Safe Speed Forums

The CSA v2 system was from EDS.

For your viewing pleasure.........



http://www.cyclingplus.co.uk/forum/topi ... _ID=120903

Yes those trolls that infest C+ (so turning it into Cminor) really are "Predictable as ever", somehow reading something into which only their screwed up interpretation and logic will allow. Oh how the thread "condones sending bombs through the post with the intention of causing serious injury".
Bravo guys - bravo

And Mister Plank has the nerve to call people on here 'nutters', I think he has some serious issus personally.

Unfortunately, the object of a forum is for discussion, the price of freedom, is to discuss, hear and read things that may be abhorrent to many. There's no pleasing all but for these idiots to suggest that merely by discussion, that the people on this site have some form of assimilation with one who sends parcels with pyrotechnics in, shows how deluded they really are. Their opinions count for nothing at the end end-of-the-day.

System is a bit strong

Read what ever you like into a post.
When you quote a post out of context, it no longer represents the full story.

I have stayed away from this thread until now, AND have read others comments on it. It's not for me to criticise anything written in a public forum where posters are free to express their thoughts, but I personally like to compose my replies carefully, and with a view to how they might be construed. When I dont, I often type things which dont fully or clearly express what was in my head!

The picture above? Well it could show an innocent picture of pets playing with a child's toy, or it COULD show the anti racist sentiment of somebody who is taunting some dogs with a representation of an ethnic group!
What YOU believe it looks like will depend on YOUR point of view of the picture, and the poster.

Do I seem like a racist? Do the earlier posts in this thread seem to support acts of terrorism?
I think not in intent, but others may see things differently

I shall continue to use the facility offered by this forum to express my views on road safety, and share ideas with other like minded people.

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

Ern.. as usual

Common sense ..

By the way.. later taboid "evidence" seemed to point to some animal rights loony fringe on all counts.

But .. tabloid press are quick to draw conclusions but not so quick to put matter straight

Makes good headlines to blame an outraged motorist.


But.. sigh.. there is no evidence apart from tabloid fancy to suggest this. For police to say otherwise mightcompromise.. as they could well knwo who did this.. but need to lurk to collate the evidence to put before the court.

Pe the tabloids come Monday.. the story and field of suspicion seems to revolve around animal rights cells. roll:

I think all - including our many lurks - would do selves a favour to refrain from inaccurate and illogically insane speculation and just allow a dedicated police force to investigate, collate the required evidence and arrest and charge accordingly.

To speculate as some do in illogical and uneducated form (as per links undermines justice in any case.

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

My word, my word!

I have never had the misfortune to venture over to C+ before, and arrived here after 'the drama' would seem to have occurred. I followed the link however, and feel dumber for having read the thread it led to!

I would hate it if we should ever decline into such an orgy of ill-founded derision for any other site dealing with road safety. Despite the misguided priorities of some others, I don't think we could ever summon up even a small fraction of C+'s vitriol, or direct such irreverent invective towards any campaign that genuinely aims to improve road safety.

The fact that they are so ready to attack the messenger, whilst neglecting the message itself, goes to show that they have no real rebuttal.

I find it quite amusing how they speculate as to SafeSpeed's credibility with the media whilst they themselves have made no discernible waves beyond their own, very secluded, shores. If they were arguing from such a strong platform then one would have expected to see prominent retorts from them in both broadsheets and red-tops, in response to Paul's quotes therein.

The fact remains (for those C+'ers who actually bother to read the thread they purport to be commenting on, before commencing the stroking of the collective e-peen) that, as best I can tell, noone here condones the bombing of any innocents. Furthermore, attempting to understand the mindset of a clearly misguided individual, or individuals, does not constitute approval of, or apology for, their actions. If, however, someone were to express sentiments of support for such a course of action here, I would hope that their views would not be censored purely for daring to disagree with the opinion of the majority (I am sure you can see the comparisons). I would like to think that their point of view would be explored, and attempts made to make them see how their beliefs were ill-founded and misguided. Just because the threat to a few lives by a nutter with a bomb is more emotive than the threat to thousands of lives by misguided road-safety policy doesn't mean we should be afraid to discuss and dissect every aspect of it.

