Nuxx:2a823f43-6eac-4388-87ba-415771551e70@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com

Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <2a823f43-6eac-4388-87ba-415771551e70@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Labyrinthine paranoia Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 01:40:26 -0700 (PDT) References:    <871w1ae288.fsf@toy.config>  <871w19d6e4.fsf@toy.config>  Lines: 51 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 88.105.145.93 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1217580026 31615 127.0.0.1 (1 Aug 2008 08:40:26 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 08:40:26 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: 34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com; posting-host=88.105.145.93; 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: 4140 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:660063

On Aug 1, 5:04=A0am, judith  wrote: > On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 23:40:35 +0100, Daniel Barlow  > wrote: > > >Nuxx Bar  writes: > > >> I agree that a driver who is observing properly should be able to spot > >> fixed cameras. =A0However, what about sneakily hidden mobile cameras? > >> Would you have noticed every one of the cameras on this page, and if > >> not, does that make you "incompetent"? > > >>http://www.speedcam.co.uk/van.htm > > >If that's what you call "sneakily hidden", you need your eyes checked. > > Did you struggle with the sentence where he said " Would you have > noticed every one of the cameras on this page"? > > or is it just "every one" you missed?

It's incredible, isn't it? If you make a good point, it's simply beyond the motorist-haters to reply with "That's a good point" or even "I see what you mean": they'd rather deliberately "misinterpret" what you said. There are *countless* examples of posts where they have "misinterpreted" "every one" as "a single one", as well as many other similar "mistakes". (It's something that I've seen motorist-haters do time and time again elsewhere as well. It's the kind of duplicity that seems to go hand-in-hand with being anti-motorist.)

This deliberate "misinterpretation" is another underhand tactic alongside the abject refusal to give a straight answer (or indeed any answer) to incriminating questions. They don't seem to appreciate that every time they employ such dubious tactics instead of graciously conceding the point (even partially), they make it more and more obvious that they have some kind of hidden, selfish agenda. No-one who had a wonderful, life-saving agenda would feel the need to use such tactics, ever (let alone all the time). If the motorist-haters really believed what they were saying about cameras saving lives etc, why would they feel the need to continually employ disingenuous tactics when "debating"? Why would there be any need to "misinterpret" things and refuse to answer straightforward questions? If they really felt that the truth was on their side, and they weren't lying about their agenda, it wouldn't even occur to them to be so deceptive and dishonest.

So yet again, the motorist-haters are humiliatingly exposed through their own devious tactics. They must be getting really fed up with it, but if they are, all they have to do is start being truthful about their anti-motorist agenda, and there will no longer be any hidden truth to expose. Furthermore, my work here will be done. Surely it's got to be worth considering coming clean, motorist-haters?