Times article

"Bill C" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
On Dec 30, 4:22 pm, JNugent <[email hidden]>
wrote:
<Garbage snipped>
Hey let's try this one out. "Gays spread aids so we could do worse
than shooting them all!"
I'd guess you might find that offensive, especially if suggested by a
major columnist and politician, or how about "All those damned Muslims
support terrorists and look stupid, so we could do worse than set up
some camps for them to protect ourselves and find the solution to
them!"
I find all the statements irresponsible, offensive, and not humorous.
You have a group you don't like and have no problem justifying/
excusing whatever statement sounds good to you.
I'm totally in favor of free speech so his right to say it should be
protected, but people's right to hold him responsible for his speech
are just as appropriate.
He wants to create a scapegoat and spread hate, well that's a good
old tradition, but one I've had more than enough of, and it's gotten
millions killed over the course of history. Only jackasses excuse, or
support, that type of blanket behavior.
Bill C

Thanks Bill, you said it all. Matthew Parris is a bigot, and no amount of
"free speech" excuses will change that.

"JNugent" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

burtthebike said:

JNugent said:

burtthebike wrote:
> "JNugent" <[email hidden]> wrote:

There was no threat made. Re-read it if you don't recall it properly (and
you don't - see below).

No, you read it "A festive custom we could do worse than foster would be
stringing piano wire across country lanes to decapitate cyclists." If that
isn't a threat, then one of us doesn't understand English.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This wasn't criticism,

It sounded pretty critical to me.

Quoted message said:

it was an invitation to randomly decapitate people for an imagined crime.

No, it wasn't. That is your over-active imagination working. Re-read it.
It was a commentary, not a proposal.

See above.

Quoted message said:

"We walk about, wrote George Eliot, "well-wadded with stupidity"." Well, at
least he got that right, but perhaps he was looking in the mirror at the
time.

None of your selective misunderstanding of what Mr Parris said can change
the fact that the man is a bigot.

burtthebike said:

"We walk about, wrote George Eliot, "well-wadded with stupidity"."  Well,
at least he got that right, but perhaps he was looking in the mirror at
the time.

She. Get your genders right.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
Just as defying the law of gravity through building aircraft requires
careful design and a lot of effort, so too does defying laws of
economics. It seems to be a deeply ingrained aspect of humanity to
forever strive to improve things, so unquestioning acceptance of a
free market system seems to me to be unnatural. ;; Charles Bryant

Rob Morley said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
burtthebike
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Still haven't had either of my comments published on their website, now
up to 134, so how many have they actually had?

A fair few more than that, I would imagine.

Mine's not there either.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.

On 30/12/2007 23:22, burtthebike said,

Quoted message said:

"We walk about, wrote George Eliot, "well-wadded with stupidity"."
Well, at least he got that right, but perhaps he was looking in the
mirror at the time.

Might be worth your while reading
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Eliot>

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

Response to Simon Brooke

Quoted message said:

burtthebike said:

"We walk about, wrote George Eliot, "well-wadded with stupidity"."  Well,
at least he got that right, but perhaps he was looking in the mirror at
the time.

She. Get your genders right.

He. Get your context right.

It's [presumably ;-)] not an issue to burtthebike whether George Eliot
was stupid or not; but he was quoting Matthew Parris quoting George
Eliot, and it's Parris' stupidity which has been under discussion.

--
Mark, UK
"Prejudice is never easy unless it can pass itself off for reason."

In news:[email hidden],
Bill C <[email hidden]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:

Quoted message said:

archierob said:

Matthew is an erudite, perceptive man, many of his essays are of the
highest quality, and he has an innate wit. He like any other human
being has faults and occasionally screws thing up - so
congratulations Matthew on talking utter bollocks!

He's not a blithering idiot?

/Of course/ he's a blithering idiot. He used to be a Tory MP.

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
Mushroom! Mushroom!

"Simon Brooke" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

burtthebike said:

"We walk about, wrote George Eliot, "well-wadded with stupidity"." Well,
at least he got that right, but perhaps he was looking in the mirror at
the time.

She. Get your genders right.

I've got the impression from some of the posts that Mr Parris is gay, but I
still don't think it's pc to call him "she".

burtthebike said:

"Simon Brooke" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

burtthebike said:

"We walk about, wrote George Eliot, "well-wadded with stupidity"." Well,
at least he got that right, but perhaps he was looking in the mirror at
the time.

She. Get your genders right.

I've got the impression from some of the posts that Mr Parris is gay, but
I still don't think it's pc to call him "she".

Mr Parris is, I believe, both gay and male. George Eliot, however was
neither.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
; gif ye hes forget our auld plane Scottis quhilk your mother lerit you,
; in tymes cuming I sall wryte to you my mind in Latin, for I am nocht
; acquyntit with your Southeron
;; Letter frae Ninian Winyet tae John Knox datit 27t October 1563

Mark McNeill said:

Response to Simon Brooke

Quoted message said:

burtthebike said:

"We walk about, wrote George Eliot, "well-wadded with stupidity"."
Well, at least he got that right, but perhaps he was looking in the
mirror at the time.

