Social distancing

On 08/06/2020 11:45, TMS320 wrote:
On 08/06/2020 00:27, JNugent wrote:
On 07/06/2020 23:09, TMS320 wrote:
On 07/06/2020 00:41, JNugent wrote:
On 06/06/2020 22:53, TMS320 wrote:
On 06/06/2020 15:50, Kelly wrote:
TMS320 wrote:

With the number of pedestrians complaining about cyclists passing
close,
it never ceases to amaze how people stand and talk to each across
a path
and one has no choice but to pass between them.

I don't hold with the idea that anybody will die from a fleeting
encounter outdoors but respect that there are those that do.

I'd go along with that.Â* According to Public Health England,
typically
spending more than 15 minutes within two metres of an infected person
can raise your risk of catching the virus.Â* So if you momentarily
brush past someone, especially outdoors, even within the two metres
how much of a risk can that realistically pose?

It depends on which way the wind is blowing... But I can't believe
normal distancing outdoors is an issue.

You're just a born rebel, aren't you?

There's nothing rebellious in that statement.

You're not only a rebel but you're also a contrarian rebel who thinks
he's too cool to follow rules - especially when they're only there to
protect other people from you.

Whereas you're too thick to be able to give an opinion.

I'll let you into a secret: that *was* an opinion, albeit one based
solidly and exactly on what you have said and on what you have refused
to say.

You find rules designed and put in place to protect people from you (and
from others like you) tiresome and dispensible.

On 08/06/2020 12:22, JNugent wrote:
On 08/06/2020 11:45, TMS320 wrote:
On 08/06/2020 00:27, JNugent wrote:
On 07/06/2020 23:09, TMS320 wrote:
On 07/06/2020 00:41, JNugent wrote:
On 06/06/2020 22:53, TMS320 wrote:
On 06/06/2020 15:50, Kelly wrote:
TMS320 wrote:

With the number of pedestrians complaining about cyclists
passing close,
it never ceases to amaze how people stand and talk to each
across a path
and one has no choice but to pass between them.

I don't hold with the idea that anybody will die from a fleeting
encounter outdoors but respect that there are those that do.

I'd go along with that.Â* According to Public Health England,
typically
spending more than 15 minutes within two metres of an infected
person
can raise your risk of catching the virus.Â* So if you momentarily
brush past someone, especially outdoors, even within the two metres
how much of a risk can that realistically pose?

It depends on which way the wind is blowing... But I can't believe
normal distancing outdoors is an issue.

You're just a born rebel, aren't you?

There's nothing rebellious in that statement.

You're not only a rebel but you're also a contrarian rebel who thinks
he's too cool to follow rules - especially when they're only there to
protect other people from you.

Whereas you're too thick to be able to give an opinion.

I'll let you into a secret: that *was* an opinion, albeit one based
solidly and exactly on what you have said and on what you have refused
to say.
I will let you into a secret; the discussion was about whether infection
can cross 2m outdoors. You added nothing.

On 08/06/2020 14:33, TMS320 wrote:
On 08/06/2020 12:22, JNugent wrote:
On 08/06/2020 11:45, TMS320 wrote:
On 08/06/2020 00:27, JNugent wrote:
On 07/06/2020 23:09, TMS320 wrote:
On 07/06/2020 00:41, JNugent wrote:
On 06/06/2020 22:53, TMS320 wrote:
On 06/06/2020 15:50, Kelly wrote:
TMS320 wrote:

With the number of pedestrians complaining about cyclists
passing close,
it never ceases to amaze how people stand and talk to each
across a path
and one has no choice but to pass between them.

I don't hold with the idea that anybody will die from a fleeting
encounter outdoors but respect that there are those that do.

I'd go along with that.Â* According to Public Health England,
typically
spending more than 15 minutes within two metres of an infected
person
can raise your risk of catching the virus.Â* So if you momentarily
brush past someone, especially outdoors, even within the two metres
how much of a risk can that realistically pose?

It depends on which way the wind is blowing... But I can't
believe normal distancing outdoors is an issue.

You're just a born rebel, aren't you?

There's nothing rebellious in that statement.

You're not only a rebel but you're also a contrarian rebel who
thinks he's too cool to follow rules - especially when they're only
there to protect other people from you.

Whereas you're too thick to be able to give an opinion.

I'll let you into a secret: that *was* an opinion, albeit one based
solidly and exactly on what you have said and on what you have refused
to say.

I will let you into a secret; the discussion was about whether infection
can cross 2m outdoors. You added nothing.

