I Understand...

[zeytoun]

Which of these positions best describes you and your understanding of HH's posts?

I find that HH's posts are generally fairly clear and understandable
I find that HH's posts foster understanding
I find that HH's posts are generally not clear or understandable
I find that HH's posts generally do not foster understanding
I make no good faith attempt to understand HH's posts


(you may make multiple selections)

[natelutkjohn]

I make no effort, what's the point? But the rare times that I do, I find them completely void of fostering understanding - just silly applications of big words to make him look smarter then he really is. I bet HH would learn a lot if he read some Peter Feynman lectures - intelligent experts don't need to use large and excessive words to get their points across, only the imbeciles among us need to becasue it makes others think we know our stuff.

[Helmet Head]

I make no effort, what's the point? But the rare times that I do, I find them completely void of fostering understanding - just silly applications of big words to make him look smarter then he really is. I bet HH would learn a lot if he read some Peter Feynman lectures - intelligent experts don't need to use large and excessive words to get their points across, only the imbeciles among us need to becasue it makes others think we know our stuff.
I assume you mean Richard Feynman.

[rando]

I used to make an effort, and I still do sometimes, but the writing is so dense and convoluted and intricate, much more so than it needs to be, that I just give up.

[natelutkjohn]

I assume you mean Richard Feynman.

That I do, good call - have you read him? Or did you google that?

[zeytoun]

Did you vote in this poll, HH?

[AlmostTrick]

I find HH's posts are generally fairly clear and understandable. I may not always agree with some of his points, and he sometimes goes on too long, but he's not all that hard to understand. Big words? I can't remember having to hit up the dictionary when reading an HH post. What's clear is that many here really dislike his ideas and/or style of communicating, so they can't be bothered even trying to understand him. Fair enough I suppose.

[zeytoun]

What's clear is that many here really dislike his ideas and/or style of communicating, so they can't be bothered even trying to understand him.
Actually, that's not clear yet. That's why we have the poll.

So far, 1 person has selected the poll option indicating that they don't try to understand him.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Did you vote in this poll, HH?
Somebody voted that he/she/it never shows good faith to understand HH. I wonder who would vote that way to describe themselves; I suspect a ringer.

[natelutkjohn]

Somebody voted that he/she/it never shows good faith to understand HH. I wonder who would vote that way to describe themselves; I suspect a ringer.


Actualy that would be me - no ringer, just entirely fed up with HH, I used to read and understand his posts, but that was a looong time ago.

[Helmet Head]

Did you vote in this poll, HH?
Yes. Is that pathetic? In any case, I chose the first two options of course.


That I do, good call - have you read him? Or did you google that?
I never read the lectures, but I read his book "Surely you're joking" many years ago. Great book.

the writing is so dense and convoluted and intricate, much more so than it needs to be, that I just give up.
Can you show me any specific examples of my writing that you consider to be "dense and convoluted and intricate"?

I find HH's posts are generally fairly clear and understandable. I may not always agree with some of his points, and he sometimes goes on too long, but he's not all that hard to understand. Big words? I can't remember having to hit up the dictionary when reading an HH post.
I'm glad I'm not the only one. Which makes me wonder why so many seem to have trouble understanding my writing. And even I don't always agree with some of my points (after I give them some more thought, or someone points something out to me).

What's clear is that many here really dislike his ideas and/or style of communicating, so they can't be bothered even trying to understand him. Fair enough I suppose.
I do think that's a huge part of it, and explains much of the discord on this forum. I don't see how that's "fair" though. If I'm going to disagree with someone, I do my best to try to understand what they're saying to make sure I understand what I'm disagreeing with. That's fair.

[natelutkjohn]

YI don't see how that's "fair" though. If I'm going to disagree with someone, I do my best to try to understand what they're saying to make sure I understand what I'm disagreeing with. That's fair.


The world isn't "fair" HH :cry:

[zeytoun]

Yes. Is that pathetic?
I don't know whether it is pathetic or not. I just wondered, because I was preparing a separate poll for your use, in which I was going to switch out the "HHs"s for "my"s... now I don't have to.

I do think that's a huge part of it, and explains much of the discord on this forum.
I make a good faith attempt to understand your posts, Helmie. And yet, I think that I am a contributory force for much discord on this forum.

I'm just curious to see what others think.

[randya]

I voted c and d and as a result I've stopped reading most of them.

[lima_bean]

That I do, good call - have you read him? Or did you google that?

I looove Feynman, read a lot of his stuff =D

[natelutkjohn]

I looove Feynman, read a lot of his stuff =D

:) Awesome! I'm, hopefully getting the entire lecture series in hardcover for my 30th bday this summer *fingers crossed*

[deputyjones]

I looove Feynman, read a lot of his stuff =D
Never heard of him, but I will check it out.

