Showdown Over River

wrote:
Solvang Cyclist wrote:
Garrison Hilliard wrote in
:

Showdown over a river

Firstly, I don't see what this has to do with cycling.


So you don't know about the Little Miami Bike Trail, eh?

You can say that again!

Doug Bashford, Fresno wrote:
Will said about:
Showdown Over River



Garrison Hilliard wrote:

... actually he posted an article about promoting sprawl under the
guise of relieving car traffic congestion via road construction.

Exactly.

It's worse than a case of permanant environmental
degradation for mere convienience.
It's a case of permanant environmental degradation
for mere temporary convienience.
(Roads CAUSE long term worse, deeper congestion.)

The answer, Garrison, is not to promote more car traffic. You need only
look at places like Atlanta, GA and Va. Beach, VA to see how more roads
simply mean exponential increases in car traffic.

But that's merely anecdotal evidence.
Any unvested city planner worth his salt
would agree with your proven known facts.
This is NOT a matter of opinion.
However, it sounds like the city planner
in this case is not unvested.

Most politicians, particularly in ignorant areas,
are progrowth anti-environment, environmental
lipservicers.


The answer is to
redirect the funds into light rail.

Soome well educated cities have chosen to redirect,
or even end growth.
--Doug

I like this remark by a local citizen: "I'm all for the environment,
but the new highway would help people get to and from work."

Kinda like saying "I'm all for the environment, as long as we don't let
it interfere with the task of trashing the environment."


-Richard, His Kanubic Travesty
--
================================================== ====================
Richard Hopley Winston-Salem, NC, USA
.. rhopley[at]earthlink[dot]net
.. Nothing really matters except Boats, Sex, and Rock'n'Roll
.. rhopley[at]wfubmc[dot]edu
.. OK, OK; computer programming for scientific research also matters
================================================== ====================

AustinMN wrote:
Doug Bashford, Fresno wrote:

Soome well educated cities have chosen to redirect,
or even end growth.

It's called snob zoning. It's a well-deserved name.


Anti-intellectualism rules: If you don't like it, call it by a
demeaning name!

AustinMN wrote:
Garrison Hilliard wrote:

snip quoted article

Cross-posted to unrelated groups:

rec.boats.paddle
sci.environment
rec.bicycles.misc

Austin

Lesse, an environmental issue impacting a paddling and bicycling
venue... uh, you see no relationship there?

You must be reading this in one of these groups. If you believe this
is unrelated, then you are not reading that group as an interested
participant, but as a provocateur. So, now I know how exactly much
importance to attach to any opinion you might express.


-Richard, His Kanubic Travesty
--
================================================== ====================
Richard Hopley Winston-Salem, NC, USA
.. rhopley[at]earthlink[dot]net
.. Nothing really matters except Boats, Sex, and Rock'n'Roll
.. rhopley[at]wfubmc[dot]edu
.. OK, OK; computer programming for scientific research also matters
================================================== ====================

On 12 Nov 2006 11:17:25 -0800, "
wrote:


Solvang Cyclist wrote:
Garrison Hilliard wrote in
:

Showdown over a river

Firstly, I don't see what this has to do with cycling.


So you don't know about the Little Miami Bike Trail, eh?

The article briefly and peripherally mentioned cycling, but the
subject of the article and its primary focus is a motor vehicle
traffic issue and project; posting this to a cycling newsgroup *in
full* is about as relevant as posting the daily content of the
Congressional Record for a date when a cycling issue was raised in
floor debate.

Focus on the topic, with a relevant excerpt, or expect to get plonked.

There wasn't enough relevant content in the whole article to warrant
posting any part of it to any r.b.* groups unless used as part of a
relevant discussion or starter, IMO.


--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

Werehatrack wrote in
:

On 12 Nov 2006 11:17:25 -0800, "
wrote:


Solvang Cyclist wrote:
Garrison Hilliard wrote in
:

Showdown over a river

Firstly, I don't see what this has to do with cycling.


So you don't know about the Little Miami Bike Trail, eh?

The article briefly and peripherally mentioned cycling, but the
subject of the article and its primary focus is a motor vehicle
traffic issue and project; posting this to a cycling newsgroup *in
full* is about as relevant as posting the daily content of the
Congressional Record for a date when a cycling issue was raised in
floor debate.



In the paddling group there have been quite a few discussions regarding
motor boat traffic (and specifically how we can safely coexist). Similarly,
I would have thought that motor vehicle traffic would a rather important
issue for cyclist as well.

Focus on the topic, with a relevant excerpt, or expect to get plonked.


I know it would just ruin my day if someone from a newsgroup that I never
read plonked me.

Werehatrack wrote:
On 12 Nov 2006 11:17:25 -0800, "
wrote:


Solvang Cyclist wrote:
Garrison Hilliard wrote in
:

Showdown over a river

Firstly, I don't see what this has to do with cycling.


So you don't know about the Little Miami Bike Trail, eh?

The article briefly and peripherally mentioned cycling, but the
subject of the article and its primary focus is a motor vehicle
traffic issue and project; posting this to a cycling newsgroup *in
full* is about as relevant as posting the daily content of the
Congressional Record for a date when a cycling issue was raised in
floor debate.

Focus on the topic, with a relevant excerpt, or expect to get plonked.

There wasn't enough relevant content in the whole article to warrant
posting any part of it to any r.b.* groups unless used as part of a
relevant discussion or starter, IMO.


Silly me. And this looked just sooooo much like a discussion "starter"
to me.

Have you considered that, if Solvang Cyclist (and you) "don't see what
this has to do with cycling", you and he (she?) might be just a bit
myopic?

