B*st*rds?

David Damerell said:

G S Banner said:

"Colin Blackburn" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

My conclusion. Urban car drivers are irresponsible, selfish [censored].

This is an illuminating tale of idiocy, but I think your last para lets *you* down. Try
re-reading your account, but replacing the references to "drivers" with (say) "paki", "darkie"
"chinkie" or "jew".

Drivers choose to drive. The difference is quite significant.

There is a significant difference. But you're not saying that the fact that someone chooses to do
something justifies bigotry towards them, are you?

Are you?????
--
Michael MacClancy

Michael MacClancy said:

David Damerell said:

Drivers choose to drive. The difference is quite significant.

There is a significant difference. But you're not saying that the fact that someone chooses to do
something justifies bigotry towards them, are you? Are you?????

"Bigotry" would imply an unjustified bias; I suspect you are using the word here merely in order to
conceal the weakness of your argument behind an appeal to emotion, since a justified unjustified
bias would be a meaningless concept.

I certainly think that someone's choices can rightfully inform one's opinion of them; for instance,
I do not think highly of people who misuse punctuation.
--
David Damerell <[email hidden]> Kill the tomato!

David Damerell said:

"Bigotry" would imply an unjustified bias; I suspect you are using the word here merely in order
to conceal the weakness of your argument behind an appeal to emotion, since a justified
unjustified bias would be a meaningless concept.

I certainly think that someone's choices can rightfully inform one's opinion of them; for
instance, I do not think highly of people who misuse punctuation.

Funny, my dictionary doesn't say anything about unjustified bias, implied or not. It says that a
bigot is someone who is intolerant, esp. regarding religion, politics, or race. (Dictionary's
punctuation, not mine.) That's always been my understanding.

If you read the thread you'll see that I haven't argued anything except that I object to being
called a '[censored]'. I do, however, agree that the OP's opinions suggest that he's something of a
bigot towards motorists. (Perhaps you should read that part of the thread too.)

My reason for replying to you was to be sure that you wouldn't consider bigotry to be justified
towards, say, a Christian who chose to convert to Judaism. Your post suggested that the motorists
choice to drive justified bigotry. The choice isn't really relevant is it?
--
Michael MacClancy

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

I certainly think that someone's choices can rightfully inform one's opinion of them; for
instance, I do not think highly of people who misuse punctuation.

What???? .......that's disgraceful!!!!!

Colin

"Michael MacClancy" <SNIP Your post suggested that the motorists choice to drive justified

Quoted message said:

bigotry. The choice isn't really relevant is it?
--
Michael MacClancy

Surely objecting to antisocial or boorish behaviour cannot be classified as bigotry. That is surely
what the point was?

Manxshaun

manxshaun said:

Surely objecting to antisocial or boorish behaviour cannot be classified as bigotry. That is
surely what the point was?

Manxshaun

The OP said "Urban car drivers are irresponsible, selfish [censored]". This followed from a quote from
the Guardian that he posted in another thread that said "urban car drivers can never act
collectively - they are all [censored], not by coincidence, but by definition." He was accused of
bigotry by someone who said, "Applying a characteristic of a small sample to a group of people with
something in common can be a very dangerous line of thinking."

I agree with you that objecting to antisocial or boorish behaviour cannot be classified as bigotry.
But I don't think that driving a car in an urban area is necessarily anti-social or boorish and I do
therefore think that calling all urban drivers '[censored]' smacks of bigotry.
--
Michael MacClancy

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

Quoted message said:

manxshaun said:

Surely objecting to antisocial or boorish behaviour cannot be classified as bigotry. That is
surely what the point was?

Manxshaun

The OP said "Urban car drivers are irresponsible, selfish [censored]". This followed from a quote
from the Guardian that he posted in another thread that said "urban car drivers can never act
collectively - they are all [censored], not by coincidence, but by definition." He was accused of

bigotry

Quoted message said:

by someone who said, "Applying a characteristic of a small sample to a

group

Quoted message said:

of people with something in common can be a very dangerous line of thinking."

I agree with you that objecting to antisocial or boorish behaviour cannot

be

Quoted message said:

classified as bigotry. But I don't think that driving a car in an urban area is necessarily
anti-social or boorish and I do therefore think that calling all urban drivers '[censored]' smacks
of bigotry.
--
Michael MacClancy

On the other hand, taking something too literally can be bigotry of sorts!

manxshaun

manxshaun said:

On the other hand, taking something too literally can be bigotry of sorts!

manxshaun

I wholeheartedly agree and when I read the Guardian article which started this whole discussion off
I thought to myself, "Now there's a journalist trying to write humour for a living but failing." -
My opinion, I fully recognise that my sense of humour is lacking when compared to others on this NG.
;-) - I would have left it at that had the OP not then chosen to quote the lady out of context. It's
not a joke to him, he's made it quite clear by his post at the beginning of this thread.

