Nuxx:Beacd9c7-3769-49d5-9cf2-5e4bba81c79f@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com

Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Reasonable? Necessary? You Decide Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 16:07:14 -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> <87ve4djsz0.fsf@rudin.co.uk> <14539eed-d850-4243-b2dc-1ec974a2e4d9@j28g2000hsj.googlegroups.com> <98eb865d-1414-4092-98c6-17191694690f@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com> <1icvx79.nclu7q1nz69i3N%notmyaddress.1.ekulnamsob@wronghead.com> Lines: 63 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 1203984435 12034 127.0.0.1 (26 Feb 2008 00:07:15 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 00:07:15 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: s37g2000prg.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: 5393 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:641845

On Feb 25, 9:07 pm, notmyaddress.1.ekulnam...@wronghead.com (Ekul Namsob) wrote: > Nuxx Bar  wrote: > > As I said, anyone who sticks to properly and honestly debating road > > safety, rather than deliberately snarling up the discussion with > > personal attacks, is welcome. > > So, are you willing to properly and honestly debate road safety here? If > so, would you mind doing as you were asked and as you promised to do > several days ago so that we can clear up the points of confusion? > > The problem, you see, is that you keep referring to anti-motorist > measures, you keep accusing people of hypocrisy and of lying and yet you > refuse to tell us what these so-called anti-motorist measures are.

You know perfectly well what they are. They're the ones that you advocate without question because they restrict and/or punish the motorist. They're all around us. Road policy "innovations" in the last 15 years have consisted of very little else. You and the others are just trying to waste my time and get me to jump through hoops by telling me to list them. Even if you claim not to believe that they're anti-motorist measures, you know exactly which measures I'm talking about. What typical troll tactics. Anything to delay the discussion reaching its logical conclusion and the truth coming out.

Nevertheless, I'll do it (when *I* decide), because I'll only have to do it once, and then the "I don't know what anti-motorist measures you mean" avenue is closed off to the trolls forever. And no doubt that when I do start the thread, you will be one of the first to reply, with a wretchedly useless, unpleasant and vague post about how I shouldn't have posted what I did (despite you telling me to do it in the first place). The fact that you complain about every topic I start, yet you haven't killfiled me (as I've already asked you to do), indicates to me that you like trolling in my threads.

The list will be worth waiting for, I can assure you. It'll be really funny watching the trolls claim that not a single instance of a single one of the measures anywhere in the country has been implemented for even slightly anti-motorist reasons (because they can say that with 100% certainty of course). And it'll be oh-so-telling when they'll have to admit to mysteriously supporting each and every one of the measures, whether or not they actually save lives, ease congestion or do any good whatsoever. It'll be a coincidence like you've never seen before. Except of course that it'll be one of those "coincidences" that actually has a perfectly logical explanation.

The liars really should take a step back and realise how absurd this "I'm not at all anti-motorist" thing has become. This is the trouble with lying: once you tell one lie, you have to say ever more preposterous things to cover it up. And some of the things that the trolls say to cover up the "I'm not anti-motorist" lie are way beyond preposterous. Why are they lying at all? It must be that they're ashamed of their position; it's the only thing that makes any sense whatsoever. They are clearly incredibly worried about the prospect of having to justify and defend their anti-motorist stance. They would have to be to bother telling such farcical lies. It really is ridiculous. Absolutely barking. It would be like all Safe Speed and ABD members turning round and saying "We're not on the motorist's side". Well, they are on the motorist's side, so it makes sense that those of you who oppose them would be anti-motorist. For heaven's sake tell the truth trolls, before you lose every last shred of credibility. You've had your fun, and now it's time to debate properly and truthfully.