Nuxx:4b5f6560-f720-4a9b-beec-61cfce9719b4@q12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com

Path: num2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!num1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!number.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!q12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <4b5f6560-f720-4a9b-beec-61cfce9719b4@q12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.net.news.config Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: delete newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2010 08:57:07 -0700 (PDT) References:   <1jlbyef.8nl4511ijso08N%alan@darkroom.+.com>      <39286cf6-47e6-4913-895f-8d46dc90b943@g19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>       Lines: 145 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.71.49.124 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1278777427 508 127.0.0.1 (10 Jul 2010 15:57:07 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2010 15:57:07 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: q12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com; posting-host=82.71.49.124; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.2.6) Gecko/20100625 Firefox/3.6.6 GTB7.1 GTBA,gzip(gfe) Bytes: 8838 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.net.news.config:61553

On Jul 10, 2:49=A0pm, Nobby Anderson  wrote: > Oh good, I'm glad, because care so much what you believe.

If you don't care then why do you read *all* posts, whether or not they're anything to do with you? Why won't you answer the question?

> And you're expecting anyone to believe that it wasn't meant as a referenc= e > to me?

How different would it have to be to your name before you'd stop thinking it was a "reference to you"? I think you might be a bit paranoid, don't you? Very self-centred as well, thinking that everything's about you all the time.

> Oh of course, you also expect people to believe "speed cameras > kill people", so I guess anything's possible and it was a random nym > picked out of a hat.

Why are you so keen to believe they don't? Because you hate cars? Do you think it's a good thing to distract drivers unnecessarily? Do you have an alternative explanation for the very reliable and long-term year-on-year fall in annual deaths suddenly plummeting at the same time as road "safety" policy was radically changed to "Speed kills"? Why did the rate that road deaths fell by decrease more and more as more of the country became infested by cameras? You don't have an alternative explanation, so you'll try to deceive your way out of it by responding with "clever" sarcasm and irrelevance.

Get this: the *only* explanation that Chapman and the other car-haters could come up with for this loss of trend was the rise in mobile phone use. That's the best thing they could think of: it is of course singularly pathetic, and anyone can see that it's just a petulant, farcical refusal to accept reality. How many collisions involve mobile phones in any way, shape or form? All the evidence suggests that camera policy kills by massively prioritising speed limit compliance over all sorts of other factors which are *far* more important. Drivers have to prioritise; they can't concentrate on everything at once. Do you think that overemphasising the speed limit (especially when it's far too low, as you've no doubt seen many examples of, and it's all part of the same general policy) makes things more safe or more dangerous?

Bet you can't come up with a convincing rebuttal to any of that. Bet you try to evade your way out of it. And that will show that as well as being a sore loser, you are happy to say things about road safety which you know or suspect to be untrue. Please don't use the "off- topic" excuse...respond in URC if you want.

> > I think you need to remove the "about you" from that. =A0And even then > > it's not true...Kleiv Jawj: Wannabe Moderator mentioned you the other > > week, and you then chimed in with your usual shit about me. =A0If you'v= e > > Hmm, I might have, but I don't think so.

I do:

http://www.myreader.co.uk/msg/12561166.aspx

> If I did, I apologise, I meant only to reply when you or one of your > socks mentions me.

Apology accepted. It's nice to see that you can sometimes be reasonable; I look forward to more of the same.

> > Oh dear, sounds like you're one of the "troll-wrestlers who helped to > > destroy URC". =A0 > > I doubt it. my posting frequency is sufficiently low that it's unlikely > to have reached anyone's notice (except you of course) and that coupled > with a lack of nym-shifting makes me very easy to ignore.

Why don't you post more? You clearly read every post, so you must be interested in the discussions and have plenty of time (unless you just read every one of *my* posts....) You seem to have very forthright (if often wrong) opinions, and you're obviously very sure of your superiority to others, so why not share your pearls of wisdom with us? I promise not to demolish *every* argument you make.

And anyway, the vast majority of my posts overall are from one of two nyms, so by your standards I obviously didn't "destroy URC" either. (You obviously don't think URC's "unusable" anyway, since you, err, use it.)

> You need to think through your little conspiracy theories a bit more Nuxx= y.

Well I don't know if you've heard but some people have more than one computer in their households these days.

It's true that IIRC there were no spelling or grammar errors in that post, so I suppose that should have been an indication that it wasnt you. But as I say, you should really get together with this person as you clearly like taking the piss out of people in exactly the same way, and you also seem to take the piss out of exactly the same things. And you both appear to have the same opinions. Spooky, eh?

(BTW I left the apostrophe out of "wasn't" deliberately...you really thought you'd got me there, didn't you? There you were all about to type out a withering, oh-so-clever retort, or maybe you'd already finished one, and now you're going to have to take it all out again to avoid looking like a, well, Nob.  Shit happens, me old mate, especially to those who think they're smarter than they are, mentioning no[b] names.)

> Oh Nuxxy, you really ought to think up your own material. =A0Parroting mi= ne > back at me is just boring. =A0You did it the other day, calling me "old m= ate" > or something in a reply to a post in which I'd done the same to you. =A0I= t's > very unoriginal, you know.

Amazing hypocrisy, as seen elsewhere. Quite possibly an intentional attempt at button-pressing (oh, sorry, I'm not allowed to use that phrase ever again now that you've used it, am I?)

> > You get > > very angry about the legal action stuff, don't you? ;-) > > Angry? =A0Why would it make me angry?

There's a great post of yours from a while back when you were quite obviously very frustrated that I supposedly hadn't addressed your points on the matter. It was really funny...I pissed myself when I read it (not literally before you start yet again with the banal "mummy" stuff). I can't be bothered to find it now, partly because I can't remember any specific words to search for, and I can't be arsed to look through every one of your posts in the way that you do mine.

It was good though...your usual smug veneer of "I'm so calm and collected, and am enjoying pressing your buttons while you're getting in a flap" was all but gone, and you were shouting with the best of them. I call it "Nob's Gob Job".

> Why can't you just answer the question? =A0Oh, who does that sound like?

You should make up your own material. Parroting mine back at me is just boring.

And you know Chapman won't answer the Lou Knee question because he made the post. Why do you continue to support him when he's so deceitful? Or is the forgery of his address in "St. Michael Chapman" a sign that you no longer have such unwavering admiration for him?