Another reason to avoid critical mass...
Brent P
http://articles.citypages.com/2008-05-14/news/moles-wanted/
Seems the old police and federal moles infiltrating groups and then
possibly starting violence is still alive and well.
Tom Keats
/Avoid/ Critical Mass?!
Hell, it seems like we've gotta rush to its aid!
At least in some backwards, carochial places.
But it sounds more to me like you're trying to
scare-off "upstart" cyclists from claiming our
due space on the streets.
I propose any infiltrators or moles or undercover guys at
CM rides be inundated with much love and hugs 'n kisses.
Leis and pookah shell necklaces might be a nice touch,
too.
I furthermore implore everyone to not use the distraction
as an opportunity to boost rats' wallets or sidearms,
while tossing them down storm sewer grates and replacing
them in their pockets/holsters with curling irons, or
Pez dispensers, or hash pipes, or fresh fruit.
--
Four dead in O-hi-o.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca
Bob
wrote:
> http://articles.citypages.com/2008-05-14/news/moles-wanted/
>
> Seems the old police and federal moles infiltrating groups and then
> possibly starting violence is still alive and well.
That's one possibility. Another is that conspiracy theorists see
conspiracies everywhere. What "Paul Carroll" told the reporter was
that he'd been solicited to become an informant, to report possible
criminal activities. The reporter, Matt Snyders, then stopped
reporting and began to editorialize, implying that the use of
informants must have some dark purpose behind it. That's actually
rather funny since his entire story is based on the word of one person
using a pseudonym. Law enforcement has a term for people matching that
description. We call them confidential informants. Matt just calls
them sources. That's the only difference. Well, that and we don't base
an entire case on the unproven word of one pseudonymous source.
Regards,
Bob Hunt
Brent P
> In article <x_idnU6ryZ9h0K_V...@comcast.com>,
> Brent P <tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>> http://articles.citypages.com/2008-05-14/news/moles-wanted/
>>
>>
>> Seems the old police and federal moles infiltrating groups and then
>> possibly starting violence is still alive and well.
> /Avoid/ Critical Mass?!
> Hell, it seems like we've gotta rush to its aid!
It was a bit of humor, because there are all sorts of reasons to avoid
it that it didn't need government moles. Went over your head I
suppose.
> But it sounds more to me like you're trying to
> scare-off "upstart" cyclists from claiming our
> due space on the streets.
Nice one there Tom. Still the same I see. Considering I have oh
probably a few thousand posts defending a bicyclist's right to road,
you're just well, full of shit.
I propose Critical mass stop being assholes who run red signals and
generally make asses of themselves by ignoring even the most basic
rules of the roads, those rules that even allow bicyclists to use the
same road system as other bicyclists. Like I posted a few weeks ago or
so, I think it would be amusing to assert right of way (green signal)
while bicycling as these critical massholes are running the red.
Either their heads would asplode or they would just react with
violence.
Tom Keats
Brent P <tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> But it sounds more to me like you're trying to
>> scare-off "upstart" cyclists from claiming our
>> due space on the streets.
>
> Nice one there Tom. Still the same I see. Considering I have oh
> probably a few thousand posts defending a bicyclist's right to road,
> you're just well, full of shit.
And you're cyclists' official spokesperson (in r.a.d.)
Yeah, right.
Go spread your FUD in your garden, where it belongs.
--
Beware the fifth column.
Tom Keats
Bob <hun...@aol.com> writes:
> On May 19, 11:05 pm, Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>> http://articles.citypages.com/2008-05-14/news/moles-wanted/
>>
>> Seems the old police and federal moles infiltrating groups and then
>> possibly starting violence is still alive and well.
> That's one possibility. Another is that conspiracy theorists see
> conspiracies everywhere.
Another possibility is that Brent simply wants to do his bit
to kybosh Critical Mass because it pisses him off, personally.
I don't completely agree with CM as a viable approach to
cyclists' gaining recognition and respect as entitled
street users, myself. I however do partially agree with it.
In fact I now support it even more, because it's threatened.
But whether or not one supports or doesn't support CM is
IMO best left a personal choice, unaffected by propaganda
x-posted from a car-driving NG to a bike-riding NG, with a
subject line and content obviously intended to scare people.
Actually I thought Brent was above such trollery.
I'm disappointed and rather saddened.
regards,
Tom
--
Nothing is safe from me.
Tom Keats
Brent P <tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> writes:
> On 2008-05-20, Tom Keats <tkeat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> In article <x_idnU6ryZ9h0K_V...@comcast.com>,
>> Brent P <tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>
>>> http://articles.citypages.com/2008-05-14/news/moles-wanted/
>>>
>>>
>>> Seems the old police and federal moles infiltrating groups and then
>>> possibly starting violence is still alive and well.
>
>> /Avoid/ Critical Mass?!
>> Hell, it seems like we've gotta rush to its aid!
>
> It was a bit of humor, because there are all sorts of reasons to avoid
> it that it didn't need government moles. Went over your head I
> suppose.
Excuses -- Faah! Nischt gefloygen.
Humour, eh? Nobody's laffin'.
...
> I propose Critical mass stop being assholes who run red signals and
> generally make asses of themselves by ignoring even the most basic
> rules of the roads, those rules that even allow bicyclists to use the
> same road system as other bicyclists. Like I posted a few weeks ago or
> so, I think it would be amusing to assert right of way (green signal)
ROW is always given; never taken.
> while bicycling as these critical massholes are running the red.
> Either their heads would asplode or they would just react with
> violence.
Your own reaction sounds pretty violent, itself.
You're pretty mad at Critical Mass, aren't you?
But I ask you to bear these thoughts in mind:
wrt Critical Mass, we're talking about urban streets,
not the open road. It's a completely different environment.
Have you ever been a non-driver in a city, trying to get from
A to B, but can't because of the steady stream of commuters
transiting from their job in one suburb, to their home in another
suberb, and they're just blasting through your neighbourhood
and would knock you down like a bowling pin if you got in
their way? In /your/ own bailywick? Critical Mass is a
reaction against that selfishness. In its best incarnations,
it transcends selfishness, while reminding drivers they can
also transcend their own selfishness, and maybe cheer up
a little.
At its worst, Critical Mass is a mirror that reflects
the behaviours of selfish people back at themselves.
No wonder they get pissed off. Too bad those selfish
people are too selfish to realize they're pissing off
a bunch of other people too.
Brent, I think you're a good and decent guy.
<shrug> maybe a little too affected by car people,
but maybe that can be remedied.
The pissed-offedness you experience once a month
by CM rides is the pissed-offedness we non-drivers
experience ~daily~ as you drivers blithely steal our
ROWs, and cut us off from where we need to go.
But don't listen to me. I'm just full o' shit.
Thank you for being you.
cheers,
Tom
--
Nothing is safe from me.
Bob
> I don't completely agree with CM as a viable approach to
> cyclists' gaining recognition and respect as entitled
> street users, myself. I however do partially agree with it.
>
> In fact I now support it even more, because it's threatened.
Tom-
Feel free to withold your support because there is no threat,
certainly none was documented in the link Brent provided. Not only was
C-M not mentioned in the alleged "news story" (I say alleged and
punctuate "news story" because it wasn't news, just the
unsubstantiated claims of a pseudonymous "source" accompanied some
thinly veiled editorializing by the writer and the predictable outrage
of a C-M attorney) but the *only* mention of bicycles in the "news"
portion appeared in the first sentence-
"Paul Carroll was riding his bike when his cell phone vibrated."
One has to wonder. Since the pseudonymous source did NOT say C-M was
one of the groups he was asked to mointor and report on, why did the
writer go to that C-M attorney for a quote? Could it be he knew the
attorney would be so predictably outraged? I smell a conspiracy. <g>
If you want to support the groups supposedly being threatened, send a
vegetarian dish to one of the unnamed "vegan potlucks" that *were*
mentioned. ;-)
Regards,
Bob Hunt
Tom Keats
>> I don't completely agree with CM as a viable approach to
>> cyclists' gaining recognition and respect as entitled
>> street users, myself. I however do partially agree with it.
