Top Gear

Steven said:

As far as I'm concerned it's just a tall tale told by someone who I've never
met, on the internet.

Though it's been told to a lot of other people I know and respect much
better than you, and none of them felt it clearly rubbish.

Your tale of policemen bearing news about dynamos is just a tall tale
told by someone who I've never met, on the internet, yet you feel it
quite reasonable it should be taken at face value here, and it has been.
But I see you're not willing to return the courtesy to others, even
others with a long posting history here and no particular reputation for
inventing parables.

Quoted message said:

Just because a lot of gullible people are prepared to believe it, doesn't mean
it's true.

Just because you're so untrusting you won't believe it doesn't mean its
false, yet you state with some certainty that it must be false, as if
saying it again and again will make it false. Maybe if you restate your
concrete assumptions about blowing 2.4W bulbs from dynohubs often
enough, the bulbs I blew will magically repair themselves! That would
be nice.

Quoted message said:

And the fact that it comes from someone who, given the amount of stuff he can
post on here all day long, and his employment details as posted in his sig, is
clearly quite happy to steal large quantities of his employer's time for non
work related internet play doesn't fill me with confidence in its veracity.

Ah, the good old "I'll attack the messenger" ad hominem strategy, and
not for the first time either!

It's true I spend some of my contracted time on things not to do with
work, and that would certainly be an issue if I didn't pick up the slack
with my uncontracted time (for which I don't get any overtime or time in
lieu). Quite a bit of work on servers gets done out of hours to
minimise disruption to other staff here, and I can't remember when I
last took a full annual leave entitlement despite having plenty of
things I'd like to do with it.
How would my superiors know if I'm picking up that slack? By managing
and monitoring the work I actually do, which, as it happens, they do.
And they've been satisfied with that work for the decade or so I've been
a regular Usenet poster, and even recommended me for promotion to a
higher paid grade with no prompting from me.

So what's your next unresearched assumption you'll take for being gospel?

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

On 07/15/2005 09:17:51 Peter Clinch said:

Steven wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And the fact that it comes from someone who, given the amount of stuff he
can post on here all day long, and his employment details as posted in
his sig, is clearly quite happy to steal large quantities of his
employer's time for non work related internet play doesn't fill me with
confidence in its veracity.

Quoted message said:

Ah, the good old "I'll attack the messenger" ad hominem strategy, and not
for the first time either!

That's it Pete, you're going to hell now.

--

Buck

I would rather be out on my Catrike

http://www.catrike.co.uk

Buck said:

That's it Pete, you're going to hell now.

I'd already sold my soul for the Streetmachine, of course...

I'll be seeing you there in due order, I imagine! ;-)

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

On 14 Jul 2005 22:11:57 +0100 (BST), [email hidden] (Alan Braggins)

Quoted message said:

In article said:

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 15:38:56 +0100, Peter Clinch <[email hidden]>
wrote:

Of *course* it's an urban legend.

You do realize that urban legends can be true?
http://tafkac.org/afu.faq/index.html

Absolutely.

I specifically said that the story is an urban legend, because I have no more
proof that it's false, than that it's true.

How difficult this task would be depends on the attitude of the railway staff.
If they were quite amenable to taking a tandem wrapped up in cardboard, that's
one thing, but if the guy actually had to disguise the tandem by making a box
for it, that's quite another.

It could be true, it could be false, but bringing up the fact that I find the
story a bit fishy in a completely unrelated thread strikes me as a thoroughly
suspect gambit.

Steven said:

How difficult this task would be depends on the attitude of the railway staff.
If they were quite amenable to taking a tandem wrapped up in cardboard, that's
one thing, but if the guy actually had to disguise the tandem by making a box
for it, that's quite another.

Had you read it (http://tinyurl.com/9qkgl) you'd have seen that your
problem as raised above was a non-issue, but why research something when
you can make a sweeping, unfounded assumption, and never mind if it's wrong?

Quoted message said:

It could be true, it could be false, but bringing up the fact that I find the
story a bit fishy in a completely unrelated thread strikes me as a thoroughly
suspect gambit.

