Nuxx:10d5715f-10fc-4832-a0ee-a0833c50de91@m16g2000vbp.googlegroups.com

Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!m16g2000vbp.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <10d5715f-10fc-4832-a0ee-a0833c50de91@m16g2000vbp.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Spindrift: "Vile Car-Hating Fanatic" (Not Said By Me) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 22:09:55 -0800 (PST) References: <30f5b32b-8ca4-4f1e-b146-08d44e210a28@41g2000yqf.googlegroups.com> <770a72c3-4ea5-4498-8bf3-1acdb05d240a@s1g2000prg.googlegroups.com>  Lines: 34 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 86.151.152.80 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1233122995 19379 127.0.0.1 (28 Jan 2009 06:09:55 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 06:09:55 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: m16g2000vbp.googlegroups.com; posting-host=86.151.152.80; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-GB; rv:1.9.0.5) Gecko/2008120122 Firefox/3.0.5,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Bytes: 3159 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:684151

On Jan 27, 3:16=A0pm, _  wrote: > > On the offchance that these are geniune questions and not simply a rant,

There is never anything remotely genuine about anything that Spindrift posts.

> I'd ask similar questions about this very newsgroup. I will start though > by saying that I do agree with you that wishing someone cancer is more > than a bit OTT (with the notable exception of Duhg, who whines on about > animal testing of drugs and how he feels that people should just suffer > with what they've got). But back on point, what you seem to have > suffered there is the result of entrenched positions. Whoever you had > issue with was adamant in his point, and unwilling to concede there even > WAS an alternative view. Does that sound familiar yet? > > Despite what some here believe, I'm not nuxx and I have plenty of easily > verifiable history of online presence. I'm reasonably educated and an > experienced professional in my business, so while I might well be > contentious, I'm certainly not a dribbling moron.

Err...I'm educated and professional as well actually. And my posting style here is not employed elsewhere, it's just that when I'm talking to a bunch of crazed, lying motorist-haters, I find it pointless trying to be remotely tactful or subtle.

As for entrenched positions, it's really quite simple. Cameras kill people. Why is it "entrenched" to maintain that that is the case when it happens to be true? The camera debate is not one of those subjects where no-one really knows who's right. The evidence is ample: the SafeSpeed position is correct, no matter how much the car-haters may wish otherwise. Anyone who is intelligent, without an anti-car agenda and willing to look into the facts has an excellent chance of coming to the same conclusion.