Those caring sharing motorists again

[David Hansen]

On 21 Oct 2004 11:34:55 GMT someone who may be Trevor Barton
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>Sigh. The point is, there is no need to classify him as a motorist.
>It serves no purpose other than to advertise a prejudice against a
>particular subset of humanity.

Don't give up the day job and take up mind reading. You are not very
good at it.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

 

[David Hansen]

On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 14:11:13 GMT someone who may be
"Sniper8052(L96A1)" <[email protected]> wrote this:-

>Surely some motorists are 'pigs' others are not.

I don't recall claiming otherwise.

>This person whilst
>being a motorist at the time could not be described as being typical of
>a majority.

Ditto.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

 

[Sniper8052(L96A1)]

David Hansen wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 14:11:13 GMT someone who may be
> "Sniper8052(L96A1)" <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>
>>Surely some motorists are 'pigs' others are not.
>
>
> I don't recall claiming otherwise.
>
>
>>This person whilst
>>being a motorist at the time could not be described as being typical of
>>a majority.
>
>
> Ditto.
>
>
So what is your point?
Sniper8052

 

[Trevor Barton]

On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 15:56:24 +0100, David Hansen wrote:
> On 21 Oct 2004 11:34:55 GMT someone who may be Trevor Barton
><[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>>Sigh. The point is, there is no need to classify him as a motorist.
>>It serves no purpose other than to advertise a prejudice against a
>>particular subset of humanity.
>
> Don't give up the day job and take up mind reading. You are not very
> good at it.

Ah, there we have it, you admit that I and presumably anyone else would
have to be a mind reader to figure out what you *meant* as opposed
to what you *appeared to mean* to me and seemingly everone else
who replied?

You *do* understand, then, why people had such a problem with it.

--
Trevor Barton

 

[David Hansen]

On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 10:40:19 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be "PK"
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>> Which bit of, "another example of childish stupidity from a
>> motorist", is so difficult for some to understand? Note that I did
>> not say "all motorists".
>
>whe in a hole stop digging!

I'm not in a hole and neither am I digging.

Next!


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

 

[David Hansen]

On 21 Oct 2004 15:17:50 GMT someone who may be Trevor Barton
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>Ah, there we have it, you admit that I and presumably anyone else would
>have to be a mind reader to figure out what you *meant* as opposed
>to what you *appeared to mean* to me and seemingly everone else
>who replied?

Nice try.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

 

[Sniper8052(L96A1)]

David Hansen wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 10:40:19 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be "PK"
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>
>>>Which bit of, "another example of childish stupidity from a
>>>motorist", is so difficult for some to understand? Note that I did
>>>not say "all motorists".
>>
>>whe in a hole stop digging!
>
>
> I'm not in a hole and neither am I digging.
>
> Next!
>
>
So come on then explain your meaning. I dare you.
Sniper8052

 

[Sniper8052(L96A1)]

>>>Your whole tone in your post suggested that you
>>>thought that his attitude was typical of motorists in general,
>>
>>Incorrect.
>>
>>That is why I went to the trouble of typing the following "another
>>example of childish stupidity from a motorist". Note the last two
>>words.


Do you mean that? The last two words of that sentence are " ...a motorist"

Sniper8052

 

[Andrew Richardson]

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 22:33:24 +0100, "Stuart Gray"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"David Hansen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news[email protected]...
>> On 20 Oct 2004 16:11:09 GMT someone who may be Trevor Barton
>> <[email protected]> wrote this:-

>> Where did I say or imply that this reflected on the majority of
>> motorists?
>>
>> You can be sure that if a cyclist was responsible the mass media
>> would have made a lot more of it though.

>Typical Edinburgh cyclist response there. In fact typical Edinburgh
>response, full stop.

Well the media always take care to mention if someone commiting some
crime is a "cyclist" (boo hiss) as if that was a crime to add to the
list.

 

[Adrian Boliston]

"PK" <[email protected]> wrote:

> No. Different. His actions were motivated by what motorists had done
> to him as a cyclist. In his mind he was (apparently) redressing the
> balance between mototists and cyclists.....

I seem to remember that it was revenge for being *splashed* by a passing
motorist whilst on his bike - what a wuss!

 

[Jon Senior]

David Hansen [email protected] opined the following...
> Which bit of, "another example of childish stupidity from a
> motorist", is so difficult for some to understand? Note that I did
> not say "all motorists".

The fact that he was "a motorist" is of _no_ relevance to the sentence.

You could have written "Another example of childish stupidity from a
human", but that would not have been an appeal to the general anti-
motorist feeling of this NG and thus may not have had the desired
effect.

Presumably you wouldn't post any story about a murder on the grounds
that the murderer had driven a car once. Or that they had driven to the
crime scene. I dislike psychotic drivers as much as the next man (Or
possibly even more!), but this still struck me as being a little too
far. Sorry!

Jon

 

[David Hansen]

On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 20:21:19 GMT someone who may be
"Sniper8052(L96A1)" <[email protected]> wrote this:-

>So come on then explain your meaning. I dare you.

I'm happy with my original posting, thank you.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

 

[David Hansen]

On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 20:29:54 GMT someone who may be
"Sniper8052(L96A1)" <[email protected]> wrote this:-

>>>>Your whole tone in your post suggested that you
>>>>thought that his attitude was typical of motorists in general,
>>>
>>>That is why I went to the trouble of typing the following "another
>>>example of childish stupidity from a motorist". Note the last two
>>>words.
>
>Do you mean that? The last two words of that sentence are " ...a motorist"

Yes.

