Re: Sort of OT: Don't steal bikes in Toronto

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 01:07:58 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]> wrote:

{CONTEXT REMOVED OF COURSE}

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Why should I be bothered about rules for children when I haven't any?
They're (the restrictions, not the kids) are of no importance to me.

Quoted message said:

Because you're a member of the broader society? Because you care
about right and wrong? Because someday they'll be adults and voting
citizens?

Well, again, I see NO evidence of a child MHL where I live. However, if I
had kids who rode bikes to and from school and all over the neighbohood, I'd
probably be glad there was one, as I suppose it would make getting them to
wear lids a bit easier.

Quoted message said:

Those are just reasons that I care about laws that relate to kids and
about the welfare and development of kids in general. If you don't,
that's unfortunate but obviously your decision.

But I do. I think kids are SAFER WEARING HELMETS! Strange that you, with
your personal lid collection AND oh-so-sincere concern for the children,
seem to be saying that they /shouldn't/ wear protective gear.

Irony, thy name is Floglinson...

{8 lines of tired old sig deleted}

"Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 01:07:58 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]> wrote:

{CONTEXT REMOVED OF COURSE}

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Why should I be bothered about rules for children when I haven't any?
They're (the restrictions, not the kids) are of no importance to me.

Quoted message said:

Because you're a member of the broader society? Because you care
about right and wrong? Because someday they'll be adults and voting
citizens?

Well, again, I see NO evidence of a child MHL where I live.

Perhaps you should check the statute books; ignorance of the law is no
excuse; despite your willingness to employ it in as many situations as
possible.

jtaylor said:

"Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 01:07:58 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]>
wrote: {CONTEXT REMOVED OF COURSE}

Quoted message said:

> Why should I be bothered about rules for children when I haven't
> any? They're (the restrictions, not the kids) are of no importance
> to me.

Quoted message said:

Because you're a member of the broader society? Because you care
about right and wrong? Because someday they'll be adults and voting
citizens?

Well, again, I see NO evidence of a child MHL where I live.

Perhaps you should check the statute books; ignorance of the law is no
excuse; despite your willingness to employ it in as many situations as
possible.

And yet you "quoted" me -- completely falsely, of course -- saying "It's the
law around here", trying to insinuate that I approve of it.

Weasel.

"Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Well, again, I see NO evidence of a child MHL where I live.

Perhaps you should check the statute books; ignorance of the law is no
excuse; despite your willingness to employ it in as many situations as
possible.

And yet you "quoted" me -- completely falsely, of course -- saying "It's

the

Quoted message said:

law around here", trying to insinuate that I approve of it.

Please quote the part where I said that you were using higher ethical
reasoning in regard to your State's MHL, and that by using this level of
moral reasoning you came to the conclusion that you approved of this MHL.

Quoted message said:

Weasel.

Insults are evidence that the person employing them has no other support.

jtaylor said:

"Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>
> Well, again, I see NO evidence of a child MHL where I live.

Perhaps you should check the statute books; ignorance of the law is
no excuse; despite your willingness to employ it in as many
situations as possible.

And yet you "quoted" me -- completely falsely, of course -- saying
"It's the law around here", trying to insinuate that I approve of it.

Quoted message said:

Please quote the part where I said that you were using higher ethical
reasoning in regard to your State's MHL, and that by using this level
of moral reasoning you came to the conclusion that you approved of
this MHL.

""
b) Law and Order: "It's the law 'round here to wear a helmet - of course
it's not enforced, but it is still the law." (A certain vocal - but with a
limited vocabulary - pro-helmet zealot whose initials are unfortunately
close to the content of his posts.)
""

You couldn't be more wrong or misleading about either my position OR the
facts.

Bill Sornson said:

jtaylor said:

"Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

>>
>> Well, again, I see NO evidence of a child MHL where I live.
>
> Perhaps you should check the statute books; ignorance of the law is
> no excuse; despite your willingness to employ it in as many
> situations as possible.

And yet you "quoted" me -- completely falsely, of course -- saying
"It's the law around here", trying to insinuate that I approve of it.

Quoted message said:

Please quote the part where I said that you were using higher ethical
reasoning in regard to your State's MHL, and that by using this level
of moral reasoning you came to the conclusion that you approved of
this MHL.

""
b) Law and Order: "It's the law 'round here to wear a helmet - of course
it's not enforced, but it is still the law." (A certain vocal - but with a
limited vocabulary - pro-helmet zealot whose initials are unfortunately
close to the content of his posts.)
""

And where in that passage is there any evidence that you are capable
of higher ethical reasoning?

Quoted message said:

Bill Sornson said:

jtaylor said:

"Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
>
>>>
>>> Well, again, I see NO evidence of a child MHL where I live.
>>
>> Perhaps you should check the statute books; ignorance of the law is
>> no excuse; despite your willingness to employ it in as many
>> situations as possible.
>
> And yet you "quoted" me -- completely falsely, of course -- saying
> "It's the law around here", trying to insinuate that I approve of it.

Quoted message said:

Please quote the part where I said that you were using higher ethical
reasoning in regard to your State's MHL, and that by using this level
of moral reasoning you came to the conclusion that you approved of
this MHL.

