Nuxx:Cd4d8d65-7139-49f4-8ebb-e3ebd5ef002c@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com

Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Who decided that all motorists were criminals? Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 17:05:01 -0700 (PDT) References: <5d93d769-e12d-47f2-b7cd-a55d8d0619c5@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com> <05f744tp8r3u6g9dv11fjfk34ndsl14osj@4ax.com> <8e1d2b6d-87d1-4c35-867d-a3da14644559@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com> Lines: 148 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 88.105.145.93 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1217030702 5516 127.0.0.1 (26 Jul 2008 00:05:02 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 00:05:02 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: 79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com; posting-host=88.105.145.93; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-GB; rv:1.9.0.1) Gecko/2008070208 Firefox/3.0.1,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Bytes: 10074 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:658964

On Jun 2, 2:16 pm, Nuxx Bar  wrote: > On Jun 2, 10:28 am, "Just zis Guy, you know?"  wrote: > > > > > On Sun, 1 Jun 2008 18:13:49 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar > >  said in > > <5d93d769-e12d-47f2-b7cd-a55d8d061...@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com>: > > > >Yet another person who has this crazy idea, for which there is no > > >evidence whatsoever (except in pretty much every large town and city > > >centre), that motorists are being systematically persecuted by the > > >authorities. > > > It's spelt "prosecuted". It's funny how you rail against > > decriminalised parking enforcement, and rail again against > > enforcement of the criminal law against motorists. No, not funny, > > actually, since it's obvious that you are a loon who thinks that the > > law should not be enforced where it conflicts with the personal > > convenience of one, and only one, class of road user. The class > > that, interestingly, happens to bring most of the danger to the > > roads. And then you wonder why people here think you are a troll. > > Can I interest you in this box of critical faculties? Or perhaps a > > slice or two of self-criticism? > > Yep. No-one's allowed to criticise any aspect of the law or its > enforcement, because they're perfect in every way. Except when > cyclists are fined for jumping red lights in Oxford, then the trolls > whinge. They want to see what they regard as sensible, proportionate > enforcement for cyclists, but they want to see motorists punished as > much as possible. Whereas I just want sensible, proportionate, safety- > led enforcement for all modes of transport. Why do the trolls > discriminate against motorists? Why don't they want proportionate > enforcement for them? Because they don't like them, due to being > nasty, spiteful little twats. And they have the nerve to make > allegations about others singling out one class of road user for > special treatment, when it's actually only them that do that. I want > things to be fair for everyone; the trolls want things to be fair for > cyclists, but not for drivers. Utter dicks. They'd hate it if > automated, conveyer-belt, discretionless enforcement started to be > used against cyclists, and they know it. "But cyclists aren't as > dangerous as mobile death greenhouses!" moans Crapman. But hang on > Crapman, the law is the law, remember? Oh sorry, I forgot, you only > use that line against motorists. Those motorists that you love so > very much. > > These "The law is perfect at all times and thou shalt not criticise" > fuckwits always amuse me. According to them, when a law is changed, > it's perfect both before and after the change. How can that be? Of > course, the fuckwits don't worry about little things like that, > because all logic is consumed in a flurry of self-righteous wankerdom. > > Crapman applauds parking enforcement which is conducted to raise > revenue rather than keep traffic moving, and he wonders why so many > people make the "mistake" of thinking he hates motorists. What a > tit. Still, it's funny to be able to keep outwitting him and exposing > his anti-motorist agenda so effortlessly. He obviously doesn't like > it very much. I almost feel sorry for him, as much as you ever feel > sorry for a lying, cowardly socialist fuckwit who campaigns to kill > road users. MURDERER.

