barmy merkin

[Ian Smith]

Here's a good one:

http://illinoisleader.com/columnists/columnistsview.asp?c=6972

Apparently, spending money on cycle facilities is a way of
brainwashing people into thinking it would be a good idea to live in
sustainable communities and thus deprive them of their right to own a
car! Heaven forbid that "we can ride our bicycles and walk for most
of our needs and use mass transit for any other needed travel".
She's not objecting that cars will be taken away or unaffordable when
they're necesary for everyday life, she's upset that there might come
a time when they won't be necesary.

The conclusion:
"If you are a biker, please ride responsibly on a trail that has been
provided for your entertainment, and for your own safety and the
safety of others, please keep off the highways."

Anyhow, she's "a chapter leader for Concerned Women for
America", which sounds like a seriously scary organisation.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

[Pete White]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote in message
...
> in article , Ian Smith at
> wrote on 19/7/2003 4:29 pm:
>
> > http://illinoisleader.com/columnists/columnistsview.asp?c=6972
>
> I replied, as ever.
>
>
>
>
> Re your op-ed piece on cyclists. Which is much more op than ed, I
suggest.
>
> The thing which leaps off the page is this: "We were in our car. We had
our
> seat belts on as required by the law - our insurance and license fees were
> paid. We had paid fuel tax when we purchased our gasoline. Now wouldn¹t
you
> think that would give us a bit of a priority?"
>
> No, it doesn't. Cyclists use the roads by right of way whereas drivers
use
> them under licence. That's mostly because almost all the danger on the
> roads (and practically all of the appalling death toll) is caused by motor
> vehicle drivers. The nugatory tax on gasoline does not come anywhere
close
> to funding the direct and indirect costs of car use to the economy You
are
> required to wear seat belts because drivers routinely drive into each
other,
> the landscape and the local flora to the detriment of all concerned. Most
> club cyclists are insured, as are their bikes, which can cost thousands of
> dollars. In other words, they have a right to be there whether you like
it
> or not.
>
> And, after all, they pose very little danger to you - and you only pose a
> danger to them if your impatience is such that you can't wait for a safe
> place before passing. Which would be so unchristian that I can't believe
> you would do such a crass and dangerous thing, would you? Or does the
> conservative Bible omit the inconvenient Beatitudes?
>
> In any case, perhaps before you denounce cyclists for not using the
bikeways
> you should ask them why they don't. You may be surprised. For example,
> they might tell you that road bikes don't work well on graded trails, but
do
> work well on paved roads (the clue is in the name, here). A wheelset
> costing several hundred dollars can be ruined by one excursion on a bike
> trail. Or one excursion on a freshly-planed road, which may explain why
the
> riders you saw were proceeding cautiously.
>
> Maybe you don't know that two of the foremost cyclists competing in the
> world's most famous bicycle race are American - perhaps you would be quite
> content for Lance Armstrong's talent to have withered on the vine due to
his
> being excluded from the roads paid for out of his tax dollars and built as
a
> result of the campaigning of the League of American Wheelmen - bicyclists
to
> you - but I think you will find that many others don't share that view.
> Maybe you dismiss Tyler Hamilton's incredible determination, competing in
a
> race the equivalent of running a marathon every day for three weeks
despite
> a broken collarbone - or maybe you think Americans don't need to set or
see
> that kind of example. After all, what country needs the kind of
> determination which allows a man in constant agony to be standing in fifth
> place in the most gruelling sporting event in the world? Who needs that
> kind of drive?
>
> Perhaps you will also find that transportational cyclists rarely find
> bikeways going where they want to go, so they use the roads - which
> generally do. That's what the roads are for: vehicles. You may be
> surprised: some cyclists also pay tax (and not all of them benefit from
the
> rather generous subsidies which you get in return). The inability to
> appreciate the difference between 100 mile rides at a reasonable pace and
> leisure rides which involve trundling along bikeways is not unique to you,
> of course. I rode 100 miles on each of the last two Sundays, so I
> understand this better than you seem to.
>
> On the other hand maybe you are sufficiently convinced that any car
driver's
> journey is automatically more important than any cyclist's that you simply
> don't care. This is a point of view which is nicely covered in the
> dictionary under "arrogance."
>
> One recommendation: don't knock until you've tried it. Get out and ride
and
> maybe you'll see what it's all about.
>
> Guy Chapman


Are you appling for a place in parliment in the near future, Guy, perchance?
If you do I'll vote for you (I'll have to move first though!)

