Meanwhile back in the real world of hit and runs

Doug wrote:
On Aug 21, 9:34 am, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Doug wrote:
On Aug 20, 1:56 pm, nik.morgan wrote:
Doug wrote:
On Aug 19, 6:32 pm, Judith wrote:
On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 09:50:37 -0700 (PDT), Squashme
wrote:

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/...ction/leeds-hi...

"West Yorkshire Police said the driver slowed down to see what
had happened, then sped away from the scene."

Sorry - who was it on the cycle?

This clearly demonstrates how motorists are much more dangerous
than cyclists and it indicates why there is a need for greater
legal constraints on motorists than on cyclists.

How can you be calling for legal constraints, you claimed to be an
anarchist?

You obviously know little about anarchism and its many forms and you
are probably guided by the popular view of it alone.

BTW, are you a motorist?


anarchy has only one form: 'without a leader'

That is like saying democracy only has one form: 'mob rule'.

"...In the German uprising known as the Bavarian Soviet Republic the
anarchists Gustav Landauer, Silvio Gesell and Erich Mühsam had
important leadership positions within the revolutionary councilist
structures..."

And thank you for revealing your own dismal ignorance of the subject
of anarchy.

"...There are many types and traditions of anarchism, not all of which
are mutually exclusive.[13] Anarchist schools of thought can differ
fundamentally, supporting anything from extreme individualism to
complete collectivism..."

I always look at the root of the word first.

On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 23:24:29 -0700, Doug wrote:

On Aug 21, 8:10Â*am, nik.morgan wrote:
Doug wrote:
On Aug 20, 1:56 pm, nik.morgan wrote:
Doug wrote:
On Aug 19, 6:32 pm, Judith wrote:
On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 09:50:37 -0700 (PDT), Squashme
wrote:

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/.../main-section/
leeds-hi...

"West Yorkshire Police said the driver slowed down to see what
had happened, then sped away from the scene."

Sorry - who was it on the cycle?

This clearly demonstrates how motorists are much more dangerous
than cyclists and it indicates why there is a need for greater
legal constraints on motorists than on cyclists.

How can you be calling for legal constraints, you claimed to be an
anarchist?

You obviously know little about anarchism and its many forms and you
are probably guided by the popular view of it alone.

Is it like ozone, i.e. more than one type?

What is it about 'many forms' you do not understand?

BTW, are you a motorist?

Yes, lucky I'm not an anarchist as well, otherwise I would drive
wherever I liked, pavements for example.

You still don't understand anarchism at all do you and the fact that you
are a motorist explains a lot about your stance in this thread..

I am not a motorist and I don't understand you neither.
The insult of "being a motorist" has nothing to do with anarchy.


--
Life is a venereal disease with 100% mortality.

On Aug 22, 4:23*pm, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Doug wrote:
On Aug 21, 9:34 am, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Doug wrote:
On Aug 20, 1:56 pm, nik.morgan wrote:
Doug wrote:
On Aug 19, 6:32 pm, Judith wrote:
On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 09:50:37 -0700 (PDT), Squashme
wrote:

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/...ction/leeds-hi...

"West Yorkshire Police said the driver slowed down to see what
had happened, then sped away from the scene."

Sorry - who was it on the cycle?

This clearly demonstrates how motorists are much more dangerous
than cyclists and it indicates why there is a need for greater
legal constraints on motorists than on cyclists.

How can you be calling for legal constraints, you claimed to be an
anarchist?

You obviously know little about anarchism and its many forms and you
are probably guided by the popular view of it alone.

BTW, are you a motorist?

anarchy has only one form: 'without a leader'

That is like saying democracy only has one form: 'mob rule'.

"...In the German uprising known as the Bavarian Soviet Republic the
anarchists Gustav Landauer, Silvio Gesell and Erich M hsam had
important leadership positions within the revolutionary councilist
structures..."

And thank you for revealing your own dismal ignorance of the subject
of anarchy.

