Nuxx:8634c7a7-7487-49fd-9796-0642b4d08ce8@k2g2000hse.googlegroups.com

Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!k2g2000hse.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <8634c7a7-7487-49fd-9796-0642b4d08ce8@k2g2000hse.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Reasonable? Necessary? You Decide Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 03:56:07 -0800 (PST) References: <6ea8bd3b-ff2f-4227-98f7-a5e457545b20@u69g2000hse.googlegroups.com> <15g1uj1jia6bu.nxyshy4hpxbt$.dlg@40tude.net> <62d9j2F225jb2U1@mid.individual.net> <87pruml4oa.fsf@rudin.co.uk> <14ec3fab-199a-4133-a6ca-bab0069572a0@d5g2000hsc.googlegroups.com> Lines: 102 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 1203940568 6917 127.0.0.1 (25 Feb 2008 11:56:08 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 11:56:08 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: k2g2000hse.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: 6198 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:641723

On Feb 25, 9:14 am, spindrift  wrote: > On 24 Feb, 16:06, Paul Rudin  wrote: > > > > > Don Whybrow  writes: > > > _ wrote: > > >> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 04:30:52 -0800 (PST), Nuxx Bar wrote: > > > >>> 1. Location: a stretch of wide, straight urban road with compulsory > > >>> cycle lanes. > > > >> What is a "compulsory cycle lane"? > > > > A lane that is available for a cyclist to use if they want to, but > > > other vehicles are not allowed to enter. Marked by a solid line. > > > > HC63 & HC140 > > > The usual term is "mandatory", not "compulsory", although both terms > > are a bit misleading, since use of the lane by cyclists is not > > mandatory (or compulsory). However non-use of such by drivers of > > motor-vehicles is (although little-prosecuted). > > Mandatory lanes are pretty rare, and routinely flouted by motorists. > > Nuxxy, why have you started a different thread when I'm still waiting > for your response to my evidence of the dead Paul Smith using his > website to threaten and harrass people? > > Why have you disappeared from the thread that outlined the unpleasant, > threatening behaviour of those swiss freaks from the safespeeding > website?

Your posts tend to be heavily interspersed with this sort of noise, and I've become accustomed to just tuning it out. I'm not interested in your disturbing and tasteless obsession with Paul Smith and Safe Speed, I'm interested (at the moment) in why you hate motorists and why you continually deny it despite it being so obvious.

And see above for my comment on this "Safespeeding" nonsense. The implication that "the idea that speeding is ever safe is ridiculous" is ridiculous in itself. You can go on making out that exceeding the posted limit is hundreds of times more dangerous than it actually is as much as you like; it will never change the facts, and it will never mean that speed cameras work, however much you wish that the motorist persecution devices did work so that motorists would just have to accept them. They don't work, and you'll just have to accept *that*. It's time that you looked for another way of persecuting us, or better still, concentrated on making things better for cyclists instead (although of course you don't cycle...silly me).

The Earth is flat. The Earth is flat. The Earth is flat. The Earth is flat. The Earth is flat.

See, it still isn't true, no matter how many times I say it. The same is true with "Speeding isn't safe". Deal with it.

> Why are you and sir jeremy making claims that I'm mentally ill- an > insult that would result in a banning if I posted anything similar on > the ssafespeeding site?

Assuming that you're referring to Safe Speed, I don't think you would be banned for saying that you were mentally ill. Anyway, I don't ever recall you denying that you are. Are you saying that you've never had any sort of medication or therapy for mental illness?

I tell you what, I'll do you a deal. If you promise not to troll, use ad hominem against Paul Smith or anyone else, go on and on about ancient newsgroup posts or pages on the Safe Speed site (which don't say anything that isn't also on the BBC site, Guardian site et al), make utterly tasteless comments about dead people, or anything else deliberately antagonistic, I'll see if I can get you unbanned. When you're not deliberately being a twat, you are at least more intelligent than many of the camera supporters we get, who seem to think that endlessly repeating "Speed kills" and "Don't exceed the speed limit then" is somehow the way forward.

We would be delighted to have anyone from the "other side" who genuinely wished to add to the camera debate and surrounding issues without trolling. Can't say fairer than that. Or if you don't want to post there, then don't complain about being banned (although if that's true, why did you ever register an account in the first place?) I know that you (or at least one of your personalities) want to post there really. So if you won't promise not to troll and do those other things, it kind of proves what people say about you really.

> Looks to me like you are taking full advantage of the free speech you > and your safespeeding colleagues deny anyone else....

You know perfectly well that the moderators on Safe Speed bend over backwards to be fair. Look at hjeg2, aka Mister Paul. He was quite obviously there to troll and antagonise from the start, yet he still hasn't been banned.

Anyway, as above. If you're that sore about being banned then let's see if we can do something about it. Otherwise, kindly STFU. One or the other, unless of course you just want to whinge for the sake of it.