Cooler Helmet?

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 22:42:17 GMT, "Sorni"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Mark didn't mock anyone,

He used the word "paranoid" to descibe very reasonable prudence.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[Mark Hickey]

John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 22:42:17 GMT, "Sorni"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>>Mark didn't mock anyone,
>
>He used the word "paranoid" to descibe very reasonable prudence.

But here's the passage I was replying to...

>Passing a line of stopped cars on the right at 20 mph sounds like
>suicide to me. I would _never_ do that voluntarily. And if someone
>somehow forced me to do it (perhaps at gunpoint) I'd insist on much
>more protection than a flimsy bike helmet.

Maybe there's a better word than "paranoid", but to suggest that
something that thousands of cyclists do every day (passing stopped
cars in a wide, clear bike lane at speed) as "suicide" certainly seems
to qualify to me. To be so scared of doing so without some sort of
"protection" seems to fit as well, but that's just my opinion.

I'll let anyone who's still interested make up their own mind as to my
use of the word. But if it would help to change "paranoid" to
"cautious to the point of near paralysis", that would be fine, too.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

 

[Mark Hickey]

[email protected] wrote:

>If you want to discuss this incident further, perhaps it should be in a
>separate thread. I suggest the subject heading "Is it wise to pass
>stopped cars on the right at 20 mph?"

.... though to prevent the misunderstanding, the title should be "Is it
wise to pass stopped cars six to ten feet to your left in the adjacent
lane at 20mph?". If we had that discussion, I would suggest being
particularly careful about left-turning cars (of course). But that's
pretty much the case any time, so I suggest we don't start the new
thread, as it would be as pointless as this one. ;-)

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

 

[[email protected]]

Mark Hickey wrote:
> I suggest we don't start the new
> thread, as it would be as pointless as this one. ;-)

Alternately, you may not want to see this discussed in detail

Which is fine with me. Your choice.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[Sorni]

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 22:35:22 GMT, "Sorni"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> The FACT, John (please listen this time as it's at least the second
>> and definitely last time I'm going to bother spelling it out) is
>> that I in no way addressed the relative CHANCES of crashing on
>> different types of bike rides.
>
> That's my point. Nothing dishonest about my saying that.

God. You wrote: "It;s sort of complicated when people starting talking
about accidents riding a mountain bike in rocky terrain and relating that to
chances of accidents on a normal road ride."

I did NOT relate accidents riding a mountain bike in rocky terrain to
chances of accidents on a normal road bike, and it was DISHONEST of you to
say I did.

Get it now?!? (I'm not holding my breath.)

 

[Sorni]

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 22:42:17 GMT, "Sorni"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Mark didn't mock anyone,
>
> He used the word "paranoid" to descibe very reasonable prudence.

You're not only dishonest in your comments, but you edit responses to cover
your lies, false allegations and just plain snarkiness, too. (Just like you
did in the thread above where you mischaracterized what I wrote about
helmets & crashing and then keep deleting it in your faux-innocent reply.
Now I see why Ozark was so "mental" dealing with you and I wish I hadn't
defended you.)

 

[41]

Sorni wrote:

> I did NOT relate accidents riding a mountain bike in rocky terrain to
> chances of accidents on a normal road bike

T-H-A- T-'-S H-I-S P-O-I-N-T.

 

[Sorni]

41 wrote:
> Sorni wrote:
>
>> I did NOT relate accidents riding a mountain bike in rocky terrain to
>> chances of accidents on a normal road bike
>
> T-H-A- T-'-S H-I-S P-O-I-N-T.

IT'S NOT WHAT HE WROTE.

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

Sorni wrote:
> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> > On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 22:42:17 GMT, "Sorni"
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Mark didn't mock anyone,
> >
> > He used the word "paranoid" to descibe very reasonable prudence.
>
> You're not only dishonest in your comments, but you edit responses to cover
> your lies, false allegations and just plain snarkiness, too. (Just like you
> did in the thread above where you mischaracterized what I wrote about
> helmets & crashing and then keep deleting it in your faux-innocent reply.


I see you have discovered, first hand, the true nature of John Forrest
Tomlinson; welcome to the club.


> Now I see why Ozark was so "mental" dealing with you and I wish I hadn't
> defended you.)


No offense taken on my part, Sorni. The deceptive little weasel is very
clever in the way he edits posts and twists and distorts words and
context. Unless an observer is interested enough to follow every
exchange, it's difficult to see why the other poster is so incensed at
Tomlinson's behavior.

