Yes, certainly!

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/shame_breakers

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/go-bare

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naked-walk

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_freedom_to_be_yourself


-- 

Best wishes,

Dario Western

"As long as you have three meals a day and a roof over your head, your four 
limbs and five senses, nothing else matters"
Home: (07) 3267-0099

http://www.myspace.com/fatpizzaman
http://dariowestern.bebo.com
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=553251115
http://www.youtube.com/user/fatpizzaman
http://www.wayn.com/dario_western
http://www.friendster.com/dariowestern
http://www.tagged.com
http://dariowestern.hi5.com/
http://twitter.com/Dario_Western
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Anna"  wrote in message 
news:2b323f48-d9c4-45a3-a863-08f97677cf1e@r9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>I mean public nudity as opposed to "Designed Places" or "Private
> Clubs".
>
> See I believe one can be a nudist and still against Public Nudity
> knowing that there are people out there who would abuse such nudity
> and therefore social nudity is best left to controlled circumstances.

"natmike"  wrote in message 
news:99c4cd94-88c2-47b9-b481-7b80f432e76f@g19g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
> On 11 Sep, 05:47, "Neosapienis" 
> wrote:
>> Yes, certainly!
> And I agree though I understand that it is strictly not illegal in
> England anyway, witness 2000 naked cyclists skaters and walkers in the
> naked bike rides in June in London, Brighton, Southampton York and
> Mancheter with full police cooperation and no complaints or arrests!
>
Not only that, but the overwhelming majority of spectators actually wanted 
to see all those naked bodies - I've never seen so many cameras! I din't see 
any signs of offence being taken anywhere all day.
Kind of goes against 'Jerry' and 'Anna's assertions that many people are 
offended by public nudity, eh?
-- 
Duncan Heenan

"Duncan Heenan"  wrote in message 
news:4aaa3e8e$1_4@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
> "natmike"  wrote in message 
> news:99c4cd94-88c2-47b9-b481-7b80f432e76f@g19g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
>> On 11 Sep, 05:47, "Neosapienis" 
>> wrote:
>>> Yes, certainly!
>> And I agree though I understand that it is strictly not illegal in
>> England anyway, witness 2000 naked cyclists skaters and walkers in the
>> naked bike rides in June in London, Brighton, Southampton York and
>> Mancheter with full police cooperation and no complaints or arrests!
>>
> Not only that, but the overwhelming majority of spectators actually wanted 
> to see all those naked bodies - I've never seen so many cameras! I din't 
> see any signs of offence being taken anywhere all day.
> Kind of goes against 'Jerry' and 'Anna's assertions that many people are 
> offended by public nudity, eh?
> -- 
> Duncan Heenan


Its not that they want public nudity Duncan {much as you would like to see 
it}yes they might have wanted to see all those naked bodies as you put it, 
but that's the reason some go to strip clubs or other such establishments!
Its not a fact that they,  like you endorse public nudity, could be one of 
curiosity or amusement! look at the photos that I have taken of this bunch 
of idiots (nudge, nudge, wink wink)
Just because your ride was tolerated does not mean the vast amount of the 
general public want it.
You yourself keep screaming the word tolerance, that's what you got; not 
public acceptance.
You quote "the overwhelming majority of spectators actually wanted
> to see all those naked bodies", how do you know this Duncan! did you stop 
> and ask them all!

Duncan its commendable that you want public nudity, but you yourself have 
quoted you would not be a for-runner as you do not want to be arrested, but 
your happy for others to promote your cause. Why not have the courage of 
your convictions and fight for your cause, go naked in public and back your 
mouth up

Regards  Les

Duncan Heenan wrote:
> "natmike"  wrote in message 
> news:99c4cd94-88c2-47b9-b481-7b80f432e76f@g19g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
>> On 11 Sep, 05:47, "Neosapienis" 
>> wrote:
>>> Yes, certainly!
>> And I agree though I understand that it is strictly not illegal in
>> England anyway, witness 2000 naked cyclists skaters and walkers in the
>> naked bike rides in June in London, Brighton, Southampton York and
>> Mancheter with full police cooperation and no complaints or arrests!
>>
> Not only that, but the overwhelming majority of spectators actually 
> wanted to see all those naked bodies - I've never seen so many cameras! 
> I din't see any signs of offence being taken anywhere all day.
> Kind of goes against 'Jerry' and 'Anna's assertions that many people are 
> offended by public nudity, eh?
  You're using a self selecting group to make your case. I personally 
intensely dislike football, and the effect it has on society, and 
believe that it is one of of the UK's great emperor's clothes spectacle 
but I suspect that you wouldn't  find many people agreeing in the stands 
of Milwall V Arsenal.

"Sheila & Les"  wrote in message 
news:lprqm.32507$uC1.25027@newsfe18.ams2...
>
> "Duncan Heenan"  wrote in message 
> news:4aaa3e8e$1_4@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
>> "natmike"  wrote in message 
>> news:99c4cd94-88c2-47b9-b481-7b80f432e76f@g19g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
>>> On 11 Sep, 05:47, "Neosapienis" 
>>> wrote:
>>>> Yes, certainly!
>>> And I agree though I understand that it is strictly not illegal in
>>> England anyway, witness 2000 naked cyclists skaters and walkers in the
>>> naked bike rides in June in London, Brighton, Southampton York and
>>> Mancheter with full police cooperation and no complaints or arrests!
>>>
>> Not only that, but the overwhelming majority of spectators actually 
>> wanted to see all those naked bodies - I've never seen so many cameras! I 
>> din't see any signs of offence being taken anywhere all day.
>> Kind of goes against 'Jerry' and 'Anna's assertions that many people are 
>> offended by public nudity, eh?
>> -- 
>> Duncan Heenan
>
>
> Its not that they want public nudity Duncan {much as you would like to see 
> it}yes they might have wanted to see all those naked bodies as you put it, 
> but that's the reason some go to strip clubs or other such establishments!
> Its not a fact that they,  like you endorse public nudity, could be one of 
> curiosity or amusement! look at the photos that I have taken of this bunch 
> of idiots (nudge, nudge, wink wink).

The point is that no one appeared to be actually offended. I know that by 
being there and observing the reactions.

-- 
Duncan Heenan

"Marc"  wrote in message 
news:YcydnaJ9iJk1PDfXnZ2dnUVZ8nednZ2d@bt.com...
> Duncan Heenan wrote:
>> "natmike"  wrote in message 
>> news:99c4cd94-88c2-47b9-b481-7b80f432e76f@g19g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
>>> On 11 Sep, 05:47, "Neosapienis" 
>>> wrote:
>>>> Yes, certainly!
>>> And I agree though I understand that it is strictly not illegal in
>>> England anyway, witness 2000 naked cyclists skaters and walkers in the
>>> naked bike rides in June in London, Brighton, Southampton York and
>>> Mancheter with full police cooperation and no complaints or arrests!
>>>
>> Not only that, but the overwhelming majority of spectators actually 
>> wanted to see all those naked bodies - I've never seen so many cameras! I 
>> din't see any signs of offence being taken anywhere all day.
>> Kind of goes against 'Jerry' and 'Anna's assertions that many people are 
>> offended by public nudity, eh?
>  You're using a self selecting group to make your case. I personally 
> intensely dislike football, and the effect it has on society, and believe 
> that it is one of of the UK's great emperor's clothes spectacle but I 
> suspect that you wouldn't  find many people agreeing in the stands of 
> Milwall V Arsenal.

No, the crowds we cycled through were not 'self selecting'. They were the 
people who just happened to be in that part of London at that time. There 
was no kind of selection. I saw no one who tried to avoid the spectacle of 
the naked riders, but plenty who gawped and photographed.
Why do you think the spectators were self selecting?

