Nuxx:6d4f5ee2-de07-4b3b-a8e8-bfce6ca4bc97@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com

Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <6d4f5ee2-de07-4b3b-a8e8-bfce6ca4bc97@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Chapman: His Agenda Exposed Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 02:28:56 -0700 (PDT) References: <0f3fd3c5-7db2-47aa-bbd5-bbbae629d329@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> <6fg1d3FbcseoU1@mid.individual.net> Lines: 45 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: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1217582937 5642 127.0.0.1 (1 Aug 2008 09:28:57 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 09:28:57 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: 79g2000hsk.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: 3475 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:660073

On Aug 1, 9:56=A0am, "Paul - xxx"  wrote: > Nuxx Bar wrote: > > Waffle snipped ...

Ah, the trolls' favourite: the generalised slur. Simply say that what your opponent has written is "waffle" or "drivel", without specifying how, and you can't go wrong.

> > Please, dear readers, just open your minds, forget for a second about > > who's making this post, and look at the questions. =A0Ask yourself if > > it's reasonable that Chapman refuses to answer them, > > Question 1. is a contrived question that no matter how anyone answers > you can twist to suit your own agenda, especially as all other things > _aren't_ equal, and can never be so, no matter how you attempt to > phrase it.

Not at all. How could anyone twist an answer such as "They would both bother me equally"? You can rest assured that Chapman would have said that if that was what he had thought. And there's nothing contrived about it, that's just a feeble excuse that Chapman and his sycophants have come up with. If you read a news article about a cyclist being decapitated, and then a month later you read a news article about a motorcyclist being decapitated in the same circumstances, which would bother you more? Anyone who wasn't anti-motorist/motorcyclist would be equally bothered by both, and *that* is why Chapman won't answer: because he *is* anti-motorcyclist.

> Question 2 is a personal decision. =A0If 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.

What are you blethering on about? He accused me, several times, of passing off other people's words as my own. I asked him to either substantiate that accusation (by citing examples), or withdraw it. He did neither, because he couldn't provide examples, and he was too ungracious to admit it. How can you possibly defend such behaviour? I asked people to keep an open mind, and you at least have not: you have simply automatically defended Chapman, presumably because he's "one of you", without even looking properly at the questions he failed to answer.

I'm going to snip the rest of your waffle now. (Wow that was a clever thing to say.)