"...There are many types and traditions of anarchism, not all of which
are mutually exclusive.[13] Anarchist schools of thought can differ
fundamentally, supporting anything from extreme individualism to
complete collectivism..."

I always look at the root of the word first.

That usually tells you very little.

-- .
A driving licence is sometimes a licence to kill.

Doug wrote:
On Aug 22, 4:23 pm, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Doug wrote:
On Aug 21, 9:34 am, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Doug wrote:
On Aug 20, 1:56 pm, nik.morgan wrote:
Doug wrote:
On Aug 19, 6:32 pm, Judith wrote:
On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 09:50:37 -0700 (PDT), Squashme
wrote:

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/...ction/leeds-hi...

"West Yorkshire Police said the driver slowed down to see what
had happened, then sped away from the scene."

Sorry - who was it on the cycle?

This clearly demonstrates how motorists are much more dangerous
than cyclists and it indicates why there is a need for greater
legal constraints on motorists than on cyclists.

How can you be calling for legal constraints, you claimed to be
an anarchist?

You obviously know little about anarchism and its many forms and
you are probably guided by the popular view of it alone.

BTW, are you a motorist?

anarchy has only one form: 'without a leader'

That is like saying democracy only has one form: 'mob rule'.

"...In the German uprising known as the Bavarian Soviet Republic the
anarchists Gustav Landauer, Silvio Gesell and Erich M hsam had
important leadership positions within the revolutionary councilist
structures..."

And thank you for revealing your own dismal ignorance of the subject
of anarchy.

"...There are many types and traditions of anarchism, not all of
which are mutually exclusive.[13] Anarchist schools of thought can
differ fundamentally, supporting anything from extreme
individualism to complete collectivism..."

I always look at the root of the word first.

That usually tells you very little.


That may rate as the silliest thing you have ever written.

On Aug 23, 9:03Â*am, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Doug wrote:
On Aug 22, 4:23 pm, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Doug wrote:
On Aug 21, 9:34 am, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Doug wrote:
On Aug 20, 1:56 pm, nik.morgan wrote:
Doug wrote:
On Aug 19, 6:32 pm, Judith wrote:
On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 09:50:37 -0700 (PDT), Squashme
wrote:

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/...ction/leeds-hi...

"West Yorkshire Police said the driver slowed down to see what
had happened, then sped away from the scene."

Sorry - who was it on the cycle?

This clearly demonstrates how motorists are much more dangerous
than cyclists and it indicates why there is a need for greater
legal constraints on motorists than on cyclists.

How can you be calling for legal constraints, you claimed to be
an anarchist?

You obviously know little about anarchism and its many forms and
you are probably guided by the popular view of it alone.

BTW, are you a motorist?

anarchy has only one form: 'without a leader'

That is like saying democracy only has one form: 'mob rule'.

"...In the German uprising known as the Bavarian Soviet Republic the
anarchists Gustav Landauer, Silvio Gesell and Erich M hsam had
important leadership positions within the revolutionary councilist
structures..."

And thank you for revealing your own dismal ignorance of the subject
of anarchy.

"...There are many types and traditions of anarchism, not all of
which are mutually exclusive.[13] Anarchist schools of thought can
differ fundamentally, supporting anything from extreme
individualism to complete collectivism..."

I always look at the root of the word first.

That usually tells you very little.

That may rate as the silliest thing you have ever written.

Not when you consider your peculiar faith in the roots of words. You
simplistic and populist view of anarchy doesn't begin to describe its
many variants as a political system.

This may help you to understand.

"Anarchy (from the ancient Greek ἀνα�χία, anarchia, from ἀν an, "not"
+‎ ἀ�χός arkhos, "ruler", meaning "absence of a leader", "without
rulers"), has more than one definition. In the United States, the term
"anarchy" typically is used to refer to a society without a publicly
enforced government or violently enforced political authority.[1][2]
When used in this sense, anarchy may[3] or may not[4] be intended to
imply political disorder or lawlessness within a society..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy

So, "more than one definition" eh?

-- .
A driving licence is sometimes a licence to kill.



