Re: Helmet Poll: First Hand Experience



On 30 May 2006 19:18:37 -0700, "Ed Pirrero" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>[email protected] wrote:
>> On 30 May 2006 18:29:01 -0700, "Ed Pirrero" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >[email protected] wrote:
>> >> Dear Ed,
>> >>
>> >> So why did you stop the name-calling when it was pointed out?
>> >>
>> >
>> >Again, Carl, you seem to miss the hilarious irony of you pointing out
>> >the flaws in anyone else's manners. And did I name-call other than
>> >that one time?
>> >
>> >Maybe I started and stopped in one whole post, and the "pointing out"
>> >had nothing to do with anything?
>> >
>> >Tend to your own manners, Carl. They need much more work than mine.
>> >At least from what I've read here...
>> >
>> >E.P.

>>
>> Dear Ed,
>>
>> You wrote:
>>
>> "Hey, I'm curious - are you always such an asshole, or just one on the
>> internet?"

>
>And used that kind of terminology again, where? As in stopping
>*before* it was pointed out?
>
>Back up your claim, Carl.
>
>Oh, and remind us again how only name-calling is poor manners?
>
>> Please give us an example of my manners, the ones that you feel need
>> tending, that's equally clear and recent.

>
>A recent open letter to you in this newsgroup made it clear that you
>are not the paragon of good manners.
>
>But your participation in this portion of the thread proves that,
>right?
>
>E.P.


Dear Ed,

Do you mean the "open letter" whose author first wrote to me saying
this, before his bizarre switch to a public blackmail attempt?

>Hi Carl,
>
>It was always obvious that X "marched to his own drummer", but I
>just naively assumed it was his way of having fun. Now, it is apparent
>something very different is afoot. How sad. Seriously disturbed people
>have miserable lives and more often than not, inflict that misery on
>those around them.
>
>Thanks for the head's up.
>
>Richard


He never explained what changed his mind, apart from weird nonsense
about "betraying confidences" that he never made to people who exist
only in his imagination.

Please point to where my participation in this portion of the thread
proves whatever you think it does. Be explicit. Surely if my manners
are so offensive, it must be easy to find something to back up your
repeated claims.

Incidentally, did your parents ever mention simply apologizing to
people when you call them ugly and unjustified names in public?

Cheers,

Carl Fogel
 
[email protected] wrote:
> On 30 May 2006 19:18:37 -0700, "Ed Pirrero" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >[email protected] wrote:
> >> On 30 May 2006 18:29:01 -0700, "Ed Pirrero" <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >[email protected] wrote:
> >> >> Dear Ed,
> >> >>
> >> >> So why did you stop the name-calling when it was pointed out?
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Again, Carl, you seem to miss the hilarious irony of you pointing out
> >> >the flaws in anyone else's manners. And did I name-call other than
> >> >that one time?
> >> >
> >> >Maybe I started and stopped in one whole post, and the "pointing out"
> >> >had nothing to do with anything?
> >> >
> >> >Tend to your own manners, Carl. They need much more work than mine.
> >> >At least from what I've read here...
> >> >
> >> >E.P.
> >>
> >> Dear Ed,
> >>
> >> You wrote:
> >>
> >> "Hey, I'm curious - are you always such an asshole, or just one on the
> >> internet?"

> >
> >And used that kind of terminology again, where? As in stopping
> >*before* it was pointed out?
> >
> >Back up your claim, Carl.
> >
> >Oh, and remind us again how only name-calling is poor manners?
> >
> >> Please give us an example of my manners, the ones that you feel need
> >> tending, that's equally clear and recent.

> >
> >A recent open letter to you in this newsgroup made it clear that you
> >are not the paragon of good manners.
> >
> >But your participation in this portion of the thread proves that,
> >right?
> >
> >E.P.

>
> Dear Ed,
>
> Do you mean the "open letter" whose author first wrote to me saying
> this, before his bizarre switch to a public blackmail attempt?


Bingo. And, your protestations notwithstanding, I do not believe that
you have told the whole story. Without seeing all the exchanges from
all the participants, I'm guessing that there is a *significant* amount
of untold story. Most of which would cast you in quite a bad light,
unless I miss my guess.

