Nuxx:C710fed0-f60d-49d4-9123-2e0e0c0a3438@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com

Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Chapman: His Agenda Exposed Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 23:09:09 -0700 (PDT) References: <0f3fd3c5-7db2-47aa-bbd5-bbbae629d329@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> <6fg1d3FbcseoU1@mid.individual.net> <96o5941n82ql2iacpfcr2p051ck8u3shdl@4ax.com> <6fg9bhFbd4rmU1@mid.individual.net> <6c1e5822-7458-4945-bc56-d1ace894ef0f@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> <5b7fea88-8af0-423d-ba33-85d3e264d80e@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> <7df0840f-c77a-4ce1-a871-5e7c02ff94b0@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> <00a6e624-54d0-4d72-b441-5feeb7cf9575@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>   Lines: 154 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 1217657349 28278 127.0.0.1 (2 Aug 2008 06:09:09 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2008 06:09:09 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: e39g2000hsf.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: 8246 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:660286

On Aug 1, 1:27 pm, spindrift  wrote: > On Aug 1, 1:18 pm, Nuxx Bar  wrote: > > > > > On Aug 1, 12:58 pm, spindrift  wrote: > > > > On Aug 1, 12:53 pm, Nuxx Bar  wrote: > > > > > On Aug 1, 12:47 pm, spindrift  wrote: > > > > > > On Aug 1, 12:43 pm, Nuxx Bar  wrote: > > > > > > > On Aug 1, 12:11 pm, "Paul - xxx"  wrote: > > > > > > > > judith wrote: > > > > > > > > On 1 Aug 2008 08:56:03 GMT, "Paul - xxx"  > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Question 2 is a personal decision. If you'd read about GC (all > > > > > > > > > freely available on t'net) you'd have already seen the reasoning > > > > > > > > > behind it and wouldn't need to ask the question. > > > > > > > > > Where Question 2 is > > > > > > > > Are you going to either substantiate or retract your > > > > > > > > accusation that I've been using other people's words? > > > > > > > > > You what? > > > > > > > > > What to do mean a personal decision? > > > > > > > > LOL, that's me getting something wrong ... I'd also just read Nuxx > > > > > > > asking about why GC's kids wear helmets ... and got the two mixed up > > > > > > > for which I apologise. > > > > > > > Hallelujah. A urc denizen actually admitting that they were wrong, > > > > > > and even deigning to apologise. Now we just need Crapman to do the > > > > > > same regarding his accusations about me using other people's words. > > > > > > And while we're at it, he can finally admit the bleeding obvious: that > > > > > > his sole reason for supporting cameras is that he wants motorists off > > > > > > the road, and he wants motorists off the road because he HATES THEM.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > Name the building I'm supposed to have caused to evacuate. You're > > > > > claiming I'm a "serious criminal" and have made threats somewhere. > > > > > Where? > > > > > I don't even know the name of the building, and if I did, I wouldn't > > > > post it here. I know of the person whose workplace you threatened, > > > > however, and so do you. Let's face it, it's not too much of a stretch > > > > for someone who conducted a vicious, personal and libellous smear > > > > campaign for several years against one person who dared to propagate > > > > the truth about your beloved, anti-motorist speed cameras.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > What's their name? > > > > What are they claiming? > > > > You are saying someone told you I made a bomb threat or summat? > > > > Who? > > > > Where? > > > > What's your evidence, they told you? > > > You are only asking these questions because you don't want urc > > thinking that you're a psychopathic criminal. I don't see how it > > benefits me in the slightest to answer you, so I'm not going to. I > > don't need to prove anything to you, because we both know what > > happened. Besides, I don't know exactly how much you know already, > > and I don't want to accidentally reveal anything to you, bearing in > > mind what you're capable of. > > > As far as I'm concerned, it's your word against theirs. I trust them > > infinitely more than you, and you can't really blame me, can you? > > > > Someone told me they picked the fluff out of Kylie Minogue's bathroom > > > extractor, I treat that with the healthy sceptisism I suggest you > > > should employ now and again, mouse killer. > > > I certainly treat what *you* say with scepticism. But there are > > people who I have known for a long time and I trust them a great > > deal. There are a lot of trustworthy, decent people on the anti- > > camera side, whereas there are precious few camera advocates who are > > like that. This is, of course, because it's not possible to learn > > much about cameras without realising that they don't save lives, and > > so anyone who supports cameras and has studied them in any depth is > > hardly going to be trustworthy and decent when they're supporting > > cameras despite knowing that they don't save lives. Would you trust > > yourself, or anyone whose outlook regarding cameras was "I know they > > don't save lives, but I still support them because they make motorists > > suffer, and I pretend to think that they save lives because that makes > > my support of them seem acceptable"? > > > Seriously, would you trust yourself? Honestly? > > > (Besides, if you're not a vegetarian, it's a bit hypocritical > > complaining about people killing animals.)- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > "As far as I'm concerned, it's your word against theirs. " > > Whose?

Which part do you not understand?

I am not going to name them

That doesn't mean I can't, it just means that I'm not going to do it on a public newsgroup. This is because I do not have their permission to do so, and also because there's no point, since you know perfectly well who it is. (A bit like when you complain about me not having named anti-motorist measures, even though you know perfectly well what they are.)

And I've already freely admitted that I don't know the name of the building. It's enough to know that it was an office. If you want everyone on this newsgroup to know the name of the building, you can tell them.

> Fifth time.

Pretty much everything you say is insanely hypocritical. The number of questions that you've consistently evaded on Cycling Pus and Cycle Chat is staggering.

> You claim I'm a serious criminal because of allegations made by a > person you can't name concerning a building that you can't name.

Correct, except that I can name the person, I'm just choosing not to.

I must say I'm surprised that you've brought up this subject again. Isn't that a bit of a high-risk strategy? Or do you want everyone who reads urc to know what you've done?

Oh BTW, what evidence do you have that In Gear is a "fake" policeman? And if you were to be shown conclusive evidence that he was not fake, would you apologise to him and to Safe Speed for your vicious and persistent allegations to the contrary? First time. (And no, In Gear is not the person above, as you well know. Even you wouldn't be mad enough to make threats against a police station.)