Former Olympic champion Victoria Pendleton reveals macho MAMILS tryto overtake her

On Monday, June 1, 2020 at 12:10:36 PM UTC+1, Pamela wrote:
On 10:34 1 Jun 2020, Simon Mason said:

On Sunday, May 31, 2020 at 11:23:21 PM UTC+1, Pamela wrote:
joined the club.

Do you have tattoo, Simon?

Nope, no way - in Hull they are a symbol of feral scum and I don't have
a mobile fern either.


No mobile is unusual. You have posted pictures which show you like
technology and gadgets, so I would have assumed you would be a fan of
smartphones.

They are useless at a lot of things including being a reliable telephone. I prefer to use the correct tool for the job.

On 16:37 1 Jun 2020, Simon Mason said:

On Monday, June 1, 2020 at 12:10:36 PM UTC+1, Pamela wrote:
On 10:34 1 Jun 2020, Simon Mason said:

On Sunday, May 31, 2020 at 11:23:21 PM UTC+1, Pamela wrote:
joined the club.

Do you have tattoo, Simon?

Nope, no way - in Hull they are a symbol of feral scum and I don't
have a mobile fern either.


No mobile is unusual. You have posted pictures which show you like
technology and gadgets, so I would have assumed you would be a fan of
smartphones.

They are useless at a lot of things including being a reliable
telephone. I prefer to use the correct tool for the job.

What if you're out cycling and want to call someone?

On 01/06/2020 17:12, Pamela wrote:
On 16:37 1 Jun 2020, Simon Mason said:

On Monday, June 1, 2020 at 12:10:36 PM UTC+1, Pamela wrote:
On 10:34 1 Jun 2020, Simon Mason said:

On Sunday, May 31, 2020 at 11:23:21 PM UTC+1, Pamela wrote:
joined the club.

Do you have tattoo, Simon?

Nope, no way - in Hull they are a symbol of feral scum and I don't
have a mobile fern either.


No mobile is unusual. You have posted pictures which show you like
technology and gadgets, so I would have assumed you would be a fan of
smartphones.

They are useless at a lot of things including being a reliable
telephone. I prefer to use the correct tool for the job.

What if you're out cycling and want to call someone?

Find a red telephone box... preferably one with a Button A and a Button B?

JNugent wrote:

On 01/06/2020 14:54, Kelly wrote:
JNugent wrote:

On 01/06/2020 09:39, Kelly wrote:

Pamela wrote:
On 19:22 31 May 2020, Simon Mason said:

She has tattoos as well - obviously has low self-esteem!

QUOTE: Olympic champion Victoria Pendleton has revealed male cyclists
try to overtake her when she is out cycling on the roads.

Sadly enough Victoria Pendleton has mental health issues

Proving that even Olympic track cycling gold medalists are human. We
have to be kind to one another because we are all imperfect.

https://www.cyclist.co.uk/news/5921/...up-about-menta
l-health-battle

Just like our highly esteemed government I'm guided only by science ...

Won't this be the same government that you've been slating for being
guided by the 'wrong' science ever since the coronavirus landed on our
shores, though?

People With Tattoos More Likely to Also Have Mental Health Issues

A new study has discovered that people with tattoos were more likely to
be diagnosed with mental health issues and to report sleep problems.

Researchers also found that people who had tattoos were more likely to
be smokers, to have spent time in jail, and to have a higher number of
sex partners in the past year.

https://psychcentral.com/news/2019/0...more-likely-to
-also-have-mental-health-issues/142332.html

Oh look, you have, somewhat disingenuously, failed to include the very
next sentence included in your given link:

Quote:

However, the survey-based study also found that having tattoos was not
significantly related to overall health status.

Hmmm... I don't have a dog in the fight (and certainly don't have any
tattoos and never would), but that exchange seems to indicate that
whilst tattoos are not necessarily related to *overall* health, there is
a positive correlation between tattoos and *mental* health and other
(lifestyle) personal chacteristics.

I am not sure that is right. Given that your overall health is
related to a balance of the six dimensions of health, then your
overall health includes your mental health along with your physical,
social, spiritual, environmental and emotional health. Following on
from that, if your having tattoos is not significantly related to your
overall health, it must also similarly not be significantly related to
your mental health. How could it be otherwise?

That is correct as far as it goes, but all that the passage meant -
surely - was that there is a correlation with mental health but not
ncessarily with any other aspect of health?

