Tedious Bickering

SleepDoc

TimAllen wrote: »

I think you need to learn the difference between narrow and broad searches.
Narrow searches could be considered narrow minded;)

I think you need to learn the difference between having an opinion based on actual evidence and data, and having an opinion based on your own personal bias against cyclists.

droidus

TimAllen wrote: »

Many posters on this forum have posted, condoned or advocated criminal acts. Do you agree with this statement or not?

Using your own standards, the repeated condemnations of cyclists for 'criminal acts' whilst 'ignoring' the criminal acts of motorists described in the same (and other) threads implies approval of these acts, which suggests hypocrisy on your part.

Do you agree with this statement or not?

TimAllen

droidus wrote: »

Using your own standards, the repeated condemnations of cyclists for 'criminal acts' whilst 'ignoring' the criminal acts of motorists described in the same (and other) threads implies approval of these acts, which suggests hypocrisy on your part.

Do you agree with this statement or not?

I do not actively participate in a debate where criminal behaviour is being boasted/condoned or advocated and remain silent on the matter.

droidus

TimAllen wrote: »

I do not actively participate in a debate where criminal behaviour is being boasted/condoned or advocated and remain silent on the matter.

I suggest that those who dont explicitly and unreservedly condemn such posts are the "many" to which I refer

By your own logic, your failure to 'explicitly and unreservedly condemn' the criminal acts of motorists described on this thread suggests you approve of these acts.

Why do you condemn the criminal acts of cyclists but approve the criminal acts of motorists?

RobFowl

TimAllen wrote: »

I do not actively participate in a debate where criminal behaviour is being boasted/condoned or advocated and remain silent on the matter.

Not really living up to the standards you expect of others then


BTW
Debate
• noun 1 a formal discussion in a public meeting or legislature, in which opposing arguments are presented. 2 an argument.

• verb 1 discuss or argue about. 2 consider; ponder.

Rant
• verb speak or shout at length in a wild, impassioned way.

• noun a spell of ranting.

TimAllen

Lumen wrote: »

That's not how it works in this forum.

Strong approval is indicated by use of the "thanks". Disagreement is indicated by either (a) posting a reply quoting the issue in question and putting forward a counter-argument, or (b) ignoring the post.

The ambiguity is deliberate and by design; there is no "anti-thanks" button. These social conventions allow people with strongly opposing views to co-habit the forum without dragging every thread into a slanging match and forcing the mods to (for instance) abandon a pleasant Saturday evening of bike fettling and casual boards-surfing and wade into another idiotic scrap.

Be nice.

Perhaps if this was the way this forum actually worked then the gusto with which many posters choose to discredit or attempt to ridicule my point of view as expressed on this forum would be entirely unnecessary. But this being the cycling forum, users here tend to ignore the convention you outlined and tend to articulate their "anti thanks" to an extent that silence can reasonably, in this forum , be taken as approval.
The inferrence of your second last sentence is not worthy of you

Beasty

"Tedious bickering" - you confused the hell out of me with that quick switch Lumen!

NB - post 888 - not quite the number of the Beast, but 3 fat ladies will have to do:)

Lumen

Beasty wrote: »

"Tedious bickering" - you confused the hell out of me with that quick switch Lumen!

For the sake of clarity (and ease of moderation) I moved all this bollix into a new thread and temporarily closed the original one.

coolbeans

Lumen wrote: »

For the sake of clarity (and ease of moderation) I moved all this bollix into a new thread and temporarily closed the original one.

I feel so dirty being associated with this thread now :P

Captain Havoc

In fairness Tim, you've been asked to justify what you say with figures, you can't therefore I for one just see your posts as amussing rants by a clever comedian. Due to your inability to justify what you've said , I couldn't possibly allow myself to take such nonsense as being serious. A good sense of humour is very good quality and unfortunately some of the posters here don't get your humour and think that your posts are serious.

TimAllen

Captain Havoc wrote: »

In fairness Tim, you've been asked to justify what you say with figures, you can't therefore I for one just see your posts as amussing rants by a clever comedian. Due to your inability to justify what you've said , I couldn't possibly allow myself to take such nonsense as being serious. A good sense of humour is very good quality and unfortunately some of the posters here don't get your humour and think that your posts are serious.

Nice try, but the only joke I've seen is your feeble debating skills. I suppose if you cant dazzle them with brillance then baffle 'em with bull$hit:pac::pac::pac:

Doctor Bob

Lumen wrote: »

For the sake of clarity (and ease of moderation) I moved all this bollix into a new thread and temporarily closed the original one.

