Craig M

On Jul 16, 10:32 am, Pete Knight <pete...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 16, 9:47 am, Craig M <snowmanmag...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> The term 'Clothing Optional Lifestyle' is widely favoured in the US,
> it would encompass nudists, naturists and clothes free holiday(ists),
> but the 'Central Council for Clothing Optional Lifestyle or CCCOL
> might be too burdensome.
>
> A name change would also require a whole new cool image not connected
> with that old fuddy duddy 'Carry On Camping' era otherwise the same
> old baggage would drag any new name down.

Perhaps I didn't make my point as clearly as I might - I was
suggesting that extending the scope of 'clothing option lifestyle' (or
whatever yo call it) beyond naturism would effectively render BN
unnecessary because it would no longer be aimed at a minority group.
In other words, it would be entirely contrary to BN's interest to
abandon the n-word, since that category of activity, however arbitrary
or artificial, provides them with their raison d'etre.

David Looser

"Craig M" <snowmanmagnet@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1184579248.835918.101180@q75g2000hsh.googlegr oups.com...

> I was
> suggesting that extending the scope of 'clothing option lifestyle' (or
> whatever yo call it) beyond naturism would effectively render BN
> unnecessary because it would no longer be aimed at a minority group.

I think you are fooling yourself if you think that it would no longer be a
"minority group". A much larger minority than the almost microscopic
proportion of the population that are members of BN or a sun club certainly,
but still a minority.

OTOH I'm not convinced of the practicality of "rebranding" BN. It is clear
that many of these "non-naturists" will strenuously resist any attempt to
"organise" them. ISTM that maybe the best option is to simply let BN
continue to wither away. On present form that won't take long.

David.

peterchecksfield@googlemail.com

On 16 Jul, 14:33, "David Looser" <david.loo...@btinternet.com> wrote:

> OTOH I'm not convinced of the practicality of "rebranding" BN. It is clear
> that many of these "non-naturists" will strenuously resist any attempt to
> "organise" them.

They might not want to be organised, but they'd still appreciate being
able yo go naked more often in more places.

Craig M

On Jul 16, 1:44 pm, "Duncan Heenan"
<pleasenospammersduncanhee...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> "Craig M" <snowmanmag...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> > I agree that BN is a rather ineffectual organisation, but I still
> > don't think the case has been made for any alternative. To use your
> > examples, I can look at NUFF, just as I can book a holiday through
> > Peng or Suzanne Piper, and I'm not a member of any national
> > organisation - so what value would it add?
>
> It would if it worked to achieve the real freedom to be naked when and where
> you want to rather than just where Mr Plod allows you to.

That presupposes that people feel any restrictions from the police (or
from elsewhere) on what they can and can't do - and, speaking
personally, I don't in the least.

It also implies that this BN (or however it chooses to position
itself) needs to have a role in countering police maladministration
and pointing out cases of perceivied injustice - and I have my doubts
whether that would make it a particulalry attractive proposition to
many.

David Looser

<peterchecksfield@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:1184597094.061185.324360@r34g2000hsd.googlegr oups.com...
> On 16 Jul, 14:33, "David Looser" <david.loo...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> OTOH I'm not convinced of the practicality of "rebranding" BN. It is
>> clear
>> that many of these "non-naturists" will strenuously resist any attempt to
>> "organise" them.
>
> They might not want to be organised, but they'd still appreciate being
> able yo go naked more often in more places.
>
Not according to Craig they don't!

David.

Duncan Heenan

"Craig M" <snowmanmagnet@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1184599204.203039.19110@k79g2000hse.googlegro ups.com...
> On Jul 16, 1:44 pm, "Duncan Heenan"
> <pleasenospammersduncanhee...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>> "Craig M" <snowmanmag...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
>> > I agree that BN is a rather ineffectual organisation, but I still
>> > don't think the case has been made for any alternative. To use your
>> > examples, I can look at NUFF, just as I can book a holiday through
>> > Peng or Suzanne Piper, and I'm not a member of any national
>> > organisation - so what value would it add?
>>
>> It would if it worked to achieve the real freedom to be naked when and
>> where
>> you want to rather than just where Mr Plod allows you to.
>
> That presupposes that people feel any restrictions from the police (or
> from elsewhere) on what they can and can't do - and, speaking
> personally, I don't in the least.

