From: Brimstone on
"Doug" <jagmad(a)riseup.net> wrote in message
news:c3aea932-64d4-4564-96a8-3b08869de1ad(a)j4g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> On 3 June, 19:16, Dave Plowman <d...(a)davesound.co.uk> wrote:
>> In article
>> <84e7ed21-1e72-4aa8-8f36-705ebf72c...(a)z10g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
>> Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote:
>>
>> > On 3 June, 14:48, Dave Plowman <d...(a)davesound.co.uk> wrote:
>> > > In article
>> > > <77c32089-fdc5-4448-9ffe-f95308737...(a)s41g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
>> > > Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > Maybe you will understand how CM works someday, when you decide to
>> > > > crawl out of you hierarchical cesspit and escape your conditioning
>> > > > at
>> > > > last, you and all the others here.
>>
>> > > Right. You're the only sane one here? Gawd help us...
>>
>> > No I seem to be the only non-motorist here and who actually takes part
>> > in CM.
>>
>> If you're a non motorist, why are you posting to uk.rec.driving? Given
>> you
>> seem to hate all things non bicycle.
>>
> Because motorists infest uk.rec.cycling, though goodness knows why.
>
Perhaps because a) you insist on cross posting everything to uk.rec.driving
and b) most of the cyclists in uk.rec.cycling are also motorists?


From: Adrian on
Doug <jagmad(a)riseup.net> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

>> >> > Maybe you will understand how CM works someday, when

>> >> the current meet point becomes unavailable, and you need to decide
>> >> where to meet...

>> > How, why would it become unavailable

>> Given that the meeting point is on the South Bank, outside the NFT -
>> and large swathes of the South Bank have been under redevelopment
>> lately, I'd have thought it fairly obvious why it might become
>> unavailable.

> Only temporarily if at all since it is part of a national trail for
> walkers and cyclists and blocking it would meet with a great deal of
> opposition quite apart from CM.

>> > and what sort of reactive response by the participants do you
>> > envisage?

>> Well, _somebody's_ going to need to decide on a new meeting point,
>> aren't they?
>>
>> What about if - as part of a redevelopment - the current meeting point
>> becomes totally pedestrianised, instead of merely no-motor-vehicles?
>> Would CM participants flout that restriction en masse? Or would a
>> decision be made to move the meeting point?
>>
>> If so, who by?

> Well given your highly unlikely hypothetical

Like I said - given that large swathes of the South Bank have indeed been
closed for redevelopment in the last few years, it's actually far from
being a "highly unlikely hypothetical" - which, incidentally, rather
misses the point anyway...

> individual's suggestions for a new meeting place would probably be
> posted to online discussion groups, etc., and a consensus finally
> arrived at.

Strange how such "organisation" could happen in some circumstances and
not others, eh? Makes me almost wonder whether the claim that
organisation just isn't possible is an attempt to distance yourself from
any consequences of your actions.

> BTW, referring back to the thread title, I see from the news that
> motorcyclists have been doing something similar which Boris objected to
> on the grounds that it caused inconvenience to others, which seems to be
> the common excuse for trying to suppress the human right of freedom of
> assembly and expression.

Any chance of a link, then?
From: Adrian on
"Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

>>> If you're a non motorist, why are you posting to uk.rec.driving? Given
>>> you seem to hate all things non bicycle.

>> Because motorists infest uk.rec.cycling, though goodness knows why.

> Perhaps because a) you insist on cross posting everything to
> uk.rec.driving and b) most of the cyclists in uk.rec.cycling are also
> motorists?

Many of the motorists in uk.rec.driving are also cyclists, don't forget.

Except, of course, that's not the way Duhg defines the terms.

A motorist is a motorist at all times, so long as they use motor vehicles
even occasionally.

A cyclist can't be a cyclist unless they eat/sleep/live/breath opposition
to motor vehicles in all circumstances.
From: Adrian on
Doug <jagmad(a)riseup.net> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

> a 'consensus' of anarchists.

Bwahahahahahahah...

> Indeed I myself would have preferred CM not not have been deemed in law
> to be a procession and instead have been treated as

traffic

Of course you would. You like being an outlaw. It gives you something to
whine about.
From: NM on
On 3 June, 17:43, "GT" <a...(a)b.c> wrote:
> "bugbear" <bugbear(a)trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote in message
>
> news:KsOdnaUyIe5tRJrRnZ2dnUVZ7oadnZ2d(a)brightview.co.uk...
>
>
>
> > Doug wrote:
> >> On 3 June, 14:48, Dave Plowman <d...(a)davesound.co.uk> wrote:
> >>> In article
> >>> <77c32089-fdc5-4448-9ffe-f95308737...(a)s41g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
> >>>    Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote:
>
> >>>> Maybe you will understand how CM works someday, when you decide to
> >>>> crawl out of you hierarchical cesspit and escape your conditioning at
> >>>> last, you and all the others here.
> >>> Right. You're the only sane one here? Gawd help us...
>
> >> No I seem to be the only non-motorist here
>
> > Only by your own definitions.
>
> > To all the people who drive cars out there; Doug
> > is speaking only for himself; he's no speaking
> > for cyclists.
>
> > He's certainly not speaking for CM.
>
> He's also the only non-motorist in a motorists newsgroup with anti-motorist
> opinions and wonders why nobody likes him in here!

I like him, he has made me laugh on many occasions.