Originally Posted by
dougmc
And do you realize you're quoting me out of context too? [To a large degree, BF does that for you, by not quoting what I quoted, but they're part of the context too.]
?? I quoted your whole paragraph. You changed the meaning of what I said by selecting a part of what I said.
Originally Posted by
dougmc
In any event, you explicitly bolded that section, as if it was the most important thing you said, as if it stands on it's own.
No, it was the "most important" part of my reply to a
particular comment. Nothing more.
Originally Posted by
dougmc
You shouldn't be surprised when somebody takes that at face value.
Yes,
careless people would do that.
Originally Posted by
dougmc
Deal with it -- we have to trim the quoted stuff down to the important parts, or soon people would never be able to follow the thread. If somebody wants full context, there's a little [>>] link that will provide it.
The problem is that your sloppy selective quoting is changing what I said!
Originally Posted by
dougmc
Yes, but the case I referred to they didn't even see it, presumably due to the lack of light. And that was in response your claim of "Riding a bike with out lights isn't unsafe unless "other factors are involved" (like other cars)."
The curb is "another factor". Anyway, I said that speeding is inherently less safe/more risky. So is riding at night without a light.
Originally Posted by
dougmc
-- I think it IS unsafe, and people get hurt (or killed) when they do it. And besides, those "other factors" aren't always under your control. Even if you stick to the sidewalks, you're not safe from the cars for example.)
This is a straw man. No one is arguing that riding without lights isn't less safe than riding with lights.
Originally Posted by
dougmc
And yes, you were talking about speeding being a better analogy. But not everybody has been. Just because I only quoted your post, that doesn't mean I'm only responding to things you've brought up.
Well, making that comment after my quote sure makes it seem like you are replying to what I said.
Originally Posted by
dougmc
Still, even speeding is a lousy analogy, especially since there's no need for analogies here anyways -- they only complicate the issue. If you want to explain quantum entanglement to a layperson, analogies may be helpful. If you want to talk about biking without lights, talk about biking without lights.
But I wasn't talking about biking without lights. I was talking about the issue of liability.