| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 2007/4/5-7 [Academia/Berkeley/CSUA/Troll/Jblack, Academia/Berkeley/CSUA/Motd] UID:46199 Activity:low |
4/4 Why do you participate on motd emarkp? It's not like anyone
here actually agrees with 95% of your opinions and it's not
like you're providing anything insightful to anyone else. Do
you actually enjoy circuitous flamewar with us evil liburals?
You're like that Butters character in South Park. Everyone makes
fun of him but he still sticks around to be beaten over and
over again. It is just mind boggling.
\_ First of all, emarkp is very polite and tends to make more of an
atempt at rational debate than most people here. Second of all,
his ideas are not the mainstream conservative party line you get
from the drooling foxnews types or the frothing freeper types--his
contributions are genuinely interesting(if annoying sometimes) and
I've definitely been led to think about things because of them.
This is a good thing. Also, as a fairly extreme liberal, I find
myself agreeing with him on several very important issues. And
on top of all that, Butters if fucking hilarious and makes SP a
better show.
\_ I like having emarkp. He is the only rational conservative
who posts regularly. Why do you want to drive him off? -ausman
\_ See, this is what precipitated my wall yesterday. His
posts yesterday were not his usual even-keel. --scotsman
\_ I like having emarkp on too. And if you spell it 'liburals'
I automatically sort you to 'moron'.
\_ Violating my own rule to not respond to anonymous trolls...
Why do you participate? I joined the CSUA in 1995, and while my
political and social views differ dramatically from most people in
Berkeley, I have a healthy respect for their technical prowess. I
also find that rational discussion with people who disagree with me
is the best way to refine and evaluate where I stand and learn to
articulate it better. Occasionally I even change my views because
of discussion here--two examples were 1) my objections to the
original Lancet article on violent death stats in post-invasion
Iraq, and 2) holding Evolution off as a scientific fact but not a
belief of mine (I now accept Evolution without reservation).
-emarkp
\_ diversity of opinion is good. How can there be dark without light?
why discourage those that think differently from you? You'd prefer
a boring motd full of yes-men?
\_ Discussion: good. Echo chamber: bad.
\_ emarkp doesn't flood the board with freeper links, and his
discussions, apart from those with tom, people pretending to be tom,
or anonymous cowards, tend to be reasonable or at least civil. I do
not agree with much of what he has to say, but I appreciate his
tone and ideas. --erikred |
| 2007/4/5-7 [Transportation/Bicycle] UID:46200 Activity:low |
4/4 Stated purpose of the Critical Mass: To increase bicycle awareness
and to convince people that biking is good.
Actual effect of the Critical Mass: To piss off drivers and people
who are dependent on cars and hope they move away.
Kudos to everyone involved last week. Let's hope keep up the
pressure and hope more drivers move out. -biker
\_ This if fucking retarded. Try going outside the Bay Area to
someplace that's actually bike friendly. Places like that are the
way they are because people built bike underpasses, overpasses
paved trails, wide bike lanes on frontage roads and residential
streets where cars go slowly, and a public transit system that
actually works which allows bikes on all the time. When this stuff
is in place, it really doesn't matter how much traffic there is on
the main car roads. Do you think bikers in nicer parts of the
country got these things by being childish hooligans and pissing
everyone off? Now, it may be that the people who run Berkeley are
such a bunch of evil fucks that you're all doomed no matter what, but\
in that case the target of all childish harassment should be the city\
council trolls, not J. Random Commuter.
\_ This if fucking retarded. Try going outside the Bay Area
to someplace that's actually bike friendly. Places like
that are the way they are because people built bike
underpasses, overpasses paved trails, wide bike lanes on
frontage roads and residential streets where cars go
slowly, and a public transit system that actually works
which allows bikes on all the time. When this stuff is in
place, it really doesn't matter how much traffic there is
on the main car roads. Do you think bikers in nicer parts
of the country got these things by being childish hooligans
and pissing everyone off? Now, it may be that the people
who run Berkeley are such a bunch of evil fucks that you're
all doomed no matter what, but in that case the target of
all childish harassment should be the city council trolls,
not J. Random Commuter.
\_ Generally, separate bike facilities are bike-unfriendly.
For example, bike commuting on residential streets is almost
certainly both slower and more dangerous than using using
thoroughfares, due to poorer intersections. -tom
\_ And what is one example of such a city in the US?