""
b) Law and Order: "It's the law 'round here to wear a helmet - of course
it's not enforced, but it is still the law." (A certain vocal - but with a
limited vocabulary - pro-helmet zealot whose initials are unfortunately
close to the content of his posts.)
""

And where in that passage is there any evidence that you are capable
of higher ethical reasoning?

[censored]. [censored] [censored] [censored] [censored]. --D-y

Quoted message said:

[censored]. [censored] [censored] [censored] [censored]. --D-y

Nice try, but I think you have to use it in context. For example, maybe
this will do it: My helmet helped me survive a blitzkrieg. Therefore you
should always wear a helmet.

Glad to be of service. 🙂

--
Dave
dvt at psu dot edu

Quoted message said:

[censored]. [censored] [censored] [censored] [censored]. --D-y

Did [censored] quote MONTH-OLD POSTS in order to invoke himself?

Wow, he WAS evil.

<eg>

Bill Sornson said:

Quoted message said:

[censored]. [censored] [censored] [censored] [censored]. --D-y

Did [censored] quote MONTH-OLD POSTS in order to invoke himself?

Wow, he WAS evil.

Actually, one of his main shortcomings was the inability to take a
hint. Along with refusing to know when he was beat, of course.

Thanks for pointing out my deficiencies in date-reading, and for your
lack of a sense of humor.

--D-y

Quoted message said:

Bill Sornson said:

Quoted message said:

[censored]. [censored] [censored] [censored] [censored]. --D-y

Did [censored] quote MONTH-OLD POSTS in order to invoke himself?

Wow, he WAS evil.

{Hey, where'd the emoticon go?!?}

Quoted message said:

Actually, one of his main shortcomings was the inability to take a
hint. Along with refusing to know when he was beat, of course.

Thanks for pointing out my deficiencies in date-reading, and for your
lack of a sense of humor.

You dredged up a month-old post to advise stopping the thread. I pointed
out -- with humor (you deleted the smiley) -- the utter silliness of that.
HTH

All together now: "WHOOSH!!!"

Off to ride (lidded, of course ;-) )

Bill Sornson said:

You dredged up a month-old post to advise stopping the thread. I pointed
out -- with humor (you deleted the smiley) -- the utter silliness of that.

I didn't dredge up nuthin'.

jtaylor did.

(remembering now) I tried for the second time to [censored] [censored] [censored]
the thread. Didn't work this time either, thanks to your efforts <g>.

Um, "invoking myself":

http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?enc_user=maYw2wwAAAA456uOx7HRkLps6rF0u3xi

28 (!!) groups, 1196 posts (that would be "you"😉

Me: 12 groups (four intentional), 665 posts. But, don't take my word
for it...

Quoted message said:

HTH

As we say in Texas, "myself".

Quoted message said:

All together now: "WHOOSH!!!"

Quoted message said:

Off to ride (lidded, of course ;-) )

Well, it's the trailer bike for me. On the front <g>, probably unlidded
and driving like I was in a vehicle or something (!!!), with the boy on
behind, lidded, riding like someone who's going to be seven in a few
days (hence insistence on near-total dad control of commuter bike).

NO HELMET? IN A SCHOOL ZONE??? Honest, I'm just trying to initiate some
useful dialog IRT the MHL that's a-brewing here in the Music Capital of
the World. Oh yeah, and get the lic. number of the mommie who told me
to get back up on the bikepath the other day so I can 911 her. Just for
fun! --D-y

Bill Sornson said:

You dredged up a month-old post to advise stopping the thread. I pointed
out -- with humor (you deleted the smiley) -- the utter silliness of that.

I didn't dredge up nuthin'.

jtaylor did.

(remembering now) I tried for the second time to [censored] [censored] [censored]
the thread. Didn't work this time either, thanks to your efforts <g>.

Um, "invoking myself":

http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?enc_user=maYw2wwAAAA456uOx7HRkLps6rF0u3xi

28 (!!) groups, 1196 posts (that would be "you"😉

Me: 12 groups (four intentional), 665 posts. But, don't take my word
for it...

Quoted message said:

HTH

As we say in Texas, "myself".

Quoted message said:

All together now: "WHOOSH!!!"

Quoted message said:

Off to ride (lidded, of course ;-) )

Well, it's the trailer bike for me. On the front <g>, probably unlidded
and driving like I was in a vehicle or something (!!!), with the boy on
behind, lidded, riding like someone who's going to be seven in a few
days (hence insistence on near-total dad control of commuter bike).

NO HELMET? IN A SCHOOL ZONE??? Honest, I'm just trying to initiate some
useful dialog IRT the MHL that's a-brewing here in the Music Capital of
the World. Oh yeah, and get the lic. number of the mommie who told me
to get back up on the bikepath the other day so I can 911 her. Just for
fun! --D-y

Quoted message said:

Bill Sornson said:

You dredged up a month-old post to advise stopping the thread. I pointed
out -- with humor (you deleted the smiley) -- the utter silliness of that.

