This newsgroup dominated by anti-cyclists.
Doug
proof.
--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
One man's newsgroup is another man's censorship.
mileburner
"Doug" <jag...@riseup.net> wrote in message
news:28aa43bb-665d-4539...@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> You haver only to see all those 'Cyclists above the law ' threads as
> proof.
Due to cross-posting with uk.transport and uk.rec.driving.
In both groups drivers are beyond reproach and cyclists considered scum.
webreader
But Doug, as you dominate & infest this NG, that means you are an anti-
cyclist.
WSR
Mike P
Only by a select few, and they're making themselves pretty obvious.
Please don't include us all in that. I've nothing against cyclists,
and I cycle regularly. I do prefer cars, but that's just me..
Mike P
Happi Monday
> You haver only to see all those 'Cyclists above the law ' threads as
> proof.
If you have a problem with it, you can fuck off to the other place.
NM
Glad to see you have you have grasped reality at last.
soup
> You haver only to see all those 'Cyclists above the law ' threads as
> proof.
Oh do be brief, not all those posts are anti-cycle or anti-cyclist or
whatever. How does the size of a thread show anything?
Doug
think they can dominate and oppress cyclists here as they do on our
roads they can think again. Suggest all cyclists reading this join
Critical Mass to help win back our roads.
--
Critical Mass London
http://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk
"Whose roads? Our roads!"
Doug
> On Dec 3, 4:19 pm, Doug <jag...@riseup.net> wrote:
>
> > You haver only to see all those 'Cyclists above the law ' threads as
> > proof.
>
>
> cyclist.
>
Top posters
This month
70 milebur...@btinternet.com
64 davidl...@nospamblueyonder.co.uk
52 pe...@plgrange.demon.co.uk
50 toomany2...@gmail.com
33 j...@noparticularplacetogo.com
32 co...@gmx.co.uk
29 jag...@riseup.net
28
23
18 nik.mor...@mac.com
--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
Tony Dragon
Do you have the figures for threads started?
--
Tony Dragon
Doug
soup
> soup wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> You haver only to see all those 'Cyclists above the law ' threads as
>>> proof.
>> Oh do be brief, not all those posts are anti-cycle or anti-cyclist or
>> whatever. How does the size of a thread show anything?
> The title of the very numerous repetitive threads says it all.
One (possibly two)complete nutter(s) continually posts his(their)
"anti-cyclist" viewpoint(s) (and some very incorrect 'facts') each time
he(they) posts lots of people post to disagree with him(them). That to
my mind says, many times, more people in that thread are pro cyclist
than anti-cyclist. Not the size of the thread shows how
anti-cyclist(even given its title)the thread is.
Oh btw your sig is STILL borked .
Doug
crossposted from uk.rec.driving and uk.transport, both of which are
notorious for being completely dominated by motorists. Clearly these
motorists are conducting a concerted Usenet campaign against cyclists.
--
World Carfree Network
http://www.worldcarfree.net/
Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.
The Medway Handyman
> On 3 Dec, 16:35, "mileburner" <milebur...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> "Doug" <jag...@riseup.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:28aa43bb-665d-4539...@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> You haver only to see all those 'Cyclists above the law ' threads as
>>> proof.
>>
>> Due to cross-posting with uk.transport and uk.rec.driving.
>>
>> In both groups drivers are beyond reproach and cyclists considered
>> scum.
>>
> I might have known they would be behind this Usenet abuse. If they
> think they can dominate and oppress cyclists here as they do on our
> roads they can think again. Suggest all cyclists reading this join
> Critical Mass to help win back our roads.
What do you mean 'your' roads you sponging freloader?
--
Dave - The Tax Paying Motorist
The Medway Handyman
> You haver only to see all those 'Cyclists above the law ' threads as
> proof.
Assuming that this is a newsgroup to 'discuss' cycling, what makes you think
it should always be pro cycling?
--
Dave - the small piece of 14th century armour used to protect the armpit.
Doug
<davidl...@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > You haver only to see all those 'Cyclists above the law ' threads as
> > proof.
>
> Assuming that this is a newsgroup to 'discuss' cycling, what makes you think
> it should always be pro cycling?
