Times article

David Hansen said:

Ian Smith <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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.

Presumably it was intended that purely political and sociological
disagreement with the tenor of articles or news reports should not
succeed, which is fair enough.

Let's be honest, the political and the sociological has played a large
part in this little controversy. And two hundred complaints - probably
mainly from people who don't buy the paper but merely read it on-line
- certainly *is* a very little controversy.

David Hansen said:

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."

What is a "high professional
standard" for someone who's job it is to fill up the bits between the
adverts?

Quoting Tim Steele <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Have you read this astonishing article?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/article3097464.ece

The CTC say;

Should another article like this appear in the Times, or any other
newspaper, we will seek legal advice about bringing a private prosecution
against the author. Journalists must recognise that it is not acceptable
to incite violence against cyclists, even if they have nothing
interesting to write about and a deadline to meet.

I wrote back to enquire why they planned to wait for _another_ incitement
to murder their members, if they're willing to do it at all.
--
David Damerell <[email hidden]> Distortion Field!
Today is First Oneiros, January.

David Damerell said:

Quoting Tim Steele <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Have you read this astonishing article?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/article3097464.ece

Quoted message said:

The CTC say;

Quoted message said:

Should another article like this appear in the Times, or any other
newspaper, we will seek legal advice about bringing a private prosecution
against the author. Journalists must recognise that it is not acceptable
to incite violence against cyclists, even if they have nothing
interesting to write about and a deadline to meet.

Quoted message said:

I wrote back to enquire why they planned to wait for _another_ incitement
to murder their members, if they're willing to do it at all.

Leaving aside the question of whether there actually was any
"incitement to murder", why do the CTC regard it as acceptable to
incite the murder of anyone who doesn't happen to be a cyclist?

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

Quoted message said:

David Damerell said:

Quoting Tim Steele <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Have you read this astonishing article?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/article3097464.ece

Quoted message said:

The CTC say;

Quoted message said:

Should another article like this appear in the Times, or any other
newspaper, we will seek legal advice about bringing a private prosecution
against the author. Journalists must recognise that it is not acceptable
to incite violence against cyclists, even if they have nothing
interesting to write about and a deadline to meet.

Quoted message said:

I wrote back to enquire why they planned to wait for _another_ incitement
to murder their members, if they're willing to do it at all.

Leaving aside the question of whether there actually was any "incitement
to murder", why do the CTC regard it as acceptable to incite the murder of
anyone who doesn't happen to be a cyclist?

The CTC have NOT stated it as acceptable to incite the murder of anyone who
doesn't happen to be a cyclist. They represent CYCLISTS so I would expect
them to defend CYCLISTS interests.

What should the CTC have written? Perhaps "Journalists must recognise that
it is not acceptable to incite violence against 'anyone', even if they have
nothing interesting to write about and a deadline to meet." Would that
always be a true statement?

You're not very good at answering questions, so I don't expect an answer.

Sparrow said:

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

Quoted message said:

David Damerell said:

Quoting Tim Steele <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

>Have you read this astonishing article?
>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/article3097464.ece

Quoted message said:

The CTC say;

Quoted message said:

Should another article like this appear in the Times, or any other
newspaper, we will seek legal advice about bringing a private prosecution
against the author. Journalists must recognise that it is not acceptable
to incite violence against cyclists, even if they have nothing
interesting to write about and a deadline to meet.

Quoted message said:

I wrote back to enquire why they planned to wait for _another_ incitement
to murder their members, if they're willing to do it at all.

Leaving aside the question of whether there actually was any "incitement
to murder", why do the CTC regard it as acceptable to incite the murder of
anyone who doesn't happen to be a cyclist?

The CTC have NOT stated it as acceptable to incite the murder of anyone who
doesn't happen to be a cyclist. They represent CYCLISTS so I would expect
them to defend CYCLISTS interests.

There's no point - he's incapable of rational conversation.

It would seem, from his latest deduction, that he would believe
everyone at a protest against the war in Iraq is in favour of invading
Iceland.

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

Sparrow said:

JNugent said:

David Damerell said:

Quoting Tim Steele <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Have you read this astonishing article?
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/article3097464.ece

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The CTC say;
Should another article like this appear in the Times, or any other
newspaper, we will seek legal advice about bringing a private
prosecution
against the author. Journalists must recognise that it is not acceptable
to incite violence against cyclists, even if they have nothing
interesting to write about and a deadline to meet.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I wrote back to enquire why they planned to wait for _another_
incitement to murder their members, if they're willing to do it
at all.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Leaving aside the question of whether there actually was any
"incitement to murder", why do the CTC regard it as acceptable to
incite the murder of anyone who doesn't happen to be a cyclist?

