Police in London attack critical mass

[Jim Price]

Tony Raven wrote:
> James Annan wrote:
>
>> Tony Raven wrote:
>>
>>> James Annan wrote:
>>>
>>>> You should try Japan. All the tolerance of cyclists, civility and
>>>> lack of class division you describe, _and_ the dog-crappers carry
>>>> plastic bags and tidy up after the deed is done...
>>>>
>>>
>>> No class divisions? Really? What about the Eta or Burakumin (the
>>> Japanese untouchables)? To say nothing of the discrimination against
>>> those of Chinese or Korean descent. The "family name" class division
>>> is also still strong.
>>>
>>
>> not "no" class divisions, but it's a lot less divided than the UK,
>> IMO. Of course the really critical factor is that cyclists aren't
>> automatically in the untouchables class
>>
>
> Lack in my dictionary means " The fact that a person or thing is not
> present; absence." so I presumed a lack of class divisions was "no"
> class divisions. YDMV ;-)
>
MDDV. For "lack" it says:
n.

1. Deficiency or absence: Lack of funding brought the project to a halt.
2. A particular deficiency or absence: Owing to a lack of
supporters, the reforms did not succeed.

The only web reference I can find for the phrase in your dictionary says:

"Lack" as "the fact that a person or thing is not present; absence" is
obsolete.

Mind you, it is rather out of context in the Wiki article about atheism.

TTBAND ;-)

JimP

 

[Tony Raven]

Jim Price wrote:
>
> MDDV. For "lack" it says:
> n.
>
> 1. Deficiency or absence: Lack of funding brought the project to a halt.
> 2. A particular deficiency or absence: Owing to a lack of supporters,
> the reforms did not succeed.
>
> The only web reference I can find for the phrase in your dictionary says:
>
> "Lack" as "the fact that a person or thing is not present; absence" is
> obsolete.
>

The trouble with most on-line dictionaries is they are USAian not
English. I use the OED online version - which is where my definition
comes from - but its a subscription service

--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon

 

[Jim Price]

Tony Raven wrote:
> Jim Price wrote:
>
>>
>> MDDV. For "lack" it says:
>> n.
>>
>> 1. Deficiency or absence: Lack of funding brought the project to a
>> halt.
>> 2. A particular deficiency or absence: Owing to a lack of
>> supporters, the reforms did not succeed.
>>
>> The only web reference I can find for the phrase in your dictionary says:
>>
>> "Lack" as "the fact that a person or thing is not present; absence" is
>> obsolete.
>>
>
> The trouble with most on-line dictionaries is they are USAian not
> English. I use the OED online version - which is where my definition
> comes from - but its a subscription service

Mine's from Cambridge University Press, and specifies that it covers
British English. Its free, and there is a Firefox search extension for it.

A quick test of whether it is indeed trash:
noun
1 INFORMAL something that is worthless and of low quality:
I can't believe that someone of his intelligence can read such trash!
There's only trash on the television tonight.

2 US FOR rubbish:
The trash really stinks - why don't you take it out?

Seems British enough to me.

JimP

 

[Tony Raven]

Jim Price wrote:
> Tony Raven wrote:
>> Jim Price wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> MDDV. For "lack" it says:
>>> n.
>>>
>>> 1. Deficiency or absence: Lack of funding brought the project to a
>>> halt.
>>> 2. A particular deficiency or absence: Owing to a lack of
>>> supporters, the reforms did not succeed.
>>>
>>> The only web reference I can find for the phrase in your dictionary
>>> says:
>>>
>>> "Lack" as "the fact that a person or thing is not present; absence"
>>> is obsolete.
>>>
>>
>> The trouble with most on-line dictionaries is they are USAian not
>> English. I use the OED online version - which is where my definition
>> comes from - but its a subscription service
>
> Mine's from Cambridge University Press, and specifies that it covers
> British English. Its free, and there is a Firefox search extension for it.
>

And a quick test for lack in the CUP dictionary gives:

lack
noun
lack of sth the absence of something or when there is not enough of it

Since I am sure James was not saying there were not enough class
divisions in Japan then he must have meant an absence of class divisions
- which is back where we started.

So where did your other definition above come from?


--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon

 

[dkahn400]

[email protected] wrote:

> Sorry Jim but you are getting a bit tedious. Some of your comments
> are laugable. I particularly like 'you often see serious road
> cyclists pushing 40 in a 20 zone'. You obviously don't ride a bike.
> Even for the fit sustaining anything over 20 Mph is hard work and
> Olympic track sprinters typically cover the last 200m of a sprint
> in around 11 seconds, equating to 41 Mph.