Is that what you were doing (or trying to do) when you said:

"...I can't believe normal distancing outdoors is an issue"?

There's absolutely nothing you could say that would be decisive or even
persuasive on the matter.

All you or anyone else can do is either follow the rules (six feet, or
as the trendier end of the media like to call it, two metres) or break them.

You have confirmed time and again that you are not one to follow rules
inconvenient or to have any regard to the welfare of others.

The rest of us should consider ourselves lucky that you are in a
minority. Not a small enough minority, but a minority just the same.

On 08/06/2020 17:26, JNugent wrote:
On 08/06/2020 14:33, TMS320 wrote:
On 08/06/2020 12:22, JNugent wrote:
On 08/06/2020 11:45, TMS320 wrote:
On 08/06/2020 00:27, JNugent wrote:
On 07/06/2020 23:09, TMS320 wrote:
On 07/06/2020 00:41, JNugent wrote:
On 06/06/2020 22:53, TMS320 wrote:
On 06/06/2020 15:50, Kelly wrote:
TMS320 wrote:

With the number of pedestrians complaining about cyclists
passing close,
it never ceases to amaze how people stand and talk to each
across a path
and one has no choice but to pass between them.

I don't hold with the idea that anybody will die from a fleeting
encounter outdoors but respect that there are those that do.

I'd go along with that.Â* According to Public Health England,
typically
spending more than 15 minutes within two metres of an infected
person
can raise your risk of catching the virus.Â* So if you momentarily
brush past someone, especially outdoors, even within the two
metres
how much of a risk can that realistically pose?

It depends on which way the wind is blowing... But I can't
believe normal distancing outdoors is an issue.

You're just a born rebel, aren't you?

There's nothing rebellious in that statement.

You're not only a rebel but you're also a contrarian rebel who
thinks he's too cool to follow rules - especially when they're only
there to protect other people from you.

Whereas you're too thick to be able to give an opinion.

I'll let you into a secret: that *was* an opinion, albeit one based
solidly and exactly on what you have said and on what you have
refused to say.

I will let you into a secret; the discussion was about whether
infection can cross 2m outdoors. You added nothing.

Is that what you were doing (or trying to do) when you said:

"...I can't believe normal distancing outdoors is an issue"?

It was a standalone statement.

There's absolutely nothing you could say that would be decisive or even
persuasive on the matter...

...and you could easily have left it without replying. Or if you had more
"science" (that the government claims to follow) you could have shared it.

But you couldn't; you're just an automaton built with a knee that jerks.

On 08/06/2020 20:15, TMS320 wrote:
On 08/06/2020 17:26, JNugent wrote:
On 08/06/2020 14:33, TMS320 wrote:
On 08/06/2020 12:22, JNugent wrote:
On 08/06/2020 11:45, TMS320 wrote:
On 08/06/2020 00:27, JNugent wrote:
On 07/06/2020 23:09, TMS320 wrote:
On 07/06/2020 00:41, JNugent wrote:
On 06/06/2020 22:53, TMS320 wrote:
On 06/06/2020 15:50, Kelly wrote:
TMS320 wrote:

With the number of pedestrians complaining about cyclists
passing close,
it never ceases to amaze how people stand and talk to each
across a path
and one has no choice but to pass between them.

I don't hold with the idea that anybody will die from a fleeting
encounter outdoors but respect that there are those that do.

I'd go along with that.Â* According to Public Health England,
typically
spending more than 15 minutes within two metres of an infected
person
can raise your risk of catching the virus.Â* So if you momentarily
brush past someone, especially outdoors, even within the two
metres
how much of a risk can that realistically pose?

It depends on which way the wind is blowing... But I can't
believe normal distancing outdoors is an issue.

You're just a born rebel, aren't you?

There's nothing rebellious in that statement.

You're not only a rebel but you're also a contrarian rebel who
thinks he's too cool to follow rules - especially when they're
only there to protect other people from you.

Whereas you're too thick to be able to give an opinion.

I'll let you into a secret: that *was* an opinion, albeit one based
solidly and exactly on what you have said and on what you have
refused to say.

I will let you into a secret; the discussion was about whether
infection can cross 2m outdoors. You added nothing.

Is that what you were doing (or trying to do) when you said:

"...I can't believe normal distancing outdoors is an issue"?

It was a standalone statement.

A *non-credible* "standalone statement".

You *know* that the advice is "keep six feet apart".

You *choose* to disrgeard it.

As I said:

There's absolutely nothing you could say that would be decisive or
even persuasive on the matter...

..and you could easily have left it without replying. Or if you had more
"science" (that the government claims to follow) you could have shared it.

