Cracking down on critical mass, hilarity will ensue.

[Human Ills]

oh no, I realized I can't win against a mind closed as tightly as a Brinks armored car.

the law you break is blocking traffic while riding as CM. Your attitude that you will interpret laws as you see fit is the symptom that shows you are a simple fundamentalist.

two different things but I guess that's too much bandwidth to process.

I could get farther arguing evolution with a Jehova's Witness. Or arguing loud pipes with a Harley rider.

So as long as each individual cyclist is pedaling and not stopped, they are no longer breaking any law?

Hmmm, I think that's my position.

 

[Human Ills]

You're right. It turns out we need to pass a Constitutional Amendment affirming a citizen's right to quiet.

Can I count on your support?

 

[cardinal03]

I understand the courts interpret the Constitutionality of our laws, that doesn't prevent me from having my own interpretation, it just means that my interpretation hasn't prevailed, yet.

arty

No, it means you're wrong. It's no more complicated than that.

 

[HiggyB]

why has no one answered my question?

On Moto group rides, when riders hold up cage cross traffic at lights and stop signs so the group of riders can stay together, is this different from critical mass?

I get a feeling this question will go unanswered.

I commented on something similar long before you asked it, and since you've asked it I swear I saw that it was answered. Yes, that's of the same ilk. If I were to see a small group (say 50 cyclists) holding up an intersection for a few minutes to get through I'd not have such a large issue (shit, happened just this last weekend before I went down to a mod meet, I gave 'em a wave and let the group of cyclists roll through just fine - no worries). When it's thousands stopping traffic for a long time all over the place, it's greatly magnified and the problems begin, this is all true regardless of the vehicle type. Stunters on the freeway blocking traffic for their own use is just as lame and earns the same ire as does CM.

Of course it will...it's the same thing.

And yet it was addressed/commented on before he asked as well as after...

 

[Human Ills]

No, it means you're wrong. It's no more complicated than that.

The courts can and do reverse course. How do you suppose that happens?

BTW, what kind of law do you practice?

 

[Climber]

So as long as each individual cyclist is pedaling and not stopped, they are no longer breaking any law?

Hmmm, I think that's my position.

Aren't you overlooking the red light that they're running?

Go look at the poll, greater than 95% of the people in the KS doesn't like the CM people. If you've learned anything about the KS (and that may be debatable), then you'll know that such a high percentage in agreement is an extremely rare event.

 

[tuxumino]

Aren't you overlooking the red light that they're running?

Go look at the poll, greater than 95% of the people in the KS doesn't like the CM people. If you've learned anything about the KS (and that may be debatable), then you'll know that such a high percentage in agreement is an extremely rare event.

no it isn't

 

[Asphaultnaut]

ah but democracy is only mob rule when it disagrees with the anarchist point of view. When it agrees however, it's the Holy Rule.

Aren't you overlooking the red light that they're running?

Go look at the poll, greater than 95% of the people in the KS doesn't like the CM people. If you've learned anything about the KS (and that may be debatable), then you'll know that such a high percentage in agreement is an extremely rare event.

 

[Climber]

no it isn't

debatable?

 

[Asphaultnaut]

yes it is!

Did you come here for a good argument?

(apologies MP!)

no it isn't

 

[yella600rr]

no it isn't

Is!

 

[GiorgioFurioso]

yes it is!

Did you come here for a good argument?

(apologies MP!)

This isn't an argument, this is contradiction. An argument is a connected sequences of statements intended to make a point.

 

[Asphaultnaut]

so lets get ready for all sorts of reversals. Sorry girls, that right to vote thing, we're gonna have to get rid of it because HI has reminded us that courts reverse course sometimes.

No that would be silly now wouldn't it?

You follow the law as it exists NOW. Not as you hope it will be.

But that point is missed.

The courts can and do reverse course. How do you suppose that happens?

BTW, what kind of law do you practice?

 

[Human Ills]

Aren't you overlooking the red light that they're running?

Go look at the poll, greater than 95% of the people in the KS doesn't like the CM people. If you've learned anything about the KS (and that may be debatable), then you'll know that such a high percentage in agreement is an extremely rare event.

really? Often it seems that I'm dialoging with a chimera.

That said aren't you overlooking the posts I've made in this very thread about citing them for traffic violations, not merely BEING a cyclist at CM?
rolleyes rolleyes rolleyesrolleyes rolleyes rolleyesrolleyes

 

[Asphaultnaut]

(crap i can't remember the rebuttal. My geek card is in jeopardy. And I'm sure GG isn't in this thread to help! )

This isn't an argument, this is contradiction. An argument is a connected sequences of statements intended to make a point.

 

[GiorgioFurioso]

(crap i can't remember the rebuttal. My geek card is in jeopardy. And I'm sure GG isn't in this thread to help! )

I believe the appropriate rebuttal is, "No it isn't!"

 

[Human Ills]

so lets get ready for all sorts of reversals. Sorry girls, that right to vote thing, we're gonna have to get rid of it because HI has reminded us that courts reverse course sometimes.

No that would be silly now wouldn't it?

You follow the law as it exists NOW. Not as you hope it will be.

But that point is missed.

No. You miss the point. You have not established that my interpreting the Constitution for myself lead in any way shape matter or form to my breaking any law.

Keep swinging at shadows

 

[Climber]

really? Often it seems that I'm dialoging with a chimera.

That said aren't you overlooking the posts I've made in this very thread about citing them for traffic violations, not merely BEING a cyclist at CM?
rolleyes rolleyes rolleyesrolleyes rolleyes rolleyesrolleyes

OK, you have just achieved what was previously considered nearly impossible. You have matched outliketrout!

And with that, I will refrain from banging my head against the pitted stone wall. :|

 

[Asphaultnaut]

people are arrested simply for being a member at a KKK rally even though they haven't burned any crosses yet. The organization exists solely for evil purposes even though it claims a legitimate face and follows laws to the letter.

CM tries to put a legitimate face but as former members HERE ON BARF have testified, the event no longer exists for that, but to create disruption. That is illegal, and expensive to the city as well. Treating one group differently simply because of their message is discrimination-also illegal.

hell aren't you the type that supports the view a soldier, Republican, Tea Party member or American citizen is a legitimate target of violence or reprisals based solely on activities of our Government or the opinions of others group members, even though they have not personally carried out any activities against the "offended" party? Simply being a member of "the group" is enough there isn't it?

really? Often it seems that I'm dialoging with a chimera.

That said aren't you overlooking the posts I've made in this very thread about citing them for traffic violations, not merely BEING a cyclist at CM?
rolleyesrolleyesrolleyesrolleyesrolleyesrolleyesrolleyesrolleyesrolleyes

 

[Human Ills]

people are arrested simply for being a member at a KKK rally even though they haven't burned any crosses yet. The organization exists solely for evil purposes even though it claims a legitimate face and follows laws to the letter.

CM tries to put a legitimate face but as former members HERE ON BARF have testified, the event no longer exists for that, but to create disruption. That is illegal, and expensive to the city as well. Treating one group differently simply because of their message is discrimination-also illegal.

You are getting warmer. Outlaw ALL cycling, and then you can outlaw critical mass.
Still haven't made the case connecting me with any illegal activity because I have the opinion that I'm free to interpret the Constitution as I see fit.

Perhaps you are confusing interpretation with action?

hell aren't you the type that supports the view a soldier, or American citizen is a legitimate target of violence based on activities of our Government, even though they have not personally carried out any activities against the violence-committing party? Simply being a member of "the group" is enough there isn't it?

:tinfoilhat