Nuxx:21b003fd-adc7-44e2-aeaf-8ac572d29242@q12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com

Path: num2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!num1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!number.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!q12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <21b003fd-adc7-44e2-aeaf-8ac572d29242@q12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.net.news.config Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: delete newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2010 12:56:35 -0700 (PDT) References:       <39286cf6-47e6-4913-895f-8d46dc90b943@g19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>       <4b5f6560-f720-4a9b-beec-61cfce9719b4@q12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>  Lines: 37 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.71.49.124 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1278791795 31697 127.0.0.1 (10 Jul 2010 19:56:35 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2010 19:56:35 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: q12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com; posting-host=82.71.49.124; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.2.6) Gecko/20100625 Firefox/3.6.6 GTB7.1 GTBA,gzip(gfe) Bytes: 4027 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.net.news.config:61572

On Jul 10, 6:33=A0pm, Nobby Anderson  wrote: > Nuxx Bar  wrote: > > On Jul 10, 2:49=A0pm, Nobby Anderson <no...@invalid.invalid> wrote: > >> Oh good, I'm glad, because care so much what you believe. > > > If you don't care then why do you read *all* posts, whether or not > > they're anything to do with you? =A0Why won't you answer the question? > > [silly noise]

So you snipped the bit about scameras, and no reply in URC that I can see. You know I'm right about them killing people, and that's why you made no effort to address my points, just as predicted. If you had seen any flaw in what I'd put then you would have been all over it in your smart-arse way. But instead you made a claim that I was wrong about cameras killing people, I rebutted that claim and then you completely failed to stand by your accusation. You knew you wouldn't win.

So you knowingly support devices which have killed thousands simply because (presumably) you hate cars. Can't you see how wrong that is? You being an unintentionally amusing smug idiot who thinks he's far cleverer than he is I can put up with. You claiming that cameras aren't dangerous but then refusing to back up that claim because you know it's incorrect is, on the other hand, despicable. That won't change however much "funny" bullshit you spout in reply. Either you researched your claim before making it (in which case you knew it was wrong), or you did no research and simply chose to assume its truth because you wanted it to be true. Either way it's UNACCEPTABLE to tell lies about road safety, especially for such a pathetic "reason" as wanting to give drivers a hard time.

Every time a driver is hoodwinked by such lies into overprioritising the speed limit, your daughter is put in more danger. Remember that Nob. I hope you're proud of yourself, and I look forward to yet more evasion in your reply (assuming you're not too much of a wimp to make one).