Nuxx:E471ee7f-2e8c-48b0-8c7d-cbeb69eca9e1@e21g2000yqe.googlegroups.com

Path: num2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!num1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!number.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border3.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!e21g2000yqe.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.net.news.moderation Subject: Re: "Utterly Horrible Corrosive People"? It's Like "The Princess and the Pea" Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 01:47:45 -0800 (PST) References:  <0fb56c29-2cca-4ddd-9013-9a29cda0b6d8@s41g2000vbw.googlegroups.com>  Lines: 25 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 1297331265 20495 127.0.0.1 (10 Feb 2011 09:47:45 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 09:47:45 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: e21g2000yqe.googlegroups.com; posting-host=82.71.49.124; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Opera/9.80 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.5.8; U; en) Presto/2.7.62 Version/11.01,gzip(gfe) Bytes: 2679 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.net.news.moderation:37201

On Feb 10, 7:21=A0am, Trollsworth LeTrole  wrote: > Was Judith the one who went psycho and harassed other URC posters for > years for the crime of being pro-speed-camera (apparently camera > supporters are part of a plot to murder motorists or some other such > bollocks). Or was that someone else? I remember that she might have > been slightly saner than that.

Not much point in trying to reason with someone who continually snipes from the sidelines but refuses to engage directly, which of course means they can evade awkward questions like "Who did you use to post as on URC?" I am prepared to use the same name as I always have...why aren't you?

For the record, I will concede (as I already have) that "murderer" is the wrong term to use. Nevertheless someone who has done the research, ascertained that cameras cost lives and yet continues to support them because they like motorists being punished is worthy of the deepest contempt. I'm not saying that all camera supporters think cameras cost lives, but I am of the opinion that some do, if it's OK with you that I think that of course.

I don't think I'll be replying to your provocation again, at least until if and when you have the guts to admit who you used to post as. Which you won't.