St Matthew's Academy

Mark T

Nick writtificated

> Well I don't know what it is you object to because you won't explain
> yourself?

I think everyone else can see it. You're making lots of really stupid
assumptions then phrasing them as questions. You've even stuck a question
mark on the sentance above.

You make me look almost normal, and for that I thank you.

Phil Armstrong

Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> In article <plq0t3d31s7r6heaggftbfsj0avn4vasek@4ax.com>,
> Tom Crispin <kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>> the site of the old 232 place Sheffield stand cycle park.
> ...
>> giving a secure good quality facility for up to 24 bikes.
>
> I don't know how big this school is but from the looks of it it
> probably has at least 24 teachers. I doubt the pupils will get to use
> these new spaces; 24 is obviously insufficient.

If you read
<f03fbc45-e8cb-43d9-a405-ba934ef52017@z17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>
posted by the principal of the school then you'll note that many
(most?) of the original stands have been moved to a different
location.

Her post suggests that the school has a very positive attiude to
cycling, and it's a shame that so many people on this group felt free
to make such negative assumptions about the removal of the original
stands. I can see why she would feel a bit put out by the whole thing!

Phil

--
http://www.kantaka.co.uk/ .oOo. public key: http://www.kantaka.co.uk/gpg.txt

Nick

Mark T wrote:
> Nick writtificated
>
>> Well I don't know what it is you object to because you won't explain
>> yourself?
>
> I think everyone else can see it. You're making lots of really stupid
> assumptions then phrasing them as questions. You've even stuck a question
> mark on the sentance above.
>

What stupid assumption? I don't expect you will answer but I will ask
anyway.

Yes I stuck a question mark in the sentence above because I was
questioning why you refuse to explain yourself. My English isn't great
but I think it is a standard technique. It is quite possible that I am
wrong or have explained myself badly but you are just making negative
comments with no attempt at justification.

"Everyone else can see", "its obvious" but you don't seem to be able to
be explicit. If you can't be explicit or explain perhaps you should
consider your own reasoning before replying further.

I'm happy to explain anything I haven't made clear.

> You make me look almost normal, and for that I thank you.

Mark T

Nick writtificated

>>> Well I don't know what it is you object to because you won't explain
>>> yourself?
>>
>> I think everyone else can see it. You're making lots of really
>> stupid assumptions then phrasing them as questions. You've even
>> stuck a question mark on the sentance above.
>
> What stupid assumption[s]?

I've edited some to make their meaning clearer e.g. it's a question that
implies someone thinks that:

"[Adam doesn't] feel the need to lock your car or bike or front door."

"[Mark doesn't] think it inappropriate to discuss how tax payers money is
spent in public?"

"[Mark thinks] they should contact the school first"

"[Mark thinks it is not okay] to doubt people who work in the public
services."

"[Mark thinks] secrecy is preferable"

I dislike your dishonest style of debate, but no doubt you'll continue to
profess ignorance or say you've been misinterpreted.

Tom Crispin

On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 11:46:15 +0000, Phil Armstrong
<phil-news@kantaka.co.uk> wrote:

>Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>> In article <plq0t3d31s7r6heaggftbfsj0avn4vasek@4ax.com>,
>> Tom Crispin <kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>>> the site of the old 232 place Sheffield stand cycle park.
>> ...
>>> giving a secure good quality facility for up to 24 bikes.
>>
>> I don't know how big this school is but from the looks of it it
>> probably has at least 24 teachers. I doubt the pupils will get to use
>> these new spaces; 24 is obviously insufficient.
>
>If you read
><f03fbc45-e8cb-43d9-a405-ba934ef52017@z17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>
>posted by the principal of the school then you'll note that many
>(most?) of the original stands have been moved to a different
>location.
>
>Her post suggests that the school has a very positive attiude to
>cycling, and it's a shame that so many people on this group felt free
>to make such negative assumptions about the removal of the original
>stands. I can see why she would feel a bit put out by the whole thing!

