He touched my car

[400bhp]

1. That would depend on what I am looking for. Evidence that they cannot be taken seriously. To take the ****. To help them see why they cannot be taken seriously. All possible.

2 I am also a bit of a hypocrite.

3. Where to start?.The worldwide death toll, the wanton use of scarce resources, the dehumanizing effect of travelling in isolated compartments, the ludicrous inefficiency of all that dead time. I really don't know.

That's better

#3. the WHOLE thing though? Are you sure? That's a very extreme view, not dissimilar to some fanatics wouldn't you say.

 

[simon.r]

let's go back a bit. Who said they would get out of their car and put whom 'on their arse'? Was it a) a driver or b) a cyclist. The clue is in the question. For the bonus who said they might scratch a child's face or throw stones through a window? And, for the chesterfield, who would lean on whose face?

Erm...was it a car driver? Of course any of these actions would be abhorrent (though I think the 'child's face' and 'stones through a window' were being used as analogies - possibly poor ones - but no-one got anywhere near actually threatening to carry them out).

But that doesn't make it right for a cyclist to treat a car as a piece of street furniture. Neither does it make it right for a car driver to treat a cyclist as a second class citizen, or a pedestrian to treat a wheelchair user with contempt.

All I'm saying (as are quite a few others) is that we should ALL show respect for each other and each others belongings.

 

[Dan B]

But that doesn't make it right for a cyclist to treat a car as a piece of street furniture.

So, just to make sure I've got this straight: it's not OK to treat cars as though they were street furniture, nor is it OK to treat furniture (I think Chesterfields were mentioned) as street furniture, even when it's on the street, but there's no problem treating street furniture as street furniture? I want to make quite sure I understand the distinction, because it seems to me quite arbitrary

 

[simon.r]

So, just to make sure I've got this straight: it's not OK to treat cars as though they were street furniture, nor is it OK to treat furniture (I think Chesterfields were mentioned) as street furniture, even when it's on the street, but there's no problem treating street furniture as street furniture? I want to make quite sure I understand the distinction, because it seems to me quite arbitrary

Not arbitary at all. Street furniture is a widely used and recognised term, '...for objects and pieces of equipment installed on streets and roads for various purposes. It includes benches, traffic barriers, bollards, post boxes, phone boxes, streetlamps, traffic lights, traffic signs, bus stops, tram stops, taxi stands, public lavatories, fountains, watering troughs, memorials, public sculptures, and waste receptacles'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_furniture

 

[Dan B]

So, just to be clear, it's OK to treat all that stuff with disrespect?

 

[400bhp]

The whole unthinking and entrenched car dependant culture. Do you think we are
Better off continuing with that

Or

Having a bit of a think about the potential for a better way

I would suggest that anyone who goes with the former is the fanatic here.

Nothing with what you are suggesting, but that's a long way from saying we need to view the whole car driving thing as unreasonable

 

[simon.r]

So, just to be clear, it's OK to treat all that stuff with disrespect?

Tell you what, as an intelligent adult, you decide if it's OK to treat a waste receptacle with a degree of disrepect. Then decide if it's OK to treat a memorial the same way.

 

[lukesdad]

Oh my Adrian you are floundering.... don't think the Chuckle brothers are going to be able to dig you out of this one

 

[400bhp]

I don't believe we need to view the whole car driving thing as unreasonable, no

Can you confirm you are still saying we need to view the whole car driving thing as unreasonable, or was that a bit melodramatic on your part?

 

[Dan B]

Tell you what, as an intelligent adult, you decide if it's OK to treat a waste receptacle with a degree of disrepect. Then decide if it's OK to treat a memorial the same way.

Oh, so now it's *not* OK to treat street furniture as if it were street furniture? There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of consistency in your position here

 

[simon.r]

Oh, so now it's *not* OK to treat street furniture as if it were street furniture? There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of consistency in your position here

Oh, come on. You're being deliberately obtuse now.

 

[lukesdad]

Do feel free to contribute, should you actually have anything to contribute.

Don't you recognise the tactic ? Shame on you.
Not quite so humorous when the boots on the other foot is it ?
I was quite willing to leave this thread at 2 posts, but you just couldn't help yourself could you.

 

[400bhp]

Seeing as you insist on an analysis of every word used, of itself a slightly worrying thing, in that context the word "whole" is possibly a little extreme. I really ought to tone it down to "overwhelming majority" to allow some wriggle room for those people who really cannot manage without their cars.

We're getting there.

I'm going to be a tad critical of you here, hope you don't take offence.

What you are saying (society needs to take a long hard look at car ownership) makes a lot of sense, but If you are going to enlighten people and you want people to listen and take on board your comments, the first thing you need to do is get them on your side. Start by posting your belief at the start of the thread, not at the end. Don't make snide insinuations throughout the thread on the premise that we should know what your true belief is.

When I view your posts they give an air of superiority. You're no better or no worse than any one of us here. I hope I am wrong here and I have personally mis-read you. Another poster has vouched for your offline personality and I'll take that at face value.

 

[lukesdad]

Oh sorry, forgot a bit. When you do have an opinion about something, cover it up with a load of smilies so that it is obscured.

As Ive said Adrian go back to my first post on the thread and the answer to the OP its there in 3 small words even you could understand.

 

[lukesdad]

Are you going to start ranting about smilies next ?