Times article

[Ian Smith]

On Wed, 02 Jan, burtthebike <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> The letter from the editor claims that the bigot is concerned about the
> environment, and yet he writes drivel about cyclists, which is, with
> walking, the only sustainable form of transport.

He also leaves his sitting room electrical appliances on standby 24
hours a day.

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

 

[spindrift]

On 2 Jan, 22:26, Sir Jeremy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2 Jan, 17:37, JNugent <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Nigel Cliffe wrote:
> > > Lily wrote:
>
> > >>"wafflycat" <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote in message
> > >>news:[email protected]...
>
> > >>>A response from the Times's editor can be seen here:-
>
> > >>>http://www.timetriallingforum.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=17192&pid=245...
>
> > >>>Not good.
>
> > >>Do you have no sense of humour, or do you excuse cyclists' littering?
>
> > > 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.
>
> > > 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.
>
> > > 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 -
>
> 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 ****.

 

[spindrift]

On 2 Jan, 17:37, JNugent <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Nigel Cliffe wrote:
> > Lily wrote:
>
> >>"wafflycat" <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote in message
> >>news:[email protected]...
>
> >>>A response from the Times's editor can be seen here:-
>
> >>>http://www.timetriallingforum.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=17192&pid=245...
>
> >>>Not good.
>
> >>Do you have no sense of humour, or do you excuse cyclists' littering?
>
> > 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.
>
> > 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.
>
> > 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.

 

[Dave Larrington]

In news:[email protected],
Lily <[email protected]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:
> "wafflycat" <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> 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.

 

[David Hansen]

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

>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

 

[Andy Leighton]

On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 10:05:24 +0000,
David Hansen <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 16:44:07 +0000 someone who may be Simon Brooke
><[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>>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 protected]
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

 

[JNugent]

spindrift wrote:
> On 2 Jan, 17:37, JNugent <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>Nigel Cliffe wrote:
>>
>>>Lily wrote:
>>
>>>>"wafflycat" <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>>>A response from the Times's editor can be seen here:-
>>
>>>>>http://www.timetriallingforum.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=17192&pid=245...
>>
>>>>>Not good.
>>
>>>>Do you have no sense of humour, or do you excuse cyclists' littering?
>>
>>>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.
>>
>>>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.
>>
>>>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.

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.

 

[spindrift]

On 3 Jan, 12:22, JNugent <[email protected]>
wrote:
> spindrift wrote:
> > On 2 Jan, 17:37, JNugent <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
>
> >>Nigel Cliffe wrote:
>
> >>>Lily wrote:
>
> >>>>"wafflycat" <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote in message
> >>>>news:[email protected]...
>
> >>>>>A response from the Times's editor can be seen here:-
>
> >>>>>http://www.timetriallingforum.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=17192&pid=245...
>
> >>>>>Not good.
>
> >>>>Do you have no sense of humour, or do you excuse cyclists' littering?
>
> >>>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.
>
> >>>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.
>
> >>>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.
>
> 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.

 

[Sir Jeremy]

On 3 Jan, 12:36, spindrift <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 3 Jan, 12:22, JNugent <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > spindrift wrote:
> > > On 2 Jan, 17:37, JNugent <[email protected]>
> > > wrote:
>
> > >>Nigel Cliffe wrote:
>
> > >>>Lily wrote:
>
> > >>>>"wafflycat" <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote in message
> > >>>>news:[email protected]...
>
> > >>>>>A response from the Times's editor can be seen here:-
>
> > >>>>>http://www.timetriallingforum.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=17192&pid=245...
>
> > >>>>>Not good.
>
> > >>>>Do you have no sense of humour, or do you excuse cyclists' littering?
>
> > >>>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.
>
> > >>>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.
>
> > >>>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 ?
>
> > >>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.
>
> > 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.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


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

 

[spindrift]

On 3 Jan, 13:43, Sir Jeremy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 3 Jan, 12:36, spindrift <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 3 Jan, 12:22, JNugent <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
>
> > > spindrift wrote:
> > > > On 2 Jan, 17:37, JNugent <[email protected]>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > >>Nigel Cliffe wrote:
>
> > > >>>Lily wrote:
>
> > > >>>>"wafflycat" <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote in message
> > > >>>>news:[email protected]...
>
> > > >>>>>A response from the Times's editor can be seen here:-
>
> > > >>>>>http://www.timetriallingforum.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=17192&pid=245...
>
> > > >>>>>Not good.
>
> > > >>>>Do you have no sense of humour, or do you excuse cyclists' littering?
>
> > > >>>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.
>
> > > >>>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.
>
> > > >>>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 ?
>
> > > >>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.
>
> > > 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.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - 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?

