On Wed, 14 May 2008 22:48:07 +0100, JNugent  wrote:

>>>> It was the rule where I lived in South Africa some years ago.
 
>>> Citation, please?
 
>>> And do you mean the rule, or some sort of guidance?
 
>> My memory of how we were instructed to cycle and how every other
>> cyclist behaved - though there were dedicated cycle paths for most
>> journies.  I'm afraid that I was not collecting documents pertaining
>> to the Road Trafic Act or other legal instruments in junior school.
>> Do you really expect me to have any documentary proof from over 40
>> years ago?

>If you say it was the law - yes.

>Well, not have themn, but at least be able to point to a source.

Sorry that at the age of 12 I didn't foresee a newsgroup discussion
taking place over 40 years later in which I would be tasked with
proving something that was common knowlege at that time.

I do not know whether it was part of the national law, or simply a
local rule.  At 12 there was not a big distinction between the two.

-- 
Cynic

Cynic wrote:
> On Wed, 14 May 2008 22:48:07 +0100, JNugent  wrote:
> 
>>>>> It was the rule where I lived in South Africa some years ago.
>  
>>>> Citation, please?

>>>> And do you mean the rule, or some sort of guidance?

>>> My memory of how we were instructed to cycle and how every other
>>> cyclist behaved - though there were dedicated cycle paths for most
>>> journies.  I'm afraid that I was not collecting documents pertaining
>>> to the Road Trafic Act or other legal instruments in junior school.
>>> Do you really expect me to have any documentary proof from over 40
>>> years ago?

>> If you say it was the law - yes.
>> Well, not have themn, but at least be able to point to a source.

> Sorry that at the age of 12 I didn't foresee a newsgroup discussion
> taking place over 40 years later in which I would be tasked with
> proving something that was common knowlege at that time.

Yes, but discussion and argument cannot be satisfactorily conducted on 
the basis that one party can remember a case which completely vnbdicates 
his position but cannot reference it.

> I do not know whether it was part of the national law, or simply a
> local rule.  At 12 there was not a big distinction between the two.

OK then... name one of the other several countries where it is the rule 
at present or in the past. Try to find a referemnce to it.

On Thu, 15 May 2008 15:51:50 +0100, JNugent  wrote:

>> Sorry that at the age of 12 I didn't foresee a newsgroup discussion
>> taking place over 40 years later in which I would be tasked with
>> proving something that was common knowlege at that time.

>Yes, but discussion and argument cannot be satisfactorily conducted on 
>the basis that one party can remember a case which completely vnbdicates 
>his position but cannot reference it.

Of couse you can discuss matters by reference to things you recall
from the past.  I do so IRL all the time.  You'll hear many people
discussing all sorts of things without disappearing every 5 minutes to
find documentary proof of what they say.

Are you similarly incredulous when your parents describe an aspect of
their life some years before you were born?

>> I do not know whether it was part of the national law, or simply a
>> local rule.  At 12 there was not a big distinction between the two.

>OK then... name one of the other several countries where it is the rule 
>at present or in the past. Try to find a referemnce to it.

If you choose to disbelieve what I have said or believe that my memory
is faulty, that is your perogative and I do not regard the issue
important enough to spend time attempting to prove anything.

-- 
Cynic

Cynic wrote:

> On Thu, 15 May 2008 15:51:50 +0100, JNugent  wrote:

>>> Sorry that at the age of 12 I didn't foresee a newsgroup discussion
>>> taking place over 40 years later in which I would be tasked with
>>> proving something that was common knowlege at that time.

>> Yes, but discussion and argument cannot be satisfactorily conducted on 
>> the basis that one party can remember a case which completely vnbdicates 
>> his position but cannot reference it.

> Of couse you can discuss matters by reference to things you recall
> from the past.  I do so IRL all the time.  You'll hear many people
> discussing all sorts of things without disappearing every 5 minutes to
> find documentary proof of what they say.

You're not following this. There are loads of things I can remember from 
when I was a child. Where they were sufficiently general experiences, 
there'll usually be some way of getting a reference to them on the web.

> Are you similarly incredulous when your parents describe an aspect of
> their life some years before you were born?

Only when they tried to tell me something ridiculous (such as the days - 
and places -  when cyclists were forced by law to cycle on the wrong 
side of the road).

>>> I do not know whether it was part of the national law, or simply a
>>> local rule.  At 12 there was not a big distinction between the two.

>> OK then... name one of the other several countries where it is the rule 
>> at present or in the past. Try to find a referemnce to it.

> If you choose to disbelieve what I have said or believe that my memory
> is faulty, that is your perogative and I do not regard the issue
> important enough to spend time attempting to prove anything

...is the best answer to give, in the circumstances.