Quoted message said:

The CTC have NOT stated it as acceptable to incite the murder of anyone
who doesn't happen to be a cyclist.

That is an entirely reasonable inference from the unfortunate wording
they used. Perhaps their spokesman spoke or wrote before thinking.

Quoted message said:

They represent CYCLISTS so I would expect them to defend CYCLISTS
interests.

I would agree with that (within reason). But I would also expect them
to be concerned about their members' interests even when not riding
their bikes. Wouldn't you?

"Hey, did you hear about poor old Bert? He was stabbed to death last
week."

"That's terrible!"

"Yes, but it's not really all that bad - he wasn't riding his bike at
the time."

Doesn't quite work, does it?

Quoted message said:

What should the CTC have written? Perhaps "Journalists must recognise
that it is not acceptable to incite violence against 'anyone', even if
they have nothing interesting to write about and a deadline to meet."
Would that always be a true statement?

How about "Journalists must recognise that it is not acceptable to
incite violence"?

Would there be anything wrong with that?

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

Quoted message said:

David Damerell said:

Quoting Tim Steele <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Have you read this astonishing article?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/article3097464.ece

Quoted message said:

The CTC say;

Quoted message said:

Should another article like this appear in the Times, or any other
newspaper, we will seek legal advice about bringing a private prosecution
against the author. Journalists must recognise that it is not acceptable
to incite violence against cyclists, even if they have nothing
interesting to write about and a deadline to meet.

Quoted message said:

I wrote back to enquire why they planned to wait for _another_ incitement
to murder their members, if they're willing to do it at all.

Leaving aside the question of whether there actually was any "incitement
to murder", why do the CTC regard it as acceptable to incite the murder of
anyone who doesn't happen to be a cyclist?

Haven't bothered with the comprehension course yet then?

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

Quoted message said:

Sparrow said:

JNugent said:

David Damerell wrote:
> Quoting Tim Steele <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> Have you read this astonishing article?
>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/article3097464.ece

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> The CTC say;
> Should another article like this appear in the Times, or any other
> newspaper, we will seek legal advice about bringing a private
> prosecution
> against the author. Journalists must recognise that it is not
> acceptable
> to incite violence against cyclists, even if they have nothing
> interesting to write about and a deadline to meet.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> I wrote back to enquire why they planned to wait for _another_
> incitement to murder their members, if they're willing to do it
> at all.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Leaving aside the question of whether there actually was any "incitement
to murder", why do the CTC regard it as acceptable to incite the murder
of anyone who doesn't happen to be a cyclist?

Quoted message said:

The CTC have NOT stated it as acceptable to incite the murder of anyone
who doesn't happen to be a cyclist.

That is an entirely reasonable inference from the unfortunate wording they
used. Perhaps their spokesman spoke or wrote before thinking.

The inference you express only exists in your mind; any other *rational*
person would NOT come to the conclusion that the CTC regard it as acceptable
to incite the murder of anyone who doesn't happen to be a cyclist.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

They represent CYCLISTS so I would expect them to defend CYCLISTS
interests.

I would agree with that (within reason). But I would also expect them to
be concerned about their members' interests even when not riding their
bikes. Wouldn't you?

No, not per se.

Quoted message said:

"Hey, did you hear about poor old Bert? He was stabbed to death last
week."

"That's terrible!"

"Yes, but it's not really all that bad - he wasn't riding his bike at the
time."

Doesn't quite work, does it?

I would not expect the CTC to get involved with all (or that particular)
stabbing/s, no.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What should the CTC have written? Perhaps "Journalists must recognise
that it is not acceptable to incite violence against 'anyone', even if
they have nothing interesting to write about and a deadline to meet."
Would that always be a true statement?

How about "Journalists must recognise that it is not acceptable to incite
violence"?

Would there be anything wrong with that?

I would hazard a guess that most people would accept that it is acceptable
to incite violence in certain circumtances. Why else would people fight a
'just war'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war for example?

But, we're not talking about wars; the subject IS cyclists. So the *C*TC
statement is correct to specify CYCLISTS when saying "that it is not
acceptable to incite violence against cyclists".

It is plain and simple.

