Nuxx:Ffafedb3-133a-4b13-a34d-13b7ef4715cc@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com

Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Brownsville man arrested after allegedly plowing car through racers. Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 17:41:58 -0700 (PDT) References:   <23300bef-e0df-4483-b099-b7f1dcf15ebb@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> <8d66b499-64f8-457b-89f7-1897f82abdd7@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> <93pv54p7kmh2cuh23h2f6fd2db1jbsbrsm@4ax.com> Lines: 76 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 88.105.168.199 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1214268119 6177 127.0.0.1 (24 Jun 2008 00:41:59 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 00:41:59 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com; posting-host=88.105.168.199; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-GB; rv:1.9) Gecko/2008052906 Firefox/3.0,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Bytes: 5704 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:654299

I don't know whether to be amused or freaked out that Crapman rarely posts here unless it's in reply to me. Amused because Crapman obviously feels threatened by me and my habit of revealing the truth about cameras and the trolls' anti-motorist agenda. Freaked out because it's never a good thing to have someone stalking you, especially when they're clearly so blase about lives being lost.

On Jun 23, 7:01=A0pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?"  wrote: > On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 10:32:15 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar >  said in > <8d66b499-64f8-457b-89f7-1897f82ab...@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>: > > >why would Safe Speed > >supporters (if that's who you mean) be trying to reduce road deaths if > >they took such delight in them? > > Close, but no banana. =A0Safespeed is, and always was, a speed > apologist and anti-enforcement group /pretending/ to be concerned > with road deaths.

Really? Where's your evidence? Oh that's right, you've got NONE. I'm sure that you and your troll friends have moles in the Clubhouse (sorry to disappoint you but we do know), and no doubt you've seen a distinct lack of the sorts of posts that you'd expect to see there from an organisation that really had such an agenda. Once again, you've shown yourself to be a LIAR.

I know many of the people from Safe Speed, an awful lot better than you do, and they are decent, responsible people who quite obviously care about saving lives a hell of a lot more than the trolls here do. And if we really were a "speed apologist and anti-enforcement group", we'd all have a lot of points to show for it by now. Polls have very clearly shown otherwise.

"Speed apologist" is absurd: we don't want people going too fast any more than anyone else does. Why would we? We don't want people to die. And "anti-enforcement" is nothing more than slander; most of us want *more* enforcement of most traffic laws, and we still want speed limits and parking restrictions: we just want them to be set sensibly and by the right people (with the right motives), and we want them to be enforced with discretion (and I can't see how anyone except a motorist-hating tosser would not want those things). If you actually look at the Safe Speed manifesto, I bet you can't find a single thing on there that you can logically argue with. So no wonder you're making shit up about Safe Speed instead. It's like when you can't argue with what I'm saying, so you start talking crap about me having been banned, or not having passed my test. You'd rather slander people than admit that the anti-camera brigade are right about anything. You're pathetic.

> Everybody who is /genuinely/ concerned with > reducing road deaths seems remarkably consistent in supporting the > conclusion, robustly scientifically proven, that both frequency and > severity of collisions rises with speed.

But since you (purportedly at least) automatically assume that anyone who questions speed enforcement can't be concerned with road deaths, it's hardly surprising that you've come to the above conclusion. All of what you're saying is lies anyway, and you know the truth as well as I do. Safe Speed most definitely is concerned with reducing road deaths; it's you and your troll friends who prioritise the persecution of motorists above the saving of people's lives.

By the way, what do you mean by "speed": impact speed or free- travelling speed? Do you acknowledge that they are different, and no relationship has been found between them? Oops, sorry, we're not allowed to go there are we? Any attempt at uncovering the deceit and intentional oversimplification surrounding the "case" for speed cameras is invariably met with flaming from the troll collective. So I'd better not mention the fact that 95% of crashes take place within the speed limit, despite people exceeding the speed limit half the time. So much for the frequency of collisions rising with "speed". Oh dear, Crapman doesn't like that. A salvo of irrefutable facts: it's guaranteed to upset the trolls. The trouble is that it's great fun as well, and one has to try to get some amusement out of the existence of such twisted motorist-haters.