On 20 Apr, 19:49, Peter Clinch wrote:
Toom Tabard wrote:
It's a bit difficult to address the 'points' you raise if they are
mere endless and irrelevant vacuous twaddle.
Socrates had his Plato to expand on every question he raised. What did
I do to deserve you?

You continue to show little knowledge of the currently available
literature on the subject, or indeed much indication that you have
even been bothered to try and keep abreast of it. *Consequently
your opinions, even though you tend to see them too much as facts,
are actually far less informed than you appear to think.


Mere supposition by you, and totally incorrect.

If you don't want me posting to point out your opinions have holes
in them it would be best to close up the holes, rather than pretend
they're not there.


So, the fact that I state I think (indeed know) that it is safer for
me to wear a helmet when cycling
is an 'opinion' with holes, and, since you know better than I what I
think and know, the holes in my opinion can be filled by you writing
about the possible advantages of wearing a helmet in the home?

It is not a matter of whether or not 'I want you posting'. Whether or
what you post is of total disinterest to me. If my statement in
favour of cycle helmets triggers some need in you to write monologues
on wearing helmets in the house that is a matter entirely for you.

Toom