Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes
- From: "Bob" <hunrobe@xxxxxxx>
- Date: 11 Apr 2007 19:32:21 -0700
On Apr 11, 8:28 am, Wayne Pein <w...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Bob wrote:
The issue is not your self-published criticism but your
misrepresentation here of the study's authors' conclusions. You are
free to pretend that because you possess the ability to post your
opinions on a website that must mean you also possess expertise on
that subject. All I ask is that you restrict yourself to stating your
own opinions without misstating those of others.
Regards,
Bob Hunt
You are not free to distort my words and you are not free to pretend
that you know anything about research methodology. The fact that, in
their and your opinion, the closer passing distance of motorists in bike
lanes did not warrant mentioning in their specious conclusions does not
nullify that the effect exists.
I state the findings. You and others pretend they don't exist.
Wayne
In fact, I have neither distorted your words (I simply supplied the
rest of the quote that you conveniently omitted) nor have I claimed
any special expertise. I've left those two endeavors to you. You've
responded by consistently misstating the conclusions of the study you
quoted through your selective editing and claiming expertise without
demonstrating any credentials beyond self-published criticism. Lacking
any demonstration of such credentials, how are we to judge whether you
are an expert in research methodology or simply a pompous windbag? My
vote is for pompous windbag.
Regards,
Bob Hunt
.
- References:
- Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes
- From: Wayne Pein
- Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes
- From: Mark Hickey
- Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes
- From: Wayne Pein
- Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes
- From: Mark Hickey
- Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes
- From: Wayne Pein
- Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes
- From: Mark Hickey
- Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes
- From: frkrygow
- Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes
- From: gds
- Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes
- From: Wayne Pein
- Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes
- From: gds
- Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes
- From: Wayne Pein
- Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes
- From: Bob
- Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes
- From: Wayne Pein
- Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes
- From: Bob
- Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes
- From: Wayne Pein
- Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes
- From: Bob
- Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes
- From: Wayne Pein
- Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes
- Prev by Date: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes
- Next by Date: Re: The Speed of Light
- Previous by thread: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes
- Next by thread: Re: The case for physically separated bike lanes
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading