Well, edukator seems a bit touchy about something.

Anyway, handbrake, neutral, stretch feet. Nice and relaxed.

And by the way, 75 is a guess, and likely too high. I wasn’t paying much attention to the speedo given the circumstances.

Yep. 75. Too fast but I was expecting to get to about 60 and be well clear.

This bit of road, after the junction. No cars coming the other way at any point in all this.

https://goo.gl/maps/NVgZVSDSRpB2

Point is, he was still going no more than 45 until he spied me overtaking.

To be fair, we’re probably talking 75 so not that ridiculous but still, once your committed its difficult to change plan – especially if you think they might suddenly drop anchor too.

In the end it was fine but I ended up using much more of the road then I expected simply because one idiot didn’t like being overtaken.

I just don’t get the mentality. Fine, be a bit annoyed (though frankly that’s a bit daft too), but why pull such a dangerous stunt?

Yes.

Hope that helps.

Never meant to buy a project.

Did by accident.

Wish I hadn’t! :lol:

Basically, just go in with your eyes open and don’t underestimate what might need doing. Assume the worst and keep plenty of contingency just in case.

But I might just be pessimistic!

Shouldn’t be so bad if you’ve no time pressure. If you’re worried about it work out a couple of bail out options to a train station en route, or just a cafe for a breather.

Depends how tired you are after your shift really…

What is most sad and lazy is the notion that a picture in an advert somehow makes people think it’s OK to be sexist. That’s simply wrong.

If you eradicate images like this the sexists will still be there and the dickheads who make sexist comments will also still be dickheads and make the same comments.

The picture is not a problem, sexism is.

In the south west, Miles’ tea.

Anywhere else, clipper all the way.

I sometimes think my blood must be 50% tea…

aracer – I don’t have the time or inclination to go into that detail to confirm what is patently obvious anyway! Its quite interesting though. The words dodge and tax would appear to fit quite neatly in the same sentence here.

GrahamS that’s all fair enough then.

My interpretation of this

businesses, of all sizes and in all sectors, to operate more sustainably and responsibly to improve the economic, social and environmental outcomes for Scotland

wouldn’t fit here though.

In fairness it seems so loosely worded that the trustees can do whatever the **** they want so long as its in Scotland.

Whether its the best use of the money is another question, as is whether or not it would be made available so quickly to someone in a less prominent position is another.

As I said before, if someone was rattling a bucket for this charity, the name of the charity would suggest a different use of the money and I am fairly sure that if you asked them, different examples would be given.

The difference is that spending £x million pounds on flood defences for a town or community benefits everyone equally. It prevents transport links from vanishing and ensures that the town business don’t suffer undue disruption and fail.

Our baron mate here “benefits” from flood defences up and downstream same as everyone in the nearby area.

This is £100,000 to protect one private residence, culturally significant or not don’t pretend its the same thing.

Tinybits – that does seem to be going quite well. It would have been nice if he’d used it to secure some sort of non-charitably funded help though eh.

Lord, baron, whatever. The point is he’s hardly in a position where, even with the loss of his house, he’d be standing in the queue at the jobcentre once a week.

But of course, here on the internet (or more particularly STW), using the wrong word means everything you have ever said and will ever say is entirely incorrect and untrustworthy in perpetuity.

He has enough by way of cash, assets and influence to sort his own problems out. If he wants his problems to be our problems then he should be handing over some stake to his assets.

You’re assuming the best of intentions on his part, I’m assuming the worst. Meh.

Another thing:

I doubt anyone donating to a body called “Scottish Business in the Community” would really expect the target businesses to be lords with enormous shooting estates. I would expect they would have in mind twee little bakeries and nurseries and other mundane stuff which actually needs support to get off the ground. Cronyism at its finest I think.

I don’t see how anyone can really support a charitable donation of that scale to a single private ‘owner’ of a publically inaccessible estate.

To save a house of national importance would be fair enough if the public had any rights over it. But we don’t. So **** him.

If the laird can’t afford to fix it he can sell it to someone who can or raise money from his other assets. That’s what anyone else would have to do.

If the issue is saving a listed building and that means that the public purse should be stepping in to save it, then perhaps listing a building should mean that the public have a quantifiable stake in a listed property.

This charitable donation does seem to be stretching the remit of the charity somewhat.

Interesting enough. Its a pernicious thing though and it starts with those **** stickers…

I could have a think about calendars I suppose!

Actually, that’s another good question point though, presumably because of the stiff soles and lack of foot movement, I find my feet get much colder when clipped in.

