Top Gear [Archive] - CycleBanter.com

Mr Flowers

July 12th 05, 08:55 PM

"vernon" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mr Flowers" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "John Hearns" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > The runner wins.
>> >
>> > Forget the "should have used a bicycle comments",
>> > the bloke RAN faster than a car.
>>
>> what car do you think could be beaten by a cyclist?
>>
> Given the right conditions, *all* cars can be beaten by cyclists.
> I am far from being an athlete and have beaten Porches, Subarus, Jaguars
> and other lesser cars over three/four miles from Lawnswood into Leeds city
> centre. Didn't have to break into a sweat either :-)
>
> Wouldn't like to engage them on the open road ;-)
>
>
i can regularly beat the bus from my house into the town centre
approximatley 6 miles away. with the traffic and how often they pull over to
pick up and let off commuters. i just cant understand why others dont try it
you can cycle there quicker, keep fit and save yourself £4. Result.

Zog The Undeniable

July 12th 05, 08:59 PM

Mark Thompson wrote:

>>what car do you think could be beaten by a cyclist?
>
>
> Any car that was doing that 26 mile route around central London at rush
> hour (well, they had to give the jogger a chance).

Are we talking a typical red light-running London cyclist here? ;-)

Simon Brooke

July 12th 05, 11:28 PM

in message >, vernon ')
wrote:

>
> "Mr Flowers" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "John Hearns" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > The runner wins.
>> >
>> > Forget the "should have used a bicycle comments",
>> > the bloke RAN faster than a car.
>>
>> what car do you think could be beaten by a cyclist?
>>
> Given the right conditions, *all* cars can be beaten by cyclists.
> I am far from being an athlete and have beaten Porches, Subarus,
> Jaguars and other lesser cars over three/four miles from Lawnswood into
> Leeds city centre. Didn't have to break into a sweat either :-)
>
> Wouldn't like to engage them on the open road ;-)

I have overtaken an E-Type Jaguar on an unlimited road[1], and then
managed to stay ahead of it for eight miles - not because it couldn't
pass me but because it couldn't /catch/ me. The driver did not look the
least little bit amused.

The special circumstances involved where that we were descending the
Kirkstone pass, and the road is both very steep and very twisty. I was
able to out-corner the E-Type by some margin.

[1] In 1972 which IIRC was before the introduction of national speed
limits

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

There are no messages. The above is just a random stream of
bytes. Any opinion or meaning you find in it is your own creation.

Mark Tranchant

July 13th 05, 08:43 AM

Mr Flowers wrote:
> "John Hearns" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>The runner wins.
>>
>>Forget the "should have used a bicycle comments",
>>the bloke RAN faster than a car.
>
>
> what car do you think could be beaten by a cyclist?

I can confirm that a Lamborghini Murcielago is faster than me on my
(mostly open road) commuting route.

--
Mark.
http://tranchant.plus.com/

Mark Tranchant

July 13th 05, 08:45 AM

John Hearns wrote:
> The runner wins.
>
> Forget the "should have used a bicycle comments",
> the bloke RAN faster than a car.

There aren't too many people around that would run that route faster
than driving it. The route wasn't closed off, it was sleeting, and the
dude still ran it in 2:28.

Clarkson would be well into his third lap before I finished...

--
Mark.
http://tranchant.plus.com/

Mr Flowers

July 13th 05, 10:32 AM

"Zog The Undeniable" > wrote in message
news:42d421b5.0@entanet...
> Mark Thompson wrote:
>
>>>what car do you think could be beaten by a cyclist?
>>
>>
>> Any car that was doing that 26 mile route around central London at rush
>> hour (well, they had to give the jogger a chance).
>
> Are we talking a typical red light-running London cyclist here? ;-)

well you could simply hop onto the pavement briefly.......no need to go
through red lights.

Dave Larrington

July 13th 05, 01:01 PM

Mark Tranchant wrote:

> I can confirm that a Lamborghini Murcielago is faster than me on my
> (mostly open road) commuting route.

There was, however a bike versus car thingy in Belgium (which of course does
not exist) a couple of years ago. The Ferrari was well beaten...

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
The onward interchange factor will be unity except for journeys to
Chesham, Croxley or Watford.

Clive George

July 13th 05, 02:01 PM

"Simon Brooke" > wrote in message
...

> The special circumstances involved where that we were descending the
> Kirkstone pass, and the road is both very steep and very twisty. I was
> able to out-corner the E-Type by some margin.

Given that he had to be prepared for stuff coming the other way, yes. Shut
the road and make him drive at the same level of risk as you (I'd guess you
were going for it - well, I would be in that situation :-) ), and he'll
out-corner you.

cheers,
clive

Simon Brooke

July 13th 05, 02:20 PM

in message >, Clive
George ') wrote:

> "Simon Brooke" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> The special circumstances involved where that we were descending the
>> Kirkstone pass, and the road is both very steep and very twisty. I was
>> able to out-corner the E-Type by some margin.
>
> Given that he had to be prepared for stuff coming the other way, yes.
> Shut the road and make him drive at the same level of risk as you (I'd
> guess you were going for it - well, I would be in that situation :-) ),
> and he'll out-corner you.

Don't think so. Not on that road. The bends are simply too tight and the
road too narrow for a car with a wheelbase that long to take fast. But
yes, I was seventeen, immortal, and going for it.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; single speed mountain bikes: for people who cycle on flat mountains.

Steven

July 13th 05, 03:52 PM

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 14:20:37 +0100, Simon Brooke > wrote:

>in message >, Clive
>George ') wrote:
>
>> "Simon Brooke" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> The special circumstances involved where that we were descending the
>>> Kirkstone pass, and the road is both very steep and very twisty. I was
>>> able to out-corner the E-Type by some margin.
>>
>> Given that he had to be prepared for stuff coming the other way, yes.
>> Shut the road and make him drive at the same level of risk as you (I'd
>> guess you were going for it - well, I would be in that situation :-) ),
>> and he'll out-corner you.
>
>Don't think so. Not on that road. The bends are simply too tight and the
>road too narrow for a car with a wheelbase that long to take fast. But
>yes, I was seventeen, immortal, and going for it.

Amazing, and I bet you weren't even wearing a helmet, which, of course, would
have protected you from any and all possible injuries.

Steven

July 13th 05, 04:07 PM

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 23:28:32 +0100, Simon Brooke > wrote:

>in message >, vernon ')
>wrote:
>
>>
>> "Mr Flowers" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "John Hearns" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> > The runner wins.
>>> >
>>> > Forget the "should have used a bicycle comments",
>>> > the bloke RAN faster than a car.
>>>
>>> what car do you think could be beaten by a cyclist?
>>>
>> Given the right conditions, *all* cars can be beaten by cyclists.
>> I am far from being an athlete and have beaten Porches, Subarus,
>> Jaguars and other lesser cars over three/four miles from Lawnswood into
>> Leeds city centre. Didn't have to break into a sweat either :-)
>>
>> Wouldn't like to engage them on the open road ;-)
>
>I have overtaken an E-Type Jaguar on an unlimited road[1], and then
>managed to stay ahead of it for eight miles - not because it couldn't
>pass me but because it couldn't /catch/ me. The driver did not look the
>least little bit amused.

You really are an *amazing* cyclist, Simon.

Not only are you so perfect that you think people should not be protected
against their own stupidity, you can also outpace an e-type Jaguar on very bendy
roads, *AND* spare the time to check the expression on its driver's face, when
any mortal cyclist would certainly be concentrating on watching where he was
going.

A true cycling God, and no mistake!

Peter Clinch

July 13th 05, 04:15 PM

Steven wrote:

> Not only are you so perfect that you think people should not be protected
> against their own stupidity, you can also outpace an e-type Jaguar on very bendy
> roads, *AND* spare the time to check the expression on its driver's face, when
> any mortal cyclist would certainly be concentrating on watching where he was
> going.

If you've never left behind someone you shouldn't have been able to
leave behind then you won't realise the enormous satisfaction to be had
seeing them having a problem with it. It's perfectly normal human
behaviour. At 40 mph there's plenty of time to look behind you on a
relatively straight but not /too/ long stretch, which is quite
impossible to overtake anything rationally on while driving a car.

> A true cycling God, and no mistake!

No, just a bloke with the some of the normal enjoyment buttons.

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 http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Richard

July 13th 05, 04:21 PM

Peter Clinch wrote:
> Steven wrote:
>
>> Not only are you so perfect that you think people should not be protected
>> against their own stupidity, you can also outpace an e-type Jaguar on
>> very bendy
>> roads, *AND* spare the time to check the expression on its driver's
>> face, when
>> any mortal cyclist would certainly be concentrating on watching where
>> he was
>> going.
>
>
> If you've never left behind someone you shouldn't have been able to
> leave behind then you won't realise the enormous satisfaction to be had
> seeing them having a problem with it. It's perfectly normal human
> behaviour. At 40 mph there's plenty of time to look behind you

And, indeed, on the Kirkstone Pass it's quite possible in some places to
look *forward* to see the expression of someone you've left behind...

