Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Doug Haynes on June 10, 2011 at 5:44am

Your first paragraph makes me sad, very sad; is that really how you want to present cyclists?

 

They said something stupid but I hardly think that is against the law, the FCC really has no reason to be involved.

 

I see complaining to them and expecting a REAL apology to be reasonable but looking to take peoples jobs or cause them harm is a bit over the top.

 

 

Ross Martinek said:

Waiting for that list, Gabe. I'm for getting the two of them publicly censured, fined, and off the air—or hit in the face with a baseball bat—their choice. They can even wear a bike helmet for the latter. Of course, one could argue that there's nothing in those craniums that really needs protection…

 

I was almost doored yesterday in North Chicago. Managed to avoid the door and the SUV that was passing at the same time. Not bad maneuvering for a 60 year old on a long wheel base recumbent.

 

Makes me want to replace my headlight with an 800 megawatt laser and a train diesel horn. (Power supply is a problem, but I can dream.

 

From now on, if there are parked cars, I'm taking the lane. Out of consideration for others, I usually don't. To hell with that. I've been almost dead twice now, not counting near misses like this one.

 

I don't think the FCC will pull their license, but they might fine them and get the meatheads off the air.

Perhaps contacting Jeff Millar and Bill Hinds (the authors of "Tank McNamara" comic would be a good idea. They tend to be mercilessly acerbic.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Doug Haynes on June 10, 2011 at 6:55am

Yes Howard, as you well know I am completely against cycling and all for sports radio.  I would usually not be offended by a comment like that but being as you actually know me it's actually kind of nasty...

 

If you want to pull that card should we take away Ross's internet privileges because he said we should hit these guys with ball bats? 

 

What they said was wrong and in poor taste but, thanks to the way our culture works, saying things in poor taste to get a reaction is sort of their job.  I disagree with it and think it was wrong but what are you going to do?  People are going to hate on shit, look at how much you and a lot of people here hate on cars. 

 

It was a bad comment, complaints and apologies should follow but please tell me what FCC law it violates.

 

 

H3N3 said:

I would say this depends on how strongly you feel about the cause of bicycling (and maybe in general where your allegiances lie.)

notoriousDUG said:

 

They said something stupid but I hardly think that is against the law, the FCC really has no reason to be involved.

 

I see complaining to them and expecting a REAL apology to be reasonable but looking to take peoples jobs or cause them harm is a bit over the top.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joel on June 10, 2011 at 7:00am

If the complain has merit, the FCC will take action.  If not, it was something different for them to read as they mostly get complaints from various fundy Christian groups who are offended. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by in it to win it 8.0 mi on June 10, 2011 at 7:03am

I don't understand how a forced apology will solve anything.

Note that you're offended; let others know you disagree; move on.

Why let these guys decide how you feel?

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Doug Haynes on June 10, 2011 at 7:13am

Exactly.

in it to win it said:

I don't understand how a forced apology will solve anything.

Note that you're offended; let others know you disagree; move on.

Why let these guys decide how you feel?

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ross Martinek on June 10, 2011 at 7:16am

You are obviously a "kinder, gentler" person. But I don't see having someone this irresponsible losing their job as doing anywhere near the kind of physical harm they, themselves advocated. They suffer no physical consequences, and for minor celebrities, losing their jobs is no more than a temporary inconvenience. Controversy might even make them more "marketable" in some venues. But if they are severely disciplined, it sends a message that people are responsible for their actions and words—a concept we are rapidly losing in this country because "it isn't nice to hurt people." No, it isn't, but if the harm is a consequence of their own actions, it is just.

Even a "real" apology won't help the next cyclist injured or killed by dooring. It will not completely undo the damage done to public awareness. Even a "real" apology costs them nothing but a dent in their obviously overinflated egos.

What they advocated is no different than advocating killing of any group. It doesn't matter what the group is. Hitler did it for Jews and other religious and ethnic groups. Stalin did it. bin Laden did it. So do more others, even today, than one individual can track.

I've suffered severe physical trauma and recovered (mostly). I've been as close to death as a human can come and still get back.

Neither was pleasant.

I believe that any person who is attacked has the right to defend themselves, and that society has the right and responsibility to punish their attacker over and above any damage their intended victim may have inflicted.

And consider this: if one cyclist is harmed by dooring as a result of Tom Waddle's and Mark Giangreco's irresponsible behavior, those two are technically guilty of a crime: Inciting to violence, and possibly a hate crime since it was aimed at a group.

notoriousDUG said:

Your first paragraph makes me sad, very sad; is that really how you want to present cyclists?

 

They said something stupid but I hardly think that is against the law, the FCC really has no reason to be involved.