\_ Critical Mass doesn't have a stated purpose. -tom
\_ Critical Mass doesn't have a purpose.
\_ It certainly doesn't have a purpose in the sense that the
SF Bike Coalition has a purpose. I think the participants
do have a purpose for their participation, but it varies
from person to person. -tom
\_ I assume you've been on more than one CM ride. What was
your personal reason for participating?
\_ I've been on two. One was because a friend of mine
wanted to do it for her birthday celebration. One
was because I happened to run into Berkeley CM on
my way home and it was fun to ride in the pack with
the music. -tom
\_ Critical Mass is 5 percent jerks, 95 percent non jerks,
it sucks that the 5 percenters ruin it for everyone.
\_ Did the 95% show up to help the minivan woman and her kids to
save her from being assaulted?
\_ IMO an aspect of critical mass is an effort to get back some power
through numbers, where ordinarily cyclists are a vast minority on
the road and generally at a severe disadvantage vs. cars.
\_ How about bikes follow the same laws as everyone else? Like
stopping at red lights and stop signs for starters. If I drove
like a lot of people bike I'd be arrested and my car impounded. |
| 2007/4/5-7 [Uncategorized] UID:46201 Activity:nil |
4/4 http://www.wikisky.org Online starmap \_ keywords: stars star map maps sky constellation horoscope |
| 2007/4/5-7 [Uncategorized] UID:46202 Activity:nil |
4/5 most descriptive URL ever:
http://www.tehvids.com/html/longest_anal_panetration.html
\_ and most obviously nsfw
\_ Is anyone else having flashbacks to Dune? |
| 2007/4/5-7 [Computer/SW/Mail, Computer/HW/Drives] UID:46203 Activity:nil |
4/5 IMAP questions
1. when I IMAP, I got this error:
"the current comand did not succeed.
The mail server responded: Out of disk space"
what did I do wrong?
2. is SMTP the same server as IMAP server?
\_ 1) uh, your server is out of disk space. it is possible but
unlikely that your server is telling you you're over quota.
2) SMTP is the protocol mail servers use to talk to each other
to transmit mail (very simplified). IMAP is what your client
uses to talk to your mail server to retrieve mail. IMAP is
different from POP (which also is a client protocol) in that
POP downloads your mail to the client where you're expected to
deal with, while IMAP lets you have folders and such on the
server for long term storage. This allows you to read your
mail from different computers and still see the same folders
while POP is limited to whatever is still in your Inbox.
Hope that helped. |
| 2007/4/5-7 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Israel] UID:46204 Activity:very high |
4/5 What do you think about Pelosi's Middle East diplomatic efforts?
Yay Nancy? Violation of Separation of Powers? Good job? Naive and
screwing things up?
\_ Pelosi was a super hottie when she was in her early 20s. Man
those Italian women are HOT HOT HOT (when they're young).
\_ on the whole it's not a big deal. plenty of republicans
have gone to Syria. I myself would never send the
1st 2nd and 3rd in line for presidency to Iraq or Syria
or Israel but we appear to do it all the time.
\_ Not to be argumentative, but not at the same time we don't.
\_ Why doesn't she just have a picture of her hugging Assad? Of
course it is violation of powers. Unless it is at the behest
of the President, like with Bill Richardson, no member of
Congress should engage in foreign policy, period.
\_ You're an idiot.
\_ Demonstrating one's own high level of intelligence by
name calling is without further comment.
\_ Your first sentence is a non-starter. Your second sentence is
incorrect: a fact-finding mission is not diplomacy; as such, it
is not in violation of the separation of powers. If she made a
trade deal while she was there, _that_ would be diplomacy and
invalid under the constitution.
\_ In other words, he's an idiot.
\_ She's trying to kick start some sort of peace deal between
Israel and Syria and made statements about her view of Syria's
role in the region. That doesn't seem like mere fact finding.
But even so, any sort of official state visit *is* diplomacy,
so sorry, no dice there. I don't think anyone is seriously
claimed this isn't a diplomatic trip.
\_ There's diplomacy and there's Diplomacy. I'd argue (and so
would Pelosi) that her visit doesn't constitute Diplomacy
as exclusively reserved to the Executive Branch.