R.

Steven

July 13th 05, 05:01 PM

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 16:15:36 +0100, Peter Clinch >
wrote:

>Steven wrote:
>
>> Not only are you so perfect that you think people should not be protected
>> against their own stupidity, you can also outpace an e-type Jaguar on very bendy
>> roads, *AND* spare the time to check the expression on its driver's face, when
>> any mortal cyclist would certainly be concentrating on watching where he was
>> going.
>
>If you've never left behind someone you shouldn't have been able to
>leave behind then you won't realise the enormous satisfaction to be had
>seeing them having a problem with it.

Although, in reality, the frown on his face was more likely to be one of
concentration than any particular distress that a cyclist was able to stay
ahead.

>It's perfectly normal human
>behaviour.

Indeed it is. Assume that someone is discomfited at your glory, rather than just
trying to concentrate on driving along a bendy road.

>At 40 mph there's plenty of time to look behind you on a
>relatively straight but not /too/ long stretch, which is quite
>impossible to overtake anything rationally on while driving a car.

Well it would have to be, wouldn't it. Simon doesn't believe that people should
be protected from their own stupidity, so it is clear that he would never behave
stupidly himself.

>> A true cycling God, and no mistake!

>No, just a bloke with the some of the normal enjoyment buttons.

No, I think he's cycling God.

From what he posts.

Simon Brooke

July 13th 05, 08:04 PM

in message >, Richard
o.address.uk') wrote:

> Peter Clinch wrote:
>> Steven wrote:
>>
>>> Not only are you so perfect that you think people should not be
>>> protected against their own stupidity, you can also outpace an e-type
>>> Jaguar on very bendy
>>> roads, *AND* spare the time to check the expression on its driver's
>>> face, when
>>> any mortal cyclist would certainly be concentrating on watching where
>>> he was
>>> going.
>>
>> If you've never left behind someone you shouldn't have been able to
>> leave behind then you won't realise the enormous satisfaction to be
>> had
>> seeing them having a problem with it. It's perfectly normal human
>> behaviour. At 40 mph there's plenty of time to look behind you
>
> And, indeed, on the Kirkstone Pass it's quite possible in some places
> to look *forward* to see the expression of someone you've left
> behind...

Indeed. Although I noted his face as I passed him; subsequently I was too
busy concentrating on the road. Still, a /very/ memorable occasion. I
wore right through a new set of brake blocks on that one descent - at
least, they had been new 48 hours previously. They were replaced the
next day.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
Ring of great evil
Small one casts it into flame
Bringing rise of Men ;; gonzoron

Simon Brooke

July 13th 05, 08:05 PM

in message >, Steven
') wrote:

> On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 14:20:37 +0100, Simon Brooke >
> wrote:
>
>>in message >, Clive
>>George ') wrote:
>>
>>> "Simon Brooke" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> The special circumstances involved where that we were descending the
>>>> Kirkstone pass, and the road is both very steep and very twisty. I
>>>> was able to out-corner the E-Type by some margin.
>>>
>>> Given that he had to be prepared for stuff coming the other way, yes.
>>> Shut the road and make him drive at the same level of risk as you
>>> (I'd guess you were going for it - well, I would be in that situation
>>> :-) ), and he'll out-corner you.
>>
>>Don't think so. Not on that road. The bends are simply too tight and
>>the road too narrow for a car with a wheelbase that long to take fast.
>>But yes, I was seventeen, immortal, and going for it.
>
> Amazing, and I bet you weren't even wearing a helmet, which, of course,
> would have protected you from any and all possible injuries.

I don't think I'd even /seen/ a helmet then. They weren't at all common.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Hobbit ringleader gives Sauron One in the Eye.

Peter Clinch

July 13th 05, 08:13 PM

Steven wrote:

> Although, in reality, the frown on his face was more likely to be one of
> concentration than any particular distress that a cyclist was able to stay
> ahead.

In reality it's often reasonably easy to tell the difference
between annoyed and careful concentration IME. I'd take the call
from the person who was there.

> Well it would have to be, wouldn't it. Simon doesn't believe that people should
> be protected from their own stupidity, so it is clear that he would never behave
> stupidly himself.

Not at all clear. ISTM he just feels that if he is stupid then
it's *his* problem and/or decision, and he's a big enough lad to
take that responsibility himself. Nowhere that I've seen has he
said or implied that he never does anything dumb, though he's
obviously avoided any immediately terminally stupid behaviour to date.

> No, I think he's cycling God.
>
> From what he posts.

Well, there again you think it must be verging on the impossible to
work out the balance point of a tandem so it can be picked up by
the top tube, so your judgement may be circumspect...

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 http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Tony Raven

July 13th 05, 09:02 PM

Peter Clinch wrote:
>
> In reality it's often reasonably easy to tell the difference between
> annoyed and careful concentration IME. I'd take the call from the
> person who was there.
>

So you believe all those fishermen's tales?

--
Tony

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

daren

July 13th 05, 09:10 PM

2:30 for a marathon isn't exactly "jogging" :-)

regards,
D.

Steven

July 13th 05, 09:17 PM

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 20:13:44 +0100, Peter Clinch >
wrote:

>> Although, in reality, the frown on his face was more likely to be one of
>> concentration than any particular distress that a cyclist was able to stay
>> ahead.
>
>In reality it's often reasonably easy to tell the difference
>between annoyed and careful concentration IME. I'd take the call
>from the person who was there.

Were the person who was there a disinterested observer, yes.

Where you only have the report of someone who was relishing the fact that he was
****ing off the other driver, no, I don't think so.

>> Well it would have to be, wouldn't it. Simon doesn't believe that people should
>> be protected from their own stupidity, so it is clear that he would never behave
>> stupidly himself.
>
>Not at all clear. ISTM he just feels that if he is stupid then
>it's *his* problem and/or decision, and he's a big enough lad to
>take that responsibility himself.

Unfortunately, he seems to think that other people should not be protected from
the occasional act of stupidity.

So, either he's being a complete hypocrite, or he clearly believes that he's so
good that he will never make a life (or limb) threatening mistake, even if all
the measure that are in place to protect people from their own stupidity are
removed.

>Well, there again you think it must be verging on the impossible to
>work out the balance point of a tandem so it can be picked up by
>the top tube, so your judgement may be circumspect...

Not really. It's obviously very easy to find the balance point of any bike, but
as you probably know, it's quite critical, and it would certainly change with
the addition of an ad hoc box. He'd have had to find the balance point *after*
the box was in place, by putting his hand in a hole whose position he was going
to find by putting his hand in a hole that ....

I don't doubt that there are ways it could be done, but, on the whole I prefer
to think of it as an urban legend.

Mark Thompson

July 14th 05, 01:13 AM

> 2:30 for a marathon isn't exactly "jogging" :-)

Crawling more like.

Whilst jogging I have overtaken Simon Brooke on his bike on an unlimited
road, and then managed to stay ahead of him for eight miles - not because
he couldn't pass me but because he couldn't /catch/ me.

Peter Clinch

July 14th 05, 08:35 AM

Tony Raven wrote:

> So you believe all those fishermen's tales?

It would depend on the fisherman... Similar setup here.

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 http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Peter Clinch

July 14th 05, 08:58 AM

Steven wrote:

> Where you only have the report of someone who was relishing the fact that he was
> ****ing off the other driver, no, I don't think so.

As opposed to the report of someone who wasn't there and is currently
engaged in trying to rubbish anything that other person has to say?

> Unfortunately, he seems to think that other people should not be protected from
> the occasional act of stupidity.

If it's their /own/ stupidity and only affects them, I don't see why
that's so black and white unacceptable.

> So, either he's being a complete hypocrite, or he clearly believes that he's so
> good that he will never make a life (or limb) threatening mistake, even if all
> the measure that are in place to protect people from their own stupidity are
> removed.

But he hasn't said anything of the sort, you've just read your own
meanings onto words that say otherwise. Where has he said he won't ever
make a terminal mistake? The whole discussion is public domain so it
should be easy to quote if it's true.

> Not really. It's obviously very easy to find the balance point of any bike, but
> as you probably know, it's quite critical, and it would certainly change with
> the addition of an ad hoc box.
> He'd have had to find the balance point *after*
> the box was in place, by putting his hand in a hole whose position he was going
> to find by putting his hand in a hole that ....
>
> I don't doubt that there are ways it could be done, but, on the whole I prefer
> to think of it as an urban legend.

Oh *dear*... hole in wrong place, extend hole or make new hole to
compensate! Not really /that/ requiring a degree in Rocket Science to
do that with a pocket knife and some cardboard you'll chuck as soon as
you get off at the other end. It's *so* easy, yet to you it's so
*hard*, if it interferes with your unassailable notion that the person
you're "going off on one" against can't be anything but wrong.