Had I wanted to say that his attitude was typical of motorists in
general then I would have said something like "all motorists", not
"a motorist". There is a difference between singular and plural.

While we cannot know, I suspect that had this person not been a
motorist at the time of passing the skateboarders then there would
have been no murder.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

 

[Jon Senior]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Yes.
>
> Had I wanted to say that his attitude was typical of motorists in
> general then I would have said something like "all motorists", not
> "a motorist". There is a difference between singular and plural.

"another example of childish stupidity from all motorists"? This would
have been grammatically and contextually incorrect though.

> While we cannot know, I suspect that had this person not been a
> motorist at the time of passing the skateboarders then there would
> have been no murder.

So you do believe that his being a motorist was relevant? But not so
relevant as to draw attention (In your own words, not the quoted text)
to the fact that he was a father of two, or that he held previous
convictions?

Why don't you just admit to being in an anti-motorist mood and jumping
on the opportunity?

Jon

 

[Sniper8052(L96A1)]

David Hansen wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 20:29:54 GMT someone who may be
> "Sniper8052(L96A1)" <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>
>>>>>Your whole tone in your post suggested that you
>>>>>thought that his attitude was typical of motorists in general,
>>>>
>>>>That is why I went to the trouble of typing the following "another
>>>>example of childish stupidity from a motorist". Note the last two
>>>>words.
>>
>>Do you mean that? The last two words of that sentence are " ...a motorist"
>
>
> Yes.
>
> Had I wanted to say that his attitude was typical of motorists in
> general then I would have said something like "all motorists", not
> "a motorist". There is a difference between singular and plural.
>
> While we cannot know, I suspect that had this person not been a
> motorist at the time of passing the skateboarders then there would
> have been no murder.
>
>
I thought you might say you had the impression you had written a
singular you have not.

"...a motorist" is in fact a subjective clausative linked to two
pluralist statements IE "another" and "motorist" which makes it a sub
clausative plural not a singular.
It would be almost impossible to write a scentence in this form which
was not a plurative.

As you decline to give any further explanation of your meaning regarding
this matter, despite being invited to do so, I can only assume that
there is no meaning to your post. If this is true then you must accept
the censure of your peers who may in future hold you and your postings
with little regard or respect. If, however, you actually have a point
which we have missed I invite you once again to state that point clearly
and concisely so we may all understand.

Sniper8052

 

[Nathaniel Porter]

"David Hansen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> While we cannot know, I suspect that had this person not been a
> motorist at the time of passing the skateboarders then there would
> have been no murder.
>

Maybe he wouldn't have murdered the skateboarder. Maybe he'd have murdered
someone in the pub who'd spilt his pint a bit later instead.

Would you then have posted a thread "Those caring sharing pub patrons again"
?

 

[David Hansen]

On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 23:12:52 +0100 someone who may be Jon Senior
<jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote this:-

>You could have written "Another example of childish stupidity from a
>human",

If he had been a pedestrian at the time of passing the skateboarders
then I doubt the murder would have happened.

>but that would not have been an appeal to the general anti-
>motorist feeling of this NG and thus may not have had the desired
>effect.

I disagree with the claim.

>Presumably you wouldn't post any story about a murder on the grounds
>that the murderer had driven a car once.

See my first point.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

 

[David Hansen]

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 09:35:41 GMT someone who may be
"Sniper8052(L96A1)" <[email protected]> wrote this:-

>As you decline to give any further explanation of your meaning regarding
>this matter,

Incorrect.

As I said, "While we cannot know, I suspect that had this person not
been a motorist at the time of passing the skateboarders then there
would have been no murder."


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

 

[David Hansen]

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 09:48:41 +0100 someone who may be Jon Senior
<jon@restlesslemon_DOT_co_DOT_uk.remove> wrote this:-

>So you do believe that his being a motorist was relevant?

It was relevant to the crime, I think.

>But not so
>relevant as to draw attention (In your own words, not the quoted text)
>to the fact that he was a father of two, or that he held previous
>convictions?

Being a father of two is unlikely to be relevant to the crime.
Having previous convictions may or may not be relevant to the crime.

>Why don't you just admit to being in an anti-motorist mood and jumping
>on the opportunity?

I know that the legal system likes people to admit to things they
have not done. However, I do not lie in this way.

The lack of mass media coverage of this murder is noticeable. Had a
cyclist narrowly missed the skateboarders and then murdered one of
them I suspect it would have been given far more prominence by the
mass media.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

 

[Jon Senior]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Being a father of two is unlikely to be relevant to the crime.

Agreed.

> Having previous convictions may or may not be relevant to the crime.

ITYM "has more relevance to the crime than his choice of transport."

> I know that the legal system likes people to admit to things they
> have not done. However, I do not lie in this way.

That's the police. The legal system is far worse! ;-)

> The lack of mass media coverage of this murder is noticeable. Had a
> cyclist narrowly missed the skateboarders and then murdered one of
> them I suspect it would have been given far more prominence by the
> mass media.

Then your attack was against the media, not the driver. But you didn't
mention this in your original post. The tone of your post was of anti-
driver rhetoric when it appears that your complaint was with a perceived
imbalance of meedja reporting. Judging from the other responses, I
suspect I'm not the only one that read it this way.

Jon