Please direct your comments at what people say, and not at the people themselves.
"Master of obfuscation" is a comment about the person, not about his writing. Can you really not see and appreciate the distinction?

Sounds like the behavior of way too many drivers...just like rolling through stops. Must be vehicular then. :rolleyes:

As I have mentioned to you before...if the words you write are not interpreted in the way you intend by the reader, then the communication problem is yours, not the reader's. Communication isn't throwing up a wall of words and expecting people to use a crystal ball to understand your meaning. :rolleyes:

It is the writer's responsibility to ensure that their intent is understood, not the reader's responsibility to somehow read the writer's mind.

I voted 'yes' only because kids dont overthink stuff like adults do.
In my youth would ride in the road usually, but up on the sidewalk when necessary.
I also rode my first bike in 1965. Things were much different then.
The percentages have changed, ie; more time in the road than sidewalk(lane etc)
but the thought process hasnt.....whatever needs to be done, just do it.
Dogma be damned.

I agree to a certain extent, but it's also a two-way street. The reader has an obligation to make a reasonable effort to understand what was intended. For example, communication with a reader who insists on going with a literal interpretation of everything that others write is not possible.

And any time there is a question as to the writer's intent, and the writer is there to clarify, uh, he, and nobody else, is the ultimate authority on what his own words mean. That should be obvious. I certainly wouldn't insist on my interpretation of your words when you're telling me you meant something else by them.

Remember, words are an intermediary step in communication. They represent a translation of the writer's thoughts into words, and then are interpreted again by the reader into his own understanding. Both translation and interpretation steps are subject to error. If there are ten people who read this post, there are ten different interpretations. Hopefully all will get the gist of what I intended, but some may not. It's always possible none will.

yes, john is inaccurately ascribing the 'do something stupid' admonishment to the bicyclist education materials of the day.

john is manufacturing that, to discredit bicycling education efforts that preceded HIS crackpot education materials.

jon is the sole fabricator of the 'taught to ride stupid' myth in his disengenous fallacies he uses to support his flawed sophistry.

anyone seen that 1963 bikesafety movie "someone got fat?" no 'stupid' message there at all!

Wouldn't a more appropriate question be whether it is even necessary for supposedly cognizant, experienced and otherwise right minded adults to ride the same as children? The whole point of teaching a child to behave a certain way is that they aren't experienced enough to make judgment calls. You are essentially programming them to be safe in as many situations as possible until they grow up and gain experience and wisdom.

Or am I wrong every time I "talk to a stranger"?

No... I don't ride as I did as a child. Took the training wheels off last week.

Huh????

Actually means, interpretation, writer's intent, obstinacy?

Ouch! My goal was merely to support the position of those 'others' as they interpreted the statements. I didn't hear any criticism, just questions. Even had there been criticism (better-argument) isn't that okay?
It's amazing how often those whose positions are challenged shout about misunderstanding or interpretation or obstinacy or criticism instead of approaching it as a different point of view.
I remember either hearing or reading about a reporter questioning the deep meaning in the lyrics of a song by a famous writer. The writer's response was 'it's just a song'. I wrote it 'cause the words worked, not to transmit some secret meaning.
Simply stated, there's always room for different interpretations.:D

And there we have it: a clear admission from chipcom that he eats children ;P

Well, room for different interpretations of what Shakespeare or Chaucer meant is one thing, there is even room for arguing that one interpretation is more correct (i.e., in line with what the writer intended) than another.

But there is no room for arguing with the writer about his intent. The writer is the ultimate/definitive authority on what he intended his words to mean, no matter how you or anyone else interpreted them.

Perhaps I misunderstood, but I detected an attitude of "I don't care what he meant, I'm going to interpret it the way I understood it", or something close to that, in all of your posts in this thread of discussion. And, again, I honestly cannot believe that someone with a modicum of exposure to Forester's writings would really think that Forester might suggest that bicyclists don't have to signal their intentions when turning. I just don't see how anyone can make an honest effort to understand what Forester meant with his words, and still think that.

And he prefers them cooked rare! I would never have guessed.

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.

All kids, when being prepared to be eaten, should be served rare. It's the only way to truly enjoy people.

tastes of chicken

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=cQgAMkMmsfg
just in case someone wants to see it

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:

Here is the sentence as posted in the context of the paragraph from which it was extracted:

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.

hed, you clipped too much- not that your multiple quotes help to clarify things -

jon wasn't saying 'signalling your turns is stupid' he was perpetuating his fabrication that bike education materials predating 'ec' taught people to ride stupidly.

BZZZZZZZZ. INCORRECT, sir. 'someone got fat' is a great example of early 60's bike safety materials before forestorism muddied the waters.

and anything else that gets within three feet of my hands or mouth!

FIVE FEET from the parked children, chip!!!

It's nice to see you finally realize the value in providing a name to the practice of riding a bicycle on roads in traffic in accordance with the vehicular rules of the road, and that the best name for that is vehicular cycling. It's good to have you on board as a VC advocate, Chip! Welcome!

If the words you write are not interpreted in the way you intend, then the communication problem yours, not the reader's.

Yup, exactly. So what's your point? :lol:

This gives me a lot of hope. Thanks!

Every time we point out motorist behavior and use it to promote our ideas of how to make cycling safer, more pleasant, more convenient, or more popular, we re-emphasize the belief that there is an inequality between motorists and cyclists that must be changed.

HH, please allow me to take responsibility for any errors in communication you seem to have from what I posted.

I lifted JF's statement because it was illustrative of a point that I, and dare I say several others, have continuously made in these forums. And the point is that JF's tendency towards denigration of cyclists makes it difficult to understand for whom or what he is advocating. The use of the word "stupid" is nothing I recall seeing in instructions of that time. The word and it's use in that context is solely JF's interpretation of what is being implied in cycling instructions that he may or may not necessarily agree with. My sense is that JF advocates for his distinct version of what he coined as "Vehicular Cycling". He does not advocate for cyclists, he does not advocate for "safer streets" and he holds those who do not follow the strict dogmatic and ideological interpretation of his particular brand of VC as gospel with great contempt and disdain.

My questions about what he implies were actually meant, therefore, to be interpreted with a touch of irony- since I know quite well that JF encourages cyclists to signal their intentions, to look back and confirm that their intentions have been communicated and to only make their turns when they are certain they can safely proceed. But I also know that JF thinks cyclists that do not fall in lock step with his methodologies are referred to as phobic, stupid, children.

And that, my dear reader, was the point I was attempting to make.

And now to another point somewhat related. Why single out JF's statement, style, his posts in particular?I do so because he, whether I or anyone else in these forums or elsewhere agree with him, is still seen as having a strong influence on cycling advocacy. Basically he is in a leadership position and I feel that not only are many of his ideas out of touch his manner and tone is alienating to many cyclists. When I have made this point directly in response to his posts I received this reply.

Fine. So be it. But if he,or you, wonders why people want to put him on ignore or call so many of his statements into question then he may want to tone down that rhetoric- to me it's a responsibility that goes hand in hand with true leadership.

Part of the reason -- of course, I am writing generally and not about buzzman specifically -- is that John actually took the time to write down these ideas providing the foundation for conversation. Regardless of whether one agrees with the material, it really is a huge contribution.