|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Three percent of bicyclists are polite
Critical Manners takes a stand for sharing, harmony, red lights
Steve Rubenstein, Chronicle Staff Writer Saturday, April 14, 2007 A bunch of bike riders pedaled through San Francisco on Friday night, and nobody got mad at anybody. The cyclists were polite. The motorists were respectful. The pedestrians were happy. The cops were incredulous. And it all comes, said ride organizer Reama Dagasan, from stopping at red lights, which is not at all a bad thing to do. "We're making a statement tonight," she said. "We believe in sharing and being nice." Dagasan is the founder of Critical Manners, which is her response to the controversial Critical Mass ride that features hundreds of cyclists riding as a pack through San Francisco on the last Friday night of the month. At the last Critical Mass, there were several confrontations with motorists, including one that ended with someone smashing the back window of a minivan. There was none of that for the Critical Manners ride. That's because Dagasan put her foot down. She put her foot down at Grove, McAllister, Turk, Sutter, Bush and California streets, and that was just during the first half mile. A law-abiding bike rider puts her foot down a lot. The ride departed at 6 p.m. from Civic Center, after a brief refresher course. "Let's review our signals!" Dagasan hollered to the group. "Right turn, arm up! Left turn, arm straight out! Now put your helmets on! And be polite!" Sgt. Ed Callejas, one of four cops assigned to escort the chivalrous cyclists, double-checked with Dagasan about the good-manners angle. Like any good cop, he was just a bit skeptical of human nature. "You're really going to follow all the rules?" he asked. "Yes sir," she replied. "You've never seen a bigger bunch of nerds in your life." There were exactly 16 cyclists on the ride, which is a lot less than the 500 or so that Critical Mass usually gets. On the other hand, Dagasan said cheerily, it's a lot more than the four riders she got last time. The pack rode single file in the Polk Street bike lane, stopping at every light and stop sign. It made for a slow trip, and it took about 20 minutes to get to Fisherman's Wharf. On the other hand, it was faster than a Muni bus, which trailed the procession and never did catch up. "Nothing wrong with stopping for red lights," Laura Mendoza said. "Not if you like staying alive." Greg Rodgers said he was riding to "reduce the level of antagonism between bicycles and cars." Geoff Schneider said he was riding because he was "sick of all the yelling" during Critical Mass. And Toni Truong said she was "trying to let motorists know that not all cyclists are belligerent." At Beach Street, everyone stuck his or her left hand skyward before turning right, to the amazement of one Yellow cabdriver who yelled "Way to go!" out his window. After cruising through the Wharf and along the Embarcadero, the pack crossed Justin Herman Plaza -- after dismounting and walking among the pedestrians. Callejas was there, too, and he made a command decision. "I don't think you need us," he said, and he radioed to his lieutenant that he was calling off the escort. Even after the cops went away, the cyclists kept stopping at the red lights. Market Street being Market Street, there was no shortage of red lights to stop at. "I like red lights," said Gred Anlandtbom. "Gives you a chance to stop and talk and look around. You know, there's nothing really wrong with red lights." E-mail Steve Rubenstein at . === I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road construction.) Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of! http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Three percent of bicyclists are polite
Actually, we have a group here on Google. Please join us, if you're
among the 3%. Best regards, Missy Manners, founder of Critical Manners On Apr 16, 7:07 am, Mike Vandeman wrote: CriticalMannerstakes a stand for sharing, harmony, red lights Steve Rubenstein, Chronicle Staff Writer Saturday, April 14, 2007 A bunch of bike riders pedaled through San Francisco on Friday night, and nobody got mad at anybody. The cyclists were polite. The motorists were respectful. The pedestrians were happy. The cops were incredulous. And it all comes, said ride organizer Reama Dagasan, from stopping at red lights, which is not at all a bad thing to do. "We're making a statement tonight," she said. "We believe in sharing and being nice." Dagasan is the founder ofCriticalManners, which is her response to the controversialCriticalMass ride that features hundreds of cyclists riding as a pack through San Francisco on the last Friday night of the month. At the lastCriticalMass, there were several confrontations with motorists, including one that ended with someone smashing the back window of a minivan. There was none of that for theCriticalMannersride. That's because Dagasan put her foot down. She put her foot down at Grove, McAllister, Turk, Sutter, Bush and California streets, and that was just during the first half mile. A law-abiding bike rider puts her foot down a lot. The ride departed at 6 p.m. from Civic Center, after a brief refresher course. "Let's review our signals!" Dagasan hollered to the group. "Right turn, arm up! Left turn, arm straight out! Now put your helmets on! And