|
Rob Anderson losing his cool
I don't live in California, but I've been watching a bit of this Rob Anderson saga because it's so intriguing.
In a recent post he replied to a local newspaper editorial. The reply was careful and calculated. He tried very hard to make the author look like a radical and to make himself look like the center: Which, in the US, is the anti-rational way that we validate things. Well, the comments got a bit different. He sort of let it all out. At 12:00 PM, Blogger I Hate Nazi Cyclists said... Thank you. You do not to lump all cyclists together, but many people _may_ do that from reading the text. Almost ALL of the cyclists one sees on the morning commutes are extremely friendly and behave with cars, pedestrians, etc., and are just as frustrated with the occasional biker with an attitude. Many cyclists do get angry when a commuter talking on a cell phone RACES by with a near miss. They just want to stay alive. Many commute from Marin. They may even drive an SUV, but in using a bike they may save $9 in fuel, $18 in parking, and also save money on a gym membership. And removing that one car from the VERY crowded commute is something we should all appreciate. I do! - thank you. At 12:28 PM, Blogger Rob Anderson said... Yes, yes, yes, we've all heard this before. SUVs, cell phones, blah, blah, blah. If you want to stay alive, you shouldn't be riding a bike from Marin to SF. Maybe their scoutmasters---or the Great God Green in the afterlife---will give them a special merit badge for Saving the Planet. At 1:19 PM, Blogger phipps said... Just when I was beginning to think some of the things you write are rational, you make a comment like this: "If you want to stay alive, you shouldn't be riding a bike from Marin to SF" As a district 5 resident and cyclist I could not vote for someone who's attitude toward cyclists is that they shouldn't be on the road at all if they care about their safety. Don't you think it would be beneficial to us all if we took steps to make the roads safer? One of the main reasons the number of people who commute by bicycle is so low is that under current conditions many people don't feel safe. At 1:28 PM, Blogger Rob Anderson said... Make the roads safe for people who ride their bikes from Marin? How exactly would we do that? I don't really give a flying **** if you vote for me or not. |
Here's another gem from Rob Anderson:
I wouldn't ride a bike in SF or anywhere else because it is in fact dangerous (See the post excerpting cyclist Robert Hurst's book). Recall that most cycling accidents are "solo falls" and have nothing to do with other vehicles. His own bike riding skills must be pretty similar to those of a seven year old who's just had his training wheels taken off. Moreover, he can't seem to imagine that there are others who can actually handle themselves on a bike. Just... wow. |
If these blog comments are published in a more general forum, I believe Mr. Anderson would see the fuse on his campaign firecracker snuffed out pretty quickly.
If I lived in his district, you can BELIEVE it would be as widely circulated as possible! |
Originally Posted by apricissimus
(Post 7370102)
Here's another gem from Rob Anderson:
I'm actually rendered a bit speechless by this comment. His own bike riding skills must be pretty similar to those of a seven year old who's just had his training wheels taken off. Moreover, he can't seem to imagine that there are others who can actually handle themselves on a bike. Just... wow. |
Originally Posted by crhilton
(Post 7370229)
He attempts to use Robert Hurst's book Art of Cycling as a way to say that cycling is dangerous. And Hurst does come straight out and say precisely that. But, Hurst isn't implying that it's unmanageably or inordinately dangerous like Anderson is. Anderson is a champion of rhetoric and he knows how to use connotative meaning to persuade the crowd while waving denotative meaning as his rational basis. He doesn't belong in politics, he should be a pundit. (Actually he should be ignored, but he could be successful as a pundit).
|
Just who the heck is Rob Anderson, anyway?
|
Um, his campaign is a joke, and he doesn't reasonably expect to get more than 1% of the vote, if that.
He really doesn't give a **** if anyone votes for him, and there's nothing you can do to make him lose that he hasn't already done. His campaign, just like his lawsuit, is there to make a point, since he's a troll and he wants the attention. What is this, the 10th thread about Rob? |
Originally Posted by tehdely
(Post 7371228)
Um, his campaign is a joke, and he doesn't reasonably expect to get more than 1% of the vote, if that.
He really doesn't give a **** if anyone votes for him, and there's nothing you can do to make him lose that he hasn't already done. His campaign, just like his lawsuit, is there to make a point, since he's a troll and he wants the attention. What is this, the 10th thread about Rob? |
We should just stop giving this guy the time of day... really.
|
I don't get people who won't do something because "it's dangerous". Okay, jumping out of a 50 story building and stuff like that, I understand. But if you want to be safe, you lock yourself in a padded room that can survive a nuclear strike. Not a great life, but, hey, at least you'll be safe.
|
Originally Posted by crhilton
(Post 7372428)
I'm sorry, other people seemed to get a kick out of it?
Thanks for the thread. For those that don't want to read another RA thread, have you ever considered not opening them? |
Originally Posted by CB HI
(Post 7377835)
And it provided a nice update on his continued idiot behaviour.
News at 11, folks: He's a prolific blogger, and a troll. If you insist on paying him attention and debating his every word, you'll be churning out a thread every day on our dear friend. Take a look at his blog today and note the 0 comments on nearly every article. The brief spate of national attention he got after that article has disappeared. Isn't it about time that y'all stopped giving him the time of day, too? |
Originally Posted by tehdely
(Post 7377964)
Rob Anderson's "idiot behavior" has been going on for years, and years, and years, yet now that the Wall Street Journal writes about him, everyone feels the need to inveigh on his latest nonsense as it comes up.