I have not seen the relocated Sheffield stands, though if they are in
the staff car park the site is unlikely to be as secure as the new
cycle lockers, or indeed the old 232 place cycle pound.

During my observation of the site from outside I saw what appeared to
be a stack of Sheffield stands, some of which seem to be in this
photo. The photo was taken at about 5.30 so the light was beginning
to fade. I have also zoomed in on just one small dark part of the
original photo and enhanced the colour and lightened the section, so
apologies for the very poor quality.
www.johnballcycling.org.uk/photos/stmatts3

However, I am delighted that the school is clearly using good quality
cycle lockers, and while 24 places may not be sufficient in the long
term, I am confident that is serves current needs. The most important
thing to do now is get into the school and offer cycle training -
that, combined with secure cycle facilities, will have a dramatic
effect on the numbers regularly cycling to school

Nick

Mark T wrote:
> Nick writtificated
>
>>>> Well I don't know what it is you object to because you won't explain
>>>> yourself?
>>> I think everyone else can see it. You're making lots of really
>>> stupid assumptions then phrasing them as questions. You've even
>>> stuck a question mark on the sentance above.
>> What stupid assumption[s]?
>
> I've edited some to make their meaning clearer e.g. it's a question that
> implies someone thinks that:
>
> "[Adam doesn't] feel the need to lock your car or bike or front door."
>

This was not an assumption it was a question. Adam stated that "Nasty
Cynicism" motivated posters on this group. Cynicism means to mistrust
other peoples motives and actions. Locking a front door is a sign of
cynicism in that you distrust the motives of people who call at your
house. I put this as a question so that Adam could elaborate on why he
thought it nasty to be cynical about the behaviour of a publicly funded
organisation while it was not nasty to be cynical about the motives of
callers to his house.

This did make the presumption that Adam did not regard the quite
reasonable cynicism of locking ones front door as "nasty".

I presumed that when Adam referred to "Nasty Cynicism" he was referring
to people doubting the actions and motivations of the agencies involved
in the running of St Mathews academy. I have asked him to clarify this
issue.

For what it is worth I have never had anyone misuse my often unlocked
front door but I have often found Principals of government educational
establishments to be dishonest and to deliberately act against clauses
in various government acts. So from personal experience I would regard a
cynicism in the motivations of educational officials to be more
justified and hence less open to categorisation as nasty.

I like to use specific examples in discussion in order to focus the
argument and avoid meaningless generalisations such as everybody knows
or it is obvious.

> "[Mark doesn't] think it inappropriate to discuss how tax payers money is
> spent in public?"
>

This was actually a question directed towards Adam. The discussion
revolved around the actions of a publicly funded organisation and Adam
appeared to me to think that doubting the motivations of this
organisation was "Nasty Cynicism" so it seem fair to ask Adam if he
thought this was OK.

It is useful when trying to understand another persons viewpoint to
check that your inferences about what they are saying are correct.

He has now clearly refuted that he feels this and hence I have asked for
clarification as to exactly what he meant when he referred to "Nasty
Cynicism". It is by question and answer that we can move towards a
mutual understanding of each others position.

So you will see this was not an assumption but a question.

> "[Mark thinks] they should contact the school first"
>

Well do you or don't you? I suspect that if I don't ask very direct
questions I will never get any clarity from you at all.

> "[Mark thinks it is not okay] to doubt people who work in the public
> services."
>

I don't think I made this assumption about you. The only thing about you
that I have tried to make clear is that I do not understand the point
you are trying to make.


> "[Mark thinks] secrecy is preferable"
>

You seem unable to distinguish between a question as part of a logical
discussion and a personal comment.

Mark "I don't like my food hot". Nick "do you like your food cold?".
Mark "why do you make the stupid assumption that I like my food cold".
It is like talking to an autistic teenager.

> I dislike your dishonest style of debate, but no doubt you'll continue to
> profess ignorance or say you've been misinterpreted.

