Nuxx:B3bdd126-3f7e-494e-b4f7-b2d99ea3b961@k1g2000prb.googlegroups.com

Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!k1g2000prb.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Enough! Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 06:34:37 -0700 (PDT) References:   <665fad81-da57-42d7-8472-13c9a5bfa1ad@q27g2000prf.googlegroups.com>  Lines: 144 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 88.105.204.241 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1208093678 9774 127.0.0.1 (13 Apr 2008 13:34:38 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 13:34:38 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: k1g2000prb.googlegroups.com; posting-host=88.105.204.241; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-GB; rv:1.8.1.13) Gecko/20080311 Firefox/2.0.0.13,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Bytes: 10117 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:646984

On Apr 9, 7:37 pm, Sir Jeremy  wrote: > On 9 Apr, 13:41, spindrift  wrote: > > > > > On 9 Apr, 13:11, Sir Jeremy  wrote: > > > > On 8 Apr, 10:25, Nuxx Bar  wrote: > > > > > Firstly, I just wanted to say that I'm really happy with the quality > > > > of my posts lately. I don't think there can really be any doubt that > > > > I've been wiping the floor with the trolls, and humiliating them time > > > > and time again by exposing their real motives and showing just how > > > > laughable their support of cameras is. Although I have the truth on > > > > my side, the trolls are renowned for their chicanery, lying and other > > > > dodgy discussion tactics, and it can be easy for a neutral to be left > > > > with the false impression that the trolls have won the argument unless > > > > the camera opponent handles things as well as I have been. Spindrift > > > > has resorted to telling ludicrous lies like "I never speed", I've got > > > > Chapman to admit that he has all the same opinions as a motorist-hater > > > > (meaning that he is one in my book), and I've even got the trolls who > > > > drive to admit that they should all be permanently banned...LOL! All > > > > in all, I'm making an absolute mockery of their stance. No wonder > > > > they're getting so pissed off with me! > > > > > OK. Say (completely hypothetically of course, especially in the case > > > > of Spindrift and "Just Zis Lie, You Know?") you had an emotive, > > > > ideological dislike of cars and the freedom of individual choice that > > > > they provided. Say you wanted motorists to be forced off the roads as > > > > soon as possible, being a spiteful, interfering, misanthropic, sad > > > > little busybody. How would you go about it? > > > > > 1. I would admit that I hated cars, be completely up front about > > > > wanting them off the road, and try (mostly unsuccessfully) to achieve > > > > this by persuading people that cars were bad. > > > > > 2. I would pathetically deny that I hated cars, knowing that I > > > > wouldn't be able to justify this hatred to people using logic or > > > > reason. I would instead try to force motorists off the road by > > > > pretending that I cared about road safety, and that speed cameras were > > > > the way to reduce accidents. Since every regular driver speeds (even > > > > the ones who lie about it, like Spindrift), a saturation of speed > > > > cameras (and unreasonably low speed limits) would be an excellent way > > > > of harrassing, persecuting and eventually banning all motorists. I > > > > would launch vicious smear campaigns against anyone who spoke the > > > > truth about cameras, knowing that I couldn't attack what they were > > > > saying about cameras, but I could still attack them. I would also > > > > campaign for other anti-motorist measures such as unnecessary double > > > > yellow lines and road narrowing, on the oh-so-logical basis that > > > > taking roadspace from cars and making things unpleasant for drivers > > > > would magically make them, and the need for their journeys, disappear. > > > > > I don't think anyone's really in any doubt that anyone warped enough > > > > to be a motorist-hater would be more than likely to do things the > > > > second, dishonest, disingenuous way. So: > > > > > - We know, sadly, that these motorist-haters exist, despite the > > > > vehement denial from some of their number. > > > > > - We know that they are likely to conduct their campaign in a > > > > dishonest way by callously hijacking road safety. > > > > > - We know that there are people on newsgroups like this who have a > > > > mysteriously illogical and unshakeable support of speed cameras and > > > > other anti-motorist measures. They will not even think about changing > > > > their minds no matter