On the last Critical Mass ride in London some police dressed in
overalls not only attacked riders but told motorists to drive straight
at the cyclists to "Make them get out of their way". Is this the sort
of behaviour we have come to accept from our police?

--
Critical Mass London
http://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk
"We aren't blocking traffic, we are traffic".

Another one for the killfile.  Bye duhg.

Guy
-- 
May contain traces of irony.  Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 00:27:10 -0700 (PDT), Doug 
wrote:

>On the last Critical Mass ride in London some police dressed in
>overalls not only attacked riders but told motorists to drive straight
>at the cyclists to "Make them get out of their way". Is this the sort
>of behaviour we have come to accept from our police?

Where did this quote from the police  ""Make them get out of their
way"" come from?

What are the objectives of the Critical Mass Ride - I do not believe
that they condone breaking the law do they?  Even if they do - that is
no reason for others to break it.




--   

If you're going to make snide insinuations about the author,
as you undoubtedly did, then you can fuck right off. (Guy Chapman)
If you are going to make accusations about someone, then you need to
be able to substantiate when asked to. (Judith Smith)

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 08:43:47 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?" thew
well known Psycholist  wrote:

>Another one for the killfile.  Bye duhg.
>
>Guy


Hello Guy:

As usual - nothing worthwhile to contribute on a relevant subject

(Have you found the snide comments yet?)


--   
I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
Some evidence shows that helmeted cyclists are more likely to hit
their  heads. (Guy Chapman)
I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy 
Chapman) - proven to be an outright lie.
He then quickly changed his web page - but "forgot" to change the date
of last amendment

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 09:46:42 +0100, judith wrote:

judith  wrote:

> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 00:27:10 -0700 (PDT), Doug 
> wrote:
> 
> >On the last Critical Mass ride in London some police dressed in
> >overalls not only attacked riders but told motorists to drive straight
> >at the cyclists to "Make them get out of their way". Is this the sort
> >of behaviour we have come to accept from our police?
> 
> Where did this quote from the police  ""Make them get out of their
> way"" come from?
> 
probably the daily hate knowing doug it's his favoured copy/paste.

have a wizz though uk.transport at doug it is his.

> What are the objectives of the Critical Mass Ride - I do not believe
> that they condone breaking the law do they?  Even if they do - that is
> no reason for others to break it.
> 
> 

roger
-- 
www.rogermerriman.com

On 30 Sep, 08:27, Doug  wrote:
> On the last Critical Mass ride in London some police dressed in
> overalls not only attacked riders but told motorists to drive straight
> at the cyclists to "Make them get out of their way". Is this the sort
> of behaviour we have come to accept from our police?
>
> --
> Critical Mass Londonhttp://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk
> "We aren't blocking traffic, we are traffic".

I wonder why they did that?

To quote from the above website:

"What kind of *dickhead* doesn't get out the way of an ambulance with
flashing lights? "

Followups set to uk.transport

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 11:38:51 GMT, _
 wrote:

>On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 09:46:42 +0100, judith wrote:


I'll tell you what sunshine - if you do not want to see the total
demise of this group  like you have never experienced before, I would
stop your silly game now.

Let's set the deadline for stopping by the end of tomorrow.

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 14:00:00 +0100
judith  wrote:

> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 11:38:51 GMT, _
>  wrote:
> 
> >On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 09:46:42 +0100, judith wrote:
> 
> 
> I'll tell you what sunshine - if you do not want to see the total
> demise of this group  like you have never experienced before, I would
> stop your silly game now.
> 
> Let's set the deadline for stopping by the end of tomorrow.
> 
> 
> 
Oh do fuck off, you pathetic little excuse for a person.

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 15:51:09 +0100, Rob Morley 
said in <20080930155109.42238d1a@bluemoon>:

>> Let's set the deadline for stopping by the end of tomorrow.
>Oh do fuck off, you pathetic little excuse for a person.

Oh I don't know - if judith is setting the deadline for stopping her
incessant trolling as the end of tomorrow, I suspect most of us will
be quite content.

Guy
-- 
May contain traces of irony.  Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 15:55:58 +0100
"Just zis Guy, you know?"  wrote:

> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 15:51:09 +0100, Rob Morley 
> said in <20080930155109.42238d1a@bluemoon>:
> 
> >> Let's set the deadline for stopping by the end of tomorrow.
> >Oh do fuck off, you pathetic little excuse for a person.
> 
> Oh I don't know - if judith is setting the deadline for stopping her
> incessant trolling as the end of tomorrow, I suspect most of us will
> be quite content.
> 
I'm oblivious to it unless I purposely look through the messages that
automatically get marked as read, so it makes no difference to the way
I use the group.  If the more prolific troll feeders were to do the
same then any deadline would be as irrelevant to them as it is to me.
As it is I suspect we're heading for a sporge attack, which will cause
more annoyance for those who don't know how to deal with it.

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 16:09:09 +0100, Rob Morley 
said in <20080930160909.0ea5a0d3@bluemoon>:

>I'm oblivious to it unless I purposely look through the messages that
>automatically get marked as read, so it makes no difference to the way
>I use the group.  If the more prolific troll feeders were to do the
>same then any deadline would be as irrelevant to them as it is to me.
>As it is I suspect we're heading for a sporge attack, which will cause
>more annoyance for those who don't know how to deal with it.

True, but if she does that she will likely be LARTed from her
provider.

Guy
-- 
May contain traces of irony.  Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 15:51:09 +0100, Rob Morley 
wrote:

>On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 14:00:00 +0100
>judith  wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 11:38:51 GMT, _
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> >On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 09:46:42 +0100, judith wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> I'll tell you what sunshine - if you do not want to see the total
>> demise of this group  like you have never experienced before, I would
>> stop your silly game now.
>> 
>> Let's set the deadline for stopping by the end of tomorrow.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>Oh do fuck off, you pathetic little excuse for a person.


Many thanks for your contribution.

Please can you explain why you think that it is ok for Taylor to
intentionally disrupt/censor what I or others post.

I have no problem with people putting me in a kill-file who do not
want to read what I say - but I will not accept intentional censoring
of my posts by a third party net-nazi.  I assume you condone his
actions?

