Times article



On Dec 30, 4:22 pm, JNugent <[email protected]>
wrote:
<Garbage snipped>
Hey let's try this one out. "Gays spread aids so we could do worse
than shooting them all!"
I'd guess you might find that offensive, especially if suggested by a
major columnist and politician, or how about "All those damned Muslims
support terrorists and look stupid, so we could do worse than set up
some camps for them to protect ourselves and find the solution to
them!"
I find all the statements irresponsible, offensive, and not humorous.
You have a group you don't like and have no problem justifying/
excusing whatever statement sounds good to you.
I'm totally in favor of free speech so his right to say it should be
protected, but people's right to hold him responsible for his speech
are just as appropriate.
He wants to create a scapegoat and spread hate, well that's a good
old tradition, but one I've had more than enough of, and it's gotten
millions killed over the course of history. Only jackasses excuse, or
support, that type of blanket behavior.
Bill C
 
"Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:550feebd-6176-4d14-9d6c-ac65c6f41bb1@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 30, 4:22 pm, JNugent <[email protected]>
wrote:
<Garbage snipped>
Hey let's try this one out. "Gays spread aids so we could do worse
than shooting them all!"
I'd guess you might find that offensive, especially if suggested by a
major columnist and politician, or how about "All those damned Muslims
support terrorists and look stupid, so we could do worse than set up
some camps for them to protect ourselves and find the solution to
them!"
I find all the statements irresponsible, offensive, and not humorous.
You have a group you don't like and have no problem justifying/
excusing whatever statement sounds good to you.
I'm totally in favor of free speech so his right to say it should be
protected, but people's right to hold him responsible for his speech
are just as appropriate.
He wants to create a scapegoat and spread hate, well that's a good
old tradition, but one I've had more than enough of, and it's gotten
millions killed over the course of history. Only jackasses excuse, or
support, that type of blanket behavior.
Bill C

Thanks Bill, you said it all. Matthew Parris is a bigot, and no amount of
"free speech" excuses will change that.
 
"JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> burtthebike wrote:
>
>> "JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> burtthebike wrote:
>>>> "JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> There was no threat made. Re-read it if you don't recall it properly (and
> you don't - see below).

No, you read it "A festive custom we could do worse than foster would be
stringing piano wire across country lanes to decapitate cyclists." If that
isn't a threat, then one of us doesn't understand English.
>
>
>
>> This wasn't criticism,
>
> It sounded pretty critical to me.
>
>> it was an invitation to randomly decapitate people for an imagined crime.
>
> No, it wasn't. That is your over-active imagination working. Re-read it.
> It was a commentary, not a proposal.

See above.
>
"We walk about, wrote George Eliot, "well-wadded with stupidity"." Well, at
least he got that right, but perhaps he was looking in the mirror at the
time.

None of your selective misunderstanding of what Mr Parris said can change
the fact that the man is a bigot.
 
burtthebike wrote:

> "We walk about, wrote George Eliot, "well-wadded with stupidity"."  Well,
> at least he got that right, but perhaps he was looking in the mirror at
> the time.

She. Get your genders right.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
Just as defying the law of gravity through building aircraft requires
careful design and a lot of effort, so too does defying laws of
economics. It seems to be a deeply ingrained aspect of humanity to
forever strive to improve things, so unquestioning acceptance of a
free market system seems to me to be unnatural. ;; Charles Bryant
 
On 30/12/2007 23:22, burtthebike said,

> "We walk about, wrote George Eliot, "well-wadded with stupidity"."
> Well, at least he got that right, but perhaps he was looking in the
> mirror at the time.

Might be worth your while reading
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Eliot>

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/
 
Response to Simon Brooke
> burtthebike wrote:
>
> > "We walk about, wrote George Eliot, "well-wadded with stupidity"."  Well,
> > at least he got that right, but perhaps he was looking in the mirror at
> > the time.
>
> She. Get your genders right.

He. Get your context right.

It's [presumably ;-)] not an issue to burtthebike whether George Eliot
was stupid or not; but he was quoting Matthew Parris quoting George
Eliot, and it's Parris' stupidity which has been under discussion.


