- This topic has 62 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Topic
-
The answer is a resounding NO!
I’ve had the answer clarified over the last couple of weeks.
I caught up and rode and chatted with a couple of club riders, including a nat champ. During the conversation I was told that I should wear a helmet with anecdotes to support the argument. Assuming that I think I should have been impressed with the nat champ bit, I didn’t want to tell them who I’ve rubbed shoulders in the past with in the world of cycling, it might have got embarrassing. But equally that mindset of club rider in not one which I could be a part of.
Today really cemented my not wishing to be a club member position, and I am aware that not all clubs are equal.
I ride a fair bit on the local greenway, which is a shared path. On joining the path at Northgate Village, I had to wait for this sea of club riders as the barrelled down the path. Not a problem.
I joined the path and was behind them. The first observation was that they were carrying a lot of speed for such a sized group on a heavily used (by pedestrians) part of the path. Pedestrians were forced, in a wave of bell ringing, to stop as this group charged through without losing any speed, or ceding any space on this shared path. I can see why pedestrians have it in for cyclists now, they’re genuinely scared.
Further up, a couple of riders took a wrong turn. Remember, I was following them. Did he wait for me to pass so he could rejoin safely or cut across me? Of course he cut across me.
A little further on I decided that I wanted to pass the group ( I had warmed up and there were fewer pedestrians and this group were going quite slowly, in spite of what I said earlier) and let out a cheery “passing on your right” ( a couple of times) and was greeted with the lady of the group telling me that I wasn’t the only one who was using the path. I was now caught up in the middle of the group as it was still barrelling down the path, a couple of the club riders decided to close pass and cut in front of me in order to gain positions, I guess this is the club equivalent of sticking you cock on the table to demonstrate manliness, or how big a wanker you are, I’m not sure.
I was now in prime position to see and feel what it was like riding in a large group of arrogant wankers who thought that they had greater rights than other users on this shared path, and I was embarrassed. At no point was more than 2/3 of the path given up to other users, at no point did speed drop to take other users into consideration. Oncoming cyclists were shaking their heads, pedestrians were stopping and stepping off the path for their own safety.
At Mickle Trafford I sorted myself to do a u-turn at the gate, obviously one of the group decided that he’d stop, inspect the rear wheel and ignore my request to get out of my fucking way so I could proceed. He did.
At no point during this 5km of hell was there any conversation beween the club and myself, except a couple of barbed comments.
I’m well aware that the members from another club in that part of the world, North Wirral Velo, are absolutely sound, courteous and a pleasure to meet. I have have met this particular club on many occasions and know that this is not unique to this particular outing. There are a couple of other clubs that seem to ride in this manner too, but I have never had the pleasure of riding as one of them.
Why the fuck would I want to join a club and ride like a wanker?
-
Thanks. I’ll take that as a genuine compliment.That’s really quite good, except for the inaccuracies.
Though I will have to mention one thing: you must surely realise that it’s not a factually correct account of a real event. Therefore there are no inaccuracies (which makes a change).
Take the Marxist approach to clubs
I presume you mean Groucho, not Karl (or Richard!).
Groucho, naturally. See previous two pages of comments for reason why.
Don Simon says “play the ball, not the man”. Laugh of the day
Madcarew, I challenge you to find one instance where I have robustly responded to another member when they have not deserved it, i.e. set the level by getting personal first. It’s quite funny how people are, they can dish it out, but shrivel like a cold penis when it comes back at them. I bet you can’t see it in yourself either.
And, of course, thank you for your valuable contribution to the thread.
The key, Don, is in “when they have not deserved it”. You frequently call people wankers (as above) and fuck-knuckles, ass-hats or whatever your epithet of the day is. It’s in your estimation they deserve it, as , probably the poster thought you did when they ‘played the man’. My amusement came from you complaining about it as, when in combination with BTBS you are probably the worst on this forum for ad hominem attacks (cue your shrivelled penis line).
As for valuable contributions, others are doing a fine job in pulling apart your argument on the basis of its bigotry, pejorative and fallacies that my own meagre efforts would be rather second rate, so I contributed where I might create some extra value. You’re welcome đŸ™‚
As I’ve said before, I generally quite like your contributions as I think they’re often fairly firmly tongue in cheek and playing to the crowd. Just cause I’m not with you don’t mean I’m against you.
Where’s the ad hom? I fear that you have decided that using colourful language is a personal attack, describing a situation is not the same as attacking the person. But if the hat fits and nerves are hit. What am I to do? It’s probably good that people take a second to reflect, but that doesn’t happen, does it?
What argument? And what is being picked apart? Too many people, much like yourself, seem to treat this place as a place to win and lose arguments, apparenlty when there is no argument to be had except to have a pop at the person. Some of the abuse diected at people during so called debates can be embarrassing. And as previously mentioned these people don’t like it when it comes back at them
Using your example, I’m pretty sure that a person who challenges a post with incorrect facts may, by some, be considered a wanker. Some might say that carrying a grudge about a post (on tourism I think it was) is a bit wankish and then coming out with the old “if you don’t like it here/ your country is so much better, go home!”, well, we all know my view here. Say that you disagree, and move on, but don’t follow someone around fabricating a load of bollocks to try and discredit them. There’s too many people who are happy to jump on the bandwagon without reading or understanding why.
So there you go. if you don’t want it back, don’t dish it out, and play nicely. Or if you do, grow a pair.
As for being a bigot, then yes I am intolerant of racists, wanton idiots and bullies, the language used will be pejorative towards these, as for fallacies you’ll have to explain that. All of which can be replaced with positive vocabulary depending on the effect you wish to convey.
End.
First note of internet discussions: Writing “End” does not give you the last word.
Calling someone a wanker in the course of a discussion or argument is, by definition, an ad hominem pursuit
Argument: One side of a discussion, but you’re smart enough to know that already.
I have no idea what your reference to a quote about tourism is; you’re drivelling Buddy. You might want someone to wipe that up for you
Your bigotry is self evident in the material and language of your post.
Really Don, your arguments are normally funnier or better than this. Step it up, son.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.