Noun - Psycholist

The word "troll" is in common usage in usenet.  However, the
psycholists have adopted it for their own use to apply to anyone who
disagrees with their ingrained and irrational views.  This enables
them to say "ignore him - he is a troll" when faced with facts which
are too unpalatable for the psycholist to contemplate - never mind
discuss in a sensible fashion

--   
I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
Some evidence shows that helmeted cyclists are more likely to hit
their  heads. (Guy Chapman)
I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy 
Chapman) - proven to be an outright lie.
He then quickly changed his web page - but "forgot" to change the date
of last amendment

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 15:55:58 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
 wrote:

>On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 15:51:09 +0100, Rob Morley 
>said in <20080930155109.42238d1a@bluemoon>:
>
>>> Let's set the deadline for stopping by the end of tomorrow.
>>Oh do fuck off, you pathetic little excuse for a person.
>
>Oh I don't know - if judith is setting the deadline for stopping her
>incessant trolling as the end of tomorrow, I suspect most of us will
>be quite content.
>
>Guy


Why thank you Guy - there is a difference to posting messages  - under
my correct e-mail address - which anyone can filter on and decide not
to read for themselves.  I will however not accept the effective
censoring which Taylor is doing.



The word "troll" is in common usage in usenet.  However, the
psycholists have adopted it for their own use to apply to anyone who
disagrees with their ingrained and irrational views.  This enables
them to say "ignore him - he is a troll" when faced with facts which
are too unpalatable for the psycholist to contemplate - never mind
discuss in a sensible fashion




--   
I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
Some evidence shows that helmeted cyclists are more likely to hit
their  heads. (Guy Chapman)
I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy 
Chapman) - proven to be an outright lie.
He then quickly changed his web page - but "forgot" to change the date
of last amendment

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 16:13:12 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
 wrote:

>On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 16:09:09 +0100, Rob Morley 
>said in <20080930160909.0ea5a0d3@bluemoon>:
>
>>I'm oblivious to it unless I purposely look through the messages that
>>automatically get marked as read, so it makes no difference to the way
>>I use the group.  If the more prolific troll feeders were to do the
>>same then any deadline would be as irrelevant to them as it is to me.
>>As it is I suspect we're heading for a sporge attack, which will cause
>>more annoyance for those who don't know how to deal with it.
>
>True, but if she does that she will likely be LARTed from her
>provider.
>
>Guy


Why thank you Guy - I will take that as a challenge?

I fail to see why people here have difficulty in working a kill-file.

I am not doing anything other than post messages which some may object
to because they have their head up their arse and do not like
alternative views.


The word "troll" is in common usage in usenet.  However, the
psycholists have adopted it for their own use to apply to anyone who
disagrees with their ingrained and irrational views.  This enables
them to say "ignore him - he is a troll" when faced with facts which
are too unpalatable for the psycholist to contemplate - never mind
discuss in a sensible fashion


--   
I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
Some evidence shows that helmeted cyclists are more likely to hit
their  heads. (Guy Chapman)
I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy 
Chapman) - proven to be an outright lie.
He then quickly changed his web page - but "forgot" to change the date
of last amendment

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 05:11:07 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be NotMe
 wrote this:-

>On 30 Sep, 08:27, Doug  wrote:
>> On the last Critical Mass ride in London some police dressed in
>> overalls not only attacked riders but told motorists to drive straight
>> at the cyclists to "Make them get out of their way". Is this the sort
>> of behaviour we have come to accept from our police?
>>
>> --
>> Critical Mass Londonhttp://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk
>> "We aren't blocking traffic, we are traffic".
>
>I wonder why they did that?

Who did what>

>To quote from the above website:
>
>"What kind of *dickhead* doesn't get out the way of an ambulance with
>flashing lights? "

<http://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk>, or to be precise
<http://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk/main.html>, doesn't even have
the text "an ambulance" on the page, let alone the rest you have
claimed. If you want anyone to believe your claim why not provide a
link, so people may gauge the context?

Despite claims from certain individuals, the police and sections of
the mass media, Critical Mass rides do not block emergency vehicles,
those from the ambulance and fire services in general. Police
vehicles are often treated differently, as it is highly likely that
those inside them are up to no good.

It is far easier for a group of cyclists to clear a way for an
emergency vehicle than a group of motorists.

The claim that emergency vehicles have been blocked is a common
tactic, used against all sorts of people those inside the tent may
not be keen on. The claims of this sort that I have investigated all
failed to stand up to the simplest of scrutiny. Presumably the
approach of those who make them is that of Messers Goebbels,
Mandelson and Campbell, if a lie is repeated often enough some will
believe it.



-- 
  David Hansen, Edinburgh 
 I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

David Hansen wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 05:11:07 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be NotMe
>  wrote this:-
>
>> On 30 Sep, 08:27, Doug  wrote:
>>> On the last Critical Mass ride in London some police dressed in
>>> overalls not only attacked riders but told motorists to drive
>>> straight at the cyclists to "Make them get out of their way". Is
>>> this the sort of behaviour we have come to accept from our police?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Critical Mass Londonhttp://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk
>>> "We aren't blocking traffic, we are traffic".
>>
>> I wonder why they did that?
>
> Who did what>
>
>> To quote from the above website:
>>
>> "What kind of *dickhead* doesn't get out the way of an ambulance with
>> flashing lights? "
>
> <http://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk>, or to be precise
> <http://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk/main.html>, doesn't even have
> the text "an ambulance" on the page, let alone the rest you have
> claimed. If you want anyone to believe your claim why not provide a
> link, so people may gauge the context?
>
> Despite claims from certain individuals, the police and sections of
> the mass media, Critical Mass rides do not block emergency vehicles,
> those from the ambulance and fire services in general. Police
> vehicles are often treated differently, as it is highly likely that
> those inside them are up to no good.
>
> It is far easier for a group of cyclists to clear a way for an
> emergency vehicle than a group of motorists.
>
> The claim that emergency vehicles have been blocked is a common
> tactic, used against all sorts of people those inside the tent may
> not be keen on. The claims of this sort that I have investigated all
> failed to stand up to the simplest of scrutiny. Presumably the
> approach of those who make them is that of Messers Goebbels,
> Mandelson and Campbell, if a lie is repeated often enough some will
> believe it.

It's part of a game that too many parties play, if one can't kick the ball 
then kick the player. Few organisations are exempt.

On 30 Sep, 15:12, David Hansen 
wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 05:11:07 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be NotMe
>  wrote this:-
>
> >On 30 Sep, 08:27, Doug  wrote:
> >> On the last Critical Mass ride in London some police dressed in
> >> overalls not only attacked riders but told motorists to drive straight
> >> at the cyclists to "Make them get out of their way". Is this the sort
> >> of behaviour we have come to accept from our police?
>
> >> --
> >> Critical Mass Londonhttp://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk
> >> "We aren't blocking traffic, we are traffic".
>
> >I wonder why they did that?
>
> Who did what>
>
> >To quote from the above website:
>
> >"What kind of *dickhead* doesn't get out the way of an ambulance with
> >flashing lights? "
>
> <http://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk>, or to be precise
> <http://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk/main.html>, doesn't even have
> the text "an ambulance" on the page, let alone the rest you have
> claimed. If you want anyone to believe your claim why not provide a
> link, so people may gauge the context?

