pjclinch wrote: 13 Mar 2025, 9:25pm
Nobody else but you seems to be having any trouble.
You continue to play the man and not the ball.
This is the second time in eight months that you have replied to one of my posts in such a way that you have removed the post of the person I was replying to when criticising me. In this latter case it greatly changes the context, but you have refused to apologise
pjclinch wrote: 12 Mar 2025, 7:24pm
You haven't had an apology because I've done nothing that calls for one.
I am not aware of any other members having the context of their posts altered in this way in the last eight months.
What I mean is that nobody else appears to have any problem following the actual content. If you're sure I'm twisting the context of what you say then that's an issue for the moderators, so complain to them and if they agree they'll take the offending posts down.
So, back to the actual helmet content at hand...
Where is your justification that it is mostly bigotry that causes folk not to mention PPE being used to manage greater perceived risk?
I am not aware of any other members having the context of their posts altered in this way in the last eight months.
If it helps, there's a frequent poster on this very thread who doesn't even credit the user he's quoting, let alone include the context! Does it every time - says it's more convenient for him.
I've decided to let it lie, despite the IMMENSELY offensive nature of this deed. Perhaps you could do likewise? Hmm?
If its me, I'd like to apologise... if its not me, please accept this apology for whatever stoooopid thing I do, say or write next....
'Everybody is a genius - but if you judge a fish on its ability to climb a tree it will live its whole life believing it is stupid' Albert Einstein
I am not aware of any other members having the context of their posts altered in this way in the last eight months.
If it helps, there's a frequent poster on this very thread who doesn't even credit the user he's quoting, let alone include the context! Does it every time - says it's more convenient for him.
I've decided to let it lie, despite the IMMENSELY offensive nature of this deed. Perhaps you could do likewise? Hmm?
If its me, I'd like to apologise... if its not me, please accept this apology for whatever stoooopid thing I do, say or write next....
Isn't everything considered offensive these days - more so in Britain where the government actually encourages reporting such - than probably anywhere else in the western world, such are the easily shocked tender hearts of Brits who get a kick out of running to tell mummy all about it. .
No, it's not..
..indeed, I now consider it a test of my communication to impart ideas and thoughts without causing any offence.. an offended person is, after all, less likely to receive and consider them.
'Everybody is a genius - but if you judge a fish on its ability to climb a tree it will live its whole life believing it is stupid' Albert Einstein
BlackRat wrote: 14 Mar 2025, 8:31pm
Isn't everything considered offensive these days - more so in Britain where the government actually encourages reporting such - than probably anywhere else in the western world, such are the easily shocked tender hearts of Brits who get a kick out of running to tell mummy all about it. .
Please don't make the mistake that here in Britain we can't be morally offensive. Our empire was built on the death, rape and pillage of developing countries, our renowned soldiers (SAS) shot, bombed, killed and wounded Axis soldiers whilst they slept in their tents, and we fire bombed civilians. We try not to have to do that sort of thing now.
'Everybody is a genius - but if you judge a fish on its ability to climb a tree it will live its whole life believing it is stupid' Albert Einstein
The “everything is considered offensive these days” thing is a meme promulgated by and for people who are stuck in the social norms of their childhoods, while most of society moved on to new social norms, and who are far too ready to swallow whatever nonsense reactionary news media spoon-feed them
I’ve got a strong feeling that when people say it they know themselves that it’s rubbish, and simply resent being called-out for the bullies that they haven’t quite got the guts to be.
BlackRat wrote: 14 Mar 2025, 6:08pm
I wonder if anyone really makes a decision on wearing a helmet based upon statistics.
This is a really good point!
(and how about "who doesn't wear one due to lack of convincing statistics" ... )
Back through the 90s I always wore one, every trip, but that wasn't based on statistics, more "common sense".
After a big bout of reading to try and prove someone saying they didn't seem to help much was wrong I came to the conclusion my "common sense" didn't really cut it, and started getting a lot more selective about when I wore one, so that would be at least partly lack of convincing statistics that has changed my habits. Other things too, like visiting NL and getting a bit more perspective.
BlackRat wrote: 14 Mar 2025, 6:08pm
I wonder if anyone really makes a decision on wearing a helmet based upon statistics.
This is a really good point!
(and how about "who doesn't wear one due to lack of convincing statistics" ... )
For many of us to do since, the statistics would have to be really accurate in describing the type of cycling we're doing.
Generally speaking cycling a length of three housing estates and back to the shops... no. Following a day long cycle tour over 60 miles on roads that I'm not familiar with, might include some A roads, might include off road sections.. then, generally, yes..
'Everybody is a genius - but if you judge a fish on its ability to climb a tree it will live its whole life believing it is stupid' Albert Einstein