Gordon Ramsey's message...

[853]

Pete

You've mangled the quotes, so there are great chunks missing and it no longer makes sense

[pjclinch]

Pete

You've mangled the quotes, so there are great chunks missing and it no longer makes sense

I've looked it over several times and either I'm having proof-readers block or you're seeing something different to me.

All the quote blocks seem to have correct attributions and all the stuff I wrote this morning is outside of them


Pete.

[853]

Pete

You've mangled the quotes, so there are great chunks missing and it no longer makes sense

I've looked it over several times and either I'm having proof-readers block or you're seeing something different to me.

All the quote blocks seem to have correct attributions and all the stuff I wrote this morning is outside of them


Pete.

I'm struggling to believe I'm reading this ...

To avoid any further mangling of the quotes, I have attached two images - in order. The first is of the top part of my post on the 24th, and the second image is of your reply to this part on the 25th

Spot the difference ...

All of the other parts you have answered appear to be mangled in the same way. I am not suggesting you have done anything intentional here; I suspect your post has exceeded the number of embedded quotes or something similar and then misses the most embedded quote

[pjclinch]

Well just read what I actually wrote, which is outside of the quote blocks so easy to spot and says what I have to say.

Pete.

[853]

Well just read what I actually wrote, which is outside of the quote blocks so easy to spot and says what I have to say.

But it's all about the context in which it was written!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That's the whole point!

[pjclinch]

Well just read what I actually wrote, which is outside of the quote blocks so easy to spot and says what I have to say.

But it's all about the context in which it was written!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That's the whole point!

You only lose the very deepest blocks, but if you're still having trouble you can look back at the previous message from yourself to see the extra level and then read what I wrote with that in mind.

In any case you can read the biggest chunk of what I wrote in perfect context because nothing's missing in the last section which is what I'd say is the most important bit in any case.

Pete.

[853]

It is ridiculous to say that we can discuss how you are trying to manipulate what I have said when the first 25 percent of it missing. It's like saying that's it's ok to start Lands End to John O'Groats at Hereford.

In view of the fact you have mangled the post I am trying to reply to, I have pasted an image of what was said up to this point below

My central point on being forced off line was that if you can't be sure you're going to be on a decent road then riding a bike that is significantly more likely to come a cropper if it's not a decent road isn't your best way to stay safe.
I brought up the way you mentioned a car hitting a rider from behind as sounding like a collision to me, you clarified that it would be a clip to provoke a subsequent crash rather than a full on collision and I conceded that point: fair enough this is a different aspect of "collision"

No, that's not true. Your 'central point' in this section is not about being forced off line - that came later. You were talking about a cyclist - motor vehicle at high speed on the 14th July, and you re-enforced this view on the 15th with your words "Let me remind you of how you brought up the threat of them" and then followed this up with "If these vehicles and colliding with them isn't an issue, why bring them up?"

The idea that you "brought up the way you mentioned a car hitting a rider from behind as sounding like a collision to me" is a twist of the facts on your part. The exchange of posts above, to which we have been discussing, is on the 14th and 15th July, but I didn't first mention any vehicle-cyclist collision until the 18th, as is proven below

Decades ago the back of my arm was 'tapped' by the wing mirror of a passing car just above the elbow. I make no claims about having superior bike handling but, after a big wobble (and a lot of swearing), I stayed on the bike. I don't believe all cyclists would have been able to stay on the bike in the same circumstances. Had I not have been so fortunate, the resultant crash would not have involved the car even though it had caused it.

[pjclinch]

It is ridiculous to say that we can discuss how you are trying to manipulate what I have said when the first 25 percent of it missing. It's like saying that's it's ok to start Lands End to John O'Groats at Hereford.

In view of the fact you have mangled the post

As you conceded, it seemed to be the case that the forum software took out the deepest quotes, yet here you are painting me as a bad actor again.

As I alluded in the reply I made in good faith, what we seem to have here is one of those irregular verbs describing how we both inferred things beyond what was meant: 853 makes honest mistakes, pjclinch twists facts.