Again, Carl, is the only form of ill manners name-calling? Yes or no?

And where, apart from your one example, have I name-called after? Such
that I would then "stop" after it was pointed out?

Making stuff up to suit your argument is pretty darn rude, Carl. It's
kind of like lying.

Explicit enough, Carl?

E.P.
 
Sorni wrote:
> Ed Pirrero wrote:
> > [email protected] wrote:
> >> Dear Ed,
> >>
> >> So why did you stop the name-calling when it was pointed out?
> >>

> >
> > Again, Carl, you seem to miss the hilarious irony of you pointing out
> > the flaws in anyone else's manners. And did I name-call other than
> > that one time?
> >
> > Maybe I started and stopped in one whole post, and the "pointing out"
> > had nothing to do with anything?
> >
> > Tend to your own manners, Carl. They need much more work than mine.
> > At least from what I've read here...

>
> Dear Ed,
>
> If one (virtually) smiles and sounds syrupy polite enough, then one can make
> the most cutting and unkind remarks and still not consider oneself rude or
> inappropriate.


Yes, quite.

Unkind language is still impolite, but there is a range of
impoliteness, and it's not a binary condition. If one were to obey the
forms to the letter, pointing out someone's impolite behavior is
impolite of itself...

E.P.
 
Ed Pirrero wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > On 30 May 2006 19:18:37 -0700, "Ed Pirrero" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >[email protected] wrote:
> > >> On 30 May 2006 18:29:01 -0700, "Ed Pirrero" <[email protected]>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> >[email protected] wrote:
> > >> >> Dear Ed,
> > >> >>
> > >> >> So why did you stop the name-calling when it was pointed out?
> > >> >>
> > >> >
> > >> >Again, Carl, you seem to miss the hilarious irony of you pointing out
> > >> >the flaws in anyone else's manners. And did I name-call other than
> > >> >that one time?
> > >> >
> > >> >Maybe I started and stopped in one whole post, and the "pointing out"
> > >> >had nothing to do with anything?
> > >> >
> > >> >Tend to your own manners, Carl. They need much more work than mine.
> > >> >At least from what I've read here...
> > >> >
> > >> >E.P.
> > >>
> > >> Dear Ed,
> > >>
> > >> You wrote:
> > >>
> > >> "Hey, I'm curious - are you always such an asshole, or just one on the
> > >> internet?"
> > >
> > >And used that kind of terminology again, where? As in stopping
> > >*before* it was pointed out?
> > >
> > >Back up your claim, Carl.
> > >
> > >Oh, and remind us again how only name-calling is poor manners?
> > >
> > >> Please give us an example of my manners, the ones that you feel need
> > >> tending, that's equally clear and recent.
> > >
> > >A recent open letter to you in this newsgroup made it clear that you
> > >are not the paragon of good manners.
> > >
> > >But your participation in this portion of the thread proves that,
> > >right?
> > >
> > >E.P.

> >
> > Dear Ed,
> >
> > Do you mean the "open letter" whose author first wrote to me saying
> > this, before his bizarre switch to a public blackmail attempt?

>
> Bingo. And, your protestations notwithstanding, I do not believe that
> you have told the whole story.


Indeed, he has not.

> Without seeing all the exchanges from
> all the participants, I'm guessing that there is a *significant* amount
> of untold story. Most of which would cast you in quite a bad light,
> unless I miss my guess.
>


That's a good guess. I feel an obligation to protect sources. Absent
that obligation, Fogel would never show himself here again.


> Again, Carl, is the only form of ill manners name-calling? Yes or no?
>
> And where, apart from your one example, have I name-called after? Such
> that I would then "stop" after it was pointed out?
>
> Making stuff up to suit your argument is pretty darn rude, Carl. It's
> kind of like lying.
>
> Explicit enough, Carl?
>
> E.P.
 
In article
<[email protected]>,
"Ed Pirrero" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Michael Press wrote:
> >
> > No argument is worth winning.

>
> That's not true. But some arguments aren't worth having.


Yes, it is true. It is also true that disagreements
between interested parties need discussion. We totally
disagree here.

> And there's a whole spectrum of them that have more or less worth.
>
> But in usenet, every argument is worth a 1000+ post thread. Because
> there is no penalty for losing or offending, the lamers and flamers can
> go on and on and on.