>>
>> In fact I now support it even more, because it's threatened.
> Tom-
> Feel free to withold your support because there is no threat,
> certainly none was documented in the link Brent provided.
Brent and his ilk threatens cycling. He's shoving a drivers'
stilted viewpoint against C-M cyclists rights into our faces like
a cream pie and tarring (cream-pie-ing) us all with a wide
brush, and I don't like it one bit! He should phffffuck the
hell off, and smarten up.
Critical Mass is not an evil that will curve your spine, curdle
your sour cream, and keep the West from winning the "war" in
the Middle East.
CM might inconvenience drivers by a little bit
denying them the chance to inconvenience
non-drivers as they usually do, but so what?
So, he doesn't like monthly bicycle CM.
CM bike riders don't like daily car CM.
Conspiracy theories notwithstanding.
cheers,
Brent P
> But whether or not one supports or doesn't support CM is
> IMO best left a personal choice, unaffected by propaganda
> x-posted from a car-driving NG to a bike-riding NG, with a
> subject line and content obviously intended to scare people.
Subject line to scare people? You are grasping at straws. That's not a
scary subject line.
> Actually I thought Brent was above such trollery.
> I'm disappointed and rather saddened.
LOL. Now you're going to pretend to understand years worth of my posts
all of a sudden? At least you've exposed your own dishonesty now.
N8N
> In article <x_idnU6ryZ9h0K_VnZ2dnUVZ_jKdn...@comcast.com>,
> Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>
>
> >http://articles.citypages.com/2008-05-14/news/moles-wanted/
>
> > Seems the old police and federal moles infiltrating groups and then
> > possibly starting violence is still alive and well.
>
> /Avoid/ Critical Mass?!
Yes, why avoid critical mass? After all, the best way to get people
to see your point of view is to act like a complete dick and break a
bunch of laws.
nate
Brent P
> Brent P <tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>>> But it sounds more to me like you're trying to
>>> scare-off "upstart" cyclists from claiming our
>>> due space on the streets.
>>
>> Nice one there Tom. Still the same I see. Considering I have oh
>> probably a few thousand posts defending a bicyclist's right to road,
>> you're just well, full of shit.
>
> And you're cyclists' official spokesperson (in r.a.d.)
> Yeah, right.
LOl. Still making stuff up. You replied to me and made a claim about
what I was 'trying to' do. It's not my fault you didn't rub two brain
cells together before spewing.
> Go spread your FUD in your garden, where it belongs.
aww... poor baby.
Brent P
> In article <peCdnev-W4G4_a_V...@comcast.com>,
> Brent P <tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> writes:
>> On 2008-05-20, Tom Keats <tkeat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> In article <x_idnU6ryZ9h0K_V...@comcast.com>,
>>> Brent P <tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>> http://articles.citypages.com/2008-05-14/news/moles-wanted/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Seems the old police and federal moles infiltrating groups and then
>>>> possibly starting violence is still alive and well.
>>
>>> /Avoid/ Critical Mass?!
>>> Hell, it seems like we've gotta rush to its aid!
>>
>> It was a bit of humor, because there are all sorts of reasons to avoid
>> it that it didn't need government moles. Went over your head I
>> suppose.
>
> Excuses -- Faah! Nischt gefloygen.
>
> Humour, eh? Nobody's laffin'.
I takes you two posts to do this?
> ...
>
>> I propose Critical mass stop being assholes who run red signals and
>> generally make asses of themselves by ignoring even the most basic
>> rules of the roads, those rules that even allow bicyclists to use the
>> same road system as other bicyclists. Like I posted a few weeks ago or
>> so, I think it would be amusing to assert right of way (green signal)
> ROW is always given; never taken.
If that's the case, then might makes right and motorists need not give
right of way and just use the size of their vehicles to run those on
smaller ones off the road or run red signals in front of them, etc. You
didn't really think that out did you?
>> while bicycling as these critical massholes are running the red.
>> Either their heads would asplode or they would just react with
>> violence.
> Your own reaction sounds pretty violent, itself.
LOL.... it's violent to want to go on green instead of sitting there
waiting for a bunch of asshats.
> You're pretty mad at Critical Mass, aren't you?
No. Just tired of asshats like CM, wrong way riders, red light runners,
gutter passers etc who piss off other people who then, when they see a
lone bicyclist take out their frustations on that lone bicyclist. It's a
group that makes things worse, not better.
> But I ask you to bear these thoughts in mind:
> wrt Critical Mass, we're talking about urban streets,
> not the open road. It's a completely different environment.
Yeah, it's an environment where timing green signals is important,
especially to a bicyclist, otherwise he ends up stopping every few
hundred feet!
> Have you ever been a non-driver in a city, trying to get from
> A to B, but can't because of the steady stream of commuters
> transiting from their job in one suburb, to their home in another
> suberb, and they're just blasting through your neighbourhood
> and would knock you down like a bowling pin if you got in
> their way? In /your/ own bailywick?
I've ridden in chicago and suburban chicago since I could ride a
bicycle. I got my first adult sized bicycle in 1982. That's 26 years of
urban and suburban street riding. So, give up the stupid argument that
because I also drive a car I don't know what's it like to bike.
Another amusing thing about CM's idiotcy is that they go around pissing
off drivers in downtown chicago, in the loop. That's the most bicycle
friendly part of this area IMO because traffic speeds are bicycle
speeds. Hell I've cruised in the left lane pasing traffic to my right
keeping up with the car in front of me in the loop for blocks on end and
had no problems from drivers.
> Critical Mass is a
> reaction against that selfishness. In its best incarnations,
> it transcends selfishness, while reminding drivers they can
> also transcend their own selfishness, and maybe cheer up
> a little.
See here you go again slipping into this 'us vs. them' crapola. Here's
the thing Tom, your critical massholes aren't making conditions better.
I've had drivers try to knock me off the road or ignore my left turn
signal and pass me on the left and other asshattery and you know how
they justify their actions to me when I catch up to them? They justify
it with 'you bicycle riders don't follow the law' type bullshit. So,
here's a clue, when you purposely go out and decide to take revenge on
the few motorists who are a problem by pissing off anyone who happens to
be driving all you accomplish is to make more motorists who are going to
be a problem to bicyclists. It's basically GWB's offical war-on-terror
idea that by bombing people, by killing civilians and making a mess of
people's lives in general that's going to get them to stop being
terrorists. In reality it pisses people off who had no axe to grind and
causes them to pick up the fight.
> At its worst, Critical Mass is a mirror that reflects
> the behaviours of selfish people back at themselves.
No, what that is doing is pissing off people by their choice of vehicle.
They aren't mirror to the individuals that being a mirror to is
effective. That CM behavior gives justification to those drivers that
are a problem and then adds more to their ranks when drivers who weren't
a problem mirror CM back to every bicyclist they see.
> No wonder they get pissed off. Too bad those selfish
> people are too selfish to realize they're pissing off
> a bunch of other people too.
What about the driver like me who is a bicyclist too? What about the
driver who has always respected bicyclists right to the road? Why piss
them off? Because they drive?
So what happens when these drivers who weren't doing wrong towards
bicyclists decide to 'mirror' CM's behavior to anyone on a bicycle? What
then? I've encountered those people on the road. They use the same
reasoning you give for critical mass's behavior.
> Brent, I think you're a good and decent guy.
><shrug> maybe a little too affected by car people,
> but maybe that can be remedied.
I like cars and bicycles. Sorry that shorts out your circuits. I drive
and bike and follow the rules of right of way with each.
> The pissed-offedness you experience once a month
> by CM rides is the pissed-offedness we non-drivers
> experience ~daily~ as you drivers blithely steal our
> ROWs, and cut us off from where we need to go.