I used to ride, not too seriously, maybe 100 miles/week on roads and
trails, before I took up whitewater paddling (which showed me how
really borrrrrring road-biking is), and at the time I was a member of
something called "The Rails-to-Trails Conservancy", and we were all
about how traffic-planning issues affected bicyclists. This is no
different. It is relevant to only a tiny number of SW Ohio
trail-riders (and only a tiny number of SW Ohio boaters), but the rest
of us can (what a concept) SKIP THE FLIPPIN' ARTICLE!

Poor Garrison. He thought you morons in rec.bicycles.misc (and what,
pray tell, do you imagine the "misc" indicates?) would still be
interested in things like the way traffic decisions affect bike trails.
He publishes bags of articles on rec.boats.paddle that won't interest
*me* very much until the day comes that I float down the Ohio river on
my way from Washington (DC) to Washington (state), but are valuable to
anyone who boats in the Cincinnati area. Oddly, though, I don't jump
all over him and whine about "staying on topic". I just scan his
articles and go on. No harm, no foul. 'Course, even when I *was* a
cyclist, I thought most cyclists were assholes. You conform to my
stereotype.

-Richard, His Kanubic Travesty
--
================================================== ====================
Richard Hopley Winston-Salem, NC, USA
.. rhopley[at]earthlink[dot]net
.. Nothing really matters except Boats, Sex, and Rock'n'Roll
.. rhopley[at]wfubmc[dot]edu
.. OK, OK; computer programming for scientific research also matters
================================================== ====================

"Oci-One Kanubi" wrote in
ps.com:

Have you considered that, if Solvang Cyclist (and you) "don't see what
this has to do with cycling", you and he (she?) might be just a bit
myopic?


I normality don't reply to such posts since they almost never return to a
civil conversation, but I will try. Note that my main point has been
ignored here. That is, to copy a newspaper article verbatim without
adding ANY original content is a clear violation of copyright and is in
no way protected by fair use. Had the original poster simply quoted the
relevant parts of the article to use as a basis for original thought, it
would have been fine.

'Course, even when I *was* a
cyclist, I thought most cyclists were assholes. You conform to my
stereotype.

Reading through this thread for posters with a hostile tone, I find the
quote above to be quite ironic.

Cheers,
David

Solvang Cyclist wrote in rec.boats.paddle:

I normality don't reply to such posts since they almost never return to a
civil conversation, but I will try. Note that my main point has been
ignored here. That is, to copy a newspaper article verbatim without
adding ANY original content is a clear violation of copyright and is in
no way protected by fair use. Had the original poster simply quoted the
relevant parts of the article to use as a basis for original thought, it
would have been fine.

This is why Usenet was called "the largest collection of copyright violations
in the world" until BitTorrent came along.

On the plus side for we remaining few on Usenet, it's much easier to read
reposted newspaper articles here, where there are neither pop-up ads nor
bogus Javascript doo-dads, just the text ma'am.

Also, newspapers are infamous for taking down articles just a few days
after they appear. Imagine that!

Solvang Cyclist wrote:
"Oci-One Kanubi" wrote in
ps.com:

Have you considered that, if Solvang Cyclist (and you) "don't see what
this has to do with cycling", you and he (she?) might be just a bit
myopic?


I normality don't reply to such posts since they almost never return to a
civil conversation, but I will try. Note that my main point has been
ignored here. That is, to copy a newspaper article verbatim without
adding ANY original content is a clear violation of copyright and is in
no way protected by fair use. Had the original poster simply quoted the
relevant parts of the article to use as a basis for original thought, it
would have been fine.

Affirmative on the copyright issue, but I thought you might have said,
as one well-intentioned outdoor recreationist to another: "thanks for
the tip; this issue might impact some cyclists and boaters. But,
really, you should be careful about copyright infringement when you
post the full text of an article this way." And gone on in more detail
if you wished, in a collegial, comradely kind of way.

'Course, even when I *was* a
cyclist, I thought most cyclists were assholes. You conform to my
stereotype.

Reading through this thread for posters with a hostile tone, I find the
quote above to be quite ironic.

Well, of course you have extracted this quotation from context. The
context was this: someone posted, in good faith (but poor judgement WRT
copyright infringement) an article calling attention to an
urban-planning issue that might be of interest to environmentalists,
cyclists, and boaters. But rather than glancing briefly to determine
that the content was of no use to yourselves, the two of you evidently
read it all, then complained because he posted it, though this
well-intentioned message might actually be of interest to other readers
of your newsgroup.

You try to imply that, because you used no specifically provocative
words or terms, your post and Werehatrack's post were not hostile.
This is wrong. I fell into rec.bicycles.* by the OP's crosspost, yet
the Usenet-wide ettiquette for newsgroup posting has been the same for
decades, regardless of different group subcultures: in unmoderated
newsgroups anyone who is interested in the topic may post to the group,
and anyone who is not interested in what that poster has to say...
ignores the message.

So... yeh, I think anyone who jumps up and starts railing against a
well-intentioned act that he can easily ignore is -- let me soften it a
bit -- *acting* like an asshole. And I'm sure I don't need to point
out that no-one from the boating newsgroup or the environmental
newsgroup was doing this kind of railing. So I jumped to a conclusion,
which you resent.

-Richard, His Kanubic Travesty
--
================================================== ====================
Richard Hopley Winston-Salem, NC, USA
.. rhopley[at]earthlink[dot]net
.. Nothing really matters except Boats, Sex, and Rock'n'Roll
.. rhopley[at]wfubmc[dot]edu
.. OK, OK; computer programming for scientific research also matters
================================================== ====================