--
Mark, UK
"Prejudice is never easy unless it can pass itself off for reason."
 
In news:[email protected],
Bill C <[email protected]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:
> On Dec 26, 7:36 pm, "archierob" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Matthew is an erudite, perceptive man, many of his essays are of the
>> highest quality, and he has an innate wit. He like any other human
>> being has faults and occasionally screws thing up - so
>> congratulations Matthew on talking utter bollocks!
>
> He's not a blithering idiot?

/Of course/ he's a blithering idiot. He used to be a Tory MP.

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
Mushroom! Mushroom!
 
"Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> burtthebike wrote:
>
>> "We walk about, wrote George Eliot, "well-wadded with stupidity"." Well,
>> at least he got that right, but perhaps he was looking in the mirror at
>> the time.
>
> She. Get your genders right.

I've got the impression from some of the posts that Mr Parris is gay, but I
still don't think it's pc to call him "she".
 
burtthebike wrote:

>
> "Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> burtthebike wrote:
>>
>>> "We walk about, wrote George Eliot, "well-wadded with stupidity"." Well,
>>> at least he got that right, but perhaps he was looking in the mirror at
>>> the time.
>>
>> She. Get your genders right.
>
> I've got the impression from some of the posts that Mr Parris is gay, but
> I still don't think it's pc to call him "she".

Mr Parris is, I believe, both gay and male. George Eliot, however was
neither.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
; gif ye hes forget our auld plane Scottis quhilk your mother lerit you,
; in tymes cuming I sall wryte to you my mind in Latin, for I am nocht
; acquyntit with your Southeron
;; Letter frae Ninian Winyet tae John Knox datit 27t October 1563
 
Mark McNeill wrote:

> Response to Simon Brooke
>> burtthebike wrote:
>>
>> > "We walk about, wrote George Eliot, "well-wadded with stupidity"."
>> > Well, at least he got that right, but perhaps he was looking in the
>> > mirror at the time.
>>
>> She. Get your genders right.
>
> He. Get your context right.
>
> It's [presumably ;-)] not an issue to burtthebike whether George Eliot
> was stupid or not; but he was quoting Matthew Parris quoting George
> Eliot, and it's Parris' stupidity which has been under discussion.

Errrrm, parse error at line 2; compilation failed.

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

<p>Schroedinger's cat is <blink><strong>NOT</strong></blink> dead.</p>
 
"JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote
> DavidR wrote:
>>
>> By contrast, blowing 4x4's up is so frought with practical difficulties
>> that no matter how many articles journos wrote about their fantasy, it
>> would remain readily identifiable as a fantasy. ...Until full
>> instructions about how to procure and assemble the bomb are given. Well,
>> the means and method are distinctly given in the article.
>
> So let's get your position clear...
>
> It's perfectly OK to urge newspaper readers to murder car-drivers, but
> completely beyond the pale to urge them to murder cyclists.

....apart from the rather obvious fact (above) that I didn't say that.

> Is that about it?
 
"Sir Jeremy" <[email protected]> wrote

> It would be even easier to run cyclists over at traffic lights as
> Clarkson "suggested" but I haven't heard of anyone doing that and
> giving JC's article as a defense.
> Thats because, as you say, its fantasy.
> Why do so many cyclists seem unable to discern between reality and
> fantasy?

You still believe garrotted cyclists are a figment of someone's imagination?
 
DavidR wrote:

> "JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote
>>DavidR wrote:

>>>By contrast, blowing 4x4's up is so frought with practical difficulties
>>>that no matter how many articles journos wrote about their fantasy, it
>>>would remain readily identifiable as a fantasy. ...Until full
>>>instructions about how to procure and assemble the bomb are given. Well,
>>>the means and method are distinctly given in the article.

>>So let's get your position clear...

>>It's perfectly OK to urge newspaper readers to murder car-drivers, but
>>completely beyond the pale to urge them to murder cyclists.

> ...apart from the rather obvious fact (above) that I didn't say that.

Technically, you're right (on this occasion). You only said that
urging newspaper-readers to nurder 4x4 drivers by causing an explosion
was "readily identifiable as a fantasy".