No I'll say you are clearly not comfortable with the standard techniques
used in a logical debate and also don't appear to have the confidence to
explain your comments.

So once more why is it unfair to compare the cynicism of posters in this
group (If you could point out exactly what this cynicism is it would
help) to the cynicism of people who lock their doors. Why is one "Nasty".

Paul Rudin

Tom Crispin <kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> writes:

> However, I am delighted that the school is clearly using good quality
> cycle lockers, and while 24 places may not be sufficient in the long
> term, I am confident that is serves current needs.

How big is this school? At my son's school (which is a big secondary
school) there are several hundred bike parking spaces and that's not
enough. Even the bike park at my daughter's primary school gets full and
that has some 50 or so places.

Mark T

Nick writtificated

> I like to use specific examples in discussion in order to focus the
> argument

Asking questions about locking front doors is not going to focus the
discussion. In fact, they have the opposite effect.

> No I'll say you are clearly not comfortable with the standard
> techniques used in a logical debate

Your debate is often not logical.

> and also don't appear to have the confidence to explain your comments.

It's more a lack of confidence in your ability to understand. There might
be some benefit for you in continuing the conversation but there's nothing
in it for me. Byzee.

Nick

Mark T wrote:
> Nick writtificated
>
>> I like to use specific examples in discussion in order to focus the
>> argument
>
> Asking questions about locking front doors is not going to focus the
> discussion. In fact, they have the opposite effect.
>

It appears nothing will make you focus.

Tom Crispin

On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 15:43:14 +0000, Paul Rudin
<paul.nospam@rudin.co.uk> wrote:

>Tom Crispin <kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> writes:
>
>> However, I am delighted that the school is clearly using good quality
>> cycle lockers, and while 24 places may not be sufficient in the long
>> term, I am confident that is serves current needs.
>
>How big is this school? At my son's school (which is a big secondary
>school) there are several hundred bike parking spaces and that's not
>enough. Even the bike park at my daughter's primary school gets full and
>that has some 50 or so places.

It is not the size of the school that matters for the moment, but the
number of children cycling, which the princple has stated is close to
zero. However, to satisfy curiosity, I'd guess the school to have
places for 200 primary pupils and 900 secondary pupils.

As a Catholic school the catchment area is likely to be far larger
than most London schools, and as a failing school is catchment area is
likely to be even larger. One of it's pupils was murdered a few years
ago, and it is this which has probably triggered the rebuild and major
investment programme. It is located in one of the most advantaged
areas of London, Blackheath, but is unlikely to attract many pupils
from that area.

In 2006 the primary school was ranked 46/65 of Lewisham primary
schools. The seconday school ranked 13/15.

2007 figures are not available, presumably because both schools closed
to reopen as St Matthew Academy.

Having said all that, I fully agree with you. 24 places is not
sufficient for the long term, and the school should be aiming to get
25% of its pupils cycling to school, and therefore the planning
consent for 232 places seems fully appropriate. To reduce this figure
is a breach of the planning permission, and I know that this is being
examined at a high level within the council and by the borough's
planning officers.

At a very local level, I would rather work with the school than
against them, especially as the principle has been making positive
noises.

Paul Rudin

Paul Rudin <paul.nospam@rudin.co.uk> writes:

> Tom Crispin <kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> writes:
>
>> However, I am delighted that the school is clearly using good quality
>> cycle lockers, and while 24 places may not be sufficient in the long
>> term, I am confident that is serves current needs.
>
> How big is this school? At my son's school (which is a big secondary
> school) there are several hundred bike parking spaces and that's not
> enough...

On re-reading I realise this is a bit ambiguous - I'm not expressing an
opinion here - but stating that the available capacity is sometimes
full.

Ekul Namsob

Mark T
<pleasegivegenerously@warmail*turn_up_the_heat_to_reply*.com.invalid>
wrote:

> Nick writtificated
>
> > I like to use specific examples in discussion in order to focus the
> > argument
>
> Asking questions about locking front doors is not going to focus the
> discussion. In fact, they have the opposite effect.
>
> > No I'll say you are clearly not comfortable with the standard
> > techniques used in a logical debate
>
> Your debate is often not logical.