It's here:

http://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk/text/report27-9-08.html

I make no comment as to the veracity of the claims in there.

On Sep 30, 3:12 pm, David Hansen 
wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 05:11:07 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be NotMe
>  wrote this:-
>
> >On 30 Sep, 08:27, Doug  wrote:
> >> On the last Critical Mass ride in London some police dressed in
> >> overalls not only attacked riders but told motorists to drive straight
> >> at the cyclists to "Make them get out of their way". Is this the sort
> >> of behaviour we have come to accept from our police?
>
> >> --
> >> Critical Mass Londonhttp://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk
> >> "We aren't blocking traffic, we are traffic".
>
> >I wonder why they did that?
>
> Who did what>
>
> >To quote from the above website:
>
> >"What kind of *dickhead* doesn't get out the way of an ambulance with
> >flashing lights? "
>
> <http://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk>, or to be precise
> <http://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk/main.html>, doesn't even have
> the text "an ambulance" on the page, let alone the rest you have
> claimed. If you want anyone to believe your claim why not provide a
> link, so people may gauge the context?
>
> Despite claims from certain individuals, the police and sections of
> the mass media, Critical Mass rides do not block emergency vehicles,
> those from the ambulance and fire services in general.

So generally they don't but you accept it might have happened?

>  Police
> vehicles are often treated differently, as it is highly likely that
> those inside them are up to no good.

So its ok for a mob to decide what goes based upon personal dislike?

> It is far easier for a group of cyclists to clear a way for an
> emergency vehicle than a group of motorists.

If they want to get out of its way it would be easy.

> The claim that emergency vehicles have been blocked is a common
> tactic, used against all sorts of people those inside the tent may
> not be keen on. The claims of this sort that I have investigated all
> failed to stand up to the simplest of scrutiny.

Can you point us at any evidence of this type of behavior?

> Presumably the
> approach of those who make them is that of Messers Goebbels,
> Mandelson and Campbell, if a lie is repeated often enough some will
> believe it.
>

Wasn't one of their tactics to dismiss attacks on them by smearing
their attacker.  An example would be by trying to associate their
attacker with the Nazi's?  Which is what it seems to me that you are
doing here.

As an aside how can you decide which side to believe?  Indymedia and
Critical Mass are vested interest sites which don't have independent
editors.  People naturally side with people with the same interests of
them but that doesn't make such a group right.  And it shouldn't make
anyone above criticism for their actions.

Fod

On 30 Sep, 15:12, David Hansen 
wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 05:11:07 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be NotMe
>  wrote this:-
>
> >On 30 Sep, 08:27, Doug  wrote:
> >> On the last Critical Mass ride in London some police dressed in
> >> overalls not only attacked riders but told motorists to drive straight
> >> at the cyclists to "Make them get out of their way". Is this the sort
> >> of behaviour we have come to accept from our police?
>
> >> --
> >> Critical Mass Londonhttp://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk
> >> "We aren't blocking traffic, we are traffic".
>
> >I wonder why they did that?
>
> Who did what>

Why did the police allegedly say "Make them get out of their way"?,
was this to the ambulance driver?

> >To quote from the above website:
>
> >"What kind of *dickhead* doesn't get out the way of an ambulance with
> >flashing lights? "
>
> <http://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk>, or to be precise
> <http://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk/main.html>, doesn't even have
> the text "an ambulance" on the page, let alone the rest you have
> claimed. If you want anyone to believe your claim why not provide a
> link, so people may gauge the context?

Go to http://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk/main.html and scroll down
to the September 2008 critical mass, which is what Doug was talking
about. The very first link in that section, called reports 1, takes
you to http://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk/text/report27-9-08.html
where there are claims from a motorcyclist ambulance that the mass did
not get out of his way despite having flashing lights and a siren.

> Despite claims from certain individuals, the police and sections of
> the mass media, Critical Mass rides do not block emergency vehicles,
> those from the ambulance and fire services in general. Police
> vehicles are often treated differently, as it is highly likely that
> those inside them are up to no good.

It appears that this was not the case here.
How do you know the police are up to no good?
They could be attending a road collision involving a family member of
yours.

> It is far easier for a group of cyclists to clear a way for an
> emergency vehicle than a group of motorists.

So why didn't they?

On 30 Sep, 15:35, Fod  wrote:

> >  Police
> > vehicles are often treated differently, as it is highly likely that
> > those inside them are up to no good.
>
> So its ok for a mob to decide what goes based upon personal dislike?

Apparently so.  How hard would we all laugh if the incident the police
were attempting to respond to, but were unable to do so because of the
Critical Mass rally, involved either Gollum or Mr Hansen?

David Hansen wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 05:11:07 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be NotMe
>  wrote this:-
> 
>> On 30 Sep, 08:27, Doug  wrote:
>>> On the last Critical Mass ride in London some police dressed in
>>> overalls not only attacked riders but told motorists to drive straight
>>> at the cyclists to "Make them get out of their way". Is this the sort
>>> of behaviour we have come to accept from our police?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Critical Mass Londonhttp://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk
>>> "We aren't blocking traffic, we are traffic".
>> I wonder why they did that?
> 
> Who did what>
> 
>> To quote from the above website:
>>
>> "What kind of *dickhead* doesn't get out the way of an ambulance with
>> flashing lights? "
> 
> <http://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk>, or to be precise
> <http://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk/main.html>, doesn't even have
> the text "an ambulance" on the page, let alone the rest you have
> claimed. If you want anyone to believe your claim why not provide a
> link, so people may gauge the context?
> 
> Despite claims from certain individuals, the police and sections of
> the mass media, Critical Mass rides do not block emergency vehicles,
> those from the ambulance and fire services in general. Police
> vehicles are often treated differently, as it is highly likely that
> those inside them are up to no good.
> 
Why would that be so?