Actually, Howard, he's talking about Richmond Park where it's quite
easy to exceed 40 mph over some sections (because it's hilly). FWIW I
haven't ridden round the Park since the 20 mph speed limit came into
force. I have driven in it a few times though and it's amazing how
quickly I acquire a tail of other cars at 20 mph. Clearly they were
exceeding the speed limit until they caught up with me. Unless I
misunderstood him Jim himself admitted to doing 30 mph when being
overtaken by roadies, so he's 50% over the speed limit himself. Hardly
in a position to complain about cyclists speeding I would have thought.

--
Dave...

 

[Jim Price]

Tony Raven wrote:
> Jim Price wrote:
>
>> Tony Raven wrote:
>>
>>> Jim Price wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> MDDV. For "lack" it says:
>>>> n.
>>>>
>>>> 1. Deficiency or absence: Lack of funding brought the project to
>>>> a halt.
>>>> 2. A particular deficiency or absence: Owing to a lack of
>>>> supporters, the reforms did not succeed.
>>>>
>>>> The only web reference I can find for the phrase in your dictionary
>>>> says:
>>>>
>>>> "Lack" as "the fact that a person or thing is not present; absence"
>>>> is obsolete.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The trouble with most on-line dictionaries is they are USAian not
>>> English. I use the OED online version - which is where my definition
>>> comes from - but its a subscription service
>>
>>
>> Mine's from Cambridge University Press, and specifies that it covers
>> British English. Its free, and there is a Firefox search extension for
>> it.
>>
>
> And a quick test for lack in the CUP dictionary gives:
>
> lack
> noun
> lack of sth the absence of something or when there is not enough of it
>
> Since I am sure James was not saying there were not enough class
> divisions in Japan then he must have meant an absence of class divisions
> - which is back where we started.

Maybe he meant "absence of /British/ class divisions". "lack" can take
either meaning here, depending on what your contextual vista is.
Just because there is a lack (OED stylee) of /British/ class division
does not mean he has said anything about /Japanese/ class division.
Viewed as class division of any kind, you get a CUP style lack. He has
also used the qualifier "you describe", to point out the context. A
specific absence may just be an indicator of merely a general shortage.

Looking at the examples I quoted above, which of the following
interpretations would you err[1] towards?
"Lack of funding brought the project to a halt." means there was no
funding, or maybe some, but insufficient funding?
"Owing to a lack of supporters, the reforms did not succeed." means
there were no supporters, or maybe just some but not enough?
Or would you just say that both of those statements are examples of poor
use of English?

There is also the well known phrase "complete lack" - is that just 50%
redundant, or used to indicate which of the options on "lack" you meant?

I myself have been know to use the phrase "very little" when I mean
"none at all", simply because it amuses me, and my view of dictionaries
is that they are two things: a description (not a definition) of how
language is used, and a self-justifying excuse for standardisation in
spelling.

> So where did your other definition above come from?

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/
via the Firefox search extension. Cambridge.org appears to be owned by CUP.

They have this for bicycle:
a two-wheeled vehicle that you sit on and move by turning the two pedals
(= flat parts you press with your feet)

Worse than that, they have this for cycle:
noun [C]
a bicycle


How does the OED stack up on that one?
Shirley that would only risk a flame war in the context of a NG more
knowledgeable than a lexicographer about cycling.

[1]Just having fun with words now ;-)

JimP

 

[[[[Doug]]]]

Sniper8052 wrote:
> On 6 Oct 2005 13:08:52 -0700, Peter Headland wrote:
>
> > This is why I hate CM. It takes people who are neutral or even pro-bike
> > and makes them actively anti-bike.
>
> The fact is that the group, self styled Critical Mass, wishes to evade it's
> collective responsibility to behave properly and often behaves very badly
> by all accounts. I fail to see why other road users, including
> pedestrians, should have to suffer their bullish behavior because 'they'
> choose to behave like louts once a month.
> If CM want to ride around London, fine, obey the rules... all of them. If
> CM voluntary workers think they are above or beyond the law and hope to
> evade the responsibility they are taking on themselves in 'not' organizing
> the ride, but publicly promoting it, they may find they are in fact
> 'responsible' in the 'eyes of the law'.
> This requirement is a notice to all that public anarchy once a month will
> no longer be tolerated. A notice which is long overdue in my opinion.
>
> Sniper8052
>
> One time supporter of CM...

