Times article



DavidR wrote:

> "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?

How do you know there is one? I mean "know" as in "able to prove or
demonstrate"?

Did they only start after the Parris article was published? That would
be an odd thing to claim, since I have already given an instance of a
"line across the road" incident that I know of in the mid-1970s.
 
Martin Dann wrote:
> 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.

So no-one should be allowed to write humorous articles about people
like you (in some respect or another) because it might strengthen your
paranoia?
 
Lily <[email protected]> wrote:

> "wafflycat" <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >A response from the Times's editor can be seen here:-
> >
> > <http://www.timetriallingforum.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=17192&pid=245
> > 308&st=105&#entry245308>
> >
> > Not good.
>
> Do you have no sense of humour, or do you excuse cyclists' littering?

It's not about a sense of humour: Parris's article wasn't funny apart
from his failure to recognise himself as smug. As has been mentioned
elsewhere, it's unlikely that cyclists would have created a lot of that
litter.

Cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>
 
Lily wrote:
> "wafflycat" <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> A response from the Times's editor can be seen here:-
>>
>> http://www.timetriallingforum.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=17192&pid=245308&st=105&#entry245308
>>
>> Not good.
>
> Do you have no sense of humour, or do you excuse cyclists' littering?

I think if Parris had written an article which only said that cyclists were
the cause of litter, few would have complained strongly. Such an article
may have been factually incorrect, but the press is full of factually
incorrect opinion pieces. There may have been a few "reader comments"
pointing out that most roadside verge debris comes from car/van occupants,
but little else.

The objection is to the "put a wire across their path with intent to kill"
statement, which is prominant at the top. Unfortunately, the stupid,
dangerous, murderous practise of stringing a wire across routes happens from
time to time. It doesn't help if a "humorous" writer of newspaper articles
writes something suggesting it is a good idea to do such a thing.


Turn it round; write an article suggesting that everyone go round and slash
the tyres of cars because some car drivers use mobile phones when driving,
thus endangering pedestrians. Is that acceptable and responsible writing ?




--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/
 
Lily wrote:

> "wafflycat" <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>A response from the Times's editor can be seen here:-
>>
>>
http://www.timetriallingforum.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=17192&pid=245308&st=105&#entry245308
>>
>> Not good.
>
> Do you have no sense of humour, or do you excuse cyclists' littering?

Do you think the penalty for littering should be death? So you think the
penalty for other people who happen to share some arbitrary activity with
you should be death? Do you think it's OK to go around murdering people -
or advocating murdering people - because they fall into a caregory you
dislike?

No. When people advocate trying to kill me - for a 'crime' I have not
committed - I don't have any sense of humour at all.

And Parris is in a particularly poor position to make this sort of joke.
Only thirty years ago I was involved in political protest on behalf of the
rights of people like him (homosexuals) to live their lives free from this
sort of vile behaviour. It's a shame he cannot return the compliment.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
; ... of course nothing said here will be taken notice of by
; the W3C. The official place to be ignored is on www-style or
; www-html. -- George Lund
 
burtthebike wrote:
>
> "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.

"The next time I see some rubbish in a hedgerow which I think has been
thrown there by a passing cyclist, I shall stretch some thin but
strong wire across the road that same evening".

*That* would be a threat.

>>> 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.

Indeed. See above.
 
Martin Dann wrote:
> 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.

You seem to be likening cyclists to tinfoil-hat-clad UFO-watchers.

A little bit harsh, I think.
 
Nigel Cliffe wrote:
> Lily wrote:
>
>>"wafflycat" <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>A response from the Times's editor can be seen here:-
>>>
>>>http://www.timetriallingforum.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=17192&pid=245308&st=105&#entry245308
>>>
>>>Not good.
>>
>>Do you have no sense of humour, or do you excuse cyclists' littering?
>
>
> I think if Parris had written an article which only said that cyclists were
> the cause of litter, few would have complained strongly. Such an article
> may have been factually incorrect, but the press is full of factually
> incorrect opinion pieces. There may have been a few "reader comments"
> pointing out that most roadside verge debris comes from car/van occupants,
> but little else.
>
> The objection is to the "put a wire across their path with intent to kill"
> statement, which is prominant at the top. Unfortunately, the stupid,
> dangerous, murderous practise of stringing a wire across routes happens from
> time to time. It doesn't help if a "humorous" writer of newspaper articles
> writes something suggesting it is a good idea to do such a thing.
>
>
> Turn it round; write an article suggesting that everyone go round and slash
> the tyres of cars because some car drivers use mobile phones when driving,
> thus endangering pedestrians. Is that acceptable and responsible writing ?