That's because you only want the safe option - abroad!

> It also implies that this BN (or however it chooses to position
> itself) needs to have a role in countering police maladministration
> and pointing out cases of perceivied injustice - and I have my doubts
> whether that would make it a particulalry attractive proposition to
> many.

Then again, you could be wrong.
The suffragettes were unattractive to many people, but as soon as they got
the vote, a lot of women used it.

Craig M

On Jul 16, 6:56 pm, "David Looser" <david.loo...@btinternet.com>
wrote:
> <peterchecksfi...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1184597094.061185.324360@r34g2000hsd.googlegr oups.com...> On 16 Jul, 14:33, "David Looser" <david.loo...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> >> OTOH I'm not convinced of the practicality of "rebranding" BN. It is
> >> clear
> >> that many of these "non-naturists" will strenuously resist any attempt to
> >> "organise" them.
>
> > They might not want to be organised, but they'd still appreciate being
> > able yo go naked more often in more places.
>
> Not according to Craig they don't!

I certainly have no desire to 'go naked more often in more places' and
I'm not aware of anyone else who does - anyone that is apart from
naturists, but then I'm not in any position to speak on their behalf.

Craig M

On Jul 16, 6:56 pm, "David Looser" <david.loo...@btinternet.com>
wrote:
> <peterchecksfi...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1184597094.061185.324360@r34g2000hsd.googlegr oups.com...> On 16 Jul, 14:33, "David Looser" <david.loo...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> >> OTOH I'm not convinced of the practicality of "rebranding" BN. It is
> >> clear
> >> that many of these "non-naturists" will strenuously resist any attempt to
> >> "organise" them.
>
> > They might not want to be organised, but they'd still appreciate being
> > able yo go naked more often in more places.
>
> Not according to Craig they don't!

I certainly have no desire to 'go naked more often in more places' and
am not aware of anyone who does - anyone that is apart from naturists
of course. But I wouldn't presume to speak for naturists.

David Looser

"Craig M" <snowmanmagnet@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1184656012.233928.42540@m3g2000hsh.googlegrou ps.com...
> On Jul 16, 6:56 pm, "David Looser" <david.loo...@btinternet.com>
> wrote:
>> <peterchecksfi...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1184597094.061185.324360@r34g2000hsd.googlegr oups.com...> On 16 Jul,
>> 14:33, "David Looser" <david.loo...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> OTOH I'm not convinced of the practicality of "rebranding" BN. It is
>> >> clear
>> >> that many of these "non-naturists" will strenuously resist any attempt
>> >> to
>> >> "organise" them.
>>
>> > They might not want to be organised, but they'd still appreciate being
>> > able yo go naked more often in more places.
>>
>> Not according to Craig they don't!
>
> I certainly have no desire to 'go naked more often in more places' and
> am not aware of anyone who does - anyone that is apart from naturists
> of course. But I wouldn't presume to speak for naturists.
>

Are you presuming to speak for "those who take part in naked recreational
activity but reject the label naturist"?

David.

AndyC

"Craig M" <snowmanmagnet@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1184656012.233928.42540@m3g2000hsh.googlegrou ps.com...
> On Jul 16, 6:56 pm, "David Looser" <david.loo...@btinternet.com>
>>
>> > They might not want to be organised, but they'd still appreciate being
>> > able yo go naked more often in more places.
>>
>> Not according to Craig they don't!
>
> I certainly have no desire to 'go naked more often in more places' and
> am not aware of anyone who does - anyone that is apart from naturists
> of course. But I wouldn't presume to speak for naturists.

There is a difference between appreciation and desire.