She. Get your genders right.

He. Get your context right.

It's [presumably ;-)] not an issue to burtthebike whether George Eliot
was stupid or not; but he was quoting Matthew Parris quoting George
Eliot, and it's Parris' stupidity which has been under discussion.

Errrrm, parse error at line 2; compilation failed.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

<p>Schroedinger's cat is <blink><strong>NOT</strong></blink> dead.</p>

"JNugent" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

DavidR said:

By contrast, blowing 4x4's up is so frought with practical difficulties
that no matter how many articles journos wrote about their fantasy, it
would remain readily identifiable as a fantasy. ...Until full
instructions about how to procure and assemble the bomb are given. Well,
the means and method are distinctly given in the article.

So let's get your position clear...

It's perfectly OK to urge newspaper readers to murder car-drivers, but
completely beyond the pale to urge them to murder cyclists.

....apart from the rather obvious fact (above) that I didn't say that.

Quoted message said:

Is that about it?

"Sir Jeremy" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

It would be even easier to run cyclists over at traffic lights as
Clarkson "suggested" but I haven't heard of anyone doing that and
giving JC's article as a defense.
Thats because, as you say, its fantasy.
Why do so many cyclists seem unable to discern between reality and
fantasy?

You still believe garrotted cyclists are a figment of someone's imagination?

DavidR said:

"JNugent" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

DavidR wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

By contrast, blowing 4x4's up is so frought with practical difficulties
that no matter how many articles journos wrote about their fantasy, it
would remain readily identifiable as a fantasy. ...Until full
instructions about how to procure and assemble the bomb are given. Well,
the means and method are distinctly given in the article.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So let's get your position clear...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It's perfectly OK to urge newspaper readers to murder car-drivers, but
completely beyond the pale to urge them to murder cyclists.

Quoted message said:

...apart from the rather obvious fact (above) that I didn't say that.

Technically, you're right (on this occasion). You only said that
urging newspaper-readers to nurder 4x4 drivers by causing an explosion
was "readily identifiable as a fantasy".

I actually agree with that.

So why wasn't what J Clarkson and M Parris wrote also "readily
identifiable as a fantasy"? It is exactly that to most people.

"Simon Brooke" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

burtthebike said:

"Simon Brooke" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

burtthebike wrote:

> "We walk about, wrote George Eliot, "well-wadded with stupidity"."
> Well,
> at least he got that right, but perhaps he was looking in the mirror at
> the time.

She. Get your genders right.

I've got the impression from some of the posts that Mr Parris is gay, but
I still don't think it's pc to call him "she".

Mr Parris is, I believe, both gay and male. George Eliot, however was
neither.

Yes, I know. Since I was quoting Mr Parris, your point is what exactly?

"JNugent" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

DavidR said:

"JNugent" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

DavidR wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>By contrast, blowing 4x4's up is so frought with practical difficulties
>that no matter how many articles journos wrote about their fantasy, it
>would remain readily identifiable as a fantasy. ...Until full
>instructions about how to procure and assemble the bomb are given. Well,
>the means and method are distinctly given in the article.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So let's get your position clear...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It's perfectly OK to urge newspaper readers to murder car-drivers, but
completely beyond the pale to urge them to murder cyclists.

Quoted message said:

...apart from the rather obvious fact (above) that I didn't say that.

Technically, you're right (on this occasion). You only said that urging
newspaper-readers to nurder 4x4 drivers by causing an explosion was
"readily identifiable as a fantasy".

I actually agree with that.

So why wasn't what J Clarkson and M Parris wrote also "readily
identifiable as a fantasy"?

Because it is a real and actual danger.

The following BBC News clippings have been copied from a response on the
timesonline website:

Thursday, 16 August 2007
A cyclist was thrown from his bike when he was caught in a metal wire trap
strung across a road.

Friday, 7 July 2006
A cyclist has been treated for serious facial injuries after riding into a
wire which was deliberately left strung across part of a Swindon park.

Saturday, 22 October 2005
An eight-year-old boy has been left with facial injuries after cycling into
barbed wire fencing stretched across a road as part of a "prank", police
said.

Tuesday, 5 August, 2003
A teenage BMX-rider is recovering in hospital after riding into a piece of
wire deliberately stretched across a cycle route.

Quoted message said:

It is exactly that to most people.

No it is not.

"JNugent" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

DavidR said:

"JNugent" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

DavidR wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>By contrast, blowing 4x4's up is so frought with practical difficulties
>that no matter how many articles journos wrote about their fantasy, it
>would remain readily identifiable as a fantasy. ...Until full
>instructions about how to procure and assemble the bomb are given. Well,
>the means and method are distinctly given in the article.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So let's get your position clear...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It's perfectly OK to urge newspaper readers to murder car-drivers, but
completely beyond the pale to urge them to murder cyclists.

Quoted message said:

...apart from the rather obvious fact (above) that I didn't say that.

Technically, you're right (on this occasion). You only said that urging
newspaper-readers to nurder 4x4 drivers by causing an explosion was
"readily identifiable as a fantasy".

I actually agree with that.