You say something like, "I don't trust his arguments, he posts from work
so clearly can't be trusted"

I say, "I don't trust his arguments, they're full of holes and unfounded
assumptions and he often strays from the point with name calling, temper
tantrums, needless profanity and ad hominem diversions. Here are some
examples to demonstrate these factors".

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 09:17:51 +0100, Peter Clinch <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Steven said:

As far as I'm concerned it's just a tall tale told by someone who I've never
met, on the internet.

Though it's been told to a lot of other people I know and respect much
better than you

Ah, so you've told the tale to a lot of other people.

Must be true, then.

Of course, there really *are* a lot of very gullible people around. That's why
we have urban legends.

Quoted message said:

Ah, the good old "I'll attack the messenger" ad hominem strategy, and
not for the first time either!

It's strictly relevant in this case. I'm told a tall tale by someone I don't
know. I need to make an assessment of the reliability of the poster, no?

In your case, judging be the speed and length of the responses made to this
group, chatting here seems to take precedence over the work that your employer
is paying you to do.

So in this case, yes, you can call it an ad-hominem, but it's quite valid
because it's a necessary part of considering the reliability of the source of an
tall tale.

Steven said:

It's strictly relevant in this case. I'm told a tall tale by someone I don't
know. I need to make an assessment of the reliability of the poster, no?

So, what do you do? Do you look at his publicly available posting
record of several years? Or do you make a judgment based on unfounded
assumptions about how much work he does?

The best, most relevant and most obvious approach would clearly be the
former. But it's not as quick.

Your point about dynamos not being able to blow 2.4W bulbs /would/ have
been useful if it had been right. Your point about research showing
seatbelts to have lowered KSI figures /would/ have been useful if it had
been right. But you just charge on basing things you say as being true
on inadequate research, and it undermines any usefulness in what you
say, because even where it is a useful point there's no way you can be
trusted because we've seen you don't always do your homework properly
and qualify the limits on your knowledge. If you look at my publicly
available posting record you see that I regularly *do* place
qualifications where I'm not reasonably sure.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

id like to say that to fit a tandem in a box it would have to be a big box
where you would surely have to take of wheels, seatposts, pedals etc.
so did you have tools on you at the time?

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 10:28:12 +0100, Peter Clinch <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Steven said:

How difficult this task would be depends on the attitude of the railway staff.
If they were quite amenable to taking a tandem wrapped up in cardboard, that's
one thing, but if the guy actually had to disguise the tandem by making a box
for it, that's quite another.

Had you read it (http://tinyurl.com/9qkgl)

The reason I didn't look at the url you mentioned at the time was that you
offered it to show that you'd been telling the same story for a long time, not
that it contained new facts.

As only an idiot would give more credence to a tall tail just because the same
person had told it for some time, there was no point in my looking there.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It could be true, it could be false, but bringing up the fact that I find the
story a bit fishy in a completely unrelated thread strikes me as a thoroughly
suspect gambit.

You say something like, "I don't trust his arguments, he posts from work
so clearly can't be trusted"

No, I say he's telling what appears to be a tall tail, I need to work out how
honest and reliable he is.

What evidence do I have?

Well, he appears to work for a university, and he appears to spend very large
amounts of the time paid for by his employers (aka the taxpayer, aka us),
posting large amounts of material to this very group. (An activity that can lead
to instant dismissal for many people).

Therefore, I'm dealing with someone who is quite prepared to steal from his
employers, and, given the sheer amount of material you post here, and the speed
of your responses, it seems pretty clear that your communication with urc
actually takes precedence over the work you are being payed to do.

When challenged, he makes completely unverifiable assertions about unpaid
overtime making up for all this.

BTW, having now read the full story, and realised that he took the wheels and
hanlebars off, and that total camoflage was not required I find the story, on
the whole, believable.

"Mr Flowers" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

id like to say that to fit a tandem in a box it would have to be a big box
where you would surely have to take of wheels, seatposts, pedals etc.
so did you have tools on you at the time?

My first tandem came in a big box with wheels, seatposts, pedals all fitted.

(I've always been able to take the wheels off my bikes, even the tandems -
but I know punctures happen..)

cheers,
clive

Mr Flowers said:

id like to say that to fit a tandem in a box it would have to be a big box
where you would surely have to take of wheels, seatposts, pedals etc.
so did you have tools on you at the time?

