Times article

Sir Jeremy said:

On 2 Jan, 17:37, JNugent <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Nigel Cliffe said:

Lily wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>"wafflycat" <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote in message
>news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>A response from the Times's editor can be seen here:-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>http://www.timetriallingforum.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=17192&pid=245...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>Not good.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>Do you have no sense of humour, or do you excuse cyclists' littering?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I think if Parris had written an article which only said that cyclistswere
the cause of litter, few would have complained strongly.  Such an article
may have been factually incorrect, but the press is full of factually
incorrect opinion pieces. There may have been a few "reader comments"
pointing out that most roadside verge debris comes from car/van occupants,
but little else.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The objection is to the "put a wire across their path with intent to kill"
statement, which is prominant at the top.  Unfortunately, the stupid,
dangerous, murderous practise of stringing a wire across routes happens from
time to time. It doesn't help if a "humorous" writer of newspaper articles
writes something suggesting it is a good idea to do such a thing.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Turn it round; write an article suggesting that everyone go round and slash
the tyres of cars because some car drivers use mobile phones when driving,
thus endangering pedestrians.  Is that acceptable and responsible writing ?

Quoted message said:

Actually, for all that you seem to have forgotten it, the dangerous,
murderous* practise of slashing car tyres also happens from time to
time. Yet no disproportionate complaint is raised (or undue connection
made) about the ranting of self-appointed eco-warriors on usenet or
elsewhere. It may be because those victims are more inclined to see
things in a proper perspective.

Quoted message said:

[* It is more than an economic crime; a driver might easily not notice
a partially-deflated tyre.]- Hide quoted text -

Quoted message said:

- Show quoted text -

Tyre slashing has been condoned on cycling forums, or at least
"understood" because of  dislike of "car culture"- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"Tyre slashing has been condoned on cycling forums, or at least
"understood" because of dislike of "car culture" "

Provide evidence for this or stick your random lies up your fat [censored].

On 2 Jan, 17:37, JNugent <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Nigel Cliffe said:

Lily wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"wafflycat" <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>A response from the Times's editor can be seen here:-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>http://www.timetriallingforum.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=17192&pid=245...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>Not good.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Do you have no sense of humour, or do you excuse cyclists' littering?

Quoted message said:

I think if Parris had written an article which only said that cyclists were
the cause of litter, few would have complained strongly.  Such an article
may have been factually incorrect, but the press is full of factually
incorrect opinion pieces. There may have been a few "reader comments"
pointing out that most roadside verge debris comes from car/van occupants,
but little else.

Quoted message said:

The objection is to the "put a wire across their path with intent to kill"
statement, which is prominant at the top.  Unfortunately, the stupid,
dangerous, murderous practise of stringing a wire across routes happens from
time to time. It doesn't help if a "humorous" writer of newspaper articles
writes something suggesting it is a good idea to do such a thing.

Quoted message said:

Turn it round; write an article suggesting that everyone go round and slash
the tyres of cars because some car drivers use mobile phones when driving,
thus endangering pedestrians.  Is that acceptable and responsible writing ?

Actually, for all that you seem to have forgotten it, the dangerous,
murderous* practise of slashing car tyres also happens from time to
time. Yet no disproportionate complaint is raised (or undue connection
made) about the ranting of self-appointed eco-warriors on usenet or
elsewhere. It may be because those victims are more inclined to see
things in a proper perspective.

[* It is more than an economic crime; a driver might easily not notice
a partially-deflated tyre.]- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"Yet no disproportionate complaint is raised (or undue connection
made) about the ranting of self-appointed eco-warriors on usenet or
elsewhere. "

Diddums. You're upset that CYCLING groups don't complain about damage
to vehicles.

By the same logic, I'm shocked and appalled that you have NEVER
condemned the Rape of Nanking, you sick, sick puppy.

Guffaw.

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

Quoted message said:

"wafflycat" <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

A response from the Times's editor can be seen here:-

http://www.timetriallingforum.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=17192&pid=245308&st=105&#entry245308

Not good.

Do you have no sense of humour, or do you excuse cyclists' littering?

