nice effort on the signs. surprised they didn't use pencils and post-its.
"stripping" is NEVER cheap. so many dollah billz ya'll!
i'd just like to see more cities take after seattle's "Bend It":
http://www.myspace.com/bend_it
you can get donuts at Sweetpea Baking Company on Saturdays.
best to get there earlier rather than later.
my favorite keyboard cat is still:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyauGeRa5T0
best parts: the silent dad and "...a lot can happen... you can think"
actually.... you don't win at all "abusive" : )
we were right and you were wrong :)
and now sara is right too :)
looks like you're they only one left playing for "WRONG".
abusive: 0
everyone else : 1
: )
a quick click on my username shows that i'm not here to "troll" or target anyone.
i've been reading blogtown for years.
as it was pointed out above, NOTHING in the bikeportland articles states anything about someone running a stop sign.
when you start reporting without facts, it's a pretty slippery slope.
the portland police are famous about making statements to the media without being fact-based.
so i wouldn't have been surprised if they actually said that the guy rolled through a stop sign.
but every article i've read on the subject has only a hypothesis....or an ASSUMPTION on how the collision played out.
barring eye witness testimony and corroborating witness statements, it's unfair (and unprofessional) to report something as fact.
like i said before, theres a good chance the cyclist was at fault. however, that doesn't excuse sara from reporting something as "fact" when it has yet to be proven by anyone.
that my friend is the slippery slope of reporting.
kinda like how that one dude put a fake quote on wikipedia and tons of "legitimate" reporters around the world used it in their articles:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30699302/wid/1…
maybe sara just got her scoop from wikipedia too?
Dreaming of the regular old green turtles.