Nuxx:NxR3l.20811$Zz2.16886@newsfe30.ams2

Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!feeder.news-service.com!69.16.177.246.MISMATCH!cyclone03.ams.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!npeersf02.ams.highwinds-media.com!newsfe30.ams2.POSTED!7564ea0f!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: _  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Troll Drawings Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 19:04:33 +0000 References:   	  	<222sk4106tmg9itd87v7v7072bm1m2lb72@4ax.com>  	  	  	 <6WL3l.68684$he4.20918@newsfe22.ams2> 	  <6ced3641-d70b-4ebf-a10d-8aa40ec5689c@s20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com> Lines: 72 User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.18 (Windows/20081105) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <6ced3641-d70b-4ebf-a10d-8aa40ec5689c@s20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.21.204.127 X-Complaints-To: http://netreport.virginmedia.com X-Trace: newsfe30.ams2 1229972691 82.21.204.127 (Mon, 22 Dec 2008 19:04:51 UTC) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 19:04:51 UTC Organization: virginmedia.com Bytes: 5824 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:681664

Squashme wrote: > On 22 Dec, 15:29, _  wrote: >> Chris Malcolm wrote: >>> _  wrote: >>>> Chris Malcolm wrote: >>>>> _ <w...@prettyboy.com> wrote: >>>>>> Chris Malcolm wrote: >>>>>>> _ <w...@prettyboy.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> _ wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 13:18:13 +0000, Rob Ward wrote: >>>>>>>>> Google groups shows exactly *one* post from >>>>>>>>> "robert.w...@sparrow.invalid.demon.co.uk". >>>>>>>>> A cynic might suspect (given the style, topic, newgroup, and previous >>>>>>>>> sudden appearances and disappearances of such "unique" posters) that this >>>>>>>>> is yet another nymshift by the troll. >>>>>>>> How, precisely, would that make the questions raised 'different'? If >>>>>>>> they are valid points, and on first blush they certainly *appear* so, >>>>>>>> there is no relevance on the person who raised them! Oh no, hang on, I >>>>>>>> forgot. Its a case of 'Your opinions are not valid purely on the premise >>>>>>>> that I dont like you'. >>>>>>>> Lemme tell you something - do with it what you will. I have *definitely* >>>>>>>> lowered my estimation of cycling and cyclists as a result of reading >>>>>>>> this group the last couple of months. >>>>>>> "I"? >>>>>>>> I've no doubt that has translated >>>>>>>> into giving cyclists less consideration when I come across them on the >>>>>>>> roads. >>>>>>> "I"? >>>>>>>> I'd *imagine*, but wouldn't wish to speak for them, that the same >>>>>>>> scenario is occurring to Nugent, Judith, and anyone else from 'outside' >>>>>>>> who happens to be reading here. >>>>>>> "I"? >>>>>>> But "I" is one of a very large gang of "people" who suddenly appear on >>>>>>> this newsgroup from nowhere, with no posting history, to make a >>>>>>> comment, and then immediately disappear again. The comments are of >>>>>>> same style and content as those of a notorious troll. >>>>>>>> That alone should make any rational >>>>>>>> cyclist here think that they must be doing something wrong, >>>>>>> As wrong as being silly enough to engage with "your" pathetic attempts >>>>>>> to resuscitate long dead arguments by pretending to be a new person? >>>>>>> Despite your claims to logic you have failed to recognise that you're >>>>>>> employing arguments which depend on "I" being a real new >>>>>>> identity. It's very sad that the only way you can get people to pay >>>>>>> attention to you is by pretending to be someone else. >>>>>> This would be an amazing insight, were it not for the fact that I'm >>>>>> neither Judith nor Nuxx. Chapman will confirm that for you if needed. >>>>>> So, now we've established that, how about answering the question? >>>>> It doesn't matter who "you" in fact may be, and rather odd that "you" >>>>> should choose only to deny that you are one of two specific >>>>> trolls. >>>> You said above "notorious troll". I took it to mean you were referring >>>> to one of those two posters (who I dont necessarily agree *are* trolls, >>>> by the way). Sorry, was I wrong there? >>>>> All that matters is that if "you" really do have the kind of >>>>> reading history in this newsgroup that "you" claim, and are not a >>>>> troll, then "you" would be very well aware of the folly of such >>>>> effective troll mimickry. >>>> Which elements of 'troll mimickry' are you referring to? Oh, sorry, you >>>> mean the definitive troll signature of 'failing to agree that cyclists >>>> are by definition always right'. Yeah, sorry, I cant disguise that one. >>>>> It's not difficult to behave unlike a troll, unless of course you >>>>> suffer from the pathological compulsions of trollery. >>> QED >> How right you are - cyclists in this group would rather score cheap >> points off motorists than attempt to heal divides. No problem, just >> carry on whining each time you get cut up :) > > Oh, and you can guarantee that you can stop me being cut up, can you? > O "Divide Healer", you must have hitherto hidden powers of diplomacy.

I dont remember suggesting that I could - merely that you're hardly advocates for diplomacy with your shit attitude to cagers in this group.