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

Sorni wrote:
[about me]

> you edit responses to cover
> your lies, false allegations

I edit stuff because I don't want to read it twice, and I don't think
other newsgroup readers want to read things twice either. I'm not
hiding anything -- the whole past conversation is in a publicly
available archive at groups.google.com. If you really need it to
refresh your memory, check it out. If you think other readers want to
see it again, you can re-post stuff as well. I find that tiresome.

In any case, I'm not about to play a word-for-word game with you where
I keep the whole of your posts intact and rebut or agree with every
sentence or even every idea in them. I reply to stuff that I feel is
important -- either important to agree with and affirm or expand, or
important to denounce or correct. Or important but unclear or
unbelievable enough for me to ask for more information.

And just because I disagree with some part of what you write and don't
write about other stuff doesn't mean I agree or disagree with that
remainder -- it just means I've got nothing to say about it or I think
it's unimportant.

> just plain snarkiness, too.

When I am snarky, I hope it's very much upfront. With you I have
straightforward. If you find that insulting, that's unfortunate. But
I'm being straightforward in my opinions so what seems (to you) to be
snarkiness will continue.

> I wish I hadn't defended you.

You can go back to google groups or your news service and retract what
you wrote (I think it's called "cancelling" a message), or you can
even just repost to that thread saying you were mistaken and
mis-interepreted what I said or what Ozark said and your opinion has
changed.

JT


****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

OK, Sorni, I'll play your ***-for-tat game just this once.

You just reposted what I wrote:

"It;s sort of complicated when people starting talking about accidents
riding a mountain bike in rocky terrain and relating that to chances
of accidents on a normal road ride."

And you wrote:

"I did NOT relate accidents riding a mountain bike in rocky terrain to
chances of accidents on a normal road bike, and it was DISHONEST of
you to say I did."

From what you re-posted of my text above, I just don't see where I
said you did. It's simply not there.

I know this may sound snarky, but please recognize that "people" has a
different meaning than "you."

You can apologize now for your "dishonest" comment. Or, if you prefer,
you can believe that I don't write clearly enough and that therefore
your misperception of what I wrote is my fault. That's fine too.

But there was no deception involved in trying to trick you by hiding
the word "chances" or by using "people" instead of "you" -- I
sincerely meant what you quoted from me above.

JT





****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[Sorni]

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> OK, Sorni, I'll play your ***-for-tat game just this once.
>
> You just reposted what I wrote:
>
> "It;s sort of complicated when people starting talking about accidents
> riding a mountain bike in rocky terrain and relating that to chances
> of accidents on a normal road ride."
>
> And you wrote:
>
> "I did NOT relate accidents riding a mountain bike in rocky terrain to
> chances of accidents on a normal road bike, and it was DISHONEST of
> you to say I did."
>
> From what you re-posted of my text above, I just don't see where I
> said you did. It's simply not there.
>
> I know this may sound snarky, but please recognize that "people" has a
> different meaning than "you."
>
> You can apologize now for your "dishonest" comment. Or, if you prefer,
> you can believe that I don't write clearly enough and that therefore
> your misperception of what I wrote is my fault. That's fine too.
>
> But there was no deception involved in trying to trick you by hiding
> the word "chances" or by using "people" instead of "you" -- I
> sincerely meant what you quoted from me above.

Last word on the subject: I already admitted I missed your use of the word
"chances" the first time I replied to your comment, and thus didn't react to
it the same way. The full thread is there for anyone lame enough to play
Usenet Sleuth on this.

I'll take your word about the "people" v. "you" thing, but it doesn't change
the fact that you edit some of your posts in a deceitful manner (IMO) -- the
most recent example being our little exchange re. Mark Hickey and "mocking".
Rather than dishonest, I'll go with misleading -- and hope it's more
habitual than intentional. Sorry for assuming it was the latter.

Out, BS

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Mon, 01 May 2006 22:39:42 GMT, "Sorni"
<[email protected]> wrote:


> it doesn't change
> the fact that you edit some of your
> posts in a deceitful manner (IMO) -- the
> most recent example being our little exchange
> re. Mark Hickey and "mocking".

How am I going to deceive someone when they can get a record of the
previous post via googlegroups or their own newserver with a few
keystrokes? The accusation that I'm deceitful is nonsense.

>Rather than dishonest, I'll go with misleading -- and hope it's more
>habitual than intentional.