Do you honestly believe that the empty cans, bottles, fast food packaging
and cast-off shoes littering the countryside are /really/ the work of
cyclists?

Standards are clearly slipping :-(

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
Never trust a man with more than one moustache.

On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 16:44:07 +0000 someone who may be Simon Brooke
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

No. When people advocate trying to kill me - for a 'crime' I have not
committed - I don't have any sense of humour at all.

Very sensible.

I wonder what would happen if some writer for the "news"paper picked
on the alleged activities of homosexual men, perhaps leaving condoms
lying in parks? I wonder if they would then compose an article
suggesting homosexual men should be murdered, by placing bombs in
bars they are supposed to frequent? I wonder if the "news"paper
would print such an article?

Such an article would rightly not be printed, not the least because
such bombs have been placed. ISTM that the "news"paper thought it
could pick on cyclists with this vile article in a way that it would
not pick on other groups.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 10:05:24 +0000,

David Hansen said:

On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 16:44:07 +0000 someone who may be Simon Brooke
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

No. When people advocate trying to kill me - for a 'crime' I have not
committed - I don't have any sense of humour at all.

Very sensible.

I wonder what would happen if some writer for the "news"paper picked
on the alleged activities of homosexual men, perhaps leaving condoms
lying in parks? I wonder if they would then compose an article
suggesting homosexual men should be murdered, by placing bombs in
bars they are supposed to frequent? I wonder if the "news"paper
would print such an article?

Such an article would rightly not be printed, not the least because
such bombs have been placed.

I think this point is the most telling. I enjoy absurdist humour
as much as the next but however when there is a clear track record
of such things occurring in real life then the humour is no longer
an absurdist comment but becomes rather more upsetting and if the
writer was aware of the history of such attacks I would add sinister.

In an environment where there is hostility and regular attacks on
the group depicted it (even if not the exact same attack) is still
probably beyond the pale as it supports such behaviour and fuels
some of the idiots who perpetrate it.

--
Andy Leighton => [email hidden]
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

spindrift said:

On 2 Jan, 17:37, JNugent <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Nigel Cliffe said:

Lily wrote:

Quoted message said:

>"wafflycat" <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote in message
>news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

>>A response from the Times's editor can be seen here:-

Quoted message said:

>>http://www.timetriallingforum.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=17192&pid=245...

Quoted message said:

>>Not good.

Quoted message said:

>Do you have no sense of humour, or do you excuse cyclists' littering?

Quoted message said:

I think if Parris had written an article which only said that cyclists were
the cause of litter, few would have complained strongly. Such an article
may have been factually incorrect, but the press is full of factually
incorrect opinion pieces. There may have been a few "reader comments"
pointing out that most roadside verge debris comes from car/van occupants,
but little else.

Quoted message said:

The objection is to the "put a wire across their path with intent to kill"
statement, which is prominant at the top. Unfortunately, the stupid,
dangerous, murderous practise of stringing a wire across routes happens from
time to time. It doesn't help if a "humorous" writer of newspaper articles
writes something suggesting it is a good idea to do such a thing.

Quoted message said:

Turn it round; write an article suggesting that everyone go round and slash
the tyres of cars because some car drivers use mobile phones when driving,
thus endangering pedestrians. Is that acceptable and responsible writing ?

Actually, for all that you seem to have forgotten it, the dangerous,
murderous* practise of slashing car tyres also happens from time to
time. Yet no disproportionate complaint is raised (or undue connection
made) about the ranting of self-appointed eco-warriors on usenet or
elsewhere. It may be because those victims are more inclined to see
things in a proper perspective.

[* It is more than an economic crime; a driver might easily not notice
a partially-deflated tyre.]- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Quoted message said:

"Yet no disproportionate complaint is raised (or undue connection
made) about the ranting of self-appointed eco-warriors on usenet or
elsewhere. "

Quoted message said:

Diddums. You're upset that CYCLING groups don't complain about damage
to vehicles.

Actually, I was pointing out that transport newsgroups didn't complain
about damage to vehicles except by attributing blame to the (cyclist)
culprit, in the case I recall. Nothing to do with "cycling groups".

