[Closed] GRARGH, now I’m ‘too quiet!’

https://www.merlincycles.com/hornit-db140-cycle-horn-56101.html

That is all. 😆

And why turn a perfectly reasonable thread into an anti-EV thread with your last sentence?

I took it as anti idiots not looking.

At least she was apologetic.

That is all

I would like one of those but know I would abuse it

So why didn't you shout 'Ay up love, how's yer bum fer spots?'

a) Comedy
b) Warning
c) Bemused lady

The woman had priority from the OP's description, he responded correctly and gave way:

https://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/road-junctions.html

"watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way"

And why turn a perfectly reasonable thread into an anti-EV thread with your last sentence?

🙄

Weird that’s what you got from it. OK, ‘glad I wasn’t unnamed, nominal large vehicle travelling similarly quietly amid the hubbub.’

Same sentiment, ie ‘pro-look—before/while-crossing‘ (anti-‘don’t be careless and put your kid's/your life at risk)

But yeah, I forgot Tesla etc would override*. Was just looking for word-economy and quick comparison between me and something else large and quiet.

And look where that got me! Word economy is hard 😭

*How quckly do they react to 5’ humans exiting gaps in parked cars/vans/tractors? As quickly as me at walking pace? This, again, is not to criticize EVs, but to make a point about not just listening but looking.

Have you missed my post about you complaining about someone who had priority.

She was on the road you were turning into from a main road

She was so near the junction you say she was walking across the junction

You stopped six feet short, excellent but that makes it highly likely she started to cross when you were still on the the main road.

My interpretation from information provided in your OP is that the woman had priortiy and depite that apologised.

Anyone, whatever vehicle, bicyle, EV car or nosiy car needs to take care and bear in mind who has priority in thsoe situations. You did, very good, but why complain about having complied with the highway code?

‘OH! Sorry, you were just SO quiet’

This is just another version of "I didn't see you". It has nothing to do with you. She's just not primed to think about bikes, just cars.

^ and this is why we can't have nice things.

Edukator, take a chill. It’ll all be ok!

Listen, she may well have had right of way but when she stepped out from between the Chelsea tractors (as per OP) I wasn’t aware she as going to step until she stepped out. Didn’t even have time to ring my bell as I was on the brakes/hoods slowing. I’m not ‘complaining‘ at inconvenience to me, I’m expressing frustration/concern at people not taking responsibility for their own safety, their kid’s safety, and then trying to pin it on innocent party. I know such behaviour is hardly rare but, GRARGH! Anyway. ‘so quiet‘? It was a town centre in rush hour outside of a post office depot surrounded by people, idling delivery vans, parked and and moving traffic . Couldn’t hear a pin drop if it weren’t for the swish of my tyres 😉 Bloody cyclists!

*mutter*mutter*whyareppl..?huh? *** mutter**

OKAY!

^ this has to be a troll? Mods?

In case not, and because I’m not having it:

Let me het this right, you’re offended because I used ‘a Tesla’ as an off-the-cuff example of a large quiet moving thing, and now you’re also offended because I said it was a young mother and her son that stepped out? (he was more being handled than walking tbf) ?

wtf? It could have been an old doddery guy, a group of schoolgirls/boys/kids (delete as per event) a rancorous teacher from the school down the road...could have been anyone! I’m telling a story about an event

We’re like a double act!

1. I‘ll describe what happened ie

i saw a bull in the field, and the fence was missing. I spoke to the farmer and he said it wasn’t his job

And now you can insert all of the weird, dark hidden sexist/anti-EV agendas/context and I’ll be the human strawman/patsy for your actual agenda, whatever that is? 😬

Why did you specify bull? Couldn’t you have typed ‘bovine quadraped?‘. You wouldn’t be giving the impression that men are aggressive and dangerous, would you? Hmmmm? And why specify the sex of the farmer? Are yiu saying that women can’t be farmers

We could start a youtube channel!