I bike a good deal Tom. You keep forgeting that. I don't gutter pass. I
don't run red signals, I even signal. I also assert my right of way. I
realized pissing off people just because they drove was the height of
stupidity, but then people like you keep doing just that.
If you really want to get back at those drivers who make life miserable
for bicyclists for sport, the ones that are the problem, without turning
other drivers to their ranks, ride 100% to the vehicle code. Simple as
that. It pisses them off and they have nothing to argue with. Plus no
collateral damage.
> But don't listen to me. I'm just full o' shit.
Silly me, I don't want more drivers gunning for a lone bicyclist because
some group of riders pissed them off.
Jym Dyer
> I propose Critical mass stop being assholes who run red
> signals and generally make asses of themselves by ignoring
> even the most basic rules of the roads, those rules that
> even allow bicyclists to [yada yada yada] ...
=v= Same old same old. *Yawn!*
=v= Proposals work better when they're not based on false
presuppositions, and also when they don't call people names.
Despite the occasional media-exaggerated incidents of road
rage (things that happen the other 353 days of the year, too),
Critical Mass has continued to thrive for 15 years and has
spread to over 400 locations worldwide.
<_Jym_>
P.S.: Your ongoing "Critical Mas is blah blah blah" tirades
have nothing to do with the news item that you posted.
Bill Sornson
> In article
> <89731e13-3d7b-4125...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> Bob <hun...@aol.com> writes:
>> On May 20, 1:24 am, tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote:
>
>>> I don't completely agree with CM as a viable approach to
>>> cyclists' gaining recognition and respect as entitled
>>> street users, myself. I however do partially agree with it.
>>>
>>> In fact I now support it even more, because it's threatened.
>
>> Tom-
>> Feel free to withold your support because there is no threat,
>> certainly none was documented in the link Brent provided.
> Brent and his ilk threatens cycling. He's shoving a drivers'
> stilted viewpoint against C-M cyclists rights into our faces like
> a cream pie and tarring (cream-pie-ing) us all with a wide
> brush, and I don't like it one bit! He should phffffuck the
> hell off, and smarten up.
That why you DELETED the rest of what Bob wrote? The article DID NOT
MENTION C-M! (Just checked to make sure. Whole piece seems a little /too/
blatant; cops/feds wouldn't be so cavalier.) And since you didn't quote
anything that this Brent person wrote about C-M, either, one must conclude
you're either paranoid or just making stuff up. (The OP never showed up on
my server; did you cross-post it to boot?)
Sadly...typical.
Rest DELETED not because it scores points, but rather because it completely
misses them.
Sadly...typical.
BS (obvious)
Jym Dyer
> say alleged and punctuate "news story" because it wasn't news,
> just the unsubstantiated claims of a pseudonymous "source"
> accompanied some thinly veiled editorializing by the writer
> and the predictable outrage of a C-M attorney) but the *only*
> mention of bicycles in the "news" portion appeared in the
=v= Given the nature of the meeting under discussion, there can
only be a sole unsubstantiated claim for it. His story can be
found in slightly different form by a web search for "vegan
potluck." The lawyer is part of the National Lawyers Guild,
not "a CM attorney," whatever that's supposed to mean.
=v= The article did mention CM later on, in particular the role
of _agents_provocateur_ in the August 2007 Minneapolis ride,
though it failed to point out that there are multiple sources
corroborrating that information. It also mentioned videotaped
evidence of one such infiltrator in the New York City ride; in
fact there are mulitple videotapes of multiple such incidents.
<_Jym_>
Bill Sornson
Brent P
> Brent P writes:
>
>> I propose Critical mass stop being assholes who run red
>> signals and generally make asses of themselves by ignoring
>> even the most basic rules of the roads, those rules that
>> even allow bicyclists to [yada yada yada] ...
>
>=v= Same old same old. *Yawn!*
>
>=v= Proposals work better when they're not based on false
> presuppositions, and also when they don't call people names.
> Despite the occasional media-exaggerated incidents of road
> rage (things that happen the other 353 days of the year, too),
> Critical Mass has continued to thrive for 15 years and has
> spread to over 400 locations worldwide.
Pissing off drivers world wide... It's classic GWB diplomacy. Anger
everyone that looks like your enemy to get your enemy to stop doing bad
things. Result = more enemy. Endless war. The Jesse Jackson theory of
activism.
> P.S.: Your ongoing "Critical Mas is blah blah blah" tirades
> have nothing to do with the news item that you posted.
There might be a whole half dozen threads I've been in regarding CM over
the last decade and this is the only one I started... just a tad bit of
exaggeration there.
Matthew T. Russotto
Bill Sornson <as...@ask.me> wrote:
>
>That why you DELETED the rest of what Bob wrote? The article DID NOT
>MENTION C-M!
Yes, it does. Third paragraph from the bottom.
>(Just checked to make sure. Whole piece seems a little /too/
>blatant; cops/feds wouldn't be so cavalier.)
As long as people like you keep believing that, their very audacity is
their protection.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
Bill Sornson
> In article <4832ee8d$0$12935$4c36...@roadrunner.com>,
> Bill Sornson <as...@ask.me> wrote:
>> That why you DELETED the rest of what Bob wrote? The article DID NOT
>> MENTION C-M!
> Yes, it does. Third paragraph from the bottom.
Now when I click on the link it's gone, but I'll take your word for it.
Still, as Bob said (before it was censored repeatedly), the article wasn't
/about/ CM at all.
>> (Just checked to make sure. Whole piece seems a little /too/
>> blatant; cops/feds wouldn't be so cavalier.)
> As long as people like you keep believing that, their very audacity is
> their protection.
"People like you" LOL So the cops just happened to call some perp and say,
hey, we want you to spy on so & so months from now.
Yeah, right.
BS (apparent)
landotter
Westboro Baptist is growing by leaps and bounds!
Tom Keats
We all get to see drivers' P'sOV via their own
acting like dicks and breaking a bunch of laws
in their own Critical Masses, every single day
of every year (as opposed to one day out of
every month.)
AISI, in some ways bicycle Critical Mass is a
mirror-reflection of drivers' behaviours, right
back in their faces. C-M informs drivers of their
own inflictions and afflictions upon people.
Apparently drivers don't like the taste of their
own medicine.
I encourage you to consider the societal effects
of your own urban car-driving. You get to go,
and life is good. But you're in a stream of urban
car traffic that keeps non-driving others from being
able to cross the street you're on, so they could get
to the shops they want to patronize.
Car traffic is bad for business and The Economy,
because it cuts customers off from shops.
And car traffic plugs itself up. At least bike
C-M keeps going, and gets out of everybody's way.
cheers,
Tom
--
Nothing is safe from me.
N8N
> In article <927936a4-db40-45f4-9a89-a465a68fc...@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> N8N <njna...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> > On May 20, 12:54 am, tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote:
> >> In article <x_idnU6ryZ9h0K_VnZ2dnUVZ_jKdn...@comcast.com>,
> >> Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> >> >http://articles.citypages.com/2008-05-14/news/moles-wanted/
>
> >> > Seems the old police and federal moles infiltrating groups and then
> >> > possibly starting violence is still alive and well.
>
> >> /Avoid/ Critical Mass?!
> > Yes, why avoid critical mass? After all, the best way to get people
> > to see your point of view is to act like a complete dick and break a
> > bunch of laws.
>
> We all get to see drivers' P'sOV via their own
> acting like dicks and breaking a bunch of laws
> in their own Critical Masses, every single day
> of every year (as opposed to one day out of
> every month.)
And I see cyclists doing it every day as well. The solution is not to
try to one-up each other, the solution is to enforce the damn laws.
nate
Brent P
> We all get to see drivers' P'sOV via their own
> acting like dicks and breaking a bunch of laws
> in their own Critical Masses, every single day
> of every year (as opposed to one day out of
> every month.)