Sparrow said:

JNugent said:

Sparrow said:

"JNugent" <[email hidden]> wrote:
> David Damerell wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> The CTC say;
>> Should another article like this appear in the Times, or any other
>> newspaper, we will seek legal advice about bringing a private
>> prosecution
>> against the author. Journalists must recognise that it is not
>> acceptable
>> to incite violence against cyclists, even if they have nothing
>> interesting to write about and a deadline to meet.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> I wrote back to enquire why they planned to wait for _another_
>> incitement to murder their members, if they're willing to do it
>> at all.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Leaving aside the question of whether there actually was any
> "incitement to murder", why do the CTC regard it as acceptable to
> incite the murder of anyone who doesn't happen to be a cyclist?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The CTC have NOT stated it as acceptable to incite the murder of
anyone who doesn't happen to be a cyclist.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That is an entirely reasonable inference from the unfortunate wording
they used. Perhaps their spokesman spoke or wrote before thinking.

Quoted message said:

The inference you express only exists in your mind;

Of course it does. That's what an inference is.

Quoted message said:

any other *rational*
person would NOT come to the conclusion that the CTC regard it as
acceptable to incite the murder of anyone who doesn't happen to be a
cyclist.

We will have to disagree on that, a solution which I do not find
disagreeable.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

They represent CYCLISTS so I would expect them to defend CYCLISTS
interests.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I would agree with that (within reason). But I would also expect them
to be concerned about their members' interests even when not riding
their bikes. Wouldn't you?

Quoted message said:

No, not per se.

Oh.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Hey, did you hear about poor old Bert? He was stabbed to death last
week."
"That's terrible!"
"Yes, but it's not really all that bad - he wasn't riding his bike at
the time."
Doesn't quite work, does it?

Quoted message said:

I would not expect the CTC to get involved with all (or that particular)
stabbing/s, no.

Not even to condemn it?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What should the CTC have written? Perhaps "Journalists must recognise
that it is not acceptable to incite violence against 'anyone', even
if they have nothing interesting to write about and a deadline to
meet." Would that always be a true statement?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

How about "Journalists must recognise that it is not acceptable to
incite violence"?
Would there be anything wrong with that?

Quoted message said:

I would hazard a guess that most people would accept that it is
acceptable to incite violence in certain circumtances. Why else would
people fight a 'just war'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war for
example?

Yes, but that's getting rather contrived, isn't it? News papers
currently have no business inciting criminal violence against anyone
(and I'm not sure they ever really do, not even during war, despite
your odd claim that they sometimes do).

Quoted message said:

But, we're not talking about wars; the subject IS cyclists. So the *C*TC
statement is correct to specify CYCLISTS when saying "that it is not
acceptable to incite violence against cyclists".

Quoted message said:

It is plain and simple.

I can see that that is how some people prefer things.

On 4 Jan, 22:15, JNugent <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Yes, but that's getting rather contrived, isn't it? News papers
currently have no business inciting criminal violence against anyone
(and I'm not sure they ever really do, not even during war, despite
your odd claim that they sometimes do).

Gotcha? See:-
http://www.bl.uk/learning/images/front%20page/printlarge8019.html

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

Quoted message said:

Sparrow said:

JNugent said:

Sparrow wrote:
> "JNugent" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>> David Damerell wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>> The CTC say;
>>> Should another article like this appear in the Times, or any other
>>> newspaper, we will seek legal advice about bringing a private
>>> prosecution
>>> against the author. Journalists must recognise that it is not
>>> acceptable
>>> to incite violence against cyclists, even if they have nothing
>>> interesting to write about and a deadline to meet.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>> I wrote back to enquire why they planned to wait for _another_
>>> incitement to murder their members, if they're willing to do it
>>> at all.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> Leaving aside the question of whether there actually was any
>> "incitement to murder", why do the CTC regard it as acceptable to
>> incite the murder of anyone who doesn't happen to be a cyclist?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> The CTC have NOT stated it as acceptable to incite the murder of anyone
> who doesn't happen to be a cyclist.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That is an entirely reasonable inference from the unfortunate wording
they used. Perhaps their spokesman spoke or wrote before thinking.

Quoted message said:

The inference you express only exists in your mind;

Of course it does. That's what an inference is.

No: A definition of Inference: " The act or process of deriving logical
conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true." - It has to to be a
LOGICAL conclusion, and not just be a figment of your imagination.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

any other *rational* person would NOT come to the conclusion that the CTC
regard it as acceptable to incite the murder of anyone who doesn't happen
to be a cyclist.

We will have to disagree on that, a solution which I do not find
disagreeable.

I agree that you are likely to disagree with *rational* people.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> They represent CYCLISTS so I would expect them to defend CYCLISTS
> interests.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I would agree with that (within reason). But I would also expect them to
be concerned about their members' interests even when not riding their
bikes. Wouldn't you?

