Cycle Instructor Training - Day #1

David Hansen said:

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 21:39:03 +0000 someone who may be David Martin
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

I've finally worked out Hansenspeak. "Nice try" == "Alright guv'nor you've
got me bang to rights."

Nice try. It is also slightly amusing, in what it tells us about
you.

Don't give up the day job though and take up mind reading. You will
find you are very bad at it.

Neither David Martin nor anyone else you accuse of attempted
mind-reading is doing any such thing.

Hansenspeak is much more closely related to the subject of Matthew 7.18-23.

--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

On 27/1/05 10:09 pm, in article [email hidden],

David Hansen said:

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 21:39:03 +0000 someone who may be David Martin
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

I've finally worked out Hansenspeak. "Nice try" == "Alright guv'nor you've
got me bang to rights."

Nice try. It is also slightly amusing, in what it tells us about
you.

Which is?

Quoted message said:

Don't give up the day job though and take up mind reading. You will
find you are very bad at it.

Non sequitor. Mind reading has nothing to do with the text you wrote.

...d

On 27/1/05 10:33 pm, in article [email hidden],

David Martin said:

Quoted message said:

Don't give up the day job though and take up mind reading. You will
find you are very bad at it.

Non sequitor. Mind reading has nothing to do with the text you wrote.

Let me clarify that. My mind reading ability has nothing to do with my
ability to read the text which you wrote in response to JohnB's claim that
it was up to him how he made use of the results of a CRB check he had
requested.
You claimed he was wrong. You were wrong, or if you wer enot would you like
to point out why you are right.

...d

Simon Brooke said:

Symbolic action. I told the policeman standing by the fence that I was
going to cut it, I cut it, he arrested me. It seemed like a good idea
at the time.

It was, but not enough people had it.

--
Andy Morris

AndyAtJinkasDotFreeserve.Co.UK

Love this:
Put an end to Outlook Express's messy quotes
http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 22:29:47 +0000 someone who may be JLB
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I've finally worked out Hansenspeak. "Nice try" == "Alright guv'nor you've
got me bang to rights."

Quoted message said:

Neither David Martin nor anyone else you accuse of attempted
mind-reading is doing any such thing.

Nice try. However, the text I have left in above is a perfect
example of someone who appears to think they are good at mind
reading.

--
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.

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 22:40:13 +0000 someone who may be David Martin
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

You claimed he was wrong. You were wrong, or if you wer enot would you like
to point out why you are right.

The discussion is there for people to read. As with most discussions
there are few simple "yes or no" answers.

--
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.

On 28/1/05 6:52 am, in article [email hidden],

David Hansen said:

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 22:40:13 +0000 someone who may be David Martin
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

You claimed he was wrong. You were wrong, or if you wer enot would you like
to point out why you are right.

The discussion is there for people to read. As with most discussions
there are few simple "yes or no" answers.

It was read. At no time did you post any arguement as to why JohnB's
statement might have been wrong, except a proof by assertion.[1]

People will read the discussion and come to the conclusion that you were
either wrong, or not prepared to submit an arguement as to why you were
right.

...d

[1] which is no proof at all.

David Hansen said:

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 22:40:13 +0000 someone who may be David Martin
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

You claimed he was wrong. You were wrong, or if you wer enot would you like
to point out why you are right.

The discussion is there for people to read. As with most discussions
there are few simple "yes or no" answers.

Excellent. Nice try.

Yes, the discussion is there. You have never answered.
Here's you chance again.
Why do you think a person/organisation who requests a CRB check cannot
determine how they make use of the information it contains.

John B

JohnB said:

Yes, the discussion is there. You have never answered.
Here's you chance again.
Why do you think a person/organisation who requests a CRB check cannot
determine how they make use of the information it contains.

Nice try!

...d

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 09:25:42 +0000 someone who may be JohnB
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Yes, the discussion is there.

Correct.

Quoted message said:

You have never answered.

Incorrect.

Quoted message said:

Here's you chance again.

Nice try.

Quoted message said:

Why do you think a person/organisation who requests a CRB check cannot
determine how they make use of the information it contains.

And my answer remains the same as it was before. "As I have said
several times, such a system fails to strike the right balance
between the competing interests." This answer relates to several
other answers, in which I outlined the problems with the current
mess and how a better system would work. All available for anyone
interested to read.

Huff and puff as much as you like, dance on linguistic pinheads, but
that remains my answer.

--
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 Martin said:

JohnB said:

Yes, the discussion is there. You have never answered.
Here's you chance again.
Why do you think a person/organisation who requests a CRB check cannot
determine how they make use of the information it contains.

Nice try!

Incorrrect. It is also slightly amusing, in what it tells us about
you.

Don't give up the day job though and take up mind reading. You will
find you are very bad at it.