It wasn't me, it was a couple of good friends of mine. See
http://tinyurl.com/9qkgl for a report from nearer the time.

Did they have tools? I suspect so, since they were on their way home
from a touring holiday.

Also bear in mind the alternatives to gift-wrapping the bike: how would
you get it safely home, given you're meant to be at home yourself later
that day and it's more than a day's ride, and would such methods be
considerably costlier and/or time consuming? Necessity is the mother of
invention, and with a couple of PhDs between them this particular team
aren't completely short of thinking power and initiative.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Steven wrote:
<all snipped>

I'd tread very carefully if I were you, Steven. Your statements are
perilously close to being libellous, if they are not already, and a good
little troll should never have to resort to such lack of subtlety.

R.

Steven said:

No, I say he's telling what appears to be a tall tail, I need to work out how
honest and reliable he is.

What evidence do I have?

That would have to include the Google usenet archives. And of course
*everyone* knows that it's good netiquette to follow a group for a while
before jumping in with both feet, as they're less likely to end up in
your mouth because you get to see who's who.

Quoted message said:

Well, he appears to work for a university, and he appears to spend very large
amounts of the time paid for by his employers (aka the taxpayer, aka us),
posting large amounts of material to this very group. (An activity that can lead
to instant dismissal for many people).

Therefore, I'm dealing with someone who is quite prepared to steal from his
employers,

You're jumping to unfounded conclusions again. I've already pointed out
that I've always had ongoing review of my work, but, characteristically,
you've ignored that because it isn't convenient for your thesis. How
many people do you think have their performance based entirely on them
saying "oh, I'm working away quite hard, actually!" and nothing else?

Quoted message said:

When challenged, he makes completely unverifiable assertions about unpaid
overtime making up for all this.

It's quite easy to track down my employers. And it's quite easy for my
employers to see that I use Usenet at work, since it's public domain.
And it's quite easy for them to see what work I do, because if I don't
do it it's self evident to them. "Oh, I've implemented the MySQL
database now!" or "the new hard disk is online now!" doesn't really work
if they can't use it, because I haven't done it.

Quoted message said:

BTW, having now read the full story, and realised that he took the wheels and
hanlebars off, and that total camoflage was not required I find the story, on
the whole, believable.

Yet you've been saying for ages, based on unfounded assumptions, that it
was clearly an invention. Just another example of how your assumptive
leaps aren't getting you anywhere.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Richard said:

Steven wrote:
<all snipped>

I'd tread very carefully if I were you, Steven. Your statements are
perilously close to being libellous, if they are not already, and a good
little troll should never have to resort to such lack of subtlety.

More helpfully, he's well past the point of being killfileable, which
for a troll is presumbly a dismal failure.

James
--
James Annan
see web pages for email
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 11:04:00 +0100, Peter Clinch <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Steven said:

It's strictly relevant in this case. I'm told a tall tale by someone I don't
know. I need to make an assessment of the reliability of the poster, no?

So, what do you do? Do you look at his publicly available posting
record of several years? Or do you make a judgment based on unfounded
assumptions about how much work he does?

Having lurked here for a while, and looked at a few google archived threads,
your posting record seems to be that you will engage someone in an argument, and
witter on and on and on and on until eventually, they lose the will to live.

I've seen you do this with several people, using various techniques such as
jumping off at tangents, and rapid, unannounce context switches.

In amongst all this there are some good posts, but it's the sheer volume of
jittery argument when someone won't be cowed by your onslaught that sticks in
the mind most.

Dragging up my objections to the tale about the tandem in a completely unrelated
thread (i.e. oh, look, I claim he made a mistake here, therefor he must be wrong
everwhere else), is an example of your "throw everything at the argument, and
eventually the other guy will give up", technique.

And the vast majority of this posting seems to be done during time that your
emplyer is paying you to do something else.

Quoted message said:

The best, most relevant and most obvious approach would clearly be the
former. But it's not as quick.

Your point about dynamos not being able to blow 2.4W bulbs /would/ have
been useful if it had been right.

