From: Tony Dragon on
Phil W Lee wrote:
> Jim A <ja(a)averyjim.myzen.co.uk> considered Tue, 30 Mar 2010 07:40:24
> +0100 the perfect time to write:
>
>> Phil W Lee wrote:
>>> Adrian <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> considered 29 Mar 2010 17:32:25 GMT the
>>> perfect time to write:
>>>
>>>> Doug <jagmad(a)riseup.net> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
>>>> saying:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The term 'corking' has become accepted in connection with CM and in
>>>>> several countries. If you were familiar with the subject you would know
>>>>> it.
>>>> You can call it what you like. The fact remains that it is a euphemism
>>>> for an illegal obstruction.
>>>>
>>>> Or are you trying to deny that?
>>> If you call a road position intended to prevent vehicular assault
>>> illegal, then you are clearly in denial of reality.
>>>
>>> Corking is used to PREVENT illegal acts by motorists deliberately
>>> driving out into the path of (and even into the side of) other
>>> vehicles on the major road, and with legal priority.
>> Two wrongs don't make a right.
>
> It's only the drivers who think they should be allowed to just drive
> into more vulnerable traffic on the major road who regard corking as
> wrong.

I regard corking as wrong, perhaps you would like to comment about the
'corking' that stopped motorists continuing round a roundabout while CM
entered from another road over a give way line.

--
Tony Dragon
From: Doug on
On 29 Mar, 18:32, Adrian <toomany2...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> saying:
>
> >> >> > As the video shows the taxi had been corked
> >> >> obstructed
> >> >Semantics.
> >> Then why not use plain English then?
>
> >> You know, where  the words have meanings which  are commonly and
> >> mutually accepted accepted for the better mutual comprehension of all.
> > The term 'corking' has become accepted in connection with CM and in
> > several countries. If you were familiar with the subject you would know
> > it.
>
> You can call it what you like. The fact remains that it is a euphemism
> for an illegal obstruction.
>
> Or are you trying to deny that?
>
'Obstruction' can take many forms. 'Corking' is specific.
>
> >> ITYF motorists, having already got a life do not indulge in CM antics
> >> such as creating disruption and delay for the hell of it.
>
> >> HTH
> > CM does not do it 'for the hell of it'
>
> So you're claiming that CM does create disruption and delay, but they
> have a reason to do so?
>
No they have a right to do so, as confirmed by the Law Lords.
>
> > though some of the participants may.
>
> I'll invite you to take this opportunity to condemn their actions in
> creating disruption and delay "for the hell of it".
>
> <waits>
>
Again, some participants may but CM as a whole does not. Having to
keep on repeating this for your benefit is boring.
>
> > What makes you imagine that a mass of cyclists should not use the
> > roads in much the same way as a mass of motorists already do everyday?
>
> Can you tell me when and where the meeting point is for this well-known
> and regular "customary procession" "mass of motorists", deliberately
> refusing to liaise with the authorities and apparently having a reason to
> cause deliberate disruption and delay?
>
See above.That is not the reason.
>
> > Do you expect all cyclists to go around in just ones or twos?
>
> I don't "expect" it. But I do expect deliberate large groups to liaise
> with the authorities - and to work with them to minimise disruption and
> delay for other road users. The vast majority of such cycling groups do
> exactly that. It really only seems to be one particular group who don't.
>
Due to its nature it is virtually impossible for CM to liaise as you
suggest and this was verified by the Law Lords. You are wrong about
such groups. Large club rides do not liaise with authorities. As a
diehard motorist you don't know much about cycling do you.
>
> > If you do then you are making a good case for CM.
>
> Really? And what is that case? "Nobody else is behaving like spoiled
> children having a tantrum, so we might as well"?
>
The 'case' in this case is mutual protection by virtue of numbers from
people like you who obviously despise cyclists from your position of
ignorance and probably represent a serious threat to them when you are
in your car.

