Nuxx:4631a577-932b-4024-a326-a665cef5a67a@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com

Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <4631a577-932b-4024-a326-a665cef5a67a@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Matthew Parris Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 16:27:00 -0700 (PDT) References: <810d0e40-f4c8-405c-b2c1-6b82051dabbe@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> <3ff26f0f-5b1f-4925-b40e-079e28daf37a@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> <8e8u841dna3r7u3lo2hjb68fb8nbo2j8en@4ax.com>  <9bku84p1u6f7n7gj5db6g95rakuvh5qppl@4ax.com>   <0874945tebn24r1a8efnhdj6t0ag0ot4l5@4ax.com> Lines: 90 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 88.105.145.93 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1217546820 23576 127.0.0.1 (31 Jul 2008 23:27:00 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 23:27:00 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com; posting-host=88.105.145.93; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-GB; rv:1.9.0.1) Gecko/2008070208 Firefox/3.0.1,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Bytes: 6043 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:660024

On Jul 31, 9:14=A0pm, judith  wrote: > On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 08:39:13 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?" > >  wrote: > >On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 19:13:54 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar > > said in > >: > > >>Perhaps you could clarify which would bother you more (all other > >>things being equal): a cyclist being decapitated by piano wire, or a > >>motorcyclist being decapitated by piano wire. =A0Please don't insult > >>your readers by lying. > > >Logical fallacy: false dilemma. =A0You fail. =A0Again. > > >Guy > > Nuux Bar - you are wasting your time trying to get him to answer a > straight question. =A0It is all very well him wanting to pin others down > - but ask him that question which is going to show how shallow he is - > and he will offer some excuse. > > It's a classing troll approach - ah, no - hang on =A0- he's not the > troll is he - it's you and me and the other people who he can't/won't > answer.

Spot on. :-) The number of times that he's point blank refused to answer a "difficult" question is astounding.  One day I'll put together a list of unanswered questions and make him look even more stupid than he already does.

Let's look at the straightforward questions that he's repeatedly refused to answer here, and see if we can determine why he won't answer them. First up:

"Perhaps you could clarify which would bother you more (all other things being equal): a cyclist being decapitated by piano wire, or a motorcyclist being decapitated by piano wire."

If he was equally bothered by both occurrences, why would he not just say so? It seems entirely obvious that the first scenario (a cyclist being decapitated by piano wire) would bother him more than the second (a motorcyclist being decapitated by piano wire), and *that's* why he won't answer the question: because it would entail an admission that he was indeed anti-motorist/anti-motorcyclist (and viciously, callously so).

Now, the second question:

"Also, are you going to either substantiate or retract your accusation that I've been using other people's words?"

If he was able to substantiate the accusation, he would have done so by now. But he hasn't, because he can't. It says so much about Chapman, his arrogance and his absolute refusal to ever back down that he hasn't even had the common decency to retract the accusation and admit that it was a malicious load of rubbish. Furthermore, almost unbelievably, he has today repeated the very same accusation in another thread.

It's pretty clear from his absolute refusal to answer these simple questions what Chapman's "debating" technique is. When he's wrong about something, or he doesn't want to admit something, he just starts talking crap, attempting to distract the reader, and anything else he can think of in a pathetic effort to deceive people into not realising that he's been outmanoeuvred. When you strip it down to basic questions, like above, this avoidance technique becomes screamingly obvious.

But he also uses exactly the same technique when it comes to "debating" whether cameras work: as soon as he is asked an awkward question, the answer to which would involve an admission that cameras killed people, he employs the same dubious evasion tactics. It's *yet another* piece of evidence that Chapman knows that cameras don't work, and that he only pretends otherwise because he has a hatred of motorists. Since the subject of whether cameras work is fairly complex, Chapman usually manages to obfuscate enough that people don't notice his evasiveness, but this latest exchange, with its two incredibly simple-to-answer questions, gives him nowhere to hide.

The "game" is up: Chapman has hereby been exposed as a fraud and a charlatan. Any real cyclist who reads this exchange, and refuses to disown Chapman, only has himself to blame regarding this newsgroup being taken over by Chapman and the other anti-motorist idiots. It's time to make a stand against these anti-motorist trolls who refuse to answer simple questions, refuse to retract ludicrous accusations, and are purposely not amenable to any kind of reason or logic when it conflicts with their hateful crusade against those who dare to drive. It's time that Chapman and his troll-friends were put in their place once and for all.