Actually, for all that you seem to have forgotten it, the dangerous,
murderous* practise of slashing car tyres also happens from time to
time. Yet no disproportionate complaint is raised (or undue connection
made) about the ranting of self-appointed eco-warriors on usenet or
elsewhere. It may be because those victims are more inclined to see
things in a proper perspective.

[* It is more than an economic crime; a driver might easily not notice
a partially-deflated tyre.]
 
Quoting Bill C <[email protected]>:
>He's not a blithering idiot? He does have a point about the trash,

He does not have a point about the trash. When was the last time you were
out on a bike and, while riding along, undid the cap on a bottle of energy
drink and drank it?

Right. You decanted it into a waterbottle when you bought it. That
rubbish, I'll bet, is mostly thrown from the windows of cages.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> flcl?
Today is First Potmos, January.
 
"JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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"?

No, but I guess you could easily slip into the role of the Mad Hatter. -
What part of "REAL and ACTUAL danger" don't you understand? Ask the persons
affected by the news events above (and below); and you will get a clear
message that stringing piano wire across a cycle route is clearly NOT
"identifiable as a fantasy".

Perhaps you should read these articles: - Live links etc from
http://treadly.net/2007/12/31/matthew-parris-wants-you-decapitated/#more-491

* Cyclist caught in wire road trap
* Bikers warned of tree wire danger
* BMX boy in wire agony
* Wire 'traps' set on cycle paths
* Warnings over fishing line trap
* Wire 'trap' is laid for cyclists
* Cyclist hurt in park wire crash
* Wire deathtrap injures cyclist (barbed wire in this case-a special
Queensland touch there)
* Two teens accused of performing prank that injures motorcyclist
* Vandals' wire attack
* Cycling injury: woman seriously injured but wire trap for cyclists in
park could have decapitated victim
* Grand jury levies charges in terrorism of cyclists case (this *******
faced a maximum ten years in jail on each of two counts, but was sentenced
to 600 hours of community service)
* Mountain biker killed by possible booby trap (not a wire, but the same
lunatic mindset)


Also:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article3100711.ece

"Last year while cycling on a cycle path he [son] struck piano wire that had
been deliberately stretched across the path at head height."


REAL and ACTUAL not a FANTASY
 
On 02/01/2008 17:43, David Damerell said,

> Right. You decanted it into a waterbottle when you bought it. That
> rubbish, I'll bet, is mostly thrown from the windows of cages.

Yeah, but you're spoiling what Parris sees as a good story with the
inconvenient little detail of the truth. I mean, the guy's an
ex-politician turning his hand to tabloid journalism. Truth????

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/
 
Sparrow wrote:

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

>>>>>> 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 [snip]

>>>> It is exactly that to most people.

>>> No it is not.

>> Have you ever read "Alice Through The Looking Glass"?
>
> No, but I guess you could easily slip into the role of the Mad Hatter.

Oh, well done!

You've obviously heard of the book but have never read it.

A little learning... eh?

I was thinking more of the oft-quoted preference of Humpty Dumpty to
make up his own meanings for words. Rather like you, in fact.

> What part of "REAL and ACTUAL danger" don't you understand? Ask the
> persons affected by the news events above (and below); and you will get
> a clear message that stringing piano wire across a cycle route is
> clearly NOT "identifiable as a fantasy".

Who on Earth said it *was*?

It was Parris's *article* which was the fantasy.
 
"JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Sparrow wrote:
>
>> "JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>>>>> 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 [snip]
>
>>>>> It is exactly that to most people.
>
>>>> No it is not.
>
>>> Have you ever read "Alice Through The Looking Glass"?
>>
>> No, but I guess you could easily slip into the role of the Mad Hatter.
>
> Oh, well done!
>
> You've obviously heard of the book but have never read it.
>
> A little learning... eh?

I'll leave fantasy to you.

>
> I was thinking more of the oft-quoted preference of Humpty Dumpty to make
> up his own meanings for words. Rather like you, in fact.
>
>> What part of "REAL and ACTUAL danger" don't you understand? Ask the
>> persons affected by the news events above (and below); and you will get a
>> clear message that stringing piano wire across a cycle route is clearly
>> NOT "identifiable as a fantasy".
>
> Who on Earth said it *was*?

You did. To quote you (emphasis added):

"So why wasn't what J Clarkson and M Parris wrote also "readily identifiable
as a fantasy"? *It is exactly that to most people.*"

Are you squirming?

>
> It was Parris's *article* which was the fantasy.

No; it's an actual article (ha ha). You can read it here:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/article3097464.ece

The fact is that MP wrote: "A festive custom we could do worse than foster
would be stringing piano wire across country lanes to decapitate cyclists."
Why is that a fantasy? You now acknowledge that the method of injury is real
and actual; that just leaves his suggestion that it's a good idea that makes
(to you) the sentence a fantasy. Why?
 
Sparrow wrote:
>
> "JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> Sparrow wrote:
>>
>>> "JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>>>> 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 [snip]
>>
>>
>>>>>> It is exactly that to most people.
>>
>>
>>>>> No it is not.
>>
>>
>>>> Have you ever read "Alice Through The Looking Glass"?
>>>
>>>
>>> No, but I guess you could easily slip into the role of the Mad Hatter.
>>
>>
>> Oh, well done!
>>
>> You've obviously heard of the book but have never read it.
>>
>> A little learning... eh?
>
>
> I'll leave fantasy to you.
>
>>
>> I was thinking more of the oft-quoted preference of Humpty Dumpty to
>> make up his own meanings for words. Rather like you, in fact.

>>> What part of "REAL and ACTUAL danger" don't you understand? Ask the
>>> persons affected by the news events above (and below); and you will
>>> get a clear message that stringing piano wire across a cycle route is
>>> clearly NOT "identifiable as a fantasy".

>> Who on Earth said it *was*?

> You did. To quote you (emphasis added):

> "So why wasn't what J Clarkson and M Parris wrote also "readily
> identifiable as a fantasy"? *It is exactly that to most people.*"

> Are you squirming?

Eh?

Read THIS next bit:

>> It was Parris's *article* which was the fantasy.

Since you appear unable to read one sentence after another without
reading the same point and giving it two completely different
interpretations, I'm not sure you're up to usenet debate.
 
"JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Sparrow wrote:
>>
>> "JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>> Sparrow wrote:
>>>
>>>> "JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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 [snip]
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>> It is exactly that to most people.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> No it is not.
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Have you ever read "Alice Through The Looking Glass"?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, but I guess you could easily slip into the role of the Mad Hatter.
>>>
>>>
>>> Oh, well done!
>>>
>>> You've obviously heard of the book but have never read it.
>>>
>>> A little learning... eh?
>>
>>
>> I'll leave fantasy to you.
>>
>>>
>>> I was thinking more of the oft-quoted preference of Humpty Dumpty to
>>> make up his own meanings for words. Rather like you, in fact.
>
>>>> What part of "REAL and ACTUAL danger" don't you understand? Ask the
>>>> persons affected by the news events above (and below); and you will get
>>>> a clear message that stringing piano wire across a cycle route is
>>>> clearly NOT "identifiable as a fantasy".
>
>>> Who on Earth said it *was*?
>
>> You did. To quote you (emphasis added):
>
>> "So why wasn't what J Clarkson and M Parris wrote also "readily
>> identifiable as a fantasy"? *It is exactly that to most people.*"
>
>> Are you squirming?
>
> Eh?