I actually agree with that.

So why wasn't what J Clarkson and M Parris wrote also "readily
identifiable as a fantasy"? It is exactly that to most people.
 
"Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> burtthebike wrote:
>
>>
>> "Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> burtthebike wrote:
>>>
>>>> "We walk about, wrote George Eliot, "well-wadded with stupidity"."
>>>> Well,
>>>> at least he got that right, but perhaps he was looking in the mirror at
>>>> the time.
>>>
>>> She. Get your genders right.
>>
>> I've got the impression from some of the posts that Mr Parris is gay, but
>> I still don't think it's pc to call him "she".
>
> Mr Parris is, I believe, both gay and male. George Eliot, however was
> neither.

Yes, I know. Since I was quoting Mr Parris, your point is what exactly?
 
"JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> DavidR wrote:
>
>> "JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote
>>>DavidR wrote:
>
>>>>By contrast, blowing 4x4's up is so frought with practical difficulties
>>>>that no matter how many articles journos wrote about their fantasy, it
>>>>would remain readily identifiable as a fantasy. ...Until full
>>>>instructions about how to procure and assemble the bomb are given. Well,
>>>>the means and method are distinctly given in the article.
>
>>>So let's get your position clear...
>
>>>It's perfectly OK to urge newspaper readers to murder car-drivers, but
>>>completely beyond the pale to urge them to murder cyclists.
>
>> ...apart from the rather obvious fact (above) that I didn't say that.
>
> Technically, you're right (on this occasion). You only said that urging
> newspaper-readers to nurder 4x4 drivers by causing an explosion was
> "readily identifiable as a fantasy".
>
> I actually agree with that.
>
> So why wasn't what J Clarkson and M Parris wrote also "readily
> identifiable as a fantasy"?

Because it is a real and actual danger.

The following BBC News clippings have been copied from a response on the
timesonline website:

Thursday, 16 August 2007
A cyclist was thrown from his bike when he was caught in a metal wire trap
strung across a road.

Friday, 7 July 2006
A cyclist has been treated for serious facial injuries after riding into a
wire which was deliberately left strung across part of a Swindon park.

Saturday, 22 October 2005
An eight-year-old boy has been left with facial injuries after cycling into
barbed wire fencing stretched across a road as part of a "prank", police
said.

Tuesday, 5 August, 2003
A teenage BMX-rider is recovering in hospital after riding into a piece of
wire deliberately stretched across a cycle route.


>It is exactly that to most people.

No it is not.
 
"JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote
> DavidR wrote:
>> "JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote
>>>DavidR wrote:
>
>>>>By contrast, blowing 4x4's up is so frought with practical difficulties
>>>>that no matter how many articles journos wrote about their fantasy, it
>>>>would remain readily identifiable as a fantasy. ...Until full
>>>>instructions about how to procure and assemble the bomb are given. Well,
>>>>the means and method are distinctly given in the article.
>
>>>So let's get your position clear...
>
>>>It's perfectly OK to urge newspaper readers to murder car-drivers, but
>>>completely beyond the pale to urge them to murder cyclists.
>
>> ...apart from the rather obvious fact (above) that I didn't say that.
>
> Technically, you're right (on this occasion). You only said that urging
> newspaper-readers to nurder 4x4 drivers by causing an explosion was
> "readily identifiable as a fantasy".
>
> I actually agree with that.
>
> So why wasn't what J Clarkson and M Parris wrote also "readily
> identifiable as a fantasy"? It is exactly that to most people.

We have deliberate attacks against cyclists so how do you know there isn't a
"Clarkson" effect?

You really don't grasp the difference between blowing things up, which
requires special materials, technical knowledge, planning, danger to the
perpetrator and only limited chance of success against something that's
easily done as a thoughtless prank.
 
On 31 Dec, 17:01, "DavidR" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Sir Jeremy" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> > It would be even easier to run cyclists over at traffic lights as
> > Clarkson "suggested" but I haven't heard of anyone doing that and
> > giving JC's article as a defense.
> > Thats because, as you say, its fantasy.
> > Why do so many cyclists seem unable to discern between reality and
> > fantasy?
>
> You still believe garrotted cyclists are a figment of someone's imagination?

