Anyone think we need a 'gathering' to encourage all those who fled our foolish debates to return?
wilmington's cow, min, & kim all seem to have disappeared of late. perhaps others.
We still love you! (and promise to be better behaved)
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!
Homecoming ?
(66 posts)-
Posted 11 years ago #
-
Ooh, if it's on Saturday I'll be floating around on a brand new recumbent...
Not that I've fallen out with anyone that I know of, but I can call some people names if it gives me a chance to show of the new bike.
Posted 11 years ago # -
I didn't necessarily mean a physical gathering more like a 'come hoooome' message.
But, heck, if you need an excuse to show off your new bike, i'm sure we could oblige...
Posted 11 years ago # -
Oh. I'd combined 'cyclists' with 'gathering' and logically concluded cake would be included at some point.
And maybe bacon.
Posted 11 years ago # -
I fled this forum due to nitpickingly overweening comments from certain individuals about stuff that really really should have been taken all together with the other stuff i was talking about, which led to me basically finding myself being criticised for describing something i only witnessed. That was not my idea of encouragement to participate, particularly as a relatively new person here, so i have withdrawn from commenting until reading this thread today.
I am however heartened by the fact that people who regularly contribute have noticed that others are now not,and i may be drawn to comment in the future, but my past experience here could well prevent me.
I bid you all good tidings and safe riding. RJBPosted 11 years ago # -
Did someone say cake?
Posted 11 years ago # -
If I were to postulate, say; cake, at the coffee shop next to Laid Back (believed called the Pastures) on Saturday at 1300, would there perhaps be any takers?
Posted 11 years ago # -
Perhaps we could have a 'peace and reconciliation' thread, where posters can tell us of their wows and who has hacked them off, for whatever reason?
Posted 11 years ago # -
I got compared to Peter Sagan, and not in a good way. Water off a duck's back.
Posted 11 years ago # -
I'm up for some cake and contrition - I'm often needing to seek forgiveness...
I'm up for a Saturday not-PY at 1300 - see you then Darkerside!
Robert
Posted 11 years ago # -
Have started separate cake thread, as I worried that this one might be too obscurely titled, and that people would therefore miss out on cake. Which would be bad.
Posted 11 years ago # -
"promise to be better behaved"
Speak for yourself...
The trouble with 'on-line' (sometimes) is that 'tone'/irony/attempts at humour can be misread (literally).
This can particularly be the case when people have never actually met and so don't know the other's personality/persona.
Recent events seem to have involved (some) people who have met.
Which is a bit sad.
But at least it's led to cake.
Posted 11 years ago # -
I have decreased my comments, principally as honest held different opinions, from the norm are not welcomed
Posted 11 years ago # -
not sure what normal is on this forum? The link between the disparate commenters is that we commute to work by bicycle (tho of course some don't).
Groups get moderated that is unavoidable. I used to subscribe to a news group alt.jazz. This was before WWW so text only. I tried to post about Scottish jazz men bobby wish art and tommy smith but the moderator Marcel Franck Simon declined to put my contribution on the forum. He controlled the content. I still learnt a good deal about jazz.
This forum may be less heavily moderated but nevertheless it does have norms. Possibly a type of group norming that is hard to set out but if you express views outside the unexpressed norms you pick up some flame. We have had the same helmet debate on three separate occasions but now have a thread for it so that is another example of self moderation?
Posted 11 years ago # -
So is something like Festivus required?
Posted 11 years ago # -
I think for any online discussion place, a large pinch of salt is required, a duck, some water, and a back too.
I 'try' to be humorous, BUT, I'm critically aware that my sense of humour is quite abstract, and also just not funny sometimes. As previously mentioned, this is not always easy to translate online (or even face to face at times ;) ), and can be taken the wrong way by other folk.
Sometimes people just have differing opinions, some groups tend to be louder, here the emphasis is often (in my view, the opinionated bit now) just anti car, rather than pro cycling. An example of this would be the 'OT' discussions, one about trains would most likely be allowed to take place on the forum, one about cars (unless in a -ve sense) would definitely not.
All that aside, while I somewhat sympathise with the view that 'mainstream' opinions are not welcome, most of the folk here appear to be quite nice, even though sandal wearing (see), and I haven't met many in person. And to re-iterate what I said above: Salt, duck, water, back ;)
Posted 11 years ago # -
*Proud to wear sandals* (in appropriate weather conditions) and even have a beard. Bar mounted mirrors optional.
Posted 11 years ago # -
One person's mainstream is another person's?
Driving is 'mainstream', cycling is not.
Providing for the free flow of motor vehicles is clearly 'mainstream' in the UK.
Walking is highly mainstream and almost completely ignored by policy makers, planners and infrastructure organisers.
This forum is essentially about cycling in all its forms, with a variety of sideways issues often related (however obliquely) to 'living in Edinburgh'.
A high proportion of people here cycle to work. A similar proportion (this is a guess, but general on-forum chat suggests) also drive.
I get the general impression that most people are not happy with 'on-road' conditions - potholes, other road users etc. and might well favour better facilities for cycling and probably restrictions on cars/drivers.
Clearly such attitudes are not "mainstream" - if politicians and newspapers are to be believed.
Strangely a minority of a minority of cyclists have persuaded governments to (try to) get '10 of journeys by 2020' (maybe) to be by bike. No idea if that idea is therefore now 'mainstream'.
The UK has had 20 years or so of 'policy by focus group' - or so it seems.
Politicians react far too often to newspaper headlines/campaigns - but obviously 'we' will be happy if they change policies due (in part) to The Times cycling campaign.
So to a large extent people ('us' or 'other') don't actually want "the mainstream" to be/remain the norm.