I see similiar percentages of people acting like dicks and generally
behaving poorly with regards to right of way on the road regardless of
vehicle. Somewhat higher percentages for cabbies, rice boys, and of
course truckers.
> AISI, in some ways bicycle Critical Mass is a
> mirror-reflection of drivers' behaviours, right
> back in their faces. C-M informs drivers of their
> own inflictions and afflictions upon people.
> Apparently drivers don't like the taste of their
> own medicine.
It's the GWB policy of mirroring the terrorism to an entire population
that superficially looks like the terrorists. And surprise, all it does
is anger people and increase the ranks of terrorists.
By taking the assholishness of *SOME* drivers and mirroring it to *ALL*
drivers what you end up doing is getting drivers that weren't a problem
to decide to mirror your assholishness back at all bicyclists. CM is not
doing any good. It just convinces drivers who weren't a problem that
bicyclists deserve to be treated poorly.
Your 'us' vs. 'them' view simply creates a condition of perpetual 'war'.
The problem drivers never vanish, the 'need' for bicycle activism
never disappears because CM and others are out there agitating people
who weren't a problem. Find some bees that were minding their own
business out in the woods not bothering you and wack their hive with a
stick because some bee stung you once.. That's essentially what CM is
doing. Pissing off lots of drivers to get back at a minority of the
them. It's stupid unless you're in the activism business and need to
keep an enemy around.
If you really want to piss off the problem drivers, the thing to do is
ride 100% to the vehicle code. Don't give them an inch. assert your
right of way. Take the lane when needed. Don't gutter pass. Don't use
side walks. The regular decent drivers are not offended by this
behavior. The problem ones are and it frustrates them to no end IME. If
you want to see one really flip into a rage, change to the left lane and
pass them when they are going too slow for your tastes.
> I encourage you to consider the societal effects
> of your own urban car-driving. You get to go,
> and life is good. But you're in a stream of urban
> car traffic that keeps non-driving others from being
> able to cross the street you're on, so they could get
> to the shops they want to patronize.
Lol. And one can just walk through a stream of bicyclists? One's like CM
who don't even stop for red signals?
> Car traffic is bad for business and The Economy,
> because it cuts customers off from shops.
Ask shops how the chicago state-street ped mall worked out... clue: it
was a disaster.
> And car traffic plugs itself up. At least bike
> C-M keeps going, and gets out of everybody's way.
If a group of car drivers streamed through red signals and forced
everyone who wasn't following their route to sit and wait they would
move well too.
Most congestion is caused by poor driving. I see people doing the exact
same stupid congestion causing behaviors on bicycle frequently. In fact
its the reason I don't particularly find organized rides all that
enjoyable. The plodders ride 3 and 4 wide. This means when I catch up to
them I have to slow to their speed, wait for a gap in on coming traffic
and then hammer it around them. 25 miles of this can wear a person out
and make 75-100 miles much more difficult.
DennisTheBald
brained folks here can straighten me out.
First, how do the g-men go about infiltrating an event? I'm mean if
CM was a group that you could join like the klan I would get it, but
I've been led to believe that CM was pretty much just something that
happened and thems involved didn't really elect officers.
Second, other than CM being on friday and club rides on saturday,
what's the difference? Is it the outfits that they wear? Is it that
the club riders generally haul their bikes to the start with a MV &
the CMers just start out wherever they are? Is it that the clubs
often have a SUV or two trailing them to haul them home if they get to
sweaty?
Brent P
> First, how do the g-men go about infiltrating an event? I'm mean if
> CM was a group that you could join like the klan I would get it, but
> I've been led to believe that CM was pretty much just something that
> happened and thems involved didn't really elect officers.
They go in to a protest, a CM ride, etc and try to appear to be members
of the same group. Then when appearing to be a member of the group they
will do what they can to start violence even it means they pick up rocks
and throw them at cops. Once they get things started they disappear or
get 'arrested' and later let go. Even if they don't get things started
they've created the headline they set out to create anyway.
It works because many people fall for the group think like Tom takes
anyone who drives a car as deserving mistreatment because some drivers
mistreated bicyclists. Now that group that wants an investigation about
some government action, a return to the gold standard, or whatever
threatens the status-quo are labeled as violent kooks. It keeps the
masses from listening to the message.
> Second, other than CM being on friday and club rides on saturday,
> what's the difference? Is it the outfits that they wear? Is it that
> the club riders generally haul their bikes to the start with a MV &
> the CMers just start out wherever they are? Is it that the clubs
> often have a SUV or two trailing them to haul them home if they get to
> sweaty?
It has to do with where they are and what else is going on near by if it
warrants police/fed attention.
The thing is, the feds don't need to set up CM, CM does enough on their
own. Although I guess the news media doesn't spread it far and wide
without kicking it up a level.
Matthew T. Russotto
N8N <njn...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>And I see cyclists doing it every day as well. The solution is not to
>try to one-up each other, the solution is to enforce the damn laws.
Fix 'em first, or you end up in Aunt Judyland.
Matthew T. Russotto
DennisTheBald <Dennis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I'm confused on a couple points, I'm hoping that one of the big
>brained folks here can straighten me out.
>
>First, how do the g-men go about infiltrating an event? I'm mean if
>CM was a group that you could join like the klan I would get it, but
>I've been led to believe that CM was pretty much just something that
>happened and thems involved didn't really elect officers.
So the G-men just go. Then start an incident. Then arrest anyone
else involved in the incident they started. It's an old, old, trick;
goes back to Roman times at the very least.
Bob
wrote:
> In article <67bfc930-4b4b-4742-8a3b-15daa700f...@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com>,
>
> DennisTheBald <DennisTheB...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >I'm confused on a couple points, I'm hoping that one of the big
> >brained folks here can straighten me out.
>
> >First, how do the g-men go about infiltrating an event? I'm mean if
> >CM was a group that you could join like the klan I would get it, but
> >I've been led to believe that CM was pretty much just something that
> >happened and thems involved didn't really elect officers.
>
> So the G-men just go. Then start an incident. Then arrest anyone
> else involved in the incident they started. It's an old, old, trick;
> goes back to Roman times at the very least.
> --
> There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
> result in a fully-depreciated one.
What you suggest is within the realm of possibility and may have even
occurred on very rare occasions. It is extremely unlikely to happen
except as an aberration though for several reasons. First, most C-M
rides are good natured and, as a group, cops would rather let a few
minor traffic infractions slide than take actions that turn a good
natured event into a major hassle. Second, the overwhelming majority
of cops don't like to have to use force. We'll use it when we have to
but every use of force is another opportunity to get hurt, to catch a
beef, to get sued, etcetera. As a group, we don't like those
possibilities anymore than you do. Third, and the more radical among C-
Mers may find this offensive so I'll apologize for any hurt feelings
in advance, Critical Mass is rather far down on the list of things
most cops worry about. I'd put it somewhere between jaywalking and
garden variety panhandling. All three are irritating at times but they
are *minor* irritants. Last but by no means least, most of the people
that run police departments are administrators first and cops second,
if at all. Administrators tend to like peace and quiet in their
domains. Incidents, especially mass arrest incidents, are never quiet
and rarely peaceful. Show me a cop that has complete faith in his
superiors' backing him when he instigates an incident that disturbs
those superiors' peace and quiet and I'll show you a naive fool. Since
there are so many of us it's safe to say that some of us are naive and
some of us are fools but I doubt many of us are naive fools that also
just happen to hate C-M.
Regards,
Bob Hunt
Brent P
> occurred on very rare occasions. It is extremely unlikely to happen
> except as an aberration though for several reasons. First, most C-M
> rides are good natured and, as a group, cops would rather let a few
> minor traffic infractions slide than take actions that turn a good
> natured event into a major hassle.
