Should I or shouldn't I?
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Car detailed with Zaino
Next: Stitched up by a talivan
From: Alex Heney on 13 Jul 2008 16:36 On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 22:24:45 GMT, Digiman(a)nospam.com (Digiman) wrote: >On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 22:57:22 +0100, Nick Finnigan <nix(a)genie.co.uk> >wrote: > >>> I did NOT say or suggest that it would be OK if he had to do an >>> emergency stop. >> >> Emergency means unexpected or pressing. If another road user has to >>stop because a vehicle door opens, that is unexpected and pressing. > >JNugnet or another troll will be along in a minute to point out (quite >unnecessarily) that if the door is opened when the person who needs to >stop is far enough away it will not cause an emergency stop). > >Sensible readers and non-trolls will have worked that one out for >themselves. As will some trolls, as evidenced by your post. The problem is that Nick is being silly about the difference between "opening" and "leaving open". In actual fact, "emergency stops or otherwise are utterly irrelevant under his definition, in that *technically*, if it is POSSIBLE for you to avoid hitting the door, then it MUST have been "left open" rather than be in the act of opening, unless you are doing about 1-2mph (impossible to keep up going that slowly for more than a few seconds on a bike for any except real expert riders). But he is the only one who is being silly and pedantic enough to refer to car doors being "opened in front of you" as only referring to the time during the actual opening of the door. -- Alex Heney, Global Villager Plagiarism is the sincerest form of flattery. To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
From: Digiman on 13 Jul 2008 17:13 On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 21:25:03 +0100, Alex Heney <me8(a)privacy.net> wrote: >>>>>>> Being forced to stop by an obstruction in the crriageway does not >>>>>>> equal "emergency stop" without further data. >>>>> >>>>>> The further data is a door opening. >>>>> >>>>> That could be further data, but it is not sufficient further data. A >>>>> door opening half a mile in front of you in a narrow street with cars >>>>> parked on both sides might still require you to stop by the time you >>>>> got to that spot. Not by any stretch of the reasonable man's >>>>> imagination could you call it an emergency stop - or even an >>>>> emergency. Sometimes, and whether we like it or not, we all have to >>>>> stop. It's just life. >>>> >>>>Are you quite determined to appear silly? >>>> >>> >>>If he is, then what he posted was doing a VERY bad job of it, since >>>there was nothing remotely "silly" in what he correctly said. >> >>He appears silly because he's using a standard troll technique of >>imputing obviously inappropriate generality to what someone whrote >>purely for the sake of causing or prolonging an argument. > >Wrong. > >It was completely appropriate, as it pointed out the absurdity of >Nick's claim. No, you are falling into the troll mindset. It is extremely easy to start arguments and keep them going by being unnecessarily pedantic. If A says: "opening a car door in front of a cyclist is dangerous", anyone with an IQ into double figures knows full well the poster means "opening a car door immediately in front of a cyclist is dangerous". Only a fool or a troll really imagines that they mean "in front of a cyclist at any distance". >>I had my some doubts this morning as to whether you were a troll >>yourself as you did make some reasonably sensible points in amongst your >>troll defending. > >I have never defended what i see as a troll. Then you are absurdly gullible. >>You really do make a habit of defending trolls and as such can be >>considered nothing more than a troll yourself. > >Wrong. On both counts. Sadly not, as your post here clearly shows. You are supporting someone who is being pedantic just for the sake of it. Because Nick said 'reasonable' when he obviously meant 'practical' JNugent has cause a wodge of completely unnecessary posts that do not move the discussion forward. (He could have simply pointed out that the sentence required the word 'practial' or 'possible' to make sense. That is the action of a troll and it's a great pity that you cannot see it's something he makes a practice of.
From: Digiman on 13 Jul 2008 17:18 On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 21:27:50 +0100, Alex Heney <me8(a)privacy.net> wrote: >On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 22:22:48 GMT, Digiman(a)nospam.com (Digiman) wrote: > >>On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 23:03:26 +0100, JNugent <JN(a)NPPTG.com> wrote: >> >>>Nick Finnigan wrote: >>> >>>> JNugent wrote: >>> >>>>> ... A >>>>> door opening half a mile in front of you in a narrow street with cars >>>>> parked on both sides might still require you to stop by the time you got >>> >>>> That would be a door left open, rather than a door opening. >>> >>>I adhere to the position that a door that you see being opened, some way >>>off as you approach, may still require you to stop (there being various >>>good and bad reasons for keeping a door open). That does not make the >>>stop automatically an emergency stop or the need for it automatically >>>unreasonable. >>> >>>Are we simply on different tacks, or are we hair-splitting? >> >>You are hair splitting (aka trolling). > >They do appear to be hair splitting. > >But that is not trolling. > >Perhaps this explains some of your ridiculous accusations of >"trolling" about various people > It may explain why you don't consider some action trolling and I (and others) do. I consider wholly unnecessary hair splitting to be part of the armoury of the troll because it is ideal for accomplishing troll aims. >>There are all sorts of dangerous behavour where the attribution of >>'dangerous' implies some particular condition. >> >>Sensible people understand that condition. >> >>Idiots and trolls make post after post pointing out the bleeding >>obvious. >> > >While perfectly rational and reasonable people make post after post >trying to work out just what somebody else means by what they *think* >is "bleeding obvious". Instead of just asking. Perverse, isn't it? I have given you concrete examples of where the troll 'judith' has kept an argument going by deliberately avoiding mentioning what the actual problem was despite being perfectly well arware of it simply in order to protract the argument. It has previous admited to being a troll and yet you continue to defend it. Also perverse.
From: Digiman on 13 Jul 2008 17:20 On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 21:30:41 +0100, Alex Heney <me8(a)privacy.net> wrote: > >This is you very much splitting hairs, and stupidly so. Yet you defend known trolls stupidly spilting hairs. Odd.
From: judith on 13 Jul 2008 18:35
On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 21:18:37 GMT, Digiman(a)nospam.com (Digiman) wrote: >On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 21:27:50 +0100, Alex Heney <me8(a)privacy.net> wrote: > >>On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 22:22:48 GMT, Digiman(a)nospam.com (Digiman) wrote: >> >>>On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 23:03:26 +0100, JNugent <JN(a)NPPTG.com> wrote: >>> >>>>Nick Finnigan wrote: >>>> >>>>> JNugent wrote: >>>> >>>>>> ... A >>>>>> door opening half a mile in front of you in a narrow street with cars >>>>>> parked on both sides might still require you to stop by the time you got >>>> >>>>> That would be a door left open, rather than a door opening. >>>> >>>>I adhere to the position that a door that you see being opened, some way >>>>off as you approach, may still require you to stop (there being various >>>>good and bad reasons for keeping a door open). That does not make the >>>>stop automatically an emergency stop or the need for it automatically >>>>unreasonable. >>>> >>>>Are we simply on different tacks, or are we hair-splitting? >>> >>>You are hair splitting (aka trolling). >> >>They do appear to be hair splitting. >> >>But that is not trolling. >> >>Perhaps this explains some of your ridiculous accusations of >>"trolling" about various people >> >It may explain why you don't consider some action trolling and I (and >others) do. > >I consider wholly unnecessary hair splitting to be part of the armoury >of the troll because it is ideal for accomplishing troll aims. > >>>There are all sorts of dangerous behavour where the attribution of >>>'dangerous' implies some particular condition. >>> >>>Sensible people understand that condition. >>> >>>Idiots and trolls make post after post pointing out the bleeding >>>obvious. >>> >> >>While perfectly rational and reasonable people make post after post >>trying to work out just what somebody else means by what they *think* >>is "bleeding obvious". > >Instead of just asking. > >Perverse, isn't it? > >I have given you concrete examples of where the troll 'judith' has kept >an argument going by deliberately avoiding mentioning what the actual >problem was despite being perfectly well arware of it simply in order to >protract the argument. I'll tell you what the problem was (yet again): I disagreed when you and others said that the unfortunate pedestrian who was run down and killed by the cyclist was drunk. You then argued as to the meaning of drunk - and changed you view to inebriated - and then again to intoxicated (the order may have been the other way round). The point which I was making was that there was no evidence produced in court that she was drunk. The point that you were trying to make was that she contributed to he own death because she was drunk/intoxicated/inebriated. The defence did not even mention the words drunk, intoxicated, or inebriated (as far as I am aware). Therefore you and others were plain wrong to assert that she was drunk and was therefore partially responsible for her own death. You then did exactly the same in arguing that the cyclist had not received the maximum sentence and therefore the Judge must have thought the cyclist's actions were not too extreme. |