Critical Mass - Fundamentalist Plonkers?

Theo Bekkers Wrote:
scotty72 wrote:
Zebee Johnstone Wrote:

"Fundamentalism" was orginally ( I thought late 1800s but I saw
recently 1920s) a label applied to people who agreed with a set of
pamphlets/books/statements called "The Fundamentals of
Christianity"
which sought to strip away accretions and bring the religion back
to
a more pure state by getting together in one place the basics as
they
understood it.

Over time it's come to mean anyone who has a literalist and rigid
interpretation of a book or creed and who refuses to see there's
any
other way to think or do, and further considers people who do
interpret things differently as not just misguided but actively
evil.

An astonishing level of 'eyes wide shut[edness]'.

1) You've never been to a CM ride
2) From your position of blindness you've managed to adopt a theory
of
ignorance.

I've never been on a CM ride either. I've seen it on TV, heard reports
from
news commentators, and read letters to the editors. My major
experience of
CM has been in this group and from that I have formed pretty much the
same
opinion as Zebee.

To say 'they' are a buch of fundamentalists truly displays you lack
of
thought.

I stopped going for the exact opposite reason.

Another thing was the fact that there were too many in the group who
were relucant to block traffic for too long. Too many diversions
from
what I thought were the principles.

God, that was funny Scotty. For a second there I thought you were
being
serious, but now I see you were giving us an excellent example of what
a
fundamentalist would say.

TheoAnd once again, the troll chooses to not see the point.

A protest group should be somewhat fundamentalist - otherwise, why are
they there?

CM (Sydney) got too way out, that's why I'm no loinger there.

Scotty


--
scotty72

Theo Bekkers Wrote:


Because police turn a blind eye doesn't make it legal. A motorist
'crashing'
through a cork is breaking the law how?

TheoTroll question.

Even Theo isn't that dumb that he really needs this answered.

Scotty


--
scotty72

Tomasso wrote:

There used to be zero cars on Oz and quite a lot of bikes,

Actually, you're fantasising about that too. The penny-farthing was never
much more than a toy for the indolent and rich young. Working people never
got onto bikes for transport in a big way until 'safeties' were invented,
and cars predate the safety bicycle by nearly ten years.

Theo

scotty72 wrote:
Theo Bekkers Wrote:

God, that was funny Scotty. For a second there I thought you were
being
serious, but now I see you were giving us an excellent example of
what a fundamentalist would say.

And once again, the troll chooses to not see the point.

I see sarcasm is totally lost on you. :-)

A protest group should be somewhat fundamentalist - otherwise, why are
they there?

The questions were, "What have they achieved"? and "What pro-cycling laws
have been passed as a direct result of CM"?

Theo

scotty72 wrote:
Theo Bekkers Wrote:

Because police turn a blind eye doesn't make it legal. A motorist
'crashing' through a cork is breaking the law how?

Troll question.

Even Theo isn't that dumb that he really needs this answered.

You think? Or, You think?

OK, I'll play. I understand a 'cork' to be where cyclists block cross
traffic who have a green light. Tell me what law a motorist breaks when
ignoring such a block. If a police officer does the same thing, I understand
that to be directing traffic, not a 'cork'.

Your move Scotty. Please quote traffic code for reference to my
misunderstanding.

Theo

In aus.bicycle on Mon, 3 Dec 2007 10:31:53 +0900
Theo Bekkers wrote:

That's the trouble with you Zeb, you want outcomes when most people just
want a protest ride.

Heh. THe MCC has been a bad influence on me.


How did you find the foot?

In a padded bag! Just picked it up from the courier office today.

Zebee

In aus.bicycle on Mon, 3 Dec 2007 11:17:15 +0900
Theo Bekkers wrote:
Tomasso wrote:

There used to be zero cars on Oz and quite a lot of bikes,

Actually, you're fantasising about that too. The penny-farthing was never
much more than a toy for the indolent and rich young. Working people never
got onto bikes for transport in a big way until 'safeties' were invented,
and cars predate the safety bicycle by nearly ten years.

I suspect it depends a lot on location.

Cars were pretty dodgy until at least late Edwardian, and judging by
pics horses were still majorly used until the 30s in Oz.

In Oz they were used, eg they were popular with itinerant workers, but
so were early motorcycles. I think it really was a money thing - as
soon as you were able to afford a motor, you got one. They had
advantages over horses except for delivery work.

Pictures are what tells the story, you don't see many cyclists or
unattended bicycles in Edwardian photos and paintings, but you do see
horses and some cars. (There is going to be some bias - cars were
things you took pictures of - but there are enough streetscapes...)

I'll have to dig up the stuff on the City of Sydney site about the
roads. They changed how the roads were built mostly for horse traffic
I think, but I can't recall if bicycles get a mention.

Given the explosion in motorcycles between the wars, and the cheap
cars after, any bicycle boom would have to have been short in
duration.

Zebee

Zebee Johnstone wrote:
In aus.bicycle on Sun, 02 Dec 2007 22:35:42 GMT

Of the 4WD drive owners I know, most bought it either for towing or
for "safety" in traffic.

Yep, "safety" says it all.
Bet they heard that line in the sales add.

Zebee Johnstone wrote:

Which is the same reason why whenever there's talk about motorcycle
activism there's a huge cry for "protest ride" and no one willign to
do real work.

don't know, but perhaps if you asked in aus.motorcycle you might get an
answer.

Zebee Johnstone wrote:

Well the ones who saw "corking" knew that was illegal.

Nope, you really do need to learn about abot how constable Plod wants
things done.

The ones who saw people riding more than 2 abreast did too.

Not applicable. They are following police instructions. You would know
this if you had actually performed a bit of research instead of curryig
favour with Aln Jones and ilk.

You might also like to educate yourself as to what Critical Mass is and
does.

I've tried. But the only *consistent* information is assertions about
"everyone hates us but we are really good" "we make change happen".

What part of "an anarchy" do you not understand?


As soon as I ask for details it degenerates into name calling and more
assertions.

lol, are you sure you actually asked the right people or was this
another "have you stopped beating your wife yet?" type question.


And so there has been no change at all in cycling over that decade?
None?

well, the government has contributed a few tiddly concrete paths and
classified a lot of road markings as bicycle related expenditure, but
sadly, very little, in comparison.

Meanwhile, the usual rat bags have merrily contined on their way
subverting as many bums onto bicycle seats as they can.


So far I have seen a lot of assertions, I have seen no proof.

YOu make the claim, you provide the evidence.

You have read your first posts haven't you?

After all, I'd think that would be something CM would have at their
collective fingertips no?

Dunno, i'm not CM {:-).
which url did you find that?