His words, "My conclusion. Urban car drivers are irresponsible, selfish [censored]."

I think that's quite unambiguous.
--
Michael MacClancy

Quoted message said:

"Bigotry" would imply an unjustified bias; I suspect you are using the word here merely in order
to conceal the weakness of your argument behind an appeal to emotion, since a justified
unjustified bias would be a meaningless concept.

? You suspect I'm using the word "bigotry" to conceal the weakness of my argument that the statement
"Urban car drivers are irresponsible, selfish [censored]" based on a single instance of the conduct of
three drivers discloses an unacceptable degree of intolerance.

Back to rest home for the bewildered for you.

G S Banner said:

David Damerell wrote, but some halfwit removes attribution lines:

Quoted message said:

"Bigotry" would imply an unjustified bias; I suspect you are using the word here merely in order
to conceal the weakness of your argument behind an appeal to emotion, since a justified
unjustified bias would be a meaningless concept.

You suspect I'm using the word "bigotry"

Er, no. Who wrote the quoted text in my article? Who was I replying to? Was it you? I think not -
unless someone's getting his sock puppets mixed up...
--
David Damerell <[email hidden]> Kill the tomato!

David Damerell said:

G S Banner said:

David Damerell wrote, but some halfwit removes attribution lines:

Quoted message said:

"Bigotry" would imply an unjustified bias; I suspect you are using the word here merely in order
to conceal the weakness of your argument behind an appeal to emotion, since a justified
unjustified bias would be a meaningless concept.

You suspect I'm using the word "bigotry"

Er, no. Who wrote the quoted text in my article? Who was I replying to? Was it you? I think not -
unless someone's getting his sock puppets mixed up...

I think this is a public forum and it's not for David Damerell to determine who should take issue
with what he or anyone else writes.

His first post on this thread was a response to R S Banner, I responded to that and R S Banner
responded to his reply to me. Being as s/he was the one who introduced the concept of bigotry to the
discussion s/he must be entitled to comment when someone questions its relevancy, no?

I thought Usenet was about freedom of speech. ;-)
--
Michael MacClancy

In "]news:[email hidden], Michael MacClancy
<[email hidden]> typed:

Quoted message said:

I thought Usenet was about freedom of speech. ;-)

No, its who can shout the loudest 😉

Seriously, I think there are much deeper issues here.

Although (perhaps taken out of context) Colin's post *did* look dodgy, it doesn't make him an
evil person...

There are prejudices in everyone; I don't like Paul Daniels, and I avoid Basingstoke if at
all possible.

People form views due to past experiences; its just human nature. If people show a bias against
"motorists" here, its partly because of the idiots on other groups, and that they have been involved
in RTCs with cars (and perhaps even sustained injury) which has understandably altered their views.

I am Asian, and in my younger years used to go out clubbing and raving a lot. In some of the more
"underground" (often unlicensed) parties, I noticed that some people *were* wary of me for some
reason - something I found strange, given I'm not a large intimidating bloke and try to be
reasonably friendly. Others would, for inexplicable reasons, *constantly* ask me if I had any drugs
to sell, or hookey computer kit!

It turned out that many of them had got a stereotype into their heads that Asians were either
"robbers, wide boys or dealers" and treated me accordingly at first. And (perhaps a vicious circle)
- a lot of the Asian kids in their local areas *did* commit street crime, pose around in dodgy
motors, and sell small deals of drugs, and those were the only Asian people they had met.

However, as they got to know me, their prejudices *slowly* disappeared - as they found that not
*all* Asian people behaved like those they had previously encountered.

The same applies on the road. Many people here see *so much* bad driving; and experience bad
attitudes from drivers its hardly suprising people on other modes of transport become prejudiced.

It will take a *lot* to amend matters (*if* things ever get better). Perhaps if Colin sees a load of
considerate driving from people only driving into town in fully occupied cars and within speed
limits he might start posting different stuff.

I have seen similar situations to Colin - except in this case there was a happier ending. After a
load of middle aged cagers had refused to give space to an Ambulance with blues and twos full on -
it *was* let through - by a car driven by young men you would have taken at first glance to be
boy-racers or joyriders! this at least shows that *some* drivers can be reasonable.