Duncan Heenan wrote:
> "Marc"  wrote in message 
> news:YcydnaJ9iJk1PDfXnZ2dnUVZ8nednZ2d@bt.com...
>> Duncan Heenan wrote:
>>> "natmike"  wrote in message 
>>> news:99c4cd94-88c2-47b9-b481-7b80f432e76f@g19g2000yqo.googlegroups.com... 
>>>
>>>> On 11 Sep, 05:47, "Neosapienis" 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Yes, certainly!
>>>> And I agree though I understand that it is strictly not illegal in
>>>> England anyway, witness 2000 naked cyclists skaters and walkers in the
>>>> naked bike rides in June in London, Brighton, Southampton York and
>>>> Mancheter with full police cooperation and no complaints or arrests!
>>>>
>>> Not only that, but the overwhelming majority of spectators actually 
>>> wanted to see all those naked bodies - I've never seen so many 
>>> cameras! I din't see any signs of offence being taken anywhere all day.
>>> Kind of goes against 'Jerry' and 'Anna's assertions that many people 
>>> are offended by public nudity, eh?
>>  You're using a self selecting group to make your case. I personally 
>> intensely dislike football, and the effect it has on society, and 
>> believe that it is one of of the UK's great emperor's clothes 
>> spectacle but I suspect that you wouldn't  find many people agreeing 
>> in the stands of Milwall V Arsenal.
> 
> No, the crowds we cycled through were not 'self selecting'. They were 
> the people who just happened to be in that part of London at that time. 
> There was no kind of selection. I saw no one who tried to avoid the 
> spectacle of the naked riders, but plenty who gawped and photographed.
> Why do you think the spectators were self selecting?

It's well publicised, those that would be offended ( but didn't want to 
foist their opinions on others) would possibly have avoided it.

The very term "spectators" suggests someone that had come to witness a 
spectacle. So those that had come, had decided to come, hence being self 
selecting.

"Marc"  wrote in message 
news:67qdnU6ABPuRVDfXnZ2dnUVZ8n-dnZ2d@bt.com...
> Duncan Heenan wrote:
>> "Marc"  wrote in message 
>> news:YcydnaJ9iJk1PDfXnZ2dnUVZ8nednZ2d@bt.com...
>>> Duncan Heenan wrote:
>>>> "natmike"  wrote in message 
>>>> news:99c4cd94-88c2-47b9-b481-7b80f432e76f@g19g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> On 11 Sep, 05:47, "Neosapienis" 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Yes, certainly!
>>>>> And I agree though I understand that it is strictly not illegal in
>>>>> England anyway, witness 2000 naked cyclists skaters and walkers in the
>>>>> naked bike rides in June in London, Brighton, Southampton York and
>>>>> Mancheter with full police cooperation and no complaints or arrests!
>>>>>
>>>> Not only that, but the overwhelming majority of spectators actually 
>>>> wanted to see all those naked bodies - I've never seen so many cameras! 
>>>> I din't see any signs of offence being taken anywhere all day.
>>>> Kind of goes against 'Jerry' and 'Anna's assertions that many people 
>>>> are offended by public nudity, eh?
>>>  You're using a self selecting group to make your case. I personally 
>>> intensely dislike football, and the effect it has on society, and 
>>> believe that it is one of of the UK's great emperor's clothes spectacle 
>>> but I suspect that you wouldn't  find many people agreeing in the stands 
>>> of Milwall V Arsenal.
>>
>> No, the crowds we cycled through were not 'self selecting'. They were the 
>> people who just happened to be in that part of London at that time. There 
>> was no kind of selection. I saw no one who tried to avoid the spectacle 
>> of the naked riders, but plenty who gawped and photographed.
>> Why do you think the spectators were self selecting?
>
> It's well publicised, those that would be offended ( but didn't want to 
> foist their opinions on others) would possibly have avoided it.
>
> The very term "spectators" suggests someone that had come to witness a 
> spectacle. So those that had come, had decided to come, hence being self 
> selecting.

Marc, you are grasping at straws! The event was not 'well publicized in the 
sense that the mass of tourists etc., knew it was to happen. Many were 
actually on their way home from the Trouping the Colour, which was what I'd 
call well publicized. There were many occasions where spectators asked what 
it was all about, form me and others, so it is clear that many did not know 
about it in advance. in fact I did most of the course near the front of the 
column of cyclists, so I saw the reaction of people when they first saw us 
coming, and I can assure you that it was not that of a crowd who were 
expecting it. I think your  saying "So those that had come, had decided to 
come, hence being self selecting." is a speculation too far.
My own comments are based on having been there, what are your based on 
(apart from your contrarian tendencies)?
I'd be interested to hear what anyone else who was actually there thinks on 
this.

Duncan Heenan wrote:

> Marc, you are grasping at straws! The event was not 'well publicized
> in the sense that the mass of tourists etc., knew it was to happen.
> Many were actually on their way home from the Trouping the Colour,
> which was what I'd call well publicized. There were many occasions
> where spectators asked what it was all about, form me and others, so
> it is clear that many did not know about it in advance. in fact I did
> most of the course near the front of the column of cyclists, so I saw
> the reaction of people when they first saw us coming, and I can
> assure you that it was not that of a crowd who were expecting it. I
> think your  saying "So those that had come, had decided to come,
> hence being self selecting." is a speculation too far. My own comments are 
> based on having been there, what are your based on
> (apart from your contrarian tendencies)?
> I'd be interested to hear what anyone else who was actually there
> thinks on this.

Having been there previously, I did notice that there were a very few people 
who; shouted things like "OMG", covered their faces with their hands, or 
stood there with their gobs hung open. Presumably these are the people who 
might be offended. But the streets are lined with thousands upon thousands 
of people. I would guess that most of them did not know about WNBR 
beforehand and they just happenned to be there. Many cheer, many wave, most 
smile and the vast majority have a camera or mobile phone aimed at the 
riders.

AndyC wrote:
> Duncan Heenan wrote:
> 
>> Marc, you are grasping at straws! The event was not 'well publicized
>> in the sense that the mass of tourists etc., knew it was to happen.
>> Many were actually on their way home from the Trouping the Colour,
>> which was what I'd call well publicized. There were many occasions
>> where spectators asked what it was all about, form me and others, so
>> it is clear that many did not know about it in advance. in fact I did
>> most of the course near the front of the column of cyclists, so I saw
>> the reaction of people when they first saw us coming, and I can
>> assure you that it was not that of a crowd who were expecting it. I
>> think your  saying "So those that had come, had decided to come,
>> hence being self selecting." is a speculation too far. My own comments are 
>> based on having been there, what are your based on
>> (apart from your contrarian tendencies)?
>> I'd be interested to hear what anyone else who was actually there
>> thinks on this.
> 
> Having been there previously, I did notice that there were a very few people 
> who; shouted things like "OMG", covered their faces with their hands, or 
> stood there with their gobs hung open. Presumably these are the people who 
> might be offended. But the streets are lined with thousands upon thousands 
> of people. I would guess that most of them did not know about WNBR 
> beforehand and they just happenned to be there. Many cheer, many wave, most 
> smile and the vast majority have a camera or mobile phone aimed at the 
> riders. 

Your and Duncan's descriptions vary , but one thing that's constant is 
"streets lined" where did these spectators come from to line the streets?

"Marc"  wrote in message 
news:eI2dnZXibdkxzjbXnZ2dnUVZ8oRi4p2d@bt.com...
> AndyC wrote:
>> Duncan Heenan wrote:
>>
>>> Marc, you are grasping at straws! The event was not 'well publicized
>>> in the sense that the mass of tourists etc., knew it was to happen.
>>> Many were actually on their way home from the Trouping the Colour,
>>> which was what I'd call well publicized. There were many occasions
>>> where spectators asked what it was all about, form me and others, so
>>> it is clear that many did not know about it in advance. in fact I did
>>> most of the course near the front of the column of cyclists, so I saw
>>> the reaction of people when they first saw us coming, and I can
>>> assure you that it was not that of a crowd who were expecting it. I
>>> think your  saying "So those that had come, had decided to come,
>>> hence being self selecting." is a speculation too far. My own comments 
>>> are based on having been there, what are your based on
>>> (apart from your contrarian tendencies)?
>>> I'd be interested to hear what anyone else who was actually there
>>> thinks on this.
>>
>> Having been there previously, I did notice that there were a very few 
>> people who; shouted things like "OMG", covered their faces with their 
>> hands, or stood there with their gobs hung open. Presumably these are the 
>> people who might be offended. But the streets are lined with thousands 
>> upon thousands of people. I would guess that most of them did not know 
>> about WNBR beforehand and they just happenned to be there. Many cheer, 
>> many wave, most smile and the vast majority have a camera or mobile phone 
>> aimed at the riders.
>
> Your and Duncan's descriptions vary , but one thing that's constant is 
> "streets lined" where did these spectators come from to line the streets?

