Madness: Driver almost hits oncoming vehicle while overtaking cyclist

TMS320 wrote:

On 17/05/2020 11:48, Kelly wrote:
Pamela wrote:

Cyclists in this group have taken the side of the father because the girl
was riding a bike but what if she was on a scooter or skateboard and fell
over after being unable to slow down for a couple on the footpath? Would
they still think she and her father was in the right?

It could be that many cyclists feel they face regular prejudice based
upon negative stereotyping and misunderstanding, and consequently they
do tend to see the best in other cyclists - I know I do.

It could be that it's more often that the non-cyclists don't take a
dispassionate view.

That's not a bad way of putting, actually. I'd go further, the more I
think about it, it's a good way of putting it - and less
confrontational than calling non-cyclists bias or prejudice. A
dispassionate view would be fair to cyclists.

The non-cyclists will not allow discussion around their accepted
version. Doing so means an acceptance (or condoning) anti-social
behaviour, law breaking and so on. There is never a possibility of the
given version being a load of ********.

Yes, there has to be at the very least a least a tendency for that to
be the case. I suppose some people (non-cyclists in the main) will now
say that I would say that because I'm prejudice towards cyclists. But
to ask someone, anyone, to hold a dispassionate view towards cyclists
is really only asking them to be balanced (and fair) in their opinion.

On Sunday, May 17, 2020 at 7:21:08 PM UTC+1, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
Simon Mason wrote:
On Sunday, May 17, 2020 at 5:38:00 PM UTC+1, Kerr-Mudd,John wrote:
On Sun, 17 May 2020 10:22:57 GMT, Simon Mason
wrote:

On Sunday, May 17, 2020 at 10:41:02 AM UTC+1, Kerr-Mudd,John wrote:

These are mostly dated trolls. The was a major nym-
shifter.
I think the Judith troll now prefers ULM, but it might be here as
Pamela. I don't recall 'Marie'


Here is Marie, aka Judith.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/uk.r...0/7kr5DEOO74cJ

ah, just another nym.

I'd forgotten about Trevor Panther; I guess he's not around any mo

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!se...cycling/trevor
$20panther/uk.rec.cycling/RO6Kd7CueaA/W8_g8gkDwN0J

Some more of the old crowd:

Guy Chapman, Simons B, M and W, Tom Crispin, Pete Biggs, the two
Helens, Myra, Simon Ward (urc creator), Dave Hansen, John Mallard,
Arthur Clune, thirty six,Tony Raven, Pete Clinch, Jeremy Parker,
James Thomson, Nick Kew, Colin Blackburn,
John Kane, Carol Hague, Tim Hall, Jacko, Ambrose Nankivell, M Series,
Dave
Kahn, Phil Lee, Squashme, Tosspot, Rob and Ron, Roos Eisma, Danny
Colyer,
Legs Larrington, Becka Currant, John Buckley, Paul xxx, Trevor
Panther (ret), Richard Bates, MBQ, Mark Williams, David Bentley,
Doug, Mr Keller, Mr
Pounder, Dover's very own Front Mech and anyone else I have forgotten.

That is sad.

You mean that they have all left (apart from us) and that is sad?

(Kelly) wrote:

TMS320 wrote:

On 17/05/2020 11:48, Kelly wrote:
Pamela wrote:

Cyclists in this group have taken the side of the father because the girl
was riding a bike but what if she was on a scooter or skateboard and fell
over after being unable to slow down for a couple on the footpath? Would
they still think she and her father was in the right?

It could be that many cyclists feel they face regular prejudice based
upon negative stereotyping and misunderstanding, and consequently they
do tend to see the best in other cyclists - I know I do.

It could be that it's more often that the non-cyclists don't take a
dispassionate view.

That's not a bad way of putting, actually. I'd go further, the more I
think about it, it's a good way of putting it - and less
confrontational than calling non-cyclists bias or prejudice. A
dispassionate view would be fair to cyclists.

The non-cyclists will not allow discussion around their accepted
version. Doing so means an acceptance (or condoning) anti-social
behaviour, law breaking and so on. There is never a possibility of the
given version being a load of ********.

