Do cyclists have a sense of honour?

[Spiro]

There is a long and rather ridiculous thread on uk.rec.cycling.

In it one poster accused another of tampering with his post when quoting
to make it appear to be saying something it didn't and then criticising
his comment.

There follows a long, tedious but strangely compelling thread.

In his latest post, one of the participants complains that no one has
had anything to say about the main complaint.

That is rather odd, so in an attempt to get some closure, how about
throwing it open.

I've included below a verbatim account (it is by one of the protagonists
but it simply states the facts, I've checked that it's accurate).

So who will, preferably without being rude, condescending, patronizing
or in any other way provocative either:

1) Explain clearly and simply why what the poster identified as 'IS' did
is wrong and EJ does desrve an apology.

or

2) Explain clearly and simply why what the poster identified as 'IS' did
is acceptable and EJ should keep quiet.

Excerpt from the thread: "What do you do?" on uk.rec.cycling

What was said:

==================================================================================
TR But over 40 pedestrians a year killed on the pavement and a further 80
TR on pedestrian crossings which is more or less the same as the number of
TR cyclists killed on the whole road system.

EJ There are a hell of a lot more pedestrians than cyclists.

EJ Coming up with a statistic such as the one you just did is nothing
more than
EJ attempting a smoke and mirrors trick.

EJ The above should not be taken to indicate that I agree or disagree that
EJ cycling is more dangerous than walking. The statistics simply aren't
EJ available.
===================================================================================

How it was quoted and the reply.
==================================================================================
TR But over 40 pedestrians a year killed on the pavement

EJ Coming up with a statistic such as the one you just did is nothing
more than
EJ attempting a smoke and mirrors trick.

IS I don't think it is. It's a specific (and accurate) refutation of the
IS assertion "the pedestrian on the pavement is safe from the hazard"
IS (of motor vehicles). Isn't it?
==================================================================================

 

[vernon]

"Spiro" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> There is a long and rather ridiculous thread on uk.rec.cycling.

so why elongate it by proxy?

yawn.....................................

 

[Paul Boyd]

On 07/02/2007 18:28, Spiro said,

<Snipped>

Que??

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

 

[Tony Raven]

Spiro wrote on 07/02/2007 18:28 +0100:

That's Ewan spelt S-P-I-R-O
<plonk>

--
Tony

"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

 

[Ewan]

On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 18:28:45 +0000, Spiro <[email protected]> wrote:

Looking at Tony Raven's comment, I don't doubt that I'll be accused of talking
to myself, but even so:

I appreciate your attempt to get an answer to this connundrum from the group as
a whole, but why bring another group into it?

As I understand it the idea of cross posting is that if you have two groups with
overlapping remits and your question falls into the remit for each group you
should cross post.

I can't see why that is desirable here.

Surely, either the question should be asked of everyone (impractical) or just in
the group in which the problem exists?

 

[vernon]

"Ewan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 18:28:45 +0000, Spiro <[email protected]> wrote:

> Surely, either the question should be asked of everyone (impractical) or
> just in
> the group in which the problem exists?

What problem..............

 

[Spiro]

vernon wrote:
> "Ewan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 18:28:45 +0000, Spiro <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Surely, either the question should be asked of everyone (impractical) or
>>just in
>>the group in which the problem exists?
>
>
> What problem..............

If you have no interest in this, why keep reading and responding?

It's just making it last all the longer.

Seems a little counter productive.

 

[Ian Smith]

On Wed, 07 Feb 2007, Spiro <[email protected]> wrote:
(crossposted to uk.tosspot, but I've remedied that)
> There is a long and rather ridiculous thread on uk.rec.cycling.
and so on.

This is now getting weird.

A mysterious third party appears, who has never posted to usenet
before (at least so far as a cursory search reveals - I haven't been
too detailed with that check).

This third party is interested enough to have carefully read the whole
thread in detail ("a long, tedious but strangely compelling thread"),
but for some reason has not seen fit to offer any opinion in the
thread so far.

Strangely, however, this poster wants to canvas the opinion of a
different group before deciding who is in the right. Is this third
party so weak-willed that they can't make up their own mind? And why
choose uk.tosspot? Do they believe that group to be peopled only by
omniscient beings perhaps? Possibly not an opinion shared by a high
proportion of uk.rec.cycling regulars.

I know it's a third party, because he (/she/it?) refers to Ewan in the
third person ("In his latest post", "by one of the protagonists").
It's not me, and obviously it can't be Ewan, writing that that.

This is all freaky-odd. So freaky-odd that, from this point, I think
I shall have to cease responding to either Ewan or Spiro.

Either Ewan is so cracked he's talking about himself in the third
person and thinks uk.tosspot can help (not sure which of those is
worse), or (worse still) he attracts people that don't know what they
think until someone (even uk.tosspot) tells him (/her/it). Either
way, we're now into stalker axe-murdering psycho territory, and I have
concluded that discretion is the better part of valour.

