Google sponsored links
The following claim was made up in A&S:
Read the VC forum and you will see thread after thread degenerate into the same tired old fight over whether JF is a god or a demon.
I see a lot of the same old fights around here, and some new ones now and then, but whether JF is a god or a demon is not one of them.
But maybe JRA is right and I'm missing something. So I thought we'd have this poll. Also, can anyone point to a thread where the discussion could be characterized as a "fight over whether JF is a god or a demon"?
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content
here.
Ready to buy? Check out these two online bike stores:
-
http://www.nashbar.com (you can find the latest bike nashbar coupons in
this thread)
-
http://www.performancebike.com (you can find the latest performance bike coupons in
this thread)
Cya on the forums,
- The BikeForums Team
-
http://www.bikeforums.net
I'm pretty sure he's a pet rock.
I try not comment on his gibberish because that dignifies it in a way,
but I would have to go with 'demon'. Developers are the biblical
plague of our society relatively speaking and transportation 'planners'
and such are really just shills for developers for the most part.
Thank transportation planner types for their help in what we suffer today.
Well, at least this thread won't degenerate into an argument over whether JF is a god or a demon.
You've set a new standard in pointless polls, Serge. My foam hat is off to you.
I'm sure he also didn't literally mean someone wrote JF is a God, or a Demon in a thread for that matter.
However, this is basically what A&S ends up boiling down to. I guess English Lit. wasn't a great class for you, whereas Composition was an "A. Again, please stop being so literal.
I voted god just to make things interesting.
Yes, this poll does well demonstrate one of the problems encountered here.
I'm sure he also didn't literally mean someone wrote JF is a God, or a Demon in a thread for that matter.
Of course not. But he must have meant that the discussion ultimately lead to debates about John Forester the person. But they don't. That's my point. The debates are about the ideas. To the extent that their is any discussion about Forester himself, that's brought on by the anti-VCers, not the VC advocates.
wow. deep. this is deep. I, for one, will ponder this poll for a while before I even attempt an answer. I'm sure it's somehow a trick question. a talmudical conundrum. a zen koan. time has indeed stopped for me.
Since you don't have prophet or anti-christ as choices, should we just assume god and demon as the most appropriate answers respectively in these cases? lol
This has to be one of the most strange thread I've seen in a series of strange and weird threads by this Helmet Head dude I've seen in a while! Is he always like what I've seen, making gigantic mountains out of little ripples?
I see him post an P&R about no deity and here he is, worshiping at the altar of this Forester dude, and elevating him to deity status! Helmet, I think I now know who your God is!
God, demon or human? Why are you even asking this? You say you see a lot of fights over this but you bring up a thread to start another one? Are you THAT bored?
Why don't you go ride a bike or something.
The first thing to come to mind and I am not exactly sure why, is what kind of bicycle rider's do we have; childish riding, macho riding or dude, I just want to ride my bike.
As far as th poll goes, I am looking for "all of the above." As we all have our good, bad and just human qualities.
Something to ponder:
Plato writes about what it takes to be a really bad or evil person and comes to the conclusion that it takes a lot of good qualities and just one bad quality to be good at being a bad person.
i would characterize john as an incompetant cyclist filled with prejudice. human? yep.
This has to be one of the most strange thread I've seen in a series of strange and weird threads by this Helmet Head dude I've seen in a while! Is he always like what I've seen, making gigantic mountains out of little ripples?
I see him post an P&R about no deity and here he is, worshiping at the altar of this Forester dude, and elevating him to deity status! Helmet, I think I now know who your God is!
Can you provide one single post of mine that would support your assertion that I worship "at the altar of this Forester dude"? Anything? What gives you this impression? I honestly want to know.
God, demon or human? Why are you even asking this? You say you see a lot of fights over this but you bring up a thread to start another one? Are you THAT bored?
I explained why I'm asking in the OP. Why are you asking as if that explanation is not provided? Did you read the OP? Can you read?
I said I DO NOT see a lot of fights over this, and I'm just asking to see if there is one here. By the way, I don't see a fight about whether Forester is a god or demon here either. Do you? Where???
There is no fight here. Here are the poll results so far.
Jf is a god. ... KrisPistofferson, urban_assault 2 16.67%
Jf is a demon. ... -=Łem in Pa=-, mev, wsexson 3 25.00%
JF is a human. ... ChipSeal, derath, Helmet Head, JeanCoutu, noisebeam, PaulH, Tom Stormcrowe 7 58.33%
--------
All the VC advocates, and others, agree JF is a human.