Pete White

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

in article , Ben at
wrote on 19/7/2003 5:35 pm:

> While I agree with the latter point, I've hear the former a few times
> but never backed up by a reference to an Act.

I think it's covered by the Road Traffic Acts in the UK, not sure the name
of the leur in the USA (which is where this particular whacknut is from)

> And does anyone truly have right of way on a road given that it's all
> the 'Queen's Highway' and we're her subjects[1]?

I think we do, by Act of Parliament, but in theory Brenda could probably
overturn same if she chose.

Guy

[Jeremy Parker]

> While I agree with the latter point, I've hear the former a few times
> but never backed up by a reference to an Act. Can someone provide a
> reference, or is it just an inferred right because you have right of
> way on foot and thereby by non-motorised vehicle?

Every state has its own laws, and there are a few extras, like the
District of Colubia, and, I presume, Guantanamo Bay. However, the
authorities everywhere are aways very keen to keep the licence a
privilege, not a right. If it was a right, any attempt to suspend
somebody's licence might tie up the courts for years.

Jeremy Parker

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

in article , Tony W at
wrote on 19/7/2003 8:23 pm:

> It is from "Illinois' Conservative News Source" -- and remember, their
> conservatives make our right wing nutters look positively sane : (

I have been told with great confidence by a Mad Septic that I am an extreme
left-winger, and that the Grauniad is a "hard left British newspaper" - so
yes I do know that the centre in American politics corresponds roughly with
the more intransigent elements of the No Turning Back group, and the Right
in American politics is to the right even of Blunkett.

Guy

[wafflyDIRTYcatLITTERhcsBOX]

> - so
>yes I do know that the centre in American politics corresponds roughly with
>the more intransigent elements of the No Turning Back group, and the Right
>in American politics is to the right even of Blunkett.

Heck Guy, the American Right, makes Attila the Hun look positively communist
;-)



~~~~~~~~~~
This is sent from a redundant email
Mail sent to it is dumped
My correct one can be gleaned from
h$**$*$el$**e$n$**$d$**$o$*$t**$$s$**$im$mo$ns*@a$ **o$l.c$$*o$*m*$
by getting rid of the overdependence on money and fame
~~~~~~~~~~

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

in article ,
wafflyDIRTYcatLITTERhcsBOX at wrote on 19/7/2003
8:58 pm:

> the American Right, makes Attila the Hun look positively communist

Certainly they appear to think Margaret Thatcher was a dangerous liberal.

Guy

[Tony W]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote in message
...
>
> I have been told with great confidence by a Mad Septic that I am an
extreme
> left-winger, and that the Grauniad is a "hard left British newspaper" - so
> yes I do know that the centre in American politics corresponds roughly
with
> the more intransigent elements of the No Turning Back group, and the Right
> in American politics is to the right even of Blunkett.


Remember, in American politics there are two parties. One is xenophobic,
extremely right wing, often racist, considers any state intervention as
dangerously communist, supports the NRA, supports the 'war on terror', is
dominated by the right wing Christians in the bible belt and would be
outlawed as extremist in any European country (except Switzerland).



Then you have the Republicans. Now they really are off the wall.



T


Bugger -- looks like we will be sharing cells in Cuba now :(

[Mark South]

"Ben" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 17:24:29 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> > wrote:
>
> >Cyclists use the roads by right of way whereas drivers use
> >them under licence.
>
> While I agree with the latter point, I've hear the former a few times
> but never backed up by a reference to an Act. Can someone provide a
> reference, or is it just an inferred right because you have right of
> way on foot and thereby by non-motorised vehicle?

Pedestrians and cyclists don't require a licence to operate their mode
of transport. Cars, buses, trucks, etc require the operator to be in
possession of a valid licence under the law of the land.

It's that simple.

> And does anyone truly have right of way on a road given that it's all
> the 'Queen's Highway' and we're her subjects[1]?
>
> [1] Rather than citizens as a lot of people would like to believe.

Many of us like to believe things that are true. It is not true that UK
citizens are not citizens.

Read http://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/default.asp?PageId=3784 for
example.

If you know something about these acts having been repealed, please do
share. Otherwise, stop perpetuating this ridiculous claptrap.