So does that mean this thread is sort of a no-holds-barred cage fight? Coooooooool! I look forward to catching up over breakfast.

But seriously...

Tim- why do you insist on seeing silence as tacit approval? Because it suits your agenda seems too neat an interpretation, but if not that, then what? Might I suggest that you try seeing it as tacit disapproval? I suspect it would put quite a different spin on things.

Captain Havoc

Well, at least I've never run out of petrol

TimAllen

Captain Havoc wrote: »

Well, at least I've never run out of petrol

because thats what this thread is about:rolleyes:

Beasty

TimAllen wrote: »

because thats what this thread is about:rolleyes:

Er ... yea ... Lumen re-branded it ... remember?
If anything qualifies as tedious bickering, surely this does:D

TimAllen

Doctor Bob wrote: »

So does that mean this thread is sort of a no-holds-barred cage fight? Coooooooool! I look forward to catching up over breakfast.

But seriously...

Tim- why do you insist on seeing silence as tacit approval? Because it suits your agenda seems too neat an interpretation, but if not that, then what? Might I suggest that you try seeing it as tacit disapproval? I suspect it would put quite a different spin on things.

In any other forum I would agree but, as I have said already, the posters on this forum make a point of explicitly stating disapproval to anything they dont like.
Just look at any thread I contribute to. Even when they want to ignore me, they cant do it without actually posting to say so (the irony is brillant). SerialComplaint was the latest to do, on a different thread, this evening - made me chuckle though!
If the posters spent half the effort discrediting or chastising the posts you infer they disapprove of, as they do actively and pointedly chastising or disapproving of my posts then maybe I wouldnt feel the need to highlight the hypocrisy with as much gusto

TimAllen

Beasty wrote: »

Er ... yea ... Lumen re-branded it ... remember?
If anything qualifies as tedious bickering, surely this does:D

well done on the tedious bit ... your parents are, I'm sure, very proud:D

concussion

Seeing as this is 'tedious bickering' I'd like to draw some attention to the post which started this, the one I 'tacitly condone' by the simple act of not reading it til a few minutes ago. You're giving out about the poster claimimg he sent some people to the hospital, yet you ignore the reason for it, ie, the attempted assault with a car. Hypocrisy again Tim.

Chips Lovell

c0rk3r

Nothing says train wreck like mspaint.


Van Gets too Close to cyclist


Cyclist touches van to warn of his existence


Van driver protects his van like his teenager daughters virginity


U-lock

Brought to you by the "line" tool in mspaint.

Feel free to add your own

blorg

It's very simple. When we ignore and don't condemn criminal behaviour by a cyclist, we clearly condone that behaviour. Tim however doesn't condemn criminal behaviour by motorists because

TimAllen wrote: »

I do not actively participate in a debate where criminal behaviour is being boasted/condoned or advocated and remain silent on the matter.

I think droidus nailed it here (I note Tim stopped replying to that line of questioning.)

Glad to see Tim had a cyclist thread in motors to keep him busy while he was banned from this place.

TimAllen

blorg wrote: »

)

Glad to see Tim had a cyclist thread in motors to keep him busy while he was banned from this place.

No I didnt have a thread - this implies that I started the thread. I merely contributed to one. It's flattering (if a bit weird) that you have taken such an interest in my posts on other forum's:p

petethedrummer

TimAllen wrote: »

I do not actively participate in a debate where criminal behaviour is being boasted/condoned or advocated and remain silent on the matter.

From
Man Gets 120 Days for Shooting Cyclist in the Head

TimAllen wrote: »

I would say it was the manner in which he was cycling that upset the shooter rather than the fact that he cycles - I wouldnt be surprised if he is a perfect gentleman except when an inconsiderate cyclist annoys him! Ya gotta love the Yanks though!

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=63223774&postcount=12

flickerx

poochiem

Tim - there's a football section on Boards and people are wrong there all the time, you'd enjoy it.

DirkVoodoo

Dirk is tagging in.

Tim, there are one or two forums on boards that I either don't understand or just annoy me plain and simple. I'm not going to name them, that is against the charter, but I would imagine that everyone has some similar corner of boards that they have stumbled into and quickly exited.

What I don't understand is why you keep coming back to the cycling forum, when you have no time for anyone here and have now even started labelling it the "crime" forum. I'm pretty sure if I went onto the xbox forum (another one I frequent) and called it "the geek forum", or went to the ladies lounge and called it something derogatory/insulting, there would be obvious consequences.

