Nuxx:810a88d0-4287-45b8-a251-583336692540@z9g2000yqi.googlegroups.com

Path: num2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!num1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!number.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!z9g2000yqi.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <810a88d0-4287-45b8-a251-583336692540@z9g2000yqi.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: OT: Legal ton on M-way. Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 23:05:49 -0700 (PDT) References: <7f74ddb9-819d-465e-b48c-457baf4a1645@k2g2000yql.googlegroups.com> <52d2f265-d3d2-4c9e-8bc6-9b6074ffb170@r31g2000prh.googlegroups.com> <894384c3-e588-45c1-ad71-1f1b21bfe9bb@q16g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>  <79dfpcF1qfujrU1@mid.individual.net> <79ekrqF1q35uqU1@mid.individual.net> <79en7qF1oqresU1@mid.individual.net> <79g40rF1qk8n9U1@mid.individual.net>  <79ifugF1qklppU1@mid.individual.net> Lines: 41 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 81.156.150.242 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1244959557 7608 127.0.0.1 (14 Jun 2009 06:05:57 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 06:05:57 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: z9g2000yqi.googlegroups.com; posting-host=81.156.150.242; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.0.10) Gecko/2009042316 Firefox/3.0.10 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Bytes: 3817 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:830190

On Jun 13, 9:19=A0pm, OG  wrote: > Nuxx Bar wrote: > > On Jun 12, 11:43 pm, "OG"  wrote: > >> I've no doubt that this is a sincerely held belief of yours. Shame you= can't > >> actually provide evidence to support it. > > > ...and if he did, you'd still argue the toss, because you've decided > > (for whatever reason*) that an obsession with drivers' numerical speed > > is A Good Thing, and so you're utterly unprepared to entertain any > > arguments to the contrary, however watertight they are. =A0Just like > > hundreds of others on this group. > > > If someone came along and provided complete, 100% proof that lowering > > speed limits and putting up speed cameras made things more, rather > > than less, dangerous, then no more than a handful of pro-camera people > > on this group would admit that they were wrong. =A0Unfortunately a > > complete unwillingness to consider things logically and > > dispassionately goes hand in hand with a support of cameras. =A0You > > can't undo an incorrect opinion with logic and reason when it's based > > on emotion, wishful thinking and/or idiocy. > > > -- > > * e.g. a hatred of motorists, a wish to control others, general self- > > righteousness, a very simplistic view of driving and road safety, > > general ignorance, or something else along those lines. > > That sounds fun, can I make up versions of what 'you' think too?

Go for it. I don't tend to say I think things unless I really do though: call me old-fashioned, but if I realise that I'm wrong about something, I admit it and change my opinion, rather than deciding that I can't change my stated opinion because of some hidden agenda, or because I'd lose face, etc. Science relies on people admitting to being wrong and adapting their theories; we wouldn't be a very advanced society today if Einstein etc had had the same mentality as irrational camera supporters.

(BTW are you related to Philip Gwynne? That might explain your particular reason for having decided that "cameras are good and no number of facts to the contrary will ever change my mind".)