Pro compulsion

[david k]

Possibly substitute intimidating with frustrated.

i think swearing at someone is intimidating whether born from frustration or not. The frustration could be both ways, i wont let it boil over to swearing at someone

 

[Norm]

Although that's the second time it has been proposed as a defence, I don't see frustration (or much else!) as a reason for gutter language.

You always have the ultimate control over the perceived frustration... just walk away.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

I'm not offering it, or indeed anything else for that matter, as any defence against anything.

I did. Second guessing you. Maybe I got it wrong?

 

[Bicycle]

Exactly so fuck off with the compulsion, the campaigning to get a potentially very flawed product forced on people in the name of safety, and the anything must be better than nothing bollocks. OK?

For many contributors to this forum, deliberately offensive language has no place in this sort of discussion.

It's clear to many that there are personal enmities involved in some threads - and that can be hugely amusing for the reader.

Similarly, the entrenched positions of some posters can generate a little mirth.

Once contributors descend into profanities the amusingly silly becomes the upsettingly gauche and crass.

Please can we avoid this sort of invective - it adds nothing to the argument and diminishes the author.

 

[rich p]

Adrian, didn't use the F word offensively toward davidk but merely as a vernacular verb-substitute meaning to go away. There's a huge difference which should be obvious to anyone.

Bollix is also used as noun representing rubbish and is used everywhere including this forum.

I'd suggest people should grow up and don't deflect the thread with faux shock and horror.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Adrian, didn't use the F word offensively toward davidk but merely as a vernacular verb-substitute meaning to go away. There's a huge difference which should be obvious to anyone.

Bollix is also used as noun representing rubbish and is used everywhere including this forum.

I'd suggest people should grow up and don't deflect the thread with faux shock and horror.

Well said. Had it been "**** off or **** you Davidk" then there would be grounds for offence.

 

[ufkacbln]

Good morning everyone, sorry in advance if this leads to numerous other pages of posts!
To answer your question, not all posters but on this thread I’dsay there are quite a few yes, you included. To point out, you said I stated,not that I was of the opinion, your correct in your assumption though. I am happy to go either way but you use my posts to assume what I am saying,you don't like it when people do this to you, which way would youprefer it? We assume from posting style or we do not? Please make your mind upas your changes in what is right and wrong simply stems the flow and makes you look foolish. Demanding this and that and using red enlarged letters makes you appear childish, this feedback will help you with future posts, I hope you takeheed.

You have still failed, and are still avoiding any substantiation of the allegation you made, before repeating this, it would be polite, and courteous to actually answer the question....

On many threads me and others have said why we believe helmets are of benefit, you say this is always to do with compulsion and fight our beliefs vigorously. You protest too much! If your approachwas less obnoxious I am sure the conversation would flow better, but continually jumping on any post that may merely suggest a helmet of benefit isa little strange and makes you look desperate.

It appears to be an obsession with you and not ahealthy one, if you allow us to have our beliefs without being so aggressive inyour replies things would be fine. Without that courtesy then yes you are antihelmet and hostile towards those who are pro helmet.

A total misconception on your part. You make claims that are open to debate, yet as soon as someone dares to question them or points out that it is not supported by evidence you retreat into a stance of everyone hates you because you wear a helmet.

Easier than actually recognising that there are limitations though?

I've answered question after question and your posting style is very troll like and you knowit. Am I to see a reply with the same troll approach or would you like to discuss things without being difficult? I am happy with either style you chose,but that will dictate the way these conversations go.

There was a reply from a poster admitting they disagreed with people wearing helmets as everyone who does takes us closer to compulsion, that’s fine, its ok to admit it if that’s your agenda. You hide behind saying you don't mind if someone wears a helmets you are only against compulsion, then say anyone discussing helmet benefits must be questioned because of compulsion and any other suggestion is trying to hide it,therefore you do have issues with people wearing helmets.

Again totally and utterly mistaken.

Look around the board and you will see that (again) your accusations are nothing short of incredible!


