Another reason to avoid critical mass...

[Bob]

On May 20, 10:36 am, Jym Dyer <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Not only was C-M not mentioned in the alleged "news story" (I
> > say alleged and punctuate "news story" because it wasn't news,
> > just the unsubstantiated claims of a pseudonymous "source"
> > accompanied some thinly veiled editorializing by the writer
> > and the predictable outrage of a C-M attorney) but the *only*
> > mention of bicycles in the "news" portion appeared in the
> > first sentence ...
>
> =v= Given the nature of the meeting under discussion, there can
> only be a sole unsubstantiated claim for it.  His story can be
> found in slightly different form by a web search for "vegan
> potluck."  The lawyer is part of the National Lawyers Guild,
> not "a CM attorney," whatever that's supposed to mean.

It means exactly what it sounds like, an attorney that represents
Critical Mass. That was how the article described him, not as a member
of the National Lawyers Guild. If you find that offensive, blame the
CityPages author or better yet, just lighten up a little.

> =v= The article did mention CM later on, in particular the role
> of _agents_provocateur_ in the August 2007 Minneapolis ride,
> though it failed to point out that there are multiple sources
> corroborrating that information.  It also mentioned videotaped
> evidence of one such infiltrator in the New York City ride; in
> fact there are mulitple videotapes of multiple such incidents.

Reread what I wrote before getting bent out of shape. Did the
*article* mention C-M? Yes, but only after the writer stopped writing
a "news story" and started editorializing. If that sounds like
hairsplitting, it isn't. It's merely accuracy. If my placement of
quotation marks around "news" when I wrote, "...the *only* mention of
bicycles in the "news" portion appeared in the first sentence.",
wasn't clear enough I'm not sure how to make it any clearer.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

 

[Scott in SoCal]

On Tue, 20 May 2008 08:08:42 -0700, Jym Dyer <[email protected]> wrote:

>Brent P writes:
>
>> I propose Critical mass stop being assholes who run red
>> signals and generally make asses of themselves by ignoring
>> even the most basic rules of the roads, those rules that
>> even allow bicyclists to [yada yada yada] ...
>
>=v= Same old same old. *Yawn!*
>
>=v= Proposals work better when they're not based on false
>presuppositions, and also when they don't call people names.

Whatever Critical Mass is proposing might gain more support if they
weren't so obnoxious about it. If their message is ostensibly "share
the road," it kinda gets lost when the road is completely taken over
by a bunch of pedalcyclists completely blocking traffic in all
directions.
--
"Dave's not here, man!"
- Tommy Chong

 

[Tom Keats]

In article <927936a4-db40-45f4-9a89-a465a68fc953@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
N8N <[email protected]> writes:
> On May 20, 12:54 am, [email protected] (Tom Keats) wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>         Brent P <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>
>>
>> >http://articles.citypages.com/2008-05-14/news/moles-wanted/
>>
>> > Seems the old police and federal moles infiltrating groups and then
>> > possibly starting violence is still alive and well.
>>
>> /Avoid/ Critical Mass?!
> Yes, why avoid critical mass? After all, the best way to get people
> to see your point of view is to act like a complete **** and break a
> bunch of laws.

We all get to see drivers' P'sOV via their own
acting like dicks and breaking a bunch of laws
in their own Critical Masses, every single day
of every year (as opposed to one day out of
every month.)

AISI, in some ways bicycle Critical Mass is a
mirror-reflection of drivers' behaviours, right
back in their faces. C-M informs drivers of their
own inflictions and afflictions upon people.
Apparently drivers don't like the taste of their
own medicine.

I encourage you to consider the societal effects
of your own urban car-driving. You get to go,
and life is good. But you're in a stream of urban
car traffic that keeps non-driving others from being
able to cross the street you're on, so they could get
to the shops they want to patronize.

Car traffic is bad for business and The Economy,
because it cuts customers off from shops.