Saying that it is not correlated with overall health can't be taken as
meaning that it is not correlated with *any* health aspect. That would
make a nonsense of the language used.

Yes, it would. I'm obviously not explaining myself too well, here.

What I mean is the tattoo correlation shows an affect on our mental
health but not to a degree significant enough to affect our overall
health. That is what I took this sentence to mean: 'However, the
survey-based study also found that having tattoos was not
significantly related to overall health status'.

Doesn't that make sense of all the laguage used. I mean if the tattoo
correlation was found to have a risk of a profound affect on our
mental health they would have to say something like: 'the survey-based
study also found that having tattoos was significantly related to
overall health status'.

Just for the record, I don't have any permanent tattoos either.
Nevertheless, "40% of people between ages 18 and 29 have at least one
tattoo" - does that *clearly* mean anything at all in regard to mental
health issues?

Apparently so, if the article has any vailidity at all, that is (and I
don't make any comment on that except for saying that you can't pick and
choose - either it has authority throughout or it doesn't).

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...udy-finds.html

Let us remind ourselves:

QUOTE:

People With Tattoos More Likely to Also Have Mental Health Issues

A new study has discovered that people with tattoos were more likely to
be diagnosed with mental health issues and to report sleep problems.
Researchers also found that people who had tattoos were more likely to
be smokers, to have spent time in jail...
ENDQUOTE

If you are going to seize upon the sentence you highlighted (and fair
enough for that), you have to respect the whole of the article. It is
safe to assume it isn't going to be right when it says something you
agree with and wrong when it says something you disagree with.

I though it was somewhat unfair not to include that sentence when
making the point that people with tattoos are more likely to also have
mental health issues (a broad vague claim with no real detail given -
for example, we don't know how many tattoos or surface area of skin
covered, etc., are indicative of what degree of risk of likely mental
health issues). And I do, anyway, understand the sentence, I
highlighted, as meaning tattoos do not significantly relate to your
overall health status which includes your mental health.

So claiming, for example: "It is clear the cyclist is not the full
shilling..." simply because they had more than some arbitrary number
of tattoos would be unjustifiable, wouldn't it?

Probably.

Probably? Sorry, I think it has to be more than that. Clearly, as we
all know, means obviously and without doubt.

It doesn't mean that at all.

It means "more likely than not".

Yes, I know - that is what probably means, but that is not what I
was trying to get at. I obviously really must need this writing
practise.

So, would anybody go up
to that gentleman who had been kicked off his bicycle with photographs
to show his injuries and tell him that, based upon the tattoos he has,
he is clearly not the full shilling?

Why does that matter?

It matters because I wouldn't like to say anything behind someone's
back that I couldn't say to their face.

How can that be justified?

You see, that's what the concept of "correlation" is and what it boils
down to: probability (being more likely than not).

The most that can be said on the basis of the article, and
accepting it as valid, is that the person mentioned is "statistically
more likely than average to be [less than the full shilling, or whatever
alternative descriptor is used]".

Well, yes, you can (uncharitably) say that - but, surely, stating that
he clearly is [less than the full shilling or whatever] goes well
above and beyond what you have just said in your last sentence there.

Please re-read what I said. I was not endorsing that last bit, hence its
being in parenthesis. If you want to use a more PC description, that's
fine with me.

It might, for instance, be worded:

"The most that can be said on the basis of the article, and accepting it
as valid, is that the person mentioned is "statistically more likely
than average to have mental health problems".

I'm not sure that that means anything very different, mind.

No, that is fine, I understand all that. Thanks for going over it so
carefully. I could just about go up and say to that gentleman, if I
really had to, "You know, based upon the tatoos you have,
statistically you are more likely than average to have mental health
problems". (Although, I still don't know is this tattoo correlation
relation to mental health of any real significance or not.)

But there is no way I could justify going up to him and saying, "You
know, based upon the tatoos you have, you clearly have mental health
problems". And yet it was this later version that was initially
offered as the inference to be drawn from the gentleman's tatoos.

On Monday, June 1, 2020 at 5:12:53 PM UTC+1, Pamela wrote:
On 16:37 1 Jun 2020, Simon Mason said:

On Monday, June 1, 2020 at 12:10:36 PM UTC+1, Pamela wrote:
On 10:34 1 Jun 2020, Simon Mason said:

On Sunday, May 31, 2020 at 11:23:21 PM UTC+1, Pamela wrote:
joined the club.