0/10.

On 3 Jan, 12:22, JNugent <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

spindrift said:

On 2 Jan, 17:37, JNugent <[email hidden]>
wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Nigel Cliffe wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>Lily wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>"wafflycat" <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote in message
>>news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>>A response from the Times's editor can be seen here:-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>>http://www.timetriallingforum.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=17192&pid=245...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>>Not good.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>Do you have no sense of humour, or do you excuse cyclists' littering?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>I think if Parris had written an article which only said that cyclists were
>the cause of litter, few would have complained strongly.  Such an article
>may have been factually incorrect, but the press is full of factually
>incorrect opinion pieces. There may have been a few "reader comments"
>pointing out that most roadside verge debris comes from car/van occupants,
>but little else.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>The objection is to the "put a wire across their path with intent to kill"
>statement, which is prominant at the top.  Unfortunately, the stupid,
>dangerous, murderous practise of stringing a wire across routes happensfrom
>time to time. It doesn't help if a "humorous" writer of newspaper articles
>writes something suggesting it is a good idea to do such a thing.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>Turn it round; write an article suggesting that everyone go round and slash
>the tyres of cars because some car drivers use mobile phones when driving,
>thus endangering pedestrians.  Is that acceptable and responsible writing ?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Actually, for all that you seem to have forgotten it, the dangerous,
murderous* practise of slashing car tyres also happens from time to
time. Yet no disproportionate complaint is raised (or undue connection
made) about the ranting of self-appointed eco-warriors on usenet or
elsewhere. It may be because those victims are more inclined to see
things in a proper perspective.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

[* It is more than an economic crime; a driver might easily not notice
a partially-deflated tyre.]- Hide quoted text -

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

- Show quoted text -

"Yet no disproportionate complaint is raised (or undue connection
made) about the ranting of self-appointed eco-warriors on usenet or
elsewhere. "
Diddums. You're upset that CYCLING groups don't complain about damage
to vehicles.

Actually, I was pointing out that transport newsgroups didn't complain
about damage to vehicles except by attributing blame to the (cyclist)
culprit, in the case I recall. Nothing to do with "cycling groups".

0/10.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Oh.

Note to self, don't post dumbass sarcasm until after coffee.

Sorry.

spindrift said:

On 3 Jan, 12:22, JNugent <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

spindrift said:

On 2 Jan, 17:37, JNugent <[email hidden]>
wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>Nigel Cliffe wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>Lily wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>>"wafflycat" <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote in message
>>>news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>>>A response from the Times's editor can be seen here:-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>>>http://www.timetriallingforum.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=17192&pid=245...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>>>Not good.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>>Do you have no sense of humour, or do you excuse cyclists' littering?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>I think if Parris had written an article which only said that cyclists were
>>the cause of litter, few would have complained strongly.  Such an article
>>may have been factually incorrect, but the press is full of factually
>>incorrect opinion pieces. There may have been a few "reader comments"
>>pointing out that most roadside verge debris comes from car/van occupants,
>>but little else.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>The objection is to the "put a wire across their path with intent to kill"
>>statement, which is prominant at the top.  Unfortunately, the stupid,
>>dangerous, murderous practise of stringing a wire across routes happens from
>>time to time. It doesn't help if a "humorous" writer of newspaper articles
>>writes something suggesting it is a good idea to do such a thing.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>Turn it round; write an article suggesting that everyone go round andslash
>>the tyres of cars because some car drivers use mobile phones when driving,
>>thus endangering pedestrians.  Is that acceptable and responsible writing ?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>Actually, for all that you seem to have forgotten it, the dangerous,
>murderous* practise of slashing car tyres also happens from time to
>time. Yet no disproportionate complaint is raised (or undue connection
>made) about the ranting of self-appointed eco-warriors on usenet or
>elsewhere. It may be because those victims are more inclined to see
>things in a proper perspective.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>[* It is more than an economic crime; a driver might easily not notice
>a partially-deflated tyre.]- Hide quoted text -

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>- Show quoted text -
"Yet no disproportionate complaint is raised (or undue connection
made) about the ranting of self-appointed eco-warriors on usenet or
elsewhere. "
Diddums. You're upset that CYCLING groups don't complain about damage
to vehicles.