The science and the resultant advice is "Keep at least 6 feet apart".
How much more clear could it be?

But you are too much of a rebel to take note of mere "advice", aren't you?

But you couldn't; you're just an automaton built with a knee that jerks.

Well, I do tend to spot nonsense when I see it. And there's plenty of it
that emanates from you, you must admit (even though you don't want to).

On 09/06/2020 00:41, JNugent wrote:

You *know* that the advice is "keep six feet apart".

Advice? in your previous post you said 'rules'.

Actually, I know it is 6'6". For such a stickler, it's amazing how wrong
you are. Actually, I'm not surprised because you have never shown any
indication of having an eye for detail.

You *choose* to disrgeard it.

Yes, whenever I want to pass pass someone I deliberately brush elbows
even when there is loads of room because the virus can't possibly
transfer outdoors.

On 09/06/2020 17:51, TMS320 wrote:

On 09/06/2020 00:41, JNugent wrote:

You *know* that the advice is "keep six feet apart".

Advice? in your previous post you said 'rules'.

Whatever.

Actually, I know it is 6'6". For such a stickler, it's amazing how wrong
you are. Actually, I'm not surprised because you have never shown any
indication of having an eye for detail.

You know you're wrong but I'm not going to argue about whether two
metres is 6' 6" (it isn't).

You *choose* to disrgeard it.

Yes, whenever I want to pass pass someone I deliberately brush elbows
even when there is loads of room because the virus can't possibly
transfer outdoors.

Merci, rebel.

After all, what do the lives of other people who happen to be in or
adjacent to your path matter?

They're just pedestrian scum as far as you're concerned, aren't they?

On 10/06/2020 00:38, JNugent wrote:
On 09/06/2020 17:51, TMS320 wrote:
On 09/06/2020 00:41, JNugent wrote:

You *know* that the advice is "keep six feet apart".

Advice? in your previous post you said 'rules'.

Whatever.

To you, official laws, rules and advice are the all same.

You must blindly obey
You must blindly obey
Pretty Polly
Squawk

Actually, I know it is 6'6". For such a stickler, it's amazing how
wrong you are. Actually, I'm not surprised because you have never
shown any indication of having an eye for detail.

You know you're wrong but I'm not going to argue about whether two
metres is 6' 6" (it isn't).

You are arguing. You can't help it.

On 10/06/2020 09:48, TMS320 wrote:

On 10/06/2020 00:38, JNugent wrote:
On 09/06/2020 17:51, TMS320 wrote:
On 09/06/2020 00:41, JNugent wrote:

You *know* that the advice is "keep six feet apart".

Advice? in your previous post you said 'rules'.

Whatever.

To you, official laws, rules and advice are the all same.

You must blindly obey
You must blindly obey
Pretty Polly
Squawk

It is people like you, so clearly unable to consider the welfare of
others as a natural response, for whom law, rules and advice are
primarily meant.

Left to your own devices and your own (lack of) conscience, your
anti-social behaviour would be even more harmful than it already is.

Actually, I know it is 6'6". For such a stickler, it's amazing how
Â*wrong you are. Actually, I'm not surprised because you have never
Â*shown any indication of having an eye for detail.

You know you're wrong but I'm not going to argue about whether two
metres is 6' 6" (it isn't).

You are arguing. You can't help it.

Have it your own way. But please start considering others, especially
pedestrians when you cycle along the footway.

On 10/06/2020 16:00, JNugent wrote:
On 10/06/2020 09:48, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/06/2020 00:38, JNugent wrote:
On 09/06/2020 17:51, TMS320 wrote:
On 09/06/2020 00:41, JNugent wrote:

You *know* that the advice is "keep six feet apart".

Advice? in your previous post you said 'rules'.

Whatever.

To you, official laws, rules and advice are the all same.

You must blindly obey You must blindly obey Pretty Polly Squawk

It is people like you, so clearly unable to consider the welfare of
others as a natural response, for whom law, rules and advice are
primarily meant.

Consideration for others is independant of laws, rules and advice.

Left to your own devices and your own (lack of) conscience, your
anti-social behaviour would be even more harmful than it already is.

Actually, I know it is 6'6". For such a stickler, it's amazing
how
wrong you are. Actually, I'm not surprised because you have
never shown any indication of having an eye for detail.

You know you're wrong but I'm not going to argue about whether
two metres is 6' 6" (it isn't).

You are arguing. You can't help it.

Have it your own way. But please start considering others,
especially pedestrians when you cycle along the footway.

I don't have to start.