Nuxx:D1e42cb4-9967-48f4-ae64-e8905ba5f58b@b16g2000yqb.googlegroups.com

Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!b16g2000yqb.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Spindrift: Yet More Humiliation Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 21:55:27 -0700 (PDT) Lines: 123 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 1237438527 28573 127.0.0.1 (19 Mar 2009 04:55:27 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 04:55:27 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: b16g2000yqb.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: 6689 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:690029

A little tell-tale comparison, which should make the truth glaringly obvious to even the simplest of people. It's so easy to expose him in this manner that it almost seems unfair, but really, he deserves everything he gets.

1. Who do you prefer: Boris Johnson, a cyclist who doesn't hate motorists, or Ken Livingstone, a non-cyclist who does hate motorists?

- Genuine cycling advocate: Boris - Car-hater who pretends to be a cycling advocate: Livingstone - Spindrift: Livingstone

2. Do you support or oppose measures which make things harder for motorists/motorcyclists, and have also been conclusively shown to make things more dangerous for cyclists? Examples of such measures include speed cameras and the banning of motorcycles from bus lanes.

- Cycling advocate: Oppose - Car-hating fake cycling advocate: Support - Spindrift: Support

3. Do you cycle?

- Cycling advocate: Yes - Car-hating fake cycling advocate: Probably seldom/never - Spindrift: Seldom/never (unless he's on one of his video camera excursions - see 5 below)

4. Do you automatically blame the motorist whenever there is a reported incident between a motorist and a non-motorist/motorcyclist?

- Cycling advocate: No - Car-hating fake cycling advocate: Yes - Spindrift: Yes (despite being given plenty of chances and making multiple attempts to obfuscate and bullshit his way out of it, he recently failed to come up with a single proper example to the contrary when challenged on this point)

5. Do you travel round with a video camera and obsessively pick fights with motorists (including making up laws that don't exist) just so that you can post clips onto the Internet accompanied by silly anti- motorist comments?

- Cycling advocate: No - Car-hating fake cycling advocate: Quite possibly - Spindrift: Yes (he seems to think that by posting the clips with another username, people won't realise it's him, but the deranged motorist-hating style is unmistakeable)

6. If you saw a company van driver arguing with an overzealous, money- grabbing, target-chasing, scumbag council parking attendant who was blatantly just there to fleece motorists rather than keep traffic moving, what would you do?

- Cycling advocate: Nothing, apart from maybe feeling sympathy with the driver - Car-hating fake Cycling advocate: Feel spitefully smug, and possibly complain to the van driver's company to try to get him sacked for "bringing the company into disrepute" (i.e. daring to speak out against the anti-motorist machine) - Spindrift: Complain to the van driver's company to try to get him sacked for "bringing the company into disrepute" (i.e. daring to speak out against the anti-motorist machine) (he succeeded in getting the poor guy sacked as well - and boasted about it on here - what a wonderful, altruistic person he is)

7. Would you get the likes of PePiPoo and other sites that help motorists closed down if you could think of a way of doing it, however much effort it took on your part?

- Cycling advocate: No - Car-hating fake cycling advocate: Quite possibly - Spindrift: Yes (he's said so...can't have motorists escaping their punishments [for driving] using "loopholes" [legal defences against technical charges resulting from normal, safe driving behaviour])

8. Do you systematically and solely conduct your Internet activity from a large number of different Internet caf=E9s, just because you do not want to be identified from your IP address?

- Normal person: No - Criminal/psychopath: Quite possibly - Spindrift: Yes

9. Have you made threats of violence which have caused multiple people to have to take serious avoiding action?

- Normal person: No - Criminal/psychopath: Quite possibly - Spindrift: Yes (he knows perfectly well what he's done, denial or no denial)

10. Have you developed one or more personal, hateful, deeply disturbing obsessions with those who have previously dared to expose the truth about anti-motorist speed cameras killing people?

- Normal person: No - Criminal, psychopathic, lying, car-hating fuckwit: Yes - Spindrift: Oooooh yes

Anyone spot a pattern? Even those who like to pretend not to see patterns which they don't want to see (e.g. road deaths not falling as they had been since scameras were introduced) surely can't deny that Spindrift seems remarkably similar to a car-hating psychopath in a remarkable number of ways. I wonder why?

Spindrift, Chapman (http://encyclopediadramatica.com/JzG) and Glug: if it wasn't already obvious how wrong it was to support speed cameras due to a hatred of motorists (and not because of safety), the fact that those three renowned utter pillocks also support speed cameras due to a hatred of motorists (and not because of safety) should be enough to put anyone remotely sane off doing so for life. Who on Earth wants to be associated with any of those warped freaks?

Glug does at least admit to supporting cameras due to a hatred of motorists, though he hasn't yet explicitly admitted that it's *only* due to a hatred of motorists, and that he doesn't care whether they save lives or not. Still, sooner or later his perpetual drunkenness will cloud his judgment enough that he'll do so without thinking, and once it's there in black and white, there's no going back. A bit like the original admission that he drove trains while drunk. How I bet he wishes he hadn't let that one slip out, since it completely undermines absolutely everything that he says.