Quoted message said:

Actually, I was pointing out that transport newsgroups didn't complain
about damage to vehicles except by attributing blame to the (cyclist)
culprit, in the case I recall. Nothing to do with "cycling groups".

Quoted message said:

0/10.- Hide quoted text -

Quoted message said:

- Show quoted text -

Oh.

Note to self, don't post dumbass sarcasm until after coffee.

Sorry.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Don't you mean "until after the morning meds round"?

Sir Jeremy said:

spindrift said:

On 3 Jan, 12:22, JNugent <[email hidden]>
wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

spindrift wrote:
> On 2 Jan, 17:37, JNugent <[email hidden]>
> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>Nigel Cliffe wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>>Lily wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>>>"wafflycat" <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>>>>A response from the Times's editor can be seen here:-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>>>>http://www.timetriallingforum.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=17192&pid=245...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>>>>Not good.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>>>Do you have no sense of humour, or do you excuse cyclists' littering?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>>I think if Parris had written an article which only said that cyclists were
>>>the cause of litter, few would have complained strongly.  Such anarticle
>>>may have been factually incorrect, but the press is full of factually
>>>incorrect opinion pieces. There may have been a few "reader comments"
>>>pointing out that most roadside verge debris comes from car/van occupants,
>>>but little else.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>>The objection is to the "put a wire across their path with intent to kill"
>>>statement, which is prominant at the top.  Unfortunately, the stupid,
>>>dangerous, murderous practise of stringing a wire across routes happens from
>>>time to time. It doesn't help if a "humorous" writer of newspaper articles
>>>writes something suggesting it is a good idea to do such a thing.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>>Turn it round; write an article suggesting that everyone go round and slash
>>>the tyres of cars because some car drivers use mobile phones when driving,
>>>thus endangering pedestrians.  Is that acceptable and responsiblewriting ?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>Actually, for all that you seem to have forgotten it, the dangerous,
>>murderous* practise of slashing car tyres also happens from time to
>>time. Yet no disproportionate complaint is raised (or undue connection
>>made) about the ranting of self-appointed eco-warriors on usenet or
>>elsewhere. It may be because those victims are more inclined to see
>>things in a proper perspective.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>[* It is more than an economic crime; a driver might easily not notice
>>a partially-deflated tyre.]- Hide quoted text -

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>- Show quoted text -
> "Yet no disproportionate complaint is raised (or undue connection
> made) about the ranting of self-appointed eco-warriors on usenet or
> elsewhere. "
> Diddums. You're upset that CYCLING groups don't complain about damage
> to vehicles.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Actually, I was pointing out that transport newsgroups didn't complain
about damage to vehicles except by attributing blame to the (cyclist)
culprit, in the case I recall. Nothing to do with "cycling groups".

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

0/10.- Hide quoted text -

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

- Show quoted text -

Quoted message said:

Oh.

Quoted message said:

Note to self, don't post dumbass sarcasm until after coffee.

Quoted message said:

Sorry.- Hide quoted text -

Quoted message said:

- Show quoted text -

Don't you mean "until after the morning meds round"?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"Tyre slashing has been condoned on cycling forums, or at least
"understood" because of dislike of "car culture" "

Where?

spindrift said:

Sir Jeremy said:

On 3 Jan, 12:36, spindrift <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

