#21
|
|||
|
|||
What is a cyclist?
Doug wrote:
On 24 Oct, 19:13, BrianW wrote: On Oct 24, 8:24*am, Doug wrote: 'A real cyclist is one who sometimes cycles ..." So you agree, the motorists who infest this NG have only to ride a bicycle just once to then claimed to be a 'pure' cyclist Real cyclist or Pure cyclist? You seem to get mixed up with even the terms you yourself made-up. Are there different definitions for each? Are these definitions also to change as and when you feel too many people realise you don't actually fit the criteria you think others should fit? It's been said before, but bears saying again, you're a hypocrite. An evangelising zealot of a hypocrite at that, who is simply wrong on nearly all you espouse. -- Paul - xxx '96/97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi '96/97 Dyna-Tech Cro mo comp |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
What is a cyclist?
"Doug" wrote in message ... An unbiased cyclist with eyes and brains in his head and would always find plenty to criticise in the behaviour of many other cyclists. Yes but they would find much more to criticise in the behaviour of motorists. I don't know about that, at a guess I would say that at least 95% of cyclists ride like idiots and are a danger to themselves and about 95% of drivers drive like idiots and are a danger to other people. That leaves about 5% of cyclists and drivers who drive or ride carefully and courteously. I am guessing here, but I suspect that cyclists who ride like idiots do not drive, and drivers who drive like idiots do not cycle. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
What is a cyclist?
bugbear wrote:
Paul - xxx wrote: It's been said before, but bears saying again, you're a hypocrite. An evangelising zealot of a hypocrite at that, who is simply wrong on nearly all you espouse. Elegantly put sir! I thought the tone needed raising a smidgeon. I was actually thinking of using more flamboyant language ... -- Paul - xxx '96/97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi '96/97 Dyna-Tech Cro mo comp |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
What is a cyclist?
On Oct 25, 7:18*am, Doug wrote:
On 24 Oct, 19:13, BrianW wrote: On Oct 24, 8:24*am, Doug wrote: Motorists on this newsgroup will maintain that however infrequently they step out of their car and onto a bicycle and peddle just a bit, that entitles them to denigrate cyclists to the full here. OTOH purists here will maintain that the only 'real' cyclist is one who never ever uses a car and regularly cycles quite long distances instead. I have an alternative compromise definition for this newsgroup in particular. 'A real cyclist is one who sometimes cycles but always criticises motorists much more than they criticise cyclists on this newsgroup.' Would that be more acceptable do you think? It's getting better, but may I suggest this alternative definition, taken from the dictionary on my shelf: "cyclist - a person who rides a bicycle". Controversial, I know, but I think it works. So you agree, the motorists who infest this NG have only to ride a bicycle just once to then claimed to be a 'pure' cyclist which empowers them to criticise cyclists to the full on this NG from the POV of a motorist? Ah, right, so you have to cycle regularly in order to be able to criticise cyclists? Does the same principle apply to driving? Do you have to drive regularly in order to criticise motorists? |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
What is a cyclist?
On 25/10/2010 07:45, Paul - xxx wrote:
Doug wrote: On 24 Oct, 19:13, wrote: On Oct 24, 8:24 am, wrote: 'A real cyclist is one who sometimes cycles ..." So you agree, the motorists who infest this NG have only to ride a bicycle just once to then claimed to be a 'pure' cyclist Real cyclist or Pure cyclist? You seem to get mixed up with even the terms you yourself made-up. Are there different definitions for each? Are these definitions also to change as and when you feel too many people realise you don't actually fit the criteria you think others should fit? It's been said before, but bears saying again, you're a hypocrite. An evangelising zealot of a hypocrite at that, who is simply wrong on nearly all you espouse. Aol Me to Aol |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
What is a cyclist?
On 25 Oct, 21:07, BrianW wrote:
On Oct 25, 7:18*am, Doug wrote: On 24 Oct, 19:13, BrianW wrote: On Oct 24, 8:24*am, Doug wrote: Motorists on this newsgroup will maintain that however infrequently they step out of their car and onto a bicycle and peddle just a bit, that entitles them to denigrate cyclists to the full here. OTOH purists here will maintain that the only 'real'cyclistis one who never ever uses a car and regularly cycles quite long distances instead. I have an alternative compromise definition for this newsgroup in particular. 'A realcyclistis one who sometimes cycles but always criticises motorists much more than they criticise cyclists on this newsgroup.' Would that be more acceptable do you think? It's getting better, but may I suggest this alternative definition, taken from the dictionary on my shelf: "cyclist- a person who rides a bicycle". Controversial, I know, but I think it works. So you agree, the motorists who infest this NG have only to ride a bicycle just once to then claimed to be a 'pure'cyclistwhich empowers them to criticise cyclists to the full on this NG from the POV of a motorist? Ah, right, so you have to cycle regularly in order to be able to criticise cyclists? *Does the same principle apply to driving? *Do you have to drive regularly in order to criticise motorists? You don't understand do you. This is about the relative levels of criticism. Note the use of the word 'full'. Doug. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
What is a cyclist?
On 25 Oct, 07:31, Tony Dragon wrote:
On 25/10/2010 07:18, Doug wrote: On 24 Oct, 19:13, *wrote: On Oct 24, 8:24 am, *wrote: Motorists on this newsgroup will maintain that however infrequently they step out of their car and onto a bicycle and peddle just a bit, that entitles them to denigrate cyclists to the full here. OTOH purists here will maintain that the only 'real'cyclistis one who never ever uses a car and regularly cycles quite long distances instead. I have an alternative compromise definition for this newsgroup in particular. 'A realcyclistis one who sometimes cycles but always criticises motorists much more than they criticise cyclists on this newsgroup.' Would that be more acceptable do you think? It's getting better, but may I suggest this alternative definition, taken from the dictionary on my shelf: "cyclist- a person who rides a bicycle". Controversial, I know, but I think it works. So you agree, the motorists who infest this NG have only to ride a bicycle just once to then claimed to be a 'pure'cyclistwhich empowers them to criticise cyclists to the full on this NG from the POV of a motorist? -- . UK Radical Campaigns. *http://www.zing.icom43.net All public road users are equal but some are more equal than others. No Doug, those who ride a bike can claim they are cyclists, that all. So, if you briefly rode a small bike on a pavement as a child,once and never since, this should qualify you as a 'pure/real cyclist' and experienced enough to criticise cyclists here? If not, at what point would you qualify as a real cyclist? Doug. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
What is a cyclist?
On Oct 26, 7:37*am, Doug wrote:
On 25 Oct, 07:31, Tony Dragon wrote: On 25/10/2010 07:18, Doug wrote: On 24 Oct, 19:13, *wrote: On Oct 24, 8:24 am, *wrote: Motorists on this newsgroup will maintain that however infrequently they step out of their car and onto a bicycle and peddle just a bit, that entitles them to denigrate cyclists to the full here. OTOH purists here will maintain that the only 'real'cyclistis one who never ever uses a car and regularly cycles quite long distances instead. I have an alternative compromise definition for this newsgroup in particular. 'A realcyclistis one who sometimes cycles but always criticises motorists much more than they criticise cyclists on this newsgroup.' Would that be more acceptable do you think? It's getting better, but may I suggest this alternative definition, taken from the dictionary on my shelf: "cyclist- a person who rides a bicycle". Controversial, I know, but I think it works. So you agree, the motorists who infest this NG have only to ride a bicycle just once to then claimed to be a 'pure'cyclistwhich empowers them to criticise cyclists to the full on this NG from the POV of a motorist? -- . UK Radical Campaigns. *http://www.zing.icom43.net All public road users are equal but some are more equal than others. No Doug, those who ride a bike can claim they are cyclists, that all. So, if you briefly rode a small bike on a pavement as a child,once and never since, this should qualify you as a 'pure/real cyclist' and experienced enough to criticise cyclists here? If not, at what point would you qualify as a real cyclist? Doug.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - But Doug you have allready said that anybody who uses a car is not a 'real' cyclist. You have also questioned about somebody who does not use a car. According to your daffinition you are not a 'real' cyclist Also some who match your daffinition criticise cyclists. To continue, why do you have to be a cyclist to criticise cyclists? You criticise motorists & yet you are not a motorist (so you say), is there any difference. Are you now going to continue to wriggle, continue to dig, or make yet another attempt to move the gaolposts? I hope you don't go silent, reading your rubish is so much fun. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
What is a cyclist?