Craig M

On Jul 17, 8:34 am, "AndyC" <web-em...@andycrawford.net> wrote:
> "Craig M" <snowmanmag...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1184656012.233928.42540@m3g2000hsh.googlegrou ps.com...
>
> > On Jul 16, 6:56 pm, "David Looser" <david.loo...@btinternet.com>
>
> >> > They might not want to be organised, but they'd still appreciate being
> >> > able yo go naked more often in more places.
>
> >> Not according to Craig they don't!
>
> > I certainly have no desire to 'go naked more often in more places' and
> > am not aware of anyone who does - anyone that is apart from naturists
> > of course. But I wouldn't presume to speak for naturists.
>
> There is a difference between appreciation and desire.

OK - I certainly would not appreciate being able to 'go naked more
often in more places' and am not aware of anyone who seriously does.
Apart from (possibly) naturists. But then who cares about naturists?

Duncan Heenan

"Craig M" <snowmanmagnet@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1184661740.157917.210720@m37g2000prh.googlegr oups.com...
> On Jul 17, 8:34 am, "AndyC" <web-em...@andycrawford.net> wrote:
>> "Craig M" <snowmanmag...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1184656012.233928.42540@m3g2000hsh.googlegrou ps.com...
>>
>> > On Jul 16, 6:56 pm, "David Looser" <david.loo...@btinternet.com>
>>
>> >> > They might not want to be organised, but they'd still appreciate
>> >> > being
>> >> > able yo go naked more often in more places.
>>
>> >> Not according to Craig they don't!
>>
>> > I certainly have no desire to 'go naked more often in more places' and
>> > am not aware of anyone who does - anyone that is apart from naturists
>> > of course. But I wouldn't presume to speak for naturists.
>>
>> There is a difference between appreciation and desire.
>
> OK - I certainly would not appreciate being able to 'go naked more
> often in more places' and am not aware of anyone who seriously does.

I do.

> Apart from (possibly) naturists. But then who cares about naturists?

I do.

Now what's your case?

David Looser

"Craig M" <snowmanmagnet@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1184661740.157917.210720@m37g2000prh.googlegr oups.com...
>
> OK - I certainly would not appreciate being able to 'go naked more
> often in more places' and am not aware of anyone who seriously does.

Steve Gough?

David.

Craig M

On Jul 17, 11:13 am, "Duncan Heenan"
<pleasenospammersduncanhee...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> "Craig M" <snowmanmag...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> > Apart from (possibly) naturists. But then who cares about naturists?
>
> I do.
>
> Now what's your case

What case? I wasn't aware that I needed one.

Craig M

On Jul 17, 11:14 am, "David Looser" <david.loo...@btinternet.com>
wrote:
> "Craig M" <snowmanmag...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1184661740.157917.210720@m37g2000prh.googlegr oups.com...
>
>
>
> > OK - I certainly would not appreciate being able to 'go naked more
> > often in more places' and am not aware of anyone who seriously does.
>
> Steve Gough?

I suppose the operative wod is 'seriously' - and in any case, I
thought SG's real aim was for incarceration, and that the nakedness
simply provides a route to achieve it. I'm certainly not aware of any
effort or ambition on his part to be allowed to be naked in more
places - I thought the confrontation and the arrests were part of the
plan?

Duncan Heenan

"Craig M" <snowmanmagnet@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1184668190.045987.147330@j4g2000prf.googlegro ups.com...
> On Jul 17, 11:14 am, "David Looser" <david.loo...@btinternet.com>
> wrote:
>> "Craig M" <snowmanmag...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1184661740.157917.210720@m37g2000prh.googlegr oups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > OK - I certainly would not appreciate being able to 'go naked more
>> > often in more places' and am not aware of anyone who seriously does.
>>
>> Steve Gough?
>
> I suppose the operative wod is 'seriously' - and in any case, I
> thought SG's real aim was for incarceration, and that the nakedness
> simply provides a route to achieve it. I'm certainly not aware of any
> effort or ambition on his part to be allowed to be naked in more
> places - I thought the confrontation and the arrests were part of the
> plan?

You obviously missed his trips through England which involved no prison
sentences, and fairly easy resolution where the infrequent confrontations
occurred. Mostly it is the Scottish police and Courts who are to blame for
Steve's incarceration (though I don't defend his stunt on the aeroplane,
which I think was going too far.)

