Motoring and trolls



LSMike wrote:
> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>> On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 13:29:38 +0000, Simon Brooke
>> <[email protected]> said in
>> <[email protected]>:
>>
>>> Yup, but the helmet debate has been done to death, all the
>>> positions have been advanced ad nauseam. No-one who has taken part
>>> is going to change their opinion
>>
>> That is provably false. Ask anyone who remembers my first helmet
>> thread on here.
>>
> I too changed my mind thanks to URC.

I have no idea what I thought before I came to URC. It feels like a long
time ago.

--
Ambrose
 
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 19:14:04 +0000, Tony Raven <[email protected]>
wrote:

>> Come on, Tony. How does my risk assessment stand up to your scrutiny?
>> Take the bait or agree there is still more to be got out of yet
>> another helmet thread. After all, you started it! :p
>
>My lips are sealed by edict of Simon ;-[]

Simon says... Seal you lips...

Simon says... Raise you arms...

Simon says... Pick your nose...

Touch your feet... Ha! ha! Caught you out!

Simon says... Speak about helmets...
 
Bertie Wiggins wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 19:14:04 +0000, Tony Raven <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>> Come on, Tony. How does my risk assessment stand up to your
>>> scrutiny? Take the bait or agree there is still more to be got out
>>> of yet another helmet thread. After all, you started it! :p
>>
>> My lips are sealed by edict of Simon ;-[]
>
> Simon says... Seal you lips...
>
> Simon says... Raise you arms...
>
> Simon says... Pick your nose...
>
> Touch your feet... Ha! ha! Caught you out!
>
> Simon says... Speak about helmets...

As long as you don't get confused the other way round and start talking
about risk assessments and helmet debates to your students, that's fine by
me :)

--
Ambrose
 
Bertie Wiggins wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 19:14:04 +0000, Tony Raven <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>> Come on, Tony. How does my risk assessment stand up to your scrutiny?
>>> Take the bait or agree there is still more to be got out of yet
>>> another helmet thread. After all, you started it! :p
>> My lips are sealed by edict of Simon ;-[]
>
> Simon says... Seal you lips...
>
> Simon says... Raise you arms...
>
> Simon says... Pick your nose...
>
> Touch your feet... Ha! ha! Caught you out!
>
> Simon says... Speak about helmets...

<Just a Minute>

For many of us, helmets connote old movies where British explorers were
whacking their way through African or Indian jungles in their khaki
clothes and pith helmets. And it is true that the technology used to
make these very functional helmets was developed by European
colonialists during occupation of these, at the time, more remote
expanses of the world.

The cork of certain trees lent itself as the basis of a headgear that
was strong and protective and at the same time lightweight and
comfortable. Furthermore, the absorbing property of this natural
material provided the bonus feature of allowing the wearer to immerse
the hat in water keeping him or her cool during evaporation. When dry,
the helmet does not lose its stiffness or shape......

</Just a Minute>

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham
 
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 19:54:41 +0000, Tony Raven <[email protected]>
wrote:

>>>> Come on, Tony. How does my risk assessment stand up to your scrutiny?
>>>> Take the bait or agree there is still more to be got out of yet
>>>> another helmet thread. After all, you started it! :p
>>> My lips are sealed by edict of Simon ;-[]
>>
>> Simon says... Seal you lips...
>>
>> Simon says... Raise you arms...
>>
>> Simon says... Pick your nose...
>>
>> Touch your feet... Ha! ha! Caught you out!
>>
>> Simon says... Speak about helmets...
>
><Just a Minute>
>
>For many of us, helmets connote old movies where British explorers were
>whacking their way through African or Indian jungles in their khaki
>clothes and pith helmets. And it is true that the technology used to
>make these very functional helmets was developed by European
>colonialists during occupation of these, at the time, more remote
>expanses of the world.
>
>The cork of certain trees lent itself as the basis of a headgear that
>was strong and protective and at the same time lightweight and
>comfortable. Furthermore, the absorbing property of this natural
>material provided the bonus feature of allowing the wearer to immerse
>the hat in water keeping him or her cool during evaporation. When dry,
>the helmet does not lose its stiffness or shape......
>
></Just a Minute>

I don't want to play Simon says any more.
 
