Would it be funny if Jeremy Clarkson got cancer?



S

spindrift

Guest
No, not really. Other peoples' suffering is never funny.


So how can he get away with bile like this:

I've cut and pasted it below...

" I'VE argued for years that those stupid helmets worn by cyclists are
no use whatsoever.

But it turns out I'm wrong.

In fact, they actually increase the chance of you being knocked off
your bike and crushed to death under the wheels of an articulated
lorry.

A scientist has discovered that motorists pass, on average, three
inches closer to cyclists in helmets than they do to someone who is
riding along bare-headed."


Last weekends' Sun.

Clarkson is saying that helmets are useful because they can cause the
death of a cyclist.

Clarkson thought helmets were useless. After reading that they increase
danger for cyclists he's revised his opinion.Pretty clear to me.
Attacks on cyclists are on the increase and he gets stuff like this
published?
 
P

PhilO

Guest
spindrift wrote:
>>

> Clarkson is saying that helmets are useful because they can cause the
> death of a cyclist.
>


I read it as he now thinks they are worse than useless and therefore a
bad thing, but that's just from what you've posted (not seen the
original)

PhilO
 
M

Matt B

Guest
spindrift wrote:

> So how can he get away with bile like this:


It is, assuming you have managed to cite it accurately and in context,
what many here have been saying for years.

I didn't see you calling the suggestion that not only do helmets not
lead to less cycling casualties, but they may even actually lead to a
higher likelihood of being injured, 'bile' before.

I take it you now support the pro-helmet argument given that JC appears
to be anti.

--
Matt B
 
J

Jim Ley

Guest
On 19 Sep 2006 02:23:50 -0700, "PhilO" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>spindrift wrote:
>>>

>> Clarkson is saying that helmets are useful because they can cause the
>> death of a cyclist.
>>

>
>I read it as he now thinks they are worse than useless and therefore a
>bad thing, but that's just from what you've posted (not seen the
>original)


Yes, that's the only one anyone sane can read it...

Jim.
 
T

Tony Raven

Guest
spindrift wrote on 19/09/2006 10:52 +0100:
>
> can I offer five handy hints to those setting out on a bike for the
> first time.
>
> 1. Do not cruise through red lights. Because if I'm coming the other
> way, I will run you down, for fun.
>
> 2. Do not pull up at junctions in front of a line of traffic. Because
> if I'm behind you, I will set off at normal speed and you will be
> crushed under my wheels ... "
>


How is that different from the URC mantra involving matches and sharp
implements for transgressing motorists?


--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci
 
P

Peter Clinch

Guest
spindrift wrote:

> Something rather less ambiguous:


Spindrift goes on and on at such painful length that he does his cause
more harm than good. That's not ambiguous at all!

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
P

Peter Clinch

Guest
Tony Raven wrote:

> How is that different from the URC mantra involving matches and sharp
> implements for transgressing motorists?


Because we're on the Moral High Ground and can thus say and do anything
we like without being hypocrites, just like that Nice Mr. Bush ;-/

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
S

Sirius631

Guest
spindrift wrote:
> No, not really. Other peoples' suffering is never funny.
>
>
> So how can he get away with bile like this:
>
> I've cut and pasted it below...
>
> " I'VE argued for years that those stupid helmets worn by cyclists are
> no use whatsoever.
>
> But it turns out I'm wrong.
>
> In fact, they actually increase the chance of you being knocked off
> your bike and crushed to death under the wheels of an articulated
> lorry.
>
> A scientist has discovered that motorists pass, on average, three
> inches closer to cyclists in helmets than they do to someone who is
> riding along bare-headed."
>
>
> Last weekends' Sun.
>
> Clarkson is saying that helmets are useful because they can cause the
> death of a cyclist.
>
> Clarkson thought helmets were useless. After reading that they increase
> danger for cyclists he's revised his opinion.Pretty clear to me.
> Attacks on cyclists are on the increase and he gets stuff like this
> published?


If anyone felt really upset and believed that justice is fair, they
would bring a civil prosecution against Clarkson and his paper for
behaviour liable to cause a breach of the peace. God knows that if I
saw him I'd punch him one. I think that is self-defense.

David Lloyd (@ work)
 
A

Alistair Gunn

Guest
spindrift twisted the electrons to say:
> No, not really. Other peoples' suffering is never funny.