Craig M

On Jul 17, 12:08 pm, "Duncan Heenan"
<pleasenospammersduncanhee...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> "Craig M" <snowmanmag...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > I suppose the operative wod is 'seriously' - and in any case, I
> > thought SG's real aim was for incarceration, and that the nakedness
> > simply provides a route to achieve it. I'm certainly not aware of any
> > effort or ambition on his part to be allowed to be naked in more
> > places - I thought the confrontation and the arrests were part of the
> > plan?
>
> You obviously missed his trips through England which involved no prison
> sentences, and fairly easy resolution where the infrequent confrontations
> occurred. Mostly it is the Scottish police and Courts who are to blame for
> Steve's incarceration (though I don't defend his stunt on the aeroplane,
> which I think was going too far.

Well, that the fact he failed to get arrested in England doesn't
really alter the case - and I can't why anyone but SG is 'to blame'
for his successive spells in prison. After all, he can hardly claim
that he was unaware of the consequences of what he was doing. I also
understand that he appealed on a number of occasions against these
sentences - and I'm not aware that the courts ever concluded that the
police had acted improperly. Is there something I've missed?

Interesting to hear that you believe his aeroplane stunt was a step
too far - do you also think that the police were 'to blame' for
arresting him in this instance?

Duncan Heenan

"Craig M" <snowmanmagnet@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1184675346.418430.180770@z28g2000prd.googlegr oups.com...
> On Jul 17, 12:08 pm, "Duncan Heenan"
> <pleasenospammersduncanhee...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>> "Craig M" <snowmanmag...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> > I suppose the operative wod is 'seriously' - and in any case, I
>> > thought SG's real aim was for incarceration, and that the nakedness
>> > simply provides a route to achieve it. I'm certainly not aware of any
>> > effort or ambition on his part to be allowed to be naked in more
>> > places - I thought the confrontation and the arrests were part of the
>> > plan?
>>
>> You obviously missed his trips through England which involved no prison
>> sentences, and fairly easy resolution where the infrequent confrontations
>> occurred. Mostly it is the Scottish police and Courts who are to blame
>> for
>> Steve's incarceration (though I don't defend his stunt on the aeroplane,
>> which I think was going too far.
>
> Well, that the fact he failed to get arrested in England doesn't
> really alter the case - and I can't why anyone but SG is 'to blame'
> for his successive spells in prison. After all, he can hardly claim
> that he was unaware of the consequences of what he was doing. I also
> understand that he appealed on a number of occasions against these
> sentences - and I'm not aware that the courts ever concluded that the
> police had acted improperly. Is there something I've missed?

Yes .
You base all your arguments on the premise that the Courts are infallible,
just and right. I believe that this is not always the case. You also seem to
assume that The Law and justice are the same thing, which I believe not to
be the case.

David Looser

"Duncan Heenan" <pleasenospammersduncanheenan@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in
message news:469cba0c$1_1@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
>

> You base all your arguments on the premise that the Courts are infallible,
> just and right. I believe that this is not always the case. You also seem
> to assume that The Law and justice are the same thing, which I believe not
> to be the case.
>

The law is like any other human institution, subject to human error and
prejudice. I'm sure the vast majority of those involved in it (in any
capacity) act in absolute good faith, but it is inevitable that their
prejudices will colour they way they understand, and thus act in, any
situation. Also of course, like anyone else they find admitting fault hard
to do and would rather bluster through than admit to error.

Only SG really knows SG's motives for what he has done, but to assume, as
Craig claims to, that SG's "real aim" was to seek incarceration strikes me
as absurd. He may well have been keen to confront the authorities, but in
order to make his point, not AFAICS to "seek incarceration".

Returning to the point about whether ""those who take part in naked
recreational activity but reject the label naturist" would appreciate being
able to "'go naked more often in more places", I find Craig's position
utterly unbelievable. According to him there are a lot of these people "who
take part in naked recreational activity but reject the label naturist" (his
comment that if BN were to represent them as well as naturists it would "no
longer be addressing a minority"). Yet he also implies that none of them
have any interest in having any additional opportunities to indulge in naked
recreational activities. Given the paucity of such opportunities in this
country that seems an extraordinary position to take.

