Question and poll

[col]

You mean, after multiple contrinutors pointed out that your stance on the other thread was irrational, and that in the context yours was a leading question with no relevance to what happened, it is a complete coincidence that you removed your question from that context and based a poll upon it on the same forum, on the same day?

For once i agree with you

 

[Cab]

For once i agree with you

And you expect people to believe that bringing the question up out of the context you had used it that day, and on the same forum, is unlinked? Don't play us for fools.

I'd propose a poll on it, but that would be uncharitable.

 

[col]

I was trying to ask the question without it being fixed to a particular incident,which you were doing ,i wanted to know if it was right or wrong,knowing what the answer was of course,because its common sense,but you wouldnt seperate the question from that incident,even when i pointed that out,simple really.But again you try to paint a different reason and use your extraordinary skills to do that

 

[Cab]

I was trying to ask the question without it being fixed to a particular incident,which you were doing ,i wanted to know if it was right or wrong,knowing what the answer was of course,because its common sense,but you wouldnt seperate the question from that incident,even when i pointed that out,simple really.But again you try to paint a different reason and use your extraordinary skills to do that

Or, in other words, your constructed argument was in tatters because it relied on the assertion that the cyclist was trying to make the motorist angry, and because you could not defend that assertion you've chosen instead to ask what really is a no brainer of a question.

The problem here is not whether or not it is appropriate to try to make others angry, because it is clearly true that to do so without provocation is unacceptable. The problem is that you interpret the smallest, slightest response, glare or comment from a cyclist as an attempt to do so, you expect of cyclists absolute passivity in response to any and all kinds of provcation, which is neither desireable or very likely. To take such a thing from the context it was in and then insist that it is unlinked to the original topic is insulting to the intelligence of anyone who participated therein.

Ultimately, that makes your poll useless.

Ask another, I dare you. Ask whether it is always inappropriate for cyclists to talk to, look disapprovingly at or mock by action or word the actions of motorists, because that is exactly the position that you have put forward in multiple discussions here, as you have missed few opportunities to criticise cyclists for any and all such actions.

 

[col]

Or, in other words, your constructed argument was in tatters because it relied on the assertion that the cyclist was trying to make the motorist angry, and because you could not defend that assertion you've chosen instead to ask what really is a no brainer of a question.

The problem here is not whether or not it is appropriate to try to make others angry, because it is clearly true that to do so without provocation is unacceptable. The problem is that you interpret the smallest, slightest response, glare or comment from a cyclist as an attempt to do so, you expect of cyclists absolute passivity in response to any and all kinds of provcation, which is neither desireable or very likely. To take such a thing from the context it was in and then insist that it is unlinked to the original topic is insulting to the intelligence of anyone who participated therein.

Ultimately, that makes your poll useless.

Ask another, I dare you. Ask whether it is always inappropriate for cyclists to talk to, look disapprovingly at or mock by action or word the actions of motorists, because that is exactly the position that you have put forward in multiple discussions here, as you have missed few opportunities to criticise cyclists for any and all such actions.

What was in tatters was your attempt to nullify the question by useing the incident in question.
Iv never said when its warranted that we cant show our displeasure or upset,or even fear,again i say an extaordinary skill you have
Buuut,DARE I ASKthat you seem to think that if a driver provokes you,its ok to try to upset or purposely anger?Do you really think that that is right?I might have to rethink my very high thoughts of you?

 

[pinkkaz]

I haven't got the clue what the answer is to this question.

Under certain circumstances Yes.
Under certain circumstances No.

+1
exactly. The question makes no sense.

 

[col]

+1
exactly. The question makes no sense.

Well i must say,im surprised you think this,how does it not make sense if you dont mind me asking?

 

[pinkkaz]

Well i must say,im surprised you think this,how does it not make sense if you dont mind me asking?

You said,

"Is it right or wrong to cause a driver to lose their temper"

But this doesn't make sense because there are more variables other than right or wrong. If the driver doesn't like the colour red and seeing that colour makes him mad and you are wearing a red jersey then it's neither right or wrong that you've caused them to lose their temper by wearing it that day. It's just... nothing... it doesn't make sense.

 

[Cab]

What was in tatters was your attempt to nullify the question by useing the incident in question.

What the question of whether its appropriate to pick a fight for no good reason? Nothing to nullify, its a silly question; of course its inappropriate. The point is that such is not an accurate reflection of any situation ever presented on these boards, it means that the question is valuelss.

Iv never said when its warranted that we cant show our displeasure or upset,or even fear,again i say an extaordinary skill you have
Buuut,DARE I ASKthat you seem to think that if a driver provokes you,its ok to try to upset or purposely anger?Do you really think that that is right?I might have to rethink my very high thoughts of you?

Do you genuinely believe that anyone here has been primarily motivated thus, when discussing/mocking/commenting at another road user? Do you really think that anyone has thought 'I know, I'll upset this guy, thats what I want to do?'.

Except for the vanishingly rare person with sociopathic tendencies, it doesn't happen. Its a fiction. Thats why your question (which is a reaction to the previous discussion in which you tried to portray someone elses actions in such an irrational light) is meaningless.

Dude, let it drop, its not worth it. Let it go.

 

[col]

What the question of whether its appropriate to pick a fight for no good reason? Nothing to nullify, its a silly question; of course its inappropriate. The point is that such is not an accurate reflection of any situation ever presented on these boards, it means that the question is valuelss.



