Nuxx:Aded2559-44e0-4546-8540-0ba0a8b696b9@l33g2000pri.googlegroups.com

Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!l33g2000pri.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: "The Sign Knows Better Than The Driver"...But Which Sign? Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 23:49:48 -0700 (PDT) References:  <59e0975d-e3ec-47a7-a252-bca618cec966@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>  <7298e8cb-0676-4340-aa79-4a0ab520bef4@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>  Lines: 47 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 88.105.170.121 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1220510988 30733 127.0.0.1 (4 Sep 2008 06:49:48 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 06:49:48 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: l33g2000pri.googlegroups.com; posting-host=88.105.170.121; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-GB; rv:1.9.0.1) Gecko/2008070208 Firefox/3.0.1,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Bytes: 3754 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:666292

On Aug 30, 3:11=A0pm, JNugent  wrote: > TerryJ wrote: > >> hard to see why the limit would have to be reduced (say) half a mile > >> away as well as up close to the hazard. > > You really don't know what you are talking about, do you. > > I rather think I do, since I have been driving for nearly 40 years and ha= ve > become well aware that it doesn't take half a mile to slow down for a haz= ard > in a built-up area (maybe for a lorry on a motorway which is being driven= at > a speed in excess of the limit). > > And actually, it's other people who may not know what we are "talking" ab= out, > since you have snipped all context. > > BTW: Questions (including misconceived rhetorical ones) are completed wit= h a > question mark ("?"). You really do give several signs of not knowing how = to > post in English on usenet, don't you?

I admire your patience, I really do. Goodness knows how you can calmly and dispassionately point out the many ways in which the car- haters are wrong, over and over again, without ever apparently even getting slightly irritated at their refusal to admit that cameras don't work, even in the face of overwhelming evidence. You do especially well to keep your cool with Crapman and the other callous gits who support cameras despite *knowing* that they cost lives. I don't think many right-minded people could manage that. I take my hat off to you.

Of course, you still get called a "troll" by Crapman and co, which underlines the fact that anyone who hasn't declared their undying love for cameras gets that treatment, no matter what their style, and no matter how many good arguments they come up with (in fact, more good arguments =3D more likelihood of being called a troll, since the car- haters don't like being out-debated, even though you would think that they'd be used to it by now). The fact that Crapman and co insult that their arguments aren't up to scratch, otherwise they would let such arguments speak for themselves, and they would keep the insults for those who genuinely deserved them (not that there are any such people on the anti-camera side...they're only trying to save lives, after all).
 * anyone* who disagrees with them about cameras shows that they know