H
half_pint
Guest
"Velvet" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> half_pint wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Well whatever, I am entitled to my opinions and if people do not like
> > them they can either show that they are incorrect opinions or just
> > accept that there are some facts they do not like.
> >
> > And if pointing out that someone is incorrect is unfriendly
> > I have to plead as guilty, as guilty as the person who incorrectly
> > pointed out I was wrong.
> >
> > My opinions are based on facts and I cannot help it if
> > the facts disagree with other peoples opinions, however
> > experienced they are.
> >
> You need to learn to post those 'facts' accurately then, because,
> believe me, you aren't at the moment. The 'facts' are dribbled out step
> by step, as others take issue with the holes in your 'facts'.
They are clarified when people erronously disagree with them.
>
> Either state them in their accurate entirety first (or even second) off,
> or stop making out you know everything there is to know about everything.
Well unfortunately I am extremely intelligent so what is obvious to me
may not be so obvious to other.
>
> It might be fun for you, but posting incomplete and thus misleading
> information is irresponsible if it has a link with safety.
I don't recall posting anything misleading, or indeed anything
directly related to safety, perhaps someone could post a link to
refresh my memory.
> Of course,
> you might not give a monkey's about that. And judging from your reply,
> I'm guessing you are just here to express your 'opinions' and see just
> how much dust you can stir up doing it.
Thats not the case.
>
> Which continues to make me believe you're not a cyclist but a troll
> who's got bored of uk.legal and moved here instead.
Wrong, I am a cyclist amd I probably cycle far more frequentlly
than a lot of people here who may be leisure cyclists. I only
became aware of the group through legal issues related to cycling.
>
> Thus, you'll be killfiled, I'm afraid to say. I for one can live
> without your opinions, and based on what you've said so far, I'm pretty
> sure you're not going to come out with any life-changing statements that
> will lead to my increased safety, enjoyment or ability when it comes to
> cycling.
Apart from the fact that that the speed of falling object is dependant on
their
weight, maybe one day when a piano drops out of a window and you are
thinking, "Well I have another 10 seconds before I need to step out
of the way" you will get the gist of what I am saying.
>
> Think of it this way:
> You say your opinions are based on facts.
> I say my opinions are based on facts.
>
> Your opinions, after closer scrutiny, turn out to be something other
> than what you originally claimed. Do I therefore trust what you tell
> me? No, and rightly so.
Nope my opinions have not changed whatsoever.
>
> You could say 'oh such and such brakes blah blah' and I take it at face
> value. Off I go, brakes fail, oops. You counter with 'but not if x y
> z' - having failed to state that originally. You *knew* it was
> misleading but you continued anyway.
However that is not the case and any brakes you buy in the UK
should (I would imagine) have to meet a safty standard.
>
> I believe everyone that posts here regularly has the best interests of
> their fellow riders at heart. But you... y'know, I just can't put you
> along side them yet.
>
> Sad, but true.
Yes it sad, but that is the way it is.
>
>
> --
>
>
> Velvet
news:[email protected]...
> half_pint wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Well whatever, I am entitled to my opinions and if people do not like
> > them they can either show that they are incorrect opinions or just
> > accept that there are some facts they do not like.
> >
> > And if pointing out that someone is incorrect is unfriendly
> > I have to plead as guilty, as guilty as the person who incorrectly
> > pointed out I was wrong.
> >
> > My opinions are based on facts and I cannot help it if
> > the facts disagree with other peoples opinions, however
> > experienced they are.
> >
> You need to learn to post those 'facts' accurately then, because,
> believe me, you aren't at the moment. The 'facts' are dribbled out step
> by step, as others take issue with the holes in your 'facts'.
They are clarified when people erronously disagree with them.
>
> Either state them in their accurate entirety first (or even second) off,
> or stop making out you know everything there is to know about everything.
Well unfortunately I am extremely intelligent so what is obvious to me
may not be so obvious to other.
>
> It might be fun for you, but posting incomplete and thus misleading
> information is irresponsible if it has a link with safety.
I don't recall posting anything misleading, or indeed anything
directly related to safety, perhaps someone could post a link to
refresh my memory.
> Of course,
> you might not give a monkey's about that. And judging from your reply,
> I'm guessing you are just here to express your 'opinions' and see just
> how much dust you can stir up doing it.
Thats not the case.
>
> Which continues to make me believe you're not a cyclist but a troll
> who's got bored of uk.legal and moved here instead.
Wrong, I am a cyclist amd I probably cycle far more frequentlly
than a lot of people here who may be leisure cyclists. I only
became aware of the group through legal issues related to cycling.
>
> Thus, you'll be killfiled, I'm afraid to say. I for one can live
> without your opinions, and based on what you've said so far, I'm pretty
> sure you're not going to come out with any life-changing statements that
> will lead to my increased safety, enjoyment or ability when it comes to
> cycling.
Apart from the fact that that the speed of falling object is dependant on
their
weight, maybe one day when a piano drops out of a window and you are
thinking, "Well I have another 10 seconds before I need to step out
of the way" you will get the gist of what I am saying.
>
> Think of it this way:
> You say your opinions are based on facts.
> I say my opinions are based on facts.
>
> Your opinions, after closer scrutiny, turn out to be something other
> than what you originally claimed. Do I therefore trust what you tell
> me? No, and rightly so.
Nope my opinions have not changed whatsoever.
>
> You could say 'oh such and such brakes blah blah' and I take it at face
> value. Off I go, brakes fail, oops. You counter with 'but not if x y
> z' - having failed to state that originally. You *knew* it was
> misleading but you continued anyway.
However that is not the case and any brakes you buy in the UK
should (I would imagine) have to meet a safty standard.
>
> I believe everyone that posts here regularly has the best interests of
> their fellow riders at heart. But you... y'know, I just can't put you
> along side them yet.
>
> Sad, but true.
Yes it sad, but that is the way it is.
>
>
> --
>
>
> Velvet