Originally Posted by
invisiblehand
But to be fair Chip -- and this applies to both sides of the aisle -- I think that many a reader fails to put in any effort to understand the writer. Moreover, I would argue that some purposely distort the meaning for their own purpose.
Yes, invisiblehand, and you are a good example for others to follow. We don't always agree, but I think you always put in an honest effort to understand the writer, when you disagree you comment on the words, not the person, and I've never seen you distort meaning for your own purpose. In contrast, post #34 seemed like an intentional distortion in order to serve the poster's purpose (starting by taking Forester's sentence out of the context of him discussing the intent of the writers of the "instructions of the time" and treating it literally as if this was what he was advocating), as did the posts expressing agreement with this distorted interpretation:
Originally Posted by
buzzman
Originally Posted by John Forester
Signalling your turns alerts motorists that the cyclist is going to do something stupid, like turn in front of them.
Can you please elaborate on that statement?
Are you suggesting cyclists not signal their intentions?
Are you suggesting that cyclists signal but don't look back or confirm that they have indeed been noticed before they turn?
Or are you suggesting that cyclists are just plain stupid- no matter what they do.
Here is the sentence as posted in the context of the paragraph from which it was extracted:
Originally Posted by
John Forester
Your description tallies quite well with the instructions of the time. ...
...
Note the import of the instructions. Stopping at stop signs protects the motorists who have right of way. Signalling your turns alerts motorists that the cyclist is going to do something stupid, like turn in front of them.
Forester is clearly talking about what was emphasized ("the import") in the instructions of the time, not his own instruction. But that last sentence was lifted out of context and interpreted literally, as if this was Forester's own recommendation. That's blatant distortion. Or people just don't know how to read.