At the risk of sounding patronising, matters of mortality care little for the bleatings of those who's closest encounter with death has been the abstract denouncement of whichever evil motorist killed the latest of their clearly infallible 'brother cyclists', whom they have likely never met. Attacks far more horrid than some fizzling parcels are committed on British citizens every day, long forgotten by the popular media in search of a jucier story. The suggestion that we should not discuss these, not examine, nor attempt to empathise with the motives behind them, in some attempt to make sense of or understand them, purely because they comprise subject matter that we are uncomfortable with, is frankly offensive to those whose lives they have put in jeopardy, and those whose lives they may tomorrow.

"Denounce, denounce, heads in the sand" is all very well for a soft, comfortable existence, but lack of understanding will only invite repeats.

Blimey Robin. I only wish i had the same linguistic mastery of prose that you appear to have.

I agree with everything youve said.

_________________
"Safety" Scamera Partnerships;
Profitting from death and misery since 1993.

Believe nothing- Question everything.

Why not post the information that the victims had driven to work?

_________________
COAST Not just somewhere to keep a beach.

A young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law.

Ernest, isn't that a Robinson's Golliwog? As I recall they had to abandon them for being offensive to middle aged white housewives, no, I mean, um, black people, yes, thats it!

That picture could very well be an image of (predominantly white) terrier puppies being trained to participate in race lynchings! I would suggest Paul censor, um, I mean moderate, it at once, and call the pee-cee police and report it to the image hosting site, and have the perpetrators locked up and won't someone please think of the children!

Jack Russels <ahhhh>

Who've had their tails docked...OMIGOD call the feds now!

I suggest you read this thread a little more closely. This is an extract from the C+ thread and is a cut and paste of some comment from this thread. I think you will find that some of the SS forumers made some ill-advised comment that bordered on the offensive. I for one, can never condone any actions where a mere employee of an organisation has their life threatened simply because the organisation itself does things that are deemed by some to be unacceptable.

Quotes:

AND OUR GOVERNMENT HAS THE GALL TO CALL LETTERBOMBS UNDEMOCRATIC


Quote:
few 'businesses' are more deserving.



Quote:
But are people being pushed too far?


Quote:
I don't think insane; they just broke before the rest of us did. Mass Civil disobedience is coming and its coming fast.


Quote:
They're clearly nuts but for god's sake why are the government persisting with policies that protect no-one, cause resentment and have now created a target for nutters harming an employee in the process!


Quote:
the populace are starting to vent their anger and will only escualate.


Quote:
So the government tell you to pay them, even though you get nothing for it, and if you dare retaliate they call you a terrorist?



Quote:
There is no easy legal way to retaliate against these companies and organisations who are stealing our money and aren't treating us like people, so I can understand how someone would want to hurt them back.


Quote:
You can understand how revolutions start from these beginnings

I think you need to consider your context more carefully. You have quoted a post that quotes me, so I feel involved here, in fact I heartily regret posting it originally except for the fact that it provoked nearly every one (bar the bizarre one) of the originally quoted contributors to clarify their positions to re-iterate that they do NOT condone causing hurt to others.

_________________
COAST Not just somewhere to keep a beach.

A young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law.

The origonal quote was mine - NOT to condone letterbombs , violance achieves nothing but no one looked at that statement - but the act must have been done out of frustration or some act of mental diminishment.
But then so was Bloody Sunday ( and i'm a Protestant descendant of Orange parentage ,before some flamer shouts )
My comments were made to compare the horrors of what the UK did (without any legal authority ,and on a whim rather than on facts,it now appears ) and the bomber - NOT to condone the action , BUT to compare the two actions.

I have the feeling that 'goes without saying' on here. Hurting people isn't good. (unless they want it, obviously.)

_________________
Andrew.

You see above the context of my words quoted by FastWheels. Not quite as anarchic now, huh.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

Ernest had it right first time:

When you quote a post out of context, it no longer represents the full story

Let's take my quote: "few 'businesses' are more deserving. "
Yet just before this I quite also clearly stated: "I utterly condemn inflicting injury on personnel"

How anyone can in any way interpret that to be condoning such actions is beyond all logic. Further, I have explained my reasoning earlier in the thread, you have chosen to ignore this!

Your poor behaviour strongly suggests you are indeed one of the C+ trolls.

After flaming on my ideas , i had to reply - ---Prof B puts ths sort of thing in a nutshell.

Years ago , i lived in an African "republic" -- letterbombs would have been considered a minor trivia, in a country derived from the British judicial system, for the things forced on the British public.

Look, look, I can quote out of context too!

Naughty, evil C+!!