Nuxx:99760bc0-a2f4-4b3e-ae8a-26e2498cc386@24g2000hsh.googlegroups.com

Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!24g2000hsh.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <99760bc0-a2f4-4b3e-ae8a-26e2498cc386@24g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Enough! Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 06:26:02 -0700 (PDT) References:   Lines: 149 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 1208093162 27726 127.0.0.1 (13 Apr 2008 13:26:02 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 13:26:02 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: 24g2000hsh.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: 10380 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:646981

On Apr 9, 1:11 pm, 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

Thanks. And you're quite right. It must be awful to be unable to admit that you're wrong. Imagine the moment when it dawned on Crapman that he'd been wrong about cameras saving lives. "Oh shit! Not only have I been wrong all this time, but I've got to keep pretending that cameras work, because I'm so proud and arrogant, and besides, I've got the motorist-hating to think of!" No wonder he's such a wanker; the strain of campaigning for something that he doesn't believe in himself must do very strange things to him. He should realise that carrying on the pretence will only make it worse though; he should really cut his losses and stop this silly lying. You're right though, he won't, and nor will SPINdrift, or any of their sycophants, so there's not much point in wasting too much time here. Still, it's quite amusing to annoy the trolls from time to time, and nothing annoys lying motorist-hating trolls like the "inconvenient truth"! ;-)

(I stupidly tried to start a debate about the effectiveness of cameras, and of course not one of the trolls even attempted to argue with any of my points. It's *so* obvious that they know what a disaster cameras have been!  I don't know why they don't just admit it, since everyone on both sides of the debate knows it perfectly well.  I almost feel sorry for them, but I don't; after all, anyone who ranks persecuting motorists above saving lives is hardly deserving of pity.)