Regarding the poll: I voted "C" because, damn man, I don't have all day. Brevity counts.

[rando]

Never heard of him, but I will check it out.

Regarding the poll: I voted "C" because, damn man, I don't have all day. Brevity counts.

Brevity is good. If I had one suggestion, it would be to pare down the verbiage.

[LittleBigMan]

Which of these positions best describes you and your understanding of HH's posts?

I find that HH's posts are generally fairly clear and understandable
I find that HH's posts foster understanding
I find that HH's posts are generally not clear or understandable
I find that HH's posts generally do not foster understanding
I make no good faith attempt to understand HH's posts


(you may make multiple selections)
I did not vote (I usually don't vote on polls, since I already know what I think.)

[joejack951]

Brevity is good. If I had one suggestion, it would be to pare down the verbiage.

Brevity while maintaining clarity is a very difficult thing to do. Ever read a magazine article on a topic then read a book about the same topic? Did you find that the magazine article conveyed the same message or did was it slightly misleading due to lack of space to fully explain a concept? I'm sure that if HH critiqued each of his posts for a day before hitting "reply" they'd be a bit shorter but then how would all of these threads reach 20 pages so quickly?

HH is one of a few posters who will take the time to say exactly what they mean if someone questions him. I think that's a good quality; at least it's preferable to simply dodging the question or saying "aw, jus' playin'." It is surprising to me that he finds time to work at all with all of his posting but that's his boss's problem, not mine :)

[Raiyn]

C,D,and E for me. I no longer try to make sense of his posts, just isn't worth it to me anymore

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Actualy that would be me - no ringer, just entirely fed up with HH, I used to read and understand his posts, but that was a looong time ago.
Thanks for the clarification. I've understood his posts from the beginning. There's not much of substance to understand. That's why I don't pay too much attention to his endless chatter. Let those who think there is something to gain by debating minutia and angel dancing with him do so. Different strokes, ya know?

[sbhikes]

This poll is mean.

[Brian]

This poll is mean.

How so?

[deputyjones]

Brevity while maintaining clarity is a very difficult thing to do. Ever read a magazine article on a topic then read a book about the same topic? Did you find that the magazine article conveyed the same message or did was it slightly misleading due to lack of space to fully explain a concept? I'm sure that if HH critiqued each of his posts for a day before hitting "reply" they'd be a bit shorter but then how would all of these threads reach 20 pages so quickly?

HH is one of a few posters who will take the time to say exactly what they mean if someone questions him. I think that's a good quality; at least it's preferable to simply dodging the question or saying "aw, jus' playin'." It is surprising to me that he finds time to work at all with all of his posting but that's his boss's problem, not mine :)

Understood and agreed with the first point. However, it is hard to keep up a debate with someone who posts multi-page posts 50 times a day. He wins arguments through sheer attrition.

[Bekologist]

the dude's an obfuscationist that hardly rides his bike, arguing minuatae from his armchair with transportational bicyclists that bleed Phil Wood Tenacious.


its sad he's so full of himself.

[randya]

Understood and agreed with the first point. However, it is hard to keep up a debate with someone who posts multi-page posts 50 times a day. He wins arguments through sheer attrition.
This is the Wall of Words (WoW) effect.

[joejack951]

He wins arguments through sheer attrition.

He doesn't seem to have any shortage of posters willing to argue every last word of his posts with him. In fact, it appears that some people have so much time on their hands to argue with him that they start threads specifically about him.

[joejack951]

its sad he's so full of himself.

What's sad is that you are reduced to hurling insults because someone on an internet forum doesn't agree with you.

[Bekologist]

you think the great armchair rider ISN'T full of himself? :roflmao: seriously, joe, head's not much of a bike rider, more of a weekend club fred rider. emphatically NOT a transportational bicyclist.

head's got no cred to be spouting off like he does in here. you think calling him an 'obfuscationist' is 'hurling insults'?

[Brian Sorrell]

I caught a lot of static for referencing Feynman's "Character of Physical Law" in a paper for a grad seminar on causation in philosophy of science. But the last chapter of that text is pure genius and should be a prerequisite for any and all talk of science in philosophy, in my less than humble opinion. Hey, if you let Kuhn in, you've got to let Feynman in too!

Regarding the original post: who gives a crap? I stopped reading A&S long ago and just periodically drop in to see how far things have devolved among those who apparently have more time to type than to ride. Poor fools.

[Bekologist]

130 miles this week and counting...kind of light for me. i'm thinking of giving this forum up, heads' obfuscationism is pathetic. muddies up any good discussion.

[Brian]

This is the Wall of Words (WoW) effect.

So he's the Phil Spector of internet pissing matches?


Bek, don't go. You bring balance to the forums.

[deputyjones]

So he's the Phil Spector of internet pissing matches?


Bek, don't go. You bring balance to the forums.