And car traffic plugs itself up. At least bike
C-M keeps going, and gets out of everybody's way.


cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

 

[N8N]

On May 21, 5:44 am, [email protected] (Tom Keats) wrote:
> In article <927936a4-db40-45f4-9a89-a465a68fc...@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
>         N8N <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > On May 20, 12:54 am, [email protected] (Tom Keats) wrote:
> >> In article <[email protected]>,
> >>         Brent P <[email protected]> writes:
>
> >> >http://articles.citypages.com/2008-05-14/news/moles-wanted/
>
> >> > Seems the old police and federal moles infiltrating groups and then
> >> > possibly starting violence is still alive and well.
>
> >> /Avoid/ Critical Mass?!
> > Yes, why avoid critical mass?  After all, the best way to get people
> > to see your point of view is to act like a complete **** and break a
> > bunch of laws.
>
> We all get to see drivers' P'sOV via their own
> acting like dicks and breaking a bunch of laws
> in their own Critical Masses, every single day
> of every year (as opposed to one day out of
> every month.)

And I see cyclists doing it every day as well. The solution is not to
try to one-up each other, the solution is to enforce the damn laws.

nate

 

[Brent P]

On 2008-05-21, Tom Keats <[email protected]> wrote:

> We all get to see drivers' P'sOV via their own
> acting like dicks and breaking a bunch of laws
> in their own Critical Masses, every single day
> of every year (as opposed to one day out of
> every month.)

I see similiar percentages of people acting like dicks and generally
behaving poorly with regards to right of way on the road regardless of
vehicle. Somewhat higher percentages for cabbies, rice boys, and of
course truckers.

> AISI, in some ways bicycle Critical Mass is a
> mirror-reflection of drivers' behaviours, right
> back in their faces. C-M informs drivers of their
> own inflictions and afflictions upon people.
> Apparently drivers don't like the taste of their
> own medicine.

It's the GWB policy of mirroring the terrorism to an entire population
that superficially looks like the terrorists. And surprise, all it does
is anger people and increase the ranks of terrorists.

By taking the assholishness of *SOME* drivers and mirroring it to *ALL*
drivers what you end up doing is getting drivers that weren't a problem
to decide to mirror your assholishness back at all bicyclists. CM is not
doing any good. It just convinces drivers who weren't a problem that
bicyclists deserve to be treated poorly.

Your 'us' vs. 'them' view simply creates a condition of perpetual 'war'.

The problem drivers never vanish, the 'need' for bicycle activism
never disappears because CM and others are out there agitating people
who weren't a problem. Find some bees that were minding their own
business out in the woods not bothering you and wack their hive with a
stick because some bee stung you once.. That's essentially what CM is
doing. Pissing off lots of drivers to get back at a minority of the
them. It's stupid unless you're in the activism business and need to
keep an enemy around.

If you really want to ******** the problem drivers, the thing to do is
ride 100% to the vehicle code. Don't give them an inch. assert your
right of way. Take the lane when needed. Don't gutter pass. Don't use
side walks. The regular decent drivers are not offended by this
behavior. The problem ones are and it frustrates them to no end IME. If
you want to see one really flip into a rage, change to the left lane and
pass them when they are going too slow for your tastes.

> I encourage you to consider the societal effects
> of your own urban car-driving. You get to go,
> and life is good. But you're in a stream of urban
> car traffic that keeps non-driving others from being
> able to cross the street you're on, so they could get
> to the shops they want to patronize.

Lol. And one can just walk through a stream of bicyclists? One's like CM
who don't even stop for red signals?

> Car traffic is bad for business and The Economy,
> because it cuts customers off from shops.

Ask shops how the chicago state-street ped mall worked out... clue: it
was a disaster.

> And car traffic plugs itself up. At least bike
> C-M keeps going, and gets out of everybody's way.

If a group of car drivers streamed through red signals and forced
everyone who wasn't following their route to sit and wait they would
move well too.

Most congestion is caused by poor driving. I see people doing the exact
same stupid congestion causing behaviors on bicycle frequently. In fact
its the reason I don't particularly find organized rides all that
enjoyable. The plodders ride 3 and 4 wide. This means when I catch up to
them I have to slow to their speed, wait for a gap in on coming traffic
and then hammer it around them. 25 miles of this can wear a person out
and make 75-100 miles much more difficult.