Do you have tattoo, Simon?

Nope, no way - in Hull they are a symbol of feral scum and I don't
have a mobile fern either.


No mobile is unusual. You have posted pictures which show you like
technology and gadgets, so I would have assumed you would be a fan of
smartphones.

They are useless at a lot of things including being a reliable
telephone. I prefer to use the correct tool for the job.

What if you're out cycling and want to call someone?

It's never happened yet, but I do have a Garmin Edge 1000 for finding my way home.

On 01/06/2020 17:27, Kelly wrote:

JNugent wrote:
On 01/06/2020 14:54, Kelly wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 01/06/2020 09:39, Kelly wrote:
Pamela wrote:
On 19:22 31 May 2020, Simon Mason said:

She has tattoos as well - obviously has low self-esteem!

QUOTE: Olympic champion Victoria Pendleton has revealed male cyclists
try to overtake her when she is out cycling on the roads.

Sadly enough Victoria Pendleton has mental health issues

Proving that even Olympic track cycling gold medalists are human. We
have to be kind to one another because we are all imperfect.

https://www.cyclist.co.uk/news/5921/...up-about-menta
l-health-battle

Just like our highly esteemed government I'm guided only by science ...

Won't this be the same government that you've been slating for being
guided by the 'wrong' science ever since the coronavirus landed on our
shores, though?

People With Tattoos More Likely to Also Have Mental Health Issues

A new study has discovered that people with tattoos were more likely to
be diagnosed with mental health issues and to report sleep problems.

Researchers also found that people who had tattoos were more likely to
be smokers, to have spent time in jail, and to have a higher number of
sex partners in the past year.

https://psychcentral.com/news/2019/0...more-likely-to
-also-have-mental-health-issues/142332.html

Oh look, you have, somewhat disingenuously, failed to include the very
next sentence included in your given link:

Quote:

However, the survey-based study also found that having tattoos was not
significantly related to overall health status.


Hmmm... I don't have a dog in the fight (and certainly don't have any
tattoos and never would), but that exchange seems to indicate that
whilst tattoos are not necessarily related to *overall* health, there is
a positive correlation between tattoos and *mental* health and other
(lifestyle) personal chacteristics.

I am not sure that is right. Given that your overall health is
related to a balance of the six dimensions of health, then your
overall health includes your mental health along with your physical,
social, spiritual, environmental and emotional health. Following on
from that, if your having tattoos is not significantly related to your
overall health, it must also similarly not be significantly related to
your mental health. How could it be otherwise?

That is correct as far as it goes, but all that the passage meant -
surely - was that there is a correlation with mental health but not
ncessarily with any other aspect of health?
Saying that it is not correlated with overall health can't be taken as
meaning that it is not correlated with *any* health aspect. That would
make a nonsense of the language used.

Yes, it would. I'm obviously not explaining myself too well, here.

OK.

What I mean is the tattoo correlation shows an affect on our mental
health but not to a degree significant enough to affect our overall
health. That is what I took this sentence to mean: 'However, the
survey-based study also found that having tattoos was not
significantly related to overall health status'.

That's what it said. Presumably the author meant it.

Doesn't that make sense of all the laguage used. I mean if the tattoo
correlation was found to have a risk of a profound affect on our
mental health they would have to say something like: 'the survey-based
study also found that having tattoos was significantly related to
overall health status'.

I didn't catch the faintest implication that getting a tattoo affects
mental health.

The clear implication was that being willing to be tattooed and being at
risk of less than optimal mental health were co-causal, but not
necessarily that either is the cause of the other. IOW, there is an
unidentified factor at play.

I am not making the claim that any of that is correct. I am just
pointing out what it is that the author obviously meant, whether it is
right or not.

Just for the record, I don't have any permanent tattoos either.
Nevertheless, "40% of people between ages 18 and 29 have at least one
tattoo" - does that *clearly* mean anything at all in regard to mental
health issues?

Apparently so, if the article has any vailidity at all, that is (and I
don't make any comment on that except for saying that you can't pick and
choose - either it has authority throughout or it doesn't).

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...udy-finds.html

Let us remind ourselves:
QUOTE:
People With Tattoos More Likely to Also Have Mental Health Issues
A new study has discovered that people with tattoos were more likely to
be diagnosed with mental health issues and to report sleep problems.
Researchers also found that people who had tattoos were more likely to
be smokers, to have spent time in jail...
ENDQUOTE

If you are going to seize upon the sentence you highlighted (and fair
enough for that), you have to respect the whole of the article. It is
safe to assume it isn't going to be right when it says something you
agree with and wrong when it says something you disagree with.