It is difficult to obey the law when one of the multitude of cops who
accompany the ride tell you to do one thing and then is shortly
contradicted by another cop who tells you to do the exact opposite,
i.e., do/don't go through a red light, do/don't let the peds cross,
do/don't let that car/taxi out of side turning, do/don't let the
traffic behind through, etc.

The cops really do need to get their act together, consult with each
other for a change and then act in unison. Or better still, why don't
they just not come on the CM ride at all, where they are not really
needed or wanted. When the cops don't come on the ride, because it is
too cold and wet for their fragile forms, somehow the ride manages just
as well, if not better.

Check out some videos of London CM at
http://www.zing.icom43.net/lcm/index.html

Doug.

 

[John Hearns]

On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 02:45:26 -0700, [[[Doug]]] wrote:


> The cops really do need to get their act together, consult with each other
> for a change and then act in unison. Or better still, why don't they just
> not come on the CM ride at all, where they are not really needed or
> wanted. When the cops don't come on the ride, because it is too cold and
> wet for their fragile forms, somehow the ride manages just as well, if not
> better.

Doug, I disagree. I think a good relationship has been formed over the
past few months with the bicycle mounted police who attend.

Granted, some things have annoyed me, such as the over-enthusiastic
policewoman keeping pedestrians back at zebra crossings while the mass
passes. I much prefer it when pedestrians can be courteously allowed to
cross.

I remember one mass a couple of years ago. We were along Oxford Street.
City type with his girlfriend was ranting at the side of the road,
obviously to impress girlfriend. I stopped and politely waved him across
the road. Wind was taken out of sails there - I wonder if he would have
preferred a ruck, as then he could impress girlfriend.

 

[[[[Doug]]]]

John Hearns wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 02:45:26 -0700, [[[Doug]]] wrote:
>
>
> > The cops really do need to get their act together, consult with each other
> > for a change and then act in unison. Or better still, why don't they just
> > not come on the CM ride at all, where they are not really needed or
> > wanted. When the cops don't come on the ride, because it is too cold and
> > wet for their fragile forms, somehow the ride manages just as well, if not
> > better.
>
> Doug, I disagree. I think a good relationship has been formed over the
> past few months with the bicycle mounted police who attend.
>
> Granted, some things have annoyed me, such as the over-enthusiastic
> policewoman keeping pedestrians back at zebra crossings while the mass
> passes. I much prefer it when pedestrians can be courteously allowed to
> cross.
>
> I remember one mass a couple of years ago. We were along Oxford Street.
> City type with his girlfriend was ranting at the side of the road,
> obviously to impress girlfriend. I stopped and politely waved him across
> the road. Wind was taken out of sails there - I wonder if he would have
> preferred a ruck, as then he could impress girlfriend.

John, I might have partially agreed with you before the cops issued
their letter at the last CM ride but now things have moved to a quite
different level. Certainly, on a one to one basis some of the cops are
friendly enough but that is not to say they will not suddenly turn
nasty if ordered to do so by their draconian bosses. Over the last few
years, under Herr Bliar, our civil liberties are being gradually
whittled away. Not being allowed to cycle around London with a group of
friends without prior police permission is for me the final straw.

Doug.

 

[Tony Raven]

Jim Price wrote:
> Tony Raven wrote:
>
> Maybe he meant "absence of /British/ class divisions". "lack" can take
> either meaning here, depending on what your contextual vista is.

Still doesn't help. According to your dictionary choice that would mean
either an absence of British class division (in line with my
interpretation) or not enough British class divisions (shirley not the
intended meaning)

> Just because there is a lack (OED stylee) of /British/ class division
> does not mean he has said anything about /Japanese/ class division.
>

Except British and Japanese class divisions are not dissimilar.

>
> Looking at the examples I quoted above, which of the following
> interpretations would you err[1] towards?
> "Lack of funding brought the project to a halt." means there was no
> funding, or maybe some, but insufficient funding?
> "Owing to a lack of supporters, the reforms did not succeed." means
> there were no supporters, or maybe just some but not enough?
> Or would you just say that both of those statements are examples of poor
> use of English?
>

I would say they are both examples where more was desired so either not
enough or none are equally appropriate interpretations. Would you say
that "a lack of class divisions" means not enough class divisions or an
absence of class divisions?