This is London. There are always a lot of people who just happen to be on 
the streets during the daytime. Shoppers, tourists, people just hanging out, 
people going from here to there etc.

AndyC wrote:
> "Marc"  wrote in message 
> news:eI2dnZXibdkxzjbXnZ2dnUVZ8oRi4p2d@bt.com...
>> AndyC wrote:
>>> Duncan Heenan wrote:
>>>
>>>> Marc, you are grasping at straws! The event was not 'well publicized
>>>> in the sense that the mass of tourists etc., knew it was to happen.
>>>> Many were actually on their way home from the Trouping the Colour,
>>>> which was what I'd call well publicized. There were many occasions
>>>> where spectators asked what it was all about, form me and others, so
>>>> it is clear that many did not know about it in advance. in fact I did
>>>> most of the course near the front of the column of cyclists, so I saw
>>>> the reaction of people when they first saw us coming, and I can
>>>> assure you that it was not that of a crowd who were expecting it. I
>>>> think your  saying "So those that had come, had decided to come,
>>>> hence being self selecting." is a speculation too far. My own comments 
>>>> are based on having been there, what are your based on
>>>> (apart from your contrarian tendencies)?
>>>> I'd be interested to hear what anyone else who was actually there
>>>> thinks on this.
>>> Having been there previously, I did notice that there were a very few 
>>> people who; shouted things like "OMG", covered their faces with their 
>>> hands, or stood there with their gobs hung open. Presumably these are the 
>>> people who might be offended. But the streets are lined with thousands 
>>> upon thousands of people. I would guess that most of them did not know 
>>> about WNBR beforehand and they just happenned to be there. Many cheer, 
>>> many wave, most smile and the vast majority have a camera or mobile phone 
>>> aimed at the riders.
>> Your and Duncan's descriptions vary , but one thing that's constant is 
>> "streets lined" where did these spectators come from to line the streets?
> 
> This is London. There are always a lot of people who just happen to be on 
> the streets during the daytime. Shoppers, tourists, people just hanging out, 
> people going from here to there etc. 
> 
> 
Not "spectators" then? I'm quite willing to go along with your (and 
Duncan's ) statement's that there are few ( or in Duncan's case none) 
who were offended, but his previous use of spectators , rather than say, 
bystanders or onlookers gave the impression of a more organised crowd, 
one that as I said would have been self selected.
I really ought to attend one of these one day ,and as I've just ordered 
a new Brompton, maybe next year?

"Marc"  wrote in message 
news:DrOdnRqKi8XS9DbXnZ2dnUVZ8hadnZ2d@bt.com...
> AndyC wrote:
>> "Marc"  wrote in message 
>> news:eI2dnZXibdkxzjbXnZ2dnUVZ8oRi4p2d@bt.com...
>>> AndyC wrote:
>>>> Duncan Heenan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Marc, you are grasping at straws! The event was not 'well publicized
>>>>> in the sense that the mass of tourists etc., knew it was to happen.
>>>>> Many were actually on their way home from the Trouping the Colour,
>>>>> which was what I'd call well publicized. There were many occasions
>>>>> where spectators asked what it was all about, form me and others, so
>>>>> it is clear that many did not know about it in advance. in fact I did
>>>>> most of the course near the front of the column of cyclists, so I saw
>>>>> the reaction of people when they first saw us coming, and I can
>>>>> assure you that it was not that of a crowd who were expecting it. I
>>>>> think your  saying "So those that had come, had decided to come,
>>>>> hence being self selecting." is a speculation too far. My own comments 
>>>>> are based on having been there, what are your based on
>>>>> (apart from your contrarian tendencies)?
>>>>> I'd be interested to hear what anyone else who was actually there
>>>>> thinks on this.
>>>> Having been there previously, I did notice that there were a very few 
>>>> people who; shouted things like "OMG", covered their faces with their 
>>>> hands, or stood there with their gobs hung open. Presumably these are 
>>>> the people who might be offended. But the streets are lined with 
>>>> thousands upon thousands of people. I would guess that most of them did 
>>>> not know about WNBR beforehand and they just happenned to be there. 
>>>> Many cheer, many wave, most smile and the vast majority have a camera 
>>>> or mobile phone aimed at the riders.
>>> Your and Duncan's descriptions vary , but one thing that's constant is 
>>> "streets lined" where did these spectators come from to line the 
>>> streets?
>>
>> This is London. There are always a lot of people who just happen to be on 
>> the streets during the daytime. Shoppers, tourists, people just hanging 
>> out, people going from here to there etc.
> Not "spectators" then?

Only in the sense that they had happenned to be there, stopped and spectated 
as the ride went by. The real spectators (those who went but were not taking 
part) were most likely to be at the start and finish points.

 I'm quite willing to go along with your (and
> Duncan's ) statement's that there are few ( or in Duncan's case none) who 
> were offended, but his previous use of spectators , rather than say, 
> bystanders or onlookers gave the impression of a more organised crowd, one 
> that as I said would have been self selected.
> I really ought to attend one of these one day ,and as I've just ordered a 
> new Brompton, maybe next year?

Like you say, the people along route my have been better described as 
bystanders or onlookers, but at least at the time the ride went by they 
became spectators spectating the spectacle :-) When you have thousands of 
cyclists, many nude, most of them at least down to underwear cycling by, 
most people are compelled to stand and watch and become spectators.

"Marc"  wrote in message 
news:DrOdnRqKi8XS9DbXnZ2dnUVZ8hadnZ2d@bt.com...
> AndyC wrote:
>> "Marc"  wrote in message 
>> news:eI2dnZXibdkxzjbXnZ2dnUVZ8oRi4p2d@bt.com...
>>> AndyC wrote:
>>>> Duncan Heenan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Marc, you are grasping at straws! The event was not 'well publicized
>>>>> in the sense that the mass of tourists etc., knew it was to happen.
>>>>> Many were actually on their way home from the Trouping the Colour,
>>>>> which was what I'd call well publicized. There were many occasions
>>>>> where spectators asked what it was all about, form me and others, so
>>>>> it is clear that many did not know about it in advance. in fact I did
>>>>> most of the course near the front of the column of cyclists, so I saw
>>>>> the reaction of people when they first saw us coming, and I can
>>>>> assure you that it was not that of a crowd who were expecting it. I
>>>>> think your  saying "So those that had come, had decided to come,
>>>>> hence being self selecting." is a speculation too far. My own comments 
>>>>> are based on having been there, what are your based on
>>>>> (apart from your contrarian tendencies)?
>>>>> I'd be interested to hear what anyone else who was actually there
>>>>> thinks on this.
>>>> Having been there previously, I did notice that there were a very few 
>>>> people who; shouted things like "OMG", covered their faces with their 
>>>> hands, or stood there with their gobs hung open. Presumably these are 
>>>> the people who might be offended. But the streets are lined with 
>>>> thousands upon thousands of people. I would guess that most of them did 
>>>> not know about WNBR beforehand and they just happenned to be there. 
>>>> Many cheer, many wave, most smile and the vast majority have a camera 
>>>> or mobile phone aimed at the riders.
>>> Your and Duncan's descriptions vary , but one thing that's constant is 
>>> "streets lined" where did these spectators come from to line the 
>>> streets?
>>
>> This is London. There are always a lot of people who just happen to be on 
>> the streets during the daytime. Shoppers, tourists, people just hanging 
>> out, people going from here to there etc.
> Not "spectators" then? I'm quite willing to go along with your (and 
> Duncan's ) statement's that there are few ( or in Duncan's case none) who 
> were offended, but his previous use of spectators , rather than say, 
> bystanders or onlookers gave the impression of a more organised crowd, one 
> that as I said would have been self selected.
> I really ought to attend one of these one day ,and as I've just ordered a 
> new Brompton, maybe next year?