 

I see complaining to them and expecting a REAL apology to be reasonable but looking to take peoples jobs or cause them harm is a bit over the top.

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Matt Munley on June 10, 2011 at 8:02am

I think Ross just Godwin's Law-ed this thread.

 

For the kinder and gentler folks out there, they did actively encourage (joking or no) an action that threatens the health and lives of cyclists. They owe a real apology for the people whose lives they have actively endangered, the number of listeners who take their suggestion aside.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ross Martinek on June 10, 2011 at 8:22am

ROTFL! Never heard of Godwin's Law, per se—though I have heard the principle, and I think my analogy is valid.

There's nothing wrong with genuine, sincere apology for a verbal faux pas, and such should ameliorate the consequences to those in question. But it is no longer possible—they have made it clear by their first, so-called apology that they are as sincere as a politician's smile. They obviously don't understand that they did wrong. They must be made to understand. For these fenceposts, "a bigger hammer" is necessary.

In our society, genuine apology is increasingly viewed as a sign of weakness. It should be the hallmark of real strength—it is hard to do. True greatness in anything is impossible without genuine humility. It is a shame that so many people read "humility" as "humiliation." It is anything but.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Doug Haynes on June 10, 2011 at 8:28am

It's funny anyone would refer to me as 'kinder and gentler' but anyway...

 

First off regardless of who are how I personally am answering stupidity with violence is never going to be the answer.

 

One thing to do before we get up in arms and call anything here an attack is look at the other sides perspective and what is the most constructive direction for the conflict to go when it comes to the 'cyclists vs. drivers' issue. So lets take a real analytical look at this whole thing, drop the emotion and personal experience out of it and just look at the basics:

 

1. The comments, while obnoxious and ignorant, I very much doubt were malicious.  We have to remember the way most folks view bikes: As toys.  Viewing bikes as toys brings with it a whole slew of prejudices; bike don't belong on the street, bikes are for kids, etc, etc...  One of these many false assumption that people make  about bikes because they think they are toys is that people can't/don't get seriously injured on them.  People who do not ride bikes and are not part of the culture are woefully unaware of the injuries and dangers related to riding bikes.  Most folks think that when a person wrecks on a bike they get up with a skinned knee.  Ask people who don't ride and don't know anyone who does; chances are good they have no idea that people actually DIE on bikes.

 

2. Do you honestly think A)They were actually advocating that their listeners go out in door people? B)That the general population, after hearing this, is going to be all 'Fuck yeah! Lets go hit some cyclists with doors!  It's called satire and they were pandering to the prevailing point of view; wrong as it may be.  Drivers, a massive part of their audience, get annoyed and frustrated at cyclists, often for good reason, and they are pandering to that.  Was it ignorant and offensive?  Hell yes.  Do I rank it as an attack on cyclists or anything beyond an offensive joke?  No.

 

3. So now that the dumb shit has been said, and the apology far from acceptable, what is the best direction, for cyclists, for this shit show to head?  In my opinion the best way for it to go is to assail them, they network, and their sponsors with complaints that they have no choice but to make a REAL apology and perhaps use some of their air time to educate all of the people who view bikes as toys and don't understand that dooring really fucks people up.  Crying to the FCC and looking to have their jobs over comments made not in malice, but in ignorance, is not going to do anything for cyclists but reinforce the image that we are whiners.  We need to stop looking at this as an affront to all we stand for worthy of going to war and start looking at it as an ignorant comment that can be turned into an opportunity to educate.

 

4. Looking to get people fired or wishing harm on them is being vengeful and not only is that never going to get you anywhere but it is also paints a very negative picture of not only you as a person but, in this case, cyclists as general.

 

Sometimes it is best to throttle back the outrage and think about making a bad situation into something constructive and, if you cannot do that, move the fuck on and spend life heading in a positive direction.

 

 

 Ross Martinek said:

You are obviously a "kinder, gentler" person. But I don't see having someone this irresponsible losing their job as doing anywhere near the kind of physical harm they, themselves advocated. They suffer no physical consequences, and for minor celebrities, losing their jobs is no more than a temporary inconvenience. Controversy might even make them more "marketable" in some venues. But if they are severely disciplined, it sends a message that people are responsible for their actions and words—a concept we are rapidly losing in this country because "it isn't nice to hurt people." No, it isn't, but if the harm is a consequence of their own actions, it is just.

Even a "real" apology won't help the next cyclist injured or killed by dooring. It will not completely undo the damage done to public awareness. Even a "real" apology costs them nothing but a dent in their obviously overinflated egos.