I though it was somewhat unfair not to include that sentence when
making the point that people with tattoos are more likely to also have
mental health issues (a broad vague claim with no real detail given -
for example, we don't know how many tattoos or surface area of skin
covered, etc., are indicative of what degree of risk of likely mental
health issues). And I do, anyway, understand the sentence, I
highlighted, as meaning tattoos do not significantly relate to your
overall health status which includes your mental health.

So claiming, for example: "It is clear the cyclist is not the full
shilling..." simply because they had more than some arbitrary number
of tattoos would be unjustifiable, wouldn't it?

Probably.

Probably? Sorry, I think it has to be more than that. Clearly, as we
all know, means obviously and without doubt.

It doesn't mean that at all.
It means "more likely than not".

Yes, I know - that is what probably means, but that is not what I
was trying to get at. I obviously really must need this writing
practise.

So, would anybody go up
to that gentleman who had been kicked off his bicycle with photographs
to show his injuries and tell him that, based upon the tattoos he has,
he is clearly not the full shilling?

Why does that matter?

It matters because I wouldn't like to say anything behind someone's
back that I couldn't say to their face.

There was no suggestion that anybody did either thing or even wanted to.

How can that be justified?

You see, that's what the concept of "correlation" is and what it boils
down to: probability (being more likely than not).

The most that can be said on the basis of the article, and
accepting it as valid, is that the person mentioned is "statistically
more likely than average to be [less than the full shilling, or whatever
alternative descriptor is used]".

Well, yes, you can (uncharitably) say that - but, surely, stating that
he clearly is [less than the full shilling or whatever] goes well
above and beyond what you have just said in your last sentence there.

Please re-read what I said. I was not endorsing that last bit, hence its
being in parenthesis. If you want to use a more PC description, that's
fine with me.

It might, for instance, be worded:

"The most that can be said on the basis of the article, and accepting it
as valid, is that the person mentioned is "statistically more likely
than average to have mental health problems".

I'm not sure that that means anything very different, mind.

No, that is fine, I understand all that. Thanks for going over it so
carefully. I could just about go up and say to that gentleman, if I
really had to, "You know, based upon the tatoos you have,
statistically you are more likely than average to have mental health
problems". (Although, I still don't know is this tattoo correlation
relation to mental health of any real significance or not.)

You could.

But it's hard to see what the point might be.

But there is no way I could justify going up to him and saying, "You
know, based upon the tatoos you have, you clearly have mental health
problems". And yet it was this later version that was initially
offered as the inference to be drawn from the gentleman's tatoos.

I wasn't supporting that. Merely pointing out what the quoted report meant.

On 17:27 1 Jun 2020, Kelly said:

JNugent wrote:

On 01/06/2020 14:54, Kelly wrote:
JNugent wrote:

On 01/06/2020 09:39, Kelly wrote:

Pamela wrote:
On 19:22 31 May 2020, Simon Mason said:

She has tattoos as well - obviously has low self-esteem!

QUOTE: Olympic champion Victoria Pendleton has revealed male
cyclists try to overtake her when she is out cycling on the roads.

Sadly enough Victoria Pendleton has mental health issues

Proving that even Olympic track cycling gold medalists are human.
We have to be kind to one another because we are all imperfect.

https://www.cyclist.co.uk/news/5921/victoria-pendleton-
opens-up-about-menta l-health-battle

Just like our highly esteemed government I'm guided only by science
...

Won't this be the same government that you've been slating for being
guided by the 'wrong' science ever since the coronavirus landed on
our shores, though?

People With Tattoos More Likely to Also Have Mental Health
Issues

A new study has discovered that people with tattoos were more
likely to be diagnosed with mental health issues and to report
sleep problems.

Researchers also found that people who had tattoos were more
likely to be smokers, to have spent time in jail, and to have a
higher number of sex partners in the past year.

https://psychcentral.com/news/2019/0...-with-tattoos-
more-likely-to-also-have-mental-health-issues/142332.html

Oh look, you have, somewhat disingenuously, failed to include the
very next sentence included in your given link:

Quote:

However, the survey-based study also found that having tattoos was
not significantly related to overall health status.