However, I don't think anyone on this group is *really* bigoted in the wider sense. On here you have
all kinds of backgrounds and ethnic groups - British people of all cultures, European visitors,
African chaps racing up London Hills, Welsh people racing down valleys, Scots riding round islands,
and paving slab fairies in Norfolk. There are doctors, engineers, hippies, bearded eco-warriors,
eccentric teachers, Tory councillors and police officers - who all co-exist *fairly* peacefully on
here. You don't often see that happening on other groups! I have seen various *serious* personal
arguments and even threats of violence, or even vindictive stuff like people being traced and
personal details circulated, spam and hacking attempts or their workplaces contacted alleging misuse
of company time/resources etc..

URC may not be perfect - but its one of the better groups I have been on in 15 years of
using Usenet!

I'm amazed also you have remained so tolerant of the standard of driving if you bought a bike in
*Reading* - I can only assume you must ride it *elsewhere* (like miles out in the sticks!)

Alex

Quoted message said:

The same applies on the road. Many people here see *so much* bad driving; and experience bad
attitudes from drivers its hardly suprising people on other modes of transport become prejudiced.

I'm sure that they also see a lot of good or acceptably mediocre driving. The problem is that people
remember (or choose to remember) only the bad driving. Motorists generally remember and complain
about cyclists who jump red lights. They don't seem to counterbalance that recollection with any
memory of those that don't, leading to the oft heard diatribes from motorists "bloody cyclists,
always jumping red lights"

People (and not just motorists and cyclists) don't always weigh the evidence of their eyes
objectively; they select that which supports their preconceptions.

Michael MacClancy said:

David Damerell said:

G S Banner said:

David Damerell wrote, but some halfwit removes attribution lines:
>"Bigotry" would imply an unjustified bias; I suspect you are using the word here merely in order
>to conceal the weakness of your argument behind an appeal to emotion, since a justified
>unjustified bias would be a meaningless concept.
You suspect I'm using the word "bigotry"

Er, no. Who wrote the quoted text in my article? Who was I replying to? Was it you? I think not -
unless someone's getting his sock puppets mixed up...

I think this is a public forum and it's not for David Damerell to determine who should take issue
with what he or anyone else writes.

However, I can quite reasonably point out that "Banner" can't even manage to figure out which news
article I'm replying to, in spite of the presence of quoted text and attribution line.

He can take issue with something I didn't actually write if he pleases, but that seems a rather
pointless exercise.
--
David Damerell <[email hidden]> Kill the tomato!

Mr R@t (2.3 zulu-alpha) [comms room 2] wrote:

............... an erudite article on the nature and causes of prejudices which I only wish I had
written myself.

I too believe that Colin isn't an evil person. I only believe that his mode of expression doesn't do
much in the service of his cause.

You're right, I don't ride in Reading. I was surprised that someone in another thread seemed to be
saying that Reading should be commended for its cycling infrastructure. I'm fortunate to live in a
semi-rural location and can ride out in the country.

Prejudices exist in both directions. I switched on my PC to post about a recent article in the Times
Magazine (see Prejudiced Journalist?)

Can we bring this thread to a close, please? I thought we had done so once (when it was Guardian
Article or similar) but it was reopened.
--
Michael MacClancy

G S Banner said:

Quoted message said:

The same applies on the road. Many people here see *so much* bad driving; and experience bad
attitudes from drivers its hardly suprising people on other modes of transport become prejudiced.

I'm sure that they also see a lot of good or acceptably mediocre driving.

I don't know. My estimate would be 70-90% of drivers are unacceptable poor. (ISTR a TV show or
something asking 10 drivers they met at a motorway service station to retake their L test - 7 failed
- which would tally)

I keep a tally of exemplary driving and malicious driving. In 2002 the malicious drivers scored 2,
the exemplary drivers 3. (This is in about 2000 cycling miles)

For 2003 the tally is currently malicious 0, exemplary 1 - thanks to a British Gas van driver
Y886something this week. (I was going to write to British Gas to complement them on this drivers
driving, unfortunately, the lorry (below) made me forget the rest of the registration - I'm not even
100% sure about the Y886, it could have been Y866)

I have also had to do three panic stops this week. One, if I hadn't stopped the car would have
stopped before plowing into me on the roundabout (but I wasn't going to gamble on it and he
certainly couldn't stop before the give way line), One whom I couldn't have missed if I hadn't
stopped - reversing straight out of their drive into the road - fortunately I was only coasting
downhill at about 20mph rather than my more usual 25-30mph, and one a lorry driver who thought that,
despite having followed me for 5 seconds at 20mph decided I was obviously stationary and he could
overtake before the oncoming car reached us - crossing a solid white line in the process - I just
managed to control my braking and steering so as to slip in behind the trailer rather than hit the
side or go under the wheel.

This week has been bad. True panic stops are rare for me (although hard braking is needed about once
per week) but despite that none of these drivers figure in my "bad driving" tally. They are merely
careless or incompetent, not malicious.

