Effectiveness of Justin, Squashme and Simon (none)

On 17/02/2013 04:05, Peter Keller wrote:
On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 19:25:27 +0000, JNugent wrote:

On 16/02/2013 04:15, Peter Keller wrote:
On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 00:47:16 +0000, JNugent wrote:

On 14/02/2013 21:39, Peter Keller wrote:

On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 17:42:44 +0000, JNugent wrote:

On 14/02/2013 17:24, wrote:

I have no idea to whom you are writing nor to what you are
referring.
Please be more transparent.

I have no idea to whom you are writing or to what you are referring.
Please be more transparent. And more grammatical.

Pardon? Trying to avoid putting a preposition at the end of a
sentence or clause is not being ungrammatical. It might just sound
awkward.

The standard construction is "either ... "or", not "either ... nor".

IOW, the sentence should have been rendered:

"I have no idea to whom you are writing or to what you are referring."

I mean, full marks for "whom" and all that, but "nor" devalues it.

"nor" is correct. It goes with the negative "no idea"

It doubles the negative.

There are still examples where the negative can be doubled for emphasis.
As in Justin's example. Also in
"Do you have some bananas?"
"No, I do not have *any* (not *some*) bananas"

"Any" is not a negative.

It can be used in such a way as to allow the possibility of a negative
(eg: "We will pay an allowance for children - if any"), but it is not in
itself a negative.

Justin wrote:
On 17 feb, 05:05, Peter Keller wrote:
On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 19:25:27 +0000, JNugent wrote:
On 16/02/2013 04:15, Peter Keller wrote:
On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 00:47:16 +0000, JNugent wrote:

On 14/02/2013 21:39, Peter Keller wrote:

On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 17:42:44 +0000, JNugent wrote:

On 14/02/2013 17:24, wrote:

I have no idea to whom you are writing nor to what you are
referring.
Please be more transparent.

I have no idea to whom you are writing or to what you are referring.
Please be more transparent. And more grammatical.

Pardon? Trying to avoid putting a preposition at the end of a
sentence or clause is not being ungrammatical. It might just sound
awkward.

The standard construction is "either ... "or", not "either ... nor".

IOW, the sentence should have been rendered:

"I have no idea to whom you are writing or to what you are referring."

I mean, full marks for "whom" and all that, but "nor" devalues it.

"nor" is correct. It goes with the negative "no idea"

It doubles the negative.

There are still examples where the negative can be doubled for emphasis.
As in Justin's example. Also in
"Do you have some bananas?"
"No, I do not have *any* (not *some*) bananas"

I do not expect Dave or Nik to reply, nor do I expect them to revert
to insults.

"Do you have have some bananas" . No, I ain't got none.
--
ennemm

On Saturday, February 16, 2013 11:44:36 AM UTC, Mrcheerful wrote:
Doug wrote:

On Saturday, February 16, 2013 10:33:25 AM UTC, Doug wrote:

.



Motorists kill cyclists but cyclists do not kill motorists.



Smithx



apart from when they do, by their own stupidity cause an accident which

kills someone else, such as a car driver:

http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/n...clist-1-130248

There is no such thing as an 'accident'. They are all RTCs. If the motorist can't avoid the cyclist then it is just a case of bad driving, most likely going too fast for the conditions or not paying proper attention, as usual.

Smithx.

On 17/02/2013 13:48, Doug wrote:
On Saturday, February 16, 2013 11:44:36 AM UTC, Mrcheerful wrote:
Doug wrote:

On Saturday, February 16, 2013 10:33:25 AM UTC, Doug wrote:

.



Motorists kill cyclists but cyclists do not kill motorists.



Smithx



apart from when they do, by their own stupidity cause an accident
which

kills someone else, such as a car driver:

http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/n...clist-1-130248



There is no such thing as an 'accident'. They are all RTCs. If the
motorist can't avoid the cyclist then it is just a case of bad driving,
most likely going too fast for the conditions or not paying proper
attention, as usual.

Smithx.

Is that why cyclists get 'doored'?

--
Dave - Cyclists VORC
Bicycles are for Children. Like masturbation, something you should grow
out of.
There is something seriously sick and stunted about grown men who want
to ride a bike."

On 17/02/2013 14:32, Dave- Cyclists VORC wrote:
On 17/02/2013 13:48, Doug wrote:


There is no such thing as an 'accident'. They are all RTCs. If the
motorist can't avoid the cyclist then it is just a case of bad driving,
most likely going too fast for the conditions or not paying proper
attention, as usual.

Smithx.

Is that why cyclists get 'doored'?

The get doored ‘cos they ride in the door zone.