So why wasn't what J Clarkson and M Parris wrote also "readily
identifiable as a fantasy"? It is exactly that to most people.

We have deliberate attacks against cyclists so how do you know there isn't a
"Clarkson" effect?

You really don't grasp the difference between blowing things up, which
requires special materials, technical knowledge, planning, danger to the
perpetrator and only limited chance of success against something that's
easily done as a thoughtless prank.

DavidR said:

"Sir Jeremy" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

It would be even easier to run cyclists over at traffic lights as
Clarkson "suggested" but I haven't heard of anyone doing that and
giving JC's article as a defense.
Thats because, as you say, its fantasy.
Why do so many cyclists seem unable to discern between reality and
fantasy?

You still believe garrotted cyclists are a figment of someone's imagination?

Never did believe such a thing.
believing that Matthew Parris' article in the The Times would actually
cause someone to get garroted is paranoia

Sir Jeremy said:

DavidR said:

"Sir Jeremy" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

It would be even easier to run cyclists over at traffic lights as
Clarkson "suggested" but I haven't heard of anyone doing that and
giving JC's article as a defense.
Thats because, as you say, its fantasy.
Why do so many cyclists seem unable to discern between reality and
fantasy?

You still believe garrotted cyclists are a figment of someone's imagination?

Never did believe such a thing.
believing that Matthew Parris' article in the The Times would actually
cause someone to get garroted is paranoia

"Just because you are PARANOID does NOT mean they are NOT out to get
you." - Unknown

It is unlikely that someone read that column, and then went out and
strung up a few garrotes, however it is more likely that many people
will have read this, and it will be sitting at the back of their
subconsciousness waiting to jump out when they are on the way back from
the pub.
It also reduces the humanity of cyclists in the eyes of some people, so
that they will drive closer, cut up more, or commit hit and runs.

When Close Encounters of the Third Kind was released at the cinema, the
amount of UFO sighting in the USA went up dramatically. I doubt that
more UFOs were flying around, but the film affected peoples subconscious
such that they started seeing flying saucers.

Martin.

Sparrow said:

"JNugent" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

DavidR said:

"JNugent" <[email hidden]> wrote

> DavidR wrote:

Quoted message said:

>> By contrast, blowing 4x4's up is so frought with practical
>> difficulties that no matter how many articles journos wrote about
>> their fantasy, it would remain readily identifiable as a fantasy.
>> ...Until full instructions about how to procure and assemble the
>> bomb are given. Well, the means and method are distinctly given in
>> the article.

Quoted message said:

> So let's get your position clear...

Quoted message said:

> It's perfectly OK to urge newspaper readers to murder car-drivers,
> but completely beyond the pale to urge them to murder cyclists.

Quoted message said:

...apart from the rather obvious fact (above) that I didn't say that.

Technically, you're right (on this occasion). You only said that
urging newspaper-readers to nurder 4x4 drivers by causing an explosion
was "readily identifiable as a fantasy".

I actually agree with that.

So why wasn't what J Clarkson and M Parris wrote also "readily
identifiable as a fantasy"?

Because it is a real and actual danger.

The following BBC News clippings have been copied from a response on the
timesonline website:

Thursday, 16 August 2007
A cyclist was thrown from his bike when he was caught in a metal wire
trap strung across a road.

Friday, 7 July 2006
A cyclist has been treated for serious facial injuries after riding into
a wire which was deliberately left strung across part of a Swindon park.

Saturday, 22 October 2005
An eight-year-old boy has been left with facial injuries after cycling
into barbed wire fencing stretched across a road as part of a "prank",
police said.

Tuesday, 5 August, 2003
A teenage BMX-rider is recovering in hospital after riding into a piece
of wire deliberately stretched across a cycle route.

Quoted message said:

It is exactly that to most people.

No it is not.

Have you ever read "Alice Through The Looking Glass"?

DavidR said:

"JNugent" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

DavidR said:

"JNugent" <[email hidden]> wrote
>DavidR wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>By contrast, blowing 4x4's up is so frought with practical difficulties
>>that no matter how many articles journos wrote about their fantasy, it
>>would remain readily identifiable as a fantasy. ...Until full
>>instructions about how to procure and assemble the bomb are given. Well,
>>the means and method are distinctly given in the article.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>So let's get your position clear...
>It's perfectly OK to urge newspaper readers to murder car-drivers, but
>completely beyond the pale to urge them to murder cyclists.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

...apart from the rather obvious fact (above) that I didn't say that.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Technically, you're right (on this occasion). You only said that urging
newspaper-readers to nurder 4x4 drivers by causing an explosion was
"readily identifiable as a fantasy".
I actually agree with that.
So why wasn't what J Clarkson and M Parris wrote also "readily
identifiable as a fantasy"? It is exactly that to most people.

Quoted message said:

We have deliberate attacks against cyclists so how do you know there isn't a
"Clarkson" effect?

How do you know there is one? I mean "know" as in "able to prove or
demonstrate"?

Did they only start after the Parris article was published? That would
be an odd thing to claim, since I have already given an instance of a
"line across the road" incident that I know of in the mid-1970s.