edcam

LadyDeliah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > con?tro?ver?sy > 1. a prolonged public dispute, debate, or > contention; disputation concerning a matter of > opinion. > 2.contention, strife, or argument. > > He/she posted something that he/she knew would > cause prolonged public dispute, ipso facto, it was > a controversial post. > > And if there was no cyclist in any case, then your > second & third points are moot. SO you agree that the fourth point is completely accurate?

LadyDeliah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The OP dropped a controversial bomb, sat back and > watched the resultant fire. > > No reason to believe the OP on that basis. A "controversial bomb"? Hardly. The cyclist's behaviour as described was unacceptable. No reason to disbelieve them either. Either way, it doesn't change the fact that there are many antisocial cyclists, making life harder for everyone, not least other cyclists.

henryb Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > edcam Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > This thread isn't about car drivers, > > No it is about a someone seeing a tail end of a > public barney on the street that possibly involved > pavement cycling and then thinking it would be a > good idea to drag on to the internet. A lesson for > us all maybe. Not sure where you get the "probably" from, unless you're doubting the OP's word?

This thread isn't about car drivers, many of whom I think we all acknowledge drive badly and dangerously. It's about cyclists behaving dangerously. It's just a little tedious and embarrassing that certain posters won't acknowledge that some cyclists are dicks.

I'd say a bit of investigation would have been appropriate before posting about this.

Yes but that's a TV sales/showcase event - mainly for distributors/producers etc. Film stars don't go to that.

What "big annual sales agent thing" Pokertime? Not sure you've got that right. They moved it because having it after the Oscars meant nobody cared or bothered to attend.

Hope you're ok PFontaine.

Bastards.

Helen Mirren is starting to irritate me. Something terribly smug about her.

This thread is fun.

Some of the highlights are obvious, yes but really worthwhile. Particularly some of the Gaudi landmarks (the Sagrada Familia, Casa Battllo, Casa Mila.) All amazing.

Lady Delilah's inability to accept that some (not all) cyclists deserve criticism means we can only conclude that she has problems understanding some fairly straightforward and unambiguous postings or that she believes antisocial cycling is acceptable. At no point has anybody suggested that these criticisms are aimed at ALL cyclists, as that would be unfair and inaccurate. As showboat says, she rather undermines her own argument with her stance.

Hilarious that the usual suspects still refuse to accept that the behaviour of some cyclists is unreasonable. I don't see anyone here bashing all cyclists, just the idiots. And I don't care what the Home Office says, cycling on the pavement is antisocial. As is the behaviour of many motorists but that wasn't the subject of this thread. There are threads here about that subject and I don't see many car drivers getting defensive, because most of them accept that some motorists are dicks. Most odd that some cyclists can't do the same.

Agree with Otta. The inability of some of the "cyclists" that appear on these threads to be reasonable merely strengthens the arguments against antisocial cycling (which is becoming more of a problem in London, there's no doubt.)

This is when the forum starts to get creepy.

It's a problem that's definitely getting worse. And I agree it gives the cyclists with a brain or an iota of respect for others a bad name.

V sad. Great work though Bryan. If it had been one of our cats I'd have been hugely indebted. Hats off to you.

None of the above alters the fact that "Babylon" was a pile of turd.

Still impossible to believe that someone with a such complete inability to read people and situations would be such a good detective but I live Saga and I love The Bridge.

david_carnell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Also, in Quid's example, the BBC sucks up skilled > workers, pays them a premium and the private > sector can't compete. They then move to London > because there is a bigger pool of talent....but > they'd have to pay them more because it's in > London and their costs would also be much higher > too because of rent/business rates etc. I doubt > it's that simple. > > Plus, fair days pay for a fair days work and all > that. Don't see why a teacher, teaching the same > curriculum to the same number of kids, in the same > standard of school should get paid less up North. > You want to see how the regions recover? It's not > by sucking all the best teachers to London to earn > better salaries. I'd like to see the evidence that the BBC pays more than equivalent jobs in the private sector as I'm not sure that is true.

Ignorant fool klaxon has sounded for Pinecone and Steviewhatever.

Oh and it's "La" Cave btw.

What a fantastic shop! We tasted a few really nice wines today and came away with a couple of great and not too pricey bottles. Highly recommended.

Still exaggerating I see fazer.