Posts by Deborah
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Also, for the record, can we have a significant mea culpa from the lawyer, and everyone else who has been throwing the "lying slappers" epithet around, if it turns out to be the case that these women are telling the truth?
-
Nicely done, Craig.
-
I actually *stop* at every red light and stop sign (and put my foot down; I figured track-stands in lycra are somewhat antagonising)
Hmmm... I find it disconcerting and worrying rather than antagonising. the cyclist looks as if she might fall off at any moment, and she occasionally wobbles right in front of my car.
I haven't cycled for a few years now - I found Wellington, and now Adelaide, streets too frightening, and too narrow. Also, Adelaide drivers are really obnoxious. Srsly. I stopped at lights and stop signs, indicated directions etc. You know how it's a right pain if a motorist neglects to signal her intention, so you give way to her, only to have her turn left. It's just as much a nuisance when a cyclist neglects to signal her intentions. Like the nuisance when pedestrians keep on stepping out to cross the road, even though the red man has been flashing for some time. A little bit of courtesy is very helpful.
Mind you, I'm the sort of person who indicates in supermarket car parks, so perhaps I have an overdeveloped sense of the importance of signalling.
-
Hard News: I'm not a "f***ing cyclist".…, in reply to Rachaelking,
I'm always a little unsure about what to do in that situation, as a car driver wanting to turn left, and indicating (of course!). If a cyclist comes up in the cycle lane, between the car lane and the footpath, and she wants to go straight ahead while I want to turn left, who has right of way on the green?
The solution of course is to have proper bike lanes, with both a straight ahead bike lane, and a turn left bike lane, but given the difficulty with having bike lanes at all, I'm not holding my breath waiting for that to happen...
-
it’s a shame if future peoples are going to see cycling as a rather specialised recreational activity involving lots of special gear rather than just … transport.
Actually, it's rather hard to buy a bike that's "just ... transport." They all seem to come with masses of unnecessary gears, no mudgards, and very little space to attach a basket or a carrier. I'd love to be able to buy a simple 5 or 8 or even 10 gear bike. Just spare me the 21 gears and complicated cogs and shifts and stuff that I can't fix myself when something goes wrong. I don't want to have to be a bicycle mechanic to get on my bike to go to the shop to get a litre of milk.
-
Does anyone else use the footpath for short commutes around town?
Surely the safer option?Except for the pedestrians, of course.
-
Okay. Having used it for a few days now, I'm pretty happy. The place looks good, and it functions well. I think the reply function is excellent, I like the fonts, I'm loving your responsiveness to suggestions. I think the one thing I would like to have is a quick and easy and obvious way of getting back to Public Address System from a comments page, like this one. I like to flick back to PAS once I've read a comments page, to see which other threads have been active, and go read them if I'm interested. I've found the appropriate linky-clicky thing on this page, but it's so damn discreet that it's easily missable. Maybe a huge button / footer under the last comment / post your response box, saying "Back to the PAS Cafe", or some such thing?
Also, Russell, I'd still like to have that hatched / matched / dispatched page if possible, 'though it would probably take up some moderation time...
And as Geoff Lealand has been saying, anyway that those of us who want to and are able to could make a few donations to keep the place running? I know that lending you my eyeballs for the ads helps, but I'd be happy to come up with a few $ from time to time too.
-
What gets on my tits about Tess's arguments is that they are dishonest. They are couched in terms of concerns, but they turn out to be about pushing her own brand of morality. When people don't buy them, she tries questioning people, demanding explanations for things that they have neither said nor implied. She refuses to admit that they are not her own arguments at all, but simply a rehash of the tired misogyny of her church.
As it turns out, Tess, plenty of us think that an institution that thinks that its perfectly okay for priests to rape children, as long as they don't get caught, is not an institution that speaks with any authority when it comes to sexual morality. That's not an attack, unless you think that it is wrong to hold the Catholic church responsible for its concerted efforts to conceal the crimes of its employees.
WE are not at an impasse at all when it comes to sexual morality. You are. The great majority of people here have no interest in slut shaming women and girls for being sexual beings, or for being interested in sex. YOU are the person who wants to do this. Oh yes, you couch it in terms of concern, of wanting to talk about the sexual signals that girls send. But behind the pretty words, it's just plain old slut shaming. The dishonesty in the way you put your arguments is staggering.
-
I've had a deeply frustrating time arguing with Tess in the past, and eventually had to dissect her arguments in grisly detail to get her to stop weaselling about. What she's doing here is pulling a sneaky conversion fallacy: in her world view, "sluts" TM wear short skirts, therefore anyone who wears a short skirt is a "slut" TM. All dressed up as "concern". Nice of her.
-
I validate that, Carol!