Nuxx:B898177b-5dcc-4a2e-97a9-97c6a761995f@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com

Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Chapman: His Agenda Exposed Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 02:31:32 -0700 (PDT) References: <0f3fd3c5-7db2-47aa-bbd5-bbbae629d329@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> Lines: 71 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 1217583092 6234 127.0.0.1 (1 Aug 2008 09:31:32 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 09:31:32 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: z72g2000hsb.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: 5144 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:660074

On Aug 1, 8:53=A0am, Nuxx Bar  wrote: > On this thread, among others: > > http://tinyurl.com/evasivetroll > > ...Chapman has repeatedly failed to answer two basic questions. =A0They > are basic in that the content of the questions is simple, and also in > that it would take Chapman mere seconds to answer them. =A0(In other > words, they are fundamentally different to deliberately time-wasting > "questions" such as "Provide a huge, complete list of every anti- > motorist measure bar none".) =A0Please read the questions with an open > mind, and think about why Chapman would be so reluctant to answer > them. > > Question 1: 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? > > Question 2: Are you going to either substantiate or retract your > accusation that I've been using other people's words? > > They are pretty straightforward questions, as you can see, and someone > with a noble, selfless agenda to save lives would have no problem > whatsoever with providing answers. =A0Answer 1 would be something along > the lines of "They would both bother me equally", while Answer 2 would > be something like "I cannot substantiate the accusation, so I hereby > retract it". > > The fact that he refuses point blank to answer them, despite being > asked the same questions repeatedly, speaks volumes. =A0Why would he > refuse to answer Question 1, unless his answer was "The cyclist being > decapitated by piano wire would bother me more"? =A0And why would that > be his answer, unless he did indeed have an anti-motorist/motorcyclist > agenda? > > His refusal to answer Question 2 is an even greater stain on his > character. =A0When you make an accusation against someone, it is only > right that you either substantiate or retract it. =A0Yet Chapman has > done neither. =A0It's clear to me that he knows that he cannot > substantiate his accusation, but he's so arrogant and stubborn that he > will not retract it, even without an apology. =A0Additionally, and > almost unbelievably, he repeated the SAME accusation only yesterday. > > I believe that this is the clearest indication yet that Chapman's > "debating" tactics are extremely underhand, and that he does indeed > have a hidden, anti-motorist agenda. =A0No-one who cared about saving > lives, and was posting out of the goodness of their heart, would > employ such evasive, ungracious tactics. =A0Over the years, he has > constantly used the very same tactics when debating with anti-camera > posters, but because of the complex subject matter, he has usually > managed to obfuscate sufficiently that most readers have not realised > how duplicitous he was being. =A0But with these simple, straightforward, > quick questions, which only require simple, straightforward, quick > answers, no obfuscation is possible, and the truth about Chapman is > there for all to see. > > Please, dear readers, just open your minds, forget for a second about > who's making this post, and look at the questions. =A0Ask yourself if > it's reasonable that Chapman refuses to answer them, and ask yourself > why. =A0Surely only those who were part of his nasty little anti- > motorist crusade would refuse to condemn him for his tactics after > reading this post. =A0Chapman and his motorist-hating allies have been > exposed once and for all, and not a moment too soon.

So there we have it: the truth has been exposed. As I have said all along, the only reason that Chapman likes speed cameras is because they make motorists suffer and bully them off the roads. He has an anti-motorist agenda, which he tries to keep hidden, and one of the many indicators of his hidden agenda is that he employs thoroughly disingenous discussion tactics, one of which is to refuse to answer incriminating questions.