Nuxx:Ec104b39-46ad-4bdb-b6e4-7a411b6bf854@u72g2000hsf.googlegroups.com

Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!u72g2000hsf.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Another Motorist-Hating Freak, But At Least He Admits It Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 11:26:25 -0800 (PST) References: <24966046-3d0b-40b0-a355-9e77891c161d@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com>    Lines: 65 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 85.211.165.120 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1204053985 27991 127.0.0.1 (26 Feb 2008 19:26:25 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 19:26:25 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: u72g2000hsf.googlegroups.com; posting-host=85.211.165.120; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-GB; rv:1.8.1.12) Gecko/20080201 Firefox/2.0.0.12,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Bytes: 4821 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:642006

On Feb 26, 6:46 pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?"  wrote: > On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 08:46:25 -0800 (PST), Nuxx Bar >  said in > : > > >I've said repeatedly that I will do it, to humour you trolls, but that > >you know what they are anyway, and that you're lying when you say > >otherwise. You can say "You haven't done it yet" as much as you want, > >it just makes you look impatient. > > Um, no, it makes us look puzzled, because despite your repeated and > increasingly hysterical assertions we can't identify the supposed > measures of which you speak, despite most of us being motorists > ourselves.

LIAR. "can't identify" is a LIE. You *know* the sorts of things that I'm referring to, because the likes of the ABD and many others have repeatedly identified them, and shit-stirring trolls like you are always reading their stuff to see if you can find anything to complain about*. Even if you genuinely didn't believe that they were anti- motorist, you would still know the sorts of measures that I was talking about. Pretending not to have the first idea makes you a liar, who is just trying to snarl up the discussion as much as possible. Who tries to snarl up discussions? Trolls who don't want logic to take its course and the truth to be reached.

Are you now going to admit that you know perfectly well which sorts of measures motorist advocates in general believe to be anti-motorist? Are you going to apologise for lying? Are you going to explain why you did it?

> And it makes you look like an idiot, but I suspect that you manage > that quite unaided, and for obvious reasons.

Not at all, but anyway I'd rather be an idiot than a nasty spiteful little liar like you and so many of the other trolls. Someone who's stupid can't really help it. Someone who systematically lies can. And when so many lives are at stake they should be utterly ashamed of themselves.

If you want me to humour you and list the anti-motorist measures (despite them being common knowledge), then please answer these general questions. If someone was knowingly advocating road traffic measures which they knew were resulting in totally unnecessary deaths and injuries, and they were doing so for nothing more than ideological and spiteful reasons, they would have to be an absolute monster with seriously screwed up priorities, would they not? Yes or no? If they claimed to care about safety, they would be a grade A hypocrite, would they not? Yes or no?

(And no, trolls, I'm not saying that every anti-motorist measure results in deaths and injuries. Speed cameras though, for one, certainly do.)

-- the anti-Manchester Con Charge adverts, which were pretty likely one of you twisted lot, and were nothing more than a way of getting at the ABD and MART for daring to campaign on behalf of motorists (it seems that the trolls would like to ban campaigning on behalf of motorists as well as the motorists themselves). The complaints had no substance and no reasonable person would have been misled in any meaningful way by the adverts. You know that when one side of the debate uses tactics which are almost exclusively disingeunous and underhand, they are probably the incorrect side, and they know it.
 * c.f. the pathetic and ludicrous recent complaints to the ASA about