Re: bike path news

On 3/12/2025 5:31 AM, John B. wrote:

On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 03:50:41 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
 

On 3/11/2025 8:37 PM, John B. wrote:

On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 09:58:04 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>

On 3/11/2025 6:47 AM, John B. wrote:

On 11 Mar 2025 10:23:20 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
>

AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

On 3/10/2025 6:21 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 3/10/2025 2:38 PM, AMuzi wrote:

>
People form their own opinions and arrange their own
behavior based on their own situation.

>
Yes - or based on their own phobias. I know people who are
horribly afraid of spiders, garter snakes, honeybees,
graveyards and more.
>
Smart? No. Logical? No. But at least they're not carrying
lethal weaponry.
>

My daughter for example used to take the train to work in
inclement or bitter cold Chicago winters.
No longer. ...

>
You're the anecdote master, Andrew. But IIRC you've not yet
found a horrifying anecdote about quiet bike paths in
suburban Florida, near our timid tricycle rider.
>

>
The murder of this thread was of an unarmed man on a bike path.
>

>
Just because it can happen doesn’t mean it will happen, going out on limb
but I suspect that CatTrike Ryder will be perfectly safe with or without
carrying any guns on his rides.
>
I suspect he knows this as well, but simply likes having the gun on him?
>
Roger Merriman

>
I spent more then a year in Vietnam where people did, on occasion,
shoot at you and I can assure you that a firearm did give you a
certain sense of security :-)
>
Even when they weren't shooting :-)

>
lol...yeah, let's compare an active war zone to a florida bike path -
that's rational.....

>
The point was, as I did state, "you felt more secure "even when they
weren't shooting"

>
Comparing a bike path in floriduh in 2025 to vietnam in 1970 isn't
rational, in fact, it's pretty fucking stupid....kunich-level stupid.
>

 Are you really that dense that you don't understand the phrase " a
firearm did give you a certain sense of security :-)"

Much less dense than to compare a active warzone  to a recreational rail trail more than 50 years apart and literally on the other side of the planet.

 I might add that the first Usian I saw shot was shot by (likely) a S.
Vietnamese - "joy shots" during Tet

And how many USAians have you seen shot on recreational rail trails in floriduh 50+ years hence?

 But again, it is legal and even recommended by at least one high level
police officer. Who are you, or Frankie, for that matter, to deny some
one the right to do something that is lawful to do?

I find it interesting that you dishonestly snipped my post in the very message you're replying to where I specifically addressed that point, yet you and the dumbass repeatedly accuse others of being dishonest when trimming irrelevant content.
For your and the floriduh dumbass's edification (since it seems either of you still don't get it even after it's been explained a dozen times):
- Snipping a post to trim content you aren't addressing is perfectly acceptable and recommended netiquette.
- snipping a post and making a comment to a point addressed in that post (especially a comment which ignores the information already presented) is dishonest or at best an indication you aren't paying attention.
Since I know both you and the dumbass will now claim I didn't respond, here's a cut-and-paste of what I wrote:
"nope, if he wants to carry a gun, he's free to do so. His rationale for carrying one is weak in that the risk of being attacked on the trail is less than being struck by lightening, and the idea that a fragile old man with his admitted deteriorating motor skills, eyesight, and hearing could actually defend himself without an assailant taking the gun from him and pistol whipping him with it is laughable.
But in the immortal words of Mason Williams, "one day you realize that 'I Want to' is the worlds greatest reason"."
--
Add xx to reply