Why do certain subjects appear to be forbidden on this forum?

[Roadster]

You might have meant to have said "shall we keep on topic" but from memory your wording was rather different and struck a somewhat different tone, much more similar to the sarcastic responses you received. I'll take my share of the blame for increasing the thread drift though .

And I in turn will take my share of the blame for resorting to sarcasm:-
"It really is intolerable when close family members engage in emotional blackmail to persuade a cyclist to wear a helmet against his better judgement - there ought to be a law against it!
The OP must dismiss the trivial concerns of his wife, daughter and grandchildren as totally unfounded, and instead adopt the views of better-informed strangers who regard the wearing of helmets as not only unnecessary but also undesirable. Accordingly, he should immediately reverse his decision to buy a helmet and reprimand, nay punish his family for their unwarranted interference in his cycling affairs."

In my defence, I was reacting to the efforts of mjr and others who were plainly seeking to interpose themselves between the OP and his close family members, an intervention which in social terms goes way beyond the limits of debate on a public forum like this. Whatever the merits of the anti-helmet argument, it is not more important than family relationships and I think the OP agreed and recognized my intended humour when he wrote of my post, "Yes ! I like this one ! ".

For the record, I'm not in fact a "helmet lover" nor a "helmet promoter", but rather a family lover and a family promoter.
I regard the decision on helmet-wearing as a personal choice and would strongly oppose any attempt to make it compulsory. Equally, I strongly support the right of people to wear one if they so choose, without having to suffer the interference of mjr and his pards in their family relationships.

[bertgrower]

Would the banned subject on the forum be a function how they are critical of policy or operation of various orgainisation.

Would those orgainisation be more reflective of their kinship group view if the powes that be who forumulate , direct and operate those actions were more open to debate on a open forum?

[horizon]

[
In my defence, I was reacting to the efforts of mjr and others who were plainly seeking to interpose themselves between the OP and his close family members, an intervention which in social terms goes way beyond the limits of debate on a public forum like this. Whatever the merits of the anti-helmet argument, it is not more important than family relationships and I think the OP agreed and recognized my intended humour when he wrote of my post, "Yes ! I like this one ! ".

I thought it was a very tricky post (the OP) as the OP had mentioned to us the POV of his family (he didn't need to) so may have inadvertently opened up the debate by appearing to hint at needing some support. He raised (again unwittingly) in effect the whole issue of family pressure, a very contentious subject.

I personally steered clear along the lines you have put forward but where angels fear to tread ....

[DontheMan]

On some forums a particular subject may run the risk of intensifying the importance that it is held a tiny number if not a individual to be broadcast to many to encourage the belief that it is held by the average observer. Many have a narrow view as to the need to be inform as the needs to inform as to the options as to the choice of action and that the underlying principal adopted by the those charge with those choice to be put into action on behalf of the majority wellbeing of the organisation so that it overall aims are full fill to comply with those aims.
It is imperative that those charged with the fulfilment these actions are not unduly disrated with ideal titter tatal and imposition of alternative views that may question a underlying assumption base upon data gathered by independent experts. These experts are charge with means to remake the organisation in a new mould that reflects the new framework in which society has evolved in their own social economic demographic subset.

The overall aim of these experts is to demonstrate the alternate views and forester a collective cohesive narrative that engenders a feeling of collective view of the way forward.
One tool of obfuscation of alternative views is to encourage the selection of persons whose view is concurrent with the those in a position to full file the aims of orgainisin or have a mental disposition to develop a collective view with a little encouragement.
Once these new views are imbedded in any organisation any person with alternate view will be left in the wilderness.

For any organisation to survive so that persons can fulfil the aims of the purpose of that organisation a new collective is requires coalescing around a charismatic individual that believes in the development of friendship bond within the group so their purposes mirrors the purposed of the overall organisations purposes. Unfortunately this course of action require the input of monies from outside agencies and that is dependent upon measurable success. How long can a organisation expect this generous input of these financial support to be concurrent with the current is not be expected due to the underlying hostility to many aims of some organisation by the general public.