What does "POE" mean? I've googled it and got nothing. It's definitley not a troll. MY replies are honest and reflect my real opinions, that's not trolling. I will admit to very mild sarcasm in the words "perfectly resonable" because I didn't find it resonable.

I read the opening post and it read like a male cyclist ranting about a female pedestrian who was within her rights (which you agree with) and polite. And then threw in negative and contrary to fact criticism of electic cars (which are noisier than many ICE cars at very low speed).
And now you want the mods to intervene on your behalf.

You just rode your bike through a junction and complied with highway code rules, but for some reason used that to slag off a young mother acting within her rights, pedestrians in general and elctric cars because... . Your OP came across as anti-pedestrian, sexist and anti-EV.

Edit: I see you've removed "POE" in an edit:

I did remove poe long before I read your post. Was a long edit. I removed because I don’t think that’s the right definition, still not sure. I thought your post was a well-acted hard-to-spot trolling! What’s the word for that? Still not entirely convinced you aren’t pulling my leg as I’m a bit on the spectrum that way and often miss sarcasm/satire. If you’re not pulling my leg, then ...woaaaah.

In case the mods are watching, Malvern has completely changed his previous post with with tow edits with no indication he's edited. Everything after the first line has been added and the POE bit has been removed.

Edit: edit now admitted to.

Didn't TJ get banned for excessive arguing?

My god* this place is weird sometimes!

*or insert generic deity of your choice...

This thread is incredible.

perfectly understandable rant followed by....

"Dont be mean to Electric cars!!,.... oh right, you weren’t ..... Give me a minute and I will find something else to moan about.... hang on... oh yeah! found it! You were actually in the wrong. booyah highway code link..... .... OOhh hang on.... I think I missed one.... just realised, your a big sexist aswell - woohoo ! I win."

Anyone, whatever vehicle, bicyle, EV car or nosiy car needs to take care and bear in mind who has priority in thsoe situations. You did, very good, but why complain about having complied with the highway code?

you stay classy edukator I've come to expect no less.

*Too lates nealglovwr beat me to it ..... I made my self look stupid....I'll pick on something else to try and undermine him.....while being selective in which parts of the highway code I'll apply.

Edit: edit now admitted to.

Ye god’s, insufferable!

Now I’ve had time to look the meaning up properly since the edit window expired - I did actually mean Poe/troll after all. So consider it reinserted

^ this has to be a POE/troll? Mods?

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PoesLaw

The core idea of Poe's Law is that a parody of something extreme can be mistaken for the real thing, and if a real thing sounds extreme enough, it can be mistaken for a parody (all because parodies are intrinsically extreme, in case you haven't noticed it). This can also happen to someone whose picture of the opposing position is such a grotesque caricature that it renders them unable to tell parody from reality.

Willing as ever for mods/others to chime in if they think the tone of my OP sounded

anti-pedestrian, sexist and anti-EV.

Even though, I can’t be writing

a person and child ofindiscriminate gender stepped out from behind an SUV into my path and continued looking the other way. The person registered suprise at my presence, and said to me that I was ‘so quiet’ . I thought to myself ‘I’m glad that I wasn’t a long ton of quiet non-descript automobile’

Go forth with that for a game of all-gendered army-combatants 🤣

Can we organise a gender neutral group hug for Edukator?

Bloody hell, liking the Tesla brand gives one thin skin!

Yeah, people often don't look and also often become offended if you ping a bell. This is because often people are idiots.

SMIDHY doesn’t have the same ring somehow

If only the OP had a Timber bell - serious comment, I've found the gentle tinkle of mine never annoys but always alerts

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

And chill .. it' s a bike forum.

Demonstration of people looking with their ears .. move along.

If only the OP had a Timber bell – serious comment, I’ve found the gentle tinkle of mine never annoys but always alerts

If it’s tinkling on smooth tarmac then I’ll be more annoyed but just as alert.

