We've spoke about it many times, don't worry if you now forget. You've defended him here because you know him, you justified it by guessing i must have done something to make him say it to me, absolute double standards
It's not the having a different opinion, that's fine and more than welcome, it's the approach, which for me was beautifully demonstrated by the Cunobelin thread and his approach on that.
To the best of my recollection what Adrian said was along the lines of "you can fark off with the helmet compulsion" not simply "you can fark off". If my memory is correct and if this is indeed the occasion referred to, I think it's more than slightly disingenuous not to quote the whole sentence
Blocked Cunobelin a long time ago due to his positing stlyle, I find his approach smug and condescending , doogs is certainly not worse by any stretch , so I say there must be another reason
Semantics at best, helmet compulsion wasn't even being discussed, just an attempt to dress up telling me to F off
Oh, give over. You need to learn the difference between being the person that offers an unwarranted insult, and the perfectly reasonable response to that person of telling them to eff off. It's not OK to shout abuse at a cyclist as you drive past her - it is OK for the cyclist to give the finger to the said abuser in response. This, in case it's lost on you, is an analogy in which the aggressive driver represents the helmet evangelist, and the cyclist the unwilling target of his evangelism.
As I say, that's not how I remember it. Perhaps you know where to find the post in question?
Not off hand no, still doesn't justify the double standards where that approach however it's twisted is defended but doog is addressed for being abusive! Double standards
You were defending the decision so i was asking why posters defend some yet criticise others for the same things?
Have you read the thread I'm referring to?