What Craig actually said, of course, was that he was "unaware" of any demand
for additional opportunities. There seems to be an awful lot of things that
Craig is "unaware" of. I guess if you keep your eyes and ears shut you can
remain as "unaware" as you like!

David.

Craig M

On Jul 17, 1:46 pm, "Duncan Heenan"
> You base all your arguments on the premise that the Courts are infallible,
> just and right. I believe that this is not always the case. You also seem to
> assume that The Law and justice are the same thing, which I believe not to
> be the case.

Of course I'm not suggesting that the courts are infallible. I was
responding to your suggestion that the police in Scotland were 'to
blame' for the arrests (and contrasting it to the events in England),
as if their action was at fault in some way.

And my point was that, far from any suggestion that they had behaved
inappropriately, the courts supported what they had done, which would
indicate that the police behaved correctly. You could say that the
court was also at fault, but that would be a different point entirely
- ie: that the entire judicial system was 'to blame' for the arrests -
and one which again I see no reason to accept. (I think I'm correct in
saying that there have been attempts to appeal against the court's
decisions have all proved unsuccessful.)

You've also not responded to my point about your comment that SG's
aeroplane stunt was a 'step too far' - which is a far more interesting
point. Presumably you mean that in this instance the police were
correct in arresting and charging him, unlike in the other instances
where they were incorrect. What's the difference?

Craig M

On Jul 17, 5:06 pm, "David Looser" <david.loo...@btinternet.com>
wrote:
>
> Only SG really knows SG's motives for what he has done, but to assume, as
> Craig claims to, that SG's "real aim" was to seek incarceration strikes me
> as absurd. He may well have been keen to confront the authorities, but in
> order to make his point, not AFAICS to "seek incarceration".

This statement is rather at odds with what you said earlier when you
cited SG as an example of someone who wanted to 'go naked more often
in more places'. If only SG really knows what his actual motives are,
then you are not in a position to make such a statement - and
certainly no less absurd than my own.

> Returning to the point about whether ""those who take part in naked
> recreational activity but reject the label naturist" would appreciate being
> able to "'go naked more often in more places", I find Craig's position
> utterly unbelievable. According to him there are a lot of these people "who
> take part in naked recreational activity but reject the label naturist" (his
> comment that if BN were to represent them as well as naturists it would "no
> longer be addressing a minority"). Yet he also implies that none of them
> have any interest in having any additional opportunities to indulge in naked
> recreational activities. Given the paucity of such opportunities in this
> country that seems an extraordinary position to take.

Exactly - I didn't imply anything. I merely said that I was unaware of
any significant demand for additional opportunities for naked
recreation. I am aware of significant demand for environmentally-
friendly fuel and for ethical trading goods, because the evidence is
perfectly plain to see - but for more facilities for naked recreation,
absolutely not.

There was I remember a petition to the Prime Minister seeking his
support for more 'Clothing Optional Places' which after 5 months has
managed to attract a grand total of 471 signatures - hardly
overwhelming (compare the 68,521 who signed the petition on
restrictions on photography or the 67,882 signatures in favour of
changes to student loans).

> What Craig actually said, of course, was that he was "unaware" of any demand
> for additional opportunities. There seems to be an awful lot of things that
> Craig is "unaware" of. I guess if you keep your eyes and ears shut you can
> remain as "unaware" as you like!

I freely admit that I'm unaware that this demand exists - and my
purpose in saying so was to discover whether anyone had information
which indicated there was such a demand.

If you consider that I'm wilfully closing my eyes and ears to this
evidence, then I would appreciate it if you could explain where I can
find it.

Duncan Heenan

"Craig M" <snowmanmagnet@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1184830799.439638.269910@x35g2000prf.googlegr oups.com...
> On Jul 17, 1:46 pm, "Duncan Heenan"
> You've also not responded to my point about your comment that SG's
> aeroplane stunt was a 'step too far' - which is a far more interesting
> point. Presumably you mean that in this instance the police were
> correct in arresting and charging him, unlike in the other instances
> where they were incorrect. What's the difference?
>
Behaviour on aeroplanes, and the obligation to accept direction from crews
is subject to specific laws, for good safety reasons.

