Nuxx:75af1c19-168f-4093-b1d3-ef7ce9706c1d@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com

Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <75af1c19-168f-4093-b1d3-ef7ce9706c1d@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling, uk.rec.driving Subject: Re: Friends of the Earth Quote Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 00:58:38 -0800 (PST) References: <6074774d-6b65-42a5-aafa-5fbb4d4cc732@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com>  Lines: 96 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 1202720318 21835 127.0.0.1 (11 Feb 2008 08:58:38 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 08:58:38 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: e6g2000prf.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:1.8.1.11) Gecko/20071127 Firefox/2.0.0.11,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Bytes: 6364 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:639473

On Feb 10, 6:46 pm, "Budstaff"  wrote: > "Nuxx Bar"  wrote in message > > news:6074774d-6b65-42a5-aafa-5fbb4d4cc732@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > > > > > "Speed limits should be made very low and rigidly enforced to take all > > the glamour out of motoring" > > Friends of the Earth, 1995 > > > Is anyone going to have the guts to admit that they agree with the > > above quote? Spindrift? His sycophants? Other militant cyclists? > > > The quote does of course prove that the continued lowering of speed > > limits and the proliferation of speed cameras are indeed implemented > > for anti-motorist reasons, at least some of the time. Anyone who > > denies that that is ever the case is pretty likely to be anti-motorist > > themselves. How Enemies of the People must regret letting that one > > slip, as it makes a mockery of claims (lies) that such measures are > > all about safety and nothing else. > > > Surely saving lives, rather than ideological anti-car nonsense, should > > *always* be the top priority when deciding on road safety measures; > > anything less and people will die unnecessarily. Surely no-one can > > reasonably argue with that. Therefore "taking all the glamour out of > > motoring" should never *ever* be so much as a slight consideration > > when deciding what to implement. We owe it to all road users, even > > obnoxious cyclists. > > > Those who interfere with road safety in order to make things > > unpleasant for drivers have BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS. Those who support > > them have BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS. Those who knowingly propagate the > > associated lies have BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS. When are these bastards > > going to stop pretending that they are doing anything but effectively > > signing people's death warrants? > > > It's time for real road safety, where reducing casualties as much as > > possible is the one and only aim. There's no room for anything else. > > > (Doubtless Spindrift will deny that he agrees with the quote, but then > > argue with everything else that I've written, thereby showing that he > > does in fact completely agree with it. He may also have a go at > > claiming that Friends of the Earth "didn't really say that" or some > > such, giving a list of irrelevant hyperlinks in his defence.  Par for > > the course then really.) > > I really can't see the point of taking a 12-year-old quote that has > _nothing_ to say about cycling, then cross posting it to one newsgroup, > u.r.d, that probably took issue with it 12 years ago, and another, u.r.c, in > order to pick a fight with them by challenging them to agree with it.

Except that they *do* agree with it, and their post history makes it obvious. But it seems that rule number one of being a cycling motorist-hater is to pathetically lie about it. Rule number two, of course, is to continually advocate speed cameras, even when they have been long since discredited, since they're such excellent motorist persecution tools.

As for "picking fights", what exactly would you call the ridiculous anti-SafeSpeed tirade which has been a constant feature of certain cycling newsgroups and forums? Not to mention the trolls that you keep sending to SS to take advantage of the current situation. You lot started it. And only a motorist-hater would have such a problem with SafeSpeed when all that group is doing is honestly and truthfully campaigning for safer roads. Only a motorist-hater would be so unwilling to even *consider* that cameras weren't helping. Anyone else who disagreed with SS would just say "I don't agree with them but I can see that they really want safer roads". They wouldn't have the disagraceful emotive hateful attitude that so many of you lot have.

This thread has shown just how completely spineless the motorist- hating cycling trolls really are, and it will be a permanent record of same. Why would anyone lie about being anti-motorist, unless they knew that they couldn't defend their point of view? Friends of the Earth and Campaign for "Better" Transport may be anti-progress people- hating freaks, but at least they're not liars (not about hating motorists anyway).

> Unless of course the point is that you are a sad and particularly > unimaginative troll.

And you're nothing of the kind of course. If I'm unimaginative, you'll be able to find plenty of examples of people having said the same as me. Which you can't. Whereas you are just a Spindrift/ Tourist Tony clone, which is about as unimaginative as it gets. Break away, do something daring and admit that you're anti-motorist. Except that your trollmaster won't let you, will he?

> However I would be intersted to know what (legal) aspect of modern motoring > you think is or should be 'glamorous'.

Modern motoring isn't particularly glamorous, precisely because of speed cameras, willful obstructions and a host of other anti-motorist measures. But you know that already I'm sure, and delight in it.