(Someone please hug edukator before he accuses me of being intolerant of/sexist/discriminatory towards outdoor-peeing)

Seriously tho, Edukator you have raised at one very good query for me:

“watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way”

She/he/herm/they stepped out (I couldn't see them as they were behind the van/SUV and I was on the level and on the hoods, riding walking pace exactly because of the likelihood of unseen hazards/fast changing environment)

BUT.. she/he/herm/they WERE of course momentarily walking on the road behind the van BEFORE they stepped into my view/path. So if I had been going at a fair clip say >10mph and they stepped out into my path and someone got hurt - then it would have been my ‘fault’ by a technicality? ie they were technically ahead of me on the road (although hidden behind parked vehicles)?

In case the mods are watching, Malvern has completely changed his previous post with with tow edits with no indication he’s edited. Everything after the first line has been added and the POE bit has been removed.

Sir! Sir! Malvern Rider was naughty Sir! Tell him off!

To be fair, this is peak Edukator. Must be a slower day than normal for him.

^ this has to be a troll? Mods?

I'll bite (as a user rather than a mod) because this bollocks it's something I've been on the receiving end of.

It's flavour text. A literary device often used when recounting a story. Have you never read a book?

Compare:

"A vehicle pulled out on me"

"Some bald-headed bloke in a blue Corsa pulled out on me."

Which of these phrases best conjures up a mental image of the situation and transports you to the scene? Or would you ask why the type of car is relevant and accuse the poster of being Vauxhallist or prejudiced against the follicly challenged? It's a description of what happened.

<< Young mother holding hand of 5yr-old (son?) >>

Would you prefer "person holding hand of another person," or is that personist and we should leave the reader to guess whether they were in fact people or chimpanzees? Why haven't you picked up on the fact that the OP is also being ageist and sexist about the child?

Calling out -isms is laudable but you're just looking for an argument here.

So if I had been going at a fair clip say >10mph and they stepped out into my path and someone got hurt – then it would have been my ‘fault’ by a technicality?

Whatever your mode of transport, if you cannot stop in the distance you can see then you're going too fast. So yes, it would be your fault, not on a technicality but because you weren't riding / driving / hovercrafting appropriately to the conditions.

Good point Cougar. Prime position and walking pace past large parked things should see you ok. Although had I set off home 1-2 seconds earlier than I did - then we could have had a very near miss at best, even though I was near 2-doors out, even though I was walking pace.

Sir! Sir! Malvern Rider was naughty Sir! Tell him off!

No, "dear mods (because they've been invoked and this may have been reported), if my reply seems OTT it's because the pre-edited post I replied to wasn't so polite or reasonable so take that into account please".

I note the usual "classy" members are putting words in my mouth and dreaming up thoughts I haven't had.

If nothing else the thread has raised an interesting point about priority as Malvern recognises. He was there.

I've noted that many road users make assumptions about the behaviour of other road users that are sometimes wrong especially if they've been driving a long time. If you haven't looked at a highway code recently have a look at all the things that concern pedestrians and cyclists.

When junior learned to drive a few years back I found some things have changed quite a lot, and for the better.

She was on the road you were turning into from a main road

She was so near the junction you say she was walking across the junction

You stopped six feet short,

If he's turned into the road and still managed to stop "six feet short" then they weren't crossing the junction, they were crossing the road. It's kind of academic though, you can quote rules all you like but "I had right of way" doesn't give you the right to mow people down. The laws of the road are trumped by the laws of physics.

“watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way”

Remind me, what does the sentence immediately prior to this one in THC say?

I note the usual “classy” members are putting words in my mouth and dreaming up thoughts I haven’t had.

... which with no concept of irony is exactly what you were doing to the OP in your accusations.

Well it's good to see not everyone has given up arguing.