I write what I believe. If you want to believe that I mean something
else, and thatr some other meaning is hidden in my text, that's your
problem. But if you say it in public I will point out you are very
mistaken.

JT


****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[Sorni]

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On Mon, 01 May 2006 22:39:42 GMT, "Sorni"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> it doesn't change
>> the fact that you edit some of your
>> posts in a deceitful manner (IMO) -- the
>> most recent example being our little exchange
>> re. Mark Hickey and "mocking".
>
> How am I going to deceive someone when they can get a record of the
> previous post via googlegroups or their own newserver with a few
> keystrokes? The accusation that I'm deceitful is nonsense.

Most people read individual posts as they appear on their servers. That's
why "proper posting etiquette" (whatever the hell THAT is) calls for quoting
the relevant material to which one is replying (AKA "context"). You, more
often than not, remove all the context when it's favorable to you to do so.
(For example, someone calls you on something -- gives an example of it --
you then just leave the "naked charge" and pretend to be oh-so-hurt by the
injustice of it all, knowing full well that you just deleted the example
showing the very transgression being discussed.)

HAND! BS

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Tue, 02 May 2006 00:29:52 GMT, "Sorni"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Most people read individual posts as they appear on their servers. That's
>why "proper posting etiquette" (whatever the hell THAT is) calls for quoting
>the relevant material to which one is replying (AKA "context").

You still don't get it do you? I wasn't writing about you, but you
think some big context is needed to protect you . I don't care about
that and wasn't trying to mislead anyone one way or another.

Anyway, if you feel that context is so vital to avoid someone else
misinterpreting what I wrote as if it applies to you, even though it
clearly doesn't (remember, "people" does not mean the same thing as
"you") all you have to do is write back "Well, I don't do that." I
never said you did, but if you truly think that the record needs to
show that, just say it.

It's not complicated.*

Instead you start writing that I mislead and deceive people, when in
fact you misread or missed two words in one sentence of mine
("chances" and "people").

That makes no sense. And would be easily avoided if you had read my
sentence with "chances" and "people" more carefully in the first place
rather than just imaging what I meant.

JT

* PS -- if using your "it's not complicated" comment that sounds
snarky it's meant to be. I'm tired of defending myself when you
mis-read what I wrote and you're starting to annoy me.

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

Sorni,

Do you know what deceit means? I don't think you do.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Tue, 02 May 2006 00:29:52 GMT, "Sorni"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> On Mon, 01 May 2006 22:39:42 GMT, "Sorni"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> it doesn't change
>>> the fact that you edit some of your
>>> posts in a deceitful manner (IMO) -- the
>>> most recent example being our little exchange
>>> re. Mark Hickey and "mocking".
>>
>> How am I going to deceive someone when they can get a record of the
>> previous post via googlegroups or their own newserver with a few
>> keystrokes? The accusation that I'm deceitful is nonsense.
>
>Most people read individual posts as they appear on their servers. That's
>why "proper posting etiquette" (whatever the hell THAT is) calls for quoting
>the relevant material to which one is replying (AKA "context"). You, more
>often than not, remove all the context when it's favorable to you to do so.
>(For example, someone calls you on something -- gives an example of it --
>you then just leave the "naked charge" and pretend to be oh-so-hurt by the
>injustice of it all, knowing full well that you just deleted the example
>showing the very transgression being discussed.)
>
>HAND! BS

I'm sorry, I should have left the post above to make it clear what I
was writing about so readers can see the context. So I'll repeat:

Sorni,

Do you know what deceit means? I don't think you do.

JT


****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[Sorni]

Methinks thou does't protest too much.

Bill "context removed for your comfort level" S.

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Tue, 02 May 2006 05:05:11 GMT, "Sorni"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Methinks thou does't protest too much.

Being called "deceitful" is worthy of protest. You used that word
about me and it was completely wrong.

An apology would be appropriate from you.

JT


****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[Sandy]

John Forrest Tomlinson a écrit :
> On Tue, 02 May 2006 05:05:11 GMT, "Sorni"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Methinks thou does't protest too much.
>
> Being called "deceitful" is worthy of protest. You used that word
> about me and it was completely wrong.
>
> An apology would be appropriate from you.
>
> JT
>
>
> ****************************
> Remove "remove" to reply
> Visit http://www.jt10000.com
> ****************************

Couldn't the two of you please consider this an unresolved draw and go
out riding ? Neither of you are winning any style points, you know.
--
Bonne route !

sandy