\_ Uh huh. Can you please define the difference between
the lower and upper case versions of the word? While
you're at it can you tell us what the definition of
the word "is" is? There are countless links from all
sorts of news sources, blogs, etc, from all over the
political spectrum in this and other countries that
refer to her 'engagement' and 'discussions', etc with
Assad. That is [Dd]iplomacy. And if you're going to
make a claim about what Pelosi would call it, how about
a quote or paraphrase from her on what she calls it?
You're past pulling at straws. The haystack is empty.
There isn't even a needle to find. (Cool, I just got
two overlapping cliches into the same reply.)
\_ I stand by my statement: What Pelosi has done does
not constitute any of the powers reserved to the
Executive Branch. You do get wacky cool points for
the overlapping cliches.
\_ Thanks for the wacky cool points. I'd still like
to know your definition of Diplomacy vs.
diplomacy. Without that there isn't much to talk
about.
\_ At this point, and since it seems to be the
bone of contention, I'd define the D as those
powers reserved exclusively to the Executive
Branch.
\_ Can I, as a private citizen with no political
standing whatsoever, go to Syria and try to be
friendly to people there, as a totally personal
attempt at peacemaking? If so, why can't Nancy
Pelosi?
\_ Because she is not a private citizen and did not
go there as a private citizen.
\_ Please demonstrate where it says that Speaker
of the House Pelosi cannot visit another
country, even with a view to initiating peace
negotiations between two other nations.
\_ By "it" I assume you mean the USSC. It
doesn't refer to the "Speaker of the House
Pelosi" but it obviously doesn't say the
Speaker can not visit a foreign country.
That is not the point of contention which
you are also aware of. If you want to
seriously discuss the USSC and the SoPs
then I've got the URLs ready to go. If you
want to do little rhetorical dances, I don't
have time for that. It's also boring.
\_ I'm generally leery of congresscritters visiting terrorist-
sponsoring nations.
\_ I'm specifically leery of people who use catchphrases like
"terrorist-sponsoring nations."
\_ Are you saying Syria doesn't sponsor terrorists? The State
Department would disagree.
\_ Which terrorists does Syria sponsor? (I know the answer
to this, but I want you to spell it out. Just saying
"terrorists" oversimplifies the situation past the point
of meaningful discourse.)
\_ Primary sponsor of Hezbollah in Lebanon for last
umpteen years. Responsible for assassination of
democratically elected leader of Lebanon. Secondary
funding source for other groups such as Hamas or
primary for numerous militia style groups likely to be
in-name-only spinoffs of Hezbollah. And if you want to
get fussy about it the Syrian army sat on Lebanon for
decades holding the entire nation as a slave state. If
you want to go back further, the only reason Jordan
exists is that Israel threatened to attack if Syria
crossed the Jordan/Syria border. Should I go on? The
Syrians are a bunch of thugs on a good day, terrorists
and supporters of terrorists on most days with no signs
of change. When Assad jr. took over from Assad sr.
many believed Syria was going to enter an age of
enlightenment since jr. was educated in the west and
thus wasn't a brutal thug like dad. Ooops. Maybe
*his* son will be better.
\_ Hamas is the democratically elected leadership
of Palestine. By definition, they are not terrorists.
\_ You're being sarcastic, right?
\_ No, the state department definition of
terrorism requires that the actors be not
state sponsored. What is your definition?
\_ http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3580.htm
Sorry but you're SOL on that one.
\_ By State Department definition, terrorism
cannot be peformed by state actors.
\_ Oh ya? URL please. And while you're
looking, try this and find HAMAS:
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/65462.pdf
\_ "Premeditated, politically motivated
violence perpetrated against
noncombatant* targets by subnational
groups or clandestine agents, usually
intended to influence an audience."
Still waiting for your definition.
\_ I'm going by the State Department
definition which I already posted
in the link you obviously didn't
read.
\_ Hamas is neither subnational
or clandestine, therefore they
cannot, by definition, be
terrorists. Your link states
the exact same, word for word
definition as the one I posted.
Q.E.D.
\_ Try again. You'll find Hamas
listed right there by the USSD
as a foreign terrorist org.
\_ So, the Bush State Department
is hypocritcal and breaks
their own rules for politcal
\_ So, the Bush State Dept. is
hypocritcal and breaks [its]
own rules for politcal
reasons. And this is a
surprise to you because..???
\_ Sorry, that the USSD
doesn't follow your
rules and definitions.