As I pointed out previously, I've been telling the same story for many
years and the details have remained *remarkably* static, and verifiably
static through Google, for all that time. Phil, Speedmachine pilot who
also posts on u.r.c., works with Neil, so you can probably get
independent verification if you want through him.

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 http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Dave Larrington

July 14th 05, 10:46 AM

Simon Brooke wrote:

> I have overtaken an E-Type Jaguar on an unlimited road[1], and then
> managed to stay ahead of it for eight miles - not because it couldn't
> pass me but because it couldn't /catch/ me. The driver did not look
> the least little bit amused.

Similar experience descending Hartside towards Penrith. After I had
overtaken an XJ6[1], Mrs. Green (driving the support vee-hickle) reported
said motorcar pulling off and the driver getting out and inspecting the
engine.

Sadly, further progress was impeded by a Transit van too large and opaque to
be overtaken with the available reserves of space and gearing.

1 - being a Jag it could, of course, have broken down of its own accord

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
And I begged, "Angel of the Lord, what are these tortured screams?" And
the angel said unto me, "These are the cries of the carrots, the cries
of the carrots! You see, Reverend Maynard, tomorrow is harvest day and
to them it is the holocaust."

John Hearns

July 14th 05, 11:21 AM

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 10:46:33 +0100, Dave Larrington wrote:

> Sadly, further progress was impeded by a Transit van too large and opaque
> to be overtaken with the available reserves of space and gearing.
>
> 1 - being a Jag it could, of course, have broken down of its own accord

Being a Jag, I thought they were all repaired using silk stockings.
You should have stopped to offer assistance.

Tony Raven

July 14th 05, 11:47 AM

John Hearns wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 10:46:33 +0100, Dave Larrington wrote:
>
>
>>Sadly, further progress was impeded by a Transit van too large and opaque
>>to be overtaken with the available reserves of space and gearing.
>>
>>1 - being a Jag it could, of course, have broken down of its own accord
>
>
> Being a Jag, I thought they were all repaired using silk stockings.
> You should have stopped to offer assistance.

Do you know something about Larrington cycling attire that the rest of
us don't?

--
Tony

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

Dave Larrington

July 14th 05, 11:52 AM

John Hearns wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 10:46:33 +0100, Dave Larrington wrote:
>> 1 - being a Jag it could, of course, have broken down of its own
>> accord
>
> Being a Jag, I thought they were all repaired using silk stockings.
> You should have stopped to offer assistance.

The twin facts of:

o lacking a silk stocking, and
o being half a mile down the road travelling at some 45 mph

might, however, have made this somewhat problemmatical...

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
Barley, barley, barley, world cruise. You never see a farmer on a bike.

Steven

July 14th 05, 11:54 AM

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 08:58:14 +0100, Peter Clinch >
wrote:

>Steven wrote:
>
>> Where you only have the report of someone who was relishing the fact that he was
>> ****ing off the other driver, no, I don't think so.
>
>As opposed to the report of someone who wasn't there

There is no other report.

>> Unfortunately, he seems to think that other people should not be protected from
>> the occasional act of stupidity.
>
>If it's their /own/ stupidity and only affects them, I don't see why
>that's so black and white unacceptable.

That is a very sad reflection on your humanity. Very sad indeed.

>> So, either he's being a complete hypocrite, or he clearly believes that he's so
>> good that he will never make a life (or limb) threatening mistake, even if all
>> the measure that are in place to protect people from their own stupidity are
>> removed.
>
>But he hasn't said anything of the sort, you've just read your own
>meanings onto words that say otherwise. Where has he said he won't ever
>make a terminal mistake?

Sane people usually approve of measures that will save their lives, or save them
from being horribly crippled. The fact that he's stated that you should not act
to protect people from their own stupidity implies that either he has an
overblown sense of his own ability to operate and never make a mistake that will
cost him his life, or he has an indifference to his own safety that verges on
the insane.

>> Not really. It's obviously very easy to find the balance point of any bike, but
>> as you probably know, it's quite critical, and it would certainly change with
>> the addition of an ad hoc box.
>> He'd have had to find the balance point *after*
>> the box was in place, by putting his hand in a hole whose position he was going
>> to find by putting his hand in a hole that ....
>>
>> I don't doubt that there are ways it could be done, but, on the whole I prefer
>> to think of it as an urban legend.
>
>Oh *dear*...

As I said, I'm sure there are ways it could be done.
>
>As I pointed out previously, I've been telling the same story for many
>years and the details have remained *remarkably* static, and verifiably
>static through Google, for all that time. Phil, Speedmachine pilot who
>also posts on u.r.c., works with Neil, so you can probably get
>independent verification if you want through him.

It just *screams* urban legend (no matter how consistent the tale).

It's the sort of thing that if you hear it and don't think about it to any
depth, it just sounds like a funny tale, but when you *do* try and visualise it,
it sounds more like a candidate for a Mr Bean farce.

I've no doubt there are people gulible enough to be taken in by it, but that's
the beauty of urban legends, isn't it?

Peter Clinch

July 14th 05, 01:01 PM

Steven wrote:

> That is a very sad reflection on your humanity. Very sad indeed.

So you say, but there's no objective backup to that, any more than it's
a sad reflection of yours that people would have their liberty watered
down for their safety from themselves.

> Sane people usually approve of measures that will save their lives, or save them
> from being horribly crippled.

And here you disingenuously sweep measures that will save people from
others' stupidity into measures that will save them from their own.

> The fact that he's stated that you should not act
> to protect people from their own stupidity implies that either he has an
> overblown sense of his own ability to operate and never make a mistake that will
> cost him his life, or he has an indifference to his own safety that verges on
> the insane.

Not necessarily, if he's happy to accept the consequences of his own
actions, however dumb or terminal they may be, then that is entirely
consistent with what he's said while not satisfying either of your
possible alternatives.

> As I said, I'm sure there are ways it could be done.

But you've always suggested that they are very, very hard, while in fact
they are very, very easy. Faced with having to get something done to
get home with the bike Neil tackled the problem to try and solve it,
rather than deciding everything was an insurmountable problem. Had he
done the latter, he'd have been left with a bigger problem: what to do
with the bike?

> It just *screams* urban legend (no matter how consistent the tale).

The thing that screams urban legend is if it happens to "a friend of a
friend". But this one happened to a close friend, who related the tale
to me very shortly after it happened with lots of easily verifiable
details. That's why the tale is consistent, and didn't need
re-engineering to fit whatever I wanted to illustrate.

> It's the sort of thing that if you hear it and don't think about it to any
> depth, it just sounds like a funny tale, but when you *do* try and visualise it,
> it sounds more like a candidate for a Mr Bean farce.

When *you* try and visualise it you see nothing but insoluble problems,
because you've *decided* it can't be true. Faced with the genuine
problem, Neil worked his way to a solution in order to avoid a bigger
problem.

> I've no doubt there are people gulible enough to be taken in by it, but that's
> the beauty of urban legends, isn't it?

The fact that I could use a tale that you accused me of making up to
illustrate a point I was making almost a decade after I started telling
the tale, without any clear modification, should tell you something, but
since you've decided the answer and closed your mind it won't happen.
You're so ungullible you can't be taken in by things that have really
happened, if they don't suit your beliefs.

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 http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

John Hearns

July 14th 05, 01:07 PM

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 11:47:38 +0100, Tony Raven wrote:

>> Being a Jag, I thought they were all repaired using silk stockings. You
>> should have stopped to offer assistance.
>
> Do you know something about Larrington cycling attire that the rest of us
> don't?
Definitely not interested in the Larrington cycling gear.

Much more interested in pretty lady in headscarf, motoring along the
Cote d' Azur, who has the brains to repair a broken fan belt using silk
stockings. Remember the advert now?

Tony Raven

July 14th 05, 01:38 PM

John Hearns wrote:
>
> Much more interested in pretty lady in headscarf, motoring along the
> Cote d' Azur, who has the brains to repair a broken fan belt using silk
> stockings. Remember the advert now?
>

Sure. Did enormous damage to the reliability reputation of British
cars. "Sorry Darhling but the old motor seems to have broken down in
this dark layby. Would you be so kind as to remove your stockings for
me old thing?"

Much more convincing than the old "run out of petrol" line ;-)

--
Tony

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

Steven

July 14th 05, 01:57 PM

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 13:01:57 +0100, Peter Clinch >
wrote:

As I said, Peter, I believe it's an urban legend, and I believe that you're very
gullible.

'nuff said.

Simon Brooke

July 14th 05, 01:57 PM

in message >, Steven
') wrote:

> Sane people usually approve of measures that will save their lives, or
> save them from being horribly crippled.

You mean you would. People /choose/ to ride mountain bikes, climb
mountains, sail small boats in open water, descend potholes, jump out of
aeroplanes, etc. All of these things are dangerous and involve risk of
death and/or being horribly crippled. Many of these people are sane.

Personally, I sail, cycle, and (sometimes) climb. And, indeed, virtually
everyone travels by car, which has a fairly high risk of being killed or
horribly crippled.