Time and again you have shown total inflexibility on your narrow view of what Dublin traffic is actually like. It's not debating. It has been (excellently) pointed out to you in this thread that the "many" incidents of criminality you refer to were actually quite rare when backed up by facts.

So why, Tim, why do you keep coming back? Part of me thinks that you enjoy the infamy you have here. I mean, I can't see why else you post here. You think we are all law breakers, we're not going to change and it must seem like a losing battle. But then the threads that you rant in get a huge number of hits, post counts go through the roof and Tim is the centre of attention. Going by your other posts, this doesn't really happen anywhere else for you.

I agree that the only way for this to stop is for everyone to add you to their ignore list. I have grown tired of your posts at this stage, along with a lot of others. I think your 5 minutes of infamy might be coming to an end.

TimAllen

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

Dirk is tagging in.

Tim, there are one or two forums on boards that I either don't understand or just annoy me plain and simple. I'm not going to name them, that is against the charter, but I would imagine that everyone has some similar corner of boards that they have stumbled into and quickly exited.

What I don't understand is why you keep coming back to the cycling forum, when you have no time for anyone here and have now even started labelling it the "crime" forum. I'm pretty sure if I went onto the xbox forum (another one I frequent) and called it "the geek forum", or went to the ladies lounge and called it something derogatory/insulting, there would be obvious consequences.
And I mean criminal - not illegal behaviour i.e.
Ban - violence of any kind and wilful or deliberate destruction or damage to property. I dont mean RLJ and footpath cycling and other relatively minor illegal behaviour

Time and again you have shown total inflexibility on your narrow view of what Dublin traffic is actually like. It's not debating. It has been (excellently) pointed out to you in this thread that the "many" incidents of criminality you refer to were actually quite rare when backed up by facts.

So why, Tim, why do you keep coming back? Part of me thinks that you enjoy the infamy you have here. I mean, I can't see why else you post here. You think we are all law breakers, we're not going to change and it must seem like a losing battle. But then the threads that you rant in get a huge number of hits, post counts go through the roof and Tim is the centre of attention. Going by your other posts, this doesn't really happen anywhere else for you.

I agree that the only way for this to stop is for everyone to add you to their ignore list. I have grown tired of your posts at this stage, along with a lot of others. I think your 5 minutes of infamy might be coming to an end.

Well if this is the way you and others feel then why not update the charter to ban posts that admit, condone, infer etc criminal behaviour. If its the minority like you say then surely this wouldn't inconvenience or hinder debate? In fact I will have no reason to come on this forum at all if this were the case. What do u think?
And I mean criminal - not illegal behaviour i.e.
Ban - violence of any kind and wilful or deliberate destruction or damage to property. I dont mean RLJ and footpath cycling and other relatively minor illegal behaviour

petethedrummer

TimAllen wrote: »

Well if this is the way you and others feel then why not update the charter to ban posts that admit, condone, infer etc criminal behaviour. If its the minority like you say then surely this wouldn't inconvenience or hinder debate? In fact I will have no reason to come on this forum at all if this were the case. What do u think?
And I mean criminal - not illegal behaviour i.e.
Ban - violence of any kind and wilful or deliberate destruction or damage to property. I dont mean RLJ and footpath cycling and other relatively minor illegal behaviour

so why do you continue to post on other cycling topics if it is only criminal activity you have a problem with?

SleepDoc

Anankastic personality disorder - characterized by at least 3 of the following,

1. feelings of excessive doubt and caution; -
2. preoccupation with details, rules, lists, order, organization or schedule;
3. perfectionism that interferes with task completion;
4. excessive conscientiousness, scrupulousness, and undue preoccupation with productivity to the exclusion of pleasure and interpersonal relationships;
5. excessive pedantry and adherence to social conventions;
6. rigidity and stubbornness;
7. unreasonable insistence by the patient that others submit to exactly his or her way of doing things, or unreasonable reluctance to allow others to do things;
8. intrusion of insistent and unwelcome thoughts or impulses

You need a shrink.

Nietzschean

TimAllen wrote: »

In fact I will have no reason to come on this forum at all if this were the case.

Just wondering, but what is your reason for coming on this form at all? it doesn't seem like you expect to change anyone's mind or anything? just a bit of moral indignation and ranting(i have no particular problem with it if it is, just curious) ?