Never did believe such a thing.
believing that Matthew Parris' article in the The Times would actually
cause someone to get garroted is paranoia
 
Sir Jeremy wrote:
> On 31 Dec, 17:01, "DavidR" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Sir Jeremy" <[email protected]> wrote
>>
>>> It would be even easier to run cyclists over at traffic lights as
>>> Clarkson "suggested" but I haven't heard of anyone doing that and
>>> giving JC's article as a defense.
>>> Thats because, as you say, its fantasy.
>>> Why do so many cyclists seem unable to discern between reality and
>>> fantasy?
>> You still believe garrotted cyclists are a figment of someone's imagination?
>
> Never did believe such a thing.
> believing that Matthew Parris' article in the The Times would actually
> cause someone to get garroted is paranoia

"Just because you are PARANOID does NOT mean they are NOT out to get
you." - Unknown

It is unlikely that someone read that column, and then went out and
strung up a few garrotes, however it is more likely that many people
will have read this, and it will be sitting at the back of their
subconsciousness waiting to jump out when they are on the way back from
the pub.
It also reduces the humanity of cyclists in the eyes of some people, so
that they will drive closer, cut up more, or commit hit and runs.

When Close Encounters of the Third Kind was released at the cinema, the
amount of UFO sighting in the USA went up dramatically. I doubt that
more UFOs were flying around, but the film affected peoples subconscious
such that they started seeing flying saucers.

Martin.
 
Sparrow wrote:
>
> "JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> DavidR wrote:
>>
>>> "JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote
>>>
>>>> DavidR wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>> By contrast, blowing 4x4's up is so frought with practical
>>>>> difficulties that no matter how many articles journos wrote about
>>>>> their fantasy, it would remain readily identifiable as a fantasy.
>>>>> ...Until full instructions about how to procure and assemble the
>>>>> bomb are given. Well, the means and method are distinctly given in
>>>>> the article.
>>
>>
>>>> So let's get your position clear...
>>
>>
>>>> It's perfectly OK to urge newspaper readers to murder car-drivers,
>>>> but completely beyond the pale to urge them to murder cyclists.
>>
>>
>>> ...apart from the rather obvious fact (above) that I didn't say that.
>>
>>
>> Technically, you're right (on this occasion). You only said that
>> urging newspaper-readers to nurder 4x4 drivers by causing an explosion
>> was "readily identifiable as a fantasy".
>>
>> I actually agree with that.
>>
>> So why wasn't what J Clarkson and M Parris wrote also "readily
>> identifiable as a fantasy"?
>
>
> Because it is a real and actual danger.
>
> The following BBC News clippings have been copied from a response on the
> timesonline website:
>
> Thursday, 16 August 2007
> A cyclist was thrown from his bike when he was caught in a metal wire
> trap strung across a road.
>
> Friday, 7 July 2006
> A cyclist has been treated for serious facial injuries after riding into
> a wire which was deliberately left strung across part of a Swindon park.
>
> Saturday, 22 October 2005
> An eight-year-old boy has been left with facial injuries after cycling
> into barbed wire fencing stretched across a road as part of a "prank",
> police said.
>
> Tuesday, 5 August, 2003
> A teenage BMX-rider is recovering in hospital after riding into a piece
> of wire deliberately stretched across a cycle route.
>
>
>> It is exactly that to most people.
>
>
> No it is not.

Have you ever read "Alice Through The Looking Glass"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

G
Sunday Times article on cycling safety.
Replies
26
Views
1K
UK and Europe
Roger Merriman
R
F
Times article 2
Replies
5
Views
443
UK and Europe
Helen Deborah Vecht
H
T
That Times article
Replies
7
Views
686
UK and Europe
Ian Jackson
I
B
Times Diabolical article
Replies
17
Views
626
UK and Europe
Ian Smith
I
W
Another Times article about cycling and trains
Replies
2
Views
316
UK and Europe
Danny Colyer
D
Top Bottom Back