On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 12:15:17 GMT, [email hidden] (Steven)
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:\ TROLL-O-METER / /
Another childish response.
So you say. We stated why crossposting was unlikely to yield anything
new or illuminating; you chose to crosspost challenging that. We
shall see.
Quoted message said:From what I can make out, you are something of a single subject zealot.
Really? Which single subject would that be? Helmets, speeding, cycle
safety, recumbents, folding bikes, model railways, singing or the
vagaries of Billware? :-)
Quoted message said:Could your support of someone who wants to exclude members of another group from
discussion have something to do with your perception that they may be less than
sympathetic to your cause?
Which cause? But in any case, no. Crossposted threads between this
group and uk.tosspot tend to attract only the Usual Suspects. And
yes, I am one of them. Sometimes it's fun on a slow afternoon,
sometimes (as with Adrian) they are essentially reasonable and a good
deal of common ground can be explored, but mostly it ends up in a
slanging match about red lights and pavements. One of those every few
months is quite enough to be going on with, thank you all the same.
Steven, various people are telling you in simple terms why crossposted
threads are unwelcome - or, more particularly, why a new crossposted
thread is unwelcome right now, just as the last two are dying the
death of a thousand "yes, buts". Please do go back and look at the
history of them. If you can find a type of crossposted thread which
doesn't end up in a pitched battle between the likes of me, and the
likes of Firth, Nugent or Keatch, then do tell.
Quoted message said:Really, encouraging "group think" by limiting discussion of transport matters to
a group where you can expect everyone to be sympathetic to your goals is a
rather cowardly way to behave.
LOL! You want one big group called uk.argument or something? Of
course people congregate with like-minded others! You are making a
fundamental mistake, though: it's not that we don't know what they
think, it's just that we don't want to hear it again right now! There
have been more crossposted threads in the last month than for a long
time. What's odd about not wanting more, especially when the subject
matter is essentially indistinguishable from the previous one?
Quoted message said:It's no good just getting all the cyclists to agree amongst themselves, because
when they go out into the big wide world they'll be massacred by those who have
been exposed to all the opposing ideas.
What evidence do you have that putting the cyclists' case calmly and
reasonably in uk.tosspot will have any positive effect?
Quoted message said:Obviously, as a cyclist myself, I'm very open to issues that affect cycling, but
I would rather hear *all* the other points of view than have a few rather
immature posters try and stiffle discussion with those who may not agree with
their views.
So go to uk.tosspot, put your points sanely and reasonably and see
what happens.
Quoted message said:BTW, I agree that the case for cycling helmets is more smoke and mirrors than
hard science and valid statistics.
Heh! ;-)
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