No one in this thread or any other thread has argued in any post that JF is anything but.
There is no fight about John Forester.
Can we please put this ridiculous claim to rest now?
The fight is about the positions John Forester holds, particularly about bike lanes. And to the extent that the argument is about him, it's because those who disagree cannot refute his arguments, and so they focus on him. Disagree? Fine. Refute the arguments then.
...feeling the church crumble underneath you the more you read john's demogoguary, eh, head?
feeling a little insecure, need to bolster your belief system?
"a house built on a weak foundation, it won't stand for long
but stories told to all generations, they will stand for long"
we repeatedly discredit john's illogical prejudices and blather in this forum, helemt head. but despite all evidence to the contrary, he continues his pedantic blather as if he were preaching from a bully pulpit with no congregation.
you do realize john has been ostracized from mainstream bicycling advocacy for a coupleof decades, head? and that his bitter vitrolic makes him slightly less than human?
he's degenerated into bitter curmudgeon, an ambulance chaser and a auto/sprawl advocate, head. is he human? absolutely, and not a very nice one, either.
What you do, Bek, is repeatedly make it about him rather than about the arguments that you cannot refute. Disagree? Fine, then address the arguments and not those who are making them. See if you can do that for even one post.
no, i refute his arguments regularily with facts and data and observations regarding the vehicularity of well provided bicycling infrastructure, and the benefits to bicyclists when commuties accomdate bicyclists as unique human powered vehicles.
I repeatedly reiterate the bonifide and mesurable results of increasing bicycling modal share and safety thru infrastructure and social enhancements, the vehicularity of well provided bike lanes, etc...... yet john consistently falls back on tired, pedantic sophistry to attempt to refute the world body of evidence supporting greater planning for bicyclists in the trasnportation grid.
and i thought this thread was about the demagogue and not his fallacious "message", helmet head! which one is it????
:lol: I'd like to see some real refuting from your camp. Sorry lads but 40 year old dogma isn't going to cut it anymore with me. I've been watching you bunch argue and you can't refute anything anyone says. You consistently ignore facts and published findings from within the industry, so it all becomes you didn't understand ... ooh ooh I meant this portion of LA etc etc... then when it still doesn't work out come insults... so drop the act and just be upfront about being bitter old guys. My grandpa was one too, and my stepfather is quickly on his way.... it's ok you know. Now that I see the VC crowd as Grumpy Old Men, they simply won't upset me anymore, the same way my grandad's tirades didn't get to me. New poll time? I have a new option.
HH please... I'm imploring you, step away from the Dark Side. We can't ALL be wrong all the time. It's statistically impossible.
:lol: I'd like to see some real refuting from your camp. Sorry lads but 40 year old dogma isn't going to cut it anymore with me. I've been watching you bunch argue and you can't refute anything anyone says. You consistently ignore facts and published findings from within the industry, so it all becomes you didn't understand ... ooh ooh I meant this portion of LA etc etc... then when it still doesn't work out come insults... so drop the act and just be upfront about being bitter old guys. My grandpa was one too, and my stepfather is quickly on his way.... it's ok you know. Now that I see the VC crowd as Grumpy Old Men, they simply won't upset me anymore, the same way my grandad's tirades didn't get to me. New poll time? I have a new option.
HH please... I'm imploring you, step away from the Dark Side. We can't ALL be wrong all the time. It's statistically impossible.
Your words, TJ, about "ignoring facts and published findings from within the industry", appear to refer to our criticism of papers such as Pucher's. The subject of the discussion is the effect of bikeways. On that subject, there is nothing in Pucher's paper to either ignore or refute. Pucher provides neither facts nor reasoning that link bikeways to the other social conditions that he has listed. He has provided no such facts, and has provided no reason to believe that bikeways could have produced the other conditions that he has listed. The criticism by vehicular cyclists surrounding Pucher's paper (and all the others like it) is not of the paper itself, but of the way that bicycle advocates have taken to quoting Pucher's paper as support for their ideological position that bikeways ought to produce these effects, both in Europe and, if implemented here, in the US.
Zzzzzzzzz *yawn* huh...oh more of the same......naptime.
