In article <
[email protected]>,
Tom Sherman <
[email protected]> wrote:
> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Lou Holtman wrote:
> >>> Tom Sherman wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I do not see how a speed of approximately 105 kph while drafting a
> >>>> cube van is so hard to believe.
> >>> Drafting (not towed) on such a bike at a speed of 105 kph behind a cube
> >>> van is very very hard to believe IMO.
> >>>
> >> Not with the combination of the large low pressure area created behind
> >> the cube van combined with a downhill road.
> >>
> >> Less believable is the contention that certain other people were not
> >> implying Mr. Jute was lying, before the full story was posted.
> >
> > Tom, you are demonstrating that you don't know the difference between
> > being accused of lying and being accused of being mistaken.
> >
> Mr. Fogel falsely accused me of lying (through his knowledge gained by
> telepathic mind reading, one presumes) and has refused to admit his
> error or apologize. This establishes past behavior, which makes it all
> the easier to recognize its re-occurrence.
>
> > What, is it a genetic anomaly? You don't have the "make sense of
> > conversations" gene?
> >
> The implication of Mr. Fogel post was clear - Mr. Fogel did not believe
> Mr. Jute.
Suggesting the falsity of a claim is not the same as accusing the
claimant of lying. Alternatives include that the claimant is innocently
mistaken, or that the claim includes extraordinary circumstances.
Andre's original post certainly included no details about motorpacing,
and I daresay that in a discussion of descending speeds, that would
certainly qualify as an extraordinary detail, and one that, if not
disclosed, is entirely deceptive about the nature of the event. Its
later revelation was a surprise to all.
Note that I don't mean "deceptive" in any particularly malicious
fashion. It's possible Andre had no intention to deceive, and the
failure to include the motorpace was either an innocent oversight or a
playful elision, in order to create a riddle.
Either way, it doesn't matter. Nobody should care about such matters,
except that you're using them as a hobbyhorse which you can ride to some
windmill or another.
> Mr. Fogel should not have made a judgment until Mr. Jute posted all the
> relevant details of his (Mr. Jute's) story.
Mr. Jute never suggested he'd left anything out!
> > But you know, if it makes the two of you happy, who am I to deny you
> > your hobby? Keep calm and carry on...
> >
> It was interesting to note the amount of "me too" piling on, almost like
> there is a cult of "Fogelism".
Lots of people are posting here to point out that Andre Jute is a nutter
with a witless vendetta against Carl Fogel for several reasons. Mine is
that Carl has contributed substantially and reasonably to the
discussions in this group. He has done so for many years, in many ways,
and with an extraordinarily high S-N ratio.
Andre, in a few months here, has posted a few interesting things and a
lot of unjustifiable vitriol. Even if his every accusation against Carl
was maximally true, it still wouldn't justify his daft spray of
aftermath posts.
As for you, Tom, tying your wagon to this cause is making me think less
of you, and your arguments in favor of this cause are redoubling that
trend. It probably doesn't matter to you what I think, and it probably
shouldn't, but I suspect I'm not alone in in feeling this way.
To sum up, the most important reason there's a lot of "Fogelism" right
now is that Andre Jute is a nutter with a witless vendetta against Carl
Fogel. You don't have to agree with this sentiment (you clearly don't)
but it ought to give you pause that so many other people do.
--
Ryan Cousineau
[email protected] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."