If you can stop being quite so anal about the semantics and read the last, extensive part of what I wrote about why I won't get drawn in to the specifics of one paper you might learn something about helmets and the literature concerning their effectiveness. It would take much less time than faffing about with screenshots trying to prove I'm a Bad Egg because I said EN1078 where you hadn't and similarly inconsequential tosh.

Pete.

[slowster]

The maximum number of nested quotes allowed is three. There is a Test Board where you can experiment and confirm this for yourself, but to save you the bother I have copied a thread of mine to the Test Board from the equivalent board for the Moderators - viewtopic.php?t=161940.

[853]

As you conceded, it seemed to be the case that the forum software took out the deepest quotes, yet here you are painting me as a bad actor again.

No. I told you on the 25th that your post of the 24th had missed out some of the quotes we were discussing making it unreadable. You said it looked fine, so I posted two attached images, showing what had happened, on the 26th. Slowster has kindly posted (below) that the maximum number of quotes is three, and the Test Board can be used to confirm this

The maximum number of nested quotes allowed is three. There is a Test Board where you can experiment and confirm this for yourself, but to save you the bother I have copied a thread of mine to the Test Board from the equivalent board for the Moderators - viewtopic.php?t=161940.

[853]

As I alluded in the reply I made in good faith, what we seem to have here is one of those irregular verbs describing how we both inferred things beyond what was meant: 853 makes honest mistakes, pjclinch twists facts.

If you can stop being quite so anal about the semantics and read the last, extensive part of what I wrote about why I won't get drawn in to the specifics of one paper you might learn something about helmets and the literature concerning their effectiveness. It would take much less time than faffing about with screenshots trying to prove I'm a Bad Egg because I said EN1078 where you hadn't and similarly inconsequential tosh.

No, this is not about irregular verbs or semantics. This is about you trying to make out that I have said things which I haven't.

I have noted, as others reading this thread will also have done, that not for the first time on this thread you have thrown an insult at me. The mechanism of this forum allows for the editing of a post, and I have given you several days to edit it to make it readable, but you haven't. You have left me to repair it, as best I can, to illustrate where you have tried to attribute to me things I have not stated.

I have every intention of going through your lengthy post, and I really hope it's worth it. As I have to refer back through the thread, because your post doesn't make any sense, it's a lengthy process. And the sun is out, and I have a lot of other things to do.

Finally, a member saying "I said EN1078 where you hadn't and similarly inconsequential tosh" is not inconsequential tosh, and trivialising it in this way does you no favours.

[pjclinch]

I have noted, as others reading this thread will also have done, that not for the first time on this thread you have thrown an insult at me.

Pot kettle black.

[Sum]

853, you did accuse pjclinch of having "mangled the quotes" before attributing blame to the forum software. Afterwards, you again accused pjclinch of having "mangled the post".

Also, pjclinch didn't say the quotes "looked fine", they said the quotes have been correctly attributed which was correct. The issue here is that the level of nested quotes is limited to 3 which is well known and isn't pjclinch's fault.

You just have to work around that limitation. Accusing folk of being 'quote manglers' doesn't help.

[Jdsk]

The core issue here is 853 trying to have a debate about the research.

That's an admirable intention. But I've given up as I've come to the conclusion that there aren't enough posters in this forum who want it to happen.

Jonathan

[pjclinch]

The core issue here is 853 trying to have a debate about the research.

That's an admirable intention. But I've given up as I've come to the conclusion that there aren't enough posters in this forum who want it to happen.

Up to a point, Lord Copper. While on the one hand that's what 853 suggests they want, what they seem to be actually doing is spending a great deal of energy making out I'm a bad actor, playing the man rather than the ball.
For example, the degree of effort expended on trying to make the Goldacre/Spiegelhalter editorial primarily about the single paper it uses a start point rather than a broad discussion of the problems of the field in general is quite astonishing.

Pete.