That might be
inconvenient for you but
Hamas winning an
election in Gaza doesn't
get them off the
terrorist list. The
alternative would be to
say that Gaza has
declared war on Israel
and the gloves come off.
No one wants that to
happen. Hamas is a
terrorist org. Welcome
to reality. Falling
back on Bush bashing is
pretty weak, btw.
\_ When around 70% of the
public disagrees with
how Bush et al are
doing things, you
still try to call
pointing out the
obvious "bashing"?
\_ You're ducking.
Hamas = terrorists.
Deal with it.
\_ Nope.
Sorry. Should have
said "!pp". Bush
is racing to the
bottom in the
presidenting game.
To accuse people
of Bush-bashing
is meaningless.
said "!pp".
\_ If you go far up
this thread youll
see where they
claim that using
the USSD def. of
terrorist that
Hamas is not a
terrorist. So I
found the USSD
list of terrorists
and they whine that
the USSD is now the
Bush USSD and is
somehow corrupt or
unreliable. Sorry,
can't have it both
ways.
\_ Sorry, but Bush
can't have it
both ways
either. His
admin. has
played fast and
loose with
definitions,
laws, and
history. Calling
them on it is a
valid point.
\_ Uhm yeah,
this has turned into, "I can't win on the merits of my evidence and
logic so I'm going to slam Bush". Hamas sends bomb laden people into
Israel. They attack and kill their own citizens. They lob rockets
into Israel. They rob their own people. Since you don't believe the
USSD and have decided these do not constitute terrorist acts simply
because the people of Gaza elected them what are they? Was the IRA
not a terrorist org? They had a political wing, too. If Hamas gets
kicked out of office or doesn't run at all in the next election and
thus has no one in government do they suddenly change from your
non-defined non-terrorist state of terrorism into real terrorists?
"I don't like Bush or his State Department" is not a valid point,
especially so when the person I was discussing this with started with
a claim that their definition was the USSD's. That changed real fast
once they got caught with their rhetorical pants down. Just let it go.
It's beyond sad now.
\_ Nope, my definition never changed. I said that state actors could
not be terrorists, by definition, and have consistently maintained
that position. You keep wriggling around on yours, trying to
figure out one that defines Hamas as terrorists. You have made
up your mind on this and are attempting to fit the evidence to
your point of view, which is trivially wrong. Give it up. And yes,
they used to be terrorists in the past and could be in the future,
but for now they are a legitimate State government that is acting
in a provacative and violent manner, which is what many state
in a provocative and violent manner, which is what many state
governments do, including the United States.
\_ So you're saying that the Palestinian state is now in a state of
war with Israel since Hamas has called for Israel's destruction
and acts on that desire with in their abilities? No. Hamas is
not a state actor. Palestine is not a state. No more than the
IRA was a state actor since they had a political wing. You've
ignored every question and point I've made that you found
inconvenient, still haven't answered what Hamas *is*, just what
you think they're not and yes, they have been on the USSD terror
list and will never come off until they lay down their arms and
declare that Israel has a right to exist. And rightly so because
they are a terrorist organisation. No different than the PLO was
still a terrorist organisation and Arafat still a terrorist even
after they renamed themselves the PLA and took over Gaza/WB. At
best you are quibling over dictionary definitions (which you have
misread, IMO) and have yet to answer any of the serious questions
I've raised about Hamas if they are, as you claim, not a bunch
of terrorist thugs. The fact that you ignore the USSD's list
because it doesn't fit your agenda (BUSHCO IS EVUUUL!) is just
childish and laughable. Go ahead and make some final comment
which I assume will answer none of the questions or points I've
raised and then we're done because you stopped being interesting
went you went Bush bashing instead of sticking to facts. Bush
could be Satan or a monkey but that has no bearing on Hamas'
long standing and well earned status as a bunch of killers and
terrorists.