be polite!" Sgt. Ed Callejas, one of four cops assigned to escort the chivalrous cyclists, double-checked with Dagasan about the good-mannersangle. Like any good cop, he was just a bit skeptical of human nature. "You're really going to follow all the rules?" he asked. "Yes sir," she replied. "You've never seen a bigger bunch of nerds in your life." There were exactly 16 cyclists on the ride, which is a lot less than the 500 or so thatCriticalMass usually gets. On the other hand, Dagasan said cheerily, it's a lot more than the four riders she got last time. The pack rode single file in the Polk Street bike lane, stopping at every light and stop sign. It made for a slow trip, and it took about 20 minutes to get to Fisherman's Wharf. On the other hand, it was faster than a Muni bus, which trailed the procession and never did catch up. "Nothing wrong with stopping for red lights," Laura Mendoza said. "Not if you like staying alive." Greg Rodgers said he was riding to "reduce the level of antagonism between bicycles and cars." Geoff Schneider said he was riding because he was "sick of all the yelling" duringCriticalMass. And Toni Truong said she was "trying to let motorists know that not all cyclists are belligerent." At Beach Street, everyone stuck his or her left hand skyward before turning right, to the amazement of one Yellow cabdriver who yelled "Way to go!" out his window. After cruising through the Wharf and along the Embarcadero, the pack crossed Justin Herman Plaza -- after dismounting and walking among the pedestrians. Callejas was there, too, and he made a command decision. "I don't think you need us," he said, and he radioed to his lieutenant that he was calling off the escort. Even after the cops went away, the cyclists kept stopping at the red lights. Market Street being Market Street, there was no shortage of red lights to stop at. "I like red lights," said Gred Anlandtbom. "Gives you a chance to stop and talk and look around. You know, there's nothing really wrong with red lights." E-mail Steve Rubenstein at . === I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road construction.) Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of! http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Three percent of bicyclists are polite
On Apr 16, 8:06 am, wrote:
Actually, we have a group here on Google. Please join us, if you're among the 3%. Best regards, Missy Manners, founder of Critical Manners Funny how that was top posted by someone calling themselves manners... Tell me missy, have you ever driven 36mph or over in a 35mph zone? JD |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Three percent of bicyclists are polite
"JD" wrote in message ups.com... On Apr 16, 8:06 am, wrote: Actually, we have a group here on Google. Please join us, if you're among the 3%. Best regards, Missy Manners, founder of Critical Manners Funny how that was top posted by someone calling themselves manners... Tell me missy, have you ever driven 36mph or over in a 35mph zone? JD Stopping at a red light is that difficult? Seems like a sane thing to do, particularly considering the effect and aftermath of moving metal on the human body. The complaints against top-posting really surprises me, particularly when responding to a long post that requires one to scroll to get to the response. Seems considerate to spare the reader following the thread the trouble of having to search for the new message, scrolling and trying to find the sentence without hashmarks. I communicate by email constantly, both business and personal, and the convention is to reply on top, with the past messages below in case one needs to reference. If one is answering a point by point message it makes sense to insert the answer in the body of the message, but if one is responding with a general comment to the entire message it is considerate to the reader to top-post. The ones who target a top post, which makes perfect sense in this case, tend to be the most opinionated arrogant assholes in Usenet. I've been on the groups since '92 and top postijng was the norm at that time, maybe because it made sense and Usenet access was difficult enough to weed out the morons. The reference to the speed limit is just nonsense and irrelevant. JP |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Three percent of bicyclists are polite
On Apr 16, 8:07 pm, "JP" wrote:
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0023_01C78062.CBEFF700 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Pretty ****ing hilarious you lecture people on posting etiquette when you post in MIME. And you've "been on the groups since '92" and everything. I'm so impressed. Below is the rest of your post as it appears to people reading it in slrn. You are a master of clear communication. CC ------ "JD" wrote in message = ups.com... On Apr 16, 8:06 am, wrote: Actually, we have a group here on Google. Please join us, if you're among the 3%. Best regards, Missy Manners, founder of Critical Manners =20 =20 Funny how that was top posted by someone calling themselves manners... =20 Tell me missy, have you ever driven 36mph or over in a 35mph zone? =20 JD Stopping at a red light is that difficult? Seems like a sane thing to = do, particularly considering the effect and aftermath of moving metal on the = human body. The complaints against top-posting really surprises