On 3 Jan, 12:22, JNugent <[email hidden]>
wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> spindrift wrote:
> > On 2 Jan, 17:37, JNugent <[email hidden]>
> > wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >>Nigel Cliffe wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >>>Lily wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >>>>"wafflycat" <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote in message
> >>>>news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >>>>>A response from the Times's editor can be seen here:-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >>>>>http://www.timetriallingforum.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=17192&pid=245...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >>>>>Not good.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >>>>Do you have no sense of humour, or do you excuse cyclists' littering?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >>>I think if Parris had written an article which only said that cyclists were
> >>>the cause of litter, few would have complained strongly.  Such an article
> >>>may have been factually incorrect, but the press is full of factually
> >>>incorrect opinion pieces. There may have been a few "reader comments"
> >>>pointing out that most roadside verge debris comes from car/van occupants,
> >>>but little else.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >>>The objection is to the "put a wire across their path with intentto kill"
> >>>statement, which is prominant at the top.  Unfortunately, the stupid,
> >>>dangerous, murderous practise of stringing a wire across routes happens from
> >>>time to time. It doesn't help if a "humorous" writer of newspaperarticles
> >>>writes something suggesting it is a good idea to do such a thing.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >>>Turn it round; write an article suggesting that everyone go roundand slash
> >>>the tyres of cars because some car drivers use mobile phones whendriving,
> >>>thus endangering pedestrians.  Is that acceptable and responsible writing ?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >>Actually, for all that you seem to have forgotten it, the dangerous,
> >>murderous* practise of slashing car tyres also happens from time to
> >>time. Yet no disproportionate complaint is raised (or undue connection
> >>made) about the ranting of self-appointed eco-warriors on usenet or
> >>elsewhere. It may be because those victims are more inclined to see
> >>things in a proper perspective.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >>[* It is more than an economic crime; a driver might easily not notice
> >>a partially-deflated tyre.]- Hide quoted text -

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >>- Show quoted text -
> > "Yet no disproportionate complaint is raised (or undue connection
> > made) about the ranting of self-appointed eco-warriors on usenet or
> > elsewhere. "
> > Diddums. You're upset that CYCLING groups don't complain about damage
> > to vehicles.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Actually, I was pointing out that transport newsgroups didn't complain
> about damage to vehicles except by attributing blame to the (cyclist)
> culprit, in the case I recall. Nothing to do with "cycling groups".

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> 0/10.- Hide quoted text -

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> - Show quoted text -

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Oh.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Note to self, don't post dumbass sarcasm until after coffee.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Sorry.- Hide quoted text -

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

- Show quoted text -

Quoted message said:

Don't you mean "until after the morning meds round"?- Hide quoted text -

Quoted message said:

- Show quoted text -

"Tyre slashing has been condoned on cycling forums, or at least
"understood" because of  dislike of "car culture" "

Where?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You're the expert, you look. I really can't be arsed. You could have
started with Cycling Plus if you hadn't had it closed down

Sir Jeremy said:

spindrift said:

On 3 Jan, 13:43, Sir Jeremy <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

On 3 Jan, 12:36, spindrift <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> On 3 Jan, 12:22, JNugent <[email hidden]>
> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > spindrift wrote:
> > > On 2 Jan, 17:37, JNugent <[email hidden]>
> > > wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > >>Nigel Cliffe wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > >>>Lily wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > >>>>"wafflycat" <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote in message
> > >>>>news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > >>>>>A response from the Times's editor can be seen here:-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > >>>>>http://www.timetriallingforum.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=17192&pid=245...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > >>>>>Not good.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > >>>>Do you have no sense of humour, or do you excuse cyclists' littering?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > >>>I think if Parris had written an article which only said that cyclists were
> > >>>the cause of litter, few would have complained strongly.  Such an article
> > >>>may have been factually incorrect, but the press is full of factually
> > >>>incorrect opinion pieces. There may have been a few "reader comments"
> > >>>pointing out that most roadside verge debris comes from car/vanoccupants,
> > >>>but little else.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > >>>The objection is to the "put a wire across their path with intent to kill"
> > >>>statement, which is prominant at the top.  Unfortunately, thestupid,
> > >>>dangerous, murderous practise of stringing a wire across routeshappens from
> > >>>time to time. It doesn't help if a "humorous" writer of newspaper articles
> > >>>writes something suggesting it is a good idea to do such a thing.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > >>>Turn it round; write an article suggesting that everyone go round and slash
> > >>>the tyres of cars because some car drivers use mobile phones when driving,
> > >>>thus endangering pedestrians.  Is that acceptable and responsible writing ?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > >>Actually, for all that you seem to have forgotten it, the dangerous,
> > >>murderous* practise of slashing car tyres also happens from timeto
> > >>time. Yet no disproportionate complaint is raised (or undue connection
> > >>made) about the ranting of self-appointed eco-warriors on usenetor
> > >>elsewhere. It may be because those victims are more inclined to see
> > >>things in a proper perspective.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > >>[* It is more than an economic crime; a driver might easily not notice
> > >>a partially-deflated tyre.]- Hide quoted text -