+1 dude. don't go.

[sbhikes]

You bring hilarity, too, Bek. I never laughed so hard as when trying to picture the crazy man drinking coffee while flipping the bird and reading the paper on his bike.

This topic is mean. It's ok to pick on people's public actions, or to complain when they bother you, but to invite a pile-on to dis a guy's writing style is just mean.

[AlmostTrick]

He doesn't seem to have any shortage of posters willing to argue every last word of his posts with him. In fact, it appears that some people have so much time on their hands to argue with him that they start threads specifically about him.

That's for sure. These posters must be getting some type of satisfaction out of the endless back and forth debating to keep up with him like they do. If HH truly offered nothing worthwhile he would be ignored a lot more than he is. Instead many of his posts are the most popular. I often wonder what some of you would do without him here.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

You bring hilarity, too, Bek. I never laughed so hard as when trying to picture the crazy man drinking coffee while flipping the bird and reading the paper on his bike.

This topic is mean. It's ok to pick on people's public actions, or to complain when they bother you, but to invite a pile-on to dis a guy's writing style is just mean.
The style is silly; it is the content that is nonsense.

[zeytoun]

This topic is mean. It's ok to pick on people's public actions, or to complain when they bother you, but to invite a pile-on to dis a guy's writing style is just mean.
I don't see how anything in the OP is inviting a "pile-on". If you look back at it, the language is reasonably neutral. I have my personal opinions but I have kept them to myself in this thread.

If I wanted to start a flame thread, I would have started with a more one-sided OP, perhaps an inflammatory title, and would ditch the poll.

Instead, I posted the poll, with no commentary in my OP, and did not invite comments or opinions. If there were a feature to prevent comments, and only permit voting, I would have used it.

Because the reason for this poll was that HH made a claim about how his posts fostered understanding. I thought that it was interesting to make a claim that was about the other posters in the forum, so I wanted to see how they felt.

Ad hominem attacks are, as always, uncool.

[zeytoun]

In fact, it appears that some people have so much time on their hands to argue with him that they start threads specifically about him.
It didn't take me any longer to post the OP, then it did to write your posts. This thread is clearly not to argue with him. Being a poll, the intent is to measure opinion levels on the OP question. There are much simpler ways to start an argument

These posters must be getting some type of satisfaction out of the endless back and forth debating to keep up with him like they do.
Maybe it's a perverse sexual gratification.

[joejack951]

It didn't take me any longer to post the OP, then it did to write your posts. This thread is clearly not to argue with him. Being a poll, the intent is to measure opinion levels on the OP question. There are much simpler ways to start an argument.

I should give you some credit for at least posting a reasonable poll. Others in this forum deserve no such credit at all. This is not the first thread specifically about HH.

[joejack951]

you think the great armchair rider ISN'T full of himself?

130 miles this week and counting...kind of light for me.

If there was ever a poster on this forum who qualifies for the king of chest beating and being full of himself, you are it. That's my opinion and I'll glady go find more quotes like the one above to back it up.

[Helmet Head]

I don't see how anything in the OP is inviting a "pile-on". If you look back at it, the language is reasonably neutral. I have my personal opinions but I have kept them to myself in this thread.

If I wanted to start a flame thread, I would have started with a more one-sided OP, perhaps an inflammatory title, and would ditch the poll.

Instead, I posted the poll, with no commentary in my OP, and did not invite comments or opinions. If there were a feature to prevent comments, and only permit voting, I would have used it.

Because the reason for this poll was that HH made a claim about how his posts fostered understanding. I thought that it was interesting to make a claim that was about the other posters in the forum, so I wanted to see how they felt.

Ad hominem attacks are, as always, uncool.
For what it's worth, I don't think this poll is mean, unreasonable or invites ad hominem attacks. As always, I invite constructive criticism.

The results are interesting so far. 35% feel my posts are "generally clear and understandable", and 41% do not.

So my posts are clear enough for about 35% to be able to understand them? For 41%, my posts are not clear enough for them to understand them? Yet I get so much grief for claiming that many times when folks disagree with me, they are clearly not comprehending what I'm saying. I'd love to see basic reading comprehension test results for all voters in this poll, and see how they correlate with answers to the "clear enough" questions. But probably only 35% of you would understand the significance of that.

[natelutkjohn]

:cry: :cry: ^

[Bekologist]

Time for another HEAD poll: should BF members be required to pass a reading competency test?

[rando]

Joejack has a man crush on HH! :eek:

[sbhikes]

I think the main problem with HH's posts is that he's too focused on being against bike lanes and trying to prove that his anti-bike lane stance is right rather than focusing on the positive aspects of how vehicular cycling could help cyclists manage all kinds of traffic situations.

You know, if these vehicular cyclists would just stick to the positives of VC the whole bike lane issue would resolve itself. The bike lane thing is the Achilles heel of vehicular cycling.