I'll remind you what case law says, Cougar:

‘the level to be expected of a reasonably competent cyclist’

Read more: https://metro.co.uk/2019/06/19/priority-road-pedestrians-cyclists-10013140/?ito=cbshare

Twitter: https://twitter.com/MetroUK | Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/MetroUK/

In this case Malvern was a competant cyclist. You'll note I've never criticised Malvern's cycling or the decisions he made. I'm just surprised by his need to rant about it and the contents of the rant.

Anyway...Eggbike?

bike for carrying eggs, bike that lays eggs, bike made from eggs..?

I’m just amazed that no one has mentioned ’Gammons’!

Quoting law from a newspaper. ?

https://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/rules-for-pedestrians-crossing-the-road.html#:~:text=When%20it%20is%20safe%2C%20go,walk%20diagonally%20across%20the%20road.

Rules 8 and 14 are key here as is following the green cross code.

The chronology of the ops post and your interpretation of the law as dictated in the highway code don't add up.

I’ll remind you what case law says, Cougar:

I'm well aware of the law and don't consider the Daily Mail-owned Metro to be a canonical source of such.

You’ll note I’ve never criticised Malvern’s cycling or the decisions he made.

No, you've accused him of being sexist for failing to mow down a woman rather than failing to mow down a man.

Did you miss my question, BTW?

Rather than dissing my link find something that disproves it Trail_rat (edit: and Cougar). Metro is reporting facts, if you don't agree with the facts disprove them rather than dissing the source.

Trailrat, you must have missed Malvern's posts where he agrees that the pedestrian had priority, and he is the best placed to judge. He then asks about what would have happened in the case of a collision and Judge Mauger's ruling is pretty clear. In Malvern's case the pedestrian wasn't on the phone and a child is a responsibility rather than a distraction such as a phone.

Case law tells you to take the upmost care around pedestrians because the judge is likely to find in favour of the more vulnerable road user. Malvern did just that and this is being debated on a cycling forum rather than in court because Mavern has the level to be reasonably expected of acompetant cyclist. If he had hit the two pedestrians then from his own description and appreciation of the events he would have ended up in court, and almost certainly lost the case.

Quoting law from a newspaper. ?

Plus the Highway code isn't actually law, it's just a guide, some bits of which are covered by statute (and normally referenced as such), but most isn't.

Wow. I’ve found someone more objectionable than me! This thread had been highly entertaining. And the entertaining poster still genuinely doesn’t seem to realise just how laughable they are. I don’t know whether to laugh even harder or feel sad for them.

Did you ever get my PM about the Pyrenees, Footflaps?

Edit to reply:

I don’t know whether to laugh even harder or feel sad for them.

Laugh harder, life's too short to be sad about someone who is happy.

Wrong forum 🙁

And yes, please crack the silence about the egg bike.

And yes, please crack the silence about the egg bike.

Omelette you into a secret. There's no point shelling out on one.

if you don’t agree with the facts disprove them rather than dissing the source.

I wasn't particularly agreeing or disagreeing with what was written in the article (and indeed didn't care sufficiently to read it all), I was stating that I am well aware of the law and don't need to be patronisingly reminded of it via a bottom-feeder free tabloid.

Funny (but unsurprising) that you've leapt on my secondary comments and ignored the primary. You could just be the bigger man and apologise to the OP for your baseless accusations, you know. That'd be a nice thing to do.

And yes, please crack the silence about the egg bike.

I’ve not been silent 🤣. Am in love with the egg bike, in a non-sexual, non-gendered way. She it was named ‘Ingrid’ before I thought better of it (at least in public). Mrs Rider and I still call her it by that name behind closed doors. All consensual.

https://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/share-your-lockdown-bikes-/

Puts me in mind of an occasion in that there London I bore witness too. I was walking around the central area, probably been to a museum or something as I can't think of another reason to be there!, when I heard the wail of a siren in the distance. Now being a country lad, this got me quite excited since we only hear a siren round our way about once every 3 years. I followed the, ever louder, sound with my ears until after quite some time, the Sweeny/Flying Squad/some coppers in a car come screeching around the junction into the road where I am stood. They proceed to scream down the road at considerable speed, full blues and twos going, the noise incredibly loud between the tall buildings all around, then just past where I am stood they turn and screech into the first road on the left...... only to have to anchor up in a cloud of smoking tyre rubber, as a large group of Asian tourists have simply walked straight out into the road in front of the turning panda car! How they never hit them I will never know.