(repeat ad nauseam, fading slowly)

James
--
If I have seen further than others, it is
by treading on the toes of giants.
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/

On 28/1/05 10:32 am, in article [email hidden],

David Hansen said:

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 09:25:42 +0000 someone who may be JohnB
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Yes, the discussion is there.

Correct.

Quoted message said:

You have never answered.

Incorrect.

You gave a response. It was not an answer to the point made.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Here's you chance again.

Nice try.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Why do you think a person/organisation who requests a CRB check cannot
determine how they make use of the information it contains.

And my answer remains the same as it was before. "As I have said
several times, such a system fails to strike the right balance
between the competing interests." This answer relates to several
other answers, in which I outlined the problems with the current
mess and how a better system would work. All available for anyone
interested to read.

That is indeed what you said. And as has been pointed out, the imbalances in
the system are irrelevant to the question put. Let me emphasise the key word
you appear to have misunderstood.

cannot

You appear to have mistaken this for

shouldnot

so are answering a different question.

Quoted message said:

Huff and puff as much as you like, dance on linguistic pinheads, but
that remains my answer.

And it remains orthogonally related to the question.

...d

David Hansen said:

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 09:25:42 +0000 someone who may be JohnB
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Yes, the discussion is there.

Correct.

Quoted message said:

You have never answered.

Incorrect.

Quoted message said:

Here's you chance again.

Nice try.

Excellent :-(

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Why do you think a person/organisation who requests a CRB check cannot
determine how they make use of the information it contains.

And my answer remains the same as it was before. "As I have said
several times, such a system fails to strike the right balance
between the competing interests.....

Huff and puff as much as you like, dance on linguistic pinheads, but
that remains my answer.

Excellent :-(
I'm afraid not even a "Nice Try" tho'.

I am aware you believe the CRB has failings. I do too.
i am also aware you wish to waffle on about them.
But you are still not answering the question.
It really was quite simple.

John B

JohnB said:

Yes, the discussion is there. You have never answered.
Here's you chance again.
Why do you think a person/organisation who requests a CRB check cannot
determine how they make use of the information it contains.

John B

It's obvious.

:-)

R.

David Hansen said:

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 22:29:47 +0000 someone who may be JLB
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>I've finally worked out Hansenspeak. "Nice try" == "Alright guv'nor you've
>got me bang to rights."

Quoted message said:

Neither David Martin nor anyone else you accuse of attempted
mind-reading is doing any such thing.

Nice try. However, the text I have left in above is a perfect
example of someone who appears to think they are good at mind
reading.

Your critical faculties are failing you, even after the large clue I
gave. What David Martin, I and others are using is the time-honoured
application of "by their fruits you shall know them". No music hall
tricks required. No implication that anyone knows or is even interested
in what might be festering away between your ears.

--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

Richard said:

JohnB said:

Yes, the discussion is there. You have never answered.
Here's you chance again.
Why do you think a person/organisation who requests a CRB check cannot
determine how they make use of the information it contains.

John B

It's obvious.

Nice try!

...d

David Martin said:

Richard said:

JohnB said:

Yes, the discussion is there. You have never answered.
Here's you chance again.
Why do you think a person/organisation who requests a CRB check cannot
determine how they make use of the information it contains.

John B

It's obvious.

Nice try!

Excellent :-)

James
--
If I have seen further than others, it is
by treading on the toes of giants.
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/

James Annan said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It's obvious.

Nice try!

Excellent :-)

Enlightening ;-)

John B

Response to JohnB:

Troll. ;-)

Quoted message said:

Path: uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: JohnB <[email hidden]>
Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling
Subject: Re: Cycle Instructor Training - Day #1
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 17:40:05 +0000
Organization: The trikeshed is full
Lines: 12
Message-ID: <[email hidden]>
References: <[email hidden]> <[email hidden]> <[email hidden]> <[email hidden]> <[email hidden]> <[email hidden]> <[email hidden]> <[email hidden]> <[email hidden]> <[email hidden]>

<[email hidden]> <[email hidden]> <[email hidden]> <[email hidden]> <[email hidden]> <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Reply-To: [email hidden]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net 6I0sseWqzpWSyUZl/Zn/xwJ4rg26IgAgKM1m5eifTdMOSNgB4W
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77C-CCK-MCD {C-UDP; EBM-APPLE} (Macintosh; U; PPC)
X-Accept-Language: en
Xref: uni-berlin.de uk.rec.cycling:367457

James Annan said:

Quoted message said:

>It's obvious.

Nice try!

Excellent :-)

Enlightening ;-)

John B

--
Mark, UK.

"Nothing sets a person up more than having something turn out
just the way it's supposed to be, like falling into a Swiss
snowdrift and seeing a big dog come up with a little cask of
brandy round its neck."

Mark McNeill said:

Quoted message said:

James Annan said:

>>It's obvious.
>
> Nice try!
>

Excellent :-)

Enlightening ;-)

Troll. ;-)

Nah, I blame the politicians ;-)

John B