Do you genuinely believe that anyone here has been primarily motivated thus, when discussing/mocking/commenting at another road user? Do you really think that anyone has thought 'I know, I'll upset this guy, thats what I want to do?'.Except for the vanishingly rare person with sociopathic tendencies, it doesn't happen. Its a fiction. Thats why your question (which is a reaction to the previous discussion in which you tried to portray someone elses actions in such an irrational light) is meaningless.

Dude, let it drop, its not worth it. Let it go.

The sad fact is,this is exactly what i believe some do.So yes i agree with you,about dropping it,but it doesnt detract from my belief wink:

You said,

"Is it right or wrong to cause a driver to lose their temper"

But this doesn't make sense because there are more variables other than right or wrong. If the driver doesn't like the colour red and seeing that colour makes him mad and you are wearing a red jersey then it's neither right or wrong that you've caused them to lose their temper by wearing it that day. It's just... nothing... it doesn't make sense.

Your missing the point,none of the other reasons are relevant.

Col, join the real world, no-one knows what you're going on about. You ask a question that doesn't need asking because we all know the answer. The question comes out of a thread where you've lost face. Because starting this thread in isolation is so pointless and makes no sense, people are only coming to the conclusion that you're trying to save some face from being embarrassed on the other thread. Added to the fact that it was started around the same time as your equally strange "I'm still alive" thread.

This is the real world,it happens i believe too much,and a lot of situations are made worse by it.I dont feel iv lost face,anything but,its just shown the reaction of some of you,and confirmed an argumentative way with the odd insult as par for the course.Oh and that im alive thread was a reminder to you ,for saying you were sorry if i was dead,which i thought was a terrible thing to say,just to try and get argument points,but it seems to be the way the likes of you operate in a debate when the other person isnt crumbling to your style of argument.

But as cab suggested,lets drop it,you and certain others will never see my point.so its a dead end debate now i think.

 

[col]

Col, you lost face on the other thread.

You've made a terrible mess of trying to regain some.

That is all.

If you insist,then again you probably do
oh did i mention,? im alive
ok what a guy

 

[Cab]

The sad fact is,this is exactly what i believe some do.So yes i agree with you,about dropping it,but it doesnt detract from my belief wink:

I shall of course remind you of that; you believe that some of the people posting here about how they've responded to people endangering or abusing them on the roads have done so just to intentionally anger the other guy. They haven't done so always just out of surprise, shock, anger or with a will to improving behaviour, they've done so because they're basically looking to get the other guy angry. Or, in other words, you belive that they're just looking for a fight for no very good reason.

And thats why your question was meaningless. Its there just to vindicate what was a totally discredited viewpoint that you were putting forward, yet it does not demonstrate that your premis (that sometimes thats what people here are doing) is correct.

 

[col]

I shall of course remind you of that; you believe that some of the people posting here about how they've responded to people endangering or abusing them on the roads have done so just to intentionally anger the other guy. They haven't done so always just out of surprise, shock, anger or with a will to improving behaviour, they've done so because they're basically looking to get the other guy angry. Or, in other words, you belive that they're just looking for a fight for no very good reason.

And thats why your question was meaningless. Its there just to vindicate what was a totally discredited viewpoint that you were putting forward, yet it does not demonstrate that your premis (that sometimes thats what people here are doing) is correct.

As usual the tangent you go off on is,er oh it doesnt matter,you carry on

 

[col]

Col. It really is a daft poll and the question is obviously loaded. So I voted "yes" and I'm out.

I dont see it as loaded,its a simple enough question,but if you use other cyclists bad experiences as a way of saying the answer can be different,then your on the wrong track.lets seperate it from anything,which was the idea of this thread,to seperate it from excuses as to why it might be right.and then the only possible answer is wrong.The problem is some cant seem to stop relating to incidents of cyclists,and using that as the argument against,so lets just stand back a look at it as a question out there on its own shall we?

 

[Cab]

I dont see it as loaded,its a simple enough question,but if you use other cyclists bad experiences as a way of saying the answer can be different,then your on the wrong track.lets seperate it from anything,which was the idea of this thread,to seperate it from excuses as to why it might be right.and then the only possible answer is wrong.

No one has disagreed with the point that to have a go at someone just to get them angry is wrong. No one.

The problem is that the situation you're proposing is artificial and in no way a representation of any incident that has been reported in this forum. Its a meaningless and, in context, loaded question. But you've failed to respond to this criticism in any constructive way.

The problem is some cant seem to stop relating to incidents of cyclists,and using that as the argument against,so lets just stand back a look at it as a question out there on its own shall we?

As a question on its own it is a complete no brainer. Thats the point of the criticism of this poll that has been put forward; you cannot extend the results to make any reasoned comment on anything we have ever seen discussed, nor is it likely to be the case that we'll see such a thing.

You believe that some contributors here have a go at motorists just to get them angry. You've admitted this. Therefore you've chosen to put this poll on the forum to demonstrate why they're wrong. In your mind this demonstrates that those people who have argued against you are wrong, and you're probably even convincing yourself that by their own standards, they're wrong. But its an argument constructed on the flimsy basis that other contributors here are dodgy sociopaths going around trying to start fights with motorists, which, simply, is not the case.