Every day i burn a small amount of incense and pray in gratitude for JF, who has done more to promote cycling as one of many kinds of transportation, while helping to defray the overwhelming bias in cycling circles against motorized (and non-mass) transit.
roughstuff
all praise the private motorist, the single occupancy vehicle, and all the congestion and pollution they bring, amen, roughstuff! :roflmao:
Zzzzzzzzz *yawn* huh...oh more of the same......naptime.
As usual.
Yet Forester made some very strong statements. If you were interested in the truth about these topics, you would confirm or deny whether the Pucher paper is typical of what you're talking about when you say we consistently "ignore facts and published findings from within the industry". If you denied, and your claim has basis, it should be trivial to identify such facts and findings. Assuming you confirmed, you have Forester's very strong and clearly stated related assertion, "Pucher provides neither facts nor reasoning that link bikeways to the other social conditions that he has listed", that, if false, should be trivial to refute.
But you do neither. You don't even engage in the discussion, but just denigrate. Typical. So typical.
ANY information handed to you is "no good", not relevant, doesn't meet whatever criteria you've imposed etc etc. It's all a very convenient way to side step. DANCE VC'rs DANCE!!! I find it very interesting that ALL published finding except his are viewed as invalid. Sorry but I for don;t have time to chase down and verify every published factoid. That's why they published, b/c they already have been verified. Too little too late HH and yet again the onus is on us. Must be nice to be able to sit in a corner like four years old shaking your head no no no.
I was literally warned against coming here for this exact reason. That this subforum was lorded over by a couple nutbars....turns out they were right. When you wish to have a real discourse fell free to contact me. You and JF deserve each other.
ANY information handed to you is "no good", not relevant, doesn't meet whatever criteria you've imposed etc etc.
That's not true. And you make it sound like JF simply ignores it. But he doesn't. He addresses it. He explains in detail why it doesn't mean whatever others think it means. He explains why he believes it means what he believe it means. The explanations are what gets ignored. It's like you tune out from the first sentence and all you remember is that it was discounted. You don't remember why because, apparently, you never cared enough to pay attention.
It's all a very convenient way to side step. DANCE VC'rs DANCE!!! I find it very interesting that ALL published finding except his are viewed as invalid.
That's not true. The findings are often consider valid. The disagreement is about what the implications are.
Sorry but I for don;t have time to chase down and verify every published factoid.
That's fine, but you assume that the alleged conclusions are correct, and discount the refutation of them, without taking the time to seriously evaluate either. If you don't have the time, fine, but then what is your basis for assuming one side is right and the other is not?
That's why they published, b/c they already have been verified. Too little too late HH and yet again the onus is on us. Must be nice to be able to sit in a corner like four years old shaking your head no no no.
So just because someone publishes a paper and he believes that the earth is flat you're going to believe him? No wonder you don't engage in these discussions.
I was literally warned against coming here for this exact reason. That this subforum was lorded over by a couple nutbars....turns out they were right. When you wish to have a real discourse fell free to contact me. You and JF deserve each other.
Is "Zzzzzzzzz *yawn* huh...oh more of the same......naptime." your idea of "real discourse"? And we can't have real discourse if you're unwilling to take the time to read the papers and seriously evaluate the counter-arguments. If you don't take the time to do that, what is the discourse about? JF clearly has taken the time (for the record, I have not read the Pucher paper, but I haven't asserted anything about it specifically either - I'm just commenting on the discussion between you and JF, who clearly has read it).
If you want real discourse, then take JF's last post to you seriously and reply to it.
I was waiting for the Super Quote, a fav of yours.
Consider yourself dismissed. This analyst is outta here.
I was waiting for the Super Quote, a fav of yours.
Consider yourself dismissed. This analyst is outta here.
So much for engaging in real discourse. :rolleyes:
So much for engaging in real discourse. :rolleyes:
So this thread & poll is real, meaningful discourse is it :D
Oh and I voted god, because god doesn't exist
This has to be one of the most strange thread I've seen in a series of strange and weird threads by this Helmet Head dude I've seen in a while! Is he always like what I've seen, making gigantic mountains out of little ripples?
I see him post an P&R about no deity and here he is, worshiping at the altar of this Forester dude, and elevating him to deity status! Helmet, I think I now know who your God is!
classic HH poll, all hyperbole, no substance. On top of that it's a public poll with no choice for 'other' (or quail). I never vote in these polls.