I didn't dredge up nuthin'.

jtaylor did.

(remembering now) I tried for the second time to [censored] [censored] [censored]
the thread. Didn't work this time either, thanks to your efforts <g>.

Um, "invoking myself":

http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?enc_user=maYw2wwAAAA456uOx7HRkLps6rF0u3xi

28 (!!) groups, 1196 posts (that would be "you"😉

Me: 12 groups (four intentional), 665 posts. But, don't take my word
for it...

Quoted message said:

HTH

As we say in Texas, "myself".

Quoted message said:

All together now: "WHOOSH!!!"

Quoted message said:

Off to ride (lidded, of course ;-) )

Well, it's the trailer bike for me. On the front <g>, probably unlidded
and driving like I was in a vehicle or something (!!!), with the boy on
behind, lidded, riding like someone who's going to be seven in a few
days (hence insistence on near-total dad control of commuter bike).

NO HELMET? IN A SCHOOL ZONE??? Honest, I'm just trying to initiate some
useful dialog IRT the MHL that's a-brewing here in the Music Capital of
the World. Oh yeah, and get the lic. number of the mommie who told me
to get back up on the bikepath the other day so I can 911 her. Just for
fun! --D-y

Google does that every once in a while. Life goes on. [censored] [censored]
[censored]!!!

Quoted message said:

Bill Sornson said:

You dredged up a month-old post to advise stopping the thread. I
pointed out -- with humor (you deleted the smiley) -- the utter
silliness of that.

I didn't dredge up nuthin'.

jtaylor did.

Hmm. Well, I do have him plonked...but I could have sworn I saw his
rapier-like witty reply weeks ago before blocking him. (Don't see a date
mentioned for his post, just mine. Too lazy to check GG.)

Anyway, apologies for any misunderstanding. It's amazing how quickly I
forgot what a cross-posting [censored] and weasel the Flail Boy was (is).

Quoted message said:

Bill Sornson said:

You dredged up a month-old post to advise stopping the thread. I
pointed out -- with humor (you deleted the smiley) -- the utter
silliness of that.

I didn't dredge up nuthin'.

Heard ya the first time! :-D

Quoted message said:

jtaylor did.

Who?!?

LOL

Bill Sornson said:

Who?!?

Who what? Peace...

No comments tonight in the pick-up zone. I've been experimenting with
helmet v. helmetless rides, in various combos of fixed gear, stealth
bike, decal-ed bike, baseball cap/no hat, helmet with "civvies" on, and
full bike club regalia (racer style), the last always with a helmet
"just because" (aka "sponsorship considerations"😉.

Background: A woman rider, practicing for a tri event or charity ride I
believe, on a bike-popular but busy local highway, was run over and
killed recently. A former city mayor here did a solo fall on an
organized weekend ride awhile back, got a head injury. He's really
pushing for an MHL, as is the local newspaper.

My test area is a local bikepath that has been politicized recently
with the addition, and thankgodforsmallfavors, later the yanking back
up of idiotic traffic islands that interrupted the bike path and were
supposed to make bike riding, ped use safer somehow. Cars have been
squeezed toward the center by new "parking lane" lines on both sides of
the street. That slows them down real good plus the effective bike
lanes are much wider. Interrupted by parked vehicles, but such is life
in America (IMHO, about as good as we're going to get at present).
Anyhow, recently the layout of this bikepath was a matter of heated,
rancorous debate. A place where it would seem cyclists are very
visible, so to speak ("Officer, I saw him, without a helmet" <g>😉.

I haven't had one "WHERE'S YOUR HELMET" directed at me when riding
without, and no "GOOD BOY's" when I've had the lid on.

The only difference I've noticed is that drivers seem a little more
agressive toward the racer outfit. An engine or two raced, a little
extra acceleration perhaps. Small potatoes.

Anyhow, my efforts to initiate discussion have, so far at least,
failed.

I'm most surprised that I'm not catching [censored] in the school zone. O THE
CHILDREN!!!

I like it, though! I mean, can you imagine? in this modern world,
people minding their own effin' business? How's that for cool?

Report concludes. --D-y

email hidden said:

I like it, though! I mean, can you imagine? in this modern world,
people minding their own effin' business? How's that for cool?

If only the politicians would - but when people don't even know what
they are doing, how can they complain when they get MHL's?

Quoted message said:

If only the politicians would - but when people don't even know what
they are doing, how can they complain when they get MHL's?

It's a complicated world. None of us understand much about what's going
on when it comes down to it, for all that we would like to.

Only *some* people complain about MHL's. Some people believe in them as
a great social good. I think the second group is ignorant, too, FWIW.
But them and the "don't cares" make up a pretty huge majority...

In the "letters" page, local paper, and in at least one City Council
meeting, the truth the the only real safety is in *numbers* was well
made, along with the fact that MHL's decrease rider numbers.

We may need a good lobbyist, like the motorcyclists used to overturn
their statewide MHL some years ago. Logic is pretty faint when it comes
to hysteria and scapegoating.

Meanwhile, I continue to be surprised at the lack of BS out on the
road. Pleasantly.
--D-y