--
Critical Mass London
http://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk
"Get out of my way you f*ing cyclist".
From: Jim A on
Doug wrote:
> On 29 Mar, 18:32, Adrian <toomany2...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
>> saying:
>>
>>>>>>> As the video shows the taxi had been corked
>>>>>> obstructed
>>>>> Semantics.
>>>> Then why not use plain English then?
>>>> You know, where the words have meanings which are commonly and
>>>> mutually accepted accepted for the better mutual comprehension of all.
>>> The term 'corking' has become accepted in connection with CM and in
>>> several countries. If you were familiar with the subject you would know
>>> it.
>> You can call it what you like. The fact remains that it is a euphemism
>> for an illegal obstruction.
>>
>> Or are you trying to deny that?
>>
> 'Obstruction' can take many forms. 'Corking' is specific.
>>>> ITYF motorists, having already got a life do not indulge in CM antics
>>>> such as creating disruption and delay for the hell of it.
>>>> HTH
>>> CM does not do it 'for the hell of it'
>> So you're claiming that CM does create disruption and delay, but they
>> have a reason to do so?
>>
> No they have a right to do so, as confirmed by the Law Lords.
>>> though some of the participants may.
>> I'll invite you to take this opportunity to condemn their actions in
>> creating disruption and delay "for the hell of it".
>>
>> <waits>
>>
> Again, some participants may but CM as a whole does not. Having to
> keep on repeating this for your benefit is boring.
>>> What makes you imagine that a mass of cyclists should not use the
>>> roads in much the same way as a mass of motorists already do everyday?
>> Can you tell me when and where the meeting point is for this well-known
>> and regular "customary procession" "mass of motorists", deliberately
>> refusing to liaise with the authorities and apparently having a reason to
>> cause deliberate disruption and delay?
>>
> See above.That is not the reason.
>>> Do you expect all cyclists to go around in just ones or twos?
>> I don't "expect" it. But I do expect deliberate large groups to liaise
>> with the authorities - and to work with them to minimise disruption and
>> delay for other road users. The vast majority of such cycling groups do
>> exactly that. It really only seems to be one particular group who don't.
>>
> Due to its nature it is virtually impossible for CM to liaise as you
> suggest and this was verified by the Law Lords. You are wrong about
> such groups. Large club rides do not liaise with authorities. As a
> diehard motorist you don't know much about cycling do you.
>>> If you do then you are making a good case for CM.
>> Really? And what is that case? "Nobody else is behaving like spoiled
>> children having a tantrum, so we might as well"?
>>
> The 'case' in this case is mutual protection by virtue of numbers from
> people like you who obviously despise cyclists from your position of
> ignorance and probably represent a serious threat to them when you are
> in your car.

The cyclists are despised because of CM's deliberate and repeated
provocation of motorists. Shame on you. You do us no favours whatsoever.

--
www.slowbicyclemovement.org - enjoy the ride
From: Marie on
On Mar 31, 7:32 am, Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote:
> On 29 Mar, 18:32, Adrian <toomany2...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> > saying:
>
> > >> >> > As the video shows the taxi had been corked
> > >> >> obstructed
> > >> >Semantics.
> > >> Then why not use plain English then?
>
> > >> You know, where  the words have meanings which  are commonly and
> > >> mutually accepted accepted for the better mutual comprehension of all.
> > > The term 'corking' has become accepted in connection with CM and in
> > > several countries. If you were familiar with the subject you would know
> > > it.
>
> > You can call it what you like. The fact remains that it is a euphemism
> > for an illegal obstruction.
>
> > Or are you trying to deny that?
>
> 'Obstruction' can take many forms. 'Corking' is specific.

Thank you for admiting it Doug, 'corking is a specific form of
obstruction', which is illegal.

>
> > >> ITYF motorists, having already got a life do not indulge in CM antics
> > >> such as creating disruption and delay for the hell of it.
>
> > >> HTH
> > > CM does not do it 'for the hell of it'
>
> > So you're claiming that CM does create disruption and delay, but they
> > have a reason to do so?
>
> No they have a right to do so, as confirmed by the Law Lords.

Do they have the right to break laws?

>
> > > though some of the participants may.
>
> > I'll invite you to take this opportunity to condemn their actions in
> > creating disruption and delay "for the hell of it".
>
> > <waits>
>
> Again, some participants may but CM as a whole does not. Having to
> keep on repeating this for your benefit is boring.

Do you condem those who do these actions?
Do you condem those on CM who break the law?

>
> > > What makes you imagine that a mass of cyclists should not use the
> > > roads in much the same way as a mass of motorists already do everyday?
>
> > Can you tell me when and where the meeting point is for this well-known
> > and regular "customary procession" "mass of motorists", deliberately
> > refusing to liaise with the authorities and apparently having a reason to
> > cause deliberate disruption and delay?
>
> See above.That is not the reason.

So that would be a 'no' then.

>
> > > Do you expect all cyclists to go around in just ones or twos?
>
> > I don't "expect" it. But I do expect deliberate large groups to liaise
> > with the authorities - and to work with them to minimise disruption and
> > delay for other road users. The vast majority of such cycling groups do
> > exactly that. It really only seems to be one particular group who don't..
>
> Due to its nature it is virtually impossible for CM to liaise as you
> suggest and this was verified by the Law Lords. You are wrong about
> such groups. Large club rides do not liaise with authorities.

And they act in a considerate manner & do not break the law.

> As a
> diehard motorist you don't know much about cycling do you.
>
> > > If you do then you are making a good case for CM.
>
> > Really? And what is that case? "Nobody else is behaving like spoiled
> > children having a tantrum, so we might as well"?
>
> The 'case' in this case is mutual protection by virtue of numbers

Not very good protection is it, according to you they are allways
being 'rammed'

> from
> people like you who obviously

Is it obvious?

> despise cyclists from your position of
> ignorance and probably represent a serious threat to them when you are
> in your car.

Lot of 'probablys' there.

>
> --
> Critical Mass Londonhttp://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk
> "Get out of my way you f*ing cyclist".

From: Marie on
On Mar 31, 8:00 am, Jim A <j...(a)averyjim.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > On 29 Mar, 18:32, Adrian <toomany2...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> >> saying:
>
> >>>>>>> As the video shows the taxi had been corked
> >>>>>> obstructed
> >>>>> Semantics.
> >>>> Then why not use plain English then?
> >>>> You know, where  the words have meanings which  are commonly and
> >>>> mutually accepted accepted for the better mutual comprehension of all.
> >>> The term 'corking' has become accepted in connection with CM and in
> >>> several countries. If you were familiar with the subject you would know
> >>> it.
> >> You can call it what you like. The fact remains that it is a euphemism
> >> for an illegal obstruction.
>
> >> Or are you trying to deny that?
>
> > 'Obstruction' can take many forms. 'Corking' is specific.
> >>>> ITYF motorists, having already got a life do not indulge in CM antics
> >>>> such as creating disruption and delay for the hell of it.
> >>>> HTH
> >>> CM does not do it 'for the hell of it'
> >> So you're claiming that CM does create disruption and delay, but they
> >> have a reason to do so?
>
> > No they have a right to do so, as confirmed by the Law Lords.
> >>> though some of the participants may.
> >> I'll invite you to take this opportunity to condemn their actions in
> >> creating disruption and delay "for the hell of it".
>
> >> <waits>
>
> > Again, some participants may but CM as a whole does not. Having to
> > keep on repeating this for your benefit is boring.
> >>> What makes you imagine that a mass of cyclists should not use the
> >>> roads in much the same way as a mass of motorists already do everyday?
> >> Can you tell me when and where the meeting point is for this well-known
> >> and regular "customary procession" "mass of motorists", deliberately
> >> refusing to liaise with the authorities and apparently having a reason to
> >> cause deliberate disruption and delay?
>
> > See above.That is not the reason.
> >>> Do you expect all cyclists to go around in just ones or twos?
> >> I don't "expect" it. But I do expect deliberate large groups to liaise
> >> with the authorities - and to work with them to minimise disruption and
> >> delay for other road users. The vast majority of such cycling groups do
> >> exactly that. It really only seems to be one particular group who don't.
>
> > Due to its nature it is virtually impossible for CM to liaise as you
> > suggest and this was verified by the Law Lords. You are wrong about
> > such groups. Large club rides do not liaise with authorities. As a
> > diehard motorist you don't know much about cycling do you.
> >>> If you do then you are making a good case for CM.
> >> Really? And what is that case? "Nobody else is behaving like spoiled
> >> children having a tantrum, so we might as well"?
>
> > The 'case' in this case is mutual protection by virtue of numbers from
> > people like you who obviously despise cyclists from your position of
> > ignorance and probably represent a serious threat to them when you are
> > in your car.
>
> The cyclists are despised because of CM's deliberate and repeated
> provocation of motorists.  Shame on you.  You do us no favours whatsoever.
>
> --www.slowbicyclemovement.org- enjoy the ride

Oh look Doug, another cyclist does not agree with CM.
I bet he's not a 'real cyclist'

Marie