On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 15:18:43 +0100, "Brimstone"
 wrote:

>Tom Crispin wrote:
>> On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 15:00:15 +0100, "Brimstone"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> Tom Crispin wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 12:52:55 +0100, "Brimstone"
>>>>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> A competent driving instructor would not put himself in that
>>>>>>> situation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Really?  How, exactly?
>>>>>
>>>>> You're the instructor. Work it out.
>>>>
>>>> I see...  You can't answer the question.
>>>
>>> You're confusing "can't" and "won't".
>>
>> So you won't answer the question because you can't?
>
>As I said, you're confusing willingness and ability. What someone is willing 
>to do and what they're able to do are two different things. 

So you would be willing to answer the question if you were able?

Tom Crispin wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 15:18:43 +0100, "Brimstone"
>  wrote:
>
>> Tom Crispin wrote:
>>> On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 15:00:15 +0100, "Brimstone"
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> Tom Crispin wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 12:52:55 +0100, "Brimstone"
>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A competent driving instructor would not put himself in that
>>>>>>>> situation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Really?  How, exactly?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're the instructor. Work it out.
>>>>>
>>>>> I see...  You can't answer the question.
>>>>
>>>> You're confusing "can't" and "won't".
>>>
>>> So you won't answer the question because you can't?
>>
>> As I said, you're confusing willingness and ability. What someone is
>> willing to do and what they're able to do are two different things.
>
> So you would be willing to answer the question if you were able?

Why are you still making that assumption?

Brimstone wrote:

> Tom Crispin wrote:
>> "Brimstone"  wrote:
>>> Tom Crispin wrote:
>>>> "Brimstone"  wrote:
>>>>> Tom Crispin wrote:
>>>>>> "Brimstone"  wrote:

>>>>>>>>> A competent driving instructor would not put himself in that
>>>>>>>>> situation.

>>>>>>>> Really?  How, exactly?

>>>>>>> You're the instructor. Work it out.

>>>>>> I see...  You can't answer the question.

>>>>> You're confusing "can't" and "won't".
>>>> So you won't answer the question because you can't?

>>> As I said, you're confusing willingness and ability. What someone is
>>> willing to do and what they're able to do are two different things.
>> So you would be willing to answer the question if you were able?

> Why are you still making that assumption? 

Brimstone:

You're making the PP feel unjustifiedly self-righteous.

Crispin:

He *can* provide the answer (of course he can), but takes the principled 
position that those who claim the sort of expertise that you do 
shouldn't need to have it explained to them. He is therefore *unwilling* 
to spoonfeed you. The fact that you seem to ned it tells its own strory.

JNugent wrote:
> Brimstone wrote:
>
>> Tom Crispin wrote:
>>> "Brimstone"  wrote:
>>>> Tom Crispin wrote:
>>>>> "Brimstone"  wrote:
>>>>>> Tom Crispin wrote:
>>>>>>> "Brimstone"  wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>>> A competent driving instructor would not put himself in that
>>>>>>>>>> situation.
>
>>>>>>>>> Really?  How, exactly?
>
>>>>>>>> You're the instructor. Work it out.
>
>>>>>>> I see...  You can't answer the question.
>
>>>>>> You're confusing "can't" and "won't".
>>>>> So you won't answer the question because you can't?
>
>>>> As I said, you're confusing willingness and ability. What someone
>>>> is willing to do and what they're able to do are two different
>>>> things.
>>> So you would be willing to answer the question if you were able?
>
>> Why are you still making that assumption?
>
> Brimstone:
>
> You're making the PP feel unjustifiedly self-righteous.
>
> Crispin:
>
> He *can* provide the answer (of course he can), but takes the
> principled position that those who claim the sort of expertise that
> you do shouldn't need to have it explained to them. He is therefore
> *unwilling* to spoonfeed you. The fact that you seem to ned it tells
> its own strory.

Nicely put.

(applause)

On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 18:57:29 +0100, "Brimstone"
 wrote:

>JNugent wrote:
>> Brimstone wrote:
>>
>>> Tom Crispin wrote:
>>>> "Brimstone"  wrote:
>>>>> Tom Crispin wrote:
>>>>>> "Brimstone"  wrote:
>>>>>>> Tom Crispin wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Brimstone"  wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> A competent driving instructor would not put himself in that
>>>>>>>>>>> situation.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> Really?  How, exactly?
>>
>>>>>>>>> You're the instructor. Work it out.
>>
>>>>>>>> I see...  You can't answer the question.
>>
>>>>>>> You're confusing "can't" and "won't".
>>>>>> So you won't answer the question because you can't?
>>
>>>>> As I said, you're confusing willingness and ability. What someone
>>>>> is willing to do and what they're able to do are two different
>>>>> things.
>>>> So you would be willing to answer the question if you were able?
>>
>>> Why are you still making that assumption?
>>
>> Brimstone:
>>
>> You're making the PP feel unjustifiedly self-righteous.
>>
>> Crispin:
>>
>> He *can* provide the answer (of course he can), but takes the
>> principled position that those who claim the sort of expertise that
>> you do shouldn't need to have it explained to them. He is therefore
>> *unwilling* to spoonfeed you. The fact that you seem to ned it tells
>> its own strory.
>
>Nicely put.
>
>(applause) 

So perhaps now you'd care to explain how a cyclist can prevent a
driver, who the cyclist has just overtaken, from pulling out of a
stream of slow moving or stationary traffic, overtake, then pull
sharply right into the cyclist?