 

[Scott in SoCal]

On Wed, 21 May 2008 02:44:23 -0700, [email protected] (Tom Keats)
wrote:

>In article <927936a4-db40-45f4-9a89-a465a68fc953@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> N8N <[email protected]> writes:
>> On May 20, 12:54 am, [email protected] (Tom Keats) wrote:
>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>>         Brent P <[email protected]> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >http://articles.citypages.com/2008-05-14/news/moles-wanted/
>>>
>>> > Seems the old police and federal moles infiltrating groups and then
>>> > possibly starting violence is still alive and well.
>>>
>>> /Avoid/ Critical Mass?!
>> Yes, why avoid critical mass? After all, the best way to get people
>> to see your point of view is to act like a complete **** and break a
>> bunch of laws.
>
>We all get to see drivers' P'sOV via their own
>acting like dicks and breaking a bunch of laws
>in their own Critical Masses, every single day
>of every year (as opposed to one day out of
>every month.)
>
>AISI, in some ways bicycle Critical Mass is a
>mirror-reflection of drivers' behaviours, right
>back in their faces.

The problem is your "mirror" has a huge AMPLIFIER on it, and that
amplification is causing lots of distortion.

In nearly three decades of driving, I have never encountered an
organized group of automobile drivers who intentionally block an
intersection in order to prevent pedalcyclists from getting around -
let alone seen it happen "every single day of every year."
--
"Dave's not here, man!"
- Tommy Chong

 

[DennisTheBald]

I'm confused on a couple points, I'm hoping that one of the big
brained folks here can straighten me out.

First, how do the g-men go about infiltrating an event? I'm mean if
CM was a group that you could join like the klan I would get it, but
I've been led to believe that CM was pretty much just something that
happened and thems involved didn't really elect officers.

Second, other than CM being on friday and club rides on saturday,
what's the difference? Is it the outfits that they wear? Is it that
the club riders generally haul their bikes to the start with a MV &
the CMers just start out wherever they are? Is it that the clubs
often have a SUV or two trailing them to haul them home if they get to
sweaty?

 

[Brent P]

On 2008-05-21, DennisTheBald <[email protected]> wrote:

> First, how do the g-men go about infiltrating an event? I'm mean if
> CM was a group that you could join like the klan I would get it, but
> I've been led to believe that CM was pretty much just something that
> happened and thems involved didn't really elect officers.

They go in to a protest, a CM ride, etc and try to appear to be members
of the same group. Then when appearing to be a member of the group they
will do what they can to start violence even it means they pick up rocks
and throw them at cops. Once they get things started they disappear or
get 'arrested' and later let go. Even if they don't get things started
they've created the headline they set out to create anyway.

It works because many people fall for the group think like Tom takes
anyone who drives a car as deserving mistreatment because some drivers
mistreated bicyclists. Now that group that wants an investigation about
some government action, a return to the gold standard, or whatever
threatens the status-quo are labeled as violent kooks. It keeps the
masses from listening to the message.

> Second, other than CM being on friday and club rides on saturday,
> what's the difference? Is it the outfits that they wear? Is it that
> the club riders generally haul their bikes to the start with a MV &
> the CMers just start out wherever they are? Is it that the clubs
> often have a SUV or two trailing them to haul them home if they get to
> sweaty?

It has to do with where they are and what else is going on near by if it
warrants police/fed attention.

The thing is, the feds don't need to set up CM, CM does enough on their
own. Although I guess the news media doesn't spread it far and wide
without kicking it up a level.

 

[Matthew T. Russotto]

In article <7c745e96-c2a5-4396-8874-ea1787384eea@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
N8N <[email protected]> wrote:

>And I see cyclists doing it every day as well. The solution is not to
>try to one-up each other, the solution is to enforce the damn laws.

Fix 'em first, or you end up in Aunt Judyland.


--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

 

[Matthew T. Russotto]

In article <[email protected]>,
DennisTheBald <[email protected]> wrote:
>I'm confused on a couple points, I'm hoping that one of the big
>brained folks here can straighten me out.
>
>First, how do the g-men go about infiltrating an event? I'm mean if
>CM was a group that you could join like the klan I would get it, but
>I've been led to believe that CM was pretty much just something that
>happened and thems involved didn't really elect officers.

