Nuxx:Bb946aeb-46af-4c7d-855f-af9dd693a3b1@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com

Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Child Death In Redditch Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 12:13:23 -0700 (PDT) References:   <9d01da1a-4907-4a3b-a064-b8cc9f2f81e2@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>  <3df3741b-3413-45f1-8fb5-d0b6271e4f62@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com> Lines: 206 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 88.105.129.172 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1217963603 31892 127.0.0.1 (5 Aug 2008 19:13:23 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 19:13:23 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com; posting-host=88.105.129.172; 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: 10826 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:660967

On Aug 5, 7:18=A0pm, spindrift  wrote: > On Aug 5, 7:03=A0pm, Nuxx Bar  wrote: > > > > > On Aug 5, 10:03=A0am, spindrift  wrote: > > > > On Aug 5, 9:54=A0am, Roger Thorpe  > > > wrote: > > > > > Wow Nuxx you really have turned into the Anti-Doug. > > > > Have a little think about how effective or not he is at spreading a > > > > message of reasonable environmental sensitivity and CO2 reduction..= .... > > > > > Now think about whether you are just here to have an argument or wh= ether > > > > you really care about the issues...... > > > > > Roger Thorpe > > > > 1/ > > > > the child's name was Ellis Smith and using his name to slag off > > > cyclists is beneath contempt > > > >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hereford/worcs/7536707.stm > > > When have I slagged off cyclists? =A0I don't mind cyclists at all, > > unless they also happen to be anti-motorist extremists like you. =A0I > > have no quarrel with at least 90% of cyclists, and I've never said > > otherwise, least of all on this thread. =A0Stop lying. > > > And I do regret that the genuine non-anti-motorist cyclists have to > > read the comments that I make on here against you extremists, but I > > only do it because this is the only uncensored place where you > > extremists hang out. =A0The non-anti-motorist lot should tell you lot t= o > > go forth and multiply and form uk.rec.anti-motorist, then they would > > no longer get caught up in these exchanges, where I tell the truth > > about things like cameras and you and the other motorist-haters get > > annoyed about it. =A0Until they do that, I don't have a huge amount of > > sympathy for them. =A0Anyone who willingly lets extremists hang out on > > their forum/newsgroup is going to have to read their fair share of > > heated discussions. > > > > 2/ > > > > Bus drivers are regularly criticised here, seach on Vicky McCreery, > > > whose death at the hands of a bus driver who went to prison was > > > discussed at length here. There's no selectivity about criticising > > > dangerous drivers here, you don't know what you are talking about. > > > There's a hierarchy though, isn't there? =A0You like criticising car > > drivers by far the most, and cyclists by far the least. =A0It's pretty > > much the same as the insane "Road User Hierarchy" that the mad anti- > > motorist Livingstone presided over, except that cars and motorcycles > > get *way* more criticism than anyone else, and cyclists get *way* > > less. > > > If only a bus driver is responsible for a collision, you will > > criticise him, but with nowhere near as much venom as you would a car > > driver. =A0Furthermore, you will not call for ludicrous restrictions on > > buses and anti-bus measures, whereas it's a different story if a car > > driver is to blame (and even if the car driver isn't to blame, you > > will still try to find an excuse to blame him, because you're thinking > > "He shouldn't have been driving at all, and if he hadn't then the > > collision might not have happened"). > > > > 3/ > > > > In Ellis's case the bus driver hasn't been attacked because nobody > > > knows how he died yet. > > > Whereas if it was a car driver, you would have assumed that the car > > driver had been at fault, and also made some generalised comments > > about how cars are heavier than bikes so the driver had the > > responsibility to avoid the collision and all that prejudiced crap. > > (Strangely, despite buses being so much heavier than cars, you seem to > > think they're *less* dangerous than cars. =A0I wonder why.) > > > > 4/ > > > > You are mad. > > > And you're projecting again. =A0How many thousands of people, on how > > many different forums, genuinely believe that you have serious mental > > problems? =A0How many thousands of people, on how many different forums= , > > genuinely believe that you're a heavy drug user? =A0You can avoid such > > points again and simply repeat "You are mad", but that will just > > confirm the modus operandi of you trolls: you make an incorrect > > statement, one of your opponents corrects the statement, you pretend > > not to have seen the correction and make the same incorrect statement > > again, and so on, ad nauseam. =A0It's pathetic. =A0You're pathetic. > > You're Spindrift after all.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > 1// > You claim =A0an others here are "anti-motorist" You offer no evidence > for this.