> The fact that he's stated that you
> should not act to protect people from their own stupidity implies that
> either he has an overblown sense of his own ability to operate and
> never make a mistake that will cost him his life, or he has an
> indifference to his own safety that verges on the insane.

We all have to die. Having watched both my parents die in great distress
in hospital beds I have no desire to follow them. As far as I'm
concerned, the one fundamental human right is the right to take your own
risks, and it carries the concommitant responsibility to live (or die)
with the consequences.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

[ Disclaimer:Â*Â*ThisÂ*isÂ*aÂ*workÂ*displacementÂ*ex ercise.Â*Â*PleaseÂ*feelÂ*free ]
[ to reply either on or off group.Â*Â*ExpectÂ*lengthyÂ*repliesÂ*untilÂ*the ]
[ deadline has passed.Â*Â*Thank-youÂ*forÂ*yourÂ*cooperation. ]

Peter Clinch

July 14th 05, 02:22 PM

Steven wrote:

> As I said, Peter, I believe it's an urban legend, and I believe that you're very
> gullible.

Urban legends don't have verifiable audit trails, as when you ask the
friend who's friend it was, suddenly it jumps further away. This story
does have a verifiable audit trail, because it isn't an urban legend,
and I heard it first hand from the people it happened to, one of my best
friends and his partner, who is also a good friend. They aren't in the
habit of making up tall tales, primarily because when life can be so
ridiculous there's no need.

You believe I'm very gullible because it suits your closed mind. I know
my close friends better rather than you do. One of the close friends in
question is a colleague of another u.r.c. poster, as I've mentioned.
Have you asked his opinion yet? Or is he assumed to be gullible too,
because it suits your theory?

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 http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Richard

July 14th 05, 02:32 PM

Simon Brooke wrote:
> in message >, Steven
> ') wrote:
>
>
>>Sane people usually approve of measures that will save their lives, or
>>save them from being horribly crippled.
>
>
> You mean you would. People /choose/ to ride mountain bikes, climb
> mountains, sail small boats in open water, descend potholes, jump out of
> aeroplanes, etc. All of these things are dangerous

No, they're not *all* dangerous. As a wise man once said about either
sailing or flying, I forget which: "It's not inherently dangerous. It's
just very unforgiving of mistakes."

R.

Steven

July 14th 05, 03:28 PM

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 14:22:12 +0100, Peter Clinch >
wrote:

>Steven wrote:
>
>> As I said, Peter, I believe it's an urban legend, and I believe that you're very
>> gullible.
>
>Urban legends don't have verifiable audit trails,

There's no audit trail I can see.

I still think it's an urban legend, and I still think you're very gullible.

Simon Brooke

July 14th 05, 03:35 PM

in message >, Richard
o.address.uk') wrote:

> Simon Brooke wrote:
>> in message >, Steven
>> ') wrote:
>>
>>>Sane people usually approve of measures that will save their lives, or
>>>save them from being horribly crippled.
>>
>> You mean you would. People /choose/ to ride mountain bikes, climb
>> mountains, sail small boats in open water, descend potholes, jump out
>> of aeroplanes, etc. All of these things are dangerous
>
> No, they're not *all* dangerous. As a wise man once said about
> either
> sailing or flying, I forget which: "It's not inherently dangerous.
> It's just very unforgiving of mistakes."

As are mountain biking and, indeed, driving. Human beings are prone to
make mistakes (and particularly so when tired and cold). In
mountaineering things /can/ fall on you (or break/slide under you)
without you doing anything spectacularly stupid but still most
mountaineering injuries come down to human error. I don't know about
caving.

So I stand by what I said about 'dangerous'. With perfect judgement,
perhaps they'd be safe. But we don't have perfect judgement.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; When your hammer is C++, everything begins to look like a thumb.

Clive George

July 14th 05, 03:37 PM

"Steven" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 14:22:12 +0100, Peter Clinch >
> wrote:
>
>>Steven wrote:
>>
>>> As I said, Peter, I believe it's an urban legend, and I believe that
>>> you're very
>>> gullible.
>>
>>Urban legends don't have verifiable audit trails,
>
> There's no audit trail I can see.
>
> I still think it's an urban legend, and I still think you're very
> gullible.

Could somebody remind me what you're both talking about?

cheers,
clive

Peter Clinch

July 14th 05, 03:38 PM

Steven wrote:
>
> There's no audit trail I can see.
>
> I still think it's an urban legend, and I still think you're very gullible.

You have to take my word for the audit trail, and despite no public
history in years of posting to this group suggesting I spin fictional
yarns to try and prove points you're not willing to do that.

And those that know me (and especially those here who know Mr. Mold as
well), will know that you're deluding yourself here. Not really my
problem if you've got a closed mind.

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 http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Peter Clinch

July 14th 05, 03:50 PM

Clive George wrote:

> Could somebody remind me what you're both talking about?

When Steven was "proving" how brilliant TOC rules were and couldn't
possibly be improved thanks to their decades of experience, I cited the
Silly Case Of Neil's Tandem as a demonstration that Scotrail's rules
were self-evidently ridiculous.

He came up with all sorts of reasons the tale /had/ to be impossible,
including questioning how could anyone pick up a tandem in a makeshift
box, all of which I countered with points demonstrating what had been
done was actually quite straightforward if you weren't determined it
couldn't be done. Eventually he accused me of making the story up, at
which juncture I pointed to a Google link demonstrating that if I'd made
it up then I'd made it up about 9 years ago and not changed any of the
details in the meantime.

At this point he started looking increasingly ridiculous, tried to shift
ground to me being a "selfish little ****" and after someone suggested
something not entirely dissimilar about himself, he abandoned the thread...

I brought it up again to show how his judgment isn't always impeccable,
and, to be honest, to grind some salt into wounds given his lack of
anything resembling social graces to anybody else here.

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 http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Steven

July 14th 05, 04:12 PM

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 15:50:16 +0100, Peter Clinch >
wrote:

>Clive George wrote:
>
>> Could somebody remind me what you're both talking about?

An urban legend that Peter appears to have started about someone who was refused
permission to take a tandem on a train, and who subsequently cycled down to B&Q
and nabbed enough cardboard to put a box round said tandem. The then somehow got
this cardboard back to the station and made a box that encapsulated the tandem.

It just *screams* urban legend because although at first sight you might think,
ha ha, yes, very funny, when you think of the amount of cardboard required, how
it was man handled back to the station, how an awkward object such as a tandem
could be securely packaged, it all starts to sound just a *little* far fetched.

And knowing Peter's propensity for immediatly and unquestioningly believeing
anything that will help him make his case, I find his acceptance of this tale
indicates a degree of gullibility.

Steven

July 14th 05, 04:15 PM

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 15:38:56 +0100, Peter Clinch >
wrote:

You posted a *very* far fetched tale in support of an argument, and then dragged
it up again in a completely unrelated case.

Of *course* it's an urban legend.

You've absolutely no proof whatsoever for this ridiculous tale.

Clive George

July 14th 05, 04:20 PM

"Steven" > wrote in message
...

> An urban legend that Peter appears to have started about someone who was
> refused
> permission to take a tandem on a train, and who subsequently cycled down
> to B&Q
> and nabbed enough cardboard to put a box round said tandem. The then
> somehow got
> this cardboard back to the station and made a box that encapsulated the
> tandem.
>
> It just *screams* urban legend because although at first sight you might
> think,
> ha ha, yes, very funny, when you think of the amount of cardboard
> required, how
> it was man handled back to the station, how an awkward object such as a
> tandem
> could be securely packaged, it all starts to sound just a *little* far
> fetched.
>
> And knowing Peter's propensity for immediatly and unquestioningly
> believeing
> anything that will help him make his case, I find his acceptance of this
> tale
> indicates a degree of gullibility.

Hey Steven - You know, there are others who'd like a go with your spade too.

clive

Peter Clinch

July 14th 05, 04:23 PM

Steven wrote:

> Of *course* it's an urban legend.
>
> You've absolutely no proof whatsoever for this ridiculous tale.

What, aside from the personal assurance of one of my best friends and
his partner that it had happened to them in the immediate past when they
were relating how their holiday went, and if not true would have
required them teleporting over 100 miles to home with their bicycle?

Or do I have to get forensic grade evidence before I can relate what has
happened to trustworthy people?

Do you find your best friends habitually lie to you?

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 http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Just zis Guy, you know?

July 14th 05, 04:24 PM

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 15:12:55 GMT, (Steven)
wrote:

>An urban legend that Peter appears to have started about someone who was refused
>permission to take a tandem on a train, and who subsequently cycled down to B&Q
>and nabbed enough cardboard to put a box round said tandem. The then somehow got
>this cardboard back to the station and made a box that encapsulated the tandem.

Do you want me to demonstrate this being done? I am happy to do so.
It would make life slightly simpler if you allowed be to blag the
cardboard from M&S or maybe the local bike shop, as they are closer to
the station.