Maybe in your area.... while I was driving I had a cop do a U-turn and
come flying after me because I 'made a face at him'. And yes, I did make
a face at him after he turned right across my path with his cellphone to
his ear.
Bob
wrote:
Brent, I *am* in your area and even if I weren't I'd stand by my
statement. Even accepting your story as 100% accurate doesn't change
it. Maybe the cop was having a bad day. Maybe he's simply not the best
cop around. Who knows? You don't and neither do I. What I do know is
judging a group of roughly 18,000 (an approximation of the number of
cops in the Chicago area) that must easily average 10 contacts with
the public each day by the actions of one cop in one instance on one
day is, to be kind, statistically unsound.
Regards,
Bob Hunt
r15...@aol.com
wrote:
> ... Simple as
> that. It pisses them off and they have nothing to argue with. Plus no
> collateral damage.
> Silly me, I don't want more drivers gunning for a lone bicyclist because
> some group of riders pissed them off.
Seems like you're getting your signals crossed there a little bit.
But you are right -- riding strictly according to the law, especially
if it involves 'lane-taking,' will piss off drivers.
Brent P
Should I tell a few more stories for you? If douchebag cops were so
rare, why is it that I've met so many of them... like the *TWO*
different cops on two different occasions that pulled me over when I was
biking and demanded that ride to the right of the white line? Where
there was about 3in of pavement btw. Or the cop that stopped me because
I yelled 'go green light go' to a motorist who was sitting still on
green in front of me. The motorist then flipped me off. the cop stops me
and tells me to ride _ON THE SIDEWALK_, that he doesn't like the way I
ride, on the street as a vehicle.
Now let me tell you about a few more duchebag cops... like the one that
ticketed me and then lied in court... or maybe the first cop encounter I
can remember, the state trooper who was aggressively tailgating me and
then when I stopped to make a left turn pulled his cruiser on to the
gravel shoulder and accelerated hard to spray my freshly painted car
with gravel.
Or just the other week, the harvey,IL cop that guned it around me, cut
me off and nailed the brakes so he could make a right turn. We were the
only two cars on the road for at least two blocks in either direction.
How about the state trooper that some years ago nearly crashed into my
car as he was doing 90+mph in a 45mph zone without his rollers on?
I've got more... there was this driver swinging back and forth across
the two WB travel lanes at 25mph in a 45mph zone. I got in the right
lane, waited for the driver to start swinging left, punched it up to
45mph to pass... who does the cop pull over seeing all this? You got it,
me, to run my papers.
Oh then there was another papers stop where the cop lied and said a car
similiar to my then about 25 year old ford was involved in a crime...
lol. Poor cop was new to the job, he couldn't keep a straight face lying
like that.
Should I go on? The chicago bicycle cop that ran red light after red
light. I would pass him mid block then stop at a red and he would sail
through it. Get this, it gets better... I am waiting at a red and the
cop sails through it... light turns green I start to go and I am nearly
creamed by a chicago police van running the red light for the cross
traffic.
Then there was the cop who demanded I ride on the sidewalk because he
said I didn't have a rear reflector (I did) and it was dark (it was
still clear summer evening daylight). Bonus: the sidewalk had a ton of
peds on it and is illegal to ride on in that town.
Should I go on? I've got more.... If you are in my area, the phrase
'bored suburban cop' should be something you are familiar with. It
didn't come out of nothing. They get bored and they start hasseling
people over minor things.
That reminds me, a couple weeks ago I got followed again.... cop is
waiting at a red signal on the coming side of the light. the signal goes
green and I go. Cop swings a u-turn and sits back there following. I
know he's following because I'm driving 5 under and he's not catching
up. Cops don't drive under the speed limit normally. after awhile he
gets bored and then swings another U-turn back to his original
direction. Not as exciting as the one ones in the years past that would
get frustrated with not having a violation to pull me over for and would
do a u-turn with the hammer down and the tires squealing when I got
home. lol.
Brent P
Yeah... because if they cannot kiss up to the bumper of the SUV that's
in front of me, I'm slowing them down... never mind that the SUV in
front of me is blocking my forward progress at the speed I would like to
go at. Normal, rational drivers, who aren't a problem don't have an
issue with me taking the lane, because I do it only when needed. The
ones who do have a problem are those who would be a problem period.
Matthew T. Russotto
Bob <hun...@aol.com> wrote:
>On May 21, 2:23=A0pm, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto)
>wrote:
>>
>> So the G-men just go. Then start an incident. Then arrest anyone
>> else involved in the incident they started. It's an old, old, trick;
>> goes back to Roman times at the very least.
>
>occurred on very rare occasions. It is extremely unlikely to happen
>except as an aberration though for several reasons. First, most C-M
>rides are good natured and, as a group, cops would rather let a few
>minor traffic infractions slide than take actions that turn a good
>natured event into a major hassle.
That depends on what their bosses have told them to do.
>Second, the overwhelming majority of cops don't like to have to use force.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, oh, please, stop, you'll kill me laughing.
N8N
wrote:
> In article <7c745e96-c2a5-4396-8874-ea1787384...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
>
> N8N <njna...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >And I see cyclists doing it every day as well. The solution is not to
> >try to one-up each other, the solution is to enforce the damn laws.
>
> Fix 'em first, or you end up in Aunt Judyland.
I don't really have a problem with current ROW, signaling, etc. rules
other than the facts that a) most people don't follow them and b)
there seem to be no consequences for failure to follow them.
nate
Bob
wrote:
> On 2008-05-22, Bob <hunr...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 21, 8:16 pm, Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> >> On 2008-05-22, Bob <hunr...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> > occurred on very rare occasions. It is extremely unlikely to happen
> >> > except as an aberration though for several reasons. First, most C-M
> >> > rides are good natured and, as a group, cops would rather let a few
> >> > minor traffic infractions slide than take actions that turn a good
> >> > natured event into a major hassle.
>
> >> Maybe in your area.... while I was driving I had a cop do a U-turn and
> >> come flying after me because I 'made a face at him'. And yes, I did make
> >> a face at him after he turned right across my path with his cellphone to
> >> his ear.
>
> > Brent, I *am* in your area and even if I weren't I'd stand by my
> > statement. Even accepting your story as 100% accurate doesn't change
> > it. Maybe the cop was having a bad day. Maybe he's simply not the best
> > cop around. Who knows? You don't and neither do I. What I do know is
> > judging a group of roughly 18,000 (an approximation of the number of
> > cops in the Chicago area) that must easily average 10 contacts with
> > the public each day by the actions of one cop in one instance on one
> > day is, to be kind, statistically unsound.
>
> Should I tell a few more stories for you? If douchebag cops were so
> rare, why is it that I've met so many of them.
I can think of several explanations, the most likely ones are that: A)
you are seriously exaggerating or B) making your stories up as you go
along. That leaves at least two more obvious explanations: C) you're
well known to the police in the areas you most frequent as a
knucklehead that's usually up to no good or D) you're off your meds. I
think I'll go with B.
Bob
wrote:
> In article <4aa95638-4eb5-4585-a4d1-053357144...@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
Gee, I get the feeling you don't like cops. I'm heartbroken.
Regards,
Bob Hunt
Brent P
>> Should I tell a few more stories for you? If douchebag cops were so
>> rare, why is it that I've met so many of them.
> I can think of several explanations, the most likely ones are that: A)
> you are seriously exaggerating or B) making your stories up as you go
> along. That leaves at least two more obvious explanations: C) you're
> well known to the police in the areas you most frequent as a
> knucklehead that's usually up to no good or D) you're off your meds. I
> think I'll go with B.
Keep that denial going.
Oh I forgot a good one from last year... I'm walking home with my dinner
from a family take-out place when I look up and this cop is pacing me
in his cruiser... I look and then keep on my way... I turn off the main
sidewalk on to walk to the door and the cop slams his cruiser to a stop
and jumps out coming after me yelling 'I want to talk to you'. It gets
worse from there... as three more cops in three more cruisers show up
right behind him... supposedly I matched the description of someone
that cracked a window at chain fast food place...