Quoted message said:

No, not per se.

Oh.

Is that all you can say? The CTC are not concerned with the members
non-cycling interests; otherwise where would it end? They have a policy that
does not cover (as far as I can see) random stabbings
http://www.ctc.org.uk/resources/Campaigns/PolicyHandbook_March_2004.doc .

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Hey, did you hear about poor old Bert? He was stabbed to death last
week."
"That's terrible!"
"Yes, but it's not really all that bad - he wasn't riding his bike at
the time."
Doesn't quite work, does it?

Quoted message said:

I would not expect the CTC to get involved with all (or that particular)
stabbing/s, no.

Not even to condemn it?

No; it is not their function to comdemn random stabbings; their function is
based around protecting and promoting the rights of cyclists.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> What should the CTC have written? Perhaps "Journalists must recognise
> that it is not acceptable to incite violence against 'anyone', even if
> they have nothing interesting to write about and a deadline to meet."
> Would that always be a true statement?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

How about "Journalists must recognise that it is not acceptable to
incite violence"?
Would there be anything wrong with that?

Quoted message said:

I would hazard a guess that most people would accept that it is
acceptable to incite violence in certain circumtances. Why else would
people fight a 'just war'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war for
example?

Yes, but that's getting rather contrived, isn't it? News papers currently
have no business inciting criminal violence against anyone (and I'm not
sure they ever really do, not even during war, despite your odd claim that
they sometimes do).

Quoted message said:

But, we're not talking about wars; the subject IS cyclists. So the *C*TC
statement is correct to specify CYCLISTS when saying "that it is not
acceptable to incite violence against cyclists".

Quoted message said:

It is plain and simple.

I can see that that is how some people prefer things.

Yes, people do prefer things to be PLAIN and SIMPLE. - They do not
appreciate unreasonable, irrational and incorrect inferences drawn from the
CTC statement.

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Sparrow wrote:

But, we're not talking about wars; the subject IS cyclists. So the *C*TC
statement is correct to specify CYCLISTS when saying "that it is not
acceptable to incite violence against cyclists".

It is plain and simple.

All perfectly well expressed and logical, Sparrow, thank you. Sadly, you
are arguing with someone who has no concept of logic or even sense, so it is
unfortunately wasted on him. I'm afraid J Nugent is beyond hope. Perhaps
we shoud pray for him to be enlightened? Or at least to achieve
rationality.

Squashme said:

JNugent <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Yes, but that's getting rather contrived, isn't it? News papers
currently have no business inciting criminal violence against anyone
(and I'm not sure they ever really do, not even during war, despite
your odd claim that they sometimes do).

Quoted message said:

Gotcha? See:-
http://www.bl.uk/learning/images/front%20page/printlarge8019.html

Do you not know the difference between *criminal* violence and acts of
lawful war conducted in the defence of unlawfully-invaded territory?

Apparently not.

burtthebike said:

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Sparrow wrote:

But, we're not talking about wars; the subject IS cyclists. So the
*C*TC statement is correct to specify CYCLISTS when saying "that it is
not acceptable to incite violence against cyclists".

It is plain and simple.

All perfectly well expressed and logical, Sparrow, thank you. Sadly,
you are arguing with someone who has no concept of logic or even sense,
so it is unfortunately wasted on him. I'm afraid J Nugent is beyond
hope. Perhaps we shoud pray for him to be enlightened? Or at least to
achieve rationality.

You see, the weird thing is that nobody rational *needs* to be told
that it is unacceptable to incite criminal violence. Specifying this
or that "victim" group is irrelevant. No-one deserves violent attacks
by vigilantes.

That the CTC feels the need to play to their particular gallery on
this issue (and you can effectively be sure that almost no-one else is
listening to them) speaks volumes about how the CTC sees their
potential recruits, for all their sensible approach on many other
cycling-related issues.

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Sparrow wrote:

But, we're not talking about wars; the subject IS cyclists. So the *C*TC
statement is correct to specify CYCLISTS when saying "that it is not
acceptable to incite violence against cyclists".

It is plain and simple.

All perfectly well expressed and logical, Sparrow, thank you. Sadly, you
are arguing with someone who has no concept of logic or even sense, so it
is unfortunately wasted on him. I'm afraid J Nugent is beyond hope.
Perhaps we shoud pray for him to be enlightened? Or at least to achieve
rationality.