Some _act_ as if there are winners, losers, and penalties.
The distinction escapes me.

> I seriously doubt any of you do this kind of argumentation at home.
> I'd bet serious money on it.


I do not even do that kind of arguing on Usenet.

--
Michael Press
 
In article
<[email protected]>,
"Ed Pirrero" <[email protected]> wrote:

> > And for sure there are long,
> > long arguments about politics in "daily life." Maybe not in one's
> > home, but they exist off-line as well.

>
> Yes, I understand that as well. But when cases are discussed about why
> someone would wear a helmet, even if he/she knew there wasn't a safety
> benefit - well, I gave an example. I'm not sure that enough data has
> been collected to make a categorical statement that a helmet has little
> if any value in any particular circumstance, so I keep in mind that it
> is possible that a helmet is helpful in some cases.


Is there insufficient enough data to render helmet laws
unsupportable?

--
Michael Press
 
Michael Press wrote:
> In article
> <[email protected]>,
> "Ed Pirrero" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > And for sure there are long,
> > > long arguments about politics in "daily life." Maybe not in one's
> > > home, but they exist off-line as well.

> >
> > Yes, I understand that as well. But when cases are discussed about why
> > someone would wear a helmet, even if he/she knew there wasn't a safety
> > benefit - well, I gave an example. I'm not sure that enough data has
> > been collected to make a categorical statement that a helmet has little
> > if any value in any particular circumstance, so I keep in mind that it
> > is possible that a helmet is helpful in some cases.

>
> Is there insufficient enough data to render helmet laws
> unsupportable?


Huh?

That query doesn't make sense to me.

E.P.
 
Michael Press wrote:
> In article
> <[email protected]>,
> "Ed Pirrero" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Michael Press wrote:
> > >
> > > No argument is worth winning.

> >
> > That's not true. But some arguments aren't worth having.

>
> Yes, it is true.


"No argument is worth winning" is an absurd, hyperbolic statement that
is categorically untrue. When the stakes are very high, then winning
an argument can be a matter of life and death.

> It is also true that disagreements
> between interested parties need discussion. We totally
> disagree here.


And what my wife and I have WRT this subject does not rise to the level
of a disagreement. I have a preference. She has an opposite
preference. OK, no problem on my part - it really is no skin off my
nose.

No discussion required.

Your characterization of the interaction, however, is false and
objectionable.

> > And there's a whole spectrum of them that have more or less worth.
> >
> > But in usenet, every argument is worth a 1000+ post thread. Because
> > there is no penalty for losing or offending, the lamers and flamers can
> > go on and on and on.

>
> Some _act_ as if there are winners, losers, and penalties.
> The distinction escapes me.


This is one of the reasons I popped in with my reality check.

> > I seriously doubt any of you do this kind of argumentation at home.
> > I'd bet serious money on it.

>
> I do not even do that kind of arguing on Usenet.


Hogwash. I've seen several examples, and at least one in this thread.
Stuff you wouldn't dare say to my face you have courage enough to spout
on usenet. Please climb down off your high horse.

E.P.
 
On 30 May 2006 19:35:45 -0700, "Ed Pirrero" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>[email protected] wrote:
>> On 30 May 2006 19:18:37 -0700, "Ed Pirrero" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >[email protected] wrote:
>> >> On 30 May 2006 18:29:01 -0700, "Ed Pirrero" <[email protected]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >[email protected] wrote:
>> >> >> Dear Ed,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> So why did you stop the name-calling when it was pointed out?
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >Again, Carl, you seem to miss the hilarious irony of you pointing out
>> >> >the flaws in anyone else's manners. And did I name-call other than
>> >> >that one time?
>> >> >
>> >> >Maybe I started and stopped in one whole post, and the "pointing out"
>> >> >had nothing to do with anything?
>> >> >
>> >> >Tend to your own manners, Carl. They need much more work than mine.
>> >> >At least from what I've read here...
>> >> >
>> >> >E.P.
>> >>
>> >> Dear Ed,
>> >>
>> >> You wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "Hey, I'm curious - are you always such an asshole, or just one on the
>> >> internet?"
>> >
>> >And used that kind of terminology again, where? As in stopping
>> >*before* it was pointed out?
>> >
>> >Back up your claim, Carl.
>> >
>> >Oh, and remind us again how only name-calling is poor manners?
>> >
>> >> Please give us an example of my manners, the ones that you feel need
>> >> tending, that's equally clear and recent.
>> >
>> >A recent open letter to you in this newsgroup made it clear that you
>> >are not the paragon of good manners.
>> >
>> >But your participation in this portion of the thread proves that,
>> >right?
>> >
>> >E.P.