I doubt you could get further from the facts if you tried!

How in your warped interpretation is this as a random example of a n anti-helmet wearing stance and telling people they mustn't wear helmets?

Again another false accusation!

Please have the politeness and courtesy to point out where I have said or implied that people should not wear helmets?

You need to get your head around the concept that helmets have limitations and that pointing out claims that are unfounded, unevidenced, or simply untrue is called "debate" and giving individuals the right to make an informed choice.

If there is a problem with being open about what helmets can and cannot do then then, really it is your problem.

The arguments are going in circles, I’m happy to accept you are anti helmet are you happy to accept I am pro helmet?

Heres hoping you can play with a straight bat, we live in hope

Again totally incorrect, mistaken and a bizarre interpretation of what is being posted.

 

[ufkacbln]

The fact is that there is a need to accept that there is evidence for and against helmets, and it is important that the correct information is out there to allow an informed decision whether to wear a helmet and the type, standard, construction is suitable to the intended use.

Lets give an example..........

So you wear a full face helmet when cycling then?

The reply was:

no, with the helmet being wider than my face im guessing that will take the impact if i fall

If someone had bough a non full face helmet on this advice for use on a mountain bike with the expectation to prevent facial injuries then they would have been disappointed and misled.

It was then pointed out that firstly this advice was wrong, and that the evidence it was wrong was not a guess but an assessment of helmets from the British Dental Association, a slightly more professional and experienced body in dealing with facial injuries

Now the "Dear Reader" knows that the average cycle helmet will not prevent facial injuries and can look at a type of helmet that does.


Why is this so wrong?

Why should dangerous and unrealistic claims like this be unchallenged and the facts made clear?

Why can we not give evidence and trust individuals to investigate and make up their own minds?

Why (and how) can these discussions be interpreted as "anti-helmet" and "hating people who wear helmets"?

 

[Norm]

I'm not offering it, or indeed anything else for that matter, as any defence against anything.

Indeed not.

I was responding to the comment about getting frustrated and suggesting an alternative response.

 

[david k]

Adrian, didn't use the F word offensively toward davidk but merely as a vernacular verb-substitute meaning to go away. There's a huge difference which should be obvious to anyone.

Bollix is also used as noun representing rubbish and is used everywhere including this forum.

I'd suggest people should grow up and don't deflect the thread with faux shock and horror.

so its acceptable to you if the discussion can take the form of telling someone to f**k off with their view? I find this approach offensive even if you dont. what other words are acceptable to be substituted with swear words? i mean why should it end there, why not substitute someones name for d head with your logic?

 

[david k]

Do you actually read the things that other people write?

why are you avoiding the question? you told me a F off with compulsion even though i was not pushing that agenda and had made that clear enough. You made that assumption based on me wearing a helmet and thinking it is of benefit, therefore it is reasonable to ask if you do this to people in the street who wear a helmet or are you only abusive on a forum?

 

[Angelfishsolo]

so its acceptable to you if the discussion can take the form of telling someone to f**k off with their view? I find this approach offensive even if you dont. what other words are acceptable to be substituted with swear words? i mean why should it end there, why not substitute someones name for d head with your logic?

No one told YOU to **** off. It was aimed at the argument not the arguer.

 

[david k]

Easier than actually recognising that there are limitations though?



You need to get your head around the concept that helmets have limitations

i have never said they do not have limitations, suggesting i havnt is yet again misleading at best,care to show me were i said cycle helmets have no limitations and will protect you from any impact.

a cycle helmet will not help you if hit by a lorry at 70mph, therefore they are limited, clear enough? probably not, i await the next troll post

 

[david k]

No one told YOU to **** off. It was aimed at the argument not the arguer.

so i can tell anyone on here to f off with their view as opposed to f off and that makes it ok?

in my view thats abuse either way

 

[Angelfishsolo]

so i can tell anyone on here to f off with their view as opposed to f off and that makes it ok?

in my view thats abuse either way

It is an opinion. Not one that everyone might share.