I-Like-To-Bike

On his web site that is.
https://johnforester.com/Articles/Soc...Advocacies.htm See paragraph 2 & 3.
Nothing like a one sided debate, Forester style. What a guy!

kalliergo 

Actually, Forester quotes extensively from the statements and arguments quoted here, which he then responds to quite succinctly. Nothing "one sided" about it.

I-Like-To-Bike

Sorry, Jack. Forester does the same old, same old routine of repeating the quote, but reponding to his own interpretation of what the quote really means per Forester. This is an open Forum if he wished to respond, or have one of his tools like you or HH do it for him, the mike was open. Instead he posts just another of his one sided diatribes. Maybe you can suggest that he open up his web site for responses from those whom he criticizes and belittles.

No surprise you are the first to respond to defend the Great One, you are tuned right in to the Master, ain't ya?

rando

John-boy sure doesn't like ILTB.

celticfrost

ha ha ha... he pwn3d you guys.

Helmet Head

They have a long history.

Make no mistake, ILTB's perspective about vehicular cycling is colored by very personal matters.

I-Like-To-Bike

The gored sacred cow is obnoxious ain't he!

He doesn't like anyone to tip over his house of cards or to call a statistical charlatan, a statistical charlatan. And he has apoplectic fits when his sophomoric so-called risk analysis and tests are revealed for exactly what they are - biased fabrications and statistical crap.

I-Like-To-Bike

Is that right? Who told you?

Helmet Head

See, it's objective analysis. It's not a personal vendetta or anything like that.

Like you don't make it blatantly obvious that you have a personal vendetta against John Forester?

skanking biker

I consider myself to be fairly well educated, having a post graduate degree and all, but I could barely understand half of that. I'm not necessarily knocking the man's ideas (i'm not sure I understand them yet), but as far as debating style and response to criticism, he talks in circles.

I-Like-To-Bike

Sorry, that pig don't fly.

Strictly the facts, Jack. It is YOU and the other Foresterites who believe that the facts and truth are a personal attack on your cherished beliefs.

Helmet Head

It can be a lot of work to understand his writing sometimes.
If you don't do the work, it might seem like he's talking in circles.
But if you do the work, the objective analysis, usually you'll find he's on pretty solid ground.
But because so few are willing to do that work, it's easy to criticize what he's saying.

Helmet Head

OMG! I really stumbled onto this one. It didn't occur to me that you would be in denial about having a personal grudge and vendetta against Forester. This is classic! Amazing.

Brian Ratliff

I saw that. I don't think I like being characterized as "anti-motorist." I also don't like the California centric viewpoint, that the environment was designed for cars only, and cyclists just have to deal. Not all places are as autocentric as California. And in many places where cycling for transportation has been encouraged, lo and behold, the number of cyclists on the streets goes up! How does J. Forester reconcile that amongst his theory that cycling will always be unpopular and basically without merit as a serious transportational option?

Mr. Forester has thrown in his towel in resignation for cycling advocacy. I think he is getting old and pessimistic. He spoke at that convention, under the exact auspices that we feared: as a pro-motorist who happens to bike. According to his worldview, cycling will always be second best to the car, always fighting for space on the road and to be left alone against the encroaching auto-centric society. I've seen this sentiment in other emails he has posted on chainguard. I think he has come full circle and is not a cycling advocate anymore. He just wants to be left alone. He'll adapt to the changing and more auto-centric road environment (in California, at least) as long as he can, and all others can just f-ck themselves.

deputyjones

How do you not see that quoting and responding on a static HTML page is not "one-sided"?

Quite cowardly in my opinion. If he wishes to debate members of this forum he should do so from inside the forum instead of sending his "minions" here to do his bidding.

Additionally, he may be infringing upon the rights of this forums owners and members by quoting them on another site without their consent.

kalliergo 

Really, ILTB, the evidence of your personal animosity for Forester is miles, and years, long. Nobody who is familiar with, or becomes familiar with, even a bit of that history is likely to believe a denial from you.

Again, ridicule, name-calling, bullying -- none of these are convincing arguments for anything and don't contribute to the discussion. If the operators of this forum were serious about the "Forum Guidelines," this sort of thing would be weeded out.

JRA

That's hilarious! The great scientist in his own mind even got in a comment about the Cyclist Inferiority Phobia.

John Forester's website is one of the funniest websites I've ever seen in my life - a true "Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science" classic.

John Forester

• What a scientist!
• What a class act!

Advocacy at its best.

This thread will probably be:

• very funny
• very hostile
• very long OR
• shut down by the mods

galen_52657

pwn3d and triple pwn3d you bikepath *******

Brian Ratliff

Actually, I saw his CG letter.

Brian Ratliff

All of the above??? In the chainguard letter, he actually names bikeforums.net specifically. Apparently he's a lurker here. Wish he'd come out and post so we could talk with the guy...

randya

You think?

kalliergo 

I don't know "how" it is, but I don't see it that way at all. The statements were made in this public forum and he responded in a public way. His e-mail address is readily available, along with any number of other ways to contact him should someone wish to do so.

Whatever qualities John Forester may exhibit, cowardliness is not, most assuredly, one of them.

I'm getting really tired of this childish name-calling, DJ. I am, decidedly, not anyone's minion. If you knew me, as opposed to having simplistically categorized me, you would be in no doubt of that fact.

What is it with the adolescent gang mentality that prevails here? Did you people all beat up kids who "dressed funny" in junior high? Did you feel proud of yourselves when you did?

That's an interesting interesting legal theory. I don't advise spending too much money pursuing it.

N_C

Uh where does it mention BF or it's memebrs?

randya

All the rest of John's theories collapse when this assumption is revealed as the pipe dream it is, which will never become reality.

invisiblehand

I have to check out his responses. Although it would make more sense if he responded directly to the forum.

Then again, it might not be as productive.

At least we know he reads other people's opinions.

By the way, we sold our place in DC and are now looking for another place to live. Then comes the "exciting" part of actually moving. Apologies for my discontinuous participation. I hope no questions or statements directed to me were unanswered.