>
plenty of scope for criticising cyclists on the several motoring and
transport newsgroups without it also spilling over into a cycling
newsgroup. It is perfectly obvious that motorists are using this
newsgroup as an additional platform to vent their considerable spleen
against cyclists, who they no doubt regard as healthier and less
restricted competition, while conveniently ignoring the lower road
status and greater risk imposed on cyclists.
Mr. Benn
news:fd305ea8-3e23-4b7b...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com:
> On 1 Jan, 14:10, "The Medway Handyman"
> <davidl...@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>> > You haver only to see all those 'Cyclists above the law ' threads
>> > as proof.
>>
>> Assuming that this is a newsgroup to 'discuss' cycling, what makes
>> you think it should always be pro cycling?
>>
> I would rather put it as it should be 'less anti-cycling'.
There is already a censored pro-cycling newsgroup. Go and use it and stop
whining.
Tony Dragon
For those who require a translation.
"I am not allowed to post to the moderated group, so I will continue to
rant about motorists on this NG. I have already decided that if a person
cycles & also drives a car, he is not a real cyclist, so as one who can
not now drive I now consider myself above all overs & my words shall not
be argued with"
--
Tony Dragon
JNugent
> On 1 Jan, 14:10, "The Medway Handyman"
> <davidl...@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> You haver only to see all those 'Cyclists above the law ' threads as
>>> proof.
>> Assuming that this is a newsgroup to 'discuss' cycling, what makes you think
>> it should always be pro cycling?
>>
> I would rather put it as it should be 'less anti-cycling'. There is
> plenty of scope for criticising cyclists on the several motoring and
> transport newsgroups without it also spilling over into a cycling
> newsgroup.
What would be the point in that?
Doug
overlook is that most of those converted are here already on URC, they
drive cars and some just happen to cycle a bit. If your goal is to
wind-up the few dedicated cyclists here then I suppose you will have
some success but they seem to be very few in number. Hardly any of
them approve of Critical Mass for example so they are already half-way
on the side of motorists even if they don't drive themselves.
--
Critical Mass London
http://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk
"Get out of my way you f*ing cyclist"
Tony Dragon
There you have it, you can't be a cyclist unless you approve of CM.
Doug, have you ever wondered why the cyclists on this NG don't think CM
is a good idea, perhaps they don't like the idea of being inconsiderate
to other people, perhaps the know that CM does nothing to help cyclists
in fact just the opposite.
--
Tony Dragon
Doug
> Doug wrote:
> > On 2 Jan, 12:29, JNugent <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
> >> Doug wrote:
> >>> On 1 Jan, 14:10, "The Medway Handyman"
> >>> <davidl...@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> >>>> Doug wrote:
> >>>>> You haver only to see all those 'Cyclists above the law ' threads as
> >>>>> proof.
> >>>> Assuming that this is a newsgroup to 'discuss' cycling, what makes you think
> >>>> it should always be pro cycling?
> >>> I would rather put it as it should be 'less anti-cycling'. There is
> >>> plenty of scope for criticising cyclists on the several motoring and
> >>> transport newsgroups without it also spilling over into a cycling
> >>> newsgroup.
> >> What would be the point in that?
>
> > Yes it would be preaching to the converted but what you seem to
> > overlook is that most of those converted are here already on URC, they
> > drive cars and some just happen to cycle a bit. If your goal is to
> > wind-up the few dedicated cyclists here then I suppose you will have
> > some success but they seem to be very few in number. Hardly any of
> > them approve of Critical Mass for example so they are already half-way
> > on the side of motorists even if they don't drive themselves.
>
>
>
> Doug, have you ever wondered why the cyclists on this NG don't think CM
> is a good idea, perhaps they don't like the idea of being inconsiderate
> to other people, perhaps the know that CM does nothing to help cyclists
> in fact just the opposite.
>
and experience cyclists as little more than an impediment to their
driving and/or they don't like being political and/or they are
complacent and compliant and don't want to challenge authority. To
name a few other possibilities.
--
Critical Mass London
http://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk
"We aren't blocking traffic, we are traffic".
Tony Dragon
My version is more likely.
--
Tony Dragon
Doug
>
And you think that most here are political and natural rebels against
authority? I have to tell you that if a majority of posts to this NG
are anything to go by then you are completely wrong.