[BLIZZ]

He doesn't seem to have any shortage of posters willing to argue every last word of his posts with him. In fact, it appears that some people have so much time on their hands to argue with him that they start threads specifically about him.

HH is like Freddy Krueger in Nightmare On Elm Street.
The only reason he lives, is because the posters that argue with him, give him life.
If you ignored him, he would go away........obviously there are many here that don't want that to happen.
And the other side is, some posters are given life by way of HH.

Me..... I couldn't care less either way.....although it is entertaining at times to watch the circus, as long as it doesn't take away from the time I can be riding my bike.

[zeytoun]

So my posts are clear enough for about 35% to be able to understand them? For 41%, my posts are not clear enough for them to understand them? Yet I get so much grief for claiming that many times when folks disagree with me, they are clearly not comprehending what I'm saying. I'd love to see basic reading comprehension test results for all voters in this poll, and see how they correlate with answers to the "clear enough" questions.
This is a good point. About equal numbers seem to find your posts understandable or not understandable.

The results do not assign blame, they measure the opinions.

So the follow-up question is: Do those that find your posts incomprehensible do so because the posts are genuinely incomprehensible, or because they lack reasonable comprehension skills?

Now, when you get grief, it is not likely because you are pointing out a communication issue per se, but because you are either implying or asserting that the problem is with the other poster's comprehension, while they feel that it is your post.

So, I agree, that the first step would be a reading comprehension test, where we can compare the results of those that find your posts confusing to the results of those that find your posts clear. My hypothesis is that there is no significant difference between the two groups, in levels of reading comprehension. I'm guessing yours is that the 35% group would have a significantly higher reading comprehension level, based on this comment:

But probably only 35% of you would understand the significance of that.
The logistics of administering said test might be tricky. However, I personally would prefer to not insult a large segment of our forum members until after the results of a good test (and not even then). You never know which ones have genius level IQs, got perfect scores on the critical reasoning sections of their SATs, or taugh themselves to read at age 4, for example. What color underwear are you wearing? I suspect that there is a high level of reading comprehension on both sides of the debate, simply based on the nature of internet forums, the narrow appeal of this subforum, and other factors.

[Helmet Head]

This is a good point. About equal numbers seem to find your posts understandable or not understandable.

The results do not assign blame, they measure the opinions.

So the follow-up question is: Do those that find your posts incomprehensible do so because the posts are genuinely incomprehensible, or because they lack reasonable comprehension skills? That about a third find my posts to be comprehensible pretty much rules out the genuinely incomprehensible possibility, don't you think? After all, if my posts were "genuinely incomprehensible", why would one third find them to be comprehensible? I mean, perhaps a few whacky folks might claim that the Unabomber's diatribe was "comprehensible", but one third? For example, you and I certainly have had our share of communication difficulties, but, by and large, you seem to have no problem comprehending most of what I post. Please correct me if I'm wrong about that.

Now, when you get grief, it is not likely because you are pointing out a communication issue per se, but because you are either implying or asserting that the problem is with the other poster's comprehension, while they feel that it is your post. Okay.

So, I agree, that the first step would be a reading comprehension test, where we can compare the results of those that find your posts confusing to the results of those that find your posts clear. My hypothesis is that there is no significant difference between the two groups, in levels of reading comprehension. I'm guessing yours is that the 35% group would have a significantly higher reading comprehension level, based on this comment: Well, reading comprehension is a function of effort as well as basic ability. I believe at least most of my posts are really not that hard to understand, especially if you read them carefully. Sure, I turn out pretty convoluted sentences once in a while, but I say the same thing over and over so many different ways, I find it hard to believe that anyone who is genuinely trying to understand what I'm saying wouldn't be able to comprehend it. It may very well be that the reason many are saying my posts are incomprehensible is because they are not making an effort to comprehend it (if so, they are apparently not admitting to that).


The logistics of administering said test might be tricky. However, I personally would prefer to not insult a large segment of our forum members until after the results of a good test (and not even then). You never know which ones have genius level IQs, got perfect scores on the critical reasoning sections of their SATs, or taugh themselves to read at age 4, for example. I suspect that there is a high level of reading comprehension on both sides of the debate, simply based on the nature of internet forums, the narrow appeal of this subforum, and other factors. Agreed.

[Helmet Head]

Actually, I just noticed that almost a fourth have now admitted to not making a good faith effort to understand my posts. Assuming that's also true for a few more that didn't admit it, it's probably the best explanation for why about a third claim my posts are incomprehensible.

By the way, one of the reasons I like to see the voters (not anonymous) is so that in a multi-choice poll like this one you could see how the answers correlate with each other. In this case, it would be helpful to know how many of those who admitted that they don't make an effort to understand are among those who voted my posts are incomprehensible.