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 19:44:28 -0000, "Ambrose Nankivell"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>As long as you don't get confused the other way round and start talking
>about risk assessments and helmet debates to your students, that's fine by
>me :)

Oh, but I do - risk assessments, anyway.

With Level 2 and 3 trainees we'll stand on a road junction and risk
assess it. Just the other day (Thursday) with the final ride of a
level 2 group we risk assessed a place where a shared use cycle path
crossed a side road. Cars were segregated from the path by a child
cyclist height bush, so that a car and cyclist moving parallel to each
other would be invisible to each other:

http://www.streetmap.co.uk/newmap.s...srf&searchp=newsearch.srf&ax=541650&ay=180170
http://tinyurl.com/a6dr5
About 3/4 down the aerial photo and under 1/2 way across from the
left.

http://www.streetmap.co.uk/newmap.s...=4&ar=Y&mapp=newmap.srf&searchp=newsearch.srf
http://tinyurl.com/739oz
 
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:


<snipperty-snip>

Not just the Bill Boaks types,

Do you mean Commander Bill Boakes (RN retired) late of Putney?

I remember him - and his bike.

Julesh
 
LSMike wrote:
> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 13:29:38 +0000, Simon Brooke
>><[email protected]> said in
>><[email protected]>:
>>
>>
>>>Yup, but the helmet debate has been done to death, all the positions have
>>>been advanced ad nauseam. No-one who has taken part is going to change
>>>their opinion
>>
>>That is provably false. Ask anyone who remembers my first helmet
>>thread on here.
>>
>>Guy
>
>
> I too changed my mind thanks to URC.
>
<AOL>

Julesh
 
Ambrose Nankivell wrote:

> LSMike wrote:
>
>> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 13:29:38 +0000, Simon Brooke
>>> <[email protected]> said in
>>> <[email protected]>:
>>>
>>>> Yup, but the helmet debate has been done to death, all the
>>>> positions have been advanced ad nauseam. No-one who has taken part
>>>> is going to change their opinion
>>>
>>>
>>> That is provably false. Ask anyone who remembers my first helmet
>>> thread on here.
>>>
>> I too changed my mind thanks to URC.
>
>
> I have no idea what I thought before I came to URC. It feels like a long
> time ago.
>

Was there a "before urc"? Kind of like asking about what happened before
the big bang, innit?

James
--
James Annan
see web pages for email
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/
 
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 21:59:29 GMT, Julesh
<[email protected]> said in
<5T%[email protected]>:

>Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

>> Not just the Bill Boaks types,
>Do you mean Commander Bill Boakes (RN retired) late of Putney?

The same. A particularly British protester, and co-founder of the
/Official/ Monster Raving Loony Party (apparently).

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken
 
in message <[email protected]>, Bertie Wiggins
('[email protected]') wrote:

> On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 19:54:41 +0000, Tony Raven <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>>>> Come on, Tony. How does my risk assessment stand up to your
>>>>> scrutiny? Take the bait or agree there is still more to be got out
>>>>> of yet
>>>>> another helmet thread. After all, you started it! :p
>>>> My lips are sealed by edict of Simon ;-[]
>>>
>>> Simon says... Seal you lips...
>>>
>>> Simon says... Raise you arms...
>>>
>>> Simon says... Pick your nose...
>>>
>>> Touch your feet... Ha! ha! Caught you out!
>>>
>>> Simon says... Speak about helmets...
>>
>><Just a Minute>
>>
>>For many of us, helmets connote old movies where British explorers were
>>whacking their way through African or Indian jungles in their khaki
>>clothes and pith helmets. And it is true that the technology used to
>>make these very functional helmets was developed by European
>>colonialists during occupation of these, at the time, more remote
>>expanses of the world.
>>
>>The cork of certain trees lent itself as the basis of a headgear that
>>was strong and protective and at the same time lightweight and
>>comfortable. Furthermore, the absorbing property of this natural
>>material provided the bonus feature of allowing the wearer to immerse
>>the hat in water keeping him or her cool during evaporation. When dry,
>>the helmet does not lose its stiffness or shape......
>>
>></Just a Minute>
>
> I don't want to play Simon says any more.