I am at a loss.

And this is how the witness Mrs N.C., who was standing at the bus stop
next to the loading bay, describes the van driver's actions.  It is
not my description.

Tom Crispin wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 18:57:29 +0100, "Brimstone"
>  wrote:
>
>> JNugent wrote:
>>> Brimstone wrote:
>>>
>>>> Tom Crispin wrote:
>>>>> "Brimstone"  wrote:
>>>>>> Tom Crispin wrote:
>>>>>>> "Brimstone"  wrote:
>>>>>>>> Tom Crispin wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Brimstone"  wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> A competent driving instructor would not put himself in
>>>>>>>>>>>> that situation.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Really?  How, exactly?
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You're the instructor. Work it out.
>>>
>>>>>>>>> I see...  You can't answer the question.
>>>
>>>>>>>> You're confusing "can't" and "won't".
>>>>>>> So you won't answer the question because you can't?
>>>
>>>>>> As I said, you're confusing willingness and ability. What someone
>>>>>> is willing to do and what they're able to do are two different
>>>>>> things.
>>>>> So you would be willing to answer the question if you were able?
>>>
>>>> Why are you still making that assumption?
>>>
>>> Brimstone:
>>>
>>> You're making the PP feel unjustifiedly self-righteous.
>>>
>>> Crispin:
>>>
>>> He *can* provide the answer (of course he can), but takes the
>>> principled position that those who claim the sort of expertise that
>>> you do shouldn't need to have it explained to them. He is therefore
>>> *unwilling* to spoonfeed you. The fact that you seem to ned it tells
>>> its own strory.
>>
>> Nicely put.
>>
>> (applause)
>
> So perhaps now you'd care to explain how a cyclist can prevent a
> driver, who the cyclist has just overtaken, from pulling out of a
> stream of slow moving or stationary traffic, overtake, then pull
> sharply right into the cyclist?
>
> I am at a loss.
>
> And this is how the witness Mrs N.C., who was standing at the bus stop
> next to the loading bay, describes the van driver's actions.  It is
> not my description.

You're (allegedly) the highly qualified cycling instructor. I haven't ridden 
a bike to any great degree since the early seventies. You tell me.

On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 19:37:48 +0100, "Brimstone"
 wrote:

>Tom Crispin wrote:
>> On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 18:57:29 +0100, "Brimstone"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> JNugent wrote:
>>>> Brimstone wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Tom Crispin wrote:
>>>>>> "Brimstone"  wrote:
>>>>>>> Tom Crispin wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Brimstone"  wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Tom Crispin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "Brimstone"  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> A competent driving instructor would not put himself in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that situation.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Really?  How, exactly?
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You're the instructor. Work it out.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I see...  You can't answer the question.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You're confusing "can't" and "won't".
>>>>>>>> So you won't answer the question because you can't?
>>>>
>>>>>>> As I said, you're confusing willingness and ability. What someone
>>>>>>> is willing to do and what they're able to do are two different
>>>>>>> things.
>>>>>> So you would be willing to answer the question if you were able?
>>>>
>>>>> Why are you still making that assumption?
>>>>
>>>> Brimstone:
>>>>
>>>> You're making the PP feel unjustifiedly self-righteous.
>>>>
>>>> Crispin:
>>>>
>>>> He *can* provide the answer (of course he can), but takes the
>>>> principled position that those who claim the sort of expertise that
>>>> you do shouldn't need to have it explained to them. He is therefore
>>>> *unwilling* to spoonfeed you. The fact that you seem to ned it tells
>>>> its own strory.
>>>
>>> Nicely put.
>>>
>>> (applause)
>>
>> So perhaps now you'd care to explain how a cyclist can prevent a
>> driver, who the cyclist has just overtaken, from pulling out of a
>> stream of slow moving or stationary traffic, overtake, then pull
>> sharply right into the cyclist?
>>
>> I am at a loss.
>>
>> And this is how the witness Mrs N.C., who was standing at the bus stop
>> next to the loading bay, describes the van driver's actions.  It is
>> not my description.
>
>You're (allegedly) the highly qualified cycling instructor. I haven't ridden 
>a bike to any great degree since the early seventies. You tell me. 

Despite your admission that you have little experience of cycling, it
is you who claimed a solution.

I, on the other hand, freely admit to being at a loss.

In article , Tom Crispin wrote:
>>
>>As I said, you're confusing willingness and ability. What someone is willing 
>>to do and what they're able to do are two different things. 
>
>So you would be willing to answer the question if you were able?

He can answer the question, but his answer would be rubbish. By refusing
to do so, he can pretend that he might know what he's talking about.