Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2007:April:05 Thursday <Wednesday, Friday>
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
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).
        \_ 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
        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:
        \_ 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
                             \_ 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
                       \_ 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
                          \_ 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?
                                   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:
                                   \_ "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
                                          \_ 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.
                                             \_ 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
                                                            \_ Sorry, but Bush
                                                               can't have it
                                                               both ways
                                                               either.  His
                                                               admin. has
                                                               played fast and
                                                               loose with
                                                               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
              \_ 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.
                 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
                          \_ 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
                    \_ 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
        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
           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
                    \_ 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.
              \_ 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.
                    \_ 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:
                             \_ 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
                                      (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.
                                \_ 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
                                      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.
                        \_ More witnesses:
                           "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
                            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."
          \_ 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).
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.
        \_ 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
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: ......
        \_ 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 -> @[state] 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
        \_ Isn't it the DA's job to investigate already without public
           \_ 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?
        \_ 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
              \_ 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
              \_ 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
        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?
        \_ 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: ( ( - 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
2019/02/21 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2007:April:05 Thursday <Wednesday, Friday>