me, particularly = when responding to a long post that requires one to scroll to get to the response. = Seems considerate to spare the reader following the thread the trouble of having to search = for the new message, scrolling and trying to find the sentence without hashmarks. I communicate by email constantly, both business and personal, and the = convention is to reply on top, with the past messages below in case one = needs to reference. If one is answering a point by point message it makes sense to insert = the answer in the body of the message, but if one is responding with a general comment to = the entire message it is considerate to the reader to top-post. =20 The ones who target a top post, which makes perfect sense in this case, = tend to be=20 the most opinionated arrogant assholes in Usenet. I've been on the = groups since '92 and top postijng was the norm at that time, maybe because it made sense = and Usenet access was difficult enough to weed out the morons. =20 The reference to the speed limit is just nonsense and irrelevant. =20 JP ------=_NextPart_000_0023_01C78062.CBEFF700 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable !DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" HTMLHEAD META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; = charset=3Diso-8859-1" META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2900.3020" name=3DGENERATOR STYLE/STYLE /HEAD BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff DIVFONT face=3DArial size=3D2/FONT /DIV DIV /DIV DIV /DIV DIV /DIV DIV"JD" <A = /A> wrote=20 in message A=20 href=3D"news: "news:1= /A.../DIV DIV> On Apr 16, 8:06 am, A=20 "Critica / A= =20 wrote:BR>> Actually, we have a group here on Google. Please join = us, if=20 you'reBR>> among the 3%.BR>>BR>> Best=20 regards,BR>> Missy Manners, founder of Critical MannersBR> = BR>=20 BR> Funny how that was top posted by someone calling themselves=20 manners...BR> BR> Tell me missy, have you ever driven 36mph or = over in=20 a 35mph zone?BR> BR> JDBR>/DIV DIV /DIV DIVStopping at a red light is that difficult? Seems like a sane = thing to=20 do,/DIV DIVparticularly considering the effect and aftermath of moving metal = on the=20 human body./DIV DIV /DIV DIVThe complaints against top-posting really surprises me, = particularly=20 when responding/DIV DIVto a long post that requires one to scroll to get to the = response. =20 Seems considerate/DIV DIVto spare the reader following the thread the trouble of having to = search=20 for the new/DIV DIVmessage, scrolling and trying to find the sentence without=20 hashmarks./DIV DIVI communicate by email constantly, both business and = personal,=20 and the /DIV DIVconvention is to reply on top, with the past messages below = in case=20 one needs to reference./DIV DIV /DIV DIVIf one is answering a point by point message it makes sense to = insert the=20 answer in the/DIV DIVbody of the message, but if one is responding with a general = comment to the=20 entire message/DIV DIVit is considerate to the reader to top-post. /DIV DIV /DIV DIVThe ones who target a top post, which makes perfect sense in this = case,=20 tend to be /DIV DIVthe most opinionated arrogant assholes in Usenet. I've been = on the=20 groups since '92/DIV DIVand top postijng was the norm at that time, maybe because it = made=20 sense and Usenet access was/DIV DIVdifficult enough to weed out the morons. /DIV DIV /DIV DIVThe reference to the speed limit is just nonsense and = irrelevant. =20 /DIV DIV /DIV DIVFONT face=3DArial size=3D2JP/FONT/DIV DIV /DIV DIV /DIV DIV /DIV/BODY/HTML ------=_NextPart_000_0023_01C78062.CBEFF700-- |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Three percent of bicyclists are polite
On Apr 16, 6:33 pm, Corvus Corvax wrote:
Pretty ****ing hilarious you lecture people on posting etiquette when you post in MIME. And you've "been on the groups since '92" and everything. I'm so impressed. Below is the rest of your post as it appears to people reading it in slrn. You are a master of clear communication. His post appeared fine and concise to me. Too bad vandeman had to begin this rancor, though. Tom |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Three percent of bicyclists are polite
On 16 Apr 2007 11:55:38 -0700, "JD" wrote:
On Apr 16, 8:06 am, wrote: Actually, we have a group here on Google. Please join us, if you're among the 3%. Best regards, Missy Manners, founder of Critical Manners Funny how that was top posted by someone calling themselves manners... Tell me missy, have you ever driven 36mph or over in a 35mph zone? Here we go again, gang-banging anyone with the guts to tell the truth. JD === I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road construction.) Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of! http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Coal Interests Fight Polar Bear Action :: Unequivocal, Mike Vandeman, "warming of the climate system is unequivocal"
Coal Interests Fight Polar Bear Action :: Unequivocal, Mike Vandeman,
