Nuxx:35fdad85-fc5e-4553-9d74-5e1fb0cdcd7c@e9g2000vbk.googlegroups.com

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!e9g2000vbk.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <35fdad85-fc5e-4553-9d74-5e1fb0cdcd7c@e9g2000vbk.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.net.news.moderation Subject: Re: URCM is now dead Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 10:12:26 -0800 (PST) References: <1ojkm69bnve8ovae6es10gcpli759t7oi3@4ax.com>     <2t5om6lho6covpct3a4f2vtbsj1c4534ao@4ax.com> <2dednb35N8C4tvHQnZ2dnUVZ8hidnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> <1jxfbo5.1uqo8d31920pm6N%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>  <496pm61v3lfudefki8efitl925mkgnbjl3@4ax.com>  Lines: 71 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.71.49.124 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1299003146 28013 127.0.0.1 (1 Mar 2011 18:12:26 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 18:12:26 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: e9g2000vbk.googlegroups.com; posting-host=82.71.49.124; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101203 Firefox/3.6.13,gzip(gfe) Bytes: 4703 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.net.news.moderation:38258

On Mar 1, 11:26=A0am, Judith  wrote: > On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 07:02:34 +0000, Tom Crispin > > > >  wrote: > >On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 01:08:19 +0000, Matthew Vernon > > wrote: > > >>%ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) writes: > > >>> Danny Colyer  wrote: > > >>>> =A0It was a public consultation - > >>>> there was an open invitation for anyone to take part. > > >>> So when Chapman said that *he* was invited to take part, he was lying= . > > >>Not necessarily - most consultations are a combination of > >>anyone-can-respond and some-people-are-invited-to-respond. > > >Why not ask Guy? Did the DfT 'invite' him in particular to seek his > >views, or was it part of a more general consultation where the public > >as a whole were 'invited' to respond - such as the fairly recent > >public consultation on renewing the Highway Code? > > I think you may unintentionally be causing =A0trouble here. > > Guy said "the consultation (to which > I was invited to contribute by DfT)" > > Now to me that is very clear - there was a consultation and Guy was > *invited* to contribute by the DfT. > > Otherwise he would have said "the public consultation, to which I > submitted my views" > > It was probably something like this: > > -= - > Dear Mr Chapman - we are holding a consultation on xyz and we would > really like to hear the views of a thought leader on the subject. =A0We > would therefore like to personally invite you to take part > -= --- > > I guess he will be along in a minute to support my sensible view > conclusion.

LOL. Why the *hell* would they specifically invite him? He's not even remotely important or notable (despite the long list of incredibly famous people he regularly mingles with). I think that's partly why he hated Paul Smith so much...as well as being right about the wonderful anti-motorist cameras killing people, his inconvenient truths also got quoted regularly in the national media. Who doubts that Chapman would love to be holding forth on the front page of the Telegraph about how dangerous cycle helmets are (so dangerous that he encourages his kids to wear them)...but for some stupid reason they don't ask him to contribute. Their loss, and that of their readers, clearly.

Still, typical Chapman deceit...knowingly implying something he wants to be true without actually saying it, and hoping that people won't latch on. That is what I find so odious about Chapman...the constant stirring and arrogance is one thing, but the calculated, cynical pulling of the wool over people's eyes is not on and is sociopathic, and *no-one* else here does it to anything like the same extent. Stop it please Guy. (Forgot, you're "not reading" this are you? There's the deceit again....)