 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
@Extremophile, that was very much not a compliment
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Dr John wrote: |
| @Extremophile, that was very much not a compliment |
What made you think I took it as a compliment? See, interesting assumption, assumptions tell a lot about the people who make them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
This is a very interesting short read about assumptions and what they say about the people making them. Given only one person directly asked for more detail then went on to assume I took something else as a compliment because of a grinning sunglass wearing emoji - it would make good reading for the majority on this thread. FYI I didn’t make any assumptions about anyone here.
https://sde.ok.gov/sites/default/files/documents/files/And%20the%20assumption%20is.pdf
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
@Extremophile, how about starting a new thread? It could be on assumptions, or it could be entitled something like 'I am really interesting, clever and funny, do look at me'.
That's an interesting article you've linked, by the way. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Hurtle wrote: |
@Extremophile, how about starting a new thread? It could be on assumptions, or it could be entitled something like 'I am really interesting, clever and funny, do look at me'.
That's an interesting article you've linked, by the way. Thanks. |
Or people could just stop making ridiculous assumptions and actually ask questions if they don’t know what you’re talking about. Instead some prefer an insult like you just did.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
@Extremophile, Nobody asked the questions because they weren't necessary. No amount of your back-pedalling will change what you've said.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Chaletbeauroc wrote: |
| @Extremophile, Nobody asked the questions because they weren't necessary. No amount of your back-pedalling will change what you've said. |
No back-pedalling here. Simply showing you how your judgement was so wrong. You could have asked how many people I’ve punched (zero by the way, I punch air as always) or asked for further clarification but you chose not to, now you’re angry with yourself because your assumptions were wrong. That’s not on me, that’s on you.
Show me where it says I actually punch people. That’s right, you can’t - which makes you wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Extremophile,
| Quote: |
I’d rather push over the idiot...trying to squeeze through a small gap when there’s wide open piste on the other side
|
My bold. The argument here is about a physical response, not about what you, or anyone else, thinks the word 'punch' means or implies. Your sophistry would get nowhere in a court of law.
My original response to you was very mild. I expressed sympathy with your feelings and merely said I would be nervous of getting sued myself. You then replied insultingly and embarked on a ridiculous course of back-tracking and side-stepping. Neither clever, nor convincing, nor funny.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| Hurtle wrote: |
@Extremophile,
| Quote: |
I’d rather push over the idiot...trying to squeeze through a small gap when there’s wide open piste on the other side
|
My bold. The argument here is about a physical response, not about what you, or anyone else, thinks the word 'punch' means or implies. Your sophistry would get nowhere in a court of law.
My original response to you was very mild. I expressed sympathy with your feelings and merely said I would be nervous of getting sued myself. You then replied insultingly and embarked on a ridiculous course of back-tracking and side-stepping. Neither clever, nor convincing, nor funny. |
Really though? You would get hit full force by someone who is not in control and would have no way of adjusting to you attempting to move out their way? You would take that hit knowing full well it could kill you for fear that defending yourself against it would make you (by the opinion of several here) a violent person. What exactly is wrong with self defence? Self preservation is hard wired in to all of us. I have no problem admitting that I would take self protective measures even if that came in the form of well timed shove so I didn’t die from the impact of said individual.
Lol, no backtracking, side stepping or anything of the sort, I have in fact answered all your points and provided discussion about how yours (and others) assumptions are wrong, but you (and those others) are seemingly entirely unable to accept that your assumptions were rather unfounded.
And for your information pushing someone over who will take you out if you don’t brace against the impact or even shove your arms out in an unconcious act of self preservation is not by any mean a punch.
Last edited by You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net. on Thu 23-03-23 13:53; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Extremophile,
| Quote: |
shove your arms out in an unconcious act of self preservation
|
That would be a good one to argue (genuinely). Have fun in court.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| Hurtle wrote: |
@Extremophile,
| Quote: |
shove your arms out in an unconcious act of self preservation
|
That would be a good one to argue (genuinely). Have fun in court. |
You didn’t answer the questions though.
And I have to give you points for selective editing out the part about the out of control person… what’s that about only seeing what you want to see?
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
@Extremophile,
| Quote: |
And I have to give you points for selective editing out the part about the out of control person… what’s that about only seeing what you want to see?
|
I direct you to the use of the word 'or' in the sentence which I edited. However, I have neither the time nor the inclination to argue the legal rules of interpretation with you. Must rush.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Hurtle wrote: |
@Extremophile,
| Quote: |
And I have to give you points for selective editing out the part about the out of control person… what’s that about only seeing what you want to see?
|
I direct you to the use of the word 'or' in the sentence which I edited. However, I have neither the time nor the inclination to argue the legal rules of interpretation with you. Must rush. |
Quality side step…
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Extremophile wrote: |
I have mastered the side punch for occasions like this. I can hear them just behind me, and if I’m lucky and sun/piste is in the right position their shadow tells me exactly where they are…. Deploy side punch. |
Are you now saying you deploy your skill to deliberately miss when you punch?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| snowball wrote: |
| Extremophile wrote: |
I have mastered the side punch for occasions like this. I can hear them just behind me, and if I’m lucky and sun/piste is in the right position their shadow tells me exactly where they are…. Deploy side punch. |
Are you now saying you deploy your skill to deliberately miss when you punch? |
I never said I aim to punch people so I’m not actually changing what I said. Where does it say I punch people?