Unfortunately I have now thrown away the *cardboard box* in which my
tandem was delivered, so can't use that...

FWIW my triplet was also delivered in a cardboard box. A huge one!

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

Alan Braggins

July 14th 05, 04:29 PM

In article >, Peter Clinch wrote:
>Clive George wrote:
>
>> Could somebody remind me what you're both talking about?
>
>When Steven was "proving" how brilliant TOC rules were and couldn't
>possibly be improved thanks to their decades of experience

Out of vague curiosity, is there any good reason he was (as far as I
can see from a quick look on Google wondering what this was about tandems
in boxes) starting threads defending them here and then complaining
it's not an appropriate forum to get them changed later?

Roos Eisma

July 14th 05, 04:32 PM

Peter Clinch > writes:

>Steven wrote:

>> Of *course* it's an urban legend.
>>
>> You've absolutely no proof whatsoever for this ridiculous tale.

>Do you find your best friends habitually lie to you?

Well, it can't be true, so either you're lying or Neil is :-)

Roos

Alan Braggins

July 14th 05, 04:32 PM

In article >, Steven wrote:
>
>>Clive George wrote:
>>> Could somebody remind me what you're both talking about?
>
>permission to take a tandem on a train, and who subsequently cycled down to B&Q
>and nabbed enough cardboard to put a box round said tandem. The then somehow got
>this cardboard back to the station and made a box that encapsulated the tandem.

I take you've never been a B&Q then? They sell scissors, Stanley knives,
rolls of adhesive tape, glue, string, and so on - in fact pretty much anything
you can possibly think of that might be useful in putting some cardboard
around something.

dkahn400

July 14th 05, 04:34 PM

Steven wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 15:38:56 +0100, Peter Clinch >
> wrote:
>
> You posted a *very* far fetched tale in support of an argument,
> and then dragged it up again in a completely unrelated case.
>
> Of *course* it's an urban legend.
>
> You've absolutely no proof whatsoever for this ridiculous tale.

What's far fetched about finding a large piece of cardboard to wrap
round a tandem? Believe it or not even wilder things than this have
happened.

--
Dave...

wafflycat

July 14th 05, 05:29 PM

"John Hearns" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 10:46:33 +0100, Dave Larrington wrote:
>
>> Sadly, further progress was impeded by a Transit van too large and opaque
>> to be overtaken with the available reserves of space and gearing.
>>
>> 1 - being a Jag it could, of course, have broken down of its own accord
>
> Being a Jag, I thought they were all repaired using silk stockings.
> You should have stopped to offer assistance.

I now have a mental vision of Mr Larrington which may well mean I am in need
of medication ;-)

Cheers, helen s

Simon Brooke

July 14th 05, 05:49 PM

in message >, Peter Clinch
') wrote:

> Steven wrote:
>
>> Of *course* it's an urban legend.
>>
>> You've absolutely no proof whatsoever for this ridiculous tale.
>
> Do you find your best friends habitually lie to you?

You're making a dangerous, and, on the evidence, unwarranted assumption
there, Pete.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

... a mild, inoffensive sadist...

Simon Brooke

July 14th 05, 05:55 PM

in message >, Clive
George ') wrote:

> "Steven" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> An urban legend that Peter appears to have started about someone who
>> was refused
>> permission to take a tandem on a train, and
>
> Hey Steven - You know, there are others who'd like a go with your spade
> too.

Don't take it off him, he's going to tunnel through and join
uk.rec.cycling up with aus.bicycle.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

my other car is #<Subr-Car: #5d480>
;; This joke is not funny in emacs.

Steven

July 14th 05, 07:25 PM

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 16:23:34 +0100, Peter Clinch >
wrote:

>Steven wrote:
>
>> Of *course* it's an urban legend.
>>
>> You've absolutely no proof whatsoever for this ridiculous tale.
>
>What, aside from the personal assurance of one of my best friends and
>his partner that it had happened to them in the immediate past when they
>were relating how their holiday went, and if not true would have
>required them teleporting over 100 miles to home with their bicycle?
>
>Or do I have to get forensic grade evidence before I can relate what has
>happened to trustworthy people?
>
>Do you find your best friends habitually lie to you?

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

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

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.

(Oh, and if you're a night shift operator, please accept my apologies in
advance).

Alan Braggins

July 14th 05, 10:11 PM

In article >, Steven wrote:
>On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 15:38:56 +0100, Peter Clinch >
>wrote:
>
>Of *course* it's an urban legend.

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

Peter Clinch

July 15th 05, 09:17 AM

Steven wrote:

> 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.

> 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.

> 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 http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Buck

July 15th 05, 09:34 AM

On 07/15/2005 09:17:51 Peter Clinch > wrote:

> Steven wrote:

>> 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!

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

--

Buck

I would rather be out on my Catrike

http://www.catrike.co.uk

Peter Clinch

July 15th 05, 09:41 AM

Buck wrote:

> 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 http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Steven

July 15th 05, 10:00 AM

On 14 Jul 2005 22:11:57 +0100 (BST), (Alan Braggins)
wrote:

>In article >, Steven wrote:
>>On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 15:38:56 +0100, Peter Clinch >
>>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.

Peter Clinch

July 15th 05, 10:28 AM

Steven wrote:

> 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?

> 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 http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Steven

July 15th 05, 10:46 AM

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 09:17:51 +0100, Peter Clinch >
wrote:

>Steven wrote:
>
>> 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.

>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.

Peter Clinch

July 15th 05, 11:04 AM

Steven wrote:

> 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 http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Mr Flowers

July 15th 05, 11:23 AM

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?

Steven

July 15th 05, 11:31 AM

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 10:28:12 +0100, Peter Clinch >
wrote:

>Steven wrote:
>
>> 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.

>> 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.

Clive George

July 15th 05, 11:36 AM

"Mr Flowers" > wrote in message
...
> 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

Peter Clinch

July 15th 05, 11:39 AM

Mr Flowers wrote:
> 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 http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Richard

July 15th 05, 11:43 AM

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.

Peter Clinch

July 15th 05, 11:51 AM

Steven wrote:

> 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.

> 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?

> 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.

> 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 http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

James Annan

July 15th 05, 12:04 PM

Steven

July 15th 05, 12:04 PM

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 11:04:00 +0100, Peter Clinch >
wrote:

>Steven wrote:
>
>> 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.

>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.

>>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.

Tony Raven

July 15th 05, 12:22 PM

Richard wrote:
> 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

Peter Clinch

July 15th 05, 12:22 PM

Steven wrote:

> 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.

Actually, it was just having a small joke at your expense. People may
be less inclined to do that if you don't call them, for example,
"Selfish little ****s".

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

Still stuck on that one, aren't you, even though my not doing any work
wouldn't get me through my performance reviews if I didn't pick up the
slack elsewhere.

> 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.

A very useful difference to someone who takes it to say that there's no
problem running a 2.4W bulb without a tail from a dynohub, I'm sure...

> 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.

In any given accident, once it's happening, yes.

> 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".

To which you made an unfounded assumption and responded with it as if it
were gospel.

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

Of course, there may be rather less tendency to point scoring against
you if you didn't resort to calling people "****wits", "****s" and
generally throwing point-scoring temper tantrums at them as frequently
as you do.

It's quite clear that all the people you have run ins with, including
me, are perfectly able to be civil and helpful to most people in their
posts. The common factor in all the "going off on one" that troubles
you so much is *you*. If you stop being rude to people, they might even
be nice back. Fancy that!

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 http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Peter Clinch

July 15th 05, 12:26 PM

Tony Raven wrote:

> "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 http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Steven

July 15th 05, 01:33 PM

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 12:22:47 +0100, Peter Clinch >
wrote:

>Steven wrote:
>
>
>> 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.
>
>Actually, it was just having a small joke at your expense.

Yes, and just adding even more to the irrelevant veriabe you spew out.

>> And the vast majority of this posting seems to be done during time that your
>> emplyer is paying you to do something else.
>
>Still stuck on that one, aren't you, even though my not doing any work
>wouldn't get me through my performance reviews if I didn't pick up the
>slack elsewhere.

If you've always spent as much time as you do now on personal activities, the
datum that your employers use actually account for the part time nature of your
work for them.
>
>> 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.
>
>A very useful difference to someone who takes it to say that there's no
>problem running a 2.4W bulb without a tail from a dynohub, I'm sure...

But quite harmless as it was posted to a group where there are plenty of experts
who will rapidly point out any errors. Realistically, there are always going to
be cases where people make mistakes and post bad advice (although, in this case
I wasn't actually offering advice, merely explaining how a circuit with a 6v (as
opposed to a 0.5a) power source would behave.

>To which you made an unfounded assumption and responded with it as if it
>were gospel.

No, I made a similarly stupid and unhelpful reply in response. Deal with it.