\_ If Palestine is not a state, then what citizenship do the
Arab residents of the West Bank and Gaza hold? I agree with
you that this goes to the crux of the issue: If Palestine
is not a state, then the leadership of the State of Palestine
cannot be state actors. But this begs the question then:
what is the citizenship status of the people of Gaza? Sorry
for not answering your earlier question about Hamas, I had
to think about it for a while. I think that Hamas is a
political party though I am kind of curious what they consider
themselves. And I guess I can see where you are going with
this, if the GOP elected leadership of the United States
routinely engaged in burning crosses on black people's
lawns, killed people trying to vote and then called for
the destruction of Canada, you would be justified in calling
them terrorists. But calling for the destruction of Canada,
would not, in and of itself, be a terrorist act. I know this
is kind of whacky, but hey, I don't write the rules. Please
answer my question about Palestinian citizenship.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Palestine
Over 100 nations recognize The State of Palestine, including
the overwhelming majority of the world's population. You,
and the Bush Administration, do not.
and the Bush Administration, do not. And oh, the state
department list that you quoted, which you apparently believe
is the exhuastive and definitive reference for what
is the exhaustive and definitive reference for what
"terrorism" is, does not include the PLO or PLA, so I guess
you are wrong on that point, too.
you are wrong on that point, too. And as to your final
point about the IRA, history is replete with examples of
"terrorist" organizations that become part of the national
government after their victory. See the Irgun in Isreal,
the Vietcong in Vietnam, the Falangists in Spain, all just
in the 20th century. I am kind of embarrassed for you that
you don't already know this. Did you ever take any
world history?
\_ And _this_ is the level of detail I want instead of
meaningless phrases like state-sponsors-of-terrorism.
This paragraph lays out specific charges that can be
argued against (unsuccessfully, since the charges are
correct) or substantiated. Thank you for indulging
me.
\_ I'm not the one who originally used the s-s-o-t
phrase you didn't like but my pleasure to fill
in the gaps for anyone reading. I think the
reason phrases like SSOT are used is because we
all kind of assume we know what we're talking
about when discussing a place like Assad's Syria
and it just becomes a short hand way of talking
about it. I don't think it's intended to be
vague and non-specific in the sense you're
talking about.
\_ This is rapidly (and appropriately) getting
off-thread, but I think you're overestimating
most people's understanding of the situation
in Syria (and the Middle East). Phrases like
s-s-o-t have a real meaning but more often
get used as propagandistic terms to mean
people the Admin doesn't like. I mean, at core,
how is it that Pakistan is not listed as a
s-s-o-t?
\_ They were first designated as sponsoring terrorists by
Carter in 1979. |
| 2007/4/5-7 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs, Transportation/Car/Hybrid] UID:46205 Activity:moderate |
4/5 link:csua.org/u/ie4 mp3 of interview with the woman in the minivan in the critical mass incident (with Armstrong & Getty). Interview starts at 12 minutes in. Sounds like people in Critical Mass caused the problem. I find her believable. -emarkp (I should add A&G are far more reasonable than most people I hear on radio, they're not kool-aid drinkers, etc. And their show is liberally sprinkled with humor.) \_ She drove all the way from Hayward in a premeditated effort to assault and attempt to kill innocent people. Only the brave and noble efforts of a handful of people at peril of losing their very lives stopped this mad woman before she could bring her nefarious plot to it's ultimate and deadly conclusion! \_ Yup, I'm sure planting a kid's birthday celebration to coincide with the Critical Mass day and time, and bringing along another kid and three kids from other families, was part of her planning. \_ ob sarcasm lost upon thee \_ I *thought* I piled it on thick enough that no one could possibly take it at face value. My mistake. \_ So let's see if I have this sequence of events right: Van driver gets stopped by a small group of bicyclists, who are illegally blocking traffic. Van driver decides she is not going to wait 30 seconds and drives around bicyclist and weaves back and forth through cyclists. Cyclists get mad and block her way, probably banging their hands on the sides of her car. She freaks out and deliberately rams a bicyclist blocking her way. At this point, cyclists swarm her car and smash her window. Laws broken by cyclists: malicious mischief, failure to yield Laws broken by car driver: assault with a deadly weapon, attempted murder. Hard to side with the felon in this case. \_ That's "a" version of events. It wouldn't fly in a court room but good effort. \_ Don't be so sure of yourself. If the victim in this case steps forward, I bet the DA will file charges. \_ The cops were useless: '"We sit there and they just go right through the red lights," Sgt. Callejas said. "What else can we do? Arrest one rider while 500 keep going?"' \_ The answer to his question is