> It is far easier for a group of cyclists to clear a way for an
> emergency vehicle than a group of motorists.
> 
> The claim that emergency vehicles have been blocked is a common
> tactic, used against all sorts of people those inside the tent may
> not be keen on. The claims of this sort that I have investigated all
> failed to stand up to the simplest of scrutiny. Presumably the
> approach of those who make them is that of Messers Goebbels,
> Mandelson and Campbell, if a lie is repeated often enough some will
> believe it.
> 
> 
> 
That principle that if a lie is repeated often enough some will believe 
it is used on this NG often.

-- 
Tony the Dragon

BrianW  wrote:

> Apparently so.  How hard would we all laugh if the incident the police
> were attempting to respond to, but were unable to do so because of the
> Critical Mass rally, involved either Gollum or Mr Hansen?

Long and hard.

I have no doubt that both Bollum and Hansen expect the police to keep
them safe in their beds while indulging themselves in childish name
calling of the police because they think it makes them look "hard" or
"politically right on".

On 30 Sep, 09:46, judith  wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 00:27:10 -0700 (PDT), Doug 
> wrote:
>
> >On the last Critical Mass ride inLondonsomepolicedressed in
> >overalls not only attacked riders but told motorists to drive straight
> >at the cyclists to "Make them get out of their way". Is this the sort
> >of behaviour we have come to accept from ourpolice?
>
> Where did this quote from thepolice ""Make them get out of their
> way"" come from?
>
A witness. It is paraphrased from:

"One of them (SX836) was telling people to "just drive at them,
they'll get out of the way"!

> What are the objectives of the Critical Mass Ride - I do not believe
> that they condone breaking the law do they?  Even if they do - that is
> no reason for others to break it.
>
The objectives are many and varied, depending on the individual
participant. Some believe in adapting the law to suit the vulnerable
cyclist in a hostile environment while others think laws should all be
strictly obeyed despite the risks

--
Critical Mass London
http://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk
"We aren't blocking traffic, we are traffic".

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 16:13:36 +0100
judith  wrote:

> Please can you explain why you think that it is ok for Taylor to
> intentionally disrupt/censor what I or others post.

I know nothing about that, and care even less.
> 
> I have no problem with people putting me in a kill-file who do not
> want to read what I say - but I will not accept intentional censoring
> of my posts by a third party net-nazi.  I assume you condone his
> actions?
> 
Assume what you want.  I was responding to "if you do not want to see
the total demise of this group  like you have never experienced before,
I would stop your silly game now."  If you can't see the hypocrisy of
that, or the futility of your silly little crusade, or why people
generally seem to think you're a pointless irritating waste of
bandwidth, there's really not much point in continuing this discussion.

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008, NotMe wrote:

> On 30 Sep, 08:27, Doug  wrote:
>
>> On the last Critical Mass ride in London some police dressed in 
>> overalls not only attacked riders but told motorists to drive straight 
>> at the cyclists to "Make them get out of their way". Is this the sort 
>> of behaviour we have come to accept from our police?

Oh, Doug, did you really have to? *rolleyes*

> I wonder why they did that?
>
> To quote from the above website:
>
> "What kind of *dickhead* doesn't get out the way of an ambulance with
> flashing lights? "

That was a different incident. Cyclists (perhaps unwittingly, it was later 
reported) blocking an ambulance = dickheads. Police quite deliberately 
directing cars to drive directly into a mass of cyclists also = dickheads.

The dickheadedness of one group does not affect the dickheadedness of 
another.

Anyway, cabbies were the king dickheads that evening.

> Followups set to uk.transport

Set back to urc.

tom

-- 
Only the bagel has the correct aspect ratio.

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 16:52:29 +0100, Rob Morley 
wrote:

>On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 16:13:36 +0100
>judith  wrote:
>
>> Please can you explain why you think that it is ok for Taylor to
>> intentionally disrupt/censor what I or others post.
>
>I know nothing about that, and care even less.
>> 
>> I have no problem with people putting me in a kill-file who do not
>> want to read what I say - but I will not accept intentional censoring
>> of my posts by a third party net-nazi.  I assume you condone his
>> actions?
>> 
>Assume what you want.  I was responding to "if you do not want to see
>the total demise of this group  like you have never experienced before,
>I would stop your silly game now."  If you can't see the hypocrisy of
>that, or the futility of your silly little crusade, or why people
>generally seem to think you're a pointless irritating waste of
>bandwidth, there's really not much point in continuing this discussion.

So I should have just put up with Taylor's antics should I?

What would you have suggested I did?

Who appointed him as the group net-nazi?

Crusade? - what crusade?


--   

If you're going to make snide insinuations about the author,
as you undoubtedly did, then you can fuck right off. (Guy Chapman)
If you are going to make accusations about someone, then you need to
be able to substantiate when asked to. (Judith Smith)

"Rob Morley"  wrote in message 
news:20080930165229.1581fca2@bluemoon...
> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 16:13:36 +0100
> judith  wrote:
>
>> Please can you explain why you think that it is ok for Taylor to
>> intentionally disrupt/censor what I or others post.
>
> I know nothing about that, and care even less.
>>
>> I have no problem with people putting me in a kill-file who do not
>> want to read what I say - but I will not accept intentional censoring
>> of my posts by a third party net-nazi.  I assume you condone his
>> actions?
>>
> Assume what you want.

Heh. It's not as if she's being censored or disrupted - anybody is as free 
to ignore his posts as hers. If he was issuing cancels or posting personal 
details or being offensive, that would be different, but that's not 
happening.

On 30 Sep, 16:56, Tom Anderson  wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008, NotMe wrote:
> > On 30 Sep, 08:27, Doug  wrote:
>
> >> On the last Critical Mass ride in London some police dressed in
> >> overalls not only attacked riders but told motorists to drive straight
> >> at the cyclists to "Make them get out of their way". Is this the sort
> >> of behaviour we have come to accept from our police?
>
> Oh, Doug, did you really have to? *rolleyes*
>
> > I wonder why they did that?
>
> > To quote from the above website:
>
> > "What kind of *dickhead* doesn't get out the way of an ambulance with
> > flashing lights? "
>
> That was a different incident. Cyclists (perhaps unwittingly, it was later
> reported) blocking an ambulance = dickheads. Police quite deliberately
> directing cars to drive directly into a mass of cyclists also = dickheads.
>
> The dickheadedness of one group does not affect the dickheadedness of
> another.
>
The difference being that police are very powerful law enforcers who
should be setting a proper example.
>
> Anyway, cabbies were the king dickheads that evening.
>
The police were because they put several cyclists at serious risk by
telling motorists to ram them while physically assaulting others.
>
> > Followups set to uk.transport
>
> Set back to urc.
>
> tom
>


--
Critical Mass London
http://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk
"We aren't blocking traffic, we are traffic".

