Congestion Charge: Guardian Article

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

Quoted message said:

I found this amusing:

guardian.co.uk0,3604,897771,00.htmlOpen ↗

Worth reading and summed up by this quote for those who don't have the means/time:

"And there you have it, in a nutshell, the cast-iron and immutable reason why urban car drivers can
never act collectively - they are all [censored], not by coincidence, but by definition."

:-)

Colin

Colin Blackburn said:

Worth reading and summed up by this quote for those who don't have the means/time:

"And there you have it, in a nutshell, the cast-iron and immutable reason why urban car drivers
can never act collectively - they are all [censored], not by coincidence, but by definition."

Do you really believe this or share this opinion?

If so, you're a sad person.

Do you ever drive in an urban area?

If so, does this make you a [censored]?
--
Michael MacClancy

Michael MacClancy said:

Colin Blackburn said:

Worth reading and summed up by this quote for those who don't have the means/time:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"And there you have it, in a nutshell, the cast-iron and immutable reason why urban car drivers
can never act collectively - they are all [censored], not by coincidence, but by definition."

Quoted message said:

Do you really believe this or share this opinion? If so, you're a sad person. Do you ever drive in
an urban area? If so, does this make you a [censored]?

Not half as sad as someone who can't laugh at such a lovely piece of satire.

The following also made me laugh out loud: "The "sodders" had issued some protest guidelines, which
included, "Do not cause an obstruction by trying to impede moving vehicles". Now, I find myself
morally chary of mocking protesters of any stamp, but come on - the whole point of protest is the
impediment of moving vehicles. That is the defining feature of a march; it's what distinguishes
protesting from having a large picnic with some like-minded strangers."

And especially: "I wouldn't necessarily advocate a tax on selfishness (it sounds a bit like
socialism for the under-fives), but it is amusing to watch the implacably self-seeking try and act
in the wider interest. They can't trust their politicians, believing them also to be selfish; they
can't be bothered to take to the streets; they can't make even a minor impact on the traffic,
believing too vigorously in the convenience of the individual; they can't do anything illegal, since
none of them will take the rap for anyone else; they can't even be nice to each other, if there's
any sign of weakness (like an L-plate)."

--
Guy
===
I wonder if you wouldn't mind piecing out our imperfections with your thoughts; and while you're
about it perhaps you could think when we talk of bicycles, that you see them printing their proud
wheels i' the receiving earth; thanks awfully.

highwaycode.gov.uk09.shtmlOpen ↗ highwaycode.gov.uk09.shtmlOpen ↗

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

Quoted message said:

Colin Blackburn said:

Worth reading and summed up by this quote for those who don't have the means/time:

"And there you have it, in a nutshell, the cast-iron and immutable reason why urban car drivers
can never act collectively - they are all [censored], not by coincidence, but by definition."

Do you really believe this or share this opinion?

If so, you're a sad person.

Do you ever drive in an urban area?

If so, does this make you a [censored]?
--

But by definition car driving is selfish (therefore [censored] in this case) and therefore cannot
organise a collective protest (in this case). Read the article. Very good.

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

Quoted message said:

Colin Blackburn said:

Worth reading and summed up by this quote for those who don't have the means/time:

"And there you have it, in a nutshell, the cast-iron and immutable reason why urban car drivers
can never act collectively - they are all [censored], not by coincidence, but by definition."

Do you really believe this or share this opinion?

It's a piece of humour, though the article as a whole has a point.

Quoted message said:

If so, you're a sad person.

I do laugh from time to time. Are you a sad person?

Quoted message said:

Do you ever drive in an urban area?

No.

Colin

Colin Blackburn said:

It's a piece of humour, though the article as a whole has a point.

Stop trying to weasel your way out of a difficult position. You didn't make the original post
because of the article's humour, you posted an excerpt out of context because it says that car
drivers are [censored]. You never mentioned how funny it was. How on earth is someone reading your
'summary' going to know that the original piece was funny? Or is urban car drivers being [censored]
just a joke that goes right over my head?
--
Michael MacClancy

Colin Blackburn said:

FFS lighten up. I'm not in a difficult position. I'm sat at a comfy desk

at work typing,

That made me giggle. :-)

Quoted message said:

was funny? Or is urban car drivers being [censored] just a joke that

Quoted message said:

goes right over my head?

Obviously the answer is yes.

Obviously there _are_ things that we can both laugh at but calling anyone a [censored] isn't one of
them, particularly when you present something so blatantly out of context. Next time you do us the
'service' of summarising something I'll ignore your assistance.

--
Michael MacClancy

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

Quoted message said:

Colin Blackburn said:

It's a piece of humour, though the article as a whole has a point.

Stop trying to weasel your way out of a difficult position.

FFS lighten up. I'm not in a difficult position. I'm sat at a comfy desk at work typing,

Quoted message said:

You didn't make the original post because of the article's humour, you posted an excerpt out of
context because it says that car drivers are [censored]. You never mentioned how funny it was. How
on earth is someone reading your 'summary' going to know that the original piece was funny? Or is
urban car drivers being [censored] just a joke that goes right over my head?

Obviously the answer is yes.

Colin

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

Quoted message said:

Colin Blackburn said:

It's a piece of humour, though the article as a whole has a point.

Stop trying to weasel your way out of a difficult position. You didn't

make

Quoted message said:

the original post because of the article's humour, you posted an excerpt

out

Quoted message said:

of context because it says that car drivers are [censored]. You never mentioned how funny it was.
How on earth is someone reading your

'summary'

Quoted message said:

going to know that the original piece was funny? Or is urban car drivers being [censored] just a
joke that goes right over my head?

get a life.

This [censored] regularly drives in cities. Mostly it is not a fun experience. If Colin wants to call
me a [censored] and selfish i can take it.

And I'm not offended by the article -- nor, I expect are many others.

T

Michael MacClancy said:

Colin Blackburn said:

It's a piece of humour, though the article as a whole has a point.

Stop trying to weasel your way out of a difficult position. You didn't make the original post
because of the article's humour, you posted an excerpt out of context because it says that car
drivers are [censored]. You never mentioned how funny it was. How on earth is someone reading your
'summary' going to know that the original piece was funny? Or is urban car drivers being [censored]
just a joke that goes right over my head?
--
Michael MacClancy

Here here. The article is offensive. Why tar those born out of wedlock with the cagers in the
cities.;-)

--
Chris dot Gerhard at btclick dot com.

Michael MacClancy said:

Colin Blackburn said:

It's a piece of humour, though the article as a whole has a point.

Quoted message said:

Stop trying to weasel your way out of a difficult position. You didn't make the original post
because of the article's humour

Then why the smiley? You did see the smiley, didn't you?

Quoted message said:

is urban car drivers being [censored] just a joke that goes right over my head?

Clearly :-)

--
Guy
===
I wonder if you wouldn't mind piecing out our imperfections with your thoughts; and while you're
about it perhaps you could think when we talk of bicycles, that you see them printing their proud
wheels i' the receiving earth; thanks awfully.

highwaycode.gov.uk09.shtmlOpen ↗ highwaycode.gov.uk09.shtmlOpen ↗

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

Quoted message said:

This [censored] regularly drives in cities. Mostly it is not a fun experience. If Colin wants to call
me a [censored] and selfish i can take it.

You selfish [censored]!

I'm glad I got that off my chest.

Colin

In article <[email hidden]>, no_spam@not_btclick.com says...

Quoted message said:

Here here. The article is offensive. Why tar those born out of wedlock with the cagers in the
cities.;-)

Is it born out of wedlock or conceived out of wedlock. Just wondered :-(

Colin

Colin Blackburn said:

In article <[email hidden]>, no_spam@not_btclick.com says...

Quoted message said:

Here here. The article is offensive. Why tar those born out of wedlock with the cagers in the
cities.;-)

Is it born out of wedlock or conceived out of wedlock. Just wondered :-(

Colin

In the back of a cage in the grid lock? :-)

--
Chris dot Gerhard at btclick dot com.

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Then why the smiley? You did see the smiley, didn't you?

Quoted message said:

Yes, I did thank you. But the presence on a smiley doesn't really tell

you

Quoted message said:

anything about what he's laughing at, does it?

Yes it does - it's a nice piece of satire. I like satire. I especially liked that piece of satire -
it was very well written.

Quoted message said:

He could have written something along the lines of, "I don't think all

urban

Quoted message said:

car drivers are [censored], myself, but the article is still pretty hilarious".

Why would you do that? It sounds like someone who is about to tell a racist joke saying "I really
like black people myself, but...." - and in this case there's nothign wrong with laughing at
gridlocked cagers because we have almost all *been* gridlocked cagers ourselves at some point, and
many of us still are. It's funny because it's true - driving a car in a town *is* selfish. The
degree of selfishness varies, but it is still fundamentally selfish.

Quoted message said:

It's not my fault that he wrote something that is unnecessary and objectionable to many people in
the context he presented it.

Um - only one person as far as I can make out :-/

Just zis Guy said:

Then why the smiley? You did see the smiley, didn't you?

Yes, I did thank you. But the presence on a smiley doesn't really tell you anything about what he's
laughing at, does it? And the use of smilies (should that be smileys?) is inconsistent (just like
'cager' and 'driver' etc). I assume we all know that it is pretty difficult to convey humour via a
NG because it is so easy to genuinely misconstrue what has been written, unless put properly into
context. Colin couldn't be bothered to do that. He could have written something along the lines of,
"I don't think all urban car drivers are [censored], myself, but the article is still pretty
hilarious". He didn't and left the impression that he shares the author's opinion. The smiley could
indicate laughter at any one of several things, including his agreement with the author.

It's not my fault that he wrote something that is unnecessary and objectionable to many people in
the context he presented it.

I think that it's revealing that he hasn't disassociated himself from the sentiment that urban car
drivers are [censored].
--
Michael MacClancy

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

Quoted message said:

Just zis Guy said:

Then why the smiley? You did see the smiley, didn't you?

Yes, I did thank you. But the presence on a smiley doesn't really tell you anything about what
he's laughing at, does it? And the use of smilies (should that be smileys?) is inconsistent (just
like 'cager' and 'driver' etc). I assume we all know that it is pretty difficult to convey humour
via a NG because it is so easy to genuinely misconstrue what has been written, unless put properly
into context. Colin couldn't be bothered to do that. He could have written something along the
lines of, "I don't think all urban car drivers are [censored], myself, but the article is still
pretty hilarious". He didn't and left the impression that he shares the author's opinion.

I share the author's opinion and sense of humour. Happy now?

Colin

Just zis Guy said:

Um - only one person as far as I can make out :-/

There have been several comments about the strong anti-motorist bias of this NG and not just from
me. If you choose not to read them or to forget them that's not my fault.

Anyway, I can feel my head slowly being pushed under the surface of the waters by a bunch of people
who can't appreciate that others might have legitimate but different views. I'm obviously going the
way of predecessors who appealed for reasoned debate or didn't even enter the discussion for fear of
being mobbed.
--
Michael MacClancy

Colin Blackburn said:

I share the author's opinion and sense of humour. Happy now?

Colin

I'm perfectly happy, always am.

I wonder how someone with your anger could ever be happy though. It's never necessary to call
someone a '[censored]'. Think about it with a nice calming cup of tea.
--
Michael MacClancy