If you do come along, let us know in advance and we can all have a URN 
meet-up. It could be fun to meet the people behind the rants. 'Jerry', 
'Bertum Flack', and 'Rodney Donaldson' would all be especially welcome!
-- 
Duncan Heenan

Duncan Heenan wrote:
> "Marc"  wrote in message 
> news:DrOdnRqKi8XS9DbXnZ2dnUVZ8hadnZ2d@bt.com...
>> AndyC wrote:
>>> "Marc"  wrote in message 
>>> news:eI2dnZXibdkxzjbXnZ2dnUVZ8oRi4p2d@bt.com...
>>>> AndyC wrote:
>>>>> Duncan Heenan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Marc, you are grasping at straws! The event was not 'well publicized
>>>>>> in the sense that the mass of tourists etc., knew it was to happen.
>>>>>> Many were actually on their way home from the Trouping the Colour,
>>>>>> which was what I'd call well publicized. There were many occasions
>>>>>> where spectators asked what it was all about, form me and others, so
>>>>>> it is clear that many did not know about it in advance. in fact I did
>>>>>> most of the course near the front of the column of cyclists, so I saw
>>>>>> the reaction of people when they first saw us coming, and I can
>>>>>> assure you that it was not that of a crowd who were expecting it. I
>>>>>> think your  saying "So those that had come, had decided to come,
>>>>>> hence being self selecting." is a speculation too far. My own 
>>>>>> comments are based on having been there, what are your based on
>>>>>> (apart from your contrarian tendencies)?
>>>>>> I'd be interested to hear what anyone else who was actually there
>>>>>> thinks on this.
>>>>> Having been there previously, I did notice that there were a very 
>>>>> few people who; shouted things like "OMG", covered their faces with 
>>>>> their hands, or stood there with their gobs hung open. Presumably 
>>>>> these are the people who might be offended. But the streets are 
>>>>> lined with thousands upon thousands of people. I would guess that 
>>>>> most of them did not know about WNBR beforehand and they just 
>>>>> happenned to be there. Many cheer, many wave, most smile and the 
>>>>> vast majority have a camera or mobile phone aimed at the riders.
>>>> Your and Duncan's descriptions vary , but one thing that's constant 
>>>> is "streets lined" where did these spectators come from to line the 
>>>> streets?
>>>
>>> This is London. There are always a lot of people who just happen to 
>>> be on the streets during the daytime. Shoppers, tourists, people just 
>>> hanging out, people going from here to there etc.
>> Not "spectators" then? I'm quite willing to go along with your (and 
>> Duncan's ) statement's that there are few ( or in Duncan's case none) 
>> who were offended, but his previous use of spectators , rather than 
>> say, bystanders or onlookers gave the impression of a more organised 
>> crowd, one that as I said would have been self selected.
>> I really ought to attend one of these one day ,and as I've just 
>> ordered a new Brompton, maybe next year?
> 
> If you do come along, let us know in advance and we can all have a URN 
> meet-up. 

I'm thinking about the Cardiff one , which seems a bit low on numbers.
It could be fun to meet the people behind the rants. 'Jerry',
> 'Bertum Flack', and 'Rodney Donaldson' would all be especially welcome!

Jelly woudn't be welcome at any time or place that I was there, and 
considering the glee which it showed at almost killing a cyclist and 
it's previously stated opinions upon cyclists  I can't see it enjoying a 
meeting a group of them. Come to that I'm not sure it would be that keen 
on meeting a group of naturists!

natmike wrote:
>> the ones that were not there were offended.....99 percent ...jz- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> SILLY SILLY ZEE>>> So u think 99% of the worlds population were offended by something they didnt see, WHAT A PRATTISH REMARK. You give NO justification or constructive argument nfor ANYTHING you write, so we can assume that those who havent seen anything YOU write are offended you silly silly person.
> There are MANY events across the world where naked and clothed people
> mix without any preconceptions about the outcome and there are MANY
> recorded instances of clothed and clothesfree people happily accepting
> each other.


Where?

natmike  wrote:


> There are MANY events across the world where naked and clothed people
> mix without any preconceptions about the outcome and there are MANY
> recorded instances of clothed and clothesfree people happily accepting
> each other.

Yes, like all those places in the world where the more primitive people
don't wear clothes but associate with the civilized who do. No problem
at all unless a missionary is around :-)


-- 
Steve Rogers
The Difference Engine
07866 680370
http://www.difference-engine.co.uk

"FREECOSPIRIT"  wrote in message
news:51e2c159-9710-4f9a-b825-149d1e2b5a38@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
On 11 Sep, 13:30, "Sheila & Les"  wrote:
> "Duncan Heenan"  wrote in message
>
Snip!
>
> > Not only that, but the overwhelming majority of spectators actually
> > wanted
> > to see all those naked bodies - I've never seen so many cameras! I din't
> > see any signs of offence being taken anywhere all day.
> > Kind of goes against 'Jerry' and 'Anna's assertions that many people are
> > offended by public nudity, eh?
> > --
> > Duncan Heenan
>
> Its not that they want public nudity Duncan {much as you would like to see
> it}yes they might have wanted to see all those naked bodies as you put it,
> but that's the reason some go to strip clubs or other such establishments!
> Its not a fact that they, like you endorse public nudity, could be one of
> curiosity or amusement! look at the photos that I have taken of this bunch
> of idiots (nudge, nudge, wink wink)
> Just because your ride was tolerated does not mean the vast amount of the
> general public want it.
> You yourself keep screaming the word tolerance, that's what you got; not
> public acceptance.
> You quote "the overwhelming majority of spectators actually wanted
>
> > to see all those naked bodies", how do you know this Duncan! did you
> > stop
> > and ask them all!
>
> Duncan its commendable that you want public nudity, but you yourself have
> quoted you would not be a for-runner as you do not want to be arrested,
> but
> your happy for others to promote your cause. Why not have the courage of
> your convictions and fight for your cause, go naked in public and back
> your
> mouth up
>
> Regards Les

I think that Les and Sheila put forward the case which most of us
(except perhaps Duncan who's a bit if show off!) espouse.  I'd be
happy with a few more official beaches and some places in parks where
you could go nude on a fine summers day (not that we get many of those
here) without having to worry that you would upset anyone or get
arrested.  I know there are some naturists who feel that they should
be allowed to go anywhere and everywhere at anytime starkers with no
restrictions at all.  As long as no one objects that is currently as
it is but the moment some one (especially the police or council) says
"oh no!" you can be in serious trouble - result you just don't know
where you stand.  You can of course be like Steve Gough and go boldly
nude in and out of Scottish jails with some of us saying "what a
prat!" and others saying  "what a hero - good on you but I won't join
you!".

Then consider what if they suddenly said you never need to wear
clothes in public unless you want to.  Who would actually want to
travel on the tube, go round the local Tesco sporting just a bum bag.
Apart from making a spectacle of yourself (cultural change is way
behind any legal change) what would that achieve.  Your family would
most likely disown you, your employer would make you redundant and
what for.  We have to live in the real world and the best we can hope
to achieve in the near future if we are lucky is a few more official
beaches (or may be an acceptance that beach nudity is OK except on a
few designated beaches, as in Denmark) and just  may be the right to
go nude in gym saunas (as in Germany, Holland and Scandinavia).  Even
in Denmark where there are few if any legal restrictions on nudity
naturists to tend keep customary areas though they do know that for
stepping over the cultural line they will not be liable to a night in
the cells.

Freecospirit

_____________________________________________________


An excellent post free spirit
Many will have noted that Duncan has not responded to all the criteria
asked, but then that's Duncan!
Once again Duncan stop grasping at straws to try and prove your point that
naturism should be public (stand by your convictions and do it!) you hide
behind others but you yourself do NOT have the courage of your convictions,
try walking along the prom at Ventnor or Sandown to make your statement! NO
you wont do it because you are a coward Duncan, you snipe at others from way
off but refuse because of your cowardice to try and prove your point.