It was actually a statement about what would happen with a 6v dynamo. It was
quite correct for what would happen with a dynamo that was limited to 6v.

Where it differed from actuality was that it seems cycles are not actually
fitted with 6v dynamos, they are fitted with 0.5 amp dynamos, so what I said
wasn't wrong, just irrelevant.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Your point about research showing

seatbelts to have lowered KSI figures /would/ have been useful if it had
been right. But you just charge on basing things you say as being true
on inadequate research, and it undermines any usefulness in what you
say, because even where it is a useful point there's no way you can be
trusted because we've seen you don't always do your homework properly
and qualify the limits on your knowledge. If you look at my publicly
available posting record you see that I regularly *do* place
qualifications where I'm not reasonably sure.

Unfortunately, there are many "known facts", that are not as factual as they are
known to be.

When carrying on an informal discussion it is impractical to check every single
thing that you 'know' to be a fact.

To take the example of the seatbelt statistic, there is a commonly 'known' fact
that seatbelts reduce injuries and deaths to the occupants of cars in accidents.
AFAIK this is actually true.

What Guy picked up on was that what I actually said was (roughly) that
"seatbelts reduce death and injury on the roads", which is not the same thing at
all. However, the powers that be do not publicise the true statistics as they
relate to *all* road casulaties, so the distinction was not obvious.

And, as is so typical here, instead of acting in a cooperative manner, and
explaing the sleight of hand that the most publicised figures hide, Guy had to
come up with a smart arsed answer, roughly "what country is that in".

If people quietly explained other peoples mistakes, there would be a *great*
deal less pointless argument and point scoring here.

Richard said:

Steven wrote:
<all snipped>

I'd tread very carefully if I were you, Steven. Your statements are
perilously close to being libellous, if they are not already, and a good
little troll should never have to resort to such lack of subtlety.

I would suggest they have crossed the line from perilously close to
actual. With just a modicum of effort Steven would have been able to
find out on the dundee.ac.uk Personnel Policies page the following
statement:

"Within the University there exist both staff who work a specified
number of hours per week and those who work the time that is reasonably
required to fulfil the duties of the post."

I suspect that Pete falls in the latter category in which case as long
as he fulfils his duties there is no issue with his employers.

--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon

Tony Raven said:

"Within the University there exist both staff who work a specified
number of hours per week and those who work the time that is reasonably
required to fulfil the duties of the post."

I suspect that Pete falls in the latter category in which case as long
as he fulfils his duties there is no issue with his employers.

Well spotted!
Technically my post with UoD is honorary, I'm actually employed by the
NHS, but same goes.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Richard said:

Steven wrote:
<all snipped>

I'd tread very carefully if I were you, Steven.

Thanks for the warning, mate.

I'll bear it in mind.

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 20:04:21 +0900, James Annan <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Richard said:

Steven wrote:
<all snipped>

I'd tread very carefully if I were you, Steven. Your statements are
perilously close to being libellous, if they are not already, and a good
little troll should never have to resort to such lack of subtlety.

More helpfully, he's well past the point of being killfileable, which
for a troll is presumbly a dismal failure.

Ah, spoken like a true plonker :-)

Tony Raven said:

Richard said:

Steven wrote:
<all snipped>

I'd tread very carefully if I were you, Steven. Your statements are
perilously close to being libellous, if they are not already, and a good
little troll should never have to resort to such lack of subtlety.

I would suggest they have crossed the line from perilously close to
actual. With just a modicum of effort Steven would have been able to
find out on the dundee.ac.uk Personnel Policies page the following
statement:

"Within the University there exist both staff who work a specified
number of hours per week and those who work the time that is reasonably
required to fulfil the duties of the post."

I suspect that Pete falls in the latter category in which case as long
as he fulfils his duties there is no issue with his employers.

Jeez, no wonder our universities and the NHS are always after more and more
money.

He's clearly been employed in one of those jobs where there's only enough work
for a part timer, so the person they employ has time for personal pursuits all
day long.

One hopes that at some stage a value for money audit will weed out more such
posts so that we actually get good value for money from the part of our taxes
that go towards financing these sorts of shambles.