News at 11, folks: He's a prolific blogger, and a troll. If you insist on paying him attention and debating his every word, you'll be churning out a thread every day on our dear friend. Take a look at his blog today and note the 0 comments on nearly every article. The brief spate of national attention he got after that article has disappeared. Isn't it about time that y'all stopped giving him the time of day, too? |
Originally Posted by CB HI
(Post 7377835)
And it provided a nice update on his continued idiot behaviour.
Thanks for the thread. For those that don't want to read another RA thread, have you ever considered not opening them? |
Originally Posted by tehdely
(Post 7377964)
Rob Anderson's "idiot behavior" has been going on for years, and years, and years, yet now that the Wall Street Journal writes about him, everyone feels the need to inveigh on his latest nonsense as it comes up.
News at 11, folks: He's a prolific blogger, and a troll. If you insist on paying him attention and debating his every word, you'll be churning out a thread every day on our dear friend. Take a look at his blog today and note the 0 comments on nearly every article. The brief spate of national attention he got after that article has disappeared. Isn't it about time that y'all stopped giving him the time of day, too? Note, we are not talking to him or posting on his blog, we are talking about him. If you hate him so much, why do you keep looking at his blog and upping his viewer count? |
Originally Posted by CB HI
(Post 7380285)
If you do not want to talk about him then don't and stop trolling this thread.
Note, we are not talking to him or posting on his blog, we are talking about him. If you hate him so much, why do you keep looking at his blog and upping his viewer count? Plus, the point that most seem to be missing, which comes up in all the Rob Anderson threads, is that the solution to the problem he poses is not to hate on Rob Anderson, but to reform the law (CEQA) that he exploited to delay the bike plan. What's stopping all the other Rob Andersons (and there's surely more) from doing the same? Ah, but we'd rather have a two minutes hate. How useful. Enjoy yourselves. I'll stay out of the rest of these threads. |
I'm talking about the general 'tude exhibited by this politico and all those who spout the same stuff: their argument that bicyclists are trying to impose a way of life on everyone is backwards and that no laws should be passed to protect cycling, no infrastructure should be built. So... abolish the department of transportation, EPA, FBI... we're in charge and nobody should guide public behavior? I'm not for being told what I can and can't do, but I'm glad there are police departments, an EPA and other institutions for the public good.
|
Originally Posted by tehdely
(Post 7380317)
Plus, the point that most seem to be missing, which comes up in all the Rob Anderson threads, is that the solution to the problem he poses is not to hate on Rob Anderson, but to reform the law (CEQA) that he exploited to delay the bike plan. What's stopping all the other Rob Andersons (and there's surely more) from doing the same? And last but not least, the whole notion of what Rob Anderson threw up fails the common sense test... therefore not likely to be an issue when a couple ounces of brain are used. |
Originally Posted by genec
(Post 7389063)
What's stopping all the other Rob Andersons? Well hopefully there are not that many Rob Andersons out there... San Francisco does tend to breed the "odd ducks" though.
And as far as the law, not too many other states have CEQA (the "C" IS California... does that help). And last but not least, the whole notion of what Rob Anderson threw up fails the common sense test... therefore not likely to be an issue when a couple ounces of brain are used. Rob pointed out that the bike plan could have an impact on traffic flow, which CEQA considers an environmental impact, and made the valid argument that the city's failure to do a thorough environmental impact report on the bike plan was thus in violation of CEQA. A judge agreed. It's not about "common sense"; it's about the law. You can go on being smug; I have to live in a city where you can't even build a new bike rack because the city didn't do its homework and a judge *****-slapped them. Anyone with any "common sense" should stop paying attention to the troll who brought this issue on and get involved in advocacy to change the definition of environmental impact to stop relying so heavily on automobile level of service. |
Originally Posted by tehdely
(Post 7390196)
Anyone with any "common sense" should stop paying attention to the troll who brought this issue on and get involved in advocacy to change the definition of environmental impact to stop relying so heavily on automobile level of service. Yup, yet something else subsidized for the auto user. So what can the ordinary citizen do? Is there a petition or what? |
that level of service metric weighted to autocentrism is troubling.
maybe rob andersons efforts will help restrict autocentric planning guidelines in california. |
Originally Posted by genec
(Post 7390399)
I stand corrected. I did not realize the CEQA wasn't really about improving the environment... (as in air we breath and water we drink) but also about automobile "level of service."
Yup, yet something else subsidized for the auto user. So what can the ordinary citizen do? Is there a petition or what?
Originally Posted by Bekologist
(Post 7390947)
that level of service metric weighted to autocentrism is troubling.
maybe rob andersons efforts will help restrict autocentric planning guidelines in california. |
Originally Posted by genec
(Post 7389063)
[...]
And last but not least, the whole notion of what Rob Anderson threw up fails the common sense test... therefore not likely to be an issue when a couple ounces of brain are used. American politics ain't about sense. Clearly. |
Originally Posted by RobertHurst
(Post 7391043)
If by common sense you mean what is commonly thought by common idiots, then no it doesn't. Anderson's resentment rings true to many. He's received a great deal of support as some kind of ideological soulbrother of the talk radio crowd. For instance he went on Glenn Beck (talk radio tv) and Beck told him to "keep fighting the good fight." He won't be elected deputy ombudsman in SF but G Bush might call on him to become National Bike Czar.
American politics ain't about sense. Clearly. These folks want to live in their cars and feel that anything that supports that mentality is "game on." Is it any wonder why we are at war in Iraq? :rolleyes: |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:15 AM. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.