Craig M

On Jul 21, 1:53 pm, "Duncan Heenan"
<pleasenospammersduncanhee...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> "Craig M" <snowmanmag...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1184830799.439638.269910@x35g2000prf.googlegr oups.com...> On Jul 17, 1:46 pm, "Duncan Heenan"
> > You've also not responded to my point about your comment that SG's
> > aeroplane stunt was a 'step too far' - which is a far more interesting
> > point. Presumably you mean that in this instance the police were
> > correct in arresting and charging him, unlike in the other instances
> > where they were incorrect. What's the difference?
>
> Behaviour on aeroplanes, and the obligation to accept direction from crews
> is subject to specific laws, for good safety reasons.

So you do accept the legitimacy of the police's action where such
action is proportionate - for example where public safety is
involved.

But it may well be that the police took a similar view in cases where
SG was walking naked around Scotland (he might for instance have been
walking besides a busy road, causing drivers to slow down, thereby
creating the risk of a traffic accident). And in the absence of
knowing the full details of each arrest, you can't say whether or not
his actions were a potential public safety risk, so therefore you
can't conclude that the police's action was innappropriate (or to use
your phrase 'to blame' for arresting him at all).

It strikes me that you want to defend someone behaving in a
deliberately provocative way, simply because the nature of that
behaviour is their nakedness.

Duncan Heenan

"Craig M" <snowmanmagnet@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1185175473.173510.248340@n2g2000hse.googlegro ups.com...
> On Jul 21, 1:53 pm, "Duncan Heenan"
> <pleasenospammersduncanhee...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>> "Craig M" <snowmanmag...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1184830799.439638.269910@x35g2000prf.googlegr oups.com...> On Jul 17,
>> 1:46 pm, "Duncan Heenan"
>> > You've also not responded to my point about your comment that SG's
>> > aeroplane stunt was a 'step too far' - which is a far more interesting
>> > point. Presumably you mean that in this instance the police were
>> > correct in arresting and charging him, unlike in the other instances
>> > where they were incorrect. What's the difference?
>>
>> Behaviour on aeroplanes, and the obligation to accept direction from
>> crews
>> is subject to specific laws, for good safety reasons.
>
> So you do accept the legitimacy of the police's action where such
> action is proportionate - for example where public safety is
> involved.
>
> But it may well be that the police took a similar view in cases where
> SG was walking naked around Scotland (he might for instance have been
> walking besides a busy road, causing drivers to slow down, thereby
> creating the risk of a traffic accident). And in the absence of
> knowing the full details of each arrest, you can't say whether or not
> his actions were a potential public safety risk, so therefore you
> can't conclude that the police's action was innappropriate (or to use
> your phrase 'to blame' for arresting him at all).
>
> It strikes me that you want to defend someone behaving in a
> deliberately provocative way, simply because the nature of that
> behaviour is their nakedness.

Are Scottish drivers so different from English ones? He walked right through
England and through half of Scotland before arrest, without causing a single
accident. So why would the Scottish police suddenly be justified in
expecting him to cause an accident? Why do they not stop all hikers on
roads?
Of course, now, the original matter has been largely forgotten, and he is
now being punished for defying authority.

Craig M

On Jul 23, 2:42 pm, "David Looser" <david.loo...@btinternet.com>
wrote:
> "Craig M" <snowmanmag...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > And maybe the relative paucity of a supply of opportunities reflects
> > an actual lack of demand. After all, that's true of everything else in
> > a capitalist economy. Why should naturism be any different?
>
> Maybe? who knows. There could be any one of a number of reasons. Bearing in
> mind that this group consists of large numbers of people with, as far as we
> can tell, nothing in common with each other beyond the fact they have,
> possibly only once and in any one of any number of circumstances, done
> something that might loosely be described as "naked recreation", it's almost
> certain that they don't have a common view on this either.

Agreed. Which points to the conclusion that there is no significant
demand for greater oppurtunities for naked recreation - because for
the demand to be significant, there needs surely to be a degree of
unanimity of purpose.

> >> Try asking people. Of the people I know the majority have no interest in
> >> naked recreation. Of those who do 100% would appreciate more
> >> opportunities
> >> in terms of places or times.
> It looks to me
> > that this is another case of you asserting something in the absence of
> > any sound data or information - rather like your belief in body shame
> > which as you (eventually) acknowledged, has no basis in fact.
>
> Does LYING come that easily to you? You know damn well that I have
> acknowledged no such thing. Just because you wish to pretend that body shame
> doesn't exist (when everybody else knows it does) doesn't mean anything.

I resent you calling me a liar (or indeed a LIAR) , simply because I
reminded you of a previous ocasion where you made an assertion without
recourse to any supporting facts. I seem to remember that the earlier
exchange ended with you saying that something along the lines that I
was demanding proof which you acknowledged you were unable to provide.
(The truth is I was only asking for a simgle piece of concrete
evidence and you could do no better than an obscure TV programme
screened about 10 years ago.)

If you think I've got this wrong - please provide a single piece of
evidence to substantiate your claim.

In any case, what makes you think I'm 'pretending' that body shame
doesn't exist? What possible motive would I have for doing so?
Particularly when, according to you, I am the one person in the entire
universe to whom this isn't obvious.

David Looser

"Craig M" <snowmanmagnet@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1185199538.939538.100650@m3g2000hsh.googlegro ups.com...
>
> Agreed. Which points to the conclusion that there is no significant
> demand for greater oppurtunities for naked recreation - because for
> the demand to be significant, there needs surely to be a degree of
> unanimity of purpose.
>
You did not originally talk of "significant" demand, you simply said you
were unaware of *any* demand. And what does "significant" mean in this
context anyway? Far more interesting, IMO, is what the range of interest is.
What do people in this group want?. Are they all entirely content with what
little facilities there are? Accepting that they are different what
proportion want what? Simply saying there isn't "significant" demand of
itself means nothing of any value.

>
> I resent you calling me a liar (or indeed a LIAR) ,

Resent it all you like, I shall not withdraw it. For you to claim that I
"acknowledged" that body shame has "no basis in fact" is simply untrue. So
either you don't read what I write or you are telling a deliberate untruth.
Which is the definition of a lie.

> simply because I
> reminded you of a previous ocasion where you made an assertion without
> recourse to any supporting facts. I seem to remember that the earlier
> exchange ended with you saying that something along the lines that I
> was demanding proof which you acknowledged you were unable to provide.

I acknowledge that I am unable to provide objective, documentary evidence of
the high standard that you demand. But since you have set yourself up as
judge and jury in your own case that means nothing.


> (The truth is I was only asking for a simgle piece of concrete
> evidence and you could do no better than an obscure TV programme
> screened about 10 years ago.)

Bollocks!. Another lie Craig.
>
> If you think I've got this wrong - please provide a single piece of
> evidence to substantiate your claim.
>

It's all been gone over time after time. I'm not going to re-post it all
just because you apparently have a memory like a sieve.


> In any case, what makes you think I'm 'pretending' that body shame
> doesn't exist? What possible motive would I have for doing so?

I've no idea. It's a mystery to me. But since you work on the principle that
you never explain anything I'm used to that. Have you found *anybody* who
agrees with you on this?

I don't give a stuff whether you believe in body shame or not. it's no skin
off my nose. Keep your head in the sand all you want. But I'm not going to
change my mind about something I KNOW to exist just because you keep on
re-introducing the subject here.

David.

Craig M

On Jul 23, 4:57 pm, "David Looser" <david.loo...@btinternet.com>
wrote:
> "Craig M" <snowmanmag...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> You did not originally talk of "significant" demand, you simply said you
> were unaware of *any* demand. And what does "significant" mean in this
> context anyway? Far more interesting, IMO, is what the range of interest is.
> What do people in this group want?. Are they all entirely content with what
> little facilities there are? Accepting that they are different what
> proportion want what? Simply saying there isn't "significant" demand of
> itself means nothing of any value.

And saying there is significant demand when there's no evidence to
suggest there is totally meaningless.