"warming of the climate system is unequivocal" http://www.statesman.com/blogs/conte...interests.html Coal Interests Fight Polar Bear Action An organization representing companies that mine coal and burn it to make electricity has called on its members to fight the proposed listing of the polar bear as an endangered or threatened species. "This will essentially declare 'open season' for environmental lawyers to sue to block viirtually any project that involves carbon dioxide emissions," the Western Business Roundtable said in an e-mail. To settle a lawsuit by environmental groups, the Department of Interior announced last month that it would take a year to consider whether global warming and melting Arctic ice justifies declaring the bear "endangered" or "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act. "This seems a little unfair, pitting all those big coal companies and power companies against the poor polar bear," sniffed Frank O'Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch. http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...urce=whitelist Inside the secretive plan to gut the Endangered Species Act Proposed regulatory changes, obtained by Salon, would destroy the "safety net for animals and plants on the brink of extinction," say environmentalists. March 27, 2007 | The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is maneuvering to fundamentally weaken the Endangered Species Act, its strategy laid out in an internal 117-page draft proposal obtained by Salon. The proposed changes limit the number of species that can be protected and curtail the acres of wildlife habitat to be preserved. It shifts authority to enforce the act from the federal government to the states, and it dilutes legal barriers that protect habitat from sprawl, logging or mining. "The proposed changes fundamentally gut the intent of the Endangered Species Act," says Jan Hasselman, a Seattle attorney with Earthjustice, an environmental law firm, who helped Salon interpret the proposal. "This is a no-holds-barred end run around one of America's most popular environmental protections. If these regulations stand up, the act will no longer provide a safety net for animals and plants on the brink of extinction." In recent months, the Fish and Wildlife Service has gone to extraordinary efforts to keep drafts of regulatory changes from the public. All copies of the working document were given a number corresponding to a person, so that leaked copies could be traced to that individual. An e-mail sent in March from an assistant regional director at the Fish and Wildlife Service to agency staff, asking for comments on and corrections to the first draft, underscored the concern with secrecy: "Please Keep close hold for now. Dale [Hall, director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service] does not want this stuff leaking out to stir up discontent based on speculation." Many Fish and Wildlife Service employees believe the draft is not based on "defensible science," says a federal employee who asked to remain anonymous. Yet "there is genuine fear of retaliation for communicating that to the media. People are afraid for their jobs." Chris Tollefson, a spokesperson for the service, says that while it's accurate to characterize the agency as trying to keep the draft under wraps, the agency has every intention of communicating with the public about the proposed changes; the draft just hasn't been ready. And, he adds, it could still be changed as part of a forthcoming formal review process. Administration critics characterize the secrecy as a way to maintain spin control, says Kieran Suckling, policy director of the Center for Biological Diversity, a national environmental group. "This administration will often release a 300-page-long document at a press conference for a newspaper story that will go to press in two hours, giving the media or public no opportunity to digest it and figure out what's going on," Suckling says. "[Interior Secretary Dirk] Kempthorne will give a feel-good quote about how the new regulations are good for the environment, and they can win the public relations war." In some ways, the proposed changes to the Endangered Species Act should come as no surprise. President Bush has hardly been one of its fans. Under his reign, the administration has granted 57 species endangered status, the action in each case being prompted by a lawsuit. That's fewer than in any other administration in history -- and far fewer than were listed during the administrations of Reagan (253), Clinton (521) or Bush I (234). Furthermore, during this administration, nearly half of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service employees who work with endangered species reported that they had been directed by their superiors to ignore scientific evidence that would result in recommendations for the protection of species, according to a 2005 survey of more than 1,400 service biologists, ecologists and botanists conducted by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, a nonprofit organization. "We are not allowed to be honest and forthright, we are expected to rubber stamp everything," wrote a Fish and Wildlife Service biologist as part of the survey. "I have 20 years of federal service in this and this is the worst it has ever been." The agency has long seen a need to improve the act, says Tollefson. "This is a look at what's possible," he says. "Too much of our time as an agency is spent responding to litigation rather than working on recovering the species that are most in need. The current way the act is run creates disincentives for people to get involved with recovering species." Kempthorne, boss of the Fish and Wildlife