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > >>- Show quoted text -
> > > "Yet no disproportionate complaint is raised (or undue connection
> > > made) about the ranting of self-appointed eco-warriors on usenetor
> > > elsewhere. "
> > > Diddums. You're upset that CYCLING groups don't complain about damage
> > > to vehicles.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > Actually, I was pointing out that transport newsgroups didn't complain
> > about damage to vehicles except by attributing blame to the (cyclist)
> > culprit, in the case I recall. Nothing to do with "cycling groups"..

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > 0/10.- Hide quoted text -

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > - Show quoted text -

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Oh.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Note to self, don't post dumbass sarcasm until after coffee.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Sorry.- Hide quoted text -

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> - Show quoted text -

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Don't you mean "until after the morning meds round"?- Hide quoted text-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

- Show quoted text -

Quoted message said:

"Tyre slashing has been condoned on cycling forums, or at least
"understood" because of  dislike of "car culture" "

Quoted message said:

Where?- Hide quoted text -

Quoted message said:

- Show quoted text -

You're the expert, you look. I really can't be arsed. You could have
started with Cycling Plus if you hadn't had it closed down- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I have looked.

You're a liar. There is none.

What's the point of inventing conflict where none exists outside your
tiny single-note mind?

You think it's helpful to make up animosity?

You said slashing tyres was condoned on cycling fora.

You're a liar.

spindrift said:

On 3 Jan, 13:53, Sir Jeremy <[email hidden]> wrote:

[ ... ]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Tyre slashing has been condoned on cycling forums, or at least
"understood" because of dislike of "car culture" "

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Where?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You're the expert, you look. I really can't be arsed. You could have
started with Cycling Plus if you hadn't had it closed down- Hide quoted text -

Quoted message said:

I have looked.
You're a liar. There is none.
What's the point of inventing conflict where none exists outside your
tiny single-note mind?
You think it's helpful to make up animosity?

Ah, so you *have* got a sense of humour after all!

Quoted message said:

You said slashing tyres was condoned on cycling fora.
You're a liar.

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.local.hampshire/browse_thread/thread/edb7929cf680bd60/d7591469e3a9f66d?hl=en&q=tyres+slashed&lnk=ol&

Or:

http://tinyurl.com/3c9yqa

Google lists it as uk.local.hampshire thread, but it appears to have
been x-posted to ukrc. There are familiar names in there from various
groups, so widely was it cross-posted.

There are over 100 posts in the thread. I won't claim to have read
past the first page or two, but opinion on the incidents (don't forget
that it is provocatively entitled "Give him a medal"😉 seems divided,
with about a half (that's only an estimate) condoning the criminal
damage. It's four years ago, so while the current "regulars" are
different in all groups, there are well-known names in there, speaking
up on behalf of the cyclist who slashed those tyres and caused all
that loss. Later, there are other threads claiming that he shouldn't
be described as a cyclist (even though he clearly was one).

On 3 Jan, 14:29, JNugent <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

spindrift said:

On 3 Jan, 13:53, Sir Jeremy <[email hidden]> wrote:

[ ... ]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>"Tyre slashing has been condoned on cycling forums, or at least
>"understood" because of  dislike of "car culture" "
>Where?
You're the expert, you look. I really can't be arsed. You could have
started with Cycling Plus if you hadn't had it closed down- Hide quoted text -

I have looked.
You're a liar. There is none.
What's the point of inventing conflict where none exists outside your
tiny single-note mind?
You think it's helpful to make up animosity?

Ah, so you *have* got a sense of humour after all!

Quoted message said:

You said slashing tyres was condoned on cycling fora.
You're a liar.

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.local.hampshire/browse_thread/thr...

Or:

http://tinyurl.com/3c9yqa

Google lists it as uk.local.hampshire thread, but it appears to have
been x-posted to ukrc. There are familiar names in there from various
groups, so widely was it cross-posted.

