, and subsequent ADT,
happy to pose an unacceptible risk to pedestrians, eh? There's nothing
like having principles, and that's nothing like having principles. You

When you find yourself logically out-argued, do you always resort to
character assassination on a related idea?

You don't warrant a more reasoned response as you did not answer the actual
point of the OP which demolished your erroneous line of argument.

Since your ``demolition'' claimed that thanks to your advanced driving
techniques (and an unrealistic view of their own abilities is common
amongst ADT enthusiasts) you could stop a car in zero time and zero
distance, you'll excuse me if I don't feel demolished.

ian

Since your ``demolition'' claimed that thanks to your advanced driving
techniques (and an unrealistic view of their own abilities is common
amongst ADT enthusiasts) you could stop a car in zero time and zero
distance, you'll excuse me if I don't feel demolished.

Please read the previous response which explains why your erroneous
assumption that ADT is about driving fast with faster reactions is wrong,
and hence I make no claim to stop a car in zero time or zero distance.

Would you care to explain who could ever construct an argument you would
accept given that as soon as you find a point logically countered you resort
to:

1) Claiming that because you drive you have no right to argue for public
transport
2) Claiming that because you don't drive you are too naive and stupid to
argue for public transport

It's the newsgroup equivalent of shouting "you're wrong 'cos you're fat".

In article ,
Richard wrote:
1) Claiming that because you drive you have no right to argue for public
transport

If you drive, you have no right to argue that people shouldn't drive.
It's that simple. You also have no right to abuse the majority of car
drivers on the implicit claim that you're better.

2) Claiming that because you don't drive you are too naive and stupid to
argue for public transport

I don't think I've ever levelled that at David or Charlie. I guess I
might have levelled it against (shudder) Duhg, but that doesn't count.

It's the newsgroup equivalent of shouting "you're wrong 'cos you're fat".

Fat people don't make good adverts for diet plans.

ian

1) Claiming that because you drive you have no right to argue for public
transport

If you drive, you have no right to argue that people shouldn't drive.
It's that simple. You also have no right to abuse the majority of car
drivers on the implicit claim that you're better.

There is a more subtle element that you would be able to see if you stopped
trying to align everyone else's arguments into your own categories of
pro-car/anti-car.

My own situation is that for my jobs and studies I have had to travel across
the country (very extensively and frequently).

Where possible I travel by public transport, for the reasons identified.

Due to the current state of public transport there are some journeys I have
to make by car. This does not stop me arguing for an *increase* in the
provision of public transport and a *decrease* in the use of cars.

If I had ever claimed that all other people shouldn't drive at all, you
might have a valid argument based on inconsistency of approach.

Neither does this stop me from arguing that the current road laws should be
enforced.

I'm sorry if this doesn't fit into your black and white "public transport &
zero cars"/"cars & no public transport" constructs.

2) Claiming that because you don't drive you are too naive and stupid to
argue for public transport

I don't think I've ever levelled that at David or Charlie. I guess I
might have levelled it against (shudder) Duhg, but that doesn't count.

You've used this argument against me several times to conclude points of
argument.

In article ,
Richard wrote:
My own situation is that for my jobs and studies I have had to travel across
the country (very extensively and frequently).

You don't _have_ to. You _choose_ to. Arguing that a lifestyle which
only operates because of cars justifies using cars is circular, and
people are quick to jump on Huge (say) with that very point. You could
study elsewhere. You could get a job stacking shelves.

Due to the current state of public transport there are some journeys I have
to make by car.

You don't have to make them. Or does someone have a gun pointed to your
head?

Neither does this stop me from arguing that the current road laws should be
enforced.

So you're the one driver who never speeds. How long have you been
driving? Are you claiming that from now until your death you will
_never_ cause an accident? Ah, arrogance.

ian