Have a nice life Ewan/Spiro/whoever else.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[vernon]

"Spiro" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> vernon wrote:
>> "Ewan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 18:28:45 +0000, Spiro <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Surely, either the question should be asked of everyone (impractical) or
>>>just in
>>>the group in which the problem exists?
>>
>>
>> What problem..............
>
> If you have no interest in this, why keep reading and responding?
>
> It's just making it last all the longer.
>
> Seems a little counter productive.

But your response made it longer still

 

[Spiro]

Not as strange as you seem to think if you just give it a bit of
thought. Until today I was a posting virgin. I'd always sworn that I'd
never get involved in the posting and pissing contests that go on on
usenet and the forums. And the fact that people like you always try and
score points off those who disagree with you for any reason you can come
up with meant that I knew I'd be accused of all sorts just as several
people already have on this thread. But I wanted an answer. I wanted to
know if any cyclists actually cared about conduct like yours. So I threw
the thing open. I could have included the UK SCUBA group where I also
lurk, but that seemed a bit of a stretch.

Ian Smith wrote:

> On Wed, 07 Feb 2007, Spiro <[email protected]> wrote:
> (crossposted to uk.tosspot, but I've remedied that)
>
>> There is a long and rather ridiculous thread on uk.rec.cycling.
>
> and so on.
>
> This is now getting weird.
>
> A mysterious third party appears, who has never posted to usenet
> before (at least so far as a cursory search reveals - I haven't been
> too detailed with that check).
>
> This third party is interested enough to have carefully read the whole
> thread in detail ("a long, tedious but strangely compelling thread"),
> but for some reason has not seen fit to offer any opinion in the
> thread so far.
>
> Strangely, however, this poster wants to canvas the opinion of a
> different group before deciding who is in the right. Is this third
> party so weak-willed that they can't make up their own mind? And why
> choose uk.tosspot? Do they believe that group to be peopled only by
> omniscient beings perhaps? Possibly not an opinion shared by a high
> proportion of uk.rec.cycling regulars.
>
> I know it's a third party, because he (/she/it?) refers to Ewan in the
> third person ("In his latest post", "by one of the protagonists").
> It's not me, and obviously it can't be Ewan, writing that that.
>
> This is all freaky-odd. So freaky-odd that, from this point, I think
> I shall have to cease responding to either Ewan or Spiro.
>
> Either Ewan is so cracked he's talking about himself in the third
> person and thinks uk.tosspot can help (not sure which of those is
> worse), or (worse still) he attracts people that don't know what they
> think until someone (even uk.tosspot) tells him (/her/it). Either
> way, we're now into stalker axe-murdering psycho territory, and I have
> concluded that discretion is the better part of valour.
>
> Have a nice life Ewan/Spiro/whoever else.
>
> regards, Ian SMith

 

[Spiro]

vernon wrote:
> "Spiro" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>vernon wrote:
>>
>>>"Ewan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 18:28:45 +0000, Spiro <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Surely, either the question should be asked of everyone (impractical) or
>>>>just in
>>>>the group in which the problem exists?
>>>
>>>
>>>What problem..............
>>
>>If you have no interest in this, why keep reading and responding?
>>
>>It's just making it last all the longer.
>>
>>Seems a little counter productive.
>
>
> But your response made it longer still

Yes, but then again, I'm not the one who objects to the thread. The
longer the better if there's achance that anyone will say anything
sensible, although that possibility seems remote now.

Two more posts thanks to your last one - ta.

 

[vernon]

"Spiro" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> vernon wrote:
>> "Spiro" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>vernon wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Ewan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 18:28:45 +0000, Spiro <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Surely, either the question should be asked of everyone (impractical)
>>>>>or just in
>>>>>the group in which the problem exists?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>What problem..............
>>>
>>>If you have no interest in this, why keep reading and responding?
>>>
>>>It's just making it last all the longer.
>>>
>>>Seems a little counter productive.
>>
>>
>> But your response made it longer still
>
> Yes, but then again, I'm not the one who objects to the thread. The longer
> the better if there's achance that anyone will say anything sensible,
> although that possibility seems remote now.
>
> Two more posts thanks to your last one - ta.

Never said that I objected to it.

Aren't you guilty of the crime that you have accused others of?

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Se=F1or_Chris?=]