So the G-men just go. Then start an incident. Then arrest anyone
else involved in the incident they started. It's an old, old, trick;
goes back to Roman times at the very least.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

 

[Bob]

On May 21, 2:23 pm, [email protected] (Matthew T. Russotto)
wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
>
> DennisTheBald  <[email protected]> wrote:
> >I'm confused on a couple points, I'm hoping that one of the big
> >brained folks here can straighten me out.
>
> >First, how do the g-men go about infiltrating an event?  I'm mean if
> >CM was a group that you could join like the klan I would get it, but
> >I've been led to believe that CM was pretty much just something that
> >happened and thems involved didn't really elect officers.
>
> So the G-men just go.  Then start an incident.  Then arrest anyone
> else involved in the incident they started.  It's an old, old, trick;
> goes back to Roman times at the very least.
> --
>   There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
>   result in a fully-depreciated one.

What you suggest is within the realm of possibility and may have even
occurred on very rare occasions. It is extremely unlikely to happen
except as an aberration though for several reasons. First, most C-M
rides are good natured and, as a group, cops would rather let a few
minor traffic infractions slide than take actions that turn a good
natured event into a major hassle. Second, the overwhelming majority
of cops don't like to have to use force. We'll use it when we have to
but every use of force is another opportunity to get hurt, to catch a
beef, to get sued, etcetera. As a group, we don't like those
possibilities anymore than you do. Third, and the more radical among C-
Mers may find this offensive so I'll apologize for any hurt feelings
in advance, Critical Mass is rather far down on the list of things
most cops worry about. I'd put it somewhere between jaywalking and
garden variety panhandling. All three are irritating at times but they
are *minor* irritants. Last but by no means least, most of the people
that run police departments are administrators first and cops second,
if at all. Administrators tend to like peace and quiet in their
domains. Incidents, especially mass arrest incidents, are never quiet
and rarely peaceful. Show me a cop that has complete faith in his
superiors' backing him when he instigates an incident that disturbs
those superiors' peace and quiet and I'll show you a naive fool. Since
there are so many of us it's safe to say that some of us are naive and
some of us are fools but I doubt many of us are naive fools that also
just happen to hate C-M.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

 

[Brent P]

On 2008-05-22, Bob <[email protected]> wrote:
> occurred on very rare occasions. It is extremely unlikely to happen
> except as an aberration though for several reasons. First, most C-M
> rides are good natured and, as a group, cops would rather let a few
> minor traffic infractions slide than take actions that turn a good
> natured event into a major hassle.

Maybe in your area.... while I was driving I had a cop do a U-turn and
come flying after me because I 'made a face at him'. And yes, I did make
a face at him after he turned right across my path with his cellphone to
his ear.

 

[Bob]

On May 21, 8:16 pm, Brent P <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On 2008-05-22, Bob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > occurred on very rare occasions. It is extremely unlikely to happen
> > except as an aberration though for several reasons. First, most C-M
> > rides are good natured and, as a group, cops would rather let a few
> > minor traffic infractions slide than take actions that turn a good
> > natured event into a major hassle.
>
> Maybe in your area.... while I was driving I had a cop do a U-turn and
> come flying after me because I 'made a face at him'. And yes, I did make
> a face at him after he turned right across my path with his cellphone to
> his ear.

Brent, I *am* in your area and even if I weren't I'd stand by my
statement. Even accepting your story as 100% accurate doesn't change
it. Maybe the cop was having a bad day. Maybe he's simply not the best
cop around. Who knows? You don't and neither do I. What I do know is
judging a group of roughly 18,000 (an approximation of the number of
cops in the Chicago area) that must easily average 10 contacts with
the public each day by the actions of one cop in one instance on one
day is, to be kind, statistically unsound.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

 

[[email protected]]

On May 20, 7:12 am, Brent P <[email protected]>
wrote:

> ... Simple as
> that. It pisses them off and they have nothing to argue with. Plus no
> collateral damage.

> Silly me, I don't want more drivers gunning for a lone bicyclist because
> some group of riders ****** them off.

Seems like you're getting your signals crossed there a little bit.

But you are right -- riding strictly according to the law, especially
if it involves 'lane-taking,' will ******** drivers.