(You could argue that my stats are slightly unfair to good drivers in that a driver who isn't
affected by me doesn't count in the tally - for example, today I was driving and saw a cyclist about
400yds ahead of me on a dual carriageway. I changed lanes, overtook and changed back - this caused
me absolutely zero inconvenience (other than a quick shoulder check before changing lanes) - if I
had been the cyclist I wouldn't have counted my driving in the "exemplary driving" category although
as a driver I don't think I could have behaved better)

Quoted message said:

The problem is that people remember (or choose to remember) only the bad driving. Motorists
generally remember and complain about cyclists who jump red lights. They don't seem to
counterbalance that recollection with any memory of those that don't, leading to the oft heard
diatribes from motorists "bloody cyclists, always jumping red lights"

On the whole I remember the exemplary drivers and the malicious drivers about equally well - hence I
can remember detailed circumstances around 3 out of the five "events" in 2002 and hazy recollections
about the other
2. Things like being cut up on roundabouts etc I forget very quickly (Except for the one who cut me
up about a mile from work and made the mistake of working for the same company - by the time they
had parked their car and walked to the entrance I was waiting there ready to ask if they was
going to have any more driving lessons before their test :-)

(OTOH, I reckon a car cutting me up in the first mile is worth a full two minutes off my journey
time to work ;-)

Quoted message said:

People (and not just motorists and cyclists) don't always weigh the evidence of their eyes
objectively; they select that which supports their preconceptions.

This is undoubtedly true. I have only actually been knocked off my bike by a car once, and I could
(should?) probably have avoided it. The driver was at fault but experience and age (and having
100,000+ car driving miles under my belt as well as 10,000 cycling miles) makes me hope the black
eye then would be a near miss now.

Tim.

--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.

tjw.hn.orgtjw.hn.orgOpen ↗ locofungus.btinternet.co.uklocofungus.btinternet.co.ukOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

However, I can quite reasonably point out that "Banner" can't even manage to figure out which news
article I'm replying to, in spite of the presence of quoted text and attribution line.

He can take issue with something I didn't actually write if he pleases, but that seems a rather
pointless exercise.
--
David Damerell <[email hidden]> Kill the tomato!

You may not have been replying to my post, but you were responding to my use of the term "bigot" for
something you regarded as justifiable bias towards a group of people. I pointed out that the conduct
of three people did not justify bias against a group larger than than those three people. I *was*
taking issue with something you said. Read the words to yourself out loud if you're having
difficulty getting it.

BTW for someone who claims "I do not think highly of people who misuse punctuation." you should
reflect on your incorrect use of quotation marks around my name.

In "]news:[email hidden], Michael MacClancy
<[email hidden]> typed:

Quoted message said:

You're right, I don't ride in Reading. I was surprised that someone in another thread seemed to be
saying that Reading should be commended for its cycling infrastructure.

Hmm - that may have been me! But it was the *number of cyclists* I was happy about in Reading rather
than the infrastructure - which is ropey in parts! Even the council officers who cycle admit this -
but as usual "there is no money in the pot for improvements".

With the exception of river/canal side towpaths or those which *genuinely* provide you with a short
cut, I do not care much for cycle lanes. What I think *are* good are the "quiet streets"; where one
end of the street is restricted so drivers cannot fly down it a short-cut or rat run, yet it doesn't
really impact on residents parking spaces, and presumably also makes the street safer for kids who
live in the area - IMO a win-win situation for all in the local area.

Alex

G S Banner said:

I wrote, but the same halfwit removed the attribution line:

Quoted message said:

He can take issue with something I didn't actually write if he pleases, but that seems a rather
pointless exercise.

You may not have been replying to my post, but you were responding to my use of the term "bigot"

No, I wasn't. Still, never let the facts get in the way of a good rant, eh?

I was responding to the use of the word "bigotry" in article
<[email hidden]>, written by Michael MacClancy.

Quoted message said:

BTW for someone who claims "I do not think highly of people who misuse punctuation." you should
reflect on your incorrect use of quotation marks around my name.

It's not incorrect when I think you might be a sock puppet.
--
David Damerell <[email hidden]> Kill the tomato!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You may not have been replying to my post, but you were responding to my

use

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

of the term "bigot"

No, I wasn't. Still, never let the facts get in the way of a good rant, eh?

I was responding to the use of the word "bigotry" in article
<[email hidden]>, written by Michael MacClancy.

We've been over this, and you still don't get it. Berk.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

BTW for someone who claims "I do not think highly of people who misuse punctuation." you should
reflect on your incorrect use of quotation marks around my name.

It's not incorrect when I think you might be a sock puppet.

Got a source for that rule of punctuation? Or did the local newsagent tell you it was the right
thing to do?