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 17:08:51 +0100
judith  wrote:

> So I should have just put up with Taylor's antics should I?

Yes.
> 
> What would you have suggested I did?

Killfile.
> 
> Who appointed him as the group net-nazi?

According to you people should be free to post their opinions, even
if others don't agree with it.  He says troll, you say nazi ...
> 
> Crusade? - what crusade?
> 
Trying to win pro-motorist/anti-cyclist arguments in a cycling
newsgroup.  This discussion is ended.

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 17:10:09 +0100, "Clive George"
 wrote:

>"Rob Morley"  wrote in message 
>news:20080930165229.1581fca2@bluemoon...
>> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 16:13:36 +0100
>> judith  wrote:
>>
>>> Please can you explain why you think that it is ok for Taylor to
>>> intentionally disrupt/censor what I or others post.
>>
>> I know nothing about that, and care even less.
>>>
>>> I have no problem with people putting me in a kill-file who do not
>>> want to read what I say - but I will not accept intentional censoring
>>> of my posts by a third party net-nazi.  I assume you condone his
>>> actions?
>>>
>> Assume what you want.
>
>Heh. It's not as if she's being censored or disrupted - anybody is as free 
>to ignore his posts as hers. If he was issuing cancels or posting personal 
>details or being offensive, that would be different, but that's not 
>happening. 
>


Perhaps then you can explain what precisely you thought he was doing -
and why?

--   

If you're going to make snide insinuations about the author,
as you undoubtedly did, then you can fuck right off. (Guy Chapman)
If you are going to make accusations about someone, then you need to
be able to substantiate when asked to. (Judith Smith)

judith wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 00:27:10 -0700 (PDT), Doug 
> wrote:
> 
>> On the last Critical Mass ride in London some police dressed in
>> overalls not only attacked riders but told motorists to drive straight
>> at the cyclists to "Make them get out of their way". Is this the sort
>> of behaviour we have come to accept from our police?
> 
> Where did this quote from the police  ""Make them get out of their
> way"" come from?
> 
> What are the objectives of the Critical Mass Ride - I do not believe
> that they condone breaking the law do they?  Even if they do - that is
> no reason for others to break it.


Troll V Troll

This should be worth watching

Rob Morley wrote:
> I know nothing about that, and care even less.
<snip>
> Assume what you want.  I was responding to "if you do not want to see
>  the total demise of this group  like you have never experienced
> before, I would stop your silly game now."  If you can't see the
> hypocrisy of that, or the futility of your silly little crusade, or
> why people generally seem to think you're a pointless irritating
> waste of bandwidth, there's really not much point in continuing this
> discussion.

As they say on Fark and other sorts of web forum ... "THIS"

You've summed up pretty much what I think of the current storm going on
on this group, specifically judith and Nuxx Bar. That is, I couldn't
care less about which is the one true faith regarding speed cameras,
cycle helmets or casualty statistics. It's the manner of presentation I
sigh and *facepalm* at ... the crossposting, the regular reposts of the 
same stuff, the childish foul language, the petty vendettas against 
individual group members. It's laughably lame, and I'd feel this way if 
judith was spamming the group to oppose cycle helmets, or if Nuxx Bar 
was frothing at the mouth about "murdering cagers" while advocating a 
campaign to put in more speed cameras.

Somebody called "Guy Chapman" once deceptively edited his webpage to win 
an argument about bicycle helmets?! I have no idea if this is true or
false, but it's clearly serious business that must be gotten to the
bottom of! There must be a formal sig-based enquiry! We won't stop until
the truth is exposed, the people deserve to know!

Maybe not everybody in the group knows that speed cameras murder
motorists yet? Well, I guess one had better post about it again. And
again, and again.

There are fruits and nuts on both sides of all these "exciting" debate
topics, with people sometimes coming away a little sore from arguments, 
and have been for years, but it's only recently that it's started 
getting so childish and spammy.

Either of you fine fellows following up with "But ... but ... HE STARTED
IT!!!" or "He does it too!!!" has missed the point in a very big way.
I'd like to think that usenet is slightly higher brow than a primary
school playground. Occasionally I read something in this group (and
others) that vexes me. Guess how I spend my subsequent time? I go to the 
pub, play video games, cook, read a book, go out for a walk or a bike 
ride ... anything that beats having your life revolve around a 
mouth-foaming usenet career. I'm momentarily deviating from this healthy 
habit because I think as a mostly-lurker I have a perspective that might 
help _everyone_ involved.

In conclusion; you'll get over it. If not, well, wallowing in bitterness
is more your loss than the group's; you can't write a killfile that
erases the burning hatred in your mind.

Regards,
Richard

> > "What kind of *dickhead* doesn't get out the way of an ambulance with
> > flashing lights? "
>
> That was a different incident. Cyclists (perhaps unwittingly, it was later
> reported) blocking an ambulance = dickheads.

The motorcyclist ambulance rider blocked himself in behind the cars
that were already stuck. He should have gone down the middle as the
cars weren't able to move. However, the mass had just ridden up the
wrong side of the road to get past a stationery line of traffic. This
is dickheadness, the CMers believe they have a God like rule to
disobey the rules of the road.

However, the police didn't turn up for the first time in God knows how
long, so I think the mass were pretty disobedient. If the cycle police
had been there, I doubt they'd have stood for the wrong side of the
road stuff.

Shortly after this, I f**ked off as I couldn't be arsed with it and
therefore missed the police "brutality". I think members of CM are
looking for an argument against the police rather than being a
friendly enjoyable ride (for example the Brompton mass ride I did the
next day). I always leave saying I'll never do it again.

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 17:32:55 +0100, Marc
 wrote:

>judith wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 00:27:10 -0700 (PDT), Doug 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> On the last Critical Mass ride in London some police dressed in
>>> overalls not only attacked riders but told motorists to drive straight
>>> at the cyclists to "Make them get out of their way". Is this the sort
>>> of behaviour we have come to accept from our police?
>> 
>> Where did this quote from the police  ""Make them get out of their
>> way"" come from?
>> 
>> What are the objectives of the Critical Mass Ride - I do not believe
>> that they condone breaking the law do they?  Even if they do - that is
>> no reason for others to break it.
>
>
>Troll V Troll
>
>This should be worth watching


Hello Round

Still got the interest in "spectator sports" I see.