To be fair, its been shit all round and there doesn’t seem to be a massive incentive to persevere.

Meh.

Woah, slow down there, theres legs in this yet!

Just wanted to point out that it’s those who don’t like the calendar that really threw their toys out of the pram. In fact one advocate got so upset one of his posts miraculously disappeared!

Still you know keep making things up!

I’m off back to do those other things I mentioned :lol:

Its funny that franki because im the opposite! Off road anyway I find I back off completely if i’m clipped in because I cant move about like I want to and dont ‘feel’ safe.

Lack of ‘practice’ maybe? I dunno.

As for always coming out of the clips when you crash – nope. Been there and had a very awkward crash which would have been very minor if my feet weren’t attached!

Ill have a look at that vid later. Too long for right now but looks interesting.

I didn’t say I didn’t notice it, just not much!

But is that the sole benefit or am I missing a trick?

I might try shifting the cleats backwards a bit and see if that helps. It’ll be an interesting experiment if nowt else!

MartynS my MTB is a felt hardtail buy I’m a whaleyite so I’m usually off in the opposite direction…

Most of the advice seems to be give it time and it’ll come good. Well I’ve given it 2 years so I need a reason why it’s better.

Even on the road bike I don’t really notice much difference in ‘pedalling efficiency’.

How generous. May I add that I have been extremely generous with my responses to you.

As for people agreeing or disagreeing with how to define a strawman argument, I suspect most people have better things to do. As do I.

The cleats don’t waterproof but it seemed the shoes available were better… I may have been misguided there!

Is it now I mention I’ve had them more than 2 years!

Honest to god.

That link isn’t the **** be all and end all of definitions.

One google search ater:
Strawman: A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent’s argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent.

So equating racism with sexism so that he can claim ‘we have a winner’ perhaps?

As for

false cause is probably the crux of this entire thread and is what chip and I at least are suggesting i.e. the calendar and ‘sexy images’ of the type, have no material impact on the prevalence of sexist behaviour in society.

You don’t appear to understand that fallacy either – unless you and chip are suggesting there is actually a correlation?

How did you get that so backwards?

It sounds far more dramatic then it really was!

I’ve already loosened the screws as far as possible and i;ve even changed the cleat type – spds have an ‘easy to get put of version’. Cant remember the proper name and too lazy to look!

I only use them on the road bike after a reasonably spectacular bike over arse incident on the MTB last year. The only real reason I got them int he first place was curiosity and the need for waterproofing my toes!

Are SPDs particularly better/worse than others for adjustment?

Perhaps cleats and me just don’t mix!

That would be a strawman yes. A more subtle one would be to shift the discussion less blatantly. Like you did by banging on about racism in a way which wasn’t relevant.

Perhaps we should look at some other things on that very clever website:

the fallacy fallacy is a good one to start with
tu quoque seems relevant
anecdotal appears a few times
I refuse to post strawman again.

false cause is probably the crux of this entire thread and is what chip and I at least are suggesting i.e. the calendar and ‘sexy images’ of the type, have no material impact on the prevalence of sexist behaviour in society.

The problem here is, there is no evidence for either ‘side’ as its all opinions but people keep getting offended and insulting people.

chip – Member

Really, not as crap an argument as that just because some one would not call someone a **** it is proof that that person is wrong in believing this calender is not sexist. :lol: Hoist by his own petard!

aracer and nick.

I will refer you to junkyards little theory, which he completely misquoted but hey ho. Its actually a theory of competence or learning a new skill. Please see here : competence for a nice starter.

Basically you are in the “Unconscious incompetence” stage though i do hope that soon changes.

Nicks last little gambit is a classic strawman. Some of the others are a bit more ambiguous.

Ok, so now we’re back to strawmen.

Calling someone a racial slur to their face is really very differnt to producing a calendar with some pictures on it.

The equivalent would probably be me now, knowing she doesn’t liek the calendar, taking a copy round to her house and somehow forcing her the view each and every picture. But i wont do that, because it wouldn’t be very nice.

I really hope you can see that.

Slowster – theres clearly two parallel discussion about the calendar and about sexism full stop.

You still work from the assetion that the calendar is sexist in itself. The only reason the charity bit is relevant is because its not part of the ‘normal’ advertising. Its a special purchase of a calendar. If the imagery was being used in ads in magazines then yes, i would class that as sexism, but it isn’t. That could be the only point where we actually differ.