I always aim to miss because I want to get that person behind me to back off. Which is Not actually unreasonable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
OK, that's fine, but that is not the impression you gave. If you had said that earlier I don't think you would have got this reaction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Extremophile wrote: |
I never said I aim to punch people so I’m not actually changing what I said. Where does it say I punch people?
|
When you said "I deploy the side punch". There is only one way to read that. Go on, look it up in a dictionary, see if you can find a definition of punch along the lines of "wave a fist in someone's general direction with no intention of hitting them".
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
Well in the spirit of independent observation, many people punch the air in a variety of situations, typically when they win something, often just little victories
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Extremophile wrote: |
| eblunt wrote: |
| Thing that really hacks me off is being on a fairly wide, quiet piste. I tend to try and stay out of the way, and ski down one of the sides close to the piste markers. I'm still shocked at why people bombing down need to squeeze through the 50cm cap between me and the edge of the piste, whilst there is 25 metres of wide open unoccupied piste to the other side of me. |
I have mastered the side punch for occasions like this. I can hear them just behind me, and if I’m lucky and sun/piste is in the right position their shadow tells me exactly where they are…. Deploy side punch. |
What a ridiculous hole you have dug for yourself. In your scenario you hear them (no way of knowing which side they plan on passing), then you see their shadow (by that point they will be so close as to be committed to a line), you then deploy the "side punch" which you have mastered. But now claims you deliberately miss the passing skier. Although at this point you have not seen them at all, so no way of being sure if you are going to actually punch them or not. Then you try and justify with a whole load of twaddle about self-defence, when it is impossible for you to know if you need to defend yourself or not. Entirely possible that you are actually passed on the inside but no contact made and no injury to you. Except you have deployed the side punch which either makes contact or freaks the passing skier out causing an increase in the risk.
What a nonsense. If you say "punch" then it will be reasonably assumed that you mean to punch someone. Which it was, as you were trying to show how clever and tough you are. And either way it is a very dangerous and stupid thing to do. And as it is deliberate you would indeed be liable for any issues it causes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
I think @Extremophile has a point here albeit wrapped in a slightly sarky and confrontational delivery (like wot I wud never contemplate honest  ). She's simply saying that when she feels in danger of a shunt from behind she waves her arms around a bit so the potential perp gets a visual cue that she's not an easy pass. That can be done without trying to cause harm to the overtaker.
I have thought about scenarios I've been involved in a fend off with the arms before now and even a sacrifice fall on my part when I was not the one in the wrong under the code. Reality is in the moment it comes to instinct. A rugby player is more likely to dip a shoulder into contact, a martial artist might do a more athletic deflection of momentum. Would a successful shoulder barge which causes injury to the incoming skier be punishable in court (seems unlikely)
I think the Auriol Grey case is pretty interesting because from the CCTV clip I saw she was gesticulating and being awkward but not physically pushing the cyclist into traffic. Not a good idea when cycling on a pavement (& yes I have done it) to not be able to stop and yield to peds.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
@Dave of the Marmottes, I would like to think that is what is meant. But it is most certainly not what was said. No mention. of )waving arms around" in the OP but the word "punch" is used twice. I think there was a bit of showing off, it backfired, and now the poster is in a huff from being made to feel a bit silly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
| I think the Auriol Grey case is pretty interesting because from the CCTV clip I saw she was gesticulating and being awkward but not physically pushing the cyclist into traffic. Not a good idea when cycling on a pavement (& yes I have done it) to not be able to stop and yield to peds. |
Yebbut the cyclist wasn’t on a pavement, which would have been illegal, she was on a shared cycling route, which is legal. Confusing the two makes it seem like she was in the wrong and somehow deserving of what happened to her, which is not the case at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@zikomo, hyperbole for conversational effect? Like we see/hear a trillion times a day
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| Scarlet wrote: |
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
| I think the Auriol Grey case is pretty interesting because from the CCTV clip I saw she was gesticulating and being awkward but not physically pushing the cyclist into traffic. Not a good idea when cycling on a pavement (& yes I have done it) to not be able to stop and yield to peds. |
Yebbut the cyclist wasn’t on a pavement, which would have been illegal, she was on a shared cycling route, which is legal. Confusing the two makes it seem like she was in the wrong and somehow deserving of what happened to her, which is not the case at all. |
Ah ok stopped at the clip didn't see the full facts.