--   

If you're going to make snide insinuations about the author,
as you undoubtedly did, then you can fuck right off. (Guy Chapman)
If you are going to make accusations about someone, then you need to
be able to substantiate when asked to. (Judith Smith)

"David Hansen"  wrote in message 
news:u7c4e4lmr9hpeu4g80q1la0t281mnqaobp@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 05:11:07 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be NotMe
>  wrote this:-
>
>>On 30 Sep, 08:27, Doug  wrote:
>>> On the last Critical Mass ride in London some police dressed in
>>> overalls not only attacked riders but told motorists to drive straight
>>> at the cyclists to "Make them get out of their way". Is this the sort
>>> of behaviour we have come to accept from our police?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Critical Mass Londonhttp://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk
>>> "We aren't blocking traffic, we are traffic".
>>
>>I wonder why they did that?
>
> Who did what>
>
>>To quote from the above website:
>>
>>"What kind of *dickhead* doesn't get out the way of an ambulance with
>>flashing lights? "
>
> <http://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk>, or to be precise
> <http://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk/main.html>, doesn't even have
> the text "an ambulance" on the page, let alone the rest you have
> claimed. If you want anyone to believe your claim why not provide a
> link, so people may gauge the context?

It's clearly here.

http://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk/text/report27-9-08.html

Duhg apologist are you?


> Despite claims from certain individuals, the police and sections of
> the mass media, Critical Mass rides do not block emergency vehicles,
> those from the ambulance and fire services in general. Police
> vehicles are often treated differently, as it is highly likely that
> those inside them are up to no good.

Well, I hope it's your house that's being robbed, or you that's being 
attacked and soundly beaten, next time your mates decide to block the police 
vehicles.

> It is far easier for a group of cyclists to clear a way for an
> emergency vehicle than a group of motorists.

Well why didn't they then, the cunts?

> The claim that emergency vehicles have been blocked is a common
> tactic, used against all sorts of people those inside the tent may
> not be keen on. The claims of this sort that I have investigated all
> failed to stand up to the simplest of scrutiny.

Well, it's even on a CM site that they did block an ambulance. I don't know 
who I believe less, you or them.

>Presumably the
> approach of those who make them is that of Messers Goebbels,
> Mandelson and Campbell, if a lie is repeated often enough some will
> believe it.

Sounds just like yourself and Duhg, repeating the same old shite over and 
over again.

Mike P

On 30 Sep, 16:24, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> BrianW  wrote:
> > Apparently so.  How hard would we all laugh if the incident the police
> > were attempting to respond to, but were unable to do so because of the
> > Critical Mass rally, involved either Gollum or Mr Hansen?
>
> Long and hard.
>
> I have no doubt that both Bollum and Hansen expect the police to keep
> them safe in their beds while indulging themselves in childish name
> calling of the police because they think it makes them look "hard" or
> "politically right on".

Quite.  I am well aware that the police are capable of breaking the
law, using excessive force and otherwise generally misbehaving, but to
suggest that people should not get out of the way of a police vehicle
with its lights flashing because "it is highly likely that those
inside them are up to no good" is one of the most ludicrous things
I've heard in a long time.  Even on this newsgroup.

BrianW  gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

> Quite.  I am well aware that the police are capable of breaking the law,
> using excessive force and otherwise generally misbehaving, but to
> suggest that people should not get out of the way of a police vehicle
> with its lights flashing because "it is highly likely that those inside
> them are up to no good" is one of the most ludicrous things I've heard
> in a long time.  Even on this newsgroup.

Particularly because the article in question makes it clear that it was a 
paramedic on a motorbike.

On Sep 30, 3:46 pm, NotMe  wrote:
> On 30 Sep, 15:12, David Hansen 
> wrote:
>
> > Despite claims from certain individuals, the police and sections of
> > the mass media, Critical Mass rides do not block emergency vehicles,
> > those from the ambulance and fire services in general. Police
> > vehicles are often treated differently, as it is highly likely that
> > those inside them are up to no good.
>
> It appears that this was not the case here.

Given that the report is from a Critical Mass rider who directly
talked to the ambulance driver surely it has as much credibility as
anything else claimed by Critical Mass on the website?

Fod

"Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:1io38bv.1p6iqf69bimleN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
>
> I have no doubt that both Bollum and Hansen expect the police to keep
> them safe in their beds while indulging themselves in childish name
> calling of the police because they think it makes them look "hard" or
> "politically right on".

What on earth are you going on about ?

its sad when dementia sets in

Poor Filth

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 18:19:52 +0100, Richard Thrippleton
 said in <gbtn3o$s3$1@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk>:

>Somebody called "Guy Chapman" once deceptively edited his webpage to win 
>an argument about bicycle helmets?! I have no idea if this is true or
>false, but it's clearly serious business that must be gotten to the
>bottom of! There must be a formal sig-based enquiry! We won't stop until
>the truth is exposed, the people deserve to know!

It's provably false, and the proof was given but the troll judith
simply ignored it.  As the wayback machine showed absolutely
clearly, all that had changed was the navigation header and the
footer pointing the hard of clue to the fact that the site on 8080
is old and no longer being maintained, the live site is on port 80 -
this is something everybody in the group who cared, already knew.
The header and footer elements are computed on the fly and
completely independent of the content. The content was clearly shown
in the page footer as last having changed in 2004, and in fact there
were no significant changes from original publication which was some
time before that.

One of judith's trademarks is simply ignoring proof that she is
wrong. Another of her sigs is some bullshit demanding proof that she
was making snide insinuations about John Franklin - by common
consent that, too, was proved, and ignored, and the trolling
continues.  There is no way of making progress with someone who
lies, and when their lies are pointed out simply ignores you and
repeats the lies as if the rebuttal did not exist.  Just as there is
no way of making progress with someone whose response to an answer
they do not like, is to ask you to go away and help them find enough
facts to form an answer they /do/ like, even though it is, as far as
anyone can tell, wrong.

But in the end it is the lies and deliberate misrepresentations, not
the tireless assertion of mistaken opinion and false dogma as fact,
which mark judith out as a noxious troll.  That and the fact that,
as Ian found, she freely admits that she is here only for the
argument.  Why indulge her?  We tried education, she hated it
because it showed she was wrong and we eventually got tired of spoon
feeding her information in order to help her prove that her
wrong-headed assumptions were true. We tried "stick to the facts"
but as soon as it was obvious that she was wrong and ill-informed,
she resorted (again) to ad-hominem and other fallacies.  So I think
we have pretty much all killfiled her as a waste of bandwidth.

Sorry, everyone, for gratifying the worthless troll's ego by
discussing it further.