So this thread & poll is real, meaningful discourse is it :D
Well, just like any thread, it could be about real, meaningful discourse, but usually isn't, because most facilities advocates don't engage in real discourse with anti-blers.
For example, a common "argument" in response to the anti-bl position is, essentially, "What about HOV lanes, why aren't you against those too"? When a newbie asks this question, it's one thing. But when a regular here like Blue Order asks, it's really perplexing. It reveals a lack of understanding of the anti-bl argument, which, again, is understandable for a newbie, but someone like Blue Order, whether he agrees or not, should know, whether he agrees with us or not, that the problems we ascribe to bike lanes do not apply to HOV lanes.
This came up just yesterday, and the "discourse" ended like this:
In fact, it is because VC is "all about operating a bike in a vehicular manner...", and bike lanes are not, that that part of the controversy exists.
I question that premise. Look at any highway in California. The left lane is almost always an HOV lane. With some exceptions for ZEV and ULEV vehicles, single-occupancy vehicles are not permitted to operate in those lanes. And yet nobody would claim that vehicles excluded from the HOV lanes are not "vehicles," or are not being operated "vehicularly."
Yes, HOV lanes are segregationary. But HOV lanes do not encourage HOV users or anyone else to violate the destination positioning principle, or any other basic principle of vehicular behavior. That's why no one claims vehicles in HOV lanes are not being operated vehicularly.
But bike lanes are not contrary to vehicular behavior because they are segregationary. In general, the fundamental idea of bike lanes - that vehicle type, and not vehicle-independent factors like speed, destination, special function (public bus, taxi) and size should determine where a given vehicle is operated is contrary to the basic rules of vehicular behavior. More specifically, bike lanes are contrary to vehicular behavior because they encourage not only bike lane users to violate basic principles of vehicular traffic behavior like destination and speed positioning, but they discourage non-bike lane users to violate them too. Do I really need to cite all the examples? We've been over this thousands of times. At least at any intersection or junction without a dedicated right turn lane, a bike lane necessarily guides through cyclists to go straight from positions that are to the right of where the bike lane stripe guides right turning motorists to drive, in violation of the destination positioning principle. When motor traffic slows, bike lanes encourage cyclists to pass motorists on the right (violating speed positioning).
That's why VC advocates point out that bike lanes inhibit cyclists from thinking, feeling and operating vehicularly, and why the VC opposition to bike lanes is also "all about operating a bike in a vehicular manner..."
And there it is, in black and white, no one can apparently respond to this much less refute it, but I'm sure Blue Order and countless others still think there is some kind of discrepancy in the anti-bl position not being against HOV lanes too. And I'm sure it will be brought up again, and will just end like this with no response again, or will degenerate into disparagement. But that's par for the course around here.
Frankly, there's a part of me that wonders whether there is a legitimate argument defending bike lanes. If there is, it sure has not been presented here. But that doesn't mean it won't be.
Based upon my observations, after an in-depth study (son to be peer reviewed), definitively a god.
The god of jelly donuts, too many churros, and abject ineffectiveness.
It's a tantalizing combination.
Well, my point was that arguing whether someone is a god, demon or human has little to do with cycling advocacy.
I am in favour of riding on the roadway, in accordance with the laws and conventions of the road. This can and does include use of bike lanes, which I do not find discriminatory or unsafe.
Ed
Well, my point was that arguing whether someone is a god, demon or human has little to do with cycling advocacy.
Agreed. And my point is that arguing that all we do is fight about whether someone is a god or demon has nothing to do with cycling advocacy, but that's what JRA was arguing (as cited in the OP). I decided to make a thread out of it because it was a typical comment commonly used to avoid having to defend the pro-facilities position in civil/productive discourse.
I am in favour of riding on the roadway, in accordance with the laws and conventions of the road. This can and does include use of bike lanes, which I do not find discriminatory or unsafe.
And that's your opinion and that's great. But anti-blers don't simply state the opposite. We provide detailed explanations for why we believe bike lanes cause more harm than good, explanations that are ignored, and then the pro-bl position is simply asserted, without basis, as you just did again, just two posts after one of those detailed anti-bl presentations.
I explained why I'm asking in the OP. Why are you asking as if that explanation is not provided? Did you read the OP? Can you read?
I said I DO NOT see a lot of fights over this, and I'm just asking to see if there is one here. By the way, I don't see a fight about whether Forester is a god or demon here either. Do you? Where???