Now you're taking sides, Cougar. Moderation is good, taking sides and calling for an apology is not. It would be intersting how Mumset would respond to the same thread, or any of the others which steotype women drivers, pedestrians or simply women on this forum (remember Countzero's about tailgating a woman for miles then forcing past a few years back?). Or a road safety organisation. This is a male dominated cycling forum and I've made some points that don't please some male cyclists (edit: some are petrolhead ex-cyclists) but which from a legal and social point of view have validity.

Goodnight all. Sleep on it, and then look at it objectively in the morning.

Edit: why the need to mention the origin of the tourists, Welshfarmer?

as a large group of Asian tourists

Ah, the good old days.
https://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/do-you-find-you-cant-be-arsed-disagreeing-with-people-any-more/

It would be intersting how Mumset would respond to the same thread,

There’d be more ****ing swearing for sure. Plus loads of weird TLAs.

Eggucator, scramble!

[strong]Edukator[/strong] wrote:

why the need to mention the origin of the tourists, Welshfarmer?

If I had just said they were tourists, people would have wanted to know how I knew they were tourists. I thought I would save myself having to make that explanation!

Now you’re taking sides, Cougar.

Only because IMHO I think you're in the wrong in this particular instance. Don't take it personally, I don't know either of you from a cheese sandwich.

Moderation is good, taking sides and calling for an apology is not.

Who's moderating anything? I explicitly said the opposite in my first reply here, I'm posting as a user.

I'm not "calling for" anything, rather I'm suggesting that it's something you might want to consider. If you disagree then, well, that's up to you. /shrug

Just because they were Asian doesn't prove/demostrate they were tourists.

When you said "Asian" you used one word and assumed we'd make a whole lot of assumptions about their background, attitudes and behaviour on hearing a police siren. It's using a stereotype to make your story work with a minimum of words. Just as in the opening post on this thread a minimum of words was used to create a stereotypical image and behaviour of the person crossing the road.

Now you’re taking sides, Cougar. Moderation is good, taking sides and calling for an apology is not.

A terrifying thought has just occurred to me: Edukator is not trolling and is actually this boring.

This is the spot.

Me - green (5 mph green slowing to walking pace (orange/red) to stop (red circle)
Peds - green, stepped out from between tall vehicles, not looking at junction, (she looked left a bit), didn’t stop and look my way until she got to her parked car opposite.

Then saw me waiting, before using ‘quiet/bicycle’ as an excuse for not having looked/seen me.

Still, glad I didn’t set off on my journey just a second earlier. Be careful out there - even walking pace it doesn’t mean there won’t be a swift-moving hazard appearing from behind that van/SUV

Judge Mauger’s ruling is pretty clear

Did you read the whole thing or the Google headline. " The pedestrian was awarded £4000 because she was the only one to launch a legal claim. You (the cyclist) could also have launched one.

the judge is likely to find in favour of the more vulnerable road user.

And now I know your trolling a cycling forum.

Show of hands for those that believe the quote above to be the truth. I've lost count of the number of vulnerable road users(cyclists)that have not been found in favour of -and they paid the ultimate price.

The highway code states that both the pedestrian and the cyclist have a duty of care. But as I linked there's a pedestrian side to the rule 170 you keep linking too and it it is the converse of 170 saying you should look out for cars turning in. And that IF you have already started you have right to continue. It doesn't say just walk out in front of them like a lemming.

So either the op is confused in what he wrote in his op or he's just agreeing with you for an easy life because they are two different versions of the same event.

Malvern, it didn't take long for the forum's omniscient contributor to chime in.
What a combination - fun sponge and arrogant.

