Nuxx:C3b55f43-51e7-49e7-ac9e-088446eb0acf@y7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com

Path: num2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!num1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!number.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!y7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: URC/URCM potential FAQ on helmets Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 21:48:01 -0700 (PDT) References:      <1c7d9ffc-8550-4aba-8900-dcb542961ef7@y9g2000yqg.googlegroups.com> <3a24a47f-6a92-4538-be53-cf46f286ea99@e21g2000yqb.googlegroups.com> <58411805-076b-4d7a-99c7-baf5161acb30@s1g2000prd.googlegroups.com> <98f7355l3qqjjqcmlnsub4d65oahlb20gd@4ax.com> Lines: 41 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 81.156.150.242 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1244954882 25242 127.0.0.1 (14 Jun 2009 04:48:02 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 04:48:02 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: y7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com; posting-host=81.156.150.242; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.0.10) Gecko/2009042316 Firefox/3.0.10 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Bytes: 3511 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:709711

On Jun 13, 3:56 pm, Judith M Smith  wrote: > On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 06:13:01 -0700 (PDT), Simon Brooke > >  wrote: > > > > >So if you want to argue that's it's morally acceptable to ride a red > >bicycle, or that everyone who rides in London should be obliged to > >wear wellington boots, then as far as I (and, I strongly suspect, all > >the other proposed moderators) am concerned that's fine. But if you > >want to accuse someone else of being dishonest when they say there's > >no safety benefit in wearing wellington boots, or post three times a > >day about red bicycles, then I don't see that as fine. > > I would not say someone was dishonest if they said that there was no > safety benefit in wearing wellington boots. > > If, on the other hand, they deliberately distorted evidence that > wellington boots provided safety benefit, or if the lied over whether > they had carried out a certain action - then I would say that they > were dishonest.

And there's nothing wrong with saying that. It would be nice if no- one ever *needed* to accuse anyone else of being dishonest, but unfortunately, it has been shown time and time again that certain URC "regulars" are more than happy to distort and deceive when it comes to safety-related facts, in order to pursue some worthless agenda or other (be that a prejudice against motorists, a wish to have no laws whatsoever applying to cyclists, or something equally idiotic). If only they would accept that safety is so important that it's *never* worth being dishonest about, they would stop their lies, and no-one would then need to point them out.

> I have no problem with people expressing their beliefs. > > I have no problem with people who disagree with my point of view. > > I despise people who are dishonest.

Same here.