how much evidence is presented to them, and they > > > > are incredibly and infamously obnoxious towards anyone who dares to > > > > suggest that cameras have failed. It is therefore likely that there > > > > is an ulterior motive behind their support of such measures. If they > > > > really cared about road safety then they would have long since > > > > admitted that they had been wrong about cameras working, realising > > > > that saving lives was infinitely more important than their precious > > > > pride. There is clearly something else other than a wish to save > > > > lives which is governing their point-blank refusal to accept what has > > > > been staring us in the face for years: that cameras have been a road > > > > safety disaster. > > > > > Bringing these things together, it seems completely inconceivable that > > > > *none* of the irrational camera supporters on this newsgroup are > > > > motorist-haters, and that they all support cameras for the most > > > > altruistic and transparent of reasons. Yet that's what they expect us > > > > to believe. Ridiculous. The fact that motorist-haters are so > > > > reluctant to admit their prejudices should tell everyone all they need > > > > to know about them. And anyone who claims that cameras work when they > > > > don't even believe it themselves has BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS. I can't > > > > see why anyone would argue with that point unless they were such a > > > > person themselves. > > > > > Hijacking any cause in order to force people out of their cars is > > > > pretty bad, but compromising road safety, where lives are at stake, is > > > > about as low as it gets. These people are absolute monsters, and it's > > > > no wonder that anyone who tries to expose their true aims or the truth > > > > about cameras is given such a rough ride. "If it wasn't for the likes > > > > of bloody Safe Speed, it would be so much easier for us to lie about > > > > cameras and force people out of their cars. We almost managed it but > > > > now the cat's out of the bag regarding cameras and we'll have to find > > > > another way of stopping people from driving." My heart bleeds. If > > > > you're going to conduct a callous, extremist anti-car campaign which > > > > causes road deaths and consists of lies and deceit then you cannot > > > > expect to do so unopposed. You really shouldn't give people such a > > > > hard time just for exposing the truth and not shutting up on your say- > > > > so. > > > > > Perhaps it's time to turn your attention to campaigning for something > > > > more noble, where you don't feel the need to tell a constant stream of > > > > lies. Just a thought. Mind your own business, let people drive their > > > > cars if they want to, accept that this is a free society, and start > > > > doing something which actually benefits humanity in some way. Then > > > > everyone wins, and no-one dies unnecessarily as a result of your > > > > campaigning. You know it makes sense. Honesty and a genuine wish to > > > > help people, starting from now. I knew you'd agree. Well done! The > > > > first step is admitting to your true motives on here and apologising > > > > profusely to every single road user for unnecessarily and selfishly > > > > endangering their lives. I'm sure you'll find it difficult to swallow > > > > your pride but you'll feel so much better once you've done it. > > > > There's no better time than now: those of us who really care about > > > > road safety are right behind you. So, without further ado, it's time > > > > for you to turn over a new leaf. I look forward to reading your > > > > apologies. And on behalf of all who are campaigning for real road > > > > safety, thank you so very much. It may have taken you a long time to > > > > do the right thing but it's still absolutely worth it. We're all > > > > really proud of you. You've done brilliantly. It just shows that > > > > there's redemption in everyone. > > > > > The trolls are finally going to stop their anti-car, road user-killing > > > > campaign; it's a great day for real road safety! :-D > > > > Good rant. Wasted here though- wankers like Spindrift and Chapman > > > would never ever admit being in the wrong- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > that's uncalled for, are you this aggressive when you drive? > > > Chill out dude, get out in the sunshine on your bike, get those > > endorphins flowing, you'll feel better, I promise!- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > I feel fine, thank you. I'm never aggressive when I drive, as I'm > enjoying myself. Nuxx has you to a T under his heading #2 above > though, doesn't he?

He hasn't denied it.... ;-)