Nuxx:Ybx3l.28147$AL7.20914@newsfe14.ams2

Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!feeder.news-service.com!69.16.177.246.MISMATCH!cyclone03.ams.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!npeersf02.ams.highwinds-media.com!newsfe14.ams2.POSTED!7564ea0f!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: _  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Troll Drawings Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 19:56:24 +0000 References:  <29c7bb99470c4149c487919bdf9e975b@pseudo.borked.net> <%nP1l.2627$tp1.69@newsfe19.ams2>       <222sk4106tmg9itd87v7v7072bm1m2lb72@4ax.com>       Lines: 45 User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.18 (Windows/20081105) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To:  Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.21.204.127 X-Complaints-To: http://netreport.virginmedia.com X-Trace: newsfe14.ams2 1229889400 82.21.204.127 (Sun, 21 Dec 2008 19:56:40 UTC) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 19:56:40 UTC Organization: virginmedia.com Bytes: 4122 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:681543

Ian Smith wrote: > On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 17:38:45 +0000, _ <whos@prettyboy.com> wrote: >> Ian Smith wrote: >>> On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 15:08:12 +0000, _ <whos@prettyboy.com> wrote: >>> >>>> I've no doubt that has translated into giving cyclists less >>>> consideration when I come across them on the roads. >>> So you're saying you are deliberately causing more danger to all >>> cyclists because you disagree with how some of them have said some >>> things. Do you think this revelation makes people think better of >>> you? >>> >> I think your childish comment pretty much typifies what I was saying, >> dont you? What a bunch of fuckwits... > > Well, if you didn't mean that, what did you mean? > > It's clear that you claim to be knowingly exposing all the cyclists > you meet to greater danger. You are apparently doing so on the basis > of comments you've read on this group, which is obviously only a very > small subset of cyclists, and it's only a subset of that subset to > which you seem to object. You said yourself it's how they present > their case that upsets you. > > So just what did you mean, if not that you are knowingly exposing all > cyclists you meet to increased danger because you disagree with how > some cyclists have said some things? What other possible > interpretation is there to what you said? Please do explain. > > Also, why is it childish to try and find out if you actually mean by > what you are saying? Do you really think it childish if someone who > doesn't understand a comment seeks clarification? That's rather a > peculiar attitude to adopt, in my opinion. > I think I made myself perfectly clear. The animosity displayed by cyclists in this newsgroup coupled with deliberately confrontational terms like 'cager' *does* lead to lessened compassion from drivers to vulnerable cyclists. Now you can crow all you want that this is a damning indictment of drivers, but if you had a sodding ounce of sense you'd see that you're putting yourselves in an ever-more vulnerable position. Rather than whine that car drivers are uncaring, perhaps you should wonder *why*. But you cant, can you - your prejudices simply want to say that car drivers must be bastards. As I said before, lets hope you still have the capacity to say that when you've lost an argument with two tonnes of car versus your puny bike.