Outside of the US, and by most individuals that self-identify as
anarchists, it implies a system of governance, mostly theoretical at a
nation state level although there are a few successful historical
examples,[5] that goes to lengths to avoid the use of coercion,
violence, force and authority, while still producing a productive and
desirable society.[6]

Doug wrote:
On Aug 23, 9:03 am, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Doug wrote:
On Aug 22, 4:23 pm, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Doug wrote:
On Aug 21, 9:34 am, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Doug wrote:
On Aug 20, 1:56 pm, nik.morgan wrote:
Doug wrote:
On Aug 19, 6:32 pm, Judith wrote:
On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 09:50:37 -0700 (PDT), Squashme
wrote:

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/...ction/leeds-hi...

"West Yorkshire Police said the driver slowed down to see
what had happened, then sped away from the scene."

Sorry - who was it on the cycle?

This clearly demonstrates how motorists are much more
dangerous than cyclists and it indicates why there is a need
for greater legal constraints on motorists than on cyclists.

How can you be calling for legal constraints, you claimed to be
an anarchist?

You obviously know little about anarchism and its many forms and
you are probably guided by the popular view of it alone.

BTW, are you a motorist?

anarchy has only one form: 'without a leader'

That is like saying democracy only has one form: 'mob rule'.

"...In the German uprising known as the Bavarian Soviet Republic
the anarchists Gustav Landauer, Silvio Gesell and Erich M hsam had
important leadership positions within the revolutionary councilist
structures..."

And thank you for revealing your own dismal ignorance of the
subject of anarchy.

"...There are many types and traditions of anarchism, not all of
which are mutually exclusive.[13] Anarchist schools of thought can
differ fundamentally, supporting anything from extreme
individualism to complete collectivism..."

I always look at the root of the word first.

That usually tells you very little.

That may rate as the silliest thing you have ever written.

Not when you consider your peculiar faith in the roots of words. You
simplistic and populist view of anarchy doesn't begin to describe its
many variants as a political system.

This may help you to understand.

"Anarchy (from the ancient Greek ???????, anarchia, from ?? an, "not"
+? ????? arkhos, "ruler", meaning "absence of a leader", "without
rulers"), has more than one definition. In the United States, the term
"anarchy" typically is used to refer to a society without a publicly
enforced government or violently enforced political authority.[1][2]
When used in this sense, anarchy may[3] or may not[4] be intended to
imply political disorder or lawlessness within a society..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy

So, "more than one definition" eh?

-- .
A driving licence is sometimes a licence to kill.



Outside of the US, and by most individuals that self-identify as
anarchists, it implies a system of governance, mostly theoretical at a
nation state level although there are a few successful historical
examples,[5] that goes to lengths to avoid the use of coercion,
violence, force and authority, while still producing a productive and
desirable society.[6]

Happily I live in the UK, anarchy is, for me, defined by its historical
roots, not a wikipedia or indymedia reference or you.

On Aug 25, 9:52*am, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Doug wrote:
On Aug 23, 9:03 am, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Doug wrote:
On Aug 22, 4:23 pm, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Doug wrote:
On Aug 21, 9:34 am, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Doug wrote:
On Aug 20, 1:56 pm, nik.morgan wrote:
Doug wrote:
On Aug 19, 6:32 pm, Judith wrote:
On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 09:50:37 -0700 (PDT), Squashme
wrote:

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/...ction/leeds-hi...

"West Yorkshire Police said the driver slowed down to see
what had happened, then sped away from the scene."

Sorry - who was it on the cycle?

This clearly demonstrates how motorists are much more
dangerous than cyclists and it indicates why there is a need
for greater legal constraints on motorists than on cyclists.

How can you be calling for legal constraints, you claimed to be
an anarchist?

You obviously know little about anarchism and its many forms and
you are probably guided by the popular view of it alone.

BTW, are you a motorist?

anarchy has only one form: 'without a leader'

That is like saying democracy only has one form: 'mob rule'.