--
Critical Mass London
http://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk
Tony Dragon
I think it very likely that many cyclists (in fact most) on this NG use
cars. I also think that most cyclists on this NG are probably
considerate riders (if the posts are anything to go by)
Also many cyclists on this NG have criticised CM as they think it does
nothing to help normal cycling. CM has many in its mass who are there
just to be antagonistic to other road users, probably to provoke a
negative response.
--
Tony Dragon
Doug
called cyclists on this NG use cars, which would naturally give them a
biased perspective against CM since some of its participants are anti-
car, or more accurately opposed to our grossly excessive mass car use
with all it harm and pollution to society and the environment.
--
Critical Mass London
http://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk
"More bikes, fewer cars!".
Tony Dragon
I have never said that so-called cyclists on this NG did not use cars.
I also think the term 'so called cyclists' is insulting to the vast
majority of cyclists. Yet again you try to judge cyclists who also drive
by inferring that they are not cyclists. What about a person who has to
drive at work, doesn't own a car, but cycles in his personal life, is he
a 'so-called motorist'?
Now you have told us that CM riders are not 'so-called cyclists' so that
must mean that they don't use a car.
Therefore everybody riding in CM does not use a car, how do you know
this, is it correct?
--
Tony Dragon
Doug
cyclists on a cycling newsgroup ad nauseum. There is plenty to suppose
that it is mainly drivers here who do it.
>
> Now you have told us that CM riders are not 'so-called cyclists' so that
> must mean that they don't use a car.
> Therefore everybody riding in CM does not use a car, how do you know
> this, is it correct?
>
participants are alike and have an identical agenda. While some may be
anti-car, others instead might just want to celebrate cycling, or like
having the company on a ride, or feel more secure in a mass, etc.
Tony Dragon
I think that if you check the posts on this NG, the majority of cyclists
will 'slag off' cyclists who act in a stupid & inconsiderate way.
Would you do the same?
--
Tony Dragon
Jeremy Parker
"Doug" <jag...@riseup.net> wrote
[snip]
> The difference is that real cyclists don't keep on slagging off
> other
> cyclists on a cycling newsgroup ad nauseum.
[snip]
Indeed. Whether one is real, or merely a malfunctioning Turing test
machine, that would be a good rule to have built into one's software.
Jeremy Parker
Jeremy Parker
"Doug" <jag...@riseup.net> wrote
[snip][snip]
>> I think it very likely that many cyclists (in fact most) on this
>> NG use
>> cars. I also think that most cyclists on this NG are probably
>> considerate riders (if the posts are anything to go by)
>> Also many cyclists on this NG have criticised CM as they think it
>> does
>> nothing to help normal cycling. CM has many in its mass who are
>> there
>> just to be antagonistic to other road users, probably to provoke a
>> negative response.
>>
> I am glad you have agreed with me and finally admitted that most
> so-
> called cyclists on this NG use cars, which would naturally give
> them a
> biased perspective against CM since some of its participants are
> anti-
> car, or more accurately opposed to our grossly excessive mass car
> use
> with all it harm and pollution to society and the environment.
My slogan is "A critical mass is one bike". After all, one bike
riding among the other traffic is all it takes to show that riding a
bike is not only possible, but fast and fun as well.
Think how much more effective a critical mass demo' would be if it
broke up into a hundred separate demo's, making themselves visible to
so many more motorists, pedestrians, bus riders etc. If only we could
convince the critical mass participants to restrain themselves, and
start off thirty seconds apart.
Actually, hundreds of thousands of cyclists in London seem already to
have adopted my strategy, usually picking the height of the rush hour
to do it.
If, for you, cycling is not fast and fun, the problem lies with you,
not the system. Training is now readily available, subsidised or
even free. Of course, one is nervous trying anything new, but this
passes. It's rather frightening driving a car at first, of course,
but people persist, because they know it's worth it. Those people
who refuse to adopt the same tactics for cycling, unless they were
terrorised by those whom I call the dangerizers, just don't think
riding a bike is worth it.
One thing is certain. Those who spend their time dangerizing cycling
cannot be called friends of cycling
Jeremy Parker
Doug
> will 'slag off' cyclists who act in a stupid & inconsiderate way.