Guy
-- 
May contain traces of irony.  Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

That's a breath of fresh air, thanks Richard.
What seems to be going on now is that attempts to mark, if not kill 
threads has angered the trolls (those who post in bad faith) and is 
taking us into new territory.
Do you think that they will destroy themselves? The past few months 
experience seems to indicate that just tolerating them doesn't work. One 
will disrupt any rational debate where we might accept nuance, matters 
of opinion and ambiguity while the other clearly has mental health issues.
Have you seen a group rid themselves of this type of disruption. Can it 
  be done?
Roger Thorpe

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 19:07:51 +0100, Roger Thorpe
 said in
<gbtpto$5kd$1@wisteria.csv.warwick.ac.uk>:

>What seems to be going on now is that attempts to mark, if not kill 
>threads has angered the trolls (those who post in bad faith) and is 
>taking us into new territory.

LOL! Trust me, this is far from new territory. On Wikipedia we deal
with a lot of this kind of shit.  And eventually they almost always
get tired of being the mole in a game of whack-a-mole and go away.

Guy
-- 
May contain traces of irony.  Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

Tooommy wrote:
> 
> "Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message 
> news:1io38bv.1p6iqf69bimleN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
>>
>> I have no doubt that both Bollum and Hansen expect the police to keep
>> them safe in their beds while indulging themselves in childish name
>> calling of the police because they think it makes them look "hard" or
>> "politically right on".
> 
> What on earth are you going on about ?
> 
> its sad when dementia sets in
> 
> Poor Filth

Try to keep up.

-- 
Tony the Dragon

In article , Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 19:07:51 +0100, Roger Thorpe
>
>>What seems to be going on now is that attempts to mark, if not kill 
>>threads has angered the trolls (those who post in bad faith) and is 
>>taking us into new territory.
>
>LOL! Trust me, this is far from new territory. On Wikipedia we deal
>with a lot of this kind of shit.

The problem is older than Wikipedia: http://www.dansdata.com/sporge.htm
But it's new locally, AFAIK.

On 30 Sep 2008 21:26:47 +0100 (BST)
armb@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Alan Braggins) wrote:

> In article , Just zis
> Guy, you know? wrote:
> >On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 19:07:51 +0100, Roger Thorpe
> >
> >>What seems to be going on now is that attempts to mark, if not kill 
> >>threads has angered the trolls (those who post in bad faith) and is 
> >>taking us into new territory.
> >
> >LOL! Trust me, this is far from new territory. On Wikipedia we deal
> >with a lot of this kind of shit.
> 
> The problem is older than Wikipedia:
> http://www.dansdata.com/sporge.htm But it's new locally, AFAIK.

There hasn't been any sporging, just demented nutters with deluded
agendas and personal vendettas.

On 30 Sep, 18:45, Tony Dragon  wrote:
> Tooommy wrote:
>
> > "Steve Firth" <%ste...@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:1io38bv.1p6iqf69bimleN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
>
> >> I have no doubt that both Bollum and Hansen expect the police to keep
> >> them safe in their beds while indulging themselves in childish name
> >> calling of the police because they think it makes them look "hard" or
> >> "politically right on".
>
> > What on earth are you going on about ?
>
> > its sad when dementia sets in
>
> > Poor Filth
>
> Try to keep up.
>
> --
> Tony the Dragon

Hey,

at least this time he used real words!  Even if he made as much sense
as usual.  It is a step in the right direction.

Fod

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008, Rob Morley wrote:

> On 30 Sep 2008 21:26:47 +0100 (BST)
> armb@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Alan Braggins) wrote:
>
>> In article , Just zis
>> Guy, you know? wrote:
>>> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 19:07:51 +0100, Roger Thorpe
>>>
>>>> What seems to be going on now is that attempts to mark, if not kill
>>>> threads has angered the trolls (those who post in bad faith) and is
>>>> taking us into new territory.
>>>
>>> LOL! Trust me, this is far from new territory. On Wikipedia we deal
>>> with a lot of this kind of shit.
>>
>> The problem is older than Wikipedia:
>> http://www.dansdata.com/sporge.htm But it's new locally, AFAIK.
>
> There hasn't been any sporging, just demented nutters with deluded 
> agendas and personal vendettas.

We've got it going on on a programming group i read. Sporging lives!

tom

-- 
GODZILLA PLEASE EAT THE FUCKIN COLDPLAY -- a poster in Bergen

On 30 Sep, 18:22, elyob  wrote:
> > > "What kind of *dickhead* doesn't get out the way of an ambulance with
> > > flashing lights? "
>
> > That was a different incident. Cyclists (perhaps unwittingly, it was later
> > reported) blocking an ambulance = dickheads.
>
> The motorcyclist ambulance rider blocked himself in behind the cars
> that were already stuck. He should have gone down the middle as the
> cars weren't able to move. However, the mass had just ridden up the
> wrong side of the road to get past a stationery line of traffic. This
> is dickheadness, the CMers believe they have a God like rule to
> disobey the rules of the road.
>
Its called overtaking and if the Mass hadn't done it it would have
added to the already traffic congestion and long delays.
>
> However, the police didn't turn up for the first time in God knows how
> long, so I think the mass were pretty disobedient. If the cycle police
> had been there, I doubt they'd have stood for the wrong side of the
> road stuff.
>
They often do stand for it in their efforts to compress the ride into
the smallest possible space while insisting it goes through red lights
and ignores the needs of pedestrians. Ironically, last month, the
police also ticketed riders for going through red lights. In short,
police treat it like an unruly procession instead of a cycle ride. The
police also block the front of the ride at intersections, causing long
delays and added congestion, to allow their police van to catch up.
The only useful jobs they do is corking and keeping enraged impatient
drivers in check.
>
> Shortly after this, I f**ked off as I couldn't be arsed with it and
> therefore missed the police "brutality". I think members of CM are
> looking for an argument against the police rather than being a
> friendly enjoyable ride (for example the Brompton mass ride I did the
> next day). I always leave saying I'll never do it again.
>
Most CMers would rather do without the police and can manage quite
well without them, as many CMs around the world already do. The only
problem with last Friday's ride was the sudden surprise at not having
nearly 30 cycle police bawling at them and corking aggressive traffic.
It took a while to adapt to this novel development.

--
Critical Mass London
http://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk
"We aren't blocking traffic, we are traffic".

In news:yKqdnWMssKslyX_VnZ2dnUVZ8uKdnZ2d@bt.com,
Marc  tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:

> Troll V Troll

Life's a riot...