 

[Sir Jeremy]

On 3 Jan, 13:47, spindrift <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 3 Jan, 13:43, Sir Jeremy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 3 Jan, 12:36, spindrift <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On 3 Jan, 12:22, JNugent <[email protected]>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > spindrift wrote:
> > > > > On 2 Jan, 17:37, JNugent <[email protected]>
> > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > >>Nigel Cliffe wrote:
>
> > > > >>>Lily wrote:
>
> > > > >>>>"wafflycat" <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote in message
> > > > >>>>news:[email protected]...
>
> > > > >>>>>A response from the Times's editor can be seen here:-
>
> > > > >>>>>http://www.timetriallingforum.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=17192&pid=245...
>
> > > > >>>>>Not good.
>
> > > > >>>>Do you have no sense of humour, or do you excuse cyclists' littering?
>
> > > > >>>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.
>
> > > > >>>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.
>
> > > > >>>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 ?
>
> > > > >>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.
>
> > > > 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.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - 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?- 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

 

[spindrift]

On 3 Jan, 13:53, Sir Jeremy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 3 Jan, 13:47, spindrift <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 3 Jan, 13:43, Sir Jeremy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On 3 Jan, 12:36, spindrift <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > On 3 Jan, 12:22, JNugent <[email protected]>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > spindrift wrote:
> > > > > > On 2 Jan, 17:37, JNugent <[email protected]>
> > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > >>Nigel Cliffe wrote:
>
> > > > > >>>Lily wrote:
>
> > > > > >>>>"wafflycat" <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote in message
> > > > > >>>>news:[email protected]...
>
> > > > > >>>>>A response from the Times's editor can be seen here:-
>
> > > > > >>>>>http://www.timetriallingforum.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=17192&pid=245...
>
> > > > > >>>>>Not good.
>
> > > > > >>>>Do you have no sense of humour, or do you excuse cyclists' littering?
>
> > > > > >>>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.
>
> > > > > >>>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.
>
> > > > > >>>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 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.
>
> > > > > >>[* 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 usenetor
> > > > > > 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.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - 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?- 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- 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.

 

[JNugent]

spindrift wrote:

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

[ ... ]

>>>"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!

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

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk...7591469e3a9f66d?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).

 

[spindrift]

On 3 Jan, 14:29, JNugent <[email protected]>
wrote:
> spindrift wrote:
> > On 3 Jan, 13:53, Sir Jeremy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> [ ... ]
>
> >>>"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!
>
> > 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.

 

[Dave Larrington]

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

> 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 ***** 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.

 

[JNugent]

Dave Larrington wrote:

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

Yes - "100" was a typo.

> 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 ***** in half a dozen
> different ways.

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

 

[Sir Jeremy]

On 3 Jan, 13:56, spindrift <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 3 Jan, 13:53, Sir Jeremy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 3 Jan, 13:47, spindrift <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On 3 Jan, 13:43, Sir Jeremy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > On 3 Jan, 12:36, spindrift <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > On 3 Jan, 12:22, JNugent <[email protected]>
> > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > spindrift wrote:
> > > > > > > On 2 Jan, 17:37, JNugent <[email protected]>
> > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > >>Nigel Cliffe wrote:
>
> > > > > > >>>Lily wrote:
>
> > > > > > >>>>"wafflycat" <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > >>>>news:[email protected]...
>
> > > > > > >>>>>A response from the Times's editor can be seen here:-
>
> > > > > > >>>>>http://www.timetriallingforum.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=17192&pid=245...
>
> > > > > > >>>>>Not good.
>
> > > > > > >>>>Do you have no sense of humour, or do you excuse cyclists' littering?
>
> > > > > > >>>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.
>
> > > > > > >>>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.
>
> > > > > > >>>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 aboutdamage
> > > > > > > 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.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - 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?- 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- 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.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


look harder

 

[POHB]

On 26 Dec 2007, 23:19, Tim Steele <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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"

 

[burtthebike]

"POHB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:516e02b8-8f06-460e-af72-10e29370b8c4@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> On 26 Dec 2007, 23:19, Tim Steele <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 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.

 

[Ian Smith]

On Thu, 3 Jan 2008, POHB <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 26 Dec 2007, 23:19, Tim Steele <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > 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|
|/ \|