I acknowledge that there is some demand - I assume you want greater
opportunities for instance. And there is a public petition which a
further 400 people have signed. But these are not significant figures
by any stretch of the imagination.

And as for everyone else - they must be content with the facilities
currently available. I certainly am and see no need whatsoever for
anything further.

> > I resent you calling me a liar (or indeed a LIAR) ,
>
> Resent it all you like, I shall not withdraw it. For you to claim that I
> "acknowledged" that body shame has "no basis in fact" is simply untrue. So
> either you don't read what I write or you are telling a deliberate untruth.
> Which is the definition of a lie.

Well if I don't read what you write, then I can't by definition be
lying.

But setting that aside, you concluded your last argument with the
injunction that I would have to take the existence of body shame on
trust. In other words, you acknowledged that the evidence wasn't there
to demonstrate it as a fact. And the paucity of the evidence which you
produced (the thoughts of Joan Bakewell, an obscure article in a
magazine) certainly pointed to the fact that real evidence simply
wasn't there for you to produce. This to me amounts to a clear
acknowledgement that your belief had no basis in fact. You really do
have an odd attitude to what constitutes lying.

> > If you think I've got this wrong - please provide a single piece of
> > evidence to substantiate your claim.
>
> It's all been gone over time after time. I'm not going to re-post it all
> just because you apparently have a memory like a sieve.

Again you decline to produce any evidence.

But we seem to have moved ground again. This time I have read what you
wrote, but I've forgotten it. And if that is the case, I can't be
lying. I really think you might invest in a dictionary.

> I don't give a stuff whether you believe in body shame or not. it's no skin
> off my nose. Keep your head in the sand all you want. But I'm not going to
> change my mind about something I KNOW to exist just because you keep on
> re-introducing the subject here.

It's always interesting when you get into your hysterical mode. The
fact that you can't sustain a logical argument and turn instead to
personal abuse to maintain your position speaks more eloquently than
anything else of the weakness of your case.

The really sad thing is that I think you genuinely believe that you
really have presented real and compelling evidence to support your
position. But your hysterical reaction whenever someone with a
contrary view questions the basis of your views demonstrates nothing
more than the bankrupt intellect of someone who knows how to rant, but
not how to reason.

Duncan Heenan

"Craig M" <snowmanmagnet@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1185194075.810928.22220@r34g2000hsd.googlegro ups.com...
> snip <
> And maybe the relative paucity of a supply of opportunities reflects
> an actual lack of demand. After all, that's true of everything else in
> a capitalist economy. Why should naturism be any different?

Your understanding of economics appears to lag behind that of the law.
Demand does not create its own supply, unless it is free to do so. In this
case the significant barrier to entry (in non-club style naturism at least)
is the over-regulation of 'free naturism' by the Authorities who will not
allow it to flourish freely. This barrier to entry needs to be relaxed, and
you may begin to see some growth in the supply of opportunities. That's why
we need proper campaigning.

Craig M

On Jul 24, 11:00 am, "Duncan Heenan"
<pleasenospammersduncanhee...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> "Craig M" <snowmanmag...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1185194075.810928.22220@r34g2000hsd.googlegro ups.com...
>
> > snip <
> > And maybe the relative paucity of a supply of opportunities reflects
> > an actual lack of demand. After all, that's true of everything else in
> > a capitalist economy. Why should naturism be any different?
>
> Your understanding of economics appears to lag behind that of the law.
> Demand does not create its own supply, unless it is free to do so. In this
> case the significant barrier to entry (in non-club style naturism at least)
> is the over-regulation of 'free naturism' by the Authorities who will not
> allow it to flourish freely. This barrier to entry needs to be relaxed, and
> you may begin to see some growth in the supply of opportunities. That's why
> we need proper campaigning.


It was just a throwaway remark - and you're right that I'm no
economist. But the underlying point is whether there is a real demand
for further opportunities, or whether the current situation is merely
the consequence of the (over) regulation which you mention. And in the
absence of evidence either way (perhaps it's a point to address should
BN ever repeat their national survey), one can only speculate.

AndyC

"David Looser" <david.looser@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:5gtme5F