Nuxx:5d207149-8520-4dad-8daf-9f9f4ac8a615@c9g2000yqm.googlegroups.com

Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!c9g2000yqm.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <5d207149-8520-4dad-8daf-9f9f4ac8a615@c9g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: True or False? Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 13:17:28 -0700 (PDT) References: <4fee706d-8990-4ccd-9abc-377bd84d8c7e@g38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com> <9f5184b8-a24d-413a-ad4f-0c0f3743e1f5@y13g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>  <81e5fd1c-3c56-41bc-a111-0b1b4ef8d984@v19g2000yqn.googlegroups.com> <1bvhs458jrm3u66m8b7nmtedbgibp1js42@4ax.com> <72sgo7Fro5c1U1@mid.individual.net> <2789361e-ff33-421a-995e-3ed200ad803f@h28g2000yqd.googlegroups.com> Lines: 39 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 81.156.251.147 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1237925848 16442 127.0.0.1 (24 Mar 2009 20:17:28 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 20:17:28 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: c9g2000yqm.googlegroups.com; posting-host=81.156.251.147; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-GB; rv:1.9.0.7) Gecko/2009021910 Firefox/3.0.7 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Bytes: 3599 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:691243

On Mar 24, 6:14=A0pm, spindrift  wrote: > "Yes, except that in the circumstances described above it is the > cyclists > who are the "in group" and the motorists who are the "out group". " > > The circumstances described above come from nuxxy, a person, if he > disagrees with someone, calls them a "terrorist' or 'paedophile'. That > you immediately agree with him is telling.

And that you always attack the person rather than the argument they're making (especially when you can't find fault with the argument, which is most of the time) really is telling. Your motorist-hating friend Livingstone is exactly the same. Car-haters know that they can't win the day with logic and proper debate so they constantly try to sidetrack things.

I bet you can't find one example of me calling someone anything like that just because they disagreed with me. "_" deserved everything he got for being an absolute, unbelievable fuckwit even after being given every warning and every opportunity to stop. His behaviour really was beyond the pale, and only the worst of the worst in this group were prepared to defend him. And he admitted to being a paedophile; I merely broadcast that fact.

It was nothing to do with him disagreeing with me; someone has to be an exceptional fuckwit before being called referred to as such by me. That's why I've called you and Chapman plenty of things, and I've never called Simon Mason anything, despite all three of you vehemently disagreeing with me (although of course in Simon's case it's genuine disagreement, whereas in your case and Chapman's it's just part of the anti-motorist deception: pretending that you think speed cameras work just because you want drivers to suffer).

> To demonstrate that what nuxxy is saying is true, you'd have to find > examples of me 'engineering conflict' with drivers.

Not hard when you've littered Youtube with them. Surely you're not are one and the same?
 * still* maintaining the preposterous denial that "Magnatom" and you