It would be funnier (read: actually funny) if he lost his driving license
for $PROLONGED_PERIOD.
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...
 
M

Marz

Guest
spindrift wrote:
> No, not really. Other peoples' suffering is never funny.
>
>
> So how can he get away with bile like this:
>
> I've cut and pasted it below...
>
> " I'VE argued for years that those stupid helmets worn by cyclists are
> no use whatsoever.
>
> But it turns out I'm wrong.
>
> In fact, they actually increase the chance of you being knocked off
> your bike and crushed to death under the wheels of an articulated
> lorry.
>
> A scientist has discovered that motorists pass, on average, three
> inches closer to cyclists in helmets than they do to someone who is
> riding along bare-headed."
>
>
> Last weekends' Sun.
>
> Clarkson is saying that helmets are useful because they can cause the
> death of a cyclist.
>
> Clarkson thought helmets were useless. After reading that they increase
> danger for cyclists he's revised his opinion.Pretty clear to me.
> Attacks on cyclists are on the increase and he gets stuff like this
> published?


You read the Sun?????????
 
S

spindrift

Guest
Marz wrote:
> spindrift wrote:
> > No, not really. Other peoples' suffering is never funny.
> >
> >
> > So how can he get away with bile like this:
> >
> > I've cut and pasted it below...
> >
> > " I'VE argued for years that those stupid helmets worn by cyclists are
> > no use whatsoever.
> >
> > But it turns out I'm wrong.
> >
> > In fact, they actually increase the chance of you being knocked off
> > your bike and crushed to death under the wheels of an articulated
> > lorry.
> >
> > A scientist has discovered that motorists pass, on average, three
> > inches closer to cyclists in helmets than they do to someone who is
> > riding along bare-headed."
> >
> >
> > Last weekends' Sun.
> >
> > Clarkson is saying that helmets are useful because they can cause the
> > death of a cyclist.
> >
> > Clarkson thought helmets were useless. After reading that they increase
> > danger for cyclists he's revised his opinion.Pretty clear to me.
> > Attacks on cyclists are on the increase and he gets stuff like this
> > published?

>
> You read the Sun?????????



I was dozing on a park bench and the page blew across my face and
before I could chuck it in the bin I'd read it.
 
R

Rob Morley

Guest
In article <[email protected]>
spindrift <[email protected]> wrote:
> No, not really. Other peoples' suffering is never funny.
>
>
> So how can he get away with bile like this:
>

<snip Clarkson quote>

Give it a rest. Clarkson is an entertainer - if you don't find him
entertaining just don't watch/read/listen to him. People stupid enough
to think he means what he says are stupid enopugh to do stupid things
without his encouragement, everyone else will either smile or ignore
him.
 
S

Simon Brooke

Guest
in message <[email protected]>, Rob Morley
('[email protected]') wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>
> spindrift <[email protected]> wrote:
>> No, not really. Other peoples' suffering is never funny.
>>
>>
>> So how can he get away with bile like this:
>>

> <snip Clarkson quote>
>
> Give it a rest. Clarkson is an entertainer - if you don't find him
> entertaining just don't watch/read/listen to him.


He is not an entertainer, he's an opinion former. Whether we read him or
not, a large number of people do, and take him seriously, modifying their
behaviour in ways he suggests. He is not merely evil, he's dangerous.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Wise man with foot in mouth use opportunity to clean toes.
;; the Worlock
 
R

Rob Morley

Guest
In article <[email protected]>
Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
> in message <[email protected]>, Rob Morley
> ('[email protected]') wrote:
>
> > In article <[email protected]>
> > spindrift <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> No, not really. Other peoples' suffering is never funny.
> >>
> >>
> >> So how can he get away with bile like this:
> >>

> > <snip Clarkson quote>
> >
> > Give it a rest. Clarkson is an entertainer - if you don't find him
> > entertaining just don't watch/read/listen to him.

>
> He is not an entertainer, he's an opinion former. Whether we read him or
> not, a large number of people do, and take him seriously, modifying their
> behaviour in ways he suggests. He is not merely evil, he's dangerous.
>
>

I notice you snipped the bit about only stupid people taking him
seriously.
 