Of course sexism is a problem. It is an improving picture though and there are real issues which need to be addressed. Focussing on somethign as trivial as a calendar allows proper dyed in the wool sexists to ridicule more significant arguments so might be counter productive. See “yoghurt knitting”, “tree hugging”, and “sandal wearing” as examples of the type of thing I mean. Which terms, for those of you that dont understand, are all a form of objectification.

Theres a few points in there nickc

1 – you agree the end result is the same whether its self censorship or an ‘actual’ ban
2 – that is not a strawman (which is just an attempt to dismiss an argument without engaging), it is taking the argument to its logical conclusion (theres probably a latin phrase for that somewhere)
3 – Of course there is a difference between shouldn’t and can’t
4 – I dont call people offensive racial terms because first, the words don’t normally enter my head and second it would be quite rude and offensive.

I’ve spend two **** years working with an uneducated cretin who thinks its ok to go to the **** shop and have a similar discourse to this stupid thread. It **** disgusts me so don’t imply that i secretly want to insult anyone differnt than me. Luckily she’s never heard the term strawman so we don’t go round that particular joyous circle.

My argument is that there are things which are categorically offensive and there are things which are categorically not. There are a number of grey areas in the middle and this falls well and truly in there. In my opinion, it is so close to the unoffensive group that it is ludicrous to complain in such a public and melodramatic manner.

There a really simple solution to all this though isn’t there – build council houses and make them available to everyone.

If the BTL brigade and other private landlords had decent, affordable competition which was based on demand rather than profit, they would have to step in line or go bust.

How did a council house turn into something undesirable? The whole point of them was that you would have a manual worker and a bank manager side by side – was that just the tories or did something else happen?

It does annoy me slightly that i’m with binners on this one…

molgrips does seem to have come round to a more pleasant manner of discourse so that snice. I think we disagree though.

Junkyard on the other hand sees scarecrows everywhere. There are many devices you can use to try and describe and explain a position. Besides which, your one of the worst offenders.

Try this one out Reductio ad absurdum. Interestingly enough that page even explains for you why its different to a strawman.

As someone who teaches this you really should know this stuff.

Cougar – the logical conclusion of the article is a ban whether that be via self censorship or by legislation. The argument that has been made that any such objectifying images are sexist and should be stopped is also equivalent to a ban.

If you really need a precedent for this, see free speech laws – you can say what you like but if it is actually racist, threatening, abusive or insulting then you can be prosectuted. Whats that if not a ban?

And just for the record, that isn’t a straw man arguement – thats a comparative point of view based on the most frequently used comparison in this thread.

No. Its objectification. Which is different, but that’s been done already.

DrJ – she did link the calendar to flashing and groping. So the correct response would have been “yes” as opposed to “have you stopped beating your wife?”

Lets stop sexism so we can all be more civilised and get on together I hear you shout. Oh, but if you don’t like the way I do it you can **** off back to the stone age you ****. Now that is ironic.

Whena company does a massive PUBLIC charity events publicised on their own website /social media/general then they are clearly doing it for reasons other than pure altruism. They can do this in secret if they do not wish the company to gain by being associated with the charity and with raising money. Hell they could even donate some of their profit in secret to a charity. yt they chose the public way of raising money that costs them NOTHING beyond time.

“Massive public events”? There wasn’t even a link on their website that I could see. It was a mailshot to their existing customers. One of which took the hump and posted a massive public overreaction to the internets.

It kind of has to be public to raise any money.

chip – the complete inability of some on here to follow simple logic is beyond belief. This lot can’t tell the difference between saying this specific calendar is OK and making a case defending all sexists and sexist behaviour in society.

So, if you want to brand everyone with a different opinion as you a sexist that’s fine. It just makes you look daft and weakens your case against actual sexism.

It’s a very nicely written post actually and if you stop arguing for one moment and think then you might realise that what it says supports Adele’s right to write the article and anybody else right to challenge that article. That’s what a debate is.

I suspect slowster leans towards agreeing with Adele’s article but that is not stated in the post. You can read into it what you like though, you seem to be good at deciding what other people think.

Gro clock was going to be my suggestion but even when properly observed it has its limits. Ours is up before 6 most days but it was much worse before the gro clock. We eventually took the view that it was better to leave a stash of toys to occupy him in his room until the sun comes up on the clock – then he can come and get us. It works a bit but could be better.

I did wonder if he was getting hungry in the mornings or something I.e. later mealtimes or different food could help maybe.

I think they probably all just enjoy being difficult!

Slowster makes a nice point, albeit about a slightly different topic!

Applying the logic here though that does give room to challenge Adele and other’s position.

Why do people ask for a topic to be closed exactly? No one makes you post an opinion you can just stop. :wink: