burtthebike wrote:
> "JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> burtthebike wrote:
>>> "Sir Jeremy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> "DavidR" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> "Sir Jeremy" <[email protected]> wrote
>>> On the contrary, the cyclists appear well able to discern the
>>> difference, and you appear unable to to the same.
>> But that's the whole point, isn't it? Several posters here (and
>> elsewhere) have gone off the deep end about Parris's humorous article
>> precisely because they cannot (or do not wish to) distinguish humour
>> from ranting. It's odd that you should see that the wrong way round.
> When you know people who have been injured because of wires strung
> across the road, perhaps it isn't quite so funny?
Maybe not, indeed. But most of us *don't* know anyone in that
position* (thankfully) and you could apply that argument to absolutely
any humour that relies upon schadenfreude, ridicule or exaggeration.
It would certainly restrict the nation's humorists if they could never
tell a joke that some people (especially a small minority) would not
find funny.
> The fact that Mr
> Parris chose to write this inaccurate, offensive piece of drivel is the
> problem, not the lack of SOH in cyclists.
Are there any other subjects you think people shouldn't be allowed to
choose to write about? Are you going to burn a pile of Matthew
Parris's articles?
>>> Have their been any other reports about this, expressing the same
>>> shock and horror that would occur if a columnist in the Times had
>>> suggested chucking bricks through the windows of cars as they drove
>>> along with the deliberate intention to kill the occupants?
>> Not absolutely sure what you're asking, but instinctively, I feel the
>> answer is "no". Times journos and most Times readers (ie, we who shell
>> out for the printed version regularly) know the difference between
>> humour and a rant. It's clear, though, that not everyone does.
> It's certainly not clear that Mr Parris does.
It is to me. I strongly suspect that it is to most people.
> Why don't you explain to
> us why suggesting killing people for an imagined crime is funny?
For your own reasons (which most people would not have), you simply
have a settled position of not wanting to accept the humour in it, so
there is no point in trying to "explain". You would attempt to evade
or refute any explanation anyway, even if I were able to point out a
single thing about it that you don't already know for yourself. It's a
stance you are taking and that's that. Nothing anyone can do about it.
I can *certainly* see and sense your sense of irritation over it, and
I know you can point to support among people who share your particular
intensity of interest in cycling, but you and they are not the
majority (nor even, really, in political terms, a significant minority).
Live with criticism and don't be so thin-skinned. The drivers of 4x4s,
HGVs, trains, buses, taxis - and cars in general, of course - all
learn that lesson quickly. Or they should.
[*Thirty years ago, a friend of mine was driving along in the early
hours in his licensed taxi. He hit one of these lines stretched across
the road in a "wild west" edge-of-town suburb of the city we were
brought up in (barbed wire, IIRC, slung across at about 1m off the
ground). It did a lot of expensive damage to his taxi, so I am aware
that the problem exists - but I've not encountered any other cases,
and especially, no injuries resulting from it.]