 

[Brent P]

On 2008-05-22, Bob <[email protected]> wrote:
> On May 21, 8:16 pm, Brent P <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> On 2008-05-22, Bob <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > occurred on very rare occasions. It is extremely unlikely to happen
>> > except as an aberration though for several reasons. First, most C-M
>> > rides are good natured and, as a group, cops would rather let a few
>> > minor traffic infractions slide than take actions that turn a good
>> > natured event into a major hassle.
>>
>> Maybe in your area.... while I was driving I had a cop do a U-turn and
>> come flying after me because I 'made a face at him'. And yes, I did make
>> a face at him after he turned right across my path with his cellphone to
>> his ear.
>
> Brent, I *am* in your area and even if I weren't I'd stand by my
> statement. Even accepting your story as 100% accurate doesn't change
> it. Maybe the cop was having a bad day. Maybe he's simply not the best
> cop around. Who knows? You don't and neither do I. What I do know is
> judging a group of roughly 18,000 (an approximation of the number of
> cops in the Chicago area) that must easily average 10 contacts with
> the public each day by the actions of one cop in one instance on one
> day is, to be kind, statistically unsound.

Should I tell a few more stories for you? If douchebag cops were so
rare, why is it that I've met so many of them... like the *TWO*
different cops on two different occasions that pulled me over when I was
biking and demanded that ride to the right of the white line? Where
there was about 3in of pavement btw. Or the cop that stopped me because
I yelled 'go green light go' to a motorist who was sitting still on
green in front of me. The motorist then flipped me off. the cop stops me
and tells me to ride _ON THE SIDEWALK_, that he doesn't like the way I
ride, on the street as a vehicle.

Now let me tell you about a few more duchebag cops... like the one that
ticketed me and then lied in court... or maybe the first cop encounter I
can remember, the state trooper who was aggressively tailgating me and
then when I stopped to make a left turn pulled his cruiser on to the
gravel shoulder and accelerated hard to spray my freshly painted car
with gravel.

Or just the other week, the harvey,IL cop that guned it around me, cut
me off and nailed the brakes so he could make a right turn. We were the
only two cars on the road for at least two blocks in either direction.

How about the state trooper that some years ago nearly crashed into my
car as he was doing 90+mph in a 45mph zone without his rollers on?

I've got more... there was this driver swinging back and forth across
the two WB travel lanes at 25mph in a 45mph zone. I got in the right
lane, waited for the driver to start swinging left, punched it up to
45mph to pass... who does the cop pull over seeing all this? You got it,
me, to run my papers.

Oh then there was another papers stop where the cop lied and said a car
similiar to my then about 25 year old ford was involved in a crime...
lol. Poor cop was new to the job, he couldn't keep a straight face lying
like that.

Should I go on? The chicago bicycle cop that ran red light after red
light. I would pass him mid block then stop at a red and he would sail
through it. Get this, it gets better... I am waiting at a red and the
cop sails through it... light turns green I start to go and I am nearly
creamed by a chicago police van running the red light for the cross
traffic.

Then there was the cop who demanded I ride on the sidewalk because he
said I didn't have a rear reflector (I did) and it was dark (it was
still clear summer evening daylight). Bonus: the sidewalk had a ton of
peds on it and is illegal to ride on in that town.

Should I go on? I've got more.... If you are in my area, the phrase
'bored suburban cop' should be something you are familiar with. It
didn't come out of nothing. They get bored and they start hasseling
people over minor things.

That reminds me, a couple weeks ago I got followed again.... cop is
waiting at a red signal on the coming side of the light. the signal goes
green and I go. Cop swings a u-turn and sits back there following. I
know he's following because I'm driving 5 under and he's not catching
up. Cops don't drive under the speed limit normally. after awhile he
gets bored and then swings another U-turn back to his original
direction. Not as exciting as the one ones in the years past that would
get frustrated with not having a violation to pull me over for and would
do a u-turn with the hammer down and the tires squealing when I got
home. lol.

 

[Brent P]

On 2008-05-22, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
> On May 20, 7:12 am, Brent P <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> ... Simple as
>> that. It pisses them off and they have nothing to argue with. Plus no
>> collateral damage.
>
>> Silly me, I don't want more drivers gunning for a lone bicyclist because
>> some group of riders ****** them off.
>
> Seems like you're getting your signals crossed there a little bit.
>
> But you are right -- riding strictly according to the law, especially
> if it involves 'lane-taking,' will ******** drivers.

Yeah... because if they cannot kiss up to the bumper of the SUV that's
in front of me, I'm slowing them down... never mind that the SUV in
front of me is blocking my forward progress at the speed I would like to
go at. Normal, rational drivers, who aren't a problem don't have an
issue with me taking the lane, because I do it only when needed. The
ones who do have a problem are those who would be a problem period.