>>
>> Dear Ed,
>>
>> Do you mean the "open letter" whose author first wrote to me saying
>> this, before his bizarre switch to a public blackmail attempt?

>
>Bingo. And, your protestations notwithstanding, I do not believe that
>you have told the whole story. Without seeing all the exchanges from
>all the participants, I'm guessing that there is a *significant* amount
>of untold story. Most of which would cast you in quite a bad light,
>unless I miss my guess.
>
>Again, Carl, is the only form of ill manners name-calling? Yes or no?
>
>And where, apart from your one example, have I name-called after? Such
>that I would then "stop" after it was pointed out?
>
>Making stuff up to suit your argument is pretty darn rude, Carl. It's
>kind of like lying.
>
>Explicit enough, Carl?
>
>E.P.


Dear Ed,

Still no example, so no, you're not explicit at all. As you say,
you're guessing.

Please point out where I've made stuff up to suit my argument that you
wrote:

"Hey, I'm curious - are you always such an asshole, or just one on the
internet?"

Where's the lie there? Or are you just making stuff up to suit your
argument?

So far, you haven't come up with a single quote. I have. Why is that?

Cheers,

Carl Fogel
 
On 30 May 2006 19:50:26 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>Ed Pirrero wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>> > On 30 May 2006 19:18:37 -0700, "Ed Pirrero" <[email protected]>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > >[email protected] wrote:
>> > >> On 30 May 2006 18:29:01 -0700, "Ed Pirrero" <[email protected]>
>> > >> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> >
>> > >> >[email protected] wrote:
>> > >> >> Dear Ed,
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> So why did you stop the name-calling when it was pointed out?
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >
>> > >> >Again, Carl, you seem to miss the hilarious irony of you pointing out
>> > >> >the flaws in anyone else's manners. And did I name-call other than
>> > >> >that one time?
>> > >> >
>> > >> >Maybe I started and stopped in one whole post, and the "pointing out"
>> > >> >had nothing to do with anything?
>> > >> >
>> > >> >Tend to your own manners, Carl. They need much more work than mine.
>> > >> >At least from what I've read here...
>> > >> >
>> > >> >E.P.
>> > >>
>> > >> Dear Ed,
>> > >>
>> > >> You wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> "Hey, I'm curious - are you always such an asshole, or just one on the
>> > >> internet?"
>> > >
>> > >And used that kind of terminology again, where? As in stopping
>> > >*before* it was pointed out?
>> > >
>> > >Back up your claim, Carl.
>> > >
>> > >Oh, and remind us again how only name-calling is poor manners?
>> > >
>> > >> Please give us an example of my manners, the ones that you feel need
>> > >> tending, that's equally clear and recent.
>> > >
>> > >A recent open letter to you in this newsgroup made it clear that you
>> > >are not the paragon of good manners.
>> > >
>> > >But your participation in this portion of the thread proves that,
>> > >right?
>> > >
>> > >E.P.
>> >
>> > Dear Ed,
>> >
>> > Do you mean the "open letter" whose author first wrote to me saying
>> > this, before his bizarre switch to a public blackmail attempt?

>>
>> Bingo. And, your protestations notwithstanding, I do not believe that
>> you have told the whole story.

>
>Indeed, he has not.
>
>> Without seeing all the exchanges from
>> all the participants, I'm guessing that there is a *significant* amount
>> of untold story. Most of which would cast you in quite a bad light,
>> unless I miss my guess.
>>

>
>That's a good guess. I feel an obligation to protect sources. Absent
>that obligation, Fogel would never show himself here again.


Dear Ed,

Ozark is lying.

There are no such sources.