Oh, and I forgot the checkpoint stories....
I'm sure if I bought an SUV and just drove to work and back everyday and
never went out on foot or on bicycle and never drove late at night then
I could be in denial too...
But if you want to believe I'm lying that's your choice. Just remember
when it's you that gets the bogus ticket, when you get hassled.... it
will happen sooner or later, the police state is growing.
Bill Sornson
LOL I wonder what the "common denominator" was in all of Brent's alleged
encounters? LOL
Brent P
> LOL I wonder what the "common denominator" was in all of Brent's alleged
> encounters? LOL
I'm just one of those 'bad people' in your view eh? I deserve it? Must
be nice to live in denial.
Now go do what the officer tells you and lick his boots and maybe he
won't hurt you....
Tom Keats
r15...@aol.com writes:
> On May 20, 7:12 am, Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> ... Simple as
>> that. It pisses them off and they have nothing to argue with. Plus no
>> collateral damage.
>
>> Silly me, I don't want more drivers gunning for a lone bicyclist because
>> some group of riders pissed them off.
>
> Seems like you're getting your signals crossed there a little bit.
When drivers infantilely react to the presence of innocent riders
who are just politely but rightfully minding their own business,
it's not because of any perceived misdeeds of third-party riders
in past experiences; it's all about the here and now.
> But you are right -- riding strictly according to the law, especially
> if it involves 'lane-taking,' will piss off drivers.
Anything/everything pisses off many drivers,
and other unhappy people.
Sometimes I get pissed off, too. But I don't
take it out on non-involved people. And I'd
sooner take my aggressions out by biting the
damn heads off a bagful of jelly-babies and spittin'
'em out, than by actually threatening or harming
anyone with a couple of tons of mobile metal.
Oddly enough, people who drive strictly according
to the law don't piss me off at all. In fact I
appreciate their civil & civilized approach. But
there are so few of 'em.
The notion that the behaviours of some riders induces
misbehaviour by drivers against /all/ riders, is just
another tired excuse for drivers to misbehave against
all riders -- to be mean to somebody in a stupid
attempt to mitigate their infantile feelings of
hard-done-by-ness. And it's an excuse for inferiority
complexed/submissive riders to be hat-in-handedly
relegated and swept aside.
Plain 'n simple.
But ... <shrug> we've gotta co-exist somehow.
That's why we have laws. But laws should be
the last resort; I think sociability should be
the first resort. As I see it, Critical Mass
tests the area between really getting along
sociably, and arbitrarily getting along legally.
Y'know what numbers would really interest me
right now? How many bike riders get clobbered
by (unsuccessfully) trying to beat the train at
level crossings, vs how many drivers?
Tom Keats
I actually agree with you.
But "current" ROW is venerable ROW rules. They've
existed for a long time, and in my opinion they're
the best way to keep traffic flowing as it should.
I generally go by ROW rules myself, except I have to
frequently yield to obviously ROW-ignorant drivers,
of which there are so many. "Signalling" & signage
are supposed to be mere reminders of ROW rules in
areas where traffic movements might be more complex,
but the ROW rules still apply. Nowadays, people are
more inclined to just follow the directives of the
city signage (or not) through which they progress,
while having no inkling of ROW rules. I shall always
remember: "ROW is always given, never taken."
In some ways, Critical Mass is a reaction about
so many car drivers selfishly taking ROW. In fact
robbing other peoples' R'sOW.
I guess people like being told what to do, rather
than knowing what ~to~ do. Of course, when told
what to do, they'll ignore or even contradict it
anyways.
Tom Keats
Scott in SoCal <scotte...@yahoo.com> writes:
> On Wed, 21 May 2008 02:44:23 -0700, tkeat...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats)
> wrote:
>
>>In article <927936a4-db40-45f4...@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
>> N8N <njn...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>> On May 20, 12:54 am, tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote:
>>>> In article <x_idnU6ryZ9h0K_VnZ2dnUVZ_jKdn...@comcast.com>,
>>>> Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> >http://articles.citypages.com/2008-05-14/news/moles-wanted/
>>>>
>>>> > Seems the old police and federal moles infiltrating groups and then
>>>> > possibly starting violence is still alive and well.
>>>>
>>>> /Avoid/ Critical Mass?!
>>> Yes, why avoid critical mass? After all, the best way to get people
>>> to see your point of view is to act like a complete dick and break a
>>> bunch of laws.
>>
>>We all get to see drivers' P'sOV via their own
>>acting like dicks and breaking a bunch of laws
>>in their own Critical Masses, every single day
>>of every year (as opposed to one day out of
>>every month.)
>>
>>AISI, in some ways bicycle Critical Mass is a
>>mirror-reflection of drivers' behaviours, right
>>back in their faces.
>
No it doesn't, although you may believe so, or wish
it were true.
> and that
> amplification is causing lots of distortion.
hmmmm, okay, go on ...
> In nearly three decades of driving, I have never encountered an
> organized group of automobile drivers who intentionally block an
^^^^^^^^^
> intersection in order to prevent pedalcyclists from getting around -
> let alone seen it happen "every single day of every year."
You've never seen Oak St @ 70th Ave (Vancouver) during rush hour.
Those drivers who stop in the middle of the intersection for
the red light are not out to prevent anyone from getting around,
they're just too Goddammned stunned to stop at the appropriate
stop line to let cross-traffic through. They're just following
the car ahead of 'em. When it stops, they stop, no matter where.
And this kind of bullshit goes on throughout the city. No wonder
Critical Mass exists! And when cars stop in the middle of
intersections, it makes life hard for pedestrians -- those cars
in the middles of the intersections are stealing pedestrians'
"walk" signals.
Anyway, who's talking about "organized?"
Tom Keats
Brent P <tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>> Brent, I *am* in your area and even if I weren't I'd stand by my
>> statement. Even accepting your story as 100% accurate doesn't change
>> it. Maybe the cop was having a bad day. Maybe he's simply not the best
>> cop around. Who knows? You don't and neither do I. What I do know is
>> judging a group of roughly 18,000 (an approximation of the number of
>> cops in the Chicago area) that must easily average 10 contacts with
>> the public each day by the actions of one cop in one instance on one
>> day is, to be kind, statistically unsound.
>
> Should I tell a few more stories for you? If douchebag cops were so
> rare, why is it that I've met so many of them...
Maybe your attitude draws 'em.
cheers,
Tom
Brent P
> When drivers infantilely react to the presence of innocent riders
> who are just politely but rightfully minding their own business,
> it's not because of any perceived misdeeds of third-party riders
> in past experiences; it's all about the here and now.
That's like saying the US federal government bombing someone's family
doesn't encourage them to work for the terrorist groups. When you go
around acting like an arsehole to everyone using a motor vehicle with
the justification that lots of motorists act like arseholes to
bicyclists, it is reasonable to expect that motorists may begin acting
in the same group think.
You might think in the here-and-now and forget all that occured before,
it's a common american problem, however all people are not that way.
It seems that you haven't 'spoken' with these arseholish drivers much.
The reasoning for their behavior that I hear from them most often is
that bicyclists ride illegally all the time so they are justified. I
have no reason that is how they justify their behavior. After all that's
how you justify CM's behavior towards all motorists.
> Y'know what numbers would really interest me
> right now? How many bike riders get clobbered
> by (unsuccessfully) trying to beat the train at
> level crossings, vs how many drivers?
Reports I've seen seem in proportion to road usage. Peds get hit by
trains too...
