Nuxx:4e319ade$0$2532$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk

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!news3.google.com!feeder.news-service.com!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!dedekind.zen.co.uk!zen.net.uk!hamilton.zen.co.uk!shaftesbury.zen.co.uk.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <4e319ade$0$2532$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Simple Simon bottles it. Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 18:22:34 +0100 References: <6O0Yp.93146$2I6.28263@newsfe27.ams2> <99cppqF74gU1@mid.individual.net> <4e3175eb$0$2497$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk> <99dcfrFk1dU1@mid.individual.net> Lines: 76 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 Thunderbird/3.1.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <99dcfrFk1dU1@mid.individual.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Organization: Zen Internet NNTP-Posting-Host: 0e73ebf8.news.zen.co.uk X-Trace: DXC=>S9hWOfP?CmX`EQ6Kon13knok4Z\ Nuxx Bar wrote: > >> On 28/07/2011 10:51, Paul - xxx wrote: >>> Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote: >>> >>>> Simple Simon received the following challengeJ ul 26, 6:47 pm. >>>> >>>> "I know how we could see if motorists are hard men with backbone. >>>> >>>> Meet me at the The BEST WESTERN Bromley Court Hotel at 5pm tomorrow >>>> 27/7/11 and I'll show you just how hard we are". >>>> >>>> He bottled it and didn't turn up. >>>> >>>> I have 20 witnesses who will confirm I was there. >>>> >>>> Bottle gone Mason? >>>> >>>> No credibility now? >>> >>> Why would anyone drive overnight to kent just to meet a fuckwit like >>> you, who's a proven bottler, yet continues to try wriggling and >>> avoiding the real issue that it's YOU who bottled? >> >> Proven? > > I'm being as flippant as he is .. but yes, it would appear that TMH > didn't go and that (whoever it was) did go .. I can't be arsed to > check, but it does seem that all him, Judith, you and others do is > attack people, peoples beliefs and try to belittle them, whether > there's any truth in your 'revelations' or not. > > Mostly it appears the revelations are products of fertile imaginations, > or desperate leaps of faith from reading one thing, inferring another > and coming to a conclusion you can ridicule rather than discuss or > debate. Look at your 'why would' thread .. you start off with a > premise that isn't proven, that no-one but you (and the possible > recipient) cares about and that occurred years ago and yet you still > pollute the group with it and prolong something that died a long while > ago. > > I can't understand why you all do it other than thinking you're > fuckwits and trolls, but then, I've thought that from pretty soon first > appearances too .. ;)

You're wrong on so many counts that there seems little point in even attempting to reason with you.

Chapman posted as Lou Knee, and Chapman wears a helmet. Those things are as good as certain (for a start, he would have refuted them long ago otherwise, just like he always does when genuinely false accusations are made against him). If I want to keep pointing those things out, however uncomfortable it may make him and his allies, then I will.

People have a right to know that he is not practising what he preaches regarding helmets, and that therefore his "arguments" on the matter should be regarded with deep suspicion. And people have a right to know that when the facts are not as he wants them to be, he chooses to try to deceive his way out of it, rather than to concede defeat. It means that there's no point in trying to debate with him because he doesn't have the grace to admit when he's been beaten. It's another way in which he is a sociopath.

If you really want to prove me wrong on either of the above things, why don't you try asking him yourself whether he made that post, and whether he wears a helmet? No, I thought you wouldn't. How strange. Maybe you know perfectly well what the score is after all, and you're as slippery as he is. But the fact remains that if you, or anyone else, is genuinely confident that he is "innocent" of making the post or wearing a helmet, all you have to do is to publicly ask him. Until you do, you're showing that despite your wriggling, you think there's a good chance that I'm right. You could at least admit that.

And...everything else you said is wrong as well. But what does one expect from someone who is mad enough to have kisses in their "name"?