Thanks for the pic, Malvern, there are some badly parked vehicles there, far yoo close to the junction with no authroised parking marking I can see. You were wisely cautious and the pedestrian did indeed have priority combining that with your description in the your OP.

Perhaps the rant should have been about badly parked vehicles.

Only really read the first page of this one but I spent the next 5 minutes wondering what on earth Edukator has ben smoking (or not smoking) today. I thought it was blindingly obvious what the OP rant was about and it was a perfectly reasonable rant. Recent rides I have had it has staggered me the number of people that are just bimbling in their own little world with absolutely no regard whatsoever to what is around them. Had several people just walk out across the road in front of me without even looking - fortunately for them I am just a cyclist rather than a car, lorry or bus.

Perhaps the rant should have been about badly parked vehicles*.

I’ll check with you next time before posting shall I? Oblivious/entitled people not looking and then blaming others who WERE looking... is evidently a political hot potato for some 😂

Cougar: It’s flavour text. A literary device often used when recounting a story. Have you never read a book?

I didn’t know the name for it but yes spot on. Anyway, this bald bloke tripped up and somehow pushed into an old granny in front. She whacked him with an empty bucket that for some reason she was carrying, and he shouted ‘OI! You better watch that bucket missus, dyou know who I am?
-‘GOO ON THEN, WHO AREYA?’
- ‘ mumblemumbling’
- ‘WHO?‘
- ‘mumbmbliMUMBLERING!’
- ‘YERWHA?’
- JONNYPICKERING!
- ‘WHO’?
- ‘YEAH! ME!’

I heard the wail of a siren sound of a raised voice in the distance, opened a door, and found edukator in a room, by himself, having an argument.

edit (for clarity): FIFY

Just because they were Asian doesn’t prove/demostrate they were tourists.

Living, as I do, in a country which attracts very large numbers of Japanese, Chinese and, to a lesser extent Korean tourists, who always travel in large groups, even at home, it’s something which I’m particularly aware of, large groups of Americans are less common now, so I would have also mentioned their ethnicity because they’re certainly not going to be locals, who are far and away noticeably White and Caucasian!
I have to ask, Edukator, were you a founding member of the Pedant’s Revolt? Along with Which Tyler, perhaps? Maybe you just don’t see many Asian tourists where you live, not enough history there to attract them, perhaps? It seems likely that a close friend of mine gets more Japanese tourists to her Cotswold farmhouse than your entire country does, so you’re just not familiar with their behaviour.

-‘GOO ON THEN, WHO AREYA?’
– ‘ mumblemumbling’
– ‘WHO?‘
– ‘mumbmbliMUMBLERING!’
– ‘YERWHA?’
– JONNYPICKERING!
– ‘WHO’?
– ‘YEAH! ME!

Ronnie...

Wow just read this

Just as in the opening post on this thread a minimum of words was used to create a stereotypical image and behaviour of the person crossing the road.

I have no beef with you/whoever you are but I’d prefer not to be the patsy straw-man straw-person for whatever projection you’re indulging in. Cheers.

Maybe ask yourself if instead it had been a young father/old woman/middle-aged bloke/group of tweenage schoolboys described in my account? What then would you have felt?

Who exactly is the one here insisting/positing that the young woman showed ‘stereotypical image and behaviour’ here? Answer that please?

Maybe (and I mean this kindly, even though I don’t know you) have a good think about that before you start wiping that shit poo on me then pointing and shouting ‘euurgh, look, he poo’d himself, and what’s more he did it on purpose! Eurgh’

When you said “Asian” you used one word and assumed we’d make a whole lot of assumptions about their background, attitudes and behaviour on hearing a police siren. It’s using a stereotype to make your story work with a minimum of words. Just as in the opening post on this thread a minimum of words was used to create a stereotypical image and behaviour of the person crossing the road.