To me your an arrogant, nasty piece of work, the EC are well rid of such a
self opinionated, arrogant twerp.

Les
 (and yes I would love to meet you to discuss face to face (and like your
quote to another person on here I promise not to throw the first punch),
though I promise I would have the last LOL)

Les
 a man whom stands by his convictions.

Sheila & Les wrote:
> "FREECOSPIRIT"  wrote in message
> news:51e2c159-9710-4f9a-b825-149d1e2b5a38@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
> On 11 Sep, 13:30, "Sheila & Les"  wrote:
>> "Duncan Heenan"  wrote in message
>>
> Snip!
>>> Not only that, but the overwhelming majority of spectators actually
>>> wanted
>>> to see all those naked bodies - I've never seen so many cameras! I din't
>>> see any signs of offence being taken anywhere all day.
>>> Kind of goes against 'Jerry' and 'Anna's assertions that many people are
>>> offended by public nudity, eh?
>>> --
>>> Duncan Heenan
>> Its not that they want public nudity Duncan {much as you would like to see
>> it}yes they might have wanted to see all those naked bodies as you put it,
>> but that's the reason some go to strip clubs or other such establishments!
>> Its not a fact that they, like you endorse public nudity, could be one of
>> curiosity or amusement! look at the photos that I have taken of this bunch
>> of idiots (nudge, nudge, wink wink)
>> Just because your ride was tolerated does not mean the vast amount of the
>> general public want it.
>> You yourself keep screaming the word tolerance, that's what you got; not
>> public acceptance.
>> You quote "the overwhelming majority of spectators actually wanted
>>
>>> to see all those naked bodies", how do you know this Duncan! did you
>>> stop
>>> and ask them all!
>> Duncan its commendable that you want public nudity, but you yourself have
>> quoted you would not be a for-runner as you do not want to be arrested,
>> but
>> your happy for others to promote your cause. Why not have the courage of
>> your convictions and fight for your cause, go naked in public and back
>> your
>> mouth up
>>
>> Regards Les
> 
> I think that Les and Sheila put forward the case which most of us
> (except perhaps Duncan who's a bit if show off!) espouse.  I'd be
> happy with a few more official beaches and some places in parks where
> you could go nude on a fine summers day (not that we get many of those
> here) without having to worry that you would upset anyone or get
> arrested.  I know there are some naturists who feel that they should
> be allowed to go anywhere and everywhere at anytime starkers with no
> restrictions at all.  As long as no one objects that is currently as
> it is but the moment some one (especially the police or council) says
> "oh no!" you can be in serious trouble - result you just don't know
> where you stand.  You can of course be like Steve Gough and go boldly
> nude in and out of Scottish jails with some of us saying "what a
> prat!" and others saying  "what a hero - good on you but I won't join
> you!".
> 
> Then consider what if they suddenly said you never need to wear
> clothes in public unless you want to.  Who would actually want to
> travel on the tube, go round the local Tesco sporting just a bum bag.
> Apart from making a spectacle of yourself (cultural change is way
> behind any legal change) what would that achieve.  Your family would
> most likely disown you, your employer would make you redundant and
> what for.  We have to live in the real world and the best we can hope
> to achieve in the near future if we are lucky is a few more official
> beaches (or may be an acceptance that beach nudity is OK except on a
> few designated beaches, as in Denmark) and just  may be the right to
> go nude in gym saunas (as in Germany, Holland and Scandinavia).  Even
> in Denmark where there are few if any legal restrictions on nudity
> naturists to tend keep customary areas though they do know that for
> stepping over the cultural line they will not be liable to a night in
> the cells.
> 
> Freecospirit
> 
> _____________________________________________________
> 
> 
> An excellent post free spirit

Of course you think it's excellent it's agreeing with you!
> Many will have noted that Duncan has not responded to all the criteria
> asked, but then that's Duncan!
> Once again Duncan stop grasping at straws to try and prove your point that
> naturism should be public (stand by your convictions and do it!) you hide
> behind others but you yourself do NOT have the courage of your convictions,
> try walking along the prom at Ventnor or Sandown to make your statement! NO
> you wont do it because you are a coward Duncan, you snipe at others from way
> off but refuse because of your cowardice to try and prove your point.
> 
> To me your an arrogant, nasty piece of work, the EC are well rid of such a
> self opinionated, arrogant twerp.

OOOOOPss looks like the "other" Les has been let loose at the keyboard!
> 
> Les
>  (and yes I would love to meet you to discuss face to face (and like your
> quote to another person on here I promise not to throw the first punch),
> though I promise I would have the last LOL)

I seem to remember you making the same promise to me, and then the 
"other" Les ( Sheila perhaps?) grabbed control and apologised.
> 
> Les
>  a man whom stands by his convictions.
Really, then how come  the requirement for me to punch you in the nose 
was abated?

"Sheila & Les"  wrote in message 
news:3fJrm.103136$tD4.54532@newsfe07.ams2...
>  snip <
> (and yes I would love to meet you to discuss face to face (and like your
> quote to another person on here I promise not to throw the first punch),
> though I promise I would have the last LOL)
>
> Les
> a man whom stands by his convictions.

And what was your last conviction for Bertie?

How many times have I to tell you, I don't want to walk down every street 
naked, nor go to Tescos in the nude (Tescos clothed is bad enough!) . I do 
however want the right, and acceptance, to do so, so that, when I feel it 
appropriate for me not to have to dress I can be naked. A right to do 
something is not the same as the compulsion to do so. This is a point you 
have failed to grasp for years Bertie, as you seem to like to go over the 
top attributing sayings and wished to me which are simply not true.

I am interested to see that you still boast about your ability to dish out 
violence. I wonder if you do so face to face with real people, who might 
take you up on it?
--
Duncan Heenan

Zee wrote:
>
> he he...you british are quite a lot.....sooo duncan i know you have
> noticed over yer years ...that society conforms faithfully and
> disgustingly at laws that have to be put in place .....that takes the
> freedoms of all folks away.....those laws did not just hop up on those
> law books and jump inside those books......and you say that ....you
> don wanna go along with it huh.....well i know the feeling but you are
> being a foot dragger fer not going along you know....we just cant have
> all the drunks and crazies going naked and smelly in very  non
> appropriate places.....and these drunks cause all of us to suffer the
> laws that keep them fron continually doing these bad things.....dont
> be a foot dragger man...that is the way life is....jz

A big part of the problem here JZ is that an incident occurs, (or perhaps 
several incidents occur), and before you know it the lawmakers have come up 
with a law to prosecute those who repeat these incidents. That's fine until 
you start having innocent parties (who the law was not intended to affect) 
who, all of a sudden find their freedoms are being taken away by poorly 
worded "catch-all" laws.

And even if the law is carefully worded so as not to affect the innocent 
parties, the law is often interpreted by those who enforce it (as well as 
members of the public) as if it should.

There is a common misconception over here that nudity in a public place is 
"Indecent Exposure" (sic) and that it is illegal. It's not illegal, it's not 
indecent and just because a few Muppets rant and rave that it is, does not 
make it so.

"Duncan Heenan"  wrote in message 
news:4ab08e70$1_3@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
> "Sheila & Les"  wrote in message 
> news:3fJrm.103136$tD4.54532@newsfe07.ams2...
>>  snip <
>> (and yes I would love to meet you to discuss face to face (and like your
>> quote to another person on here I promise not to throw the first punch),
>> though I promise I would have the last LOL)
>>
>> Les

>
> How many times have I to tell you, I don't want to walk down every street 
> naked, nor go to Tescos in the nude (Tescos clothed is bad enough!)

> I would agree with you on this Duncan LOL



. I do
> however want the right, and acceptance, to do so, so that, when I feel it 
> appropriate for me not to have to dress I can be naked.

> Where would you consider appropriate Duncan, not a snipe just interested 
> to know.




 A right to do
> something is not the same as the compulsion to do so. This is a point you 
> have failed to grasp for years Bertie, as you seem to like to go over the 
> top attributing sayings and wished to me which are simply not true.


