Clearly the author is struggling to find some news so has had to dig deep in the barrel of coincidence and irrelevance.

"It's a start and trusting their instincts they will destroy the rest of them... "

So you think the bears have an "instinct" about the cameras watching them do you?
Perhaps you are just projecting your own perverted ideas onto them and think they are thinking like repressed workers?

You are an idiot.

Yogi was making a serious point from a jokey article.

[removed] though is the guy who condemned the Bourgainville revolt a 'middle-class revolution'. When asked how a tribal revolt armed with bows and arrows was middle-class, he said it was because he'd seen a National Geographic documentary about it! I kid you not, his logic was that any revolt the middle-class have even heard of is itself middle-class, which is presumably why his own revolt is limited to discussing US cable TV series with his 'revolutionary' pals on LibCom.

You've just hidden my factual response to [removed]while allowing this article and his slagging response to stand. At the same time you've hidden my comment on this thread (  http://indymedia.org.uk/en/2010/12/471360.html?c=all ).

Now, I'd like to point out a few facts that are pertinent. A poster who called himself MI5 here smeared me here, and on numerous other IM collectives, amongst other things as a convicted sex-offender. Some collectives wisely removed my personal details without me asking but kept the article and allowed [removed] to further identify me as the object of the smear. For example,  http://www.indymedia.org/de/2009/11/930930.shtml

Urban 75 publish a handy guide to British libel laws if you aren't familiar with them, and according to that at this moment I could easily sue at least six IM's and expect to recieve significant damages. Thanks to [removed]and his pal smearing me and you lot not paying attention.

I haven't done that so far, but hide this comment and I will. I know for qa fcat that [removed] had me blacklisted in 2001. His pal [name removed] claims to be an undercover agent, posted here wanting compulsory CCTV in peoples homes, and admits to being a police informer and a girl-strangler on IM.

Now if IM can't investigate this - infiltrators within their own group- and is happy to smear me while hiding my responses while promoting the agents, then in my opinion the world would be a better place without you and I can see no reason not to sue. Any IMCista feel free to email me to discuss this, or just hide this again if you want me to sue you.

Please hide that comment from Danny and ignore his fatuous, blustering threats to sue. He clearly doesn't have a clue about libel law -amongst many other things.

Actually, British libel laws are pretty straightforward. The various 'collectives' who published an article misidentifying me as a sex offender are legally liable as publishers regardless of their geographical location. Tens of thousands of pounds were paid out for far lesser defamations, and various lawyers work on a no win, no fee basis. The Sunday Herald forum was closed down for a similar ible action that costs them over £25,000 damages plus fees. The fact IM collectives would choose to publish smears for policical reasons makes you worthless imo, and since you've made your choice on behalf of these collectives I'll email lawyers today.

"And it's not just the person making the allegations who can fall foul of the libel laws. If your offending article about Mr Dyke was published in Magazine X, you could be sued. Magazine X can be sued. The people who drove Magazine X from their depot to the newsstands can be sued (the distributors). The retailers can also be sued"
 http://www.urban75.org/info/libel.html