Hmmm... I don't have a dog in the fight (and certainly don't have any
tattoos and never would), but that exchange seems to indicate that
whilst tattoos are not necessarily related to *overall* health, there
is a positive correlation between tattoos and *mental* health and
other (lifestyle) personal chacteristics.

I am not sure that is right. Given that your overall health is
related to a balance of the six dimensions of health, then your
overall health includes your mental health along with your physical,
social, spiritual, environmental and emotional health. Following on
from that, if your having tattoos is not significantly related to your
overall health, it must also similarly not be significantly related to
your mental health. How could it be otherwise?

That is correct as far as it goes, but all that the passage meant -
surely - was that there is a correlation with mental health but not
ncessarily with any other aspect of health?

Saying that it is not correlated with overall health can't be taken as
meaning that it is not correlated with *any* health aspect. That would
make a nonsense of the language used.

Yes, it would. I'm obviously not explaining myself too well, here.

What I mean is the tattoo correlation shows an affect on our mental
health but not to a degree significant enough to affect our overall
health. That is what I took this sentence to mean: 'However, the
survey-based study also found that having tattoos was not
significantly related to overall health status'.

Doesn't that make sense of all the laguage used. I mean if the tattoo
correlation was found to have a risk of a profound affect on our
mental health they would have to say something like: 'the survey-based
study also found that having tattoos was significantly related to
overall health status'.

The direction of causation is as follows: someone on account of their
"delicate" mental state makes a decision to have themself extensively
tattooed.

The correlation occurs from this. You seem to have reverse the direction
oof causation although the article explained it and Nugent was able to
grasp the meaning easily enough.

[SNIP]

The most that can be said on the basis of the article, and
accepting it as valid, is that the person mentioned is "statistically
more likely than average to be [less than the full shilling, or
whatever alternative descriptor is used]".

Well, yes, you can (uncharitably) say that - but, surely, stating that
he clearly is [less than the full shilling or whatever] goes well
above and beyond what you have just said in your last sentence there.

Please re-read what I said. I was not endorsing that last bit, hence its
being in parenthesis. If you want to use a more PC description, that's
fine with me.

It might, for instance, be worded:

"The most that can be said on the basis of the article, and accepting it
as valid, is that the person mentioned is "statistically more likely
than average to have mental health problems".

I'm not sure that that means anything very different, mind.

No, that is fine, I understand all that. Thanks for going over it so
carefully. I could just about go up and say to that gentleman, if I
really had to, "You know, based upon the tatoos you have,
statistically you are more likely than average to have mental health
problems". (Although, I still don't know is this tattoo correlation
relation to mental health of any real significance or not.)

But there is no way I could justify going up to him and saying, "You
know, based upon the tatoos you have, you clearly have mental health
problems". And yet it was this later version that was initially
offered as the inference to be drawn from the gentleman's tatoos.

You created a hypothetical example (of berating the fallen cyclist) and
made it part of what you were assessing for reasonableness, even though
this activity had never appeared anywhere previously. Then you judged it
would be unreasonable to do so, even though it was something no one had
ever suggested doing.

It's more like misdirected oratory than a reasoned argument.

On 17:50 1 Jun 2020, Simon Mason said:

On Monday, June 1, 2020 at 5:12:53 PM UTC+1, Pamela wrote:
On 16:37 1 Jun 2020, Simon Mason said:

On Monday, June 1, 2020 at 12:10:36 PM UTC+1, Pamela wrote:
On 10:34 1 Jun 2020, Simon Mason said:

On Sunday, May 31, 2020 at 11:23:21 PM UTC+1, Pamela wrote:
joined the club.

Do you have tattoo, Simon?

Nope, no way - in Hull they are a symbol of feral scum and I don't
have a mobile fern either.


No mobile is unusual. You have posted pictures which show you like
technology and gadgets, so I would have assumed you would be a fan
of smartphones.

They are useless at a lot of things including being a reliable
telephone. I prefer to use the correct tool for the job.

What if you're out cycling and want to call someone?

It's never happened yet, but I do have a Garmin Edge 1000 for finding my
way home.

As I understand it from your posts, cyclists are getting knocked off their
bikes all the time by motorists. If it happens to you in the countryside,
you might find a phone useful.

Especially are you're more likely than average to sustain head injuries from
not wearing a helmet.