On 17/02/2013 14:41, Simon Weissel wrote:
On 17/02/2013 14:32, Dave- Cyclists VORC wrote:
On 17/02/2013 13:48, Doug wrote:


There is no such thing as an 'accident'. They are all RTCs. If the
motorist can't avoid the cyclist then it is just a case of bad driving,
most likely going too fast for the conditions or not paying proper
attention, as usual.

Smithx.

Is that why cyclists get 'doored'?

The get doored ‘cos they ride in the door zone.


Because they fail to use observation & anticipation skills.

--
Dave-Cyclists VOHR
''As the severity of the injury increased the benefit of wearing a
helmet increased, which is very hard to ignore I think,'' Dr Olivier said.

Results showed that cyclists without helmets were more than 3.9 times as
likely to sustain a head injury to those with helmets. Helmets reduced
the risk of moderate head injury by 49 per cent, of serious head injury
by 62 per cent, and of severe head injury by 74 per cent".

On 17/02/2013 14:56, Dave - Cyclists VOHR wrote:
On 17/02/2013 14:41, Simon Weissel wrote:
On 17/02/2013 14:32, Dave- Cyclists VORC wrote:
On 17/02/2013 13:48, Doug wrote:


There is no such thing as an 'accident'. They are all RTCs. If the
motorist can't avoid the cyclist then it is just a case of bad driving,
most likely going too fast for the conditions or not paying proper
attention, as usual.

Smithx.

Is that why cyclists get 'doored'?

The get doored ‘cos they ride in the door zone.


Because they fail to use observation & anticipation skills.


Like seeing there is a parked car ahead and avoiding the door zone.

On 17/02/2013 15:27, Simon Weissel wrote:
On 17/02/2013 14:56, Dave - Cyclists VOHR wrote:
On 17/02/2013 14:41, Simon Weissel wrote:
On 17/02/2013 14:32, Dave- Cyclists VORC wrote:
On 17/02/2013 13:48, Doug wrote:


There is no such thing as an 'accident'. They are all RTCs. If the
motorist can't avoid the cyclist then it is just a case of bad driving,
most likely going too fast for the conditions or not paying proper
attention, as usual.

Smithx.

Is that why cyclists get 'doored'?

The get doored ‘cos they ride in the door zone.


Because they fail to use observation & anticipation skills.


Like seeing there is a parked car ahead and avoiding the door zone.

Drivers pass faster & closer & don't seem to have a problem.

--
Dave - Cyclists VORC
Bicycles are for Children. Like masturbation, something you should grow
out of.
There is something seriously sick and stunted about grown men who want
to ride a bike."

Doug wrote:
On Saturday, February 16, 2013 11:44:36 AM UTC, Mrcheerful wrote:
Doug wrote:

On Saturday, February 16, 2013 10:33:25 AM UTC, Doug wrote:

.



Motorists kill cyclists but cyclists do not kill motorists.



Smithx



apart from when they do, by their own stupidity cause an accident
which

kills someone else, such as a car driver:

http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/n...clist-1-130248

There is no such thing as an 'accident'. They are all RTCs. If the
motorist can't avoid the cyclist then it is just a case of bad
driving, most likely going too fast for the conditions or not paying
proper attention, as usual.

Smithx.

the cyclist was unlit at night, in order to spare the cyclist's life the car
driver had to make the unpleasant decision to hit another car. I would have
hit the cyclist.

On 17/02/2013 16:00, Dave- Cyclists VORC wrote:
On 17/02/2013 15:27, Simon Weissel wrote:
On 17/02/2013 14:56, Dave - Cyclists VOHR wrote:
On 17/02/2013 14:41, Simon Weissel wrote:
On 17/02/2013 14:32, Dave- Cyclists VORC wrote:
On 17/02/2013 13:48, Doug wrote:


There is no such thing as an 'accident'. They are all RTCs. If the
motorist can't avoid the cyclist then it is just a case of bad
driving,
most likely going too fast for the conditions or not paying proper
attention, as usual.

Smithx.

Is that why cyclists get 'doored'?

The get doored ‘cos they ride in the door zone.


Because they fail to use observation & anticipation skills.


Like seeing there is a parked car ahead and avoiding the door zone.

Drivers pass faster & closer & don't seem to have a problem.


Exactly. I wonder why that is?

Perhaps it might be that if there is any chance of fast moving traffic,
the driver in charge of the parked car will take more care, and advise
the other occupants to be careful too. Where I have had doors flung open
in front of me on a bike it has been on quiet residential roads. It used
to happen a lot near a school after dropping off daughter. They always
said "sorry", I always used to shrug, because I am never in the door
zone. Ever.