Nuxx:963430ba-fb46-478b-b4f1-90b8b342ddeb@w6g2000vbo.googlegroups.com

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!postnews.google.com!w6g2000vbo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <963430ba-fb46-478b-b4f1-90b8b342ddeb@w6g2000vbo.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.net.news.moderation Subject: Re: Confused about URCM in UNNM Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2011 15:27:28 -0800 (PST) References:  <166804253321545262.511456%steve%-malloc.co.uk@news.individual.net> <38eq48x9b4.ln2@news.ducksburg.com> <02059306-f632-4ff7-9f3e-949162648f6e@w6g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>  <3a0aace2-1f6d-452d-8df4-1e8c9420b5ea@z31g2000vbs.googlegroups.com>  Lines: 54 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 1299972449 6811 127.0.0.1 (12 Mar 2011 23:27:29 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2011 23:27:29 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: w6g2000vbo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=82.71.49.124; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Firefox/3.6.15,gzip(gfe) Bytes: 4346 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.net.news.moderation:38847

On Mar 12, 8:49=A0pm, Mark Goodge  wrote: > > I'm not sure of Nuxx's motives; I have a feeling that he is genuinely > anti-cyclist

Well you're wrong, as I have explained in my reply to Simon. As a matter of fact I seem to have much the same opinion on speed cameras and the like as you do. So presumably if you posted on URC then you would also be "anti-cyclist" and "contrarian"? Or should one with opinions such as ours keep out of URC simply because of our opinions? Some would like that, certainly (in fact that's why Jackson set up URCM).

For someone who calls himself a Christian, you sure do like assuming the worst about people. What have I ever done to you? Thereagain Christianity seems to be a lot more about hating and judging people than anything else so I shouldn't be surprised.

> Steve Firth is simply someone who has strong opinions on a large number o= f > topics and isn't afraid to express them in equally strong language. > Sometimes I agree with him, sometimes I don't, but I don't see any malice > in his motivation - he just doesn't suffer fools gladly, and has a fairly > wide working definition of "fool".

That's more or less what you *should* have said about me. But by the sound of things you've decided that what others have said about me must be true without looking into it yourself. Again, why am I surprised, when you attach so much weight to 2000-year-old scribblings by random goatherds?

(I supposed now I'm "anti-Christian" as well? Actually my closest friend is a Christian, but it's fair to say that I'm anti- Christianity, in that I take the Dawkins view that seeing irrational faith as a virtue and being encouraged not to question it is something that, taken far enough, leads to suicide bombing et al.  I would "take it to uk.religion.christian", but be honest, you don't really want me there, do you?  Are you perhaps anti-atheist...?)

> (I bet Judith won't be able to resist telling me I'm wrong; I suspect the > other two will if they really think I am).

Oh but I do. You're wrong about Judith as well, as a matter of fact, and this stupid Wm-style "he" nonsense is something that I really didn't think you'd lower yourself to. If you're going to engage with people online then you have to accept that they're the gender they say they are; do you have any real reason not to do that with Judith?

Why do you think URC/URCM contain "too many people who are unable to resist being 'trolled'"? Perhaps the psycholists are particularly prickly and insecure about being proved wrong about certain topics, so can't leave certain inconveniently true statements unchallenged? Were you thinking of Chapman when you wrote that sentence? I bet you were.