There are over 100 posts in the thread. I won't claim to have read
past the first page or two, but opinion on the incidents (don't forget
that it is provocatively entitled "Give him a medal"😉 seems divided,
with about a half (that's only an estimate) condoning the criminal
damage. It's four years ago, so while the current "regulars" are
different in all groups, there are well-known names in there, speaking
up on behalf of the cyclist who slashed those tyres and caused all
that loss. Later, there are other threads claiming that he shouldn't
be described as a cyclist (even though he clearly was one).

"with about a half (that's only an estimate) condoning the criminal
damage. It's four years ago,"

No they don't , and that isn't a cycling group either.

Stop posting dunbass lies please.

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

Quoted message said:

Google lists it as uk.local.hampshire thread, but it appears to have
been x-posted to ukrc. There are familiar names in there from various
groups, so widely was it cross-posted.

There are over 100 posts in the thread. I won't claim to have read
past the first page or two, but opinion on the incidents (don't forget
that it is provocatively entitled "Give him a medal"😉 seems divided,
with about a half (that's only an estimate) condoning the criminal
damage.

There are over a thousand posts in the thread and, having read about half of
it before getting bored, I can find evidence of approximately two people -
none of them uk.rec.cycling regulars - condoning the behaviour of the
tyre-slasher. The vast majority of the thread concerns motorway driving
standards and one Ivor Jones proving himself a titanic [censored] in half a dozen
different ways.

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
Help me, Mrs. Medleycott, I don't know what to do. I've only
got three bullets and there's four of Mötley Crüe.

Dave Larrington said:

JNugent <[email hidden]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine
to tell us:

Quoted message said:

Google lists it as uk.local.hampshire thread, but it appears to have
been x-posted to ukrc. There are familiar names in there from various
groups, so widely was it cross-posted.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There are over 100 posts in the thread. I won't claim to have read
past the first page or two, but opinion on the incidents (don't forget
that it is provocatively entitled "Give him a medal"😉 seems divided,
with about a half (that's only an estimate) condoning the criminal
damage.

Quoted message said:

There are over a thousand posts in the thread and,

Yes - "100" was a typo.

Quoted message said:

having read about half of
it before getting bored, I can find evidence of approximately two people -
none of them uk.rec.cycling regulars - condoning the behaviour of the
tyre-slasher. The vast majority of the thread concerns motorway driving
standards and one Ivor Jones proving himself a titanic [censored] in half a dozen
different ways.

Don't know him; I didn't read that far.

spindrift said:

Sir Jeremy said:

On 3 Jan, 13:47, spindrift <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

On 3 Jan, 13:43, Sir Jeremy <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> On 3 Jan, 12:36, spindrift <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > On 3 Jan, 12:22, JNugent <[email hidden]>
> > wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > > spindrift wrote:
> > > > On 2 Jan, 17:37, JNugent <[email hidden]>
> > > > wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > > >>Nigel Cliffe wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > > >>>Lily wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > > >>>>"wafflycat" <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote in message
> > > >>>>news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > > >>>>>A response from the Times's editor can be seen here:-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > > >>>>>http://www.timetriallingforum.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=17192&pid=245...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > > >>>>>Not good.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > > >>>>Do you have no sense of humour, or do you excuse cyclists' littering?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > > >>>I think if Parris had written an article which only said thatcyclists were
> > > >>>the cause of litter, few would have complained strongly.  Such an article
> > > >>>may have been factually incorrect, but the press is full of factually
> > > >>>incorrect opinion pieces. There may have been a few "reader comments"
> > > >>>pointing out that most roadside verge debris comes from car/van occupants,
> > > >>>but little else.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > > >>>The objection is to the "put a wire across their path with intent to kill"
> > > >>>statement, which is prominant at the top.  Unfortunately, the stupid,
> > > >>>dangerous, murderous practise of stringing a wire across routes happens from
> > > >>>time to time. It doesn't help if a "humorous" writer of newspaper articles
> > > >>>writes something suggesting it is a good idea to do such a thing.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > > >>>Turn it round; write an article suggesting that everyone go round and slash
> > > >>>the tyres of cars because some car drivers use mobile phones when driving,
> > > >>>thus endangering pedestrians.  Is that acceptable and responsible writing ?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > > >>Actually, for all that you seem to have forgotten it, the dangerous,
> > > >>murderous* practise of slashing car tyres also happens from time to
> > > >>time. Yet no disproportionate complaint is raised (or undue connection
> > > >>made) about the ranting of self-appointed eco-warriors on usenet or
> > > >>elsewhere. It may be because those victims are more inclined to see
> > > >>things in a proper perspective.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > > >>[* It is more than an economic crime; a driver might easily not notice
> > > >>a partially-deflated tyre.]- Hide quoted text -