Service, has been an outspoken critic of the act. When he was a U.S. senator from Idaho in the late 1990s, he championed legislation that would have allowed government agencies to exempt their actions from Endangered Species Act regulations, and would have required federal agents to conduct cost-benefit analyses when considering whether to list a species as endangered. (The legislation failed.) Last June, in his early days as interior secretary, Kempthorne told reporters, "I really believe that we can make improvements to the act itself." Kempthorne is keeping good on his promise. The proposed draft is littered with language lifted directly from both Kempthorne's 1998 legislation as well as from a contentious bill by former Rep. Richard Pombo, R-Calif. (which was also shot down by Congress). It's "a wish list of regulations that the administration and its industry allies have been talking about for years," says Suckling. Written in terse, dry legal language, the proposed draft doesn't make for easy reading. However, the changes, often seemingly subtle, generally serve to strip the Fish and Wildlife Service of the power to do its stated job: to protect wildlife. Some verge on the biologically ridiculous, say critics, while others are a clear concession to industry and conservative Western governors who have long complained that the act degrades the economies of their states by preventing natural-resource extraction. One change would significantly limit the number of species eligible for endangered status. Currently, if a species is likely to become extinct in "the foreseeable future" -- a species-specific timeframe that can stretch up to 300 years -- it's a candidate for act protections. However, the new rules scale back that timeline to mean either 20 years or 10 generations (the agency can choose which timeline). For certain species with long life spans, such as killer whales, grizzly bears or wolves, two decades isn't even one generation. So even if they might be in danger of extinction, they would not make the endangered species list because they'd be unlikely to die out in two decades. "It makes absolutely no sense biologically," wrote Hasselman in an e- mail. "One of the Act's weaknesses is that species aren't protected until they're already in trouble and this proposal puts that flaw on steroids." Perhaps the most significant proposed change gives state governors the opportunity and funding to take over virtually every aspect of the act from the federal government. This includes not only the right to create species-recovery plans and the power to veto the reintroduction of endangered species within state boundaries, but even the authority to determine what plants and animals get protection. For plants and animals in Western states, that's bad news: State politicians throughout the region howled in opposition to the reintroduction of the Mexican gray wolf into Arizona and the Northern Rockies wolf into Yellowstone National Park. "If states are involved, the act would only get minimally enforced," says Bob Hallock, a recently retired 34-year veteran of the Fish and Wildlife Service who, as an endangered species specialist, worked with state agencies in Idaho, Washington and Montana. "States are, if anything, closer to special economic interests. They're more manipulated. The states have not demonstrated the will or interest in upholding the act. It's why we created a federal law in the first place." Additional tweaks in the law would have a major impact. For instance, the proposal would narrow the definition of a species' geographic range from the landscape it inhabited historically to the land it currently occupies. Since the main reason most plants and animals head toward extinction is due to limited habitat, the change would strongly hamper the government's ability to protect chunks of land and allow for a healthy recovery in the wild. The proposal would also allow both ongoing and planned projects by such federal agencies as the Army Corps of Engineers and the Forest Service to go forward, even when scientific evidence indicates that the projects may drive a species to extinction. Under the new regulations, as long as the dam or logging isn't hastening the previous rate of extinction, it's approved. "This makes recovery of species impossible," says Suckling. (You can read the entire proposal, a PDF file, here.) Gutting the Endangered Species Act will only thicken the pall that has hung over the Fish and Wildlife Service for the past six years, Hallock says. "They [the Bush administration] don't want the regulations to be effective. People in the agency are like a bunch of whipped dogs," he says. "I think it's just unacceptable to go around squashing other species; they're of incalculable benefit to us. The optimism we had when this agency started has absolutely been dashed." http://www.earthjustice.org/news/pre...otections.html Bush Administration Rewrite of Endangered Species Act Regulations Would Gut Protections Hush-hush proposal "a no-holds-barred end run around one of America's most popular laws" Washington, DC -- A secret draft of regulations that fundamentally rewrite the Endangered Species Act was leaked to two environmental organizations, which provided them to the press last night An article in Salon quotes Earthjustice attorney Jan Hasselman saying, "The proposed changes