> There is also the well known phrase "complete lack" - is that just 50%
> redundant, or used to indicate which of the options on "lack" you meant?
>

What about pitch black

> I myself have been know to use the phrase "very little" when I mean
> "none at all", simply because it amuses me, and my view of dictionaries
> is that they are two things: a description (not a definition) of how
> language is used, and a self-justifying excuse for standardisation in
> spelling.

You are entitled to your view but then don't be surprised if your
unconventional use causes confusion or conveys the wrong meaning to your
audience. In my view language has a depth about it that the correct
choice of words uses to advantage. Otherwise we could throw out most of
the words in the dictionary and hone the language down to a small set of
standard words.


>
>> So where did your other definition above come from?
>
> http://dictionary.cambridge.org/
> via the Firefox search extension. Cambridge.org appears to be owned by CUP.
>

Not when I look it up on that site. Lack is given the meaning I posted
and is very different to the text you posted originally

PS OED for bicycle as a noun is "A machine for rapid riding, consisting
of a saddle-seat surmounting two wheels, to which the rider communicates
motion by means of treadles; a two-wheeled velocipede."


--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon

 

[Jim Price]

Tony Raven wrote:
> Jim Price wrote:
>
>> Tony Raven wrote:
>>
>> Maybe he meant "absence of /British/ class divisions". "lack" can take
>> either meaning here, depending on what your contextual vista is.
>
>
> Still doesn't help. According to your dictionary choice that would mean
> either an absence of British class division (in line with my
> interpretation) or not enough British class divisions (shirley not the
> intended meaning)

Hey, I wrote that bit to try to support your interpretation of the word
to show that I am not actually arguing that your interpretation is
necessarily wrong, but that there may be more perfectly valid
interpretations there. I also pointed out that I could see support for
both interpretations of the word in the bit you snipped there. If you
selectively pick and choose your snippage, you can make any argument
look silly and evade discussing the actual point the other person was
making.

Also, you are now claiming that it was "an absence of British class
division" which was in line with your interpretation, which is a change
from what you previously wrote (you added "British" - just like I did to
make it make sense to me).

>> Just because there is a lack (OED stylee) of /British/ class division
>> does not mean he has said anything about /Japanese/ class division.
>
>
> Except British and Japanese class divisions are not dissimilar.

Neither are black and white, if you compare different nations' dress at
weddings and funerals.

>> Looking at the examples I quoted above, which of the following
>> interpretations would you err[1] towards?
>> "Lack of funding brought the project to a halt." means there was no
>> funding, or maybe some, but insufficient funding?
>> "Owing to a lack of supporters, the reforms did not succeed." means
>> there were no supporters, or maybe just some but not enough?
>> Or would you just say that both of those statements are examples of
>> poor use of English?
>>
>
> I would say they are both examples where more was desired so either not
> enough or none are equally appropriate interpretations.
> Would you say
> that "a lack of class divisions" means not enough class divisions or an
> absence of class divisions?

With no context around it, I would say absence, of course, given that
saying otherwise would lead me to seem very much like I am not when it
comes to my opinions on class division, and I would hope for the same
for many people.

The phrase I think we are discussing - "lack of class division you
describe" contains a reference to something which was not desired (class
division). How much is "not enough" of something you do not desire,
given that enough of an undesireable thing would be, shirley, none? I
don't think we get that from the dictionary definition alone. We have to
bring something else to the party there, our judgement of what people
mean when they say something.

>> I myself have been know to use the phrase "very little" when I mean
>> "none at all", simply because it amuses me, and my view of
>> dictionaries is that they are two things: a description (not a
>> definition) of how language is used, and a self-justifying excuse for
>> standardisation in spelling.
>
>
> You are entitled to your view but then don't be surprised if your
> unconventional use causes confusion or conveys the wrong meaning to your
> audience. In my view language has a depth about it that the correct
> choice of words uses to advantage.

Um, it wasn't my choice of words in the original phrase, I was
commenting on someone else's, pointing out that I understood them to
mean something slightly different to what you responded to by virtue of
the context (which you snipped).

> Otherwise we could throw out most of
> the words in the dictionary and hone the language down to a small set of
> standard words.

That is in fact what happens. Churchill reputedly only used 60,000 of
the words theoretically available to him, and he was known for using far
more than most. Where would "call my bluff" be if we all used every word
in the OED?

