Ontario Helmet Law being pushed through

On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 10:10:58 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

Perhaps we could use a referee to keep us onto factual matters. I'd
like that.

I'll sign up for that as well.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 10:10:58 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

Perhaps we could use a referee to keep us onto factual matters. I'd
like that.

I'll sign up for that as well.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:

On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 07:09:42 GMT, Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening"
Zaumen wrote:

Krygowksi, of course, is lying

Ladies and gentlemen, I encourage you to read this in the light of Mr
Zaumen's earlier post defining a call of "liar" as unacceptable
personal abuse.

What I complained about was your use of the term when I was stating
the truth, a distinction that seems to elude you.

And you are *still* engaged in your infantile baby-talk name calling.
Is it any surprise that most of what you say is being ignored?

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:

On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 07:09:42 GMT, Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening"
Zaumen wrote:

Krygowksi, of course, is lying

Ladies and gentlemen, I encourage you to read this in the light of Mr
Zaumen's earlier post defining a call of "liar" as unacceptable
personal abuse.

What I complained about was your use of the term when I was stating
the truth, a distinction that seems to elude you.

And you are *still* engaged in your infantile baby-talk name calling.
Is it any surprise that most of what you say is being ignored?

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Erik Freitag writes:

On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 07:14:46 +0000, Bill Z. wrote:
I'm describing their behavior accurately. Draw your own conclusions.
Also, there is a difference between a liar and a fool. You might
want to consider that in any evaluation.

If Guy really said you were a liar, maybe he thought he was describing
your behavior accurately. Maybe one or both of you is wrong about this.
The discussion is not supposed to be about you, or Guy.

I doubt that - he's just into mindless rhetoric.

I'll skip the rest of your post. I just got back from having dinner
with a bunch of friends and it is a bit late, and your reply is way
too long to deal with at this hour.

Again, this makes it appear that you are unwilling to address the post.

Let me get this straight. I get home at about 11 PM on a Sunday evening,
have to be in work the next morning, and you expect me to waste time on
a long post on this subject when Guy has been engaging in non-stop
infantile name calling for several months and you pretty much ignore
his behavior?

If this isn't a good time to respond, you should refrain from responding.

I replied to the first part of it. I'm not going to let a discussion
explode exponentially.

Saying you're going to skip the rest of the post just says "I'm too
busy (or in your case, tired) to respond". This could mean ...

Precisely what I said, which you can verify by looking at the date
provided by my newsreader when the message was posted.

So let's assume innocence. Will you have time to contribute something
later? I would try to make my post shorter, but I was trying to be
careful in answering yours. I think my response was about the same length
as yours.

I'm not set up to keep old messages. I'd suggest keeping the posts
short. I really don't see the point of this "discussion" anyway.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Erik Freitag writes:

On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 07:14:46 +0000, Bill Z. wrote:
I'm describing their behavior accurately. Draw your own conclusions.
Also, there is a difference between a liar and a fool. You might
want to consider that in any evaluation.

If Guy really said you were a liar, maybe he thought he was describing
your behavior accurately. Maybe one or both of you is wrong about this.
The discussion is not supposed to be about you, or Guy.

I doubt that - he's just into mindless rhetoric.

I'll skip the rest of your post. I just got back from having dinner
with a bunch of friends and it is a bit late, and your reply is way
too long to deal with at this hour.

Again, this makes it appear that you are unwilling to address the post.

Let me get this straight. I get home at about 11 PM on a Sunday evening,
have to be in work the next morning, and you expect me to waste time on
a long post on this subject when Guy has been engaging in non-stop
infantile name calling for several months and you pretty much ignore
his behavior?

If this isn't a good time to respond, you should refrain from responding.

I replied to the first part of it. I'm not going to let a discussion
explode exponentially.

Saying you're going to skip the rest of the post just says "I'm too
busy (or in your case, tired) to respond". This could mean ...

Precisely what I said, which you can verify by looking at the date
provided by my newsreader when the message was posted.

So let's assume innocence. Will you have time to contribute something
later? I would try to make my post shorter, but I was trying to be
careful in answering yours. I think my response was about the same length
as yours.

I'm not set up to keep old messages. I'd suggest keeping the posts
short. I really don't see the point of this "discussion" anyway.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 23:06:52 GMT, Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening"
Zaumen wrote:

You can add quite a few other names that weren't repeated ad infinitum
in nearly every post. Those included "liar" for merely changing my
mind a few hours later as to whether I'd ignore every one of his
messages one day.

You forgot to mention snip ...

Well, looks like our little child Guy goes back into his timeout.
plonk

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 23:06:52 GMT, Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening"
Zaumen wrote:

You can add quite a few other names that weren't repeated ad infinitum
in nearly every post. Those included "liar" for merely changing my
mind a few hours later as to whether I'd ignore every one of his
messages one day.

You forgot to mention snip ...