On Monday, June 1, 2020 at 6:25:12 PM UTC+1, Pamela wrote:
On 17:50 1 Jun 2020, Simon Mason said:

On Monday, June 1, 2020 at 5:12:53 PM UTC+1, Pamela wrote:
On 16:37 1 Jun 2020, Simon Mason said:

On Monday, June 1, 2020 at 12:10:36 PM UTC+1, Pamela wrote:
On 10:34 1 Jun 2020, Simon Mason said:

On Sunday, May 31, 2020 at 11:23:21 PM UTC+1, Pamela wrote:
joined the club.

Do you have tattoo, Simon?

Nope, no way - in Hull they are a symbol of feral scum and I don't
have a mobile fern either.


No mobile is unusual. You have posted pictures which show you like
technology and gadgets, so I would have assumed you would be a fan
of smartphones.

They are useless at a lot of things including being a reliable
telephone. I prefer to use the correct tool for the job.

What if you're out cycling and want to call someone?

It's never happened yet, but I do have a Garmin Edge 1000 for finding my
way home.

As I understand it from your posts, cyclists are getting knocked off their
bikes all the time by motorists. If it happens to you in the countryside,
you might find a phone useful.

Especially are you're more likely than average to sustain head injuries from
not wearing a helmet.

The only time I have been knocked off my bike by a car driver, he rang the emergency services himself and I didn't hit my head. His insurance gave me £5000 in compo as well.

Pamela wrote:

On 17:27 1 Jun 2020, Kelly said:

JNugent wrote:

On 01/06/2020 14:54, Kelly wrote:
JNugent wrote:

On 01/06/2020 09:39, Kelly wrote:

Doesn't that make sense of all the laguage used. I mean if the tattoo
correlation was found to have a risk of a profound affect on our
mental health they would have to say something like: 'the survey-based
study also found that having tattoos was significantly related to
overall health status'.

The direction of causation is as follows: someone on account of their
"delicate" mental state makes a decision to have themself extensively
tattooed.

The correlation occurs from this. You seem to have reverse the direction
oof causation although the article explained it and Nugent was able to
grasp the meaning easily enough.

Are you really making an issue of that? So someone who has a delicate
state of mind has to have that before they get the tattoos. Someone
who gets the tattoos first may not have a delicate state of mind but
may develop a delicate state of mind later. Ultimately, you always end
up with someone who has tattoos and may or may not have a delicate
state of mind. Is there some advantage for me to gain by 'wilfully'
reversing a direction of causation, where applicable?

[SNIP]
The most that can be said on the basis of the article, and
accepting it as valid, is that the person mentioned is "statistically
more likely than average to be [less than the full shilling, or
whatever alternative descriptor is used]".

Well, yes, you can (uncharitably) say that - but, surely, stating that
he clearly is [less than the full shilling or whatever] goes well
above and beyond what you have just said in your last sentence there.

Please re-read what I said. I was not endorsing that last bit, hence its
being in parenthesis. If you want to use a more PC description, that's
fine with me.

It might, for instance, be worded:

"The most that can be said on the basis of the article, and accepting it
as valid, is that the person mentioned is "statistically more likely
than average to have mental health problems".

I'm not sure that that means anything very different, mind.

No, that is fine, I understand all that. Thanks for going over it so
carefully. I could just about go up and say to that gentleman, if I
really had to, "You know, based upon the tatoos you have,
statistically you are more likely than average to have mental health
problems". (Although, I still don't know is this tattoo correlation
relation to mental health of any real significance or not.)

But there is no way I could justify going up to him and saying, "You
know, based upon the tatoos you have, you clearly have mental health
problems". And yet it was this later version that was initially
offered as the inference to be drawn from the gentleman's tatoos.

You created a hypothetical example (of berating the fallen cyclist) and
made it part of what you were assessing for reasonableness, even though
this activity had never appeared anywhere previously.

You stated: "It is clear the cyclist is not the full shilling..." (In
Message-ID: )

That was you berating the cyclist, and you made that claim on account
of the tattoos he had that were not to your liking. That's what I was
assessing as being unreasonable.

Then you judged it would be unreasonable to do so, even though it was
something no one had ever suggested doing.

It was me who then imagined having to tell the cyclist there were
concerns about his tattoos.

Could I go with your version? "Based on the tattoos you have, it is
clear that you the cyclist are not the full shilling." Could I justify
that? No, I couldn't.

If, on the other hand, the cyclist already had a definitive diagnosis
of mental illness, rather than too many tatoos for my liking, then I
could have gone with your version as being reasonable.

It's more like misdirected oratory than a reasoned argument.