First, Ozark posted a public blackmail threat, claiming:

"It is apparent from reading RBT today that you have breached certain
confidences contained in my private reply to your sole private email
to me."

http://groups.google.com/group/rec....3c12a95a4ab/d4283d388ca90bb8#d4283d388ca90bb8

Despite repeated requests to explain what on earth he meant, Ozark
never explained what he read on RBT that day that made him change his
mind from his original thank-you note:

>Hi Carl,


>It was always obvious that X "marched to his own drummer", but I just
>naively assumed it was his way of having fun. Now, it is apparent
>something very different is afoot. How sad. Seriously disturbed people
>have miserable lives and more often than not, inflict that misery on
>those around them.


>Thanks for the head's up.


>Richard


(Incidentally, how could anything posted on RBT need to be a secret?
What on earth could Ozark be protecting? I listed my recent posts in
that thread, wondering if he had misunderstood something.)

Later, Ozark stopped claiming that he read something that day on RBT
and began making up "leaks" that he must protect.

Since I never wrote to anyone else about it and he's changing his
originally obviously false story, I assume that he's still lying.

You can judge Ozark's pious claim to be protecting his sources by his
original public blackmail threat, which led to this:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/ebd699f66afe6080

Being incompetent, his link failed. Since he was posting it, I posted
my email and his reply, with most names and pseudonyms removed. That I
missed one didn't matter, since Ozark was busy fixing his broken link
to the emails with all names included.

Which he's since taken down.

My post is still there to read.

Go through the thread instead of "guessing":

http://groups.google.com/group/rec....3c12a95a4ab/d4283d388ca90bb8#d4283d388ca90bb8

See if you can find a place where Ozark backed up his original claim
to have read something that day on RBT that revealed that his
confidences had been breached.

You can't. He was lying.

See if you can find a place where he explains what confidences of his
had been breached.

You can't. He was lying.

See if you can find someone who will back up his new story that there
were "leaks".

If you can, you've found another liar.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel
 
Michael Press wrote:

> Is there insufficient enough data to render helmet laws
> unsupportable?


Boy, for a pedant you sure can butcher a sentence! LOL
 
On 30 May 2006 21:09:12 -0700, "Ed Pirrero" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>[email protected] wrote:
>>
>> Ozark is lying.

>
>Sez you.
>
>E.P.


Dear Ed,

No, sez RBT.

Here's Ozark's first sentence in his blackmail effort:

"It is apparent from reading RBT today that you have breached certain
confidences contained in my private reply to your sole private email
to me."

http://groups.google.com/group/rec....3c12a95a4ab/d4283d388ca90bb8#d4283d388ca90bb8

Please find any post in RBT that supports his claim.

You can't. He's lying.

Read the thread. You'll see where I listed my recent posts. None of
them have any earthly connection to his blackmail effort.

Please figure out what confidences Ozark could have made to me that I
could have "breached," privately or in public.

You can't. He's lying.

I confided in him, not the other way around. My email and his reply
are in the thread. Read them. I'm not making up new stories and saying
literally "trust me" and telling demonstrable lies.

Ozark is.

Please find the post in that thread where he starts saying "trust me"
to other people.

You can.

Please find the post in that thread where I stopped addressing the
subject and started saying "trust me" instead of asking the obvious
questions and pointing to the facts.

You can't. I'm not lying. I don't have to say "trust me." I just need
to keep pointing out the obvious.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel
 
[email protected] wrote:
> On 30 May 2006 21:09:12 -0700, "Ed Pirrero" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >[email protected] wrote:
> >>
> >> Ozark is lying.

> >
> >Sez you.
> >
> >E.P.

>
> Dear Ed,
>
> No, sez RBT.


No, sez *you*.

Not every document in this exchange has been seen.

It's a he said/he said situation, and I tend to think you are the one
hiding something.

Mostly because you protest too much.

E.P.
 
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 30 May 2006 19:35:45 -0700, "Ed Pirrero" <[email protected]>

big snip
>
> Where's the lie there? Or are you just making stuff up to suit your
> argument?
>
> So far, you haven't come up with a single quote. I have. Why is that?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel


Carl,

much as I appreciate your attempts to get the PHZs to think logically, I
think you are wasting your time. Given the language used and the attitude
of the PHZs, I feel that they are probably silly teenage boys having a good
laugh at getting all these replies.
 