What they advocated is no different than advocating killing of any group. It doesn't matter what the group is. Hitler did it for Jews and other religious and ethnic groups. Stalin did it. bin Laden did it. So do more others, even today, than one individual can track.

I've suffered severe physical trauma and recovered (mostly). I've been as close to death as a human can come and still get back.

Neither was pleasant.

I believe that any person who is attacked has the right to defend themselves, and that society has the right and responsibility to punish their attacker over and above any damage their intended victim may have inflicted.

And consider this: if one cyclist is harmed by dooring as a result of Tom Waddle's and Mark Giangreco's irresponsible behavior, those two are technically guilty of a crime: Inciting to violence, and possibly a hate crime since it was aimed at a group.

notoriousDUG said:

Your first paragraph makes me sad, very sad; is that really how you want to present cyclists?

 

They said something stupid but I hardly think that is against the law, the FCC really has no reason to be involved.

 

I see complaining to them and expecting a REAL apology to be reasonable but looking to take peoples jobs or cause them harm is a bit over the top.

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Doug Haynes on June 10, 2011 at 8:31am

So whenever somebody does not understand your point of view they should just be clubbed?  I'll have to keep that in mind and watch my back because I don't understand how you can compare any of this to the holocaust which means I deserve a brick to the face based on your reasoning.

 

Of course you also deserve one for not seeing my point so maybe it just cancels out...

 

Ross Martinek said:

ROTFL! Never heard of Godwin's Law, per se—though I have heard the principle, and I think my analogy is valid.

There's nothing wrong with genuine, sincere apology for a verbal faux pas, and such should ameliorate the consequences to those in question. But it is no longer possible—they have made it clear by their first, so-called apology that they are as sincere as a politician's smile. They obviously don't understand that they did wrong. They must be made to understand. For these fenceposts, "a bigger hammer" is necessary.

In our society, genuine apology is increasingly viewed as a sign of weakness. It should be the hallmark of real strength—it is hard to do. True greatness in anything is impossible without genuine humility. It is a shame that so many people read "humility" as "humiliation." It is anything but.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kevin C Dormant on June 10, 2011 at 8:45am

My money's on Doug's brick.

notoriousDUG said:

[snip]  I deserve a brick to the face based on your reasoning.

 

Of course you also deserve one for not seeing my point so maybe it just cancels out...

 

Ross Martinek said:

ROTFL! Never heard of Godwin's Law, per se—though I have heard the principle, and I think my analogy is valid.[snip]

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Brian on June 10, 2011 at 9:55am

Wow.  That was the most idiotic out-landish thing I've ever read.  Did you really just compare two radio dj's to Hitler and Stalin?  You would really blame radio dj's if somebody were unfortunate enough to be seriously injured biking? Again - give your fellow man more credit.  I really hope that people aren't buying into this crap that you're shoveling - because then I might have to give my fellow man a little less credit.

 

Where's the common sense?

B

Ross Martinek said:

You are obviously a "kinder, gentler" person. But I don't see having someone this irresponsible losing their job as doing anywhere near the kind of physical harm they, themselves advocated. They suffer no physical consequences, and for minor celebrities, losing their jobs is no more than a temporary inconvenience. Controversy might even make them more "marketable" in some venues. But if they are severely disciplined, it sends a message that people are responsible for their actions and words—a concept we are rapidly losing in this country because "it isn't nice to hurt people." No, it isn't, but if the harm is a consequence of their own actions, it is just.

Even a "real" apology won't help the next cyclist injured or killed by dooring. It will not completely undo the damage done to public awareness. Even a "real" apology costs them nothing but a dent in their obviously overinflated egos.

What they advocated is no different than advocating killing of any group. It doesn't matter what the group is. Hitler did it for Jews and other religious and ethnic groups. Stalin did it. bin Laden did it. So do more others, even today, than one individual can track.

I've suffered severe physical trauma and recovered (mostly). I've been as close to death as a human can come and still get back.

Neither was pleasant.

I believe that any person who is attacked has the right to defend themselves, and that society has the right and responsibility to punish their attacker over and above any damage their intended victim may have inflicted.

And consider this: if one cyclist is harmed by dooring as a result of Tom Waddle's and Mark Giangreco's irresponsible behavior, those two are technically guilty of a crime: Inciting to violence, and possibly a hate crime since it was aimed at a group.

notoriousDUG said:

Your first paragraph makes me sad, very sad; is that really how you want to present cyclists?

 

They said something stupid but I hardly think that is against the law, the FCC really has no reason to be involved.

 

I see complaining to them and expecting a REAL apology to be reasonable but looking to take peoples jobs or cause them harm is a bit over the top.

 

 

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• …
• 11
• Next ›
• Page