>If I am wrong then sorry Duncan (and please drop the Bertie bit, its Les as 
>you well know)
Sorry if I fail to grasp your Points Duncan but I feel you do want public 
nudity but you yourself are not willing to lead.

>
> I am interested to see that you still boast about your ability to dish out 
> violence. I wonder if you do so face to face with real people, who might 
> take you up on it?


> --I am not boasting about any ability to dish out violnce, you may 
> remember that it was you yourself who quoted to Rodney Donaldson that you 
> would meet him and you would not throw the first punch, so all I did was 
> use your quote against you, plus I added I would have the last LOL

LOL means laughs out loud Duncan, a joke! get it.
It seems you can dish it out with lots of snide remarks to others, but you 
hate it being done to your goodself, tolerance Duncan, tolerance.
>

Les
__________________________________________________________________________________--

"Sheila & Les"  wrote in message 
news:xk3sm.23167$Aw.10030@newsfe19.ams2...
>
> "Duncan Heenan"  wrote in message 
> news:4ab08e70$1_3@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
>> "Sheila & Les"  wrote in message 
>> news:3fJrm.103136$tD4.54532@newsfe07.ams2...
>>>  snip <
>>> (and yes I would love to meet you to discuss face to face (and like your
>>> quote to another person on here I promise not to throw the first punch),
>>> though I promise I would have the last LOL)
>>>
>>> Les
>
>>
>> How many times have I to tell you, I don't want to walk down every street 
>> naked, nor go to Tescos in the nude (Tescos clothed is bad enough!)
>
>> I would agree with you on this Duncan LOL
>
>
>
> . I do
>> however want the right, and acceptance, to do so, so that, when I feel it 
>> appropriate for me not to have to dress I can be naked.
>
>> Where would you consider appropriate Duncan, not a snipe just interested 
>> to know.
>
>
>
>
> A right to do
>> something is not the same as the compulsion to do so. This is a point you 
>> have failed to grasp for years Bertie, as you seem to like to go over the 
>> top attributing sayings and wished to me which are simply not true.
>
>
>>If I am wrong then sorry Duncan (and please drop the Bertie bit, its Les 
>>as you well know)
> Sorry if I fail to grasp your Points Duncan but I feel you do want public 
> nudity but you yourself are not willing to lead.
>
>>
>> I am interested to see that you still boast about your ability to dish 
>> out violence. I wonder if you do so face to face with real people, who 
>> might take you up on it?
>
>
>> --I am not boasting about any ability to dish out violnce, you may 
>> remember that it was you yourself who quoted to Rodney Donaldson that you 
>> would meet him and you would not throw the first punch, so all I did was 
>> use your quote against you, plus I added I would have the last LOL
>
> LOL means laughs out loud Duncan, a joke! get it.
> It seems you can dish it out with lots of snide remarks to others, but you 
> hate it being done to your goodself, tolerance Duncan, tolerance.
>>
>
> Les
> __________________________________________________________________________________--
>
OK Bertie, I'll call you Les if you promise to remain as Les, and not do 
your previous trick of morphing in to other (easily seen through) guises so 
you can post stuff agreeing with yourself. Maybe you find it embarrassing to 
be reminded of how you've carried on in the past, if so the answer is to 
change, not to ask people to forget it so you can backslide in to your old 
ways as you have done on several occasions in the past when you have 
promised to 'turn over a new leaf'. Homily over.
That said, here's an attempt to answer your serious point - when do I feel 
it appropriate to be naked?
I can't say in advance exactly when that will be, as it depends on so many 
factors; which is why I want the right to do it whenever I feel like it. An 
example could be when on the beach, why should I have to get dressed to go 
up on to the prom to buy an ice cream? When in my garden, why should I have 
to get dressed to pop out across the lane  When out walking in the 
countryside if it's nice, why should I have to wear clothes?
Clothes often perform a practical functions, and then of course I'd wear 
clothes, but I see no point in wearing them only to conceal mu body. To me 
it's like saying that we all have to wear a hat 100% of the time, regardless 
of whether it is raining or dry, hot or cold, because the sight of the top 
of my head is somehow disgusting. Why should any part of the body be 
considered disgusting per se? That's a question you haven't answered, you 
just keep repeating that 'it might offend some people'. You never explain 
why you think it is right for those people to be offended and why their 
wishes should take precedence over mine.
And as for your accusation that I don't do as I would like - don't jump to 
conclusions. Apart from circumstances where I feel there is a good chance of 
arrest I often do, so please stop making assumptions to artificially bolster 
your dislike of me - just dislike me on the facts if that's what keeps you 
happy.
-- 
Duncan Heenan
(My real name, and the only one I ever use on URN)

Zee wrote:
> On Sep 16, 4:54 am, "AndyC"  wrote:
>> Zee wrote:
>>
>>> he he...you british are quite a lot.....sooo duncan i know you have
>>> noticed over yer years ...that society conforms faithfully and
>>> disgustingly at laws that have to be put in place .....that takes the
>>> freedoms of all folks away.....those laws did not just hop up on those
>>> law books and jump inside those books......and you say that ....you
>>> don wanna go along with it huh.....well i know the feeling but you are
>>> being a foot dragger fer not going along you know....we just cant have
>>> all the drunks and crazies going naked and smelly in very  non
>>> appropriate places.....and these drunks cause all of us to suffer the
>>> laws that keep them fron continually doing these bad things.....dont
>>> be a foot dragger man...that is the way life is....jz
>> A big part of the problem here JZ is that an incident occurs, (or perhaps
>> several incidents occur), and before you know it the lawmakers have come up
>> with a law to prosecute those who repeat these incidents. That's fine until
>> you start having innocent parties (who the law was not intended to affect)
>> who, all of a sudden find their freedoms are being taken away by poorly
>> worded "catch-all" laws.
>>
>> And even if the law is carefully worded so as not to affect the innocent
>> parties, the law is often interpreted by those who enforce it (as well as
>> members of the public) as if it should.
>>
>> There is a common misconception over here that nudity in a public place is
>> "Indecent Exposure" (sic) and that it is illegal. It's not illegal, it's not
>> indecent and just because a few Muppets rant and rave that it is, does not
>> make it so.
> 
> indeed i feel you guys pain....nothing nasty about nudity so why all
> the bs great britain.....Andy this internet is being monitored not for
> cussing and sexual nudity reasons but for racial and bigoted
> informat

This is as far as I got, then I lost patience trying to put this lot of 
crap together.

"Marc"  wrote in message 
news:evadnYBRAfThtSzXnZ2dnUVZ8iVi4p2d@bt.com...
> Zee wrote:
>> On Sep 16, 4:54 am, "AndyC"  wrote:
>>> Zee wrote:
>>>
>>>> he he...you british are quite a lot.....sooo duncan i know you have
>>>> noticed over yer years ...that society conforms faithfully and
>>>> disgustingly at laws that have to be put in place .....that takes the
>>>> freedoms of all folks away.....those laws did not just hop up on those
>>>> law books and jump inside those books......and you say that ....you
>>>> don wanna go along with it huh.....well i know the feeling but you are
>>>> being a foot dragger fer not going along you know....we just cant have
>>>> all the drunks and crazies going naked and smelly in very  non
>>>> appropriate places.....and these drunks cause all of us to suffer the
>>>> laws that keep them fron continually doing these bad things.....dont
>>>> be a foot dragger man...that is the way life is....jz
>>> A big part of the problem here JZ is that an incident occurs, (or 
>>> perhaps
>>> several incidents occur), and before you know it the lawmakers have come 
>>> up
>>> with a law to prosecute those who repeat these incidents. That's fine 
>>> until
>>> you start having innocent parties (who the law was not intended to 
>>> affect)
>>> who, all of a sudden find their freedoms are being taken away by poorly
>>> worded "catch-all" laws.
>>>
>>> And even if the law is carefully worded so as not to affect the innocent
>>> parties, the law is often interpreted by those who enforce it (as well 
>>> as
>>> members of the public) as if it should.
>>>
>>> There is a common misconception over here that nudity in a public place 
>>> is
>>> "Indecent Exposure" (sic) and that it is illegal. It's not illegal, it's 
>>> not
>>> indecent and just because a few Muppets rant and rave that it is, does 
>>> not
>>> make it so.
>>
>> indeed i feel you guys pain....nothing nasty about nudity so why all
>> the bs great britain.....Andy this internet is being monitored not for
>> cussing and sexual nudity reasons but for racial and bigoted
>> informat
>
> This is as far as I got, then I lost patience trying to put this lot of 
> crap together.