There may be people who want "Victorian Values" (as long as the can choose which values), or return to the days before the permissive 60s.
But (for good and bad) things don't work like that.
Unfortunately (as the recent Ipsos Mori poll shows - http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/alex-massie/2013/07/abandon-all-hope-the-average-voter-thinks-one-in-four-britons-is-a-muslim ) just because people believe things doesn't mean they are true.
I believe Edinburgh would be a nicer place if more people cycled.
I believe more people would cycle if the infrastructure was better.
I believe local and national governments need to stop hiding behind the 'motorist/voter/mainstream' view.
I believe the police should actually want to enforce the laws more - not just occasional 'action weeks'.
Etc.
I might be wrong.
One great thing about this forum is that overheated arguments are fairly rare AND the arguments/debates have actually caused some people to change their minds - and admit it.
If people are leaving because 'they feel they don't fit' that's unfortunate - especially if it's because some people have been (even inadvertently) offensive.
I'm told there are other, worse, forums.
Posted 11 years ago # -
I don't know if it's possible to disagree with someone on an ethical or political issue without implying you think less of them.
This can be taken as one of two things:
1) I think you are already a good person, and trying to be better still, but in this field I think you are doing it wrong, and I am suggesting you do it this way instead.
b) You are a bad person because you're doing it wrong on purpose, and all your previous efforts in unrelated fields to be a good person are null and void.
Luckily I'm a sociopath so I don't care, but I can see it being quite upsetting to mistake (b) for (1).
Posted 11 years ago # -
I'd suggest there's an even milder version of 1), namely; 'I think you are already a good person and believe that as the topic of conversation is not mathematical there is unlikely to be a single, undeniably correct answer. Here's how I'd do it; other options are no doubt available.'
This applies particularly to politics and ethics.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Maybe all forums tend towards dogma. uk.rec.cycling is a great example of that. It was an interesting forum for a few years. Then the h****t thread (they called it the h****t wars) led to several people being labelled trolls because they held opinions which were different to the rest of the forum regulars. The forum became a moderated forum with an FAQ. Anyone with a view which contravened the belief set felt ostricised and the whole thing went into melt-down. The smouldering ruins are still there to be looked at.
Posted 11 years ago # -
I'd say there was a reasonable cross-section of opinion presented - it's interesting that CCE is considered anti-car (there are a few posters that might rejoice in that label), but others have considered there to be too much pro-car sentiment for a cycling forum!
Perhaps its the forum, increasing age (undoubtedly not wisdom!), parenthood, or wider cycling experience, but my views have definitely drifted (as do many of our threads) over the last few years.
Robert
(who bought an XC90 for his wife in the autumn)Posted 11 years ago # -
I'm always mildly amused when people suggest that CCE is 'anti-car'. I'm pretty sure that everyone of us bikenazis is more than balanced out by HGV-driving, petrolheads (eg I can name maybe 4 over 40s on the forum w/out cars and at least that number who drive lorries or motorbikes in addition to personal cars). And just look at the number of offers of car bike racks whenever anyone needs one?
Personally, I would claim not to be anti-car, but I am opposed to cities being designed primarily for rapid and easy passage of single occupancy cars, against short journeys being taken by cars, and against my tax dollars being used disproportionately to provide infrastructure that subsidizes personal car owners, when a high proportion of our population doesn't even have access to a car. (oops - I may be indulging in classic CCE thread drift...)
Posted 11 years ago # -
Pro cycling != anti car.
Well, not entirely, perhaps largely. But not entirely.
Posted 11 years ago # -
There's only bike/car conflict because the design of our roads encourages conflict, forcing us to compete for space. Totally unnecessary.
Posted 11 years ago # -
It's not even a question of "anti-car" or even anti-driver.
It's partly a view that drivers need to obey law(s) and the Highway Code (OK many do - but the not insignificant number who don't cause real problems.)
Partly a view that an 'acceptance' of the motorised status quo is normal/desirable and needs to be facilitated.
Partly a view that the police need to take enforcement much more seriously.
And that's all in the context of the number of current cyclists - which 'everyone' (officially) wants to see a significant increase in.
Cars in the right place at the right speed (not just 'no more than the legal limit'), with drivers losing the attitude that 'you're in my way'.
The last one is probably the most difficult one to do anything about!
Posted 11 years ago # -
To anyone that has left - please come back. To all those lurkers - feel free to come out of the shadows. Yes, there are a group of regular posters that seem to share many views - but I think other views are generally welcomed. That doesn't mean any opinion gets a free ride - if you are happy to stick your head above (the metaphorical) parapet, then be prepared for someone to try and chop it off. Have the courage of your convictions - people do change their mind on here.
Some of my favorite threads have involved helmets, Princes Street, cars etc. Even I'd steer clear of threads about feminism though (I'm not mental...)
(Just to be clear - JOKE)
Posted 11 years ago # -
I'll admit I don't read helmet threads. I have formed an opinion, don't believe that anyone elses thoughts would change that opinion, and therefore don't tick my own 'fit for rational debate' objectives.
Posted 11 years ago # -
My view was transformed early on when someone pointed out that in Germany and the Netherlands a higher proportion of people own cars, but that they don't expect to drive them to school, work etc.
That's surely the sort of balance that we are looking for?
Posted 11 years ago # -
I find it odd that anyone would find this forum, of all places, off putting.
It's as tame as you can possibly imagine - a lamb amongst wolves compared with any other forum I've visited.
Obviously when you write an opinion in public there's a chance that people will disagree with it. Especially as politely and eruditely as will generally happen here. But I guess if that's not acceptable to you then you might not be cut out for discussions in general, and CCE in particular.
Posted 11 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