Yes, there has to be at the very least a least a tendency for that to
be the case.

Oh dear, can I clean that up, please! That sentence should read:

"Yes, there has to be at the very least a tendency for that to
be the case."

There - that's better.

I suppose some people (non-cyclists in the main) will now
say that I would say that because I'm prejudice towards cyclists. But
to ask someone, anyone, to hold a dispassionate view towards cyclists
is really only asking them to be balanced (and fair) in their opinion.

On 17/05/2020 19:25, Kelly wrote:
TMS320 wrote:
On 17/05/2020 11:48, Kelly wrote:
Pamela wrote:

Cyclists in this group have taken the side of the father because the girl
was riding a bike but what if she was on a scooter or skateboard and fell
over after being unable to slow down for a couple on the footpath? Would
they still think she and her father was in the right?

It could be that many cyclists feel they face regular prejudice based
upon negative stereotyping and misunderstanding, and consequently they
do tend to see the best in other cyclists - I know I do.

It could be that it's more often that the non-cyclists don't take a
dispassionate view.

That's not a bad way of putting, actually. I'd go further, the more I
think about it, it's a good way of putting it - and less
confrontational than calling non-cyclists bias or prejudice. A
dispassionate view would be fair to cyclists.

I wasn't deliberately trying to be non-confrontational with the word.
After all what motivates non-cyclists to post here?

Pamela thinks she/he/it is all sweetness and light. Yet right from the
start she/he/it has been attacking the child's father. The only
criticism about the man with the dog was the swearing. According to
Pamela, that's taking sides.

On Sunday, May 17, 2020 at 10:27:30 PM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:
The only
criticism about the man with the dog was the swearing. According to
Pamela, that's taking sides.

He kicked the child's cycle as well.

TMS320 wrote:

On 17/05/2020 19:25, Kelly wrote:
TMS320 wrote:
On 17/05/2020 11:48, Kelly wrote:
Pamela wrote:

Cyclists in this group have taken the side of the father because the girl
was riding a bike but what if she was on a scooter or skateboard and fell
over after being unable to slow down for a couple on the footpath? Would
they still think she and her father was in the right?

It could be that many cyclists feel they face regular prejudice based
upon negative stereotyping and misunderstanding, and consequently they
do tend to see the best in other cyclists - I know I do.

It could be that it's more often that the non-cyclists don't take a
dispassionate view.

That's not a bad way of putting, actually. I'd go further, the more I
think about it, it's a good way of putting it - and less
confrontational than calling non-cyclists bias or prejudice. A
dispassionate view would be fair to cyclists.

I wasn't deliberately trying to be non-confrontational with the word.

Okay, but I wasn't suggesting otherwise. I do, though, like the word
dispassionate because it is not only less confrontational than bias or
prejudice (the words I would alternatively have used) but it does
describe how the prevailing situation should be anyway.

After all what motivates non-cyclists to post here?

You mean they must be looking for confrontation, to some degree or
other - it's true I wouldn't expect them to shy away from it.

Pamela thinks she/he/it is all sweetness and light. Yet right from the
start she/he/it has been attacking the child's father. The only
criticism about the man with the dog was the swearing. According to
Pamela, that's taking sides.

From what I can gather, though, this group has a history of a kind of
'controversy of posters' dating back quite a large number of years. If
the level of variance stimulates interest and contribution from within
the group then can't this even be something of a useful thing, in a
perverse sort of way, as in, no pain - no gain? Like, out of arduous
exchanges sometimes real insights emerge which otherwise we may not
have gained. Although certainly nobody would want any of the stuff
that even approaches harassment, as has recently been touched upon in
the group here.

In my very short experience here, and on usenet really, posters can
range from those who are straight forward to communicate with, to
those who I find are somewhat more challenging to various degrees. But
the thing is almost any of them can potentially result in rewarding
interchanges. Isn't this where our own individual judgement comes into
play? Unfortunately, I don't feel I am really in a position to judge
all that well what is going on. And I am at a disadvantage in not
having the depth of experience on these groups that you and many
others here have. But, personally, this is part of the 'enlightenment'
I am seeking here. I mean, as long as a poster puts in something of
value, which I can recognise as such, then I'm appreciative of having
got that from them and, on usenet, I am prepared to settle for that.