I read it though, but it left me lost for any reply. The Interweb can be a 
strange place.

On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 10:54:08 +0100, "AndyC"
 wrote:

>A big part of the problem here JZ is that an incident occurs, (or perhaps 
>several incidents occur), and before you know it the lawmakers have come up 
>with a law to prosecute those who repeat these incidents. 

A huge part of the problem here, is that so many people take the time
to respond to Zee like 'he' is interested in anything that they have
to say. 'He' isn't. Zee is here to discredit family nudism in any way
that 'he' can. No lie is too big, no misdeed on 'his' part too devoid
of honor. 'He' is incapable of either cogent thought or dialogue.
Continued replies only encourage 'his' obsession and subject those of
us who have 'him' killfiled to unwanted inanity.

-T.

On Sep 16, 7:02 pm, stinson_h...@HOTMAIL.COM wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 10:54:08 퍝, "AndyC"
>
>  wrote:
> >A big part of the problem here JZ is that an incident occurs, (or perhaps
> >several incidents occur), and before you know it the lawmakers have come up
> >with a law to prosecute those who repeat these incidents.
>
> A huge part of the problem here, is that so many people take the time
> to respond to Zee like 'he' is interested in anything that they have
> to say. 'He' isn't. Zee is here to discredit family nudism in any way
> that 'he' can. No lie is too big, no misdeed on 'his' part too devoid
> of honor. 'He' is incapable of either cogent thought or dialogue.
> Continued replies only encourage 'his' obsession and subject those of
> us who have 'him' killfiled to unwanted inanity.
>
> -T.

no lie is too big for idiot child abusers such as you....jz

"Marc"  wrote in message 
news:8e2dnc2RWfqfKjHXnZ2dnUVZ8o1i4p2d@bt.com...
: natmike wrote:
: >> the ones that were not there were offended.....99 percent ...jz- Hide 
quoted text -
: >>
: >> SILLY SILLY ZEE>>> So u think 99% of the worlds population were 
offended by something they didnt see, WHAT A PRATTISH REMARK. You give NO 
justification or constructive argument nfor ANYTHING you write, so we can 
assume that those who havent seen anything YOU write are offended you silly 
silly person.
: > There are MANY events across the world where naked and clothed people
: > mix without any preconceptions about the outcome and there are MANY
: > recorded instances of clothed and clothesfree people happily accepting
: > each other.
:
:
: Where?

=========================
North Baker Beach, for one.
Bay to Breakers for another.

"bookworm524"  wrote in message 
news:571b091e-d0b5-4eb4-b60c-976941254487@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com...

 : No public  nudity.

YES, public nudity!

Richard C. wrote:
> "Marc"  wrote in message 
> news:8e2dnc2RWfqfKjHXnZ2dnUVZ8o1i4p2d@bt.com...
> : natmike wrote:
> : >> the ones that were not there were offended.....99 percent ...jz- Hide 
> quoted text -
> : >>
> : >> SILLY SILLY ZEE>>> So u think 99% of the worlds population were 
> offended by something they didnt see, WHAT A PRATTISH REMARK. You give NO 
> justification or constructive argument nfor ANYTHING you write, so we can 
> assume that those who havent seen anything YOU write are offended you silly 
> silly person.
> : > There are MANY events across the world where naked and clothed people
> : > mix without any preconceptions about the outcome and there are MANY
> : > recorded instances of clothed and clothesfree people happily accepting
> : > each other.
> :
> :
> : Where?
> 
> =========================
> North Baker Beach, for one.
> Bay to Breakers for another. 
> 
> 
Two events, in one country, is not "MANY events across the world"!

"Marc"  wrote in message 
news:T9idna60nK7OiS7XnZ2dnUVZ8q9i4p2d@bt.com...
> Richard C. wrote:
>> "Marc"  wrote in message 
>> news:8e2dnc2RWfqfKjHXnZ2dnUVZ8o1i4p2d@bt.com...
>> : natmike wrote:
>> : >> the ones that were not there were offended.....99 percent ...jz- 
>> Hide quoted text -
>> : >>
>> : >> SILLY SILLY ZEE>>> So u think 99% of the worlds population were 
>> offended by something they didnt see, WHAT A PRATTISH REMARK. You give NO 
>> justification or constructive argument nfor ANYTHING you write, so we can 
>> assume that those who havent seen anything YOU write are offended you 
>> silly silly person.
>> : > There are MANY events across the world where naked and clothed people
>> : > mix without any preconceptions about the outcome and there are MANY
>> : > recorded instances of clothed and clothesfree people happily 
>> accepting
>> : > each other.
>> :
>> :
>> : Where?
>>
>> =========================
>> North Baker Beach, for one.
>> Bay to Breakers for another.
> Two events, in one country, is not "MANY events across the world"!

You can add World Naked bike Ride (about 50 centres worldwide each year), 
plus many naturist beaches around the globe where naturists and textiles 
coexist peacefully .

"bookworm524"  wrote

> this also requires  nudists carrying
> signs ahead of them telling there are naked people approaching .

Like the system that used to apply in Britain whereby motor cars need to be 
preceeded by a man on foot carrying a red flag to warn that there was a car 
approaching? We got rid of that rule a long time ago!

David.

bookworm524  wrote in news:de6ee16d-5617-4a45-a740-
3093aaa9a9c5@s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com:

> Examples in National Parks signage showing  other users that there
> may be naked people in the area this also requires  nudists carrying
> signs ahead of them telling there are naked people approaching . No
> ambush nudism. I was involved in a organised nudist club walk on
> pathways in a NP - National Park and we surprised  clothed walkers
> walking the other way, they were most upset and we nearly got reported
> by park rangers.
> 

I am not sure where you are, but in the US, there is no federal law 
against nudity, so in US National Parks, there would be nothing for the 
rangers to report. (There are exceptions where specific regulatory 
"closures" apply.)

That doesn't mean one should ditch their clothes just anywhere in the 
park. Common sense still dictates. But if you were hiking on a remote 
trail and happened across other hikers, it is very unlikely they would 
be offended and even less likely they would have any basis for complaint 
in any event.



-- 
Lane

Duncan Heenan wrote:
> "Marc"  wrote in message 
> news:T9idna60nK7OiS7XnZ2dnUVZ8q9i4p2d@bt.com...
>> Richard C. wrote:
>>> "Marc"  wrote in message 
>>> news:8e2dnc2RWfqfKjHXnZ2dnUVZ8o1i4p2d@bt.com...
>>> : natmike wrote:
>>> : >> the ones that were not there were offended.....99 percent ...jz- 
>>> Hide quoted text -
>>> : >>
>>> : >> SILLY SILLY ZEE>>> So u think 99% of the worlds population were 
>>> offended by something they didnt see, WHAT A PRATTISH REMARK. You 
>>> give NO justification or constructive argument nfor ANYTHING you 
>>> write, so we can assume that those who havent seen anything YOU write 
>>> are offended you silly silly person.
>>> : > There are MANY events across the world where naked and clothed 
>>> people
>>> : > mix without any preconceptions about the outcome and there are MANY
>>> : > recorded instances of clothed and clothesfree people happily 
>>> accepting
>>> : > each other.
>>> :
>>> :
>>> : Where?
>>>
>>> =========================
>>> North Baker Beach, for one.
>>> Bay to Breakers for another.
>> Two events, in one country, is not "MANY events across the world"!
> 
> You can add World Naked bike Ride (about 50 centres worldwide each 
> year), plus many naturist beaches around the globe where naturists and 
> textiles coexist peacefully .

Thank you. I wasn't trying to deny the point, but simply object to wooly 
arm waving in debate. If you are going to say "There are MANY ...etc" 
then it should be possible to give some details.