Sometimes I think Nugent's a troll, but then I think he / she's a garrulous
flibbertigibbet with too much time to waste. :-)

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

burtthebike said:

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

Quoted message said:

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

> Sparrow wrote:
>
But, we're not talking about wars; the subject IS cyclists. So the *C*TC
statement is correct to specify CYCLISTS when saying "that it is not
acceptable to incite violence against cyclists".

It is plain and simple.

All perfectly well expressed and logical, Sparrow, thank you. Sadly, you
are arguing with someone who has no concept of logic or even sense, so it
is unfortunately wasted on him. I'm afraid J Nugent is beyond hope.
Perhaps we shoud pray for him to be enlightened? Or at least to achieve
rationality.

You see, the weird thing is that nobody rational *needs* to be told that
it is unacceptable to incite criminal violence. Specifying this or that
"victim" group is irrelevant. No-one deserves violent attacks by
vigilantes.

That the CTC feels the need to play to their particular gallery on this
issue (and you can effectively be sure that almost no-one else is
listening to them) speaks volumes about how the CTC sees their potential
recruits, for all their sensible approach on many other cycling-related
issues.

I guess you are drunk. - Your response is gibberish and worse than your
normal low standard.

A lonely drunk troll.

Sparrow said:

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

Quoted message said:

burtthebike said:

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

>
> "JNugent" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> news:[email hidden]...
>
>> Sparrow wrote:
>>
> But, we're not talking about wars; the subject IS cyclists. So the
> *C*TC statement is correct to specify CYCLISTS when saying "that it
> is not acceptable to incite violence against cyclists".
>
> It is plain and simple.

All perfectly well expressed and logical, Sparrow, thank you. Sadly,
you are arguing with someone who has no concept of logic or even
sense, so it is unfortunately wasted on him. I'm afraid J Nugent is
beyond hope. Perhaps we shoud pray for him to be enlightened? Or at
least to achieve rationality.

You see, the weird thing is that nobody rational *needs* to be told
that it is unacceptable to incite criminal violence. Specifying this
or that "victim" group is irrelevant. No-one deserves violent attacks
by vigilantes.

That the CTC feels the need to play to their particular gallery on
this issue (and you can effectively be sure that almost no-one else is
listening to them) speaks volumes about how the CTC sees their
potential recruits, for all their sensible approach on many other
cycling-related issues.

I guess you are drunk.

Your guess is completely wrong.

What's new?

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

Quoted message said:

Sparrow said:

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

Quoted message said:

burtthebike wrote:

>
> "Sparrow" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> news:[email hidden]...
>
>>
>> "JNugent" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
>> news:[email hidden]...
>>
>>> Sparrow wrote:
>>>
>> But, we're not talking about wars; the subject IS cyclists. So the
>> *C*TC statement is correct to specify CYCLISTS when saying "that it is
>> not acceptable to incite violence against cyclists".
>>
>> It is plain and simple.
>
>
> All perfectly well expressed and logical, Sparrow, thank you. Sadly,
> you are arguing with someone who has no concept of logic or even sense,
> so it is unfortunately wasted on him. I'm afraid J Nugent is beyond
> hope. Perhaps we shoud pray for him to be enlightened? Or at least to
> achieve rationality.

You see, the weird thing is that nobody rational *needs* to be told that
it is unacceptable to incite criminal violence. Specifying this or that
"victim" group is irrelevant. No-one deserves violent attacks by
vigilantes.

That the CTC feels the need to play to their particular gallery on this
issue (and you can effectively be sure that almost no-one else is
listening to them) speaks volumes about how the CTC sees their potential
recruits, for all their sensible approach on many other cycling-related
issues.

I guess you are drunk.

Your guess is completely wrong.

Oh well, you're just a lonely troll then. - That still leaves me wondering
why you wrote such gibberish.

Quoted message said:

What's new?

New things.

On 5 Jan, 00:02, JNugent <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Squashme said:

JNugent said:

Yes, but that's getting rather contrived, isn't it? News papers
currently have no business inciting criminal violence against anyone
(and I'm not sure they ever really do, not even during war, despite
your odd claim that they sometimes do).

Gotcha? See:-
http://www.bl.uk/learning/images/front%20page/printlarge8019.html

Do you not know the difference between *criminal* violence and acts of
lawful war conducted in the defence of unlawfully-invaded territory?

How did we grab the Falklands in the first place, Mr Nugent?

And in war there should be proportionality. Sinking a cruiser with
hundreds of sailors on it in the South Atlantic was a disproportionate
escalation, for a war that was like "two bald men fighting over a
comb" (Borges).