>> If people quietly explained other peoples mistakes, there would be a *great*
>> deal less pointless argument and point scoring here.
>
>Of course, there may be rather less tendency to point scoring against
>you if you didn't resort to calling people "****wits", "****s" and
>generally throwing point-scoring temper tantrums at them as frequently
>as you do.

It's actually quite rare. I don't happen to go along with the tiptoe through the
tulips approach to internet debate. Everyone is a ****wit at times, and I've
been jolted out of a circular or ill thought out argument from time to time by
someone telling me that I'm being a ****wit.

I learned from the errors and carried on.

>It's quite clear that all the people you have run ins with, including
>me, are perfectly able to be civil and helpful to most people in their
>posts. The common factor in all the "going off on one" that troubles
>you so much is *you*. If you stop being rude to people, they might even
>be nice back. Fancy that!

As I've said, you are the sort of person who relys on sheer quantity of posting
to beat your opponents into submission. I've seen you do it to quite a few
people on quite a few topics.

Steven

July 15th 05, 01:34 PM

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 11:43:00 +0100, Richard
. address.uk> wrote:

>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.

Steven

July 15th 05, 01:34 PM

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 20:04:21 +0900, James Annan >
wrote:

>Richard wrote:
>
>> 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 :-)

Steven

July 15th 05, 01:38 PM

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 12:22:32 +0100, Tony Raven > wrote:

>Richard wrote:
>> 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.

Peter Clinch

July 15th 05, 01:49 PM

Steven wrote:

> If you've always spent as much time as you do now on personal activities, the
> datum that your employers use actually account for the part time nature of your
> work for them.

I'm judged by what I actually get done in terms of objectives agreed in
advance with my superiors as things that need to get done, not that I've
done roughly the same amount as last year. AFAICT most reviews work
like that.

> But quite harmless as it was posted to a group where there are plenty of experts
> who will rapidly point out any errors.

So why did you respond so crossly when that was done?

> No, I made a similarly stupid and unhelpful reply in response. Deal with it.

It was actually stupid in an entirely different way, because rather than
respond with a flippant question you assumed a true answer and posted that.
I deal with it quite easily by realising from examples that you don't
qualify your experience and knowledge as well as you usefully might and
thus I can't really rely on what you have to say.

> It's actually quite rare.

Your posting record very clearly paints a different picture.

> tulips approach to internet debate. Everyone is a ****wit at times, and I've
> been jolted out of a circular or ill thought out argument from time to time by
> someone telling me that I'm being a ****wit.
>
> I learned from the errors and carried on.

Carried on making the errors, that is. Again, according to your posting
record.

> As I've said, you are the sort of person who relys on sheer quantity of posting
> to beat your opponents into submission. I've seen you do it to quite a few
> people on quite a few topics.

Not for the first time, pot, meet kettle, talk about dark colouring. I
can also interact quite constructively with people, as my posting record
shows. And I do so rather more often than you, in fact.

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 http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Tony Raven

July 15th 05, 01:59 PM

Steven wrote:
>
>
> 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.
>

Like Junior Doctors you mean? Jeez I mean, some of those junior doctors
even sleep on the job.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3939033.stm

--
Tony

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

Peter Clinch

July 15th 05, 02:00 PM

Steven wrote:

> 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.

Say something as if it's true and then it'll be true. You do like that
gambit, don't you!

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 http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Ambrose Nankivell

July 15th 05, 02:02 PM

Peter Clinch wrote:
> Tony Raven wrote:
>
>> "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.

But think of all the bandwidth you use up.

(Actually, last time I worked at a university, the bottleneck to large
downloads was the LAN)
--
Ambrose

JLB

July 15th 05, 02:28 PM

Steven wrote:

[snip]
> I've
> been jolted out of a circular or ill thought out argument from time to time by
> someone telling me that I'm being a ****wit.
[snip]

All together now!

--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

Simon Brooke

July 15th 05, 02:37 PM

in message >, Peter Clinch
') wrote:

> Steven wrote:
>
>> If you've always spent as much time as you do now on personal
>> activities, the datum that your employers use actually account for the
>> part time nature of your work for them.
>
> I'm judged by what I actually get done in terms of objectives agreed in
> advance with my superiors as things that need to get done, not that
> I've
> done roughly the same amount as last year. AFAICT most reviews work
> like that.

Killfile him, Pete. He's well outside the bounds of acceptable behaviour
now.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; It appears that /dev/null is a conforming XSL processor.

Tony Raven

July 15th 05, 03:06 PM

LB wrote:
> Steven wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> I've
>> been jolted out of a circular or ill thought out argument from time to
>> time by
>> someone telling me that I'm being a ****wit.
>
> [snip]
>
> All together now!
>

That would be too easy!

--
Tony

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

Steven

July 15th 05, 03:26 PM

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 14:28:55 +0100, JLB > wrote:

>Steven wrote:
>
>[snip]
>> I've
>> been jolted out of a circular or ill thought out argument from time to time by
>> someone telling me that I'm being a ****wit.
>[snip]
>
>All together now!

Just don't try the same technique on Joe. He wouldn't be able to make the
connection ;-)

Chris Malcolm

July 15th 05, 03:48 PM

(Steven) writes:

>On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 15:50:16 +0100, Peter Clinch >
>wrote:

>>Clive George wrote:
>>
>>> Could somebody remind me what you're both talking about?

>An urban legend that Peter appears to have started about someone who was refused
>permission to take a tandem on a train, and who subsequently cycled down to B&Q
>and nabbed enough cardboard to put a box round said tandem. The then somehow got
>this cardboard back to the station and made a box that encapsulated the tandem.

>It just *screams* urban legend because although at first sight you might think,
>ha ha, yes, very funny, when you think of the amount of cardboard required, how
>it was man handled back to the station, how an awkward object such as a tandem
>could be securely packaged, it all starts to sound just a *little* far fetched.

Perhaps because your problem solving skills don't stretch that far?

I've twice watched cyclists doing just that kind of thing in airports
when faced with unexpected rules about bicycle packaging. Not with
tandems, and not for a railway train, but I don't see that that makes
it much harder. It helps if you're in the habit of carrying a useful
pocket knife, and have often used it before to craft ad hoc packaging
from random boxes.
--
Chris Malcolm +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

Steven

July 15th 05, 03:51 PM

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 13:49:36 +0100, Peter Clinch >
wrote:

>Steven wrote:
>
>> If you've always spent as much time as you do now on personal activities, the
>> datum that your employers use actually account for the part time nature of your
>> work for them.
>
>I'm judged by what I actually get done in terms of objectives agreed in
>advance with my superiors as things that need to get done, not that I've
>done roughly the same amount as last year. AFAICT most reviews work
>like that.

Given that you seem to be able to spend quite a large proportion of yor day
posting here, one can only assume that (as seems to be the case with a lot of
taxpayer financed operations), you are not being given a full days work to do.

I've always been against a lot of the privatisations, but if you are an example
of the value the taxpayer gets from their expenditure, I think a few more are
needed pretty damn quickly.

>> But quite harmless as it was posted to a group where there are plenty of experts
>> who will rapidly point out any errors.
>
>So why did you respond so crossly when that was done?

I didn't get angry when that was done.

I simply explained that I assumed a 6v dynamo meant 6v not 0.5 amps (an
incredibly stupid assumption, obviously), and mentioned why I'd never considered
a dynamo system.

It was further down the line that I started getting the smart-arsed responses.

>> No, I made a similarly stupid and unhelpful reply in response. Deal with it.
>
>It was actually stupid in an entirely different way, because rather than
>respond with a flippant question you assumed a true answer and posted that.

It was just like for like.

Guy knew exactly the error in my wording, but he wanted to be clever, so instead
of hust pointing it out he asked a stupid question.

Stupid gets as stupid gives.

>I deal with it quite easily by realising from examples that you don't
>qualify your experience and knowledge as well as you usefully might and
>thus I can't really rely on what you have to say.
>
>> It's actually quite rare.
>
>Your posting record very clearly paints a different picture.

Maybe to you.

A lot of people are very slimey in that they are extremely rude to people, but
are never honest enough to actually come right out and say it in simple terms.

Instead they say it in a more or less roundabout manner, and then get all holier
than thou when anyone responds directly.

It's a ploy that works on stupid people.

>> I learned from the errors and carried on.
>
>Carried on making the errors, that is. Again, according to your posting
>record.

This is probably your impression because you *think* you've argued a point
satisfactorily but in fact you haven't (in that it's not clear to the audience),
and so you assume that
>
>> As I've said, you are the sort of person who relys on sheer quantity of posting
>> to beat your opponents into submission. I've seen you do it to quite a few
>> people on quite a few topics.
>
>Not for the first time, pot, meet kettle, talk about dark colouring.

That is true.

You're just so much better at it than I am ;-)

>I
>can also interact quite constructively with people, as my posting record
>shows. And I do so rather more often than you, in fact.

Strangely, so can I.

I suppose urc is not a very typical place. Even though I'm not what you'd call a
cycling enthusiast (although I am quite enthusiastic about cycling if you see
what I mean), a lot of people consider the mere fact that I ride a bike at 50 to
be a bit odd. Their opinion of the lycra clad, helmeted, traffic light jumping,
pavement riding (yes, I know,I know), 'real' cyclist doesn't bear thinking
about.

I do know that I can rub along quite happily and cooperatively with people in
several of the (non-cycling) forums I habitualy post to.

It's just that here, there seem to be quite a few very prolific posters who are
so dogmatic and opinionated that sensible discussion is impossible - at least
if, like you and me, you won't let anything go.

Steven

July 15th 05, 03:52 PM

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 13:59:50 +0100, Tony Raven > wrote:

>Steven wrote:
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
>Like Junior Doctors you mean? Jeez I mean, some of those junior doctors
>even sleep on the job.

No.

Clue: some != all

Steven

July 15th 05, 04:01 PM

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 14:00:00 +0100, Peter Clinch >
wrote:

>Steven wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>Say something as if it's true and then it'll be true. You do like that
>gambit, don't you!

Well, it's clear that you can spend a great deal of time posting here every day.

Thus it's clear that you have nowhere *near* a full days work to do every day
unless, of course, you habitually spend well over 8 hours a day 'at work'.

Sometimes things are clear, and sometimes things follow from other things.

Sometimes, of course, things aren't as clear as they seem, and you may well do a
reasonable number of hours work per week.

Don't forget, this came up in the context of my trying to decide how much trust
I could place in what (before I discovered further information) seemed to be a
very tall story from an unknown poster.

I've actually seen people spend as long as you on playing on the net during
working hours, and I've seen them sacked for it. And I wouldn't trust a word
they told me. But those people were clock watcheing long luch breakers as well,
whereas you tell me you work late.

Who knows?

Peter Clinch

July 15th 05, 04:07 PM

Steven wrote:

> Given that you seem to be able to spend quite a large proportion of yor day
> posting here, one can only assume that (as seems to be the case with a lot of
> taxpayer financed operations), you are not being given a full days work to do.

Only if I don't do other work outside normal hours. So though *you* can
"only assume" the worse, there is another perfectly reasonable
explanation, though you won't accept it because you've already decided
otherwise, on insufficient evidence. You've jumped to another
conclusion without enough evidence, not for the first time.

> Guy knew exactly the error in my wording, but he wanted to be clever, so instead
> of hust pointing it out he asked a stupid question.
>
> Stupid gets as stupid gives.

You continue to be act like a spoiled child, so you get stupid things
pointed at you. It's simple cause and effect. But you persist in an
inability to see it works both ways. People treat you like poop because
you treat them like poop. The same people don't have trouble getting
along with other regulars here, *you* are the common factor in the
flying excrement.

> Strangely, so can I.

Yet you don't on u.r.c.

> It's just that here, there seem to be quite a few very prolific posters who are
> so dogmatic and opinionated that sensible discussion is impossible - at least
> if, like you and me, you won't let anything go.

So how do those prolific and dogmatic posters spend so much time /not/
arguing the toss with one another? Sensible discussion is quite
possible, and is often in abundant evidence here, if you are willing to
discuss sensibly. You are clearly not, or you wouldn't resort to temper
tantrums and name calling when anyone points out you're using the unsafe
assumptions you have a repeated habit of using.

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 http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Peter Clinch

July 15th 05, 04:12 PM

Steven wrote:

> Who knows?

You don't, yet you keep on going on as if you do. Doesn't take long to
rattle off one of these while tuning a GUI setup.

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 http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Tony Raven

July 15th 05, 04:16 PM

Steven wrote:
>
> Given that you seem to be able to spend quite a large proportion of
> yor day posting here, one can only assume that (as seems to be the
> case with a lot of taxpayer financed operations), you are not being
> given a full days work to do.
>

And your reason for you being able to spend an equally large proportion
of your day is:

a) You are posting from work like Pete
b) You don't have employment to get in the way
c) Its your job to post to Usenet?

--
Tony

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

Ambrose Nankivell

July 15th 05, 04:25 PM

Tony Raven wrote:
> Steven wrote:
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> Like Junior Doctors you mean? Jeez I mean, some of those junior
> doctors even sleep on the job.
>

IME some of them can *almost* cannulate someone in their sleep. Almost.

--
Ambrose

Peter Clinch

July 15th 05, 04:43 PM

Simon Brooke wrote:

> Killfile him, Pete. He's well outside the bounds of acceptable behaviour
> now.

Well, he has proven himself to be categorically not worth the time of
day as well as being a remarkably unpleasant individual, so it's time to
apply the "don't argue with an idiot in case other people cease to see
the difference" adage. Actually, probably well past time :-(

It's not as if people need me to point out anything unpleasant about
him, after all, what with all the evidence he keeps posting himself.

My killfile only has Ed Dolan and Mike Vandeman in it at the moment.
Illustrious company indeed!

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 http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Tony Raven

July 15th 05, 05:01 PM

Ambrose Nankivell wrote:
>
> IME some of them can *almost* cannulate someone in their sleep. Almost.
>

To be fair its not that difficult to cannulate someone in their sleep ;-)

--
Tony

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

Tony Raven

July 15th 05, 05:05 PM

Peter Clinch wrote:
>
> My killfile only has Ed Dolan and Mike Vandeman in it at the moment.
> Illustrious company indeed!
>

How did you get away without John Doh and Toad Fish and his multiple
personalities being in there too?

--
Tony

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

Simon Brooke

July 15th 05, 05:16 PM

in message >, Peter Clinch
') wrote:

> Simon Brooke wrote:
>
>> Killfile him, Pete. He's well outside the bounds of acceptable
>> behaviour now.
>
> My killfile only has Ed Dolan and Mike Vandeman in it at the moment.
> Illustrious company indeed!

He doesn't yet have /any/ company in mine. Quite an achievement!

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; L'etat c'est moi -- Louis XVI
;; I... we... the Government -- Tony Blair

Steven

July 15th 05, 05:39 PM

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 14:37:15 +0100, Simon Brooke > wrote:

>in message >, Peter Clinch
') wrote:
>
>> Steven wrote:
>>
>>> If you've always spent as much time as you do now on personal
>>> activities, the datum that your employers use actually account for the
>>> part time nature of your work for them.
>>
>> I'm judged by what I actually get done in terms of objectives agreed in
>> advance with my superiors as things that need to get done, not that
>> I've
>> done roughly the same amount as last year. AFAICT most reviews work
>> like that.
>
>Killfile him, Pete. He's well outside the bounds of acceptable behaviour
>now.

Follow his advice, Pete.

*Please*, follow his advice.

JLB

July 15th 05, 06:07 PM

Steven wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 14:37:15 +0100, Simon Brooke > wrote:
>
>
>>in message >, Peter Clinch
') wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Steven wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>If you've always spent as much time as you do now on personal
>>>>activities, the datum that your employers use actually account for the
>>>>part time nature of your work for them.
>>>
>>>I'm judged by what I actually get done in terms of objectives agreed in
>>>advance with my superiors as things that need to get done, not that
>>>I've
>>>done roughly the same amount as last year. AFAICT most reviews work
>>>like that.
>>
>>Killfile him, Pete. He's well outside the bounds of acceptable behaviour
>>now.
>
>
> Follow his advice, Pete.
>
> *Please*, follow his advice.
>
Given how you feel, what stops you either ignoring or killfiling him? Do
you get a buzz out of being killfiled? Is that your kick?

--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

Steven

July 15th 05, 07:57 PM

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 18:07:34 +0100, JLB > wrote:

>Steven wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 14:37:15 +0100, Simon Brooke > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>in message >, Peter Clinch
') wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Steven wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>If you've always spent as much time as you do now on personal
>>>>>activities, the datum that your employers use actually account for the
>>>>>part time nature of your work for them.
>>>>
>>>>I'm judged by what I actually get done in terms of objectives agreed in
>>>>advance with my superiors as things that need to get done, not that
>>>>I've
>>>>done roughly the same amount as last year. AFAICT most reviews work
>>>>like that.
>>>
>>>Killfile him, Pete. He's well outside the bounds of acceptable behaviour
>>>now.
>>
>>
>> Follow his advice, Pete.
>>
>> *Please*, follow his advice.
>>
>Given how you feel, what stops you either ignoring or killfiling him? Do
>you get a buzz out of being killfiled? Is that your kick?

Wouldn't you like to know.

I'd rather *you* didn't kill file me, though, Joe.

I have *far* too much fun laughing at your weird and wonderful interpretations
of simple English.

You wouldn't want to deny me my fun, now, would you?

>--
>Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

Clive George

July 15th 05, 08:00 PM

"Steven" > wrote in message
...

> I have *far* too much fun laughing at your weird and wonderful
> interpretations
> of simple English.

I note you haven't come back to discuss the various interpretations of what
a 'fatal flaw' was which I mentioned.

clive

Peter Clinch

July 15th 05, 08:47 PM

JLB wrote:

> Given how you feel, what stops you either ignoring or killfiling him? Do
> you get a buzz out of being killfiled? Is that your kick?

His kick appears to be either just good old trolling or possibly an
attempt to make us look witless through his supposed superiour
logical argumentative abilities. That his logical argumentative
abilities are a figment of his own imagination is not a problem for
him, because if he's winning in that imagination he'll be happy,
and if he's just trolling he'll be happy too.

I was figuring that I'd just let him pay out more rope to hang
himself, but now he's got a couple of hundred miles of the stuff I
don't see a few more will make much difference. There's no point
in showing up the flaws in his arguments, as he either can't or
won't see them and they're self evident to anyone else reading with
a couple of duty neurons online. There's no point demonstrating
he's a deeply dopey and unpleasant individual as he's done it
himself better than anyone else will ever manage. He's pretty
obviously a troll of one sort or another. So time to move on.
Should have moved on before now, my bad.

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 http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Steven

July 15th 05, 09:06 PM

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 20:00:54 +0100, "Clive George" >
wrote:

>"Steven" > wrote in message
...
>
>> I have *far* too much fun laughing at your weird and wonderful
>> interpretations
>> of simple English.
>
>I note you haven't come back to discuss the various interpretations of what
>a 'fatal flaw' was which I mentioned.

It was clear that we would disagree.

Of course, I was talking about a fatal inherent system flaw. One that might
never ever show itself, as opposed to, say, a fatal manufacturing flaw which
would imply that the specific flaw had caused a specific fatality.

With these things, a disagreement over definitions cannot eally be resolved
(apart from agreeing a definition that will be universally used withing a
certain group in future, to promote easy understanding).

Peter Clinch

July 15th 05, 09:09 PM

Tony Raven wrote:

> How did you get away without John Doh and Toad Fish and his multiple
> personalities being in there too?

Too short lived to be worth ignoring in the longer term...

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 http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

JLB

July 15th 05, 09:28 PM

Steven wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 18:07:34 +0100, JLB > wrote:

[snip]
>>Given how you feel, what stops you either ignoring or killfiling him? Do
>>you get a buzz out of being killfiled? Is that your kick?
>
>
> Wouldn't you like to know.

No, on reflection.
>
> I'd rather *you* didn't kill file me, though, Joe.
>
> I have *far* too much fun laughing at your weird and wonderful interpretations
> of simple English.
>
> You wouldn't want to deny me my fun, now, would you?

Not my place to be a killjoy; you carry on typing one-handed as long as
you like.

--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

JLB

July 15th 05, 09:51 PM

Peter Clinch wrote:
> JLB wrote:
>
>> Given how you feel, what stops you either ignoring or killfiling him?
>> Do you get a buzz out of being killfiled? Is that your kick?
>
>
> His kick appears to be either just good old trolling or possibly an
> attempt to make us look witless through his supposed superiour logical
> argumentative abilities. That his logical argumentative abilities are a
> figment of his own imagination is not a problem for him, because if he's
> winning in that imagination he'll be happy, and if he's just trolling
> he'll be happy too.
>
> I was figuring that I'd just let him pay out more rope to hang himself,
> but now he's got a couple of hundred miles of the stuff I don't see a
> few more will make much difference. There's no point in showing up the
> flaws in his arguments, as he either can't or won't see them and they're
> self evident to anyone else reading with a couple of duty neurons
> online. There's no point demonstrating he's a deeply dopey and
> unpleasant individual as he's done it himself better than anyone else
> will ever manage. He's pretty obviously a troll of one sort or
> another. So time to move on. Should have moved on before now, my bad.

You speak wisely. It's about time to go the pub.

--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

Dave Kahn

July 15th 05, 10:03 PM

Peter Clinch wrote:

> So time to move on. Should have moved on before now, my bad.

It was /beginning/ to get a bit tedious.

--
Dave...

Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the
future of the human race. - H. G. Wells

Nobody Here

July 15th 05, 10:32 PM

Steven > wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 13:49:36 +0100, Peter Clinch >
> wrote:
>
>>Steven wrote:
>>
>>> If you've always spent as much time as you do now on personal activities, the
>>> datum that your employers use actually account for the part time nature of your
>>> work for them.
>>
>>I'm judged by what I actually get done in terms of objectives agreed in
>>advance with my superiors as things that need to get done, not that I've
>>done roughly the same amount as last year. AFAICT most reviews work
>>like that.
>
> Given that you seem to be able to spend quite a large proportion of yor day
> posting here, one can only assume that (as seems to be the case with a lot of
> taxpayer financed operations), you are not being given a full days work to do.
>
> I've always been against a lot of the privatisations, but if you are an example
> of the value the taxpayer gets from their expenditure, I think a few more are
> needed pretty damn quickly.

Steven,

You truly are a complete and utter **** of a ******.

Best regards,

--
Nobby

James Annan

July 15th 05, 11:59 PM

Peter Clinch wrote:

> My killfile only has Ed Dolan and Mike Vandeman in it at the moment.
> Illustrious company indeed!

Mine has been expanding rapidly, and urc is a better place for it. Most
of the entries are the uk.transport trolls who don't seem to be here now
anyway.

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

Buck

July 16th 05, 02:14 PM

On 07/15/2005 09:41:25 Peter Clinch > wrote:

> Buck wrote:

>> 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.

Us that lead people to the dark side get it double.

--

Buck

I would rather be out on my Catrike

http://www.catrike.co.uk

ian henden

July 20th 05, 10:24 PM

"Mr Flowers" > wrote in message
...
[..]
>>
>>
> i can regularly beat the bus from my house into the town centre
> approximatley 6 miles away. with the traffic and how often they pull over
> to pick up and let off commuters. i just cant understand why others dont
> try it you can cycle there quicker, keep fit and save yourself £4. Result.

You could take a longer route and save yourself even more.

:o)

--
IanH

Tony W

July 21st 05, 07:08 AM

"Mr Flowers" > wrote in message
...

> i can regularly beat the bus from my house into the town centre
> approximatley 6 miles away. with the traffic and how often they pull over
to
> pick up and let off commuters. i just cant understand why others dont try
it
> you can cycle there quicker, keep fit and save yourself £4. Result.

But you meet such a nice class of idiot on a bus. Some of them can chatter
on for hours about the most tedious and mundane things. And bus passengers
always seem willing to share their coughs and colds around most liberally.

On a bike you don't get the same level of conversation and intellectual
challenge -- just a cheery 'get off the f***ing road' from WVM.

T

Tony Raven

July 21st 05, 07:50 AM

Tony W wrote:
>
> But you meet such a nice class of idiot on a bus. Some of them can chatter
> on for hours about the most tedious and mundane things. And bus passengers
> always seem willing to share their coughs and colds around most liberally.
>

As my SO says, the only problem with public transport is the public
(said after sharing train carriage with a drunken stag party on their
way to Blackpool)

--
Tony

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

wafflycat

July 21st 05, 09:17 AM

"Tony Raven" > wrote in message
...
> Tony W wrote:
>>
>> But you meet such a nice class of idiot on a bus. Some of them can
>> chatter
>> on for hours about the most tedious and mundane things. And bus
>> passengers
>> always seem willing to share their coughs and colds around most
>> liberally.
>>
>
> As my SO says, the only problem with public transport is the public (said
> after sharing train carriage with a drunken stag party on their way to
> Blackpool)
>
>

When I was a kid I used to walk to school. I lived on the edge of a small
town - sort of semi-rural, semi-industrial. We had the urban/industrial
bits, but also miles of lovely countryside to walk in, ride my bike in, play
in. Any other journeys were usually made by public transport - 99.9% of the
time by bus. Buses were frequent and reliable. My main way of getting to uni
& back was bus - again, frequent & reliable. I learned how to swtich-off
from the tedium of chatter if needed, but I did used to get a lot of winter
coughs & colds! Then deregulation came (Ta, Thatcher - not) and there seemed
to be a rapid deterioration in public transport reliablity and the cost of
travel started to zoom upwards. It became cheaper and more reliable to
travel by car.

The years I've lived in a rural part of the country, I've seen a rapid
deterioration in public transport. There *used to be* a bus every hour into
Norwich which I could get from my village. Okay, so it wasn't much use at
night, but it was of use during the day. It's a good job Nathan can cycle to
college & back. When he started last year, if push came to shove, he could
of at least got an early bus into Dereham and then switched bus to get up to
Fakenham. Now the services through the village have been withdrawn at the
times which proved useful, so the option of public transport is not a viable
one any longer. So on his rest day from cycling to college & back he has to
be taken there by car. PT is out, which is a shame. PT used to be a public
service, but I think those days are long gone - now it's only about profit.
There's nothing wrong with profit, but sometimes it really shouldn't be the
only consideration. It's much easier to be car-less in an urban area than a
rural one. I am, however, glad that Nathan has the sense to see that using
the bike is a realistic option in many cases.

Cheers, helen s