YES. Arrest one, charge him/her, and make it clear that breaking the law is breaking the law even when done as a part of civil disobedience. Do this enough times and the economic penalties will add up. --erikred \_ right, just like they should arrest every driver speeding on the freeway. -tom \_ I didn't think even Tom could equate running a red right or a Stop sign with speeding by 5-10 miles. We're not talking about not doing a hand signal on turn. Running lights/stops is a real hazard. Tom, are you disingenuous or stupid? \_ You think it would be safer to have a dozen different Critical Mass groups because they got split up by lights? The cops don't think that. Running stop signs is not any more of a hazard than speeding is; in both cases, it depends on the context. -tom \_ I think it would be safer if CM followed the laws. Kind of a weird concept, I know. And in both the case of speeding and running red lights/signs, I desire and expect the cops to ticket people and arrest the more excessive cases for all vehicles be they cars, bikes, suvs, wheel chairs, flying saucers dropping spaghetti or anything else. The law already recognises the context by assigning different levels of fines and other punishments for different transgressions. It does not account for context by simply ignoring transgressions. Obviously there are corner cases such as the people doing 120+ fleeing from Mount St. Helens eruption, but I haven't heard of any active volcanos in this region. ;-) \_ speaking of flying saucers, what planet are you living on? -tom \_ obflyingcarrant http://csua.com/?entry=38770 \_ No, but if I zoom past a cop on the highway I expect to get pulled over and nailed with a ticket for a few hundred bucks and a visit to traffic school. Just because there are a lot of people breaking the law at once is no reason to ignore it. It is a basic safety issue. In this case it lead to a smashed van, scared kids, and bad bike PR. It could have been a lot worse. I want to know that if the bikers were justified and we know they were only stopped by the cops how much further could they have gone and still been justified in your mind? Since the driver is claimed to be an attempted killer, wouldn't punching her out be justified? How about nabbing the kids on the spot since she's obviously an unfit parent/guardian? How about flat out murder in self defense leaving her dead on the spot? Where is the line? (I'll answer since I was being rhetorical). The answer is they already crossed the line going as far as they did. Once you open the door to vigilante (in)justice you open a Pandora's Box you can never close again. \_ No, just like they should arrest every driver who runs a red light or stop sign. --erikred \_ You didn't listen apparently. She was waved through by police officers, and as she was in the intersection she was swarmed by bicyclists. She's moving slowly, intentionally remaining slow so they could avoid her. They're riding past, and some are circling her. Then one of them rams her vehicle (she says it looked intentional) and it escalates from there, including people climbing in top of the vehicle, breaking her back window, etc. -emarkp \_ You forgot the part where she rammed a bike, pinning it underneath her car. -ausman \_ Where does this pinning quote come from? I must have missed it. \_ I simply don't believe that claim. She says it never happened, and I have to wonder where the bike went. If my bike were pinned under the car, I certainly wouldn't have gone away without filing a report with the police. -emarkp \_ Well, and how would you have ridden off on it? A wheel or a pedal would almost certainly bend or break. \_ http://www.csua.org/u/ie1 Multiple witnesses, most of whom were not directly involved in the incident, trump one person who has every motivation to lie about her participation. -ausman \_ I don't see "multiple witnesses" on that blog link. I see a blogger speculating "Try this version..." You don't appear to have listened to the interview. There were police at the scene from the beginning, and they don't corroborate this. -emarkp \_ Sorry, wrong link: http://www.csua.org/u/ie6 -ausman \_ I get the sense that this is Bad Driver Syndrome. You're in a car. A few thousand pounds of metal. If there are pedestrians or bicyclists doing things around you, legal or illegal, you are only in control of your car. Sounds like the best thing would have been for her to stop and wait for all others to clear before moving. You don't push your car through any group unless someone's got a gun in your face. --scotsman \_ Sorry, I feel the woman and the cops are more credible. Oh, and I love how the video you link to cuts off before the woman can state her case. -emarkp \_ Where do you see a quote from "the cops"? So far they have been mum. -ausman \_ http://csua.org/u/idl (the first article I posted) I thought I heard that police arrived on the scene at some point during the altercation and didn't do anything about it, though I can't find any link to back that up at the moment, so I may be wrong. -emarkp \_ The policeman does say that he apologized to Ferrando, but does not testify one way or another to the facts surrounding the incident. Though I have to admit, him feeling the need to apologize is pretty damning. -ausman \_ It is funny that this is exactly the kind of vigilante justice that emarkp is advocating