--
Mark South: Citizen of the World, Denizen of the Net
"I wonder why so many Finnish traditions are related with booze?"
- Juha Sakkinen

[Mark South]

"Tony W" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote in
message
> ...
> >
> > I have been told with great confidence by a Mad Septic that I am an
> extreme
> > left-winger, and that the Grauniad is a "hard left British
newspaper" - so
> > yes I do know that the centre in American politics corresponds
roughly
> with
> > the more intransigent elements of the No Turning Back group, and the
Right
> > in American politics is to the right even of Blunkett.
>
> Remember, in American politics there are two parties. One is
xenophobic,
> extremely right wing, often racist, considers any state intervention
as
> dangerously communist, supports the NRA, supports the 'war on terror',
is
> dominated by the right wing Christians in the bible belt and would be
> outlawed as extremist in any European country (except Switzerland).

ITYM "(EVEN Swizerland)" :-)

> Then you have the Republicans. Now they really are off the wall.

And to both of those, people who don't consume enough oil are Enemies of
the State (TM). Like cyclists for example.

> Bugger -- looks like we will be sharing cells in Cuba now :(

Guantanamo Bay isn't Cuba, it's a USA Dependent Territory. Belongs to
the US but doesn't share its laws - hence the location for the detention
centre.

--
Mark South: Citizen of the World, Denizen of the Net
"I wonder why so many Finnish traditions are related with booze?"
- Juha Sakkinen

[Garry Broad]

On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 23:14:45 +0100, "Tony W"
> wrote:

>
>"Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> I have been told with great confidence by a Mad Septic that I am an
>extreme
>> left-winger, and that the Grauniad is a "hard left British newspaper" - so
>> yes I do know that the centre in American politics corresponds roughly
>with
>> the more intransigent elements of the No Turning Back group, and the Right
>> in American politics is to the right even of Blunkett.
>
>
>Remember, in American politics there are two parties. One is xenophobic,
>extremely right wing, often racist, considers any state intervention as
>dangerously communist, supports the NRA, supports the 'war on terror', is
>dominated by the right wing Christians in the bible belt and would be
>outlawed as extremist in any European country (except Switzerland).
>
>
>
>Then you have the Republicans. Now they really are off the wall.
>

Being a 'practical advocate' for 20 odd years, I'm pretty partial to a
helping of Charlie Parker and Morton Feldman when I'm in the mood. Few
good films too. Not to mention books.

Anyway, crackpots everywhere - including here.

We just overlook 'everybody else' when we mount those high horses.

Still......great day of sport tomorrow <Sunday>.

And I've started to mitre!!!!...will they hold??

Garry

[Chris Bardell]

Andy Dingley > wrote in message >...
> On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 15:29:35 +0000 (UTC), Ian Smith
> > wrote:
>
> >http://illinoisleader.com/columnists/columnistsview.asp?c=6972
>
> I hate Illinois Nazis.

If I'm bored & want to laugh at some loony American right-wingers, I
often check out this site: http://www.townhall.com/

Hilarious & worrying at the same time.

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

in article , Andy Dingley at
wrote on 20/7/2003 12:49 am:

> I hate Illinois Nazis.

Our lady of blessed acceleration, don't fail me now!

Guy

[David Hansen]

On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 21:14:42 +0100 someone who may be "Just zis Guy,
you know?" > wrote this:-

>> the American Right, makes Attila the Hun look positively communist
>
>Certainly they appear to think Margaret Thatcher was a dangerous liberal.
>
I wonder what they think of Winston Churchill then? Despite the
posturings of the Tories (in the Mad Woman of Finchley's time) he
was not the right wing zealot those with little knowledge of his
life tend to think.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

[Tony W]

"David Hansen" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 21:14:42 +0100 someone who may be "Just zis Guy,
> you know?" > wrote this:-
>
> >> the American Right, makes Attila the Hun look positively communist
> >
> >Certainly they appear to think Margaret Thatcher was a dangerous liberal.
> >
> I wonder what they think of Winston Churchill then? Despite the
> posturings of the Tories (in the Mad Woman of Finchley's time) he
> was not the right wing zealot those with little knowledge of his
> life tend to think.


That's no way to refer to the 'leader of the free world'.

[Dave Larrington]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> Certainly they appear to think Margaret Thatcher was a dangerous
> liberal.

The same Mad Septic believes Mr Ynot B Liar (anag.) to be a great and
inspirational leader. This tells us all we need to know. I have suggested
to the gentleman in question that, as Ynot is so popular in 'melica at the
moment, they are welcome to keep him...

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
================================================== =========
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
================================================== =========