"Ed Pirrero" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Burt wrote:
>> "Ed Pirrero" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> >
>> >

>> Or, the MORE LIKELY case
>> > is that I don't care enough about it to raise too much of an objection.

>>
>> So lets get this straight: you don't care enough about helmets to discuss
>> it
>> with your wife, but you care enough to spend seemingly endless hours
>> posting
>> witless comments?

>
> I don't know how slowly you type, but I've invested about 10 minutes,
> total.
>
> Witless? Irony at its finest.


Thank you, I'm so glad you recognise irony when it slaps you in the face.
>
> E.P.
>
 
Burt wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On 30 May 2006 19:35:45 -0700, "Ed Pirrero" <[email protected]>

> big snip


{Actually, nothing Ed wrote is quoted below.}

>> Where's the lie there? Or are you just making stuff up to suit your
>> argument?
>>
>> So far, you haven't come up with a single quote. I have. Why is that?
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Carl Fogel



> Carl,
>
> much as I appreciate your attempts to get the PHZs to think
> logically, I think you are wasting your time. Given the language
> used and the attitude of the PHZs, I feel that they are probably
> silly teenage boys having a good laugh at getting all these replies.


Congratulations on the biggest WHOOOOOOSSHHHHHHH! this year on Usenet.

Wow.
 
Dans le message de
news:[email protected],
Michael Press <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> In article
> <[email protected]>,
> "Ed Pirrero" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> And for sure there are long,
>>> long arguments about politics in "daily life." Maybe not in one's
>>> home, but they exist off-line as well.

>>
>> Yes, I understand that as well. But when cases are discussed about
>> why someone would wear a helmet, even if he/she knew there wasn't a
>> safety benefit - well, I gave an example. I'm not sure that enough
>> data has been collected to make a categorical statement that a
>> helmet has little if any value in any particular circumstance, so I
>> keep in mind that it is possible that a helmet is helpful in some
>> cases.

>
> Is there insufficient enough data to render helmet laws
> unsupportable?


That's a particularly useless question. Were science and statistics
necessary to the promulgation of laws, or, indeed, if they led imutably to
the passage of laws, there would probably not be a single chain of burger
fast-food businesses in existence.

On the other hand, the little beavers of bureaucracy have almost no obstacle
to the passage of restrictive or mandatory regulations, where elected
legislators abandon the responsibilities they undertake in assuming office.
--
Sandy

"Manners are of more importance than laws. Manners are what vex or soothe,
corrupt or purify, exalt or debase, barbarize or refine us, by a constant,
steady, uniform, insensible operation, like that of the air we breathe in."

Edmund Burke (1729-1797)
 
"Ambrose Nankivell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Paul Murphy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "Ambrose Nankivell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > "Paul Murphy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> > news:[email protected]...
>> >> "David Damerell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >> news:YKo*[email protected]...
>> >> > Quoting Paul Murphy <[email protected]>:
>> >> >>I didn't say that "I don't do it" though (universally),
>> >> >
>> >> > No. You said you don't do it while riding a bike. Just like every

> other
>> >> > special unique snowflake. What's different about you?
>> >>
>> >> You're not being constructive with language like that, I don't expect
>> >> name
>> >> calling from mature adults.
>> >
>> > Of course, most people don't expect such incredibly stubborn denial in
>> > mature adults.
>> >

>> If you are assuming its denial (ie without proof) then who is correct and

> is
>> it wise to make such assumptions?

>
> I think I am, given the tremendous lack of evidence you've given for your
> lack of risk compensation.


It's not up to me to provide evidence, thinking something may be, doesn't
make it a fact.

>> Are you implying its acceptable to engage
>> in name calling when someone gets annoyed?

>
> It wasn't an especially ad hominem attack, in actual fact.


I dont understand Latin but mild though it may be, its still a personal
attack.

>> I don't like the implication of
>> that sort of message if you are, the potential consequences can only be a
>> slippery slope.

>
> Maybe exasperated is more appropriate a description of David's behaviour
> than annoyed.


I believe that sort of behaviour, although understandable and very common,
is inappropriate in this forum. It's unfortunate you dont seem to be wanting
to uphold the same standards.

Paul