I would say that the person has a valid point that there are way too many bicycles that don't follow the rules of the road. After that, his post quickly deteriorates into a anger filled rant. Certainly the death penalty for bicycles who violate rules of the road is a ridiculous thought, made even more ridiculous by the notion that this person is a self appointed the judge, jury and executioner.
Derek Paschal ----- Original Message ---- From: NickBull <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Bicycle Lifestyle <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 10:52:38 PM Subject: {BL} Re: commuter discussion on Pharmacy site Interesting: Merriam-Webster defines well-founded as meaning: "based on excellent reasoning, information, judgment, or grounds" Dictionary.com defines well-founded as meaning: "having a foundation in fact; based on good reasons, information, etc.:" So by the first of those definitions, the ranter's argument is definitely not "well-founded" but by the other it is, although only in the sense that you cite as having a "foundation in the fact" that some bicyclists break the laws. Even by the second definition I wouldn't say that the rant is "based on good reasons, information, etc". On Oct 14, 10:38 pm, "Bob Sutterfield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It's well-founded (has a good starting point) in that he's ticked off at > scofflaws. I am too. The rest of the rant - the resulting threats etc. - > are over the top. Certainly he's inconsistent, because he's not thinking > straight. Which does he want - center of the lane or sidewalk? > > On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 8:27 PM, NickBull <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Well founded? The author can't even formulate an internally > > consistent argument. First he says: > > > "However, from this point forward, if you are on a bicycle and get in > > front of me, I am going to run you over. " > > > And then he orders cyclists, saying: > > > "You will ride your bike in the MIDDLE of the LANE ..." > > > What's it going to be? > > > Would it be "well founded" for me to say that anytime I see an auto > > break a traffic law, I now have the right to shoot the driver? > > Because yesterday on my 135-mile bike ride I saw maybe a hundred > > "scofflaw" traffic-law violators. That's one large amount of ammo to > > have to carry. It also seems like a somewhat extreme penalty. > > > The fact that some bicycles break the law (endangering primarily > > themselves, as he acknowledges) does not give him the right to > > threaten all cyclists with death. There's nothing well-founded > > whatsoever in that threat. > > > On Oct 14, 6:53 pm, "Bob Sutterfield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I don't see anything about commuting there, just the usual (and well > > > founded) rant against scofflaw cyclists. > > > > On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 1:58 PM, Keith (ne' trekman1420) > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Ran across a heated discussion of bike commuting here > > >http://www.theangriestpharmacist.com/2008/10/13/share-the-road-piss-off/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bicycle Lifestyle" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bicyclelifestyle?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
