New safety rules

[Witton Park]

If you say 2+2=4 and a bunch of trolls come on and tell you it doesn't question who you are to make that calculation in the first place and then ask you to reveal your sources and publish details of your maths degree, then you might respond to defend your position quite regularly.
When the Chair of the Institute of Mathematics then comes on and also expresses doubts about your calculation...

With some more reasoned responses, this could have been despatched to the long grass a couple of weeks ago whilst we await the outcome.

[alwaysinjured]

If you say 2+2=4 and a bunch of trolls come on and tell you it doesn't question who you are to make that calculation in the first place and then ask you to reveal your sources and publish details of your maths degree, then you might respond to defend your position quite regularly.
When the Chair of the Institute of Mathematics then comes on and also expresses doubts about your calculation...

With some more reasoned responses, this could have been despatched to the long grass a couple of weeks ago whilst we await the outcome.

Spot on, very much so on the last point.

Developing the analogy, there is also a disturbing trend that some imply that provided enough of 500 sign up to say 2+2 does not equal 4 then it no longer matters whether it is true... the rest appear obliged to accept it is so.

[noel]

If you mean I defended mo farah , paula and froome very robustly against repeated ill considered accusations of doping, and I dislike people who are willing to make such accusations without evidence, mea culpa! I would do it again...

Yes, that's exactly what I mean. It was the "very robustly" part specifically.

I'm sorry that this sounds like a character assassination. Personally, I've come round to your arguments on this thread. But I think there may be some who have already characterised you as I nearly did from my previous debates with you: that you will naturally take one extreme of a spectrum of arguments, or to put it more simply, that you like an argument.

I hope that people will take the time to read your posts and understand the points you are making. I think they are very valid.

[Fellhound]

Yes, that's exactly what I mean. It was the "very robustly" part specifically.

I hope that people will take the time to read your posts and understand the points you are making. I think they are very valid.

I think a 'robust' argument often gets a strong reaction, which is fine as long as the reaction is not simply the throwing of mud/insults.

I have sometimes been accused of being too 'robust' in my arguments, as have others I could name (besides AI) but if the arguments are well thought out and defensible (as I believe the ones put forward by AI on this thread are) then it's all good debate.

Some folk don't have the stomach for it, or the ability to constructively debate the points (not you Noel, I hasten to add) and that's also fine, as long as they don't expect to stand on the sidelines disrupting, diverting or otherwise attempting to destroy the debate in a negative and non-constructive way.

This is an important discussion, with implications for the whole sport, so it's important that it is allowed to run it's full course.

The only reason it has gone on so long is because some people have been unable to accept what is really a fairly simple concept; the more prescriptive and poorly-worded the published 'requirements' are, the worse the RO's position is. Anyone with any understanding of common-law litigation should be able to see that. But understanding of how common-law litigation works is apparently quite poor, as this thread amply illustrates.

[noel]

The only reason it has gone on so long is because some people have been unable to accept what is really a fairly simple concept; the more prescriptive and poorly-worded the published 'requirements' are, the worse the RO's position is. Anyone with any understanding of common-law litigation should be able to see that. But understanding of how common-law litigation works is apparently quite poor, as this thread amply illustrates.

Finally an adequate summary of the nub of this debate. Thanks.

[Rudolph Hooker]

Anyone with any understanding of common-law litigation should be able to see that.

Brilliant! Like it!

If you don't mind, I'll use that down the pub tonight - I can already see their eyes glazing over in an I've-just-been-reading-alwaysinjured stylee.

[wynn]

Brilliant! Like it!

If you don't mind, I'll use that down the pub tonight - I can already see their eyes glazing over in an I've-just-been-reading-alwaysinjured stylee.

how rude

[Rudolph Hooker]

how rude

Couldn't agree more. Hence my sarcastic post.

"Anyone with any understanding of common-law litigation should be able to see that." Downright condescending, especially when you consider that most ROs won't have a clue about such matters, and will probably believe whatever they read on here.

[tidemark]

Committee members who post on here with other aliases need to grow a pair. Women included.

[alwaysinjured]

"Anyone with any understanding of common-law litigation should be able to see that." Downright condescending, especially when you consider that most ROs won't have a clue about such matters, and will probably believe whatever they read on here.

Consider the position we started from: rules that said "no hazards in compulsory sections" and in several places "insurance is conditional on meeting the rules". I find it hard to believe that any RO can have thought about those without concerns about whether it is true of their (or any other fell race) on the basis of common sense, rather than knowledge of the law.

That leads me to conclude that some RO are not reading what they are signing, others are not thinking about it, on the basis that they assume that someone else will have done their thinking for them.

I can only say that attitude to legal documents is dangerous - in my opinion, not only should RO read them, they should consider taking legal advice. Their interests although overlapping are certainly not the same as the FRA.


Rudolph - like others - I have not seen you express opinion on the rules, rather than opinions on the conduct of others, which arouses my curiosity as to why you are posting here, or what is your interest in the thread?