Originally Posted by
AlmostTrick
Right. I can't speak for others, but I already admitted that
this particular crash would have been difficult to avoid in that final second. Also that it is rare.
Originally Posted by
Jim from Boston
Originally Posted by
I-Like-To-Bike
You might find that replies to your comments, which you seem overjoyed to receive and acknowledge,
would be less rare if your posts were presented in a more readable, less jumbled format without the superfluous quoting of old posts.
Originally Posted by
Jim from Boston
And thank you too, @I-Like-To-Bike, for your response. I usually don’t reply in full about my posting style to such critiques until two or more syncophants have chimed in...
Originally Posted by
Jim from Boston
…
Now of course, I’m gratified that other subscribers do read, and indeed reply to my posts.
Originally Posted by
Jim from Boston
...PS:
I just re-read @I-Like-To-Bike's response;"Rare" refers to the frequency of rear end collisions to cyclists, not the frequency of replies to my posts.
Originally Posted by
I-Like-To-Bike
Re-read it again. I used the term "rare", to refer to the rarity of anyone actually quoting or responding to any of your wall-of-quotes posts; and so rare that you personally find it gratifying to post a thank you note to the rare responder for wading through the wall of rehashed quotes.
Thank you again for the favor of a reply. Out of gratitude for your validation of my posts, I did ponder your remarks. At first, I did indeed interpret your remarks as a rebuke of my posting style, but then realized in the context of the above quote chain, the putative interpretation is of a rear end collision as a rare event.
Nonetheless I do acknowledge your out-of-context implication.
Originally Posted by
Unca_Sam
There's no further discussion here, just sniping. Perhaps it's time to close this thread.
****.