down below in the gun control debate. For the record: I have never ridden in SF Critical Mass and only a couple of times in Berkeley (which is a much different vibe anyway). I'm not a supporter of Critical Mass. But I do think that this woman was likely acting like an asshole (possibly due to hysteria, possibly due to just being an asshole), put the lives of others in danger, and in some sense, got what she deserved. The police calling "no foul" is probably the right thing to do. Oh, and Matier and Ross are unscrupulous hacks. -tom \_ Actually, no it's the opposite. I believe the driver had the right to fire in self-defense. -emarkp \_ And the bikes believed they had the right to attack in self-defense. Of course, if everyone were packing heat, they'd always consult with emarkp before trying to shoot anyone. -tom \_ I think you're an idiot tom, and please stop putting words in my mouth. The woman was surrounded by a mob which was attacking her vehicle. I simply don't believe the complaint that any bicycle went under the wheels, and if she'd had a gun and used it, I wouldn't have any complaints. By the way tom, if you're so against vigilante violence, why haven't you condemned the cyclists? -emarkp \_ I don't think it's right that they broke her window. I don't think it's right that she ran into a bike and kept trying to drive through more. -tom \_ More witnesses: http://www.csua.org/u/ieb "McCarthy [driver] said she was intimidated by police when she tried to file a hit-and-run report." police when she tried to file a hit-and-run report." Now that sounds like a reliable witness... \_ "Witnesses also say that the bicyclist who was hit wanted to file a police report, but was told by the officers that the only way to do so would be if they called an ambulance for him, which he would have to pay for." http://www.csua.org/u/iec (SFBG) \_ Where did you get "a small group of bicyclists?" \_ Well, A&G are right about one thing: the "Communist" City Council is not going to outlaw critical mass. The vast majority of San Franciscans are sick and tired of being daily bullied, threatened and intimidated by automobile drivers. And the new Transit Effectiveness Project is going to make it even more expensive and difficult to drive in San Francisco. Which is a good thing. \_ Scare cyclists as you drive every day. Weave toward them, dont give them room etc. Slow down in front of them when they run Stop signs. \_ I worked in the financial district and soma for years. The worst that ever happened was a pickup honking at me while I was rolling an E450 across the street. Maybe this intimidation occurs in some other parts of the city? (No, I didn't drive in so I was always on foot where ever I went). \_ http://www.csua.org/u/ie8 http://http://www.csua.org/u/ie7 http://http://www.csua.org/u/iea http://http://www.csua.org/u/ie9 |
| 2007/4/5-7 [Transportation/Car, Transportation/Bicycle] UID:46206 Activity:low |
- I went on three critical mass rides in the fall semester of my
freshman year. The first one was uneventful. On the second one, I
saw a minivan pull into the column of riders because she wanted to
turn right. She inched forward, and people rode around her. The
problem came when the column of riders stopped for an obstruction
ahead, and she kept inching forward until she hit the rear wheel of
someone's bike. The police escort came up, sent her on her way, and
dispersed everybody who started screaming at them by threatening to
arrest everyone on a bike who didn't get going. On the third ride, I
was riding at the back (with a police car following along about fifty
feet behind us), when a guy on a motorcycle pulled into the middle of
a lump of about a dozen of us, pacing us and revving his engine.
People shouted at him to get out of there; he kept revving his
engine. The bikes stopped. He pointed his motorcycle at one of the
stopped bikes, drove up onto the bike, and knocked its rider on his
ass. The police car's lights came on, the cop pulled up, took the
motorcyclist aside for a minute, and sent him on his way. The guy who
got knocked over started screaming at the cop, and got arrested for
being disorderly. Yes, there are belligerent jerks on these rides,
but I've also seen people assaulted with no positive police response.
The first time I stopped at a red light on one of those rides, a cop
told me to keep going because they wanted the group to keep together.
I stopped going because I read about another ride in another city
where riders were also encouraged by the police to keep together
through red lights, then were herded into a cordoned off area and
arrested en masse for running red lights. Those three rides were
the only ones I went on, and I think they're too confrontational to
be beneficial, but the way the police handle them has to be seen to
be believed.
--alawrenc
\_ The only CM ride I've been on was on the East Coast in the middle of
winter. There were no cops and no confrontations, and it was about a
30 minute ride around downtown keeping pace with traffic, followed
by lots and lots of beer at a local bar.
\_ the last CM ride I was on was when King Willie of SF decided he would
speak out against CM and try to shut them down. it was the biggest
CM ever, split into like seven separate groups that went all over
the city. Pretty much shut Willie up after that. It was clear the
people had spoken.