S

Simon Brooke

Guest
in message <[email protected]>, Rob Morley
('[email protected]') wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>
> Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
>> in message <[email protected]>, Rob Morley
>> ('[email protected]') wrote:
>>
>> > In article <[email protected]>
>> > spindrift <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> No, not really. Other peoples' suffering is never funny.
>> >>
>> >> So how can he get away with bile like this:
>> >>
>> > <snip Clarkson quote>
>> >
>> > Give it a rest. Clarkson is an entertainer - if you don't find him
>> > entertaining just don't watch/read/listen to him.

>>
>> He is not an entertainer, he's an opinion former. Whether we read him or
>> not, a large number of people do, and take him seriously, modifying
>> their behaviour in ways he suggests. He is not merely evil, he's
>> dangerous.
>>

> I notice you snipped the bit about only stupid people taking him
> seriously.


It doesn't make any difference whether the person who kills you is clever
or stupid, you're still dead. And given that that is so, you'd be pretty
stupid not to take seriously someone who deliberately sets out to incite
stupid people to try to kill you.

In short: I understood your inference, but did not wish to humiliate you by
drawing attention to it.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; I put the 'sexy' in 'dyslexia'
 
D

david lloyd

Guest
"spindrift" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> No, not really. Other peoples' suffering is never funny.
>

No, it wouldn't be funny as it would belittle the sufering of the
humanbeings that are thus afflicted.

What would be funny and ironic would be if he was run over by a car. This is
unlikely to happen because I doubt if he walks anywhere. He'll die of a
heart attack first. I'll get the disco lights and hire a DJ for all of us
who would like to dance on his grave.

--
Dave Lloyd
So open minded, my brains dribbled out.
 
M

Mark McNeill

Guest
Response to david lloyd:
> What would be funny and ironic would be if he was run over by a car. This is
> unlikely to happen because I doubt if he walks anywhere.


Oh, he could conceivably be run over - he does [or did] cycle regularly,
allegedly. (Although I suppose he could be strictly an off-roader.)

The only reference I'm aware of for this is the normally reliable
Bikebiz; perhaps, given his public image, he doesn't want it generally
known.


--
Mark, UK
"Morals consist of political morals, commercial morals, ecclesiastical
morals, and morals."
 
G

Gwyn Oakley

Guest
In message <[email protected]>
"spindrift" <[email protected]> wrote:

> No, not really. Other peoples' suffering is never funny.


Bad taste but yes

G
>
>
> So how can he get away with bile like this:
>
> I've cut and pasted it below...
>
> " I'VE argued for years that those stupid helmets worn by cyclists are
> no use whatsoever.
>
> But it turns out I'm wrong.
>
> In fact, they actually increase the chance of you being knocked off
> your bike and crushed to death under the wheels of an articulated
> lorry.
>
> A scientist has discovered that motorists pass, on average, three
> inches closer to cyclists in helmets than they do to someone who is
> riding along bare-headed."
>
>
> Last weekends' Sun.
>
> Clarkson is saying that helmets are useful because they can cause the
> death of a cyclist.
>
> Clarkson thought helmets were useless. After reading that they increase
> danger for cyclists he's revised his opinion.Pretty clear to me.
> Attacks on cyclists are on the increase and he gets stuff like this
> published?
>


--
Gwyn
 
S

Sirius631

Guest
Mark McNeill wrote:
> Response to david lloyd:
> > What would be funny and ironic would be if he was run over by a car. This is
> > unlikely to happen because I doubt if he walks anywhere.

>
> Oh, he could conceivably be run over - he does [or did] cycle regularly,
> allegedly. (Although I suppose he could be strictly an off-roader.)
>

Off-roader? Does this mean he cycled on the pavements? A snipet like
that could kill his street cred.

> The only reference I'm aware of for this is the normally reliable
> Bikebiz; perhaps, given his public image, he doesn't want it generally
> known.
>

Look it up and post it to the BEEB and the rivals to his paper.

David L
 
S

Sirius631

Guest
Mark McNeill wrote:
> Response to david lloyd:
> > What would be funny and ironic would be if he was run over by a car. This is
> > unlikely to happen because I doubt if he walks anywhere.

>
> Oh, he could conceivably be run over - he does [or did] cycle regularly,
> allegedly. (Although I suppose he could be strictly an off-roader.)
>
> The only reference I'm aware of for this is the normally reliable
> Bikebiz; perhaps, given his public image, he doesn't want it generally
> known.
>

Perhaps the BEEB could be persuaded to do a program based on Clarkson
having to spend a week riding in London traffic.

David L