Nuxx:C7ac670e-a955-4790-9db6-9240a1a0b5d5@p73g2000hsd.googlegroups.com

Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!p73g2000hsd.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Another Motorist-Hating Freak, But At Least He Admits It Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 15:54:36 -0800 (PST) References: <24966046-3d0b-40b0-a355-9e77891c161d@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com>   <1icxj4w.ny3enw12rb1cqN%notmyaddress.1.ekulnamsob@wronghead.com>  <1icxsxw.1ccc79n2oj1jN%notmyaddress.1.ekulnamsob@wronghead.com> Lines: 57 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 85.211.165.120 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1204070077 12200 127.0.0.1 (26 Feb 2008 23:54:37 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 23:54:37 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: p73g2000hsd.googlegroups.com; posting-host=85.211.165.120; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-GB; rv:1.8.1.12) Gecko/20080201 Firefox/2.0.0.12,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Bytes: 4135 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:642052

On Feb 26, 9:38 pm, notmyaddress.1.ekulnam...@wronghead.com (Ekul Namsob) wrote: > Nuxx Bar  wrote: > > On Feb 26, 5:59 pm, notmyaddress.1.ekulnam...@wronghead.com (Ekul > > Namsob) wrote: > > > Nuxx Bar  wrote: > > > > Anyway, I know exactly what you'll do when I list them. You'll deny > > > > that they're anti-motorist measures at all. > > > > I promise you that I won't. > > > Tell you what then. To show that you're serious, please name at least > > three measures that exist in the UK which you consider to be anti- > > motorist. I will list my (and many other people's) anti-motorist > > measures within 72 hours of you doing so. > > OK. This will be a struggle since I don't believe there are any wholly > anti-motorist measures in force in this country but I shall try. > > 1) The London congestion charge. > > 2) The existence of mandatory cycle lanes. > > 3) The existence of pedestrian zones. > > Two thirds of the above apply exclusively to motorists.

Thank you. If only all your posts to me were as informative, although admittedly they are improving.

I don't think you'll get much agreement from Spindrift and co though, do you? But it does appear that you for one are not a motorist- hater. Let's hope you don't get ostracized as a result.

> > I don't see why I should do > > all the work, just so that the trolls can dance around shrieking > > "You're wrong, you're wrong, you're wrong" without providing any > > insight or making any real points themselves. > > Various of us were happily contributing to intelligent debate until one > individual insisted on one particular point while refusing to expound > upon that very point. I am, however, more than willing to let bygones be > bygones. Please do me a favour, give up on using provocative language. > It simply has the effect of turning intelligent discussion into > confrontation.

I would gladly do it, but others don't seem to want to play ball. I was perfectly polite and neutral when I started this thread, and look at the replies I got straight away, including from you. Sadly, I don't think it's possible round these parts. I could speculate about why but I won't.

Still I'll happily debate politely if others do. I can assure everyone that I am perfectly capable of doing it when others are prepared to. But I have genuinely tried it on here and cycling forums and it never seems to work. There are some (naming no names) whose track record and reputation would suggest that it's beyond them.