I see that Crapman has cited the above post on his demented fantasy website, so I thought I'd just clarify the situation in case it wasn't obvious. Crapman says the following on that page (and has also spouted many varieties of the same disingenuous assertion on this newsgroup):

"[...]some hilariously deranged trolls [I know, look who's talking] who think that because Paul Smith says that speed cameras kill, even though he never managed to provide any credible evidence to support it [except the ample evidence on his site which Crapman has never managed to counter convincingly, despite presumably spending years trying...I can't deny that he's committed to the pro-camera/anti-motorist cause], anybody who is not implacably opposed to them is therefore a murderer (yes, actually, a murderer)."

That statement from Crapman is absolutely typical of the pathetically dishonest, underhand way in which he resorts to "debating" when he's losing (i.e. the whole time). Clearly I have never said that "anybody who is not implacably opposed to speed cameras is a murderer". (Even Paul Smith was not "implacably opposed" to them, stating that they could have been useful in a small number of locations if they'd been used properly and sparingly from the beginning.) What I would say is that someone who deliberately and knowingly causes the avoidable deaths of multiple innocent people is morally equivalent to a murderer. So, has Crapman caused people's deaths?

Well, he fully and wholeheartedly supports speed cameras (which is a bit different to "not being implacably opposed to them", but as you will know by now, Crapman is constantly equating such things when it suits him). He does this despite having researched the facts and figures behind them extremely thoroughly, and there are many, many telltale posts (and refusals to answer certain points) from him which show beyond reasonable doubt that he knows perfectly well that speed cameras are killing people. So, Crapman fully and wholeheartedly supports cameras, even though he knows they kill people, for some inevitably selfish reason. What a callous wanker, eh?

But that in itself would not be enough for him to be equivalent to a murderer. If he simply sat around liking cameras for whatever reason, then of course he wouldn't be killing anyone. The trouble is that he insists on propagating his lies everywhere. He puts up websites, full of contrived bullshit which is supposed to look like it proves that cameras save lives. It's very likely that at least one authority, somewhere in the world, has seen that site, and the site has contributed to that authority's decision to install one or more killer cameras. So the Crapman murder count is off the ground. How far is anyone's guess. And goodness knows how many other ways Crapman's site and posts (as well as those of his followers who have been inspired by him) have somehow resulted in cameras being installed.

But that's only the known part of Crapman's massacre. Does he have links with "safety" camera partnerships, manufacturers, or local or central government? It's pretty likely, isn't it? It would certainly explain his fervent and tireless pro-camera campaigning, far over and above that of your average anti-motorist troll. Why all the time spent, when he apparently doesn't get any money for it? Paul Smith put in the effort he did because he knew he was saving lives, and what a guy he was. But Crapman knows he's not saving lives; quite the opposite. (If nothing else, you can tell from the relative posting styles of Paul and Crapman that Paul was a kind, gentle, decent man who cared about saving lives, whereas I don't think anyone in their right mind would say the same thing about Crapman.) So if he's not doing it to save lives, what on Earth would drive him to go to such lengths to campaign on behalf of cameras, other than hard cash? And terrifyingly, the more cash he gets, the more influence he has...and the more influence he has, the more people DIE.

So, "anybody who is not implacably opposed to speed cameras is a murderer"...not quite. It's not "not implacably opposed to speed cameras", it's "in love with speed cameras and then some". It's not "anybody", it's "Crapman". And it's not simply "murderer", it's "MASS MURDERER". Crapman is a mass murderer by proxy. Clearly he's not going to admit it; instead, he'll reply with more of his disingenuous lies, probably interspersed with hilarious and totally unfounded allegations about me having been jailed for dangerous driving or some such. (We've already had "You've been banned", "You haven't passed your test", "You're a paedo", "You're a teenager" and "You're a woman". As I said, hilarious, and oh-so-clever...I don't know how he comes up with that stuff.  The good thing is that it very nicely highlights his habit of telling blatant, absurd lies whenever he decides that telling the truth will lose him the argument.  No wonder he likes to censor the opposition on his webshite.  They might start putting awkward true facts on there.)

Crapman. Mass murderer. Case closed (although with any luck, there'll be plenty of future court cases where Crapman is brought to justice.)