I am asking because it seems that maybe you are bored. Did you even read what I wrote?? :rolleyes:
I supposed according to you, I cannot read. Are you questioning my ability to put together letters that form into words? Or merely my comprehension of such? Speaking of ability to read (or in YOUR case, ability to understand), why do you feel that I see a fight here regarding Forester? The only fight I see is the one beginning between you and I.
Please excuse me if I am not as educated as you are, although I don't remember if you even KNOW the extent of my education.
But there is one thing I do know, is that after going through your posts it seems a lot of people seem to debate with you on a lot of issues. What does that tell you? Can YOU read? :lol:
I am asking because it seems that maybe you are bored. Did you even read what I wrote?? :rolleyes:
I supposed according to you, I cannot read. Are you questioning my ability to put together letters that form into words? Or merely my comprehension of such? Speaking of ability to read (or in YOUR case, ability to understand), why do you feel that I see a fight here regarding Forester? The only fight I see is the one beginning between you and I.
Please excuse me if I am not as educated as you are, although I don't remember if you even KNOW the extent of my education.
But there is one thing I do know, is that after going through your posts it seems a lot of people seem to debate with you on a lot of issues. What does that tell you? Can YOU read? :lol:
What that tells me is that I don't shy away from a position just because it's controversial and I know a lot of people feel differently. What does it tell you?
As to this rest of your post, I can understand what you're trying to say. But maybe I can't read.
You think this is a fight?
What that tells me is that I don't shy away from a position just because it's controversial and I know a lot of people feel differently. What does it tell you?
As to this rest of your post, I can understand what you're trying to say. But maybe I can't read.
You think this is a fight?
It tells me that a lot of people disagree with you and you cannot handle it. I wonder if you have an issue accepting others as who they are, what they believe in and the fact that they (even though you SAY you know) MAY have a differing opinion than you. Knowing it is very different from considering it.
I am not justifying any negativity that may arise from your discussions, I'm just seeing (and this is MY opinion here) that you are one of those who is not willing to see another point of view. If I were to do that, it would limit my knowledge and my capability to adjust, adapt and be a part of the rest of the environment.
Do I think this is a fight? Read my post again, Sparky. Real slow this time. ;)
who cares about controversial? It's the self-righteousness and the wall of words that put me off, as if the person who types the most words wins.
:rolleyes:
who cares about controversial? It's the self-righteousness and the wall of words that put me off, as if the person who types the most words wins.
:rolleyes:
Not enough words, you lose. :p;)
who cares about controversial? It's the self-righteousness and the wall of words that put me off, as if the person who types the most words wins.
:rolleyes:
It could be a sign of insecurity with him. He may be trying to convince HIMSELF rather than others. You know, the "puffing up of the chest feathers" syndrome.
yes, there is a lot of VC chestbeating and mutual strokes about their 'skills' riding in traffic! :roflmao:
weekend LCI group ride strokefests, schooling the incompetant....i bet it makes them feel heroic :rolleyes: or sumpin'
all praise the private motorist, the single occupancy vehicle, and all the congestion and pollution they bring, amen, roughstuff! :roflmao:
Amen, indeed! :) As I pointed out, bikes are only part of the transportation matrix. I love people who whine about congestion.
"If everybody else wasn't here, I could have this road all to myself!" D'oh! ;)
roughstuff
Amen, indeed! :) As I pointed out, bikes are only part of the transportation matrix. I love people who whine about congestion.
"If everybody else wasn't here, I could have this road all to myself!" D'oh! ;)
roughstuff
dinosaurs and rats are part of the evolutionary matrix too.
dinosaurs and rats are part of the evolutionary matrix too.
Woo! thats a relevant comment. I guess I struck a raw nerve, eh? If I recall this thread is about the transportation matrix, not the evolutionary one. But feel free to throw in branches of your family tree if it makes ya feel better.
By any measure...passenger miles, ton miles, revenue miles, etc., cycling is small part of the transportation matrix. Hopefully the passenger miles number will soar as more people start using cycling for local trips and commutes. Ton and revenue miles would be tougher to fathom.
roughstuff
Previous -
Top -
Next
Copyright 1999 - 2007
BikeForums.Net - All rights reserved.
Common bike forum topics in clue bicycles, cycling, mountain biking,
cycling jerseys, shorts, socks, shoes and bike equiptment selection.