Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org>
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
Subject: Re: Some bicycle paths...
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2024 14:19:29 -0500
Organization: Yellow Jersey, Ltd.
Lines: 135
Message-ID: <v8jbg0$2vfva$1@dont-email.me>
References: <l1p1aj9vhplp4r2qqb2seed6dmmdvletls@4ax.com>
 <v7r3r1$1nug0$1@dont-email.me> <v7r6v6$1q2ff$1@dont-email.me>
 <cn63ajhof05ufg9beuuoksdar1uqqrj66k@4ax.com> <v7s82e$1va65$2@dont-email.me>
 <etc4ajp3jdeq2c6tmn73v98rq7ftuqddkm@4ax.com>
 <g1g4aj90e4codctdhummefsm8okc8dkt45@4ax.com>
 <h0j4aj5g5l4hq49o71uhmh6adagrf348q0@4ax.com> <v7tktu$29r88$3@dont-email.me>
 <vvo4ajpca8kdg1td6ulshk7n7j1q2icvtl@4ax.com> <v7toqq$2arnn$1@dont-email.me>
 <v7tq4u$2auhe$4@dont-email.me> <kds4ajhouscrcitgric150lsec4ak8ho19@4ax.com>
 <v7u3tc$2cr61$2@dont-email.me> <v7u8v8$2dql1$3@dont-email.me>
 <v7v3bl$2lkdi$3@dont-email.me> <v807f4$2rh3h$1@dont-email.me>
 <v80r3n$2v4bh$2@dont-email.me> <v80s9v$2v1s1$1@dont-email.me>
 <v82l3k$3bfnc$3@dont-email.me> <v82qhk$3cqj7$3@dont-email.me>
 <v858vf$3t78k$3@dont-email.me> <v85jl0$3uupi$5@dont-email.me>
 <v85pim$3t78k$7@dont-email.me> <v85r8m$ioo$3@dont-email.me>
 <v8firj$23afi$1@dont-email.me> <v8g155$25v0d$2@dont-email.me>
 <v8j8ta$2v0di$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2024 21:19:29 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="7f70b9ad86f6900130f095d177b49064";
	logging-data="3129322"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19LyYSUP3y/OaT+Owq806f7"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:BVU3VhjESOKDsunOW+q1sFybQjw=
In-Reply-To: <v8j8ta$2v0di$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 7251

On 8/2/2024 1:35 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
> On 8/1/2024 9:04 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 8/1/2024 4:00 AM, zen cycle wrote:
>>> On 7/28/2024 12:22 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> On 7/28/2024 10:53 AM, zen cycle wrote:
>>>>> On 7/28/2024 10:12 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/28/2024 6:10 AM, zen cycle wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/27/2024 8:52 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/27/2024 6:19 AM, zen cycle wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/26/2024 3:09 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/26/2024 1:49 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/26/2024 9:14 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/25/2024 9:57 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/25/2024 3:27 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/25/2024 1:01 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Purposely irritating others is fun to people 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who are childish and obnoxious.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And yet, autos with political candidate 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stickers are common.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting viewpoint. So expressing approval 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a candidate in an election is childish and 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> obnoxious? Really?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I see many more right wing examples than left 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wing examples. And when it comes to obscene 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> examples, it's not even close.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "> I see many more right wing examples"
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That's because you take offense at them and 
>>>>>>>>>>>> blithely disregard the left wing stickers. 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Perfectly normal response BTW, nothing wrong 
>>>>>>>>>>>> with that but see it as it is.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I know what confirmation bias is, thank you. I 
>>>>>>>>>>> suppose this fine side point could be settled by 
>>>>>>>>>>> actual counts. You know, data.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But the fundamental point is that candidate 
>>>>>>>>>>> stickers are not necessarily intended to irritate 
>>>>>>>>>>> others, as you implied. Most are intended to 
>>>>>>>>>>> express support for a candidate, just as similar 
>>>>>>>>>>> ones saying "Vote for the [police, or fire, 
>>>>>>>>>>> school or library] levy."
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And they've been ruled a first amendment right.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Excellent analysis.
>>>>>>>>>> Now just extend your argument one Amendment 
>>>>>>>>>> further...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ok. how about SCOTUS has repeated ruled the right 
>>>>>>>>> to free speech is not absolute. Let's extend that 
>>>>>>>>> to the 2nd amendment.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Personally I think they are wrong on both counts but 
>>>>>>>> that hasn't stopped them from either.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> except when it comes to banning books in school 
>>>>>>> libraries....You're fine with that, but you're not 
>>>>>>> fine with banning guns in schools. Gee I wonder how 
>>>>>>> many kids have died over the years from reading 
>>>>>>> Catcher in the Rye?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You conflated limits on prurient materials to minor 
>>>>>> children in State funded facilities with 'book 
>>>>>> banning'. Utterly different things.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, it isn't. Book banning is book banning regardless 
>>>>> of the motive or source of funding for the materials. 
>>>>> Nice try at defection, especially considering much of 
>>>>> the books being banned in school libraries aren't 
>>>>> 'prurient' by even the loosest definition of 
>>>>> 'prurient'. Books with discussions on slavery and 
>>>>> experiences of racism are hardly prurient, yet you have 
>>>>> made no distinction between those and books depicting 
>>>>> graphic sex.
>>>>
>>>> You mistake my position.  I oppose ideological book 
>>>> censorship and have been carping about the loss of 
>>>> Huckleberry Finn to younger generations for decades.
>>>>
>>>> [People who haven't actually read it get incensed at 
>>>> certain words out of context while ignoring that it is 
>>>> among the most beautifully, powerfully crafted anti 
>>>> racism works ever.]
>>>>
>>>> I could not phrase it better than this:
>>>> http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/reading.jpg
>>>>
>>>> That said, normalizing sexual deviance to preteens is 
>>>> different in kind.
>>>
>>> That's funny becasue every time I've mentioned actual 
>>> works of literature being lumped in with bans on sexually 
>>> graphic material, you respond with a shrug, if any 
>>> response at all.
>>
>> If I recall you only mentioned Catcher in the Rye (a work 
>> I have not read) which is $1.63 up to anyone as of this 
>> morning:
> 
> I also mentioned To Kill a Mockingbird and The Kiterunner, 
> to reiterate, you respond with a shrug, if any response at all.
> 
> 

Happy to help with that.

To Kill a Mockingbird is available only to a select few. 
That is, people with 99 cents to spend:

https://www.alibris.com/booksearch?mtype=B&keyword=to+kill++mockingbird&hs.x=0&hs.y=0

I am unfamiliar with The Kiterunner but is actually valued 
more highly.  $1 to anyone, 24x7:

https://www.alibris.com/booksearch?mtype=B&keyword=the+kiterunner&hs.x=0&hs.y=0

Whatever ban you refer to seems to be ineffective so far.


-- 
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971