On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 21:13:42 GMT, Digiman@nospam.com (Digiman) wrote:

>On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 21:25:03 +0100, Alex Heney  wrote:
>
>>>>>>>> Being forced to stop by an obstruction in the crriageway does not
>>>>>>>> equal "emergency stop" without further data.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  The further data is a door opening.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That could be further data, but it is not sufficient further data. A
>>>>>> door opening half a mile in front of you in a narrow street with cars
>>>>>> parked on both sides might still require you to stop by the time you
>>>>>> got to that spot. Not by any stretch of the reasonable man's
>>>>>> imagination could you call it an emergency stop - or even an
>>>>>> emergency. Sometimes, and whether we like it or not, we all have to
>>>>>> stop. It's just life.
>>>>>
>>>>>Are you quite determined to appear silly? 
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>If he is, then what he posted was doing a VERY bad job of it, since
>>>>there was nothing remotely "silly" in what he correctly said.
>>>
>>>He appears silly because he's using a standard troll technique of
>>>imputing obviously inappropriate generality to what someone whrote
>>>purely for the sake of causing or prolonging an argument.
>>
>>Wrong.
>>
>>It was completely appropriate, as it pointed out the absurdity of
>>Nick's claim.
>
>No, you are falling into the troll mindset.
>
>It is extremely easy to start arguments and keep them going by being
>unnecessarily pedantic.

Which was what *Nick* was doing, not what either JNugent or I were
doing when responding.


>
>If A says: "opening a car door in front of a cyclist is dangerous",
>anyone with an IQ into double figures knows full well the poster means
>"opening a car door immediately in front of a cyclist is dangerous".
>
>Only a fool or a troll really imagines that they mean "in front of a
>cyclist at any distance".

But only a bigger fool or troll thinks it means "only so long as the
door is still in the act of opening when the cyclist reaches it".

between those two, there is a huge range, and it is within that range
(but strongly towards the closer end) that most of us would assume -
but not Nick.

>>>You really do make a habit of defending trolls and as such can be
>>>considered nothing more than a troll yourself.
>>
>>Wrong. On both counts.
>
>Sadly not, as your post here clearly shows.

No it doesn't.

>
>You are supporting someone who is being pedantic just for the sake of
>it.

I am NOT supporting Nick, I am arguing *against* his stupid
pedanticism (as is JNugent).


>
>Because Nick said 'reasonable' when he obviously meant 'practical'

It wasn't at all obvious


>JNugent has cause a wodge of completely unnecessary posts that do not
>move the discussion forward. (He could have simply pointed out that the
>sentence required the word 'practial' or 'possible' to make sense.
>
>That is the action of a troll and it's a great pity that you cannot see
>it's something he makes a practice of.

It is a much greater pity that you are allowing your absurd decision
that he is a troll to blind you to the points he is making.

Even allowing for the fact that your definition of "troll" seems to be
wildly different from most people's
-- 
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Bugs come in through open Windows
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

Alex Heney wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 21:13:42 GMT, Digiman@nospam.com (Digiman) wrote:
> 
> 
>>On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 21:25:03 +0100, Alex Heney  wrote:
>>
>>
>>It is extremely easy to start arguments and keep them going by being
>>unnecessarily pedantic.
> 
> Which was what *Nick* was doing, 

  No, I wasn't.

> 
>>If A says: "opening a car door in front of a cyclist is dangerous",
>>anyone with an IQ into double figures knows full well the poster means
>>"opening a car door immediately in front of a cyclist is dangerous".
>>
>>Only a fool or a troll really imagines that they mean "in front of a
>>cyclist at any distance".
> 
> 
> But only a bigger fool or troll thinks it means "only so long as the
> door is still in the act of opening when the cyclist reaches it".
> 
> between those two, there is a huge range, and it is within that range
> (but strongly towards the closer end) that most of us would assume -
> but not Nick.

  I would agree. For simplicity I chose only to argue the most obvious 
end of the scale, but some posters took issue even with that.

>>Because Nick said 'reasonable' when he obviously meant 'practical'

  It is not important, but I only used 'reasonable' because the previous 
poster did.