Would you mind awfully applying some of your own logic in your writing?

Thanks,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

Adam Lea

"Nick" <Nick.Spam@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:63beqlF26ufo9U1@mid.individual.net...
> Adam Lea wrote:
>> "Nick" <Nick.Spam@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:63a6c1F26j7dqU1@mid.individual.net...
>>> Adam Lea wrote:
>>>> <mcr@stmatthewacademy.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>> news:f03fbc45-e8cb-43d9-a405-ba934ef52017@z17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> Why did no-one simply e-mail or phone and ask why the cycle hoops had
>>>>> disappeared from their original site?
>>>> Because some people prefer to resort to nasty cynicism rather than get
>>>> the facts first.
>>> I suppose that as you don't subscribe to nasty cynicism you don't feel
>>> the need to lock your car or bike or front door.
>>
>> Yes I do, although what that has to do with the subject in discussion I
>> have no idea.
>>
>>> Why do you think it inappropriate to discuss how tax payers money is
>>> spent in public?
>>
>> Please quote where I have stated this or withdraw that remark.
>>
>
> Sorry I thought that is what Colin and Tom were doing, discussing
> potential PPP/PFI cockups.
>
> So exactly what was the Nasty Cynicism you referred too?

The negative implication in the original post that the cycle stands were
ripped out purely to create extra car parking spaces (thus implying the
academy had a pro-car, anti-cycle stance) without verifying the reasons
first (which is why the principal felt it necessary to clarify the
situation).

Adam Lea

"Nick" <Nick.Spam@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:63d5ahF27gq2mU1@mid.individual.net...
> Mark T wrote:
>> Nick writtificated
>>
>>>>> Well I don't know what it is you object to because you won't explain
>>>>> yourself?
>>>> I think everyone else can see it. You're making lots of really
>>>> stupid assumptions then phrasing them as questions. You've even
>>>> stuck a question mark on the sentance above.
>>> What stupid assumption[s]?
>>
>> I've edited some to make their meaning clearer e.g. it's a question that
>> implies someone thinks that:
>>
>> "[Adam doesn't] feel the need to lock your car or bike or front door."
>>
>
> This was not an assumption it was a question. Adam stated that "Nasty
> Cynicism" motivated posters on this group. Cynicism means to mistrust
> other peoples motives and actions. Locking a front door is a sign of
> cynicism in that you distrust the motives of people who call at your
> house. I put this as a question so that Adam could elaborate on why he
> thought it nasty to be cynical about the behaviour of a publicly funded
> organisation while it was not nasty to be cynical about the motives of
> callers to his house.

Because locking a bike/car/front door is a risk aversion measure since it is
a fact, not assumption that there exist people in society who wish to
deprive others of their property (plus it is a requirement of my various
insurance policies). Cynicism involves making an negative assumption, not
taking mitigating action based on a factual risk. This, of course does not
mean that I suspect every person who passes my front door has a view to
burgling my house.

>
> This did make the presumption that Adam did not regard the quite
> reasonable cynicism of locking ones front door as "nasty".
>
> I presumed that when Adam referred to "Nasty Cynicism" he was referring to
> people doubting the actions and motivations of the agencies involved in
> the running of St Mathews academy. I have asked him to clarify this issue.

It was the way it came across in the OP as saying "they've done this, isn't
it terrible" whereas if one were to get the full story their action wouldn't
be bad at all.

>
> For what it is worth I have never had anyone misuse my often unlocked
> front door but I have often found Principals of government educational
> establishments to be dishonest and to deliberately act against clauses in
> various government acts. So from personal experience I would regard a
> cynicism in the motivations of educational officials to be more justified
> and hence less open to categorisation as nasty.
>

It is probably best not to prematurely judge individuals based on the group
average.