Nuxx:D83d15e2-653f-4f9e-bfd7-8b752ae71991@v4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com

Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!v4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Dangerous driving complaint and response. Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 22:01:20 -0800 (PST) References: <3a30696f-4bca-46fb-87d4-a4c5dac7867a@q30g2000prq.googlegroups.com> <9a64b15d-ccf0-4507-b780-df7011e8561f@r29g2000vbp.googlegroups.com> <70c5e31e-616a-47f8-b327-804e2dd9504a@p36g2000prp.googlegroups.com>  <9096e90b-cff5-4199-9378-5c9164176d5f@r24g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>   <9g9eo41dr89mtqmf4khpn9jh5o78o5evhh@4ax.com>   Lines: 89 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 86.151.152.80 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1233640880 2002 127.0.0.1 (3 Feb 2009 06:01:20 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 06:01:20 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: v4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com; posting-host=86.151.152.80; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-GB; rv:1.9.0.5) Gecko/2008120122 Firefox/3.0.5 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Bytes: 6564 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:684800

On Feb 2, 5:47 pm, _  wrote: > spindrift wrote: > > On Feb 2, 4:58 am, David Hansen  > > wrote: > >> On Mon, 2 Feb 2009 06:27:15 -0800 (PST) someone who may be spindrift > >>  wrote this:- > > >>> Magna's original letter: > >> Thank you for repeating that. I don't think I had seen it before. > > >> -- > >>  David Hansen, Edinburgh > >> I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me > >>  http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54 > > > I guess the second response from the council means the driver will be > > interviewed and asked why what he claims happened is so at odds with > > what's on the film. > > > The driving was sloppy, lying about what happeneed is inexcusable. > > Drivers for private firms have, I've been told, been sacked for > > similar. Once I came out of work and saw a van alongside a traffic > > warden, I'd kind of come across the middle of an argument. "Do you > > driver?" screamed the driver, "DO YOU DRIVE!!" He launched launched > > into a tirade of abuse, I mean a sustained verbal assault, and > > screeched off and mounted the pavement as he turned the corner. > > Sounds like the same level of fury displayed by the cyclist in the clip. > > > Me and > > another witness checked we had the right reg and I emailed the > > company. They had GPS in their vans so they checked the position, > > checked with the driver who admitted it, and sacked him. Parking > > tickets are an occupational hazard, they said, but abuse of someone > > doing their job classes as "Bringing the company into disrepte"- a > > sackable offence. > > And I bet you felt real good about yourself. That makes me want to puke...

Me too. Spindrift not only applauds and campaigns for anti-motorist measures, he also goes out of his way to attempt to spite and punish anyone who he sees speaking out against or in any way opposing the anti-motorist regime.

So, in Spindrift we have a hateful, demented, extremist socialist nutter who seeks to discriminate against large numbers of people (motorists), is prepared for large numbers of people to be killed (by speed cameras and other disastrous "road safety" measures) in order to get what he wants, and goes to incredible lengths to silence any dissent (by doing the above, sending sick letters and bomb threats to those who oppose his anti-motorist campaigning on forums, etc). He would have been right at home as a member of the National Socialist German Workers' Party.

It's quite obvious to anyone that council parking enforcement is done to make money, with a secondary aim of making things hard for drivers. Therefore those who support it (like Spindrift) are anti- motorist. And it's hardly surprising that victims of the council parking racket occasionally snap when they're being antagonised and persecuted to such a degree. Councils have been told not to abuse parking enforcement to make money, yet they blatantly still do. Personally I think "parking attendants" (a laughable euphemism since "attendant" implies that they are serving, rather than stealing from, the public) are lucky to only get verbal abuse most of the time. As long as this abuse of the system is continuing, the occasional motorist will continue to react badly. We need to go back to police traffic wardens enforcing traffic laws with intelligence and discretion, and with the aim of keeping traffic moving, rather than catching out motorists and taking their money.

Spindrift, there is NO WAY that you would have bothered to do the above unless you were utterly, horribly anti-motorist. Why oh why do you not just admit it? Do you really think anyone's that stupid? There are *so many* ways in which you show yourself to hate motorists: the above, the fact that you always blame the motorist when a specific incident is reported, and your worrying obsession with SafeSpeed are just three which have arisen recently in a long, long list.

You'd get more support from people if you stopped lying about it. Doug, David Damerell and Tom Crispin are anti-motorist, and I think they're very wrong to be so, but I don't get remotely angry with any of them, because they're happy to admit to being anti-motorist. Whereas you and Crapman make me see red every time you post because you KEEP LYING and pretending that you don't hate motorists. When are you going to stop this ludicrous and totally transparent dishonesty? What are you gaining from it? If you were actually managing to deceive people, you *might* potentially get something out of lying, but NO-ONE IS FALLING FOR IT. What the hell is the point in continuing the charade?