fundamentally gut the intent of the Endangered Species Act." The changes are fiercely technical and complicated, but make future listings extremely difficult, redefine key concepts to the detriment of protected species, virtually hand over administration of the act to hostile states, and severely restrict habitat protections. Many of the changes -- lifted from unsuccessful legislative proposals from then-Senator (now Interior Secretary) Dirk Kempthorne and the recently defeated congressman Richard Pombo -- are reactions to policies and practices established as a result of litigation filed by environmental organizations including Earthjustice. "After the failure of these legislative proposals in the last Congress, the Bush administration has opted to gut the Endangered Species Act through the only avenue left open: administrative regulations," said Hasselman. "This end-run around the will of Congress and the American people will not succeed." A major change would make it more difficult for a species to gain protection, by scaling back the "foreseeable future" timeframe in which to consider whether a species is likely to become extinct. Instead of looking far enough ahead to be able to reasonably determine whether a species could be heading for extinction, the new regulations would drastically shorten the timeframe to either 20 years or 10 generations at the agency's discretion. For species with long generations like killer whales and grizzly bears, this truncated view of the future isn't nearly enough time to accurately predict whether they are at-risk now. "These draft regulations represent a total rejection of the values held by the vast majority Americans: that we have a responsibility to protect imperiled species and the special places they call home," said Kate Freund, Legislative Associate at Earthjustice. According to several sources within the Fish and Wildlife Service quoted by Salon, hostility to the law within the agency has never been so intense. "I have 20 years of federal service in this and this is the worst it has ever been," one unnamed source is quoted as saying. In addition, the proposal would allow projects by the Forest Service and other agencies to proceed even if scientific evidence suggests that the projects might drive species to extinction so long as the rate of decline doesn't accelerate owing to the project. The Bush administration's antipathy to the law is shown by the numbers of species it has protected, in each case as the result of litigation -- 57. By comparison, 253 species were listed during the Reagan administration, 521 under Clinton, and 234 under Bush I. The administration reportedly had expected to reveal the new regulations in a few weeks. The draft regulations must be published in the Federal Register for public comment before they can become final, which is likely to be at least a year off. Contact: Jan Hasselman, Earthjustice, (206) 343-7340, ext. 25 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Three percent of bicyclists are polite
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 00:07:27 GMT, "JP" wrote:
"JD" wrote in message ups.com... On Apr 16, 8:06 am, wrote: Actually, we have a group here on Google. Please join us, if you're among the 3%. Best regards, Missy Manners, founder of Critical Manners Funny how that was top posted by someone calling themselves manners... Tell me missy, have you ever driven 36mph or over in a 35mph zone? JD Stopping at a red light is that difficult? Seems like a sane thing to do, particularly considering the effect and aftermath of moving metal on the human body. The complaints against top-posting really surprises me, particularly when responding to a long post that requires one to scroll to get to the response. Seems considerate to spare the reader following the thread the trouble of having to search for the new message, scrolling and trying to find the sentence without hashmarks. I communicate by email constantly, both business and personal, and the convention is to reply on top, with the past messages below in case one needs to reference. If one is answering a point by point message it makes sense to insert the answer in the body of the message, but if one is responding with a general comment to the entire message it is considerate to the reader to top-post. The ones who target a top post, which makes perfect sense in this case, tend to be the most opinionated arrogant assholes in Usenet. I've been on the groups since '92 and top postijng was the norm at that time, maybe because it made sense and Usenet access was difficult enough to weed out the morons. The reference to the speed limit is just nonsense and irrelevant. JP I just want to know: How many top-posters can stand on the head of a pin? === I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road construction.) Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of! http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Percent body fat! | thelonghouse | UK | 20 | February 28th 07 03:26 PM |
Polite vests | spindrift | UK | 31 | October 31st 06 05:44 PM |
Polite wrong-way riders | Kristian M Zoerhoff | General | 104 | July 9th 06 01:40 AM |
this forum accounts for _____ percent of total uni-ers in usa? | terrybigwheel | Unicycling | 5 | May 23rd 06 04:29 AM |
Polite drivers. | Robert Haston | Recumbent Biking | 10 | July 17th 04 08:48 AM |