Brent P
> Brent P <tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>
>>> Brent, I *am* in your area and even if I weren't I'd stand by my
>>> statement. Even accepting your story as 100% accurate doesn't change
>>> it. Maybe the cop was having a bad day. Maybe he's simply not the best
>>> cop around. Who knows? You don't and neither do I. What I do know is
>>> judging a group of roughly 18,000 (an approximation of the number of
>>> cops in the Chicago area) that must easily average 10 contacts with
>>> the public each day by the actions of one cop in one instance on one
>>> day is, to be kind, statistically unsound.
>>
>> Should I tell a few more stories for you? If douchebag cops were so
>> rare, why is it that I've met so many of them...
>
> Maybe your attitude draws 'em.
lol. Exactly how to they decern that when I am walking along the
sidewalk with my dinner minding my own business? Or when I am driving
at/below the posted speed limit... oh wait, I forgot the speed limits
are set so low they think most everyone under 70yrs old who obeys the
limit is trying to avoid cops. And the vehicular bicycling... that's
just way too non-comformist.
Paul O
of negative encounter with a member of the law enforcement community for
over 29 years. I fact, I rarely ever encounter cops under any circumstances.
The one and only serious negative encounter I ever had with law
enforcement authorities was, um... Lets just say that the cops acted
properly and were only doing their duty.
--
Paul D Oosterhout
I work for SAIC (but I don't speak for SAIC)
Paul O
Brent P
> Yes, also I have to wonder what Brent has been up to. I haven't had any
> sort of negative encounter with a member of the law enforcement
> community for over 29 years. I fact, I rarely ever encounter cops under
> any circumstances.
I walk on the sidewalk. I bike vehicularly to the letter of the vehicle
code. I drive the same way. None of the items I listed resulted in
anything more than the cop just being the bullies many of them are,
except the one where the cop lied in court. That was where he said I
did not stop before turning right on red. Problem was it was an odd
intersection and I was across the stop line prior to the light turning
red. The stop line was some 40 feet before the plane of the
intersection.
There ya go. Big time trouble maker eh?
You fellows understand you are siding with cops that just like to
harrass bicyclists for using the roadway... When I followed the
bicycling newsgroups people told their experiences of those kind...
Tom Keats
Brent P <tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> writes:
> On 2008-05-21, Tom Keats <tkeat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> We all get to see drivers' P'sOV via their own
>> acting like dicks and breaking a bunch of laws
>> in their own Critical Masses, every single day
>> of every year (as opposed to one day out of
>> every month.)
>
> behaving poorly with regards to right of way on the road regardless of
> vehicle. Somewhat higher percentages for cabbies, rice boys, and of
> course truckers.
>> AISI, in some ways bicycle Critical Mass is a
>> mirror-reflection of drivers' behaviours, right
>> own inflictions and afflictions upon people.
>> Apparently drivers don't like the taste of their
>> own medicine.
>
> It's the GWB policy of mirroring the terrorism to an entire population
> that superficially looks like the terrorists. And surprise, all it does
> is anger people and increase the ranks of terrorists.
Critical Mass participants by 'n large aren't terrorists,
and don't give a rat's tukis about GWB policy. And certainly,
just anybody riding along and trying to get from A to B doesn't
care about politics either. They (we) just wanna safely get to B.
As for people's anger, I guess it's up to the angry people
to explain their anger.
> By taking the assholishness of *SOME* drivers and mirroring it to *ALL*
> drivers what you end up doing is getting drivers that weren't a problem
> to decide to mirror your assholishness back at all bicyclists.
No.
Some drivers aren't problems. They understand ROW rules,
and govern themselves accordingly.
Some drivers /are/ problems.
> CM is not
> doing any good. It just convinces drivers who weren't a problem that
> bicyclists deserve to be treated poorly.
>
> Your 'us' vs. 'them' view simply creates a condition of perpetual 'war'.
It's hardly an us vs them view. Or maybe it is, when people
think in terms of who has more right to the urban streets by
dint of the size & weight and killing capacity of their vehicles.
I wish it wasn't us vs. them, I wish it was just "us".
As my grandmother would say: "If wishes were horses,
beggars would ride."
> The problem drivers never vanish, the 'need' for bicycle activism
> never disappears because CM and others are out there agitating people
> who weren't a problem. Find some bees that were minding their own
> business out in the woods not bothering you and wack their hive with a
> stick because some bee stung you once.. That's essentially what CM is
> doing.
No, it's much more than that.
> Pissing off lots of drivers to get back at a minority of the
> them. It's stupid unless you're in the activism business and need to
> keep an enemy around.
AISI, Critical Mass doesn't want enemies.
> If you really want to piss off the problem drivers, the thing to do is
> ride 100% to the vehicle code.
If you really want to piss of a bunch of your fellow
human beans, the thing to do is drive a car in such
a manner that cuts them off from where they need to go.
I guess you don't even relate to the effect car drivers
have at intersections, where pedestrians should have the
right to go, but you're selfishly blocking their paths.
Or worse yet, threatening to run 'em over in right-on-red
jurisdictions.
>> I encourage you to consider the societal effects
>> of your own urban car-driving. You get to go,
>> and life is good. But you're in a stream of urban
>> car traffic that keeps non-driving others from being
>> able to cross the street you're on, so they could get
>> to the shops they want to patronize.
>
> Lol. And one can just walk through a stream of bicyclists?
Actually, one can, and much more easily than through a
stream of MV drivers.
> One's like CM
> who don't even stop for red signals?
Ooh, you missed a light cycle? Heaven forbid.
That's what those goddam Emergency Response
Vehicles do to traffic, too (they cause you to
miss a light cycle.)
The horror. The horror.
Especially on the last Friday of the month
when yer impatiently lookin' forward to
seafood 'n nookie after work. Precious
seconds are lost.
As my Filipino friends say: "Life is hard." <shrug>
cheers,
Tom
Brent P
> In article <aKudnYFlLrgsvqnV...@comcast.com>,
> Brent P <tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>> AISI, in some ways bicycle Critical Mass is a
>>> mirror-reflection of drivers' behaviours, right
>>> back in their faces. C-M informs drivers of their
>>> own inflictions and afflictions upon people.
>>> Apparently drivers don't like the taste of their
>>> own medicine.
>>
>> It's the GWB policy of mirroring the terrorism to an entire population
>> that superficially looks like the terrorists. And surprise, all it does
>> is anger people and increase the ranks of terrorists.
> Critical Mass participants by 'n large aren't terrorists,
> and don't give a rat's tukis about GWB policy. And certainly,
> just anybody riding along and trying to get from A to B doesn't
> care about politics either. They (we) just wanna safely get to B.
Talk about intentionally missing the point. Angering people who are not
your enemy does not help your cause.
> As for people's anger, I guess it's up to the angry people
> to explain their anger.
You are endorsing deliberately treating other people poorly and you
expect them to say 'yes sir, may I have another' and treat you with
kindness. That is absurd.
>> By taking the assholishness of *SOME* drivers and mirroring it to *ALL*
>> drivers what you end up doing is getting drivers that weren't a problem
>> to decide to mirror your assholishness back at all bicyclists.
> No.
> Some drivers aren't problems. They understand ROW rules,
> and govern themselves accordingly.
> Some drivers /are/ problems.
Critical mass and the views you've been putting forth do not separate
the two. You see someone driving and that's good enough to treat them
poorly, in the theme of group think.
>> CM is not
>> doing any good. It just convinces drivers who weren't a problem that
>> bicyclists deserve to be treated poorly.
>> Your 'us' vs. 'them' view simply creates a condition of perpetual 'war'.
> It's hardly an us vs them view. Or maybe it is, when people
> think in terms of who has more right to the urban streets by
> dint of the size & weight and killing capacity of their vehicles.
> I wish it wasn't us vs. them, I wish it was just "us".
> As my grandmother would say: "If wishes were horses,
> beggars would ride."
Your justifications are "us vs. them"
>> The problem drivers never vanish, the 'need' for bicycle activism
>> never disappears because CM and others are out there agitating people
>> who weren't a problem. Find some bees that were minding their own
>> business out in the woods not bothering you and wack their hive with a
>> stick because some bee stung you once.. That's essentially what CM is
>> doing.