> Would you do the same?
>
pose a serious physical threat to cyclists. Other cyclists are rarely
a threat or even a nuisance to me.
--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.
Tony Dragon
So that would be a 'no I will not criticize cyclists who act in a stupid
& inconsiderate way.'
Why not? I and most on this NG would criticize any road user who acts in
that way, but then perhaps we are not bigoted & blinkered.
--
Tony Dragon
Doug
> & inconsiderate way.'
>
obviously makes more sense to criticise the most dangerous first and
foremost.
>
> Why not? I and most on this NG would criticize any road user who acts in
> that way, but then perhaps we are not bigoted & blinkered.
>
cyclists is negligible compared to that of motorists.
Tony Dragon
So you applaud antisocial cyclists, how quaint.
--
Tony Dragon
Doug
>
killing and seriously injuring people? Do you applaud antisocial
motorists then?
Tony Dragon
To put the question to you again "the majority of cyclists will 'slag
off' cyclists who act in a stupid & inconsiderate way. Would you do the
same?"
If it helps replace 'slag off' with criticise.
--
Tony Dragon
Jeremy Parker
I couldn't possibly comment on what dominates this newsgroup.
Whatever it is, though, inspired the creation of an alternative
Jeremy Parker
Doug
> off' cyclists who act in a stupid & inconsiderate way. Would you do the
> same?"
> If it helps replace 'slag off' with criticise.
>
motorists instead as they are much more dangerous than cyclists.
Tony Dragon
So that would be a 'no' then.
--
Tony Dragon
Doug
>
particularly on a cycling newsgroup, when I can criticise stupid and
inconsiderate motorists instead, who are much, much more dangerous?
Tony Dragon
So that would still be a 'no' then.
--
Tony Dragon
Doug
>
Tony Dragon
I can read very well, what I have read to the question
"the majority of cyclists will 'slag off'/ criticise cyclists who act in
a stupid & inconsiderate way. Would you do the same?"
You answered "I prefer to slag off motorists instead*
Which means that you will not criticise such cyclists, simple really.
--
Tony Dragon
Ian Smith
> Doug wrote:
> >>
> > Try learning to read properly.
>
> "the majority of cyclists will 'slag off'/ criticise cyclists who act in
> a stupid & inconsiderate way. Would you do the same?"
> You answered "I prefer to slag off motorists instead*
>
> Which means that you will not criticise such cyclists, simple really.
He is a berk, but you make yourself look just as much a prat by
claiming that his failing to answer the question proves what the
answer would be.
He didn't answer the question. Nothing more.
You claiming this means something he didn't say just makes you look as
incoherent and unhinged as him. It's the classic 'never argue with an
idiot" scenario.
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
Tony Dragon
Unhinged, unhinged, I'll have you know my hinges are working correctly sir.
Mind you, you are correct, but I was using DougLogic(tm).
The chances of getting a direct answer from him after he has backed
himself in a corner, are very slim, but I can hope.
--
Tony Dragon
Doug
> "the majority of cyclists will 'slag off'/ criticise cyclists who act in
> a stupid & inconsiderate way. Would you do the same?"
> You answered "I prefer to slag off motorists instead*
>
> Which means that you will not criticise such cyclists, simple really.
>
response is not the unqualified no which you were hoping for and
relying on.
Tony Dragon
Actually I was hoping for a yes, but your lack of a clear answer is noted.
--
Tony Dragon
Doug
>
demand for 'yes/no' answers, which seems to be a speciality of yours.
--
Car Free Cities
http://www.carfree.com/
Carfree Cities proposes a delightful solution
to the vexing problem of urban automobiles.
webreader
> Carfree Cities proposes a delightful solution
> to the vexing problem of urban automobiles.
Give up Tony, you've asked him a simple question that because of his
stupid 'the cyclist is allways right' views, he can't/wont answer.
And before he claims that I am not a 'real cyclist', 'killer
motorist', 'closet motorist' or whatever, I will say 'I will 'slag
off'/ criticise cyclists who act in
a stupid & inconsiderate way', in fact any road user who does that.
WSR
Tony Dragon
I will just accept it as you say, but remember he has not said that he
would criticise said cyclists.
--
Tony Dragon