From: NM on
On 3 Dec, 21:29, soup <1...(a)invalid.com> wrote:
> NM wrote:
> >  why not L.A?
>
> Because these are UK groups?
>
> UK.rec.cycling
> UK.rec.driving

Sorry I hadn 't realised you were so narrow minded.
From: soup on
NM wrote:
> On 3 Dec, 21:29, soup <1...(a)invalid.com> wrote:
>> NM wrote:
>>> why not L.A?
>> Because these are UK groups?
>>
>> UK.rec.cycling
>> UK.rec.driving
>
> Sorry I hadn 't realised you were so narrow minded.

If I was at all interested in LA driving/cycling I would subscribe to
la.rec.driving or la.rec.cycling (do these even exist?), but I am not so
I don't.
From: Conor on
In article <fe20996d-75d5-49e6-9e12-a91cf55c0833
@m11g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>, Doug says...

> She ran over the cyclists foot.
>
I didn't see that. I saw a conveniently timed shot and someone placing
their foot to look like it but not the actual event.

> > As for the third party getting their bike run over, he deliberately
> > placed it in the line of the car, knowing that any normal person when
> > faced with an angry mob, would try to escape.
> >
> So you are saying that drivers may run over bicycles if they are in
> the way?
>
It has been noted that you tried to ignore the fact there was an angry
mob.

> > Completely 100% fabricated event as I've described which is why the
> > Police who were filming the event took no action.
> >
> It wasn't the police filming.
>
Indeed - it was a bunch of cycling loonies on a demonstration.


--
Conor
www.notebooks-r-us.co.uk

I'm not prejudiced. I hate everybody equally.
From: Doug on
On 7 Dec, 15:04, Conor <co...(a)gmx.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <fe20996d-75d5-49e6-9e12-a91cf55c0833
> @m11g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>, Doug says...
>
> > She ran over the cyclists foot.
>
> I didn't see that. I saw a conveniently timed shot and someone placing
> their foot to look like it but not the actual event.
>
I suppose you also didn't see the motorist crossing the central
reservation to pursue the cyclists? And what about the witnesses
report that accompanied the video?
>
> > > As for the third party getting their bike run over, he deliberately
> > > placed it in the line of the car, knowing that any normal person when
> > > faced with an angry mob, would try to escape.
>
> > So you are saying that drivers may run over bicycles if they are in
> > the way?
>
> It has been noted that you tried to ignore the fact there was an angry
> mob.
>
That doesn't answer my question. If the motorist hadn't pursued and
assaulted the cyclist they would not have been angry.
>
> > > Completely 100% fabricated event as I've described which is why the
> > > Police who were filming the event took no action.
>
> > It wasn't the police filming.
>
> Indeed - it was a bunch of cycling loonies on a demonstration.
>
So you think, like the police, that it justifies the use of a car as a
weapon to deliberately physically assault someone and damage a
bicycle?

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.