> No, it's much more than that.
The roving party/carnival is not material to the discussion.
>> Pissing off lots of drivers to get back at a minority of the
>> them. It's stupid unless you're in the activism business and need to
>> keep an enemy around.
> AISI, Critical Mass doesn't want enemies.
And yet it goes out of its way to make them.
>> If you really want to piss off the problem drivers, the thing to do is
>> ride 100% to the vehicle code.
> If you really want to piss of a bunch of your fellow
> human beans, the thing to do is drive a car in such
> a manner that cuts them off from where they need to go.
LOL. And you think the half hour and longer traffic jams created by CM's
parade ignoring the red signals doesn't do that? They are making
enemies. You've de-humanized the person in the motor vehicle, classic.
> I guess you don't even relate to the effect car drivers
> have at intersections, where pedestrians should have the
> right to go, but you're selfishly blocking their paths.
> Or worse yet, threatening to run 'em over in right-on-red
> jurisdictions.
I'm often the pedestrian. DUh. I had one guy stop his car and get out
because I didn't yield to grand-marquis.... lol... he was like 80 years
old too... then his brain started to function and decided it wasn't good
to pick a fight with someone bigger than him and less than half his age
and doesn't need a moving living room to get from A to B.
>>> I encourage you to consider the societal effects
>>> of your own urban car-driving. You get to go,
>>> and life is good. But you're in a stream of urban
>>> car traffic that keeps non-driving others from being
>>> able to cross the street you're on, so they could get
>>> to the shops they want to patronize.
>> Lol. And one can just walk through a stream of bicyclists?
> Actually, one can, and much more easily than through a
> stream of MV drivers.
Nope. There's a reason you're not supposed to ride on sidewalks.
>> One's like CM
>> who don't even stop for red signals?
> Ooh, you missed a light cycle? Heaven forbid.
> That's what those goddam Emergency Response
> Vehicles do to traffic, too (they cause you to
> miss a light cycle.)
> The horror. The horror.
> Especially on the last Friday of the month
> when yer impatiently lookin' forward to
> seafood 'n nookie after work. Precious
> seconds are lost.
> As my Filipino friends say: "Life is hard." <shrug>
And you wonder why you aren't greeted with love and kisses. Guess what,
those are similiar sentiments expressed by the drivers who've tried to
run me off the road and done other aggressive asshatery towards me while
I bike. It's the same thing... right down to the belitting of someone
not wanting to be delayed. Heaven forbid CM have to wait at a red
signal.... Many an assholish motorist figures since I am on a bicycle
that my time is meaningless. They gun it around me, slam on the brakes
and then don't accelerate when the light turns green. Like you say, CM
is a 'mirror' it's a mirror of assholes. Pissing off motorists who
aren't a problem to bicyclists. But later they may decided to mirror
CM's assholishness. I've encountered those people on the road. They feel
that treating me poorly as I bike is justified because some asshole on a
bicycle wronged them. Probably because some motorist wronged him.
Endless cycle. Perpetual war because of group think.
Tom Keats
Brent P <tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> writes:
I don't wanna kiss you (or anyone) right now,
and I feel too good to argue. But I like & respect
you. I pretty much like & respect everybody.
Life is hard, but life is also good.
Not just when we recognize the goodness of life
for ourselves, but for other people.
Goodness Of Life is for people to have so we
can share it with each other, like in a global
picnic, and be drawn closer together, and work
together toward improving each others' lots.
(Yikes, I'm startin' to sound like a Rebbi!
Oh, well.)
The other option is dark and evil.
I prefer to avoid those squalid quarters.
That's why I've always refused to drive.
I consider myself blessed by not having
had to subjucate myself to, and suffer that
ignonimy of having stuff that works for /me/,
while simultaneously working against others.
Assholes often have people attached to 'em.
I like people.
It would appear our attitudes differ a little.
Oh, well.
Brent P
> It would appear our attitudes differ a little.
> Oh, well.
You think that it's just 'revenge' to treat people badly based on them
looking like other people that treated you badly and I do not.
Tom Keats
No I don't. And I'm not into treating people badly.
WTH does that come from?
Revenge is just a bunch o' barbaric razzmatazz.
We all know that.
FWIW I don't want to treat
anyone badly.
Do /you/ want to treat anyone badly?
I don't think you do.
But you sure have a hair up your ass about
percieved [mis]deeds of other people.
You should lighten up. All car drivers should.
Life is hard <shrug> ;-)
PK
news:e1ud1g...@vcn.bc.ca...
>
> You should lighten up. All car drivers should.
interesting generalization, ...." all car drivers....."?
pk
Brent P
> In article <evOdnfF_rJNuqqfV...@comcast.com>,
> Brent P <tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> writes:
>> On 2008-05-26, Tom Keats <tkeat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> It would appear our attitudes differ a little.
>>> Oh, well.
>>
>> You think that it's just 'revenge' to treat people badly based on them
>> looking like other people that treated you badly and I do not.
>
> No I don't. And I'm not into treating people badly.
> WTH does that come from?
You've endorsed 'mirroring' the worst behavior of motorists on all
motorists.
> You should lighten up. All car drivers should.
You should grow a clue.
Tom Keats
Brent P <tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> writes:
> On 2008-05-26, Tom Keats <tkeat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> In article <evOdnfF_rJNuqqfV...@comcast.com>,
>> Brent P <tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>> On 2008-05-26, Tom Keats <tkeat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It would appear our attitudes differ a little.
>>>> Oh, well.
>>>
>>> You think that it's just 'revenge' to treat people badly based on them
>>> looking like other people that treated you badly and I do not.
>>
>> No I don't. And I'm not into treating people badly.
>> WTH does that come from?
>
> You've endorsed 'mirroring' the worst behavior of motorists on all
> motorists.
>
>> You should lighten up. All car drivers should.
>
>
> You should grow a clue.
I've already grown several.
The primary one is that I like people,
and don't consider 'em as enemies or
out to deliberately sabotage my lines
of travel.
It is you carheads who coined the
self-applied MFFY acronym. And
rightly so. Perhaps that's something
to ponder.
Selfishness is the worst behaviour of anybody.
"Mirroring" is just a lame rationalization for
selfishness.
Y'know why we have laws? It's because so many
people are selfish. It's an innate human flaw
that will ultimately cause our demise. We're
all a bunch of self-serving, disgusting pigs.
Unless we make the effort to not be so.
Matthew T. Russotto
Tom Keats <tomk...@bud.garden.local> wrote:
>
>The primary one is that I like people,
>and don't consider 'em as enemies or
>out to deliberately sabotage my lines
>of travel.
>Y'know why we have laws? It's because so many
>people are selfish. It's an innate human flaw
>that will ultimately cause our demise. We're
>all a bunch of self-serving, disgusting pigs.
Yeah. A real lover of humanity you are.
Brent P
> The primary one is that I like people,
> and don't consider 'em as enemies or
> out to deliberately sabotage my lines
> of travel.
Yet you consider it perfectly acceptable to piss other people off
because they don't do as you do.
> It is you carheads who coined the
> self-applied MFFY acronym. And
> rightly so. Perhaps that's something
> to ponder.
"carheads" This paragraph demonstrates you were lying in the previous
one.
> Selfishness is the worst behaviour of anybody.
> "Mirroring" is just a lame rationalization for
> selfishness.
Your argument was that CM is 'mirroring'. Now you go against your own
argument. You are appearing more like a troll with every post Tom.
> Y'know why we have laws? It's because so many
> people are selfish. It's an innate human flaw
> that will ultimately cause our demise. We're
> all a bunch of self-serving, disgusting pigs.
> Unless we make the effort to not be so.
CM should follow the vehicle code wrt right of way.