Spiro wrote:
> There is a long and rather ridiculous thread on uk.rec.cycling.
>
> In it one poster accused another of tampering with his post when quoting
> to make it appear to be saying something it didn't and then criticising
> his comment.
>
> There follows a long, tedious but strangely compelling thread.
>
> In his latest post, one of the participants complains that no one has
> had anything to say about the main complaint.
>
> That is rather odd, so in an attempt to get some closure, how about
> throwing it open.
>
> I've included below a verbatim account (it is by one of the protagonists
> but it simply states the facts, I've checked that it's accurate).
>
> So who will, preferably without being rude, condescending, patronizing
> or in any other way provocative either:
>
> 1) Explain clearly and simply why what the poster identified as 'IS' did
> is wrong and EJ does desrve an apology.
>
> or
>
> 2) Explain clearly and simply why what the poster identified as 'IS' did
> is acceptable and EJ should keep quiet.
>
> Excerpt from the thread: "What do you do?" on uk.rec.cycling
>
> What was said:
>
> ==================================================================================
>
> TR But over 40 pedestrians a year killed on the pavement and a further 80
> TR on pedestrian crossings which is more or less the same as the number of
> TR cyclists killed on the whole road system.
>
> EJ There are a hell of a lot more pedestrians than cyclists.
>
> EJ Coming up with a statistic such as the one you just did is nothing
> more than
> EJ attempting a smoke and mirrors trick.
>
> EJ The above should not be taken to indicate that I agree or disagree that
> EJ cycling is more dangerous than walking. The statistics simply aren't
> EJ available.
> ===================================================================================
>
>
> How it was quoted and the reply.
> ==================================================================================
>
> TR But over 40 pedestrians a year killed on the pavement
>
> EJ Coming up with a statistic such as the one you just did is nothing
> more than
> EJ attempting a smoke and mirrors trick.
>
> IS I don't think it is. It's a specific (and accurate) refutation of the
> IS assertion "the pedestrian on the pavement is safe from the hazard"
> IS (of motor vehicles). Isn't it?
> ==================================================================================
>
>

I vote for option 2.

The way I read it, IS is referring to the phrase "over 40 pedestrians a
year killed on the pavement" which is sufficient in itself to refute the
assertion "the pedestrian on the pavement is safe from the hazard".

The relative number of cyclists killed on the road makes no difference
to whether the pedestrian is safe or not, so it was quite reasonable to
snip that information.

 

[Dave Larrington]

In news:[email protected],
Spiro <[email protected]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:

> Until today I was a posting virgin.

That much is obvious.

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
Do not top-post like a cretinous foul-yob fit only for stoning.

 

[Mike Causer]

On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 20:26:21 +0000, Spiro wrote:

> Not as strange as you seem to think if you just give it a bit of
> thought. Until today I was a posting virgin.

Oh really? And still you paid for an individual.net account?


>I'd always sworn that I'd never get involved in the posting and pissing
>contests that go on on usenet and the forums.

So you start off by doing just that.


> And the fact that people like you always try and score points off
> those who disagree with you for any reason you can come up with meant
> that I knew I'd be accused of all sorts just as several people already
> have on this thread.

And with all your lurking, especially on uk.tosspot, you've never seen
a mindless flamewar before?


> But I wanted an answer. I wanted to know if any
> cyclists actually cared about conduct like yours.

So you X-post to tosspot, a tactic generally used as a means of creating
a new flamewar. Why do you think that cyclists have different
standards of usenet conduct than any other slice of the population?


> Ian Smith wrote:
>>
>> This third party is interested enough to have carefully read the whole
>> thread in detail ("a long, tedious but strangely compelling thread"),
>> but for some reason has not seen fit to offer any opinion in the thread
>> so far.

I believe that this troll has offered opinions in that argument. Under
another name never used elsewhere. (And no, it's not Ewan.)




Mike

 

[[email protected]]

Wow! And I though girls were *****ey! This is quite funny to read.

 

[Rob Morley]

In article <[email protected]>, Mike Causer
[email protected]lid says...
> On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 20:26:21 +0000, Spiro wrote:
>
> > Not as strange as you seem to think if you just give it a bit of
> > thought. Until today I was a posting virgin.
>
> Oh really? And still you paid for an individual.net account?
>
In case people haven't noticed, news.individual.net policy states:

"Disregarding the rules may cause termination of access privileges
without further notice."

"Sender Address
The e-mail addresses given in "From:", "Reply-To:", and "Sender:" should
be your own and should be valid."

 

[Tunku]

Spiro <[email protected]> wrote in news:52uk36F1p9dh0U1
@mid.individual.net:

> There is a long and rather ridiculous thread on uk.rec.cycling.
>

Define "cyclist"

--
Tunku

"end user" v. A command regrettably not implemented in most systems

 

[Al C-F]

Spiro wrote:
> There is a long and rather ridiculous thread on uk.rec.cycling.
>
....and this is a pathetic attempt to start another one.

 

[David Damerell]

Quoting Ian Smith <[email protected]>:
>On Wed, 07 Feb 2007, Spiro <[email protected]> wrote:
>(crossposted to uk.tosspot, but I've remedied that)
>>There is a long and rather ridiculous thread on uk.rec.cycling. and so on.
>A mysterious third party appears, who has never posted to usenet
>before (at least so far as a cursory search reveals - I haven't been
>too detailed with that check).

Also posting from news.individual.net; also likes "Ewan"'s summary of the
discussion well enough to cut and paste it. Someone's sock drawer is
emptying fast.
--
OPTIONS=name:Kirsty,menustyle:C,female,lit_corridor,standout,time,showexp,hilit
e_pet,catname:Akane,dogname:Ryoga,fruitkonomiyaki,pickup_types:"!$?=/,scores:
5 top/2 around,color,boulder:0,autoquiver,autodig,disclose:yiyayvygyc,pickup_bu
rden:burdened,!cmdassist,msg_window:reversed,!sparkle,horsename:Rumiko,showrace