There's precisely one person on this entire thread making baseless assumptions and stereotyping. You're looking for an argument where none exists.

It's not that long ago that your 'Subscriber' tag read something else because of you throwing hand grenades and then not engaging with the replies. Have a think.

this bald bloke tripped up and somehow pushed into an old granny in front. She whacked him with an empty bucket that for some reason she was carrying, and he shouted ‘OI! You better watch that bucket missus, dyou know who I am?

Wait, what colour was the bucket?

So did the pedestrians really have right of way, if they stepped out from between parked cars, which means they presumably weren't at a junction.? If so, why did my Mum spend so much time telling me not to go into the road from between parked cars? Surely I would have been in the right?

So did the pedestrians really have right of way, if they stepped out from between parked cars, which means they presumably weren’t at a junction.?

Interesting point looking at the sketch put up above - my understanding from the current and proposed Highway Code is that a pedestrian has right if way crossing a side street at the actual junction, but in this case the sketch shows bad parking caused them to cross slightly further down the road. How close to a junction does a pedestrian have to be to have right of way, or how far back from the junction do they lose that right?

In any event, the OP was clearly riding sensibly and was properly aware of what was around him.

Just like the other thread that's up just now, I typed a response then deleted it and thought "I can't be arsed". But then I thought there's a slim chance that Edukator isn't trolling or just arguing for the sake of arguing, and actually thinks he's being reasonable.

Goodnight all. Sleep on it, and then look at it objectively in the morning.

As someone reading the thread for the first time, you come across as an argumentative pedant who is just itching to start a fight (even before the edited post). Seems perfectly reasonable to have a moan about someone walking in front of you without looking, and if we're getting all pedantic then it seems to me that the pedestrian is the one who disobeyed the highway code RE looking before you cross and avoiding crossing between parked cars. But no doubt you'll take issue with that too...

Is this actually happening?

I don't know what's more bizarre...the pedantry or the defence of the pedantry.
I have no idea if it's genuine or an elaborate ruse but either way it's a completely intriguing insight into how some mindsets work.
So there's a lesson for all of us in that.

Edukator. The whole way you have presented your argument has been objectionable - seemingly by choice.

As someone often labelled a ‘white knight’, even I think you are crossing the boundaries from sticking up for people often sidelined, to just using other groups as a weapon to bludgeon others.

In short - give it a bloody rest!

I've often suspected Edukator is actually an assumed personality that Mark uses to drum up traffic and lulz. It's the only explaination as to why he's never just been banned. Then I remember people like that really do exist.

And yes, that other thread. Of course if we ignore him:

So those with humanist, socially aware, inclusive and sharing views are happy to keep politiely defending them, and the authoritarian, xenophobic, police state, Brexiting, greedy types are fed up with having their arguments pulled apart and trashed. 🙂

He can never be wrong. Ever. I reckon an argument between him and Junkyard would have needed a server farm of its own just to host.

Ironically I seem to remember him being quite the cheerleader for Brexit at one point. When he wanted us to just sod off and have nothing more to do with us. He's not the only one that remembers that sort of stuff, we're just not creepy enough to keep a codex.

Yes, yes, personal attack, no proof without the codex, bullying, blah blah, boring. Maybe if he wasn't so quick to rip into folk and make up baseless accusations I'd be a little less liberal with the truth.

Calling out -isms is laudable but you’re just looking for an argument here.

That should really have ended the thread, or at least the tangent it lunged off down after about 30 seconds.

But that wouldn't be any fun, would it?

Magnificent stuff.

Then I remember people like that really do exist.

Accepting this and then understanding that non-engagement works is a blissful moment.

Accepting this and then understanding that non-engagement works is a blissful moment.

Difficult to do when the implication is that by not addressing any slurs you are tacitly admitting to them.

It is an art form of sorts.

Edukator

Why? You’d have been making more noise because that’s what electric cars do at low speed.

My colleague has just got a Model 3 and it does not do that. Coming in a future update apparently.