On 26/10/2010 07:37, Doug wrote:
On 25 Oct, 07:31, Tony wrote: On 25/10/2010 07:18, Doug wrote: On 24 Oct, 19:13, wrote: On Oct 24, 8:24 am, wrote: Motorists on this newsgroup will maintain that however infrequently they step out of their car and onto a bicycle and peddle just a bit, that entitles them to denigrate cyclists to the full here. OTOH purists here will maintain that the only 'real'cyclistis one who never ever uses a car and regularly cycles quite long distances instead. I have an alternative compromise definition for this newsgroup in particular. 'A realcyclistis one who sometimes cycles but always criticises motorists much more than they criticise cyclists on this newsgroup.' Would that be more acceptable do you think? It's getting better, but may I suggest this alternative definition, taken from the dictionary on my shelf: "cyclist- a person who rides a bicycle". Controversial, I know, but I think it works. So you agree, the motorists who infest this NG have only to ride a bicycle just once to then claimed to be a 'pure'cyclistwhich empowers them to criticise cyclists to the full on this NG from the POV of a motorist? -- . UK Radical Campaigns. http://www.zing.icom43.net All public road users are equal but some are more equal than others. No Doug, those who ride a bike can claim they are cyclists, that all. So, if you briefly rode a small bike on a pavement as a child,once and never since, this should qualify you as a 'pure/real cyclist' and experienced enough to criticise cyclists here? If not, at what point would you qualify as a real cyclist? Doug. Lets see "those who ride a bike" not "those who rode a bike" I expect you will now bring time-scale into it. By the way as you used to drive a car, does that make you a motorist? -- Tony Dragon |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
What is a cyclist?
On 26/10/2010 07:31, Doug wrote:
On 25 Oct, 21:07, wrote: On Oct 25, 7:18 am, wrote: On 24 Oct, 19:13, wrote: On Oct 24, 8:24 am, wrote: Motorists on this newsgroup will maintain that however infrequently they step out of their car and onto a bicycle and peddle just a bit, that entitles them to denigrate cyclists to the full here. OTOH purists here will maintain that the only 'real'cyclistis one who never ever uses a car and regularly cycles quite long distances instead. I have an alternative compromise definition for this newsgroup in particular. 'A realcyclistis one who sometimes cycles but always criticises motorists much more than they criticise cyclists on this newsgroup.' Would that be more acceptable do you think? It's getting better, but may I suggest this alternative definition, taken from the dictionary on my shelf: "cyclist- a person who rides a bicycle". Controversial, I know, but I think it works. So you agree, the motorists who infest this NG have only to ride a bicycle just once to then claimed to be a 'pure'cyclistwhich empowers them to criticise cyclists to the full on this NG from the POV of a motorist? Ah, right, so you have to cycle regularly in order to be able to criticise cyclists? Does the same principle apply to driving? Do you have to drive regularly in order to criticise motorists? You don't understand do you. This is about the relative levels of criticism. Note the use of the word 'full'. Doug. Would you like to explain exactly the meaning of your post? -- Tony Dragon |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Walker injured by cyclist. Cyclist didn't stop. | Mr. Benn[_3_] | UK | 12 | July 27th 10 12:00 AM |
Cyclist v numpty car driver. Cyclist wins. | spindrift | UK | 4 | January 16th 08 05:21 PM |
Hollywood bus driver attacks cyclist, LAPD handcuffs cyclist | Matt O'Toole | General | 13 | September 29th 07 07:50 PM |
Cyclist on Cyclist violence leads to death of Portland man, 56 | Paul Borg[_2_] | General | 2 | September 6th 07 08:59 PM |
Cyclist shot in B'ham - By another cyclist! | John Mallard | UK | 8 | May 8th 04 11:24 PM |