Seems a simple question; don't you understand it?

squirm (skwûrm)
1. To twist about in a wriggling, snakelike motion; writhe.
2. To feel or exhibit signs of humiliation or embarrassment.

>
> Read THIS next bit:
>
>>> It was Parris's *article* which was the fantasy.

Now who can't take a joke (look back for the "ha ha")

>
> Since you appear unable to read one sentence after another without reading
> the same point and giving it two completely different interpretations, I'm
> not sure you're up to usenet debate.

There's my single interpretation, and then there's yours.

But I can see you've given up. - The following seem such simple questions
which you seem unable to answer.

The fact is that MP wrote: "A festive custom we could do worse than foster
would be stringing piano wire across country lanes to decapitate cyclists."

1) Why is that a fantasy?

You now acknowledge that the method of injury is real and actual; that just
leaves his suggestion that it's a good idea that makes (to you) the sentence
a fantasy.

2) Why?
 
On 2 Jan, 17:37, JNugent <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Nigel Cliffe wrote:
> > Lily wrote:
>
> >>"wafflycat" <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote in message
> >>news:[email protected]...
>
> >>>A response from the Times's editor can be seen here:-
>
> >>>http://www.timetriallingforum.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=17192&pid=245...
>
> >>>Not good.
>
> >>Do you have no sense of humour, or do you excuse cyclists' littering?
>
> > I think if Parris had written an article which only said that cyclists were
> > the cause of litter, few would have complained strongly.  Such an article
> > may have been factually incorrect, but the press is full of factually
> > incorrect opinion pieces. There may have been a few "reader comments"
> > pointing out that most roadside verge debris comes from car/van occupants,
> > but little else.
>
> > The objection is to the "put a wire across their path with intent to kill"
> > statement, which is prominant at the top.  Unfortunately, the stupid,
> > dangerous, murderous practise of stringing a wire across routes happens from
> > time to time. It doesn't help if a "humorous" writer of newspaper articles
> > writes something suggesting it is a good idea to do such a thing.
>
> > Turn it round; write an article suggesting that everyone go round and slash
> > the tyres of cars because some car drivers use mobile phones when driving,
> > thus endangering pedestrians.  Is that acceptable and responsible writing ?
>
> Actually, for all that you seem to have forgotten it, the dangerous,
> murderous* practise of slashing car tyres also happens from time to
> time. Yet no disproportionate complaint is raised (or undue connection
> made) about the ranting of self-appointed eco-warriors on usenet or
> elsewhere. It may be because those victims are more inclined to see
> things in a proper perspective.
>
> [* It is more than an economic crime; a driver might easily not notice
> a partially-deflated tyre.]- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Tyre slashing has been condoned on cycling forums, or at least
"understood" because of dislike of "car culture"
 
"JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Nigel Cliffe wrote:
>> Lily wrote:
>>
>>
>> Turn it round; write an article suggesting that everyone go round and
>> slash the tyres of cars because some car drivers use mobile phones when
>> driving, thus endangering pedestrians. Is that acceptable and
>> responsible writing ?

You're missing the point again (something you appear to have more than an
NVQ at). No-one wrote such an article in a national newspaper. If they
did, they would rightly be condemned. So why won't you condemn the bigot
Parris?
>
> Actually, for all that you seem to have forgotten it, the dangerous,
> murderous* practise of slashing car tyres also happens from time to time.
> Yet no disproportionate complaint is raised (or undue connection made)
> about the ranting of self-appointed eco-warriors on usenet or elsewhere.
> It may be because those victims are more inclined to see things in a
> proper perspective.

No. It's because there's been no article in a national newspaper suggesting
that people do it, and as far as I know, there's never been a case where
tyre-slashing has led to the death or serious injury of a road user, unlike
the bigot's suggestion of piano wire across roads.

The letter from the editor claims that the bigot is concerned about the
environment, and yet he writes drivel about cyclists, which is, with
walking, the only sustainable form of transport. Bigot's probably a bit too
polite, I'll have to check the thesaurus for something more suitable.
 
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