[Roadster]

Just because others are angels who fear to tread doesn't mean that I'm a fool for rushing in to the OP's defence.
The bigger fools are surely those who think that the vitriolic promotion of their own political agenda is more important than the relations between an OP and his close family. To my way of thinking, there's nothing contentious about that, nor is the OP's naivety an excuse for such behaviour.

[horizon]

Just because others are angels who fear to tread doesn't mean that I'm a fool for rushing in to the OP's defence.

I meant the others that questioned the OP's position - I wasn't referring to you. I basically agreed with your approach (as I said).

[mjr]

In my defence, I was reacting to the efforts of mjr and others who were plainly seeking to interpose themselves between the OP and his close family members, an intervention which in social terms goes way beyond the limits of debate on a public forum like this.

There's a small problem with that defence, in that the so-called "reacting" happened before my post saying I'd love it if the OP explained the reality to his family. Whatever it was reacting to, it doesn't look like it was my earlier post defending landsurfer and pjclinch for referring to the helmet ghetto and CUK briefing.

Also, is it really beyond the limits of this forum to suggest that someone's family may be making a harmful request based on ignorance and superstition and a better approach might be to explain the latest evidence to the family? It's going to kill a lot of politics topics if Michael Thatcher starts posting!

[Roadster]

I meant the others that questioned the OP's position - I wasn't referring to you. I basically agreed with your approach (as I said).

Apologies for my misunderstanding of your meaning, horizon, and thanks for your support.

Whether you posted before or after others is immaterial, mjr - you were fully in agreement with them. I don't disagree with the general thrust of your objections to helmets, it's your ranting on about them at the slightest opportunity and the language you use that I find distasteful. I regard your adopted methods as counter-productive and more likely to alienate than convince potential supporters like me.

[mjr]

Whether you posted before or after others is immaterial, mjr - you were fully in agreement with them. I don't disagree with the general thrust of your objections to helmets, it's your ranting on about them at the slightest opportunity and the language you use that I find distasteful. I regard your adopted methods as counter-productive and more likely to alienate than convince potential supporters like me.

I really really really urge anyone in any danger of believing this retcon to read viewtopic.php?f=41&t=117748 and see for themselves who started ranting in shouty capitals first - it wasn't the pro-choicers...

[Roadster]

I've no idea what "retcon" means, mjr, but you don't appear to be "pro-choice" to me. You appear to be "con-helmets"!

[mjr]

Retroactive continuity - alternative historical facts, if you like, attempting to rewrite history to fit a new narrative, Ministry of Truth, or Han shot second, depending on your taste in fiction.

I'm pro choice but I believe our government when it said low usage is one of the things preserving that choice.

[AdamS]

you don't appear to be "pro-choice" to me. You appear to be "con-helmets"!

I'm pro choice but I believe our government when it said low usage is one of the things preserving that choice.

This is a very important point. The public 'know' that helmets are lifesavers. When a significant majority of cyclists wear them we will have compulsion, first informal (we're already heading there), then legal. The truly pro-choice don't have the option of letting helmet promotion or the belief that helmets are unequivocally beneficial go unchallenged.

[crazydave789]

ALL forums have an old guard with certain subjects they think is settled or who get fed up with people not bothering to use the search function or have the opinion that people haven't used the search function.

sometimes these topics are the most fun as people come on board to deliberately wind the old and bold up.

[Sweep]

I don't sense at all that anything is forbidden.

Some folks have strong views on certain things.

Fair enough.

It is almost always expressed in a polite way.

I find this a very polite and sane forum.

If you want verboten in a cycling forum OP I can point you to another place which is full of it, particularly in the politics section.

Chill, ride your bike.

[Audax67]

Have we reached ³ yet?