James Dale Guckert wrote:
> On Sep 17, 6:11 pm, Zee  wrote:
>> On Sep 17, 7:35 pm, "Richard  C."  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> "Marc"  wrote in message
>>> news:8e2dnc2RWfqfKjHXnZ2dnUVZ8o1i4p2d@bt.com...:natmike wrote:
>>> : >> the ones that were not there were offended.....99 percent ...jz- Hide
>>> quoted text -
>>> : >>
>>> : >> SILLY SILLY ZEE>>> So u think 99% of the worlds population were
>>> offended by something they didnt see, WHAT A PRATTISH REMARK. You give NO
>>> justification or constructive argument nfor ANYTHING you write, so we can
>>> assume that those who havent seen anything YOU write are offended you silly
>>> silly person.
>>> : > There are MANY events across the world where naked and clothed people
>>> : > mix without any preconceptions about the outcome and there are MANY
>>> : > recorded instances of clothed and clothesfree people happily accepting
>>> : > each other.
>>> :
>>> :
>>> : Where?
>>> =========================
>>> North Baker Beach, for one.
>>> Bay to Breakers for another.
>> the one percent includes a bunch of clothed that could be folks that
>> are homosexuals that accept nudist but are not nudist themselves....or
>> burning man types.....jz.
> 
> *Why* someone has no problem with normalizing public nudity at the
> beach or during a fun run is not the issue. Nor does his or her sexual
> orientation. They *could* be "burning man types," whatever you mean by
> that, or they could be ordinary citizens who have discarded a social
> hangup.


'Merkins are funny!

"Neosapienis"  wrote in message 
news:829ed8e7-7327-4b60-ac56-ece18c65c9ae@u36g2000prn.googlegroups.com...

I disagree with this.  Nudity whether private or public is not
criminal or indecent in any way, and we should not have to apologise
to people who are too infantile to be able to deal with it.  Australia
(and every other country in the world come to that) needs to come into
line with Spain in relation to nudity so that people can practice it
without retribution unless they are doing it to sexually solicit
people.

Have a look at this site, it might help you develop a courage of
conviction with your nudist lifestyle that you are still keeping under
wraps after over 30 years: http://stop-racist-human-skin-phobia.org

--------------------------------------

I'd love it if this were as true in practice as in theory. In fact if you go 
nude on most of the crowded beaches in Spain someone will complain and 
you'll get bundled away by the police. You may not be prosecuted eventually, 
but it will spoil your day and the bigots will get their way by force. 
rather like the UK, I'm afraid.
Theory and practice don't line up.
-- 
Duncan Heenan

Zee wrote:

> social nakedness is the court of last resort for a lot of
> folks....they have no friends..they are depressed....their family is
> dysfunctional and suffering with the same symtoms.....divorces drugs
> and chronic unsatisfaction with their state of affairs...and so they
> decide to go all the way to the bottom of the  pit where their kind
> are residing and join them in their chant and rant about the great
> things that happen to a person once surrounded  by a bunch of naked
> folks with their naked kids...etc.....but these poor morsels do not
> realize they are profoundly sick mentally and incapable of handling
> their affairs without state sponsored  mental wards that do the best
> they know how to help folks like these specimens.....that are
> terminally impaired and while all functionally.impaired folks do not
> get naked like the most chronic do....they do go shopping and try to
> bankrupt themselves into some kind of relief from their misery and of
> course some just simply sit there and rock and then go out and vote
> for an idiot ranting nut just like them to be president.......jz

I don't know what nudist clubs, camps, beaches etc. you have over there jz 
or which ones you go to but over here in the UK, social nakedness tends to 
be the preserve of the white middle classes. Professional people, teachers, 
doctors, accountants, lawyers, people in business etc. Mainly couples and 
families, illicit drugs are seriously frowned on, prescribed pain killing 
drugs are often avoided if possible. Healthy eating is practiced by many.

"AndyC"  wrote in message 
news:h99ot3$3k9$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> Zee wrote:
>
>
> I don't know what nudist clubs, camps, beaches etc. you have over there jz 
> or which ones you go to but over here in the UK, social nakedness tends to 
> be the preserve of the white middle classes. Professional people, 
> teachers, doctors, accountants, lawyers, people in business etc. Mainly 
> couples and families, illicit drugs are seriously frowned on, prescribed 
> pain killing drugs are often avoided if possible. Healthy eating is 
> practiced by many.

I wouldn't bother replying to Zee, Andy. He's been peddling this idea of 
nudism being the preserve of"low-lifes": drug addicts, sex workers etc. for 
so long he probably believes it himself by now. AFAICS the social background 
of most American nudists is pretty similar to that of UK naturists, i.e. 
middle class.

David.

>

"AndyC"  wrote in message 
news:h99ot3$3k9$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> Zee wrote:
>
>> social nakedness is the court of last resort for a lot of
>> folks....they have no friends..they are depressed....their family >>is
>>"snipped"
> I don't know what nudist clubs, camps, beaches etc. you have over there jz 
> or which ones you go to but over here in the UK, social nakedness tends to 
> be the preserve of the white middle classes. Professional people, 
> teachers, doctors, accountants, lawyers, people in business etc. Mainly 
> couples and families, illicit drugs are seriously frowned on, prescribed 
> pain killing drugs are often avoided if possible. Healthy eating is 
> practiced by many.
>
Andy that's a load of rubbish. I know lots of naturists from 'working class' 
backgrounds. Where do you nget the ' painkillers are often avoided'. I would 
be suprised if healthy eating is anymore widespread among naturists than 
textiles.

Brian t

"David Looser"  wrote in message 
news:7hraabF2uuhspU1@mid.individual.net...
> "AndyC"  wrote in message 
> news:h99ot3$3k9$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Zee wrote:
>>
>>
>> I don't know what nudist clubs, camps, beaches etc. you have over there 
>> jz or which ones you go to but over here in the UK, social nakedness 
>> tends to be the preserve of the white middle classes. Professional 
>> people, teachers, doctors, accountants, lawyers, people in business etc. 
>> Mainly couples and families, illicit drugs are seriously frowned on, 
>> prescribed pain killing drugs are often avoided if possible. Healthy 
>> eating is practiced by many.
>
> I wouldn't bother replying to Zee, Andy. He's been peddling this idea of 
> nudism being the preserve of"low-lifes": drug addicts, sex workers etc. 
> for so long he probably believes it himself by now. AFAICS the social 
> background of most American nudists is pretty similar to that of UK 
> naturists, i.e. middle class.

I think it is sometimes worth replying to these types of comments as it give 
the opportunity to correct any completely incorrect ideas. I doubt whether 
jz is convinced (and that is his prerogative), but he does paint a rather 
obscure picture in total opposite of my own experience.

Brian Telford wrote:
> "AndyC"  wrote in message
> news:h99ot3$3k9$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Zee wrote:
>>
>>> social nakedness is the court of last resort for a lot of
>>> folks....they have no friends..they are depressed....their family
>>> >>is "snipped"
>> I don't know what nudist clubs, camps, beaches etc. you have over
>> there jz or which ones you go to but over here in the UK, social
>> nakedness tends to be the preserve of the white middle classes.
>> Professional people, teachers, doctors, accountants, lawyers, people
>> in business etc. Mainly couples and families, illicit drugs are
>> seriously frowned on, prescribed pain killing drugs are often
>> avoided if possible. Healthy eating is practiced by many.
>>
> Andy that's a load of rubbish. I know lots of naturists from 'working
> class' backgrounds. Where do you nget the ' painkillers are often
> avoided'. I would be suprised if healthy eating is anymore widespread
> among naturists than textiles.

Thanks Brian for your input. I too know plenty of working class naturists, I 
also know black naturists, asian naturists, unemployed naturists and 
naturists who are not white middle class. There just happens to be (in my 
opinion) and over representation of white middle class.

I also know plenty of overweight, meat munching, wine swilling overeating 
naturists too. But there does seem to be an over representation of healthy 
eaters and those who aspire to be as drug free as possible.

Hope this helps!