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > > >>- Show quoted text -
> > > > "Yet no disproportionate complaint is raised (or undue connection
> > > > made) about the ranting of self-appointed eco-warriors on usenet or
> > > > elsewhere. "
> > > > Diddums. You're upset that CYCLING groups don't complain aboutdamage
> > > > to vehicles.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > > Actually, I was pointing out that transport newsgroups didn't complain
> > > about damage to vehicles except by attributing blame to the (cyclist)
> > > culprit, in the case I recall. Nothing to do with "cycling groups".

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > > 0/10.- Hide quoted text -

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > > - Show quoted text -

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > Oh.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > Note to self, don't post dumbass sarcasm until after coffee.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > Sorry.- Hide quoted text -

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > - Show quoted text -

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Don't you mean "until after the morning meds round"?- Hide quoted text -

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> - Show quoted text -

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Tyre slashing has been condoned on cycling forums, or at least
"understood" because of  dislike of "car culture" "

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Where?- Hide quoted text -

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

- Show quoted text -

Quoted message said:

You're the expert, you look. I really can't be arsed. You could have
started with Cycling Plus if you hadn't had it closed down- Hide quoted text -

Quoted message said:

- Show quoted text -

I have looked.

You're a liar. There is none.

What's the point of inventing conflict where none exists outside your
tiny single-note mind?

You think it's helpful to make up animosity?

You said slashing tyres was condoned on cycling fora.

You're a liar.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

look harder

Tim Steele said:

Have you read this astonishing article?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/ar...

If you feel as I do a letter to the Times (or filling in the comment form)
might help.

Tim

I've been away so apologies if someone has already posted this, but
seems that press complaints commission has been hearing from more than
200 folks who feel unhappy about the article

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_east/7168530.stm

"A spokeswoman for The Times said Mr Parris was out of the country"

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

Quoted message said:

Tim Steele said:

Have you read this astonishing article?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/ar...

If you feel as I do a letter to the Times (or filling in the comment
form)
might help.

Tim

I've been away so apologies if someone has already posted this, but
seems that press complaints commission has been hearing from more than
200 folks who feel unhappy about the article

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_east/7168530.stm

"A spokeswoman for The Times said Mr Parris was out of the country"

And long may he remain so. Preferably permanently.

POHB said:

Tim Steele said:

If you feel as I do a letter to the Times (or filling in the
comment form) might help.

I've been away so apologies if someone has already posted this, but
seems that press complaints commission has been hearing from more than
200 folks who feel unhappy about the article

Indeed, but it's actually quite hard to come up with a clause of the
code that the PCC works by which the article contravenes. Endorsing
and encouraging the maiming of minority groups is not actually
prohibited - though it would be prohibited to mention that Mr Parris
is gay, were you writing about his article.

I eventually decided to go with clause 1 - inaccuracy. It's not true
to say that cyclists are predominantly responsible for littering.
Unfortunately, the real issue (advocating life-threatening attacks on
cyclists) is then not the subject of the complaint.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

On 04 Jan 2008 08:09:22 GMT someone who may be Ian Smith
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Indeed, but it's actually quite hard to come up with a clause of the
code that the PCC works by which the article contravenes.

Yes and no. It is a clear breach of the first sentence, "All members
of the press have a duty to maintain the highest professional
standards."

However, I agree that the code does make complaining difficult.
Presumably this was the aim of its authors.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54