 

[Matthew T. Russotto]

In article <4aa95638-4eb5-4585-a4d1-053357144fdc@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
Bob <[email protected]> wrote:
>On May 21, 2:23=A0pm, [email protected] (Matthew T. Russotto)
>wrote:
>>
>> So the G-men just go. Then start an incident. Then arrest anyone
>> else involved in the incident they started. It's an old, old, trick;
>> goes back to Roman times at the very least.
>
>What you suggest is within the realm of possibility and may have even
>occurred on very rare occasions. It is extremely unlikely to happen
>except as an aberration though for several reasons. First, most C-M
>rides are good natured and, as a group, cops would rather let a few
>minor traffic infractions slide than take actions that turn a good
>natured event into a major hassle.

That depends on what their bosses have told them to do.

>Second, the overwhelming majority of cops don't like to have to use force.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, oh, please, stop, you'll kill me laughing.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

 

[N8N]

On May 21, 3:15 pm, [email protected] (Matthew T. Russotto)
wrote:
> In article <7c745e96-c2a5-4396-8874-ea1787384...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
>
> N8N  <[email protected]> wrote:
> >And I see cyclists doing it every day as well.  The solution is not to
> >try to one-up each other, the solution is to enforce the damn laws.
>
> Fix 'em first, or you end up in Aunt Judyland.

I don't really have a problem with current ROW, signaling, etc. rules
other than the facts that a) most people don't follow them and b)
there seem to be no consequences for failure to follow them.

nate

 

[Bob]

On May 22, 8:46 am, Brent P <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On 2008-05-22, Bob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 21, 8:16 pm, Brent P <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >> On 2008-05-22, Bob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> > occurred on very rare occasions. It is extremely unlikely to happen
> >> > except as an aberration though for several reasons. First, most C-M
> >> > rides are good natured and, as a group, cops would rather let a few
> >> > minor traffic infractions slide than take actions that turn a good
> >> > natured event into a major hassle.
>
> >> Maybe in your area.... while I was driving I had a cop do a U-turn and
> >> come flying after me because I 'made a face at him'. And yes, I did make
> >> a face at him after he turned right across my path with his cellphone to
> >> his ear.
>
> > Brent, I *am* in your area and even if I weren't I'd stand by my
> > statement. Even accepting your story as 100% accurate doesn't change
> > it. Maybe the cop was having a bad day. Maybe he's simply not the best
> > cop around. Who knows? You don't and neither do I. What I do know is
> > judging a group of roughly 18,000 (an approximation of the number of
> > cops in the Chicago area) that must easily average 10 contacts with
> > the public each day by the actions of one cop in one instance on one
> > day is, to be kind, statistically unsound.
>
> Should I tell a few more stories for you? If douchebag cops were so
> rare, why is it that I've met so many of them.

I can think of several explanations, the most likely ones are that: A)
you are seriously exaggerating or B) making your stories up as you go
along. That leaves at least two more obvious explanations: C) you're
well known to the police in the areas you most frequent as a
knucklehead that's usually up to no good or D) you're off your meds. I
think I'll go with B.

 

[Bob]

On May 22, 1:21 pm, [email protected] (Matthew T. Russotto)
wrote:
> In article <4aa95638-4eb5-4585-a4d1-053357144...@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Bob  <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On May 21, 2:23=A0pm, [email protected] (Matthew T. Russotto)
> >wrote:
>
> >> So the G-men just go. Then start an incident. Then arrest anyone
> >> else involved in the incident they started. It's an old, old, trick;
> >> goes back to Roman times at the very least.
>
> >What you suggest is within the realm of possibility and may have even
> >occurred on very rare occasions. It is extremely unlikely to happen
> >except as an aberration though for several reasons. First, most C-M
> >rides are good natured and, as a group, cops would rather let a few
> >minor traffic infractions slide than take actions that turn a good
> >natured event into a major hassle.
>
> That depends on what their bosses have told them to do.
>
> >Second, the overwhelming majority of cops don't like to have to use force..
>
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, oh, please, stop, you'll kill me laughing.  
> --
>   There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
>   result in a fully-depreciated one.

Gee, I get the feeling you don't like cops. I'm heartbroken.

Regards,
Bob Hunt