-- 
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
Oxymoron: spot cream for chavs.

Doug  writes:

> In short,
> police treat it like an unruly procession instead of a cycle ride.

"Unruly" sounds about right from what I've seen and heard of it.  Or
is it now claiming to be organised after all?


-dan

On 1 Oct, 11:59, Daniel Barlow  wrote:
> Doug  writes:
> > In short,
> > police treat it like an unruly procession instead of a cycle ride.
>
> "Unruly" sounds about right from what I've seen and heard of it.  Or
> is it now claiming to be organised after all?
>
It has no organisers.

Here is one definition:

"They are free mass participatory events, with no leaders or fixed
agendas. However, the broad aim is to celebrate cycling and
sustainable transport, and to give cyclists safety in numbers."

Doesn't seem particularly unruly.

--
Critical Mass London
http://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk
"We aren't blocking traffic, we are traffic".

Roger Thorpe wrote:
> That's a breath of fresh air, thanks Richard. What seems to be going
> on now is that attempts to mark, if not kill threads has angered the
> trolls (those who post in bad faith) and is taking us into new
> territory.
Ha. I'm amused that it's making them angry; they sort of deserve it. On
the other hand, it's just more spam that nobody here really needs. It's
like feeding the troll, but with slightly less context.

Just an aside into pedantry; I'm not sure they're trolls as such. I take
"troll" to mean somebody who takes deliberately contrarian positions
that don't necessarily tally with their own views, and do it for
giggles. It's an elegant sport. Post a cunningly thought out
controversial opinion, break out the popcorn and see what happens. A
real troll doesn't have to put in lots of effort to sustain threads;
Nuxx and judith have to keep on feeding pretty much every single reply
they get, so they're either not trolls, or very talentless. I think
they're both true believers; they really do see themselves as righteous
crusaders being beset upon all sides by evil, and it's important enough
to them to waste their own time keeping on at it in this group. It's
hard for people like you and I to really empathise; sure, we can see
that people with opinions about cycling and road safety that oppose our
own are vexing, especially when they can be a bit prickly and zealous in
arguments, but we have our heads screwed on straight enough to know when
to just hit 'Close'.

I'll be honest, and say that despite finding them annoying, I do
occasionally feel sorry for them. I can't fully imagine what it is that
causes somebody to take something like this so seriously that they work
themselves up into a frothing rage and turn a group into their pet
project; I have my youth, my health, my hobbies and my friends to give
me aspects to my life other than usenet, to give me perspective. Maybe
they don't.

> Do you think that they will destroy themselves? The past few months 
> experience seems to indicate that just tolerating them doesn't work.
> One will disrupt any rational debate where we might accept nuance,
> matters of opinion and ambiguity while the other clearly has mental
> health issues. Have you seen a group rid themselves of this type of
> disruption. Can it be done?
I'm not sure. My gut feeling is that the only way to deal with it is
deathly silence, but that's based on the idea that trolls will leave
when they get bored. No feeding them, with either DFTT messages or real
responses. They'll carry on posting, because they're true believers, but
it'll turn into noise, like the 1-post-long commercial spam threads that
sometimes blitz this group. I suppose a compromise would be for the DFTT
posters to only follow up to people who do themselves 'feed the troll',
rather than following up to brand new posts by judith or Nuxx.

On a lighter note, I reckon Nuxx is the Timecube.com guy. Seriously,
read it, it'll seem familiar.

Richard

Dave Larrington  wrote:

> In news:yKqdnWMssKslyX_VnZ2dnUVZ8uKdnZ2d@bt.com,
> Marc  tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:
> 
> > Troll V Troll
> 
> Life's a riot...

oh...

roger
-- 
www.rogermerriman.com

On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 19:05:14 +0100, Richard Thrippleton
 said in <gc0e4q$nfh$1@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk>:

>Just an aside into pedantry; I'm not sure they're trolls as such. I take
>"troll" to mean somebody who takes deliberately contrarian positions
>that don't necessarily tally with their own views, and do it for
>giggles.

Nuxxy and judith both meet that definition, though in nuxxy's case
the contrarian position is deranged and he apparently believes it. I
believe that Ian found a post from judith in which she admitted to
trolling, by exactly this definition.

They are both attention whores of course, but here for the argument
not to try to convince anyone of anything.  That's trolling.  In
fact, judith appears to harden her position and become more contrary
if there is any hint of agreement; she seems to me to actively seek
the points of dispute in order to spin the argument out.

Guy
-- 
May contain traces of irony.  Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 19:20:04 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
 wrote:

>On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 19:05:14 +0100, Richard Thrippleton
> said in <gc0e4q$nfh$1@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk>:
>
>>Just an aside into pedantry; I'm not sure they're trolls as such. I take
>>"troll" to mean somebody who takes deliberately contrarian positions
>>that don't necessarily tally with their own views, and do it for
>>giggles.
>
>Nuxxy and judith both meet that definition, though in nuxxy's case
>the contrarian position is deranged and he apparently believes it. I
>believe that Ian found a post from judith in which she admitted to
>trolling, by exactly this definition.
>
>They are both attention whores of course, but here for the argument
>not to try to convince anyone of anything.  That's trolling.  In
>fact, judith appears to harden her position and become more contrary
>if there is any hint of agreement; she seems to me to actively seek
>the points of dispute in order to spin the argument out.
>
>Guy

Why thanks Guy - always nice to have some kind words from you.

Have you found the snide remarks yet?

--   
I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
Some evidence shows that helmeted cyclists are more likely to hit
their  heads. (Guy Chapman)
I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy 
Chapman) - proven to be an outright lie.
He then quickly changed his web page - but "forgot" to change the date
of last amendment

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 19:05:14 +0100, Richard Thrippleton
>  said in <gc0e4q$nfh$1@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk>:
> 
>> Just an aside into pedantry; I'm not sure they're trolls as such. I take
>> "troll" to mean somebody who takes deliberately contrarian positions
>> that don't necessarily tally with their own views, and do it for
>> giggles.
> 
> Nuxxy and judith both meet that definition, though in nuxxy's case
> the contrarian position is deranged and he apparently believes it. I
> believe that Ian found a post from judith in which she admitted to
> trolling, by exactly this definition.


Surely you think that they are one and the same - as you have said.

Is it true that she had a bet with someone that she couldn't keep you 
personally continuing your rants until there was a certain number and 
then she won fifty notes?

When did you post the lies about her which she seems to be obsessed 
with? Was it part of the trolling exercise - or was it you getting revenge?