Ah, but Suimon says you must.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
Just as defying the law of gravity through building aircraft requires
careful design and a lot of effort, so too does defying laws of
economics. It seems to be a deeply ingrained aspect of humanity to
forever strive to improve things, so unquestioning acceptance of a
free market system seems to me to be unnatural. ;; Charles Bryant
 
Simon Brooke wrote:
[...]
> I admit I do occasionally make deliberately
> inflammatory posts,

Like this one, and especially the following bit about lenient treatment
of motorists!

[...]

> That the
> legal system is dangerously lenient when dealing with motorists is
> uncontroversial.

You think that losing your livelihood over a technical offence is lenient???

> * Speed cameras, speed limits, vehicle excise duty, and other related
> topics are not on topic on this group. Ever.

Except when related to road safety or road funding.

> * Helmets /are/ on topic on this group. But they are also a FAQ. Could we
> nominate Guy Chapman as our 'Helmet officer',
> exactly one reply to any newbie asking about helmets or helmet safety,
> and the rest of us all LEAVE IT ALONE.

Not very likely, given the two strong opposing views.

> Finally, there are a number of people whom we all know are here
> fundamentally as trolls,

One man's troll is another man's freedom fighter. Even I've been
denounced as one, especially by the arrogant and ignorant around here
who think the current road system and its archaic rules and customs are
sacrosanct, and that there is no more they can learn and no more that
needs thinking longer about.

--
Matt B
 
in message <[email protected]>, Peter B
('[email protected]') wrote:

>
> "Matt B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> Gawd Simon, now look what you've gone and done, enticed it back out
> from under its bridge!

If you hadn't told me (and if Ambrose hadn't posted his entirely
justified comment) I should not have known.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; single speed mountain bikes: for people who cycle on flat mountains.
 
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 21:10:00 +0000, Matt B wrote:

> Peter B wrote:
>> "Matt B" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Gawd Simon, now look what you've gone and done, enticed it back out from
>> under its bridge!
>
> Please justify that defamatory remark.

Quite right!

Peter, you have implied that trolls own the bridges they lurk under. You
will shortly receive a stern letter from the GLA's landsharks about the
ownership of their bridges and should expect to have to apologise to the
GLA about that remark.


In return you might compose a letter to the GLA's sanitation department
concerning the scandalously long interval between cleaning the
under-bridge areas, and the effects on public health of the troll
droppings that accumulate there.

Sadly, as trolls do not carry a number-plate, there is no point in trying
to hit them for congestion charges.



Mike
 
In article <[email protected]>,
LSMike ([email protected]) wrote:
>
> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> > On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 13:29:38 +0000, Simon Brooke
> > <[email protected]> said in
> > <[email protected]>:
> >
> > >Yup, but the helmet debate has been done to death, all the positions have
> > >been advanced ad nauseam. No-one who has taken part is going to change
> > >their opinion
> >
> > That is provably false. Ask anyone who remembers my first helmet
> > thread on here.
> >
> > Guy
>
> I too changed my mind thanks to URC.

<AOL>

Though I /am/ currently wearing one for the commute-o-thing...

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
This Unit is a productive Unit.
 
Simon Brooke ([email protected]) wrote:
: Yes, I /know/ a good argument is fun, particularly when you are
: frustrated or bored. But this group is /not/ an appropriate place. It's
: my opinion that this group is valuable, to me at least. If you agree
: with me, please help keep it lively, vibrant and useful.

I've thought for a while that it should be renamed uk.rec.anti-car.
Positive posts about cycling are in the minority.

Blair
 
B.G. Finlay wrote:
>
> I've thought for a while that it should be renamed uk.rec.anti-car.
>
>


ITYM uk.anti.car-rec.involving.cyclists


--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
[OT] motoring **** looses money from identity fraud bet.
Replies
55
Views
2K
UK and Europe
Kenneth MacKenzie
K
J
Telegraph motoring section
Replies
12
Views
434
UK and Europe
Simon Brooke
S
T
the future of motoring
Replies
2
Views
348
UK and Europe
Simon Brooke
S
M
Praise for the Brompton from a motoring journalist
Replies
3
Views
375
UK and Europe
David Martin
D
G
a little bit of drizzle and the motoring world goes mad(der than usual) :-(
Replies
17
Views
1K
UK and Europe
Danny Colyer
D
Top Bottom Back