"......much more agressive fora where one can vent one's spleen."
If that implies there is a forum where one can express a pro-motoring opinion without getting shouted at, I think Alex. L. Dick (who had a nasty experience on this one, Roland) would like to be directed to it. Or were we just speaking hypothetically?
(Come to think of it, so would I!)
Cheers and beers,
Tomo
|
|
|
Lone voice? Can't you hear me saying the same things?
When I attend meetings with police and councillors, I get sick and tired of those - usually councillors - who keep banging on about speed causing accidents and if drivers slowed down there would be fewer accidents.
It is totally obvious they have not looked at any real research or statistics on accident causation, otherwise they could not possibly have such opinions.
I can't wait for next Tuesday's meeting when I will ask them the following question.
"Would those who believe that speed cameras and traffic calming save lives please explain why, with a crackdown on speeding and rigid enforcement of speed limits in their areas, Lincolnshire has seen a 16% rise in fatalities, Essex has a 29% rise and Suffolk has seen an 82% increase in deaths? And the year is not yet ended.
Two of these areas, Essex and Lincs. were part of the so-called succesful trial of speed cameras last year.
What really cheeses me off is that some of these idiot councillors are so bright they are virtually unemployable and yet are making daft decisions affecting all our safety.
|
|
|
> OK, I'll try again, and I would request that everyone shows me how they would have written this:
I`ll take you at your word.
> So a lone voice pointing out government transport lab figures
> is:
>
> "this forum turned into a soapbox from which those people
> with an axe to grind, whether it be political, moral or
> whatever, attempt to browbeat the rest of us into submission
> by sheer volume ..... to push that opinion down our throats
> until we either capitulate and pretend to agree"
I wouldn`t have copied that whole chunk in. I wouldn`t have deliberately made a link between "lone voice" and Martyn`s paragraph since even though it is easy to infer, it is clearly not a link that Martyn intended.
I would have emphasised that you *are* sometimes a lone voice, and that you do frequently point out things, and occasionally explain things, that it is important that people know.
For example the thread where you pointed out a survey and where you pointed out you were not being acknowledged by that survey. Without sarcasm, I apologise that I didn`t read it carefully, but from the look I did have it seemed important.
I would have allowed the enthusiasm and sincerity, both of which I believe you have, to show through, rather than the ability to drown other voices - surely useful in some forums such as council meetings, but usually not in a forum of this type and personality.
I would also try to respect the way this forum wishes to be, in the same way that I would like it to respect what I wish to be in the same way that I am able to drink and socialise with some of my friends who have massively opposing political or religious views to me.
> Whilst the masses repeatedly insisting that I accept that I should "Kill My Speed" to an artificially low, and according
> to the governments transport lab figures, dangerous level, and accept the even pithier "Speed Kills" mantra as Gospel is
> a non-political, non-moral, no axe-to-grind, definately not trying to push that opinion down my throat until I either
> capitulate and pretend to agree or (hopefully) I go away:
I don`t think that`s me. Most of the time I agree with your opinion, although you tend to have more fervently held beliefs in this than me.
Take my point from yesterday. I was trying to explain, that whilst I agree with your point about daft speed levels, it is an awful PR exercise with "the masses" since unless one views the subject with intelligence and interest, it is difficult to argue *at a perception level* with the oft voiced opinion that slower is safer.
Now given that we, I think, have similar beliefs in some of these matters, why couldn`t we have had a sensible discussion about different ways to represent the subject to a normally non-caring public hopefully ending up with even more ways of pushing forward ? Instead we started with one of your disections.
Either I voiced my point inadequately, or you read it, or understood it, inappropriately.
However, one of us missed the point. I would normally think it was me, and explain again, except that as you have proved so many times, you`re very difficult to talk [sic] to and frequently deliberately misunderstand or attribute definitions and subtleties not intended.
> "lucid and articulate argument"
"Articulate" you most certainly are, "lucid" not so much (bearing in mind that lucidity can ony be judged by the listener). As for "argument", I wouldn't understand you at all were it not for the fact that many years ago, in the world of VAXNotes, I did encounter a persona very much like yours which I did eventually work out. This doesn`t mean I understand your approach, but I at least have a clue. However, if you felt able to tell me honestly that you have never used the name "edp" I would sleep better.
As a final point, I have to think that you realise that the majority of people in this forum are far from anti-motoring and tend at least towards "enthusiastic" driving. I know I do.
Given that, one would think that this group was most likely to be in agreement, or at least have sympathy for your views, certainly insofar as driving laws are concerned and the behvaiour of other road users.
Why, then, do the majority of people who comment, seem to have a problem with you and what you write? I can`t see that it is your views, so I fail to see what else it can be other than the way that you present those views.
Frankly I have two quite opposing views.
1) I think it would be a sad day if this forum lost your point of view, your enthusiasm and your sincerity, which it would if you regrettably went away.
2) I think your presentation and behaviour is harmful to this forum and spoils my enjoyment so I wish you would go away.
Those two opinions both begin "I think", you may disagree, but you can't stop it being what I think.
My issue is that those two opinions conflict, which is a pity.
One thing I am sure of is that you will win in the end, within the confines of this forum. Since at some point, so many people will have left, not out of disgust, but rather boredom, that nobody will argue with you. Then, I suspect, you will go and do the same elsewhere, as you have probably done before you came to this forum.
The whole thing is rather sad.
My e-mail address is above. I am happy to discuss this or any other point in e-mail. If you reply in a way which I find acceptable, I am happy to discuss it here, although we have to accept that Martyn might not be quite so happy. On the other hand, if you reply in your normal fashion, allow me to say up front "I agree, you win".
Mark.
|
|
|
|