Well, looks like our little child Guy goes back into his timeout.
plonk

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 02:37:49 +0000, Bill Z. wrote:

Let me get this straight. I get home at about 11 PM on a Sunday evening,
have to be in work the next morning, and you expect me to waste time on
a long post on this subject when Guy has been engaging in non-stop
infantile name calling for several months and you pretty much ignore
his behavior?

No, I don't expect you to respond if it isn't a good time to do so, or
even if you just don't feel like it. I'm hoping I can convince you to
take all this energy you obviously have and use it for something other
than what looks like petulance. If you think Guy is calling you names, and
the discussion is worthwhile, can't you transcend? Stay on topic. Once you
start saying "Guy did this" or "Frank did that", you've put yourself back
on the playground.


If this isn't a good time to respond, you should refrain from
responding.

I replied to the first part of it. I'm not going to let a discussion
explode exponentially.

So keep it linear. If you have something to say, and you don't have time
to say it all, you don't owe the rest of us anything. Refrain from
responding. Rest, think, answer if you think you can add something. I'm
asking you to try to make it get better, not worse.

Saying you're going to skip the rest of the post just says "I'm too
busy (or in your case, tired) to respond". This could mean ...

Precisely what I said, which you can verify by looking at the date
provided by my newsreader when the message was posted.

But do you see how that could be interpreted as "I have no answer" rather
than "I'm too tired to answer"? You have a history of "don't have time" or
"snipping the rest" responses. If you don't have time to contribute
thoughtfully, don't.

So let's assume innocence. Will you have time to contribute something
later? I would try to make my post shorter, but I was trying to be
careful in answering yours. I think my response was about the same
length as yours.

I'm not set up to keep old messages. I'd suggest keeping the posts
short. I really don't see the point of this "discussion" anyway.

Probably your goals in participating in these discussions are not the same
as mine. If you're not keeping track of the discussion, you're just
playing ping-pong. Let us know, and we can move on to something a little
more uplifting.

My "point" in this discussion is to say that it has devolved from a
discussion about helmets/bicycles/bicycle law into a pretty meaningless "I
don't like the other poster" stream. This subject is of course off-topic
for a bicycle newsgroup, but as we've seen, newsgroups are an anarchy -
this sub-thread is no more off-topic than "Guy lied", "sinister Frank sat
in the background and coordinated unwarranted attacks upon me", or "Guy
called me names".

Maybe you're trying to "win" this thread? Let me set you at ease. You
can't lose - you are the only one who can set the criteria for a win
or a loss. My hope is to convince you that everyone can win, even when not
everyone agrees.

On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 02:37:49 +0000, Bill Z. wrote:

Let me get this straight. I get home at about 11 PM on a Sunday evening,
have to be in work the next morning, and you expect me to waste time on
a long post on this subject when Guy has been engaging in non-stop
infantile name calling for several months and you pretty much ignore
his behavior?

No, I don't expect you to respond if it isn't a good time to do so, or
even if you just don't feel like it. I'm hoping I can convince you to
take all this energy you obviously have and use it for something other
than what looks like petulance. If you think Guy is calling you names, and
the discussion is worthwhile, can't you transcend? Stay on topic. Once you
start saying "Guy did this" or "Frank did that", you've put yourself back
on the playground.


If this isn't a good time to respond, you should refrain from
responding.

I replied to the first part of it. I'm not going to let a discussion
explode exponentially.

So keep it linear. If you have something to say, and you don't have time
to say it all, you don't owe the rest of us anything. Refrain from
responding. Rest, think, answer if you think you can add something. I'm
asking you to try to make it get better, not worse.

Saying you're going to skip the rest of the post just says "I'm too
busy (or in your case, tired) to respond". This could mean ...

Precisely what I said, which you can verify by looking at the date
provided by my newsreader when the message was posted.

But do you see how that could be interpreted as "I have no answer" rather
than "I'm too tired to answer"? You have a history of "don't have time" or
"snipping the rest" responses. If you don't have time to contribute
thoughtfully, don't.

So let's assume innocence. Will you have time to contribute something
later? I would try to make my post shorter, but I was trying to be
careful in answering yours. I think my response was about the same
length as yours.

I'm not set up to keep old messages. I'd suggest keeping the posts
short. I really don't see the point of this "discussion" anyway.

Probably your goals in participating in these discussions are not the same
as mine. If you're not keeping track of the discussion, you're just
playing ping-pong. Let us know, and we can move on to something a little
more uplifting.

My "point" in this discussion is to say that it has devolved from a
discussion about helmets/bicycles/bicycle law into a pretty meaningless "I
don't like the other poster" stream. This subject is of course off-topic
for a bicycle newsgroup, but as we've seen, newsgroups are an anarchy -
this sub-thread is no more off-topic than "Guy lied", "sinister Frank sat
in the background and coordinated unwarranted attacks upon me", or "Guy
called me names".

Maybe you're trying to "win" this thread? Let me set you at ease. You
can't lose - you are the only one who can set the criteria for a win
or a loss. My hope is to convince you that everyone can win, even when not
everyone agrees.