\_ The only CM ride I've been on was on the East Coast in the middle
of winter. There were no cops and no confrontations, and it was
about a 30 minute ride around downtown keeping pace with traffic,
followed by lots and lots of beer at a local bar. [formatd]
\_ the last CM ride I was on was when King Willie of SF decided he
would speak out against CM and try to shut them down. it was the
biggest CM ever, split into like seven separate groups that went
all over the city. Pretty much shut Willie up after that. It was
clear the people had spoken. [formatd]
\_ it was huge, it was glorious, and it stymied Willie. gotta love
it. |
| 2007/4/5-6 [Uncategorized] UID:46207 Activity:high 75%like:46223 75%like:46226 |
4/5 Poll: how many ppl think emarkp is an idiot?
yay: .
nay: ......
\_ Poll: how many ppl think op is an idiot?
yay: ......
nay:
\_ If you disagree with me, fine. But sign your name anonymous
coward. -emarkp |
| 2007/4/5-7 [Uncategorized] UID:46208 Activity:nil |
4/5 fyi, if you were a Comcast person who got migrated to Time Warner
Cable, your automatic @comcast.net -> @[state].rr.com forwarding
has or is about to be terminated early. It's supposed to work for
1 year, although it's only been about 3 months. I just chatted with
tech support and they say it was Comcast's doing and there's nothing
anyone can do. Mine stopped working Monday, 3/26. All e-mails to
my original address get a bounce to the sender. |
| 2007/4/5-7 [Uncategorized] UID:46209 Activity:nil |
4/5 How about this? How about every San Francisco resident who has
posted or commented here contact the DAs office and encourage her
to open an investigation into the Critical Mass incident?
That way, if the woman is really a dangerous maniac, she can
be put behind bars, where she cannot attack anyone else. If not,
she can have her name cleared. Hopefully, the city can find the
holligan who broke her window and charge them as well. How does
that sound? Kamala Harris's office email is DistrictAttorney@Sfgov.org
\_ Isn't it the DA's job to investigate already without public
pressure?
\_ The DA is an elected official and is not immune to political
pressure. Which is a good thing, imho. |
| 2007/4/5-7 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:46210 Activity:kinda low |
4/5 Ye who be so offended by Pelosi's trip, did this bother you too?
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/04/05/gingrich_china
\_ What about Nixon's secret negotiations with North Vietnam? Or
Reagan's secret negotiations with Iran?
\_ You could argue that Nixon visiting China doesn't count.
He is the Executive Branch and is in charge of foreign
policy.
\_ No, I mean Nixon encouraging South Vietnam's President
to stay away from peace talks with North Vietnam in 68,
while he was still a candidate. He was afraid that a
peace treaty would be signed and that the Democrats
would win the election. Sorry about confusing North
and South in my earlier post, I had my history confused.
\_ Or Franklin's secret negotiations and backdoor deals with
France?
\_ Wasn't that guy some kind of terrorist? Should we take
him off the $50? |
| 2007/4/5-7 [Politics/Domestic/911] UID:46211 Activity:low |
4/5 http://www.cnn.com The headline is: "U.S. military protects group on State's terror list" Why can't they say: "U.S. military protects terrorists" I don't get it. \_ one is a fact, the other is a judgement. \_ like this, right? http://static.crooksandliars.com/2007/04/cnn-pelosi-syria.jpg \_ you don't get it because you are ignorant. US has always support whatever group that advances is own interest, terrorist or not. IRA, PKK, PLO, you name them all. Remember, US was the largest aids providers to muslim extremist in the 1980s, 10 billions in Afganistan alone. Ohh, by the way, if you can precisely define why PLO is not a terrorist group but Hamas is, please let me know because they look pretty much the same to me, but one receive US aid, one doesn't. |
| 2007/4/5-7 [Computer/SW/Languages/C_Cplusplus] UID:46212 Activity:nil |
4/5 Pyramids might have been built using an internal spiral ramp:
http://urltea.com/3uy (independent.co.uk)
http://urltea.com/3uz (khufu.3ds.com - pictures ~ p 28)
\_ Or by aliens who to this day still visit area 51.
\_ The Asgard didn't build the pryamids; the Goa'uld did. -stmg |
| 3/14 |