Their post history, their support of every anti-motorist measure, and their refusal to do anything but support speed cameras despite their appalling safety record is all the evidence that anyone needs.

> 2/ > > You claim I'm a criminal. You offer no evidence for this.

Yawn. Why do you repeat the same things again and again, no matter what anyone says in reply? Do you think you'll suddenly get a different reply if you bore them enough or something?

> 3/ > > You claim bus drivers are not attacked. You've already been told, a > search on "McCreery" would prove you're wrong

I pointed out that car drivers are criticised far more often and far more enthusiastically. You haven't even attempted to deny that, because you know it's true.

> 4/ > > You claim cyclists aren't criticised. You weren't even on this forum > when I posted a thread devoted to doing just that, RLJers.

I pointed out that car drivers are criticised far more often and far more enthusiastically. You haven't even attempted to deny that, because you know it's true.

And you only have a go at RLJers in an attempt to cover up the fact that you are one of them. It's part of this ridiculous pretence that you somehow care about road safety.

> 5/ > > You claim I would have blamed the driver had a car hit Ellis. I've > already said three times now that we know too little of what happened > to attach blame to anyone. You HAVE read the thread?

You have a long track record of blaming car drivers at the drop of a hat. You deliberately exaggerate the dangers of "speeding" and the benefits of speed cameras. You are a motorist-hater, and that's been well established.

> 6/ > > You now claim I use "heavy" drugs, whatever they are. =A0You have no > evidence for this.

English? Comprendez? "Heavy drug user" =3D "heavy user of drugs". In other words, shooting up first thing in the morning, then having a spliff or three, then shooting up again, then sniffing some coke, then shooting up again, then rolling, then shooting up again, then nodding, then shooting up again, then throwing up, then having a spliff so that you stop throwing up, then having to score again, then trying to shoot up but not being able to find a vein, etc, etc, etc, etc. I should think that you do little else except use gear and go from Internet cafe to Internet cafe, posting hateful anti-motorist bollocks. Presumably you must live near the Internet cafes that you go to, so you can pop back and self-medicate whenever you feel like it. Also you'd have to be a bit foolish to walk around London in possession of contraband, especially when you look so weird and whacked.

There's no doubt that you're on the wacky baccy when you post shit like "The cyclist's name was so-and-so and you've been using his name to slag off cyclists". And there's no way that anyone who campaigned for road users' deaths could live with themselves unless they used something like smack so that they weren't troubled by their conscience. Whether it was the gear that made you disturbed, or you just started using because you were disturbed, is unclear. Of course it's your business what you do, but I was just pointing out that it's hypocritical to comment on the mental health of other people.

Want to prove me wrong? Take photos of your arms where one would normally inject, and put something else in the picture that's unique to you (say, that newspaper cutting with Paul Smith's photo that you stabbed several times, spat on, defecated on, ejaculated on and then snogged). And don't insult the intelligence of your readers by doing some lame Photoshop thing.

> Mate, you're obsessing, I think you may well believe that you're > achieving something by all this but all you're doing is revealing > safespeeding supporters to be mentally unbalanced judging by your > behaviour.

So, as predicted in my "You're projecting" paragraph above, you've simply said the same thing again. You're little more than a bot, albeit one with a good few viruses.

And I'm not your "mate". Smack's your mate, and your wife, and your life (along with trolling).

> Now, seventh time, you claim you've been told I caused a building to > be evacuated. Ask the person who made this claim to repeat it here > please. When and where, all the evidence.

I've told you six times that I'm not going to tell you any more about it, and I've explained the reasons why. Also, you know already what the answers are. You can ask as many times as you want, but all it shows is that you simply ask/say the same things again and again without paying any attention to your opponents' replies. I will ignore any further repetitions of those questions.