On Monday, May 18, 2020 at 8:44:11 AM UTC+1, Kelly wrote:
Although certainly nobody would want any of the stuff
that even approaches harassment, as has recently been touched upon in
the group here.

One of the troll here, "Judith" once wrote to my employers in an attempt to get me dismissed. When "she" failed, "she" contacted London HR and a group of four of them even turned up at our work's AGM in London to try and get me the sack. Nasty people.

Simon Mason wrote:

On Monday, May 18, 2020 at 8:44:11 AM UTC+1, Kelly wrote:
Although certainly nobody would want any of the stuff
that even approaches harassment, as has recently been touched upon in
the group here.

One of the troll here, "Judith" once wrote to my employers in an attempt to get me dismissed. When "she" failed, "she" contacted
London HR and a group of four of them even turned up at our work's AGM in London to try and get me the sack. Nasty people.

'Nasty people' is hardly a strong enough term for them. Bringing what
should remain in usenet out into real life in that manner is an
absolutely despicable thing to do.

On 18/05/2020 08:44, Kelly wrote:
TMS320 wrote:

After all what motivates non-cyclists to post here?

You mean they must be looking for confrontation, to some degree or
other - it's true I wouldn't expect them to shy away from it.

From what I can gather, though, this group has a history of a kind
of 'controversy of posters' dating back quite a large number of
years.

Once upon a time there was this group and uk.transport. On this group
people discussed cycling comparatively unmolested.

If the level of variance stimulates interest and contribution from
within the group then can't this even be something of a useful thing,
in a perverse sort of way, as in, no pain - no gain? Like, out of
arduous exchanges sometimes real insights emerge which otherwise we
may not have gained.

There isn't much on television and being here passes the time. But when
a group becomes so small, there is little that's actually new.

When not taking essential exercise I am sitting at the PC because I am
writing code for electronics gadgets so it is difficult not to spend too
much time on newsgroups at the same time. (All hobby, not fraudulent
work from home)

Although certainly nobody would want any of the stuff that even
approaches harassment, as has recently been touched upon in the group
here.

Certainly nobody wants personal issues taken outside.

In my very short experience here, and on usenet really, posters can
range from those who are straight forward to communicate with, to
those who I find are somewhat more challenging to various degrees.

'Challenging' has two forms though. The person's online personality or
points of argument. There is often a dearth of the latter.

On 18/05/2020 11:19, Kelly wrote:

Simon Mason wrote:

On Monday, May 18, 2020 at 8:44:11 AM UTC+1, Kelly wrote:
Although certainly nobody would want any of the stuff
that even approaches harassment, as has recently been touched upon in
the group here.

One of the troll here, "Judith" once wrote to my employers in an attempt to get me dismissed. When "she" failed, "she" contacted
London HR and a group of four of them even turned up at our work's AGM in London to try and get me the sack. Nasty people.

'Nasty people' is hardly a strong enough term for them. Bringing what
should remain in usenet out into real life in that manner is an
absolutely despicable thing to do.

In reality, though, that simply didn't happen. It was a pure wind-up.

All that happened was that the poster Judith said she was going to do
it. But she didn't.

In those days, I used a valid email address in my usenet details (no
longer!) and Judith emailed to tell me that no-one had been down to
London and that no-one had been to the BP AGM. I had no reason to
disbelieve that. Travelling to London - from where I understood Judith
to live - would have been an expensive trip, and in any case, there
would have been no question of gaining access to the AGM of a large
public company without some prooof of entitlement to be there. IIRC,
Jusith did make some reference to buying (literally) a few BP shares to
be able to get in (as part of the wind-up), but again, I don't believe
that it ever happened.

In those days, I had quite a few emails from various people in ukrc,
some of them quite surprising. I wish I still had that email account
(but I don't).

Clearly, there were (and in at least one case, still is) posters who had
and have an exaggerated impression of their own importance and
relevance. Openly and repeatedly boasting of being paid overtime for
other duties whilst posting to usenet was probably not a wise thing to
do. It was clearly rankling with some. I never believed it. There always
seemed something odd about it.