"...In the German uprising known as the Bavarian Soviet Republic
the anarchists Gustav Landauer, Silvio Gesell and Erich M hsam had
important leadership positions within the revolutionary councilist
structures..."

And thank you for revealing your own dismal ignorance of the
subject of anarchy.

"...There are many types and traditions of anarchism, not all of
which are mutually exclusive.[13] Anarchist schools of thought can
differ fundamentally, supporting anything from extreme
individualism to complete collectivism..."

I always look at the root of the word first.

That usually tells you very little.

That may rate as the silliest thing you have ever written.

Not when you consider your peculiar faith in the roots of words. You
simplistic and populist view of anarchy doesn't begin to describe its
many variants as a political system.

This may help you to understand.

"Anarchy (from the ancient Greek ???????, anarchia, from ?? an, "not"
+? ????? arkhos, "ruler", meaning "absence of a leader", "without
rulers"), has more than one definition. In the United States, the term
"anarchy" typically is used to refer to a society without a publicly
enforced government or violently enforced political authority.[1][2]
When used in this sense, anarchy may[3] or may not[4] be intended to
imply political disorder or lawlessness within a society..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy

So, "more than one definition" eh?

-- .
A driving licence is sometimes a licence to kill.

Outside of the US, and by most individuals that self-identify as
anarchists, it implies a system of governance, mostly theoretical at a
nation state level although there are a few successful historical
examples,[5] that goes to lengths to avoid the use of coercion,
violence, force and authority, while still producing a productive and
desirable society.[6]

Happily I live in the UK, anarchy is, for me, defined by its historical
roots, not a wikipedia or indymedia reference or you.

"Orwell described in his book Homage to Catalonia the time during
which Barcelona rose up with the CNT and anarchism. In the ninth
chapter of his book, Orwell commented that "As far as my purely
personal preferences went I would have liked to join the
Anarchists."" (Wikipedia)

-----------------------------------------
http://www.camiloberneri.org/cartelescnt.htm

On Aug 25, 9:52*am, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Doug wrote:
On Aug 23, 9:03 am, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Doug wrote:
On Aug 22, 4:23 pm, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Doug wrote:
On Aug 21, 9:34 am, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Doug wrote:
On Aug 20, 1:56 pm, nik.morgan wrote:
Doug wrote:
On Aug 19, 6:32 pm, Judith wrote:
On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 09:50:37 -0700 (PDT), Squashme
wrote:

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/...ction/leeds-hi...

"West Yorkshire Police said the driver slowed down to see
what had happened, then sped away from the scene."

Sorry - who was it on the cycle?

This clearly demonstrates how motorists are much more
dangerous than cyclists and it indicates why there is a need
for greater legal constraints on motorists than on cyclists.

How can you be calling for legal constraints, you claimed to be
an anarchist?

You obviously know little about anarchism and its many forms and
you are probably guided by the popular view of it alone.

BTW, are you a motorist?

anarchy has only one form: 'without a leader'

That is like saying democracy only has one form: 'mob rule'.

"...In the German uprising known as the Bavarian Soviet Republic
the anarchists Gustav Landauer, Silvio Gesell and Erich M hsam had
important leadership positions within the revolutionary councilist
structures..."

And thank you for revealing your own dismal ignorance of the
subject of anarchy.

"...There are many types and traditions of anarchism, not all of
which are mutually exclusive.[13] Anarchist schools of thought can
differ fundamentally, supporting anything from extreme
individualism to complete collectivism..."

I always look at the root of the word first.

That usually tells you very little.

That may rate as the silliest thing you have ever written.

Not when you consider your peculiar faith in the roots of words. You
simplistic and populist view of anarchy doesn't begin to describe its
many variants as a political system.

This may help you to understand.

"Anarchy (from the ancient Greek ???????, anarchia, from ?? an, "not"
+? ????? arkhos, "ruler", meaning "absence of a leader", "without
rulers"), has more than one definition. In the United States, the term
"anarchy" typically is used to refer to a society without a publicly
enforced government or violently enforced political authority.[1][2]
When used in this sense, anarchy may[3] or may not[4] be intended to
imply political disorder or lawlessness within a society..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy

So, "more than one definition" eh?


Outside of the US, and by most individuals that self-identify as
anarchists, it implies a system of governance, mostly theoretical at a
nation state level although there are a few successful historical
examples,[5] that goes to lengths to avoid the use of coercion,
violence, force and authority, while still producing a productive and
desirable society.[6]

Happily I live in the UK, anarchy is, for me, defined by its historical
roots, not a wikipedia or indymedia reference or you.

So where are your 'historical roots' of anarchy published? You seem to
be lacking in any sources or quotes so far.

-- .
A driving licence is sometimes a licence to kill.

Doug wrote:
On Aug 25, 9:52 am, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Doug wrote:
On Aug 23, 9:03 am, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Doug wrote:
On Aug 22, 4:23 pm, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Doug wrote:
On Aug 21, 9:34 am, "Mrcheerful"
wrote:
Doug wrote:
On Aug 20, 1:56 pm, nik.morgan wrote:
Doug wrote:
On Aug 19, 6:32 pm, Judith
wrote:
On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 09:50:37 -0700 (PDT), Squashme
wrote:

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/...ction/leeds-hi...

"West Yorkshire Police said the driver slowed down to see
what had happened, then sped away from the scene."

Sorry - who was it on the cycle?

This clearly demonstrates how motorists are much more
dangerous than cyclists and it indicates why there is a need
for greater legal constraints on motorists than on cyclists.

How can you be calling for legal constraints, you claimed to
be an anarchist?

You obviously know little about anarchism and its many forms
and you are probably guided by the popular view of it alone.

BTW, are you a motorist?

anarchy has only one form: 'without a leader'

That is like saying democracy only has one form: 'mob rule'.

"...In the German uprising known as the Bavarian Soviet Republic
the anarchists Gustav Landauer, Silvio Gesell and Erich M hsam
had important leadership positions within the revolutionary
councilist structures..."

And thank you for revealing your own dismal ignorance of the
subject of anarchy.

"...There are many types and traditions of anarchism, not all of
which are mutually exclusive.[13] Anarchist schools of thought
can differ fundamentally, supporting anything from extreme
individualism to complete collectivism..."

I always look at the root of the word first.

That usually tells you very little.

That may rate as the silliest thing you have ever written.

Not when you consider your peculiar faith in the roots of words. You
simplistic and populist view of anarchy doesn't begin to describe
its many variants as a political system.

This may help you to understand.

"Anarchy (from the ancient Greek ???????, anarchia, from ?? an,
"not" +? ????? arkhos, "ruler", meaning "absence of a leader",
"without rulers"), has more than one definition. In the United
States, the term "anarchy" typically is used to refer to a society
without a publicly enforced government or violently enforced
political authority.[1][2] When used in this sense, anarchy may[3]
or may not[4] be intended to imply political disorder or
lawlessness within a society..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy

So, "more than one definition" eh?


Outside of the US, and by most individuals that self-identify as
anarchists, it implies a system of governance, mostly theoretical
at a nation state level although there are a few successful
historical examples,[5] that goes to lengths to avoid the use of
coercion, violence, force and authority, while still producing a
productive and desirable society.[6]

Happily I live in the UK, anarchy is, for me, defined by its
historical roots, not a wikipedia or indymedia reference or you.

So where are your 'historical roots' of anarchy published? You seem to
be lacking in any sources or quotes so far.

-- .
A driving licence is sometimes a licence to kill.

There is no requirement to justify original words, everyone should have
knowledge of how most words are formed, it allows you to work out what an
unfamiliar word means, there are possibly free classes available to you.

The word comes from the Greek:
an (means: without, example : an-aerobic, without air)
arch (means leader, example arch-bishop: top bishop having leadership over
ordinary bishops.)

I feel sure that you should be able to use a dictionary by now, even Google
can give you helpful information.

a good example would be this:
http://oxforddictionaries.com/defini...nglish/anarchy