Islabikes new range

David Damerell wrote:

I detect a semantic quibble. A car moving at 70mph is dangerous. It poses
a danger.

It does. Yet I managed to do it for several hours at the weekend
without hurting anyone. Amazing!

Some of those non-motorists are trying to cycle up those dual carriageways
(because they go places) and would prefer not to have cagers spacing out
as they zoom up behind us, thanks.

I passed a few cyclists on the A9. They seemed to be getting where they
were going. I wasn't spaced.

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 writes:

David Damerell wrote:

I detect a semantic quibble. A car moving at 70mph is dangerous. It poses
a danger.

It does. Yet I managed to do it for several hours at the weekend
without hurting anyone. Amazing!

OTOH cars moving at 70mph kill (at least) hundreds of people a year in
this country... clearly they are dangerous!

Tricky thing this language stuff

Paul Rudin wrote:
Peter Clinch writes:

David Damerell wrote:

I detect a semantic quibble. A car moving at 70mph is dangerous. It poses
a danger.
It does. Yet I managed to do it for several hours at the weekend
without hurting anyone. Amazing!

OTOH cars moving at 70mph kill (at least) hundreds of people a year in
this country... clearly they are dangerous!

So does walking up and down stairs. I suggest we ban houses and all move
into bungalows immediately.

Tricky thing this language stuff

Only when you try to make it say something different to its original
intention.

Paul Rudin wrote:
Peter Clinch writes:

David Damerell wrote:

I detect a semantic quibble. A car moving at 70mph is dangerous. It poses
a danger.
It does. Yet I managed to do it for several hours at the weekend
without hurting anyone. Amazing!

OTOH cars moving at 70mph kill (at least) hundreds of people a year in
this country... clearly they are dangerous!

yes... but extending that the way as has been done that anyone enjoying
driving is an amoral Bad Hat is just the sort of thing that doesn't get
anyone anywhere, except people ****ed off with people making that kind
of conclusion. In this case a similarly ridiculous jump which is "Joe
Public" miffed with "cyclists". Not helpful.

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/

Fill Lea writes:

Paul Rudin wrote:

Tricky thing this language stuff

Only when you try to make it say something different to its original
intention.

"language" has no intention... that's where the people using it come in.

I was being facetious, but intending to suggest that it's pointless to
quibble about this sort of thing, which is basically about definition of
a particular adjective.

If you want something more concrete to quibble about - how about the
truth (or otherwise) of the assertion:

"Hundreds of lives a year due to car crashes would be saved if average
speeds were reduced by 10mph".

As a followup, what about the same assertion with 10mph replaced by, 20,
50, 100?

Paul Rudin wrote:
Fill Lea writes:

Paul Rudin wrote:

Tricky thing this language stuff
Only when you try to make it say something different to its original
intention.

"language" has no intention... that's where the people using it come in.

I was being facetious, but intending to suggest that it's pointless to
quibble about this sort of thing, which is basically about definition of
a particular adjective.

If you want something more concrete to quibble about - how about the
truth (or otherwise) of the assertion:

"Hundreds of lives a year due to car crashes would be saved if average
speeds were reduced by 10mph".

As a followup, what about the same assertion with 10mph replaced by, 20,
50, 100?

Reduce it by 70, and you'll have people spontaneously birthing at the
side of the road

Paul Rudin wrote:

If you want something more concrete to quibble about - how about the
truth (or otherwise) of the assertion:

"Hundreds of lives a year due to car crashes would be saved if average
speeds were reduced by 10mph".

As a followup, what about the same assertion with 10mph replaced by, 20,
50, 100?

I suspect that it's a lot more dangerous to drive in reverse so would
suggest that average speeds not be reduced by 100 mph until such time as
they've risen somewhat.

;-)

Cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire http://www.shrimper.org.uk

On 18 Sep 2008 13:31:53 GMT, Ian Smith psycholist wrote:

snip

This is fact, but you persist in apparently disagreeing with it
(though quite what you disagree with you seem strangely unable to
articulate).

Ergo, I conclude that you are trolling. I give up.


3) The word "troll" is in common usage in usenet. However, the
psycholists have adopted it for their own use to apply to anyone who
disagrees with their ingrained and irrational views. This enables
them to say "ignore him - he is a troll" when faced with facts which
are too unpalatable for the psycholist to contemplate - never mind
discuss in a sensible fashion

A common pseudonym for a "psycholist" is "****wit".


--
I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
Some evidence shows that helmeted cyclists are more likely to hit
their heads. (Guy Chapman)
I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy
Chapman) - proven to be an outright lie.
He then quickly changed his web page - but "forgot" to change the date
of last amendment

On 18 Sep 2008 17:10:08 GMT, Ian Smith wrote:

snip

regards, Ian SMith


Pedant - noun

A person who excessively reveres or parades academic learning or
technical knowledge, often without discrimination or practical
judgement.

Many psycholists are also pedants.


--
I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
Some evidence shows that helmeted cyclists are more likely to hit
their heads. (Guy Chapman)
I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy
Chapman) - proven to be an outright lie.
He then quickly changed his web page - but "forgot" to change the date
of last amendment