>>> So where did your other definition above come from?
>>
>>
>> http://dictionary.cambridge.org/
>> via the Firefox search extension. Cambridge.org appears to be owned by
>> CUP.
>>
>
> Not when I look it up on that site. Lack is given the meaning I posted
> and is very different to the text you posted originally

Good grief - its changed from here too! You work for CUP, AICMFP!
No, actually, I'll stick my hand up there and admit to a mistake. I have
dictionary.com next to the Cambridge dictionary in the drop down list,
and I would appear to have selected that instead. I very much suspect it
lacks the credibility of a good British English dictionary. Now all I
have to do is work out how to remove it from the list. The meanings for
bicycle and cycle I quoted were from cambridge.org. My interpretation of
the phrase we were discussing, however, was what caused me to go and
look up "lack". Just think - we might not even be having this debate if
I hadn't looked it up in the wrong dictionary!

> PS OED for bicycle as a noun is "A machine for rapid riding, consisting
> of a saddle-seat surmounting two wheels, to which the rider communicates
> motion by means of treadles; a two-wheeled velocipede."

A tad less likely to cause a flame war than the CUP version.

JimP

 

[Andy Morris]

Jim Ley wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 20:50:05 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> I
>> can't find an actual figure, but I am pretty confident that the
>> number of prosecutions for entering or driving on the footway is
>> miniscule compared with the number of offences.
>
> Of course not, because almost all the cases are cars going at most 5
> mph into a parking space, something that really is not in the public
> interest of spending thousands of pounds securing a conviction.
>

Round our way the tossers are driving on the pavement on thier way to park
on the pavment, frequently leaving no room for pedestrians, who then have to
walk on the road, that has been left nice and clear.


--
Andy Morris

AndyAtJinkasDotFreeserve.Co.UK

Love this:
Put an end to Outlook Express's messy quotes
http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/

 

[Andy Morris]

wafflycat wrote:
>
> So if anyone fancies a good thrashing with whalebones... I'm your
> woman!
> Cheers, helen s ;-)

jpegs?

--
Andy Morris

AndyAtJinkasDotFreeserve.Co.UK

Love this:
Put an end to Outlook Express's messy quotes
http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/

 

[davek]

Jim Price wrote:
> 2 US FOR rubbish:

As a trivial point of interest, did you know that historically, trash
referred specifically to "tree waste" (while garbage referred to "meat
waste").

d.

 

[Chris Malcolm]

Andy Morris <[email protected]> wrote:
> Jim Ley wrote:
>> On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 20:50:05 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:

>>> I
>>> can't find an actual figure, but I am pretty confident that the
>>> number of prosecutions for entering or driving on the footway is
>>> miniscule compared with the number of offences.
>>
>> Of course not, because almost all the cases are cars going at most 5
>> mph into a parking space, something that really is not in the public
>> interest of spending thousands of pounds securing a conviction.
>>

> Round our way the tossers are driving on the pavement on thier way to park
> on the pavment, frequently leaving no room for pedestrians, who then have to
> walk on the road, that has been left nice and clear.

The pavement outside my house is rebuilt every few years to repair the
damage caused by cars which park with their wheels on it, or use it as
a handy detour when getting into a small parking gap on the road. It
only takes a month or two after each repair for the paving stones to
be cracked and tipped askew again. The problem is the pavement isn't
built to take the weight of a car, but nobody official can be bothered
stopping them doing it, or redesigning the pavement to take the abuse
they permit.

--
Chris Malcolm [email protected] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

 

[Jim Ley]

On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 11:13:17 +0000 (UTC), Chris Malcolm
<[email protected]> wrote:


>The pavement outside my house is rebuilt every few years to repair the
>damage caused by cars which park with their wheels on it, or use it as
>a handy detour when getting into a small parking gap on the road. It
>only takes a month or two after each repair for the paving stones to
>be cracked and tipped askew again. The problem is the pavement isn't
>built to take the weight of a car, but nobody official can be bothered
>stopping them doing it, or redesigning the pavement to take the abuse
>they permit.

Round my way where that happens you tend to get a big post put in the
way preventing it.

Jim.

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

[email protected] (Jim Ley) sd / msg
<[email protected]> dtd Thu, 13 Oct 2005 11:26:31
GMT:

>Round my way where that happens you tend to get a big post put in the
>way preventing it.

Ditto here. Which rather undermines the claim that drivers never use
the pavement...

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken