Nuxx:4e2fc8cc$0$2945$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk

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!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!feeder.news-service.com!xlned.com!feeder1.xlned.com!zen.net.uk!hamilton.zen.co.uk!reader02.news.zen.co.uk.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <4e2fc8cc$0$2945$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Brothers or Whiteys? Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 09:13:57 +0100 References:   <4e2eeba7$0$2935$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk>  <4e2ef64f$0$2494$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk> <3d58439c-aa76-4016-a120-78215c10c715@a4g2000yqg.googlegroups.com> Lines: 100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 Thunderbird/3.1.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <3d58439c-aa76-4016-a120-78215c10c715@a4g2000yqg.googlegroups.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Organization: Zen Internet NNTP-Posting-Host: 4b3db284.news.zen.co.uk X-Trace: DXC=C3GSb\@Y7m_d]c;>LNFRcSYjZGX^207P[`I89R X-Complaints-To: abuse@zen.co.uk Bytes: 5968 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:819015

On 26/07/2011 18:48, Squashme wrote: > On Jul 26, 6:15 pm, Nuxx Bar  wrote: >> On 26/07/2011 17:35, Simon Mason wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Jul 26, 5:30 pm, Nuxx Bar  wrote: >>>> On 26/07/2011 10:53, Simon Mason wrote: >> >>>>> On Jul 26, 9:20 am, Squashme  wrote: >>>>>> Are the non-cyclists, who visit this group to give cyclists the >>>>>> benefit of their opinions on cycling, their brother's keepers or are >>>>>> they just whited sepulchres? >> >>>>> When challenged, they all claim to be cyclists themselves, but never >>>>> relate to any single journey they have made by bicycle. >>>>> One must conclude that they are lying. >> >>>> Who are you talking about? Funny how you're prepared to come to the >>>> conclusion that such people are lying when there's no evidence for it, >>>> yet with the copious and undeniable evidence out there that Chapman >>>> posted as Lou Knee, you still won't say that he did it. Conclusion: >>>> Simon Mason supports the side that he wants to support rather than the >>>> side which has the evidence in its favour. >> >>> Let's have all of your ride reports and commuting stories then. >> >>> Roll up, roll up. >> >> I don't cycle much, but I do. As I said, I don't enjoy it, hence no >> "reports", and I've never commuted by bike (and don't intend to start). >> It usually tends to be short journeys, every now and then, when it >> wouldn't be worth starting the car engine but I want to be quicker than >> walking. >> >> Sorry that that clearly bothers you, but I'm not going to pretend to >> enjoy something that I don't. >> >>> PS - I have never offered any opinion on the "Lou Knee" matter. >> >> If concrete evidence had emerged of Chapman's innocence then something >> tells me you would have come out in his favour. On the other hand, even >> if you had been interested in the Lou Knee topic, let's face it, wild >> horses wouldn't have got you to say you thought it was him. It would be >> too politically inconvenient for you to do so. You know it, I know it. > > There's no fooling you, is there? You "know" so many things.

1) That Chapman posted as Lou Knee is pretty much as well-supported as the theory of evolution: it's not absolutely proven, but only a nutter with an agenda who was willing to disregard stacks of compelling evidence would say there was any real question about it.

By saying there is any likelihood that he didn't make the post, you are showing that you will not accept the validity of *any* theory which doesn't suit you, no matter how well-supported it is, and so when you say "I don't accept that such-and-such is true" then what you've said is essentially meaningless: you really just mean "I don't want such-and-such to be true, so I'm going to pretend it's not".

This is a very dishonest way of "debating", and it would serve you better to just say "I wish that such-and-such wasn't true but it looks like it is" in such situations. I'm sure we all find the truth inconvenient sometimes: the reasonable thing to do is to accept it with good grace. Would it be so bad if you did? What's the worse that could happen if you admitted that Chapman probably made that post?

2) As you seem to be suddenly and mysteriously saying all the things that Chapman would love to say to me himself, but is too cowardly to, I must conclude one of three possibilities:

a. You are Chapman.

b. You are exchanging emails with Chapman about me and he is telling you what to say (because he wants to keep things on the boil but he's too cowardly to say anything to, or now even about, me).

c. You just happen to keep saying the same things as Chapman would because you're similar to him, and getting more similar (and strangely enough, that's not meant as a compliment).

I don't know whether you are in fact talking to Chapman, but all I know is that you're sounding too much like him for my liking, so don't be surprised if I don't bother replying to you anymore (especially because, as also noted, you won't accept any fact which doesn't suit you, and you simply reject out of hand any evidence or reasoning in support of it).

If you want me or others not to think you're in Chapman's pocket then I suggest that you look into the Lou Knee evidence for yourself (if you haven't done so), then do the decent and honest thing (i.e. post to say that you think it's highly likely that he did it, like Tom Crispin did). Until and unless you do that, you will always be Chapman's servant to me and probably others.