Nuxx:B5ca4ef1-0802-4440-ad28-4f07312e53d9@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com

Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re=3A_Earn_=A350_In_Under_A_Minute?= Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 11:17:02 -0700 (PDT) References: <4b69965c-8145-4096-b9bf-b5c23090c233@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>   Lines: 99 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 88.105.206.99 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1222366623 6426 127.0.0.1 (25 Sep 2008 18:17:03 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 18:17:03 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: 25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com; posting-host=88.105.206.99; 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: 5882 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:669116

On Sep 24, 6:21 pm, David Damerell  wrote: > Quoting Tom Crispin  : > > > wrote: > >>I will send 50 to the first regular pro-camera poster on here who: > >>- admits to being anti-motorist; > >I admit to it all. > > Second anti-motorist

Err, you have to admit everything there, not just one thing, hence the lack of any occurrences of the word "or" between the bullet points, or any equivalent notation. Still, well done for being honest. Crapman should take a leaf out of your book. Perhaps I will send you =A350 if no-one manages to (genuinely) admit everything on the list, as despite the fact that I don't think much of your posts in general, I think it's brave of you to stick your neck out and admit to being anti- motorist when the other anti-motorist posters around you are too unbelievably cowardly and spineless to do so.

By the way, isn't it astonishing that so many self-confessed anti- motorist people, like you, Doug, and lots more, frequent and feel part of this newsgroup in particular, despite it supposedly not being anti- motorist in any way, shape or form? It's a bit like Conservative politicians speaking at the Labour Conference. Except it's not, because this IS a bloody anti-motorist newsgroup, containing a majority of anti-motorist posters, and everyone knows it perfectly well. Each denial of that clear-as-day fact just makes it even more apparent that those who are doing the denying are utterly ashamed of their anti-motorist stance, and know that it's totally indefensible. In which case, why have such a stance at all?

And it would be really super if no-one wheeled out the "I drive so I can't be anti-motorist" cliche yet again. I've explained quite enough times already how hypocrisy, self-importance, control freakery, spite, and all manner of other defects of character (all of which apply to Crapman) invalidate that statement. Those who continue to make the statement know what the score is perfectly well, and only do it because they know that they have *no* other way of demonstrating that they're not anti-motorist (whereas someone who was really not anti- motorist would say things like "I defended motorists in this post", "I oppose [such-and-such an anti-motorist measure]", etc, which of course Crapman and co never do, because they can't).

> if we need someone else to prove Nuxxy's a liar,

You'd better have something to back up that potentially libellous allegation with. And can you honestly say, hand on heart, that you anti-motorist when they actually are (which seems an awful lot like a lie to me)? I bet you can't. Don't you think it's pathetic that those people won't admit it? Why don't you call them liars? Aren't their lies as bad as any that I've supposedly told?
 * don't* think that others in this newsgroup have claimed not to be

> although if anyone hasn't noticed that in my case, they may also be > confused about the Pope's religious affiliation...

Same with Chapman, Spindrift et al, yet the ludicrous charade continues. If I were you, I'd find it offensive that others who held my opinion weren't prepared to admit to it in public. Don't you find it as frustrating as I do? Wouldn't you rather everyone was honest about what they thought, so that everything was out in the open? Surely anyone who was genuinely in favour of honest debate, no matter what their opinions, would agree?

By the way, can I just ask: if you discovered that speed cameras cost lives, would you continue to support them anyway (being anti- motorist), start to oppose them, or become "neutral" on the matter? Would it be fair to say that you are instinctively attracted to speed cameras because they make life more difficult for the vast majority of motorists? Would it also be fair to say that as far as you're concerned, the more motorists who are fined and banned, the better? (Those aren't rhetorical questions, I'm genuinely interested in your answers, especially since you're apparently so concerned with upholding the truth.)

Oh, and in case anyone was lucky enough to forget who Chapman and/or Spindrift were, here's the perfect reminder. (Sorry for the "bad" language...I realise that it's inappropriate, seeing as we're all adults and everything.)

Cunt who Hates All the Persecuted Motorists and is an Arrogant Nazi

Sick, Psychopathic Individual who wants No Drivers on the Roads and is an Ignorant Fucking Twat