Judge said this he could have been more assertive about the shared route point but maybe didn't want it to be a cornerstone of the decision
| Quote: |
| This was, I think, a shared path for cyclists and pedestrians that allowed them to go around the busy ring road. The vital point is this: I am sure you knew cyclists used that path and you were not taken by surprise or in fear for your safety. The path at the point of collision 2.4 metres wide. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| snowball wrote: |
| OK, that's fine, but that is not the impression you gave. If you had said that earlier I don't think you would have got this reaction. |
Well, as I said, if people actually asked then maybe things would have been didn’t, but they didn’t they assumed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| zikomo wrote: |
| @Dave of the Marmottes, I would like to think that is what is meant. But it is most certainly not what was said. No mention. of )waving arms around" in the OP but the word "punch" is used twice. I think there was a bit of showing off, it backfired, and now the poster is in a huff from being made to feel a bit silly. |
Punching the air is still a punch. No showing off, as I said I call a spade a spade, sometimes you just gotta do that, then marvel at what others assume you do with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
| zikomo wrote: |
| Extremophile wrote: |
| eblunt wrote: |
| Thing that really hacks me off is being on a fairly wide, quiet piste. I tend to try and stay out of the way, and ski down one of the sides close to the piste markers. I'm still shocked at why people bombing down need to squeeze through the 50cm cap between me and the edge of the piste, whilst there is 25 metres of wide open unoccupied piste to the other side of me. |
I have mastered the side punch for occasions like this. I can hear them just behind me, and if I’m lucky and sun/piste is in the right position their shadow tells me exactly where they are…. Deploy side punch. |
What a ridiculous hole you have dug for yourself. In your scenario you hear them (no way of knowing which side they plan on passing), then you see their shadow (by that point they will be so close as to be committed to a line), you then deploy the "side punch" which you have mastered. But now claims you deliberately miss the passing skier. Although at this point you have not seen them at all, so no way of being sure if you are going to actually punch them or not. Then you try and justify with a whole load of twaddle about self-defence, when it is impossible for you to know if you need to defend yourself or not. Entirely possible that you are actually passed on the inside but no contact made and no injury to you. Except you have deployed the side punch which either makes contact or freaks the passing skier out causing an increase in the risk.
What a nonsense. If you say "punch" then it will be reasonably assumed that you mean to punch someone. Which it was, as you were trying to show how clever and tough you are. And either way it is a very dangerous and stupid thing to do. And as it is deliberate you would indeed be liable for any issues it causes. |
Lol, you took what I said to the extreme and are clearly quite upset with yourself about it. No comment on the danger of someone skiing within arms length of someone else then? And not doing anything to mitigate potential danger to either yourself or others. Interesting how you totally miss that point in an attempt to justify why you are quite so upset by this whole situation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
| Scarlet wrote: |
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
| I think the Auriol Grey case is pretty interesting because from the CCTV clip I saw she was gesticulating and being awkward but not physically pushing the cyclist into traffic. Not a good idea when cycling on a pavement (& yes I have done it) to not be able to stop and yield to peds. |
Yebbut the cyclist wasn’t on a pavement, which would have been illegal, she was on a shared cycling route, which is legal. Confusing the two makes it seem like she was in the wrong and somehow deserving of what happened to her, which is not the case at all. |
Ah ok stopped at the clip didn't see the full facts.
Judge said this he could have been more assertive about the shared route point but maybe didn't want it to be a cornerstone of the decision
| Quote: |
| This was, I think, a shared path for cyclists and pedestrians that allowed them to go around the busy ring road. The vital point is this: I am sure you knew cyclists used that path and you were not taken by surprise or in fear for your safety. The path at the point of collision 2.4 metres wide. |
|
My understanding is that it doesn't matter if the cyclist was on a pavement and that the point is that even if the cyclist is illegally cycling on the pavement, it's not lawful to push them into oncoming traffic. (If you wanted to draw an analogy: even if someone is skiing out of control through a gap that you think is too small, that doesn't give you an excuse to push them over.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
@Extremophile, No idea what gave you the impression that I am "quite upset" but I do think you need a mirror.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| zikomo wrote: |
| @Extremophile, No idea what gave you the impression that I am "quite upset" but I do think you need a mirror..... |
The effort you are putting in to tell me all the ways you think I’m wrong and a terrible person. I’ve only backed up and clarified my stance. You’ve gone out of your way to throw yourself in to this, that is what gives you away.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
@Extremophile, I see. One post on the subject from me. It seems like dozens from you.
But I do agree I have put far too much effort into engaging with you, little though it was.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| jmr59 wrote: |
My understanding is that it doesn't matter if the cyclist was on a pavement and that the point is that even if the cyclist is illegally cycling on the pavement, it's not lawful to push them into oncoming traffic. (If you wanted to draw an analogy: even if someone is skiing out of control through a gap that you think is too small, that doesn't give you an excuse to push them over.) |
Perhaps because of sensitivities the actual full frame video clip isn't available so you can't actually see whether the arm waving turns into a push in the version I saw. I understand the rationale for the verdict but also see how it could have gone the other way particularly as a glance at the comments at Road CC tells me the status of the path isn't entirely unambiguously posted at that point. Of course if further video showed a push then .....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| zikomo wrote: |
@Extremophile, I see. One post on the subject from me. It seems like dozens from you.
But I do agree I have put far too much effort into engaging with you, little though it was. |
That’s what I mean, you read all that which takes a fair amount of time and decided to weigh in anyway even though you probably knew on some level your opinion wouldn’t make me change mine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
