Nuxx:DPlBl.154179$Au7.113507@newsfe12.ams2

Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!novia!feeder.news-service.com!cyclone03.ams2.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!npeersf02.ams.highwinds-media.com!newsfe12.ams2.POSTED!7564ea0f!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: _  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling,uk.legal Subject: Re: Streets reclaimed again! Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 11:47:37 +0100 References: <16eea8f6-79fb-4c70-a598-1b2b5e704fb9@z19g2000yqe.googlegroups.com> 	 	<819b8434-939e-4182-9b1e-006a0fda9946@f19g2000yqh.googlegroups.com> 	  Lines: 96 User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To:  Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Host: 86.12.82.202 X-Complaints-To: http://netreport.virginmedia.com X-Trace: newsfe12.ams2 1238755657 86.12.82.202 (Fri, 03 Apr 2009 10:47:37 UTC) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 10:47:37 UTC Organization: virginmedia.com Bytes: 5585 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:692897

Doug wrote: > On 3 Apr, 09:09, "nightjar"  > wrote: >> "Doug"  wrote in message >> >> news:819b8434-939e-4182-9b1e-006a0fda9946@f19g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... >> ...> >> >>> Lets get one thing straight, if I chose I could still use a car. >>> Indeed, as a partly disabled person I would benefit from it. What I >>> object to is the sheer dominance of the mass car culture and the harm >>> and inconvenience that it causes. >> To whom? The vast majority of the population find them extremely convenient, >> otherwise there wouldn't be so many in use. >> > They are not a 'vast' majority but a significant majority, aka > democratic mob, which plagues the remainder of the population and even > each other. >>>> Let's face it, even if motoring was somehow made 100% safe and good >>>> for the environment, you'd still hate cars. "Safety" and "the >>>> environment" aren't your reasons for hating cars, they're just excuses >>>> that you use. >>> Cars will never be safe and good for the environment. >> This is your usual trick of ignoring what was said and trying to divert the >> thread. Assume that someone came up with a mode of transport that looked >> like a car, was used like a car and was both safe and good for the >> environment, then deny that you would still be against it. To anticipate >> your usual response, simply saying that will never happen is not an answer >> to that proposal. >> > Don't you get it? No transport relying on non-renewable energy can > ever be 'good for the environment' and even at legal speeds will be > unsafe on any public road. >>> It is also the >>> sheer numbers of cars clogging our streets, pavements and shopping >>> centres. >> The first answer also applies here. >> > See above. >>>> Oh, and BTW, why do you choose this newsgroup for your anti-car >>>> rants? Is it because you feel that it has a high number of anti- >>>> motorist posters, even if many of them don't admit it? (Did someone >>>> say "Chapman"? Or was it "Spindrift"?) >>> I choose it >> Which one of the groups you are cross-posting to is 'it'? >> > Only two and it is URC. >>> in preference to uk.transport because UKT is infested >> The monthly analysis of postings showed that you were the one who 'infested' >> the group. >> > Wrong again. The bully bob clique there considerably outnumbered my > posts.

You started several orders of magnitude more threads than any other poster. Ergo the 'infestation' was yours. Argue all you like, but you're still wrong, still a retard, and you still smell of piss.

>>> who are actively practicing cyber-bullying >>> and censorship. >> One, possibly two, of the posters reported you to your ISP for repeated >> violations of their terms and conditions of use. >> > Wrongly as it turned out.

Yawn. More outright deliberate lies from Doug Bollen. If those complaints were "wrong" as you claim, why did your ISP sanction you? Or are THEY part of the big conspiracy to get at poor defenceless duhg?

>>> I have been using internet discussion groups for more >>> than 20 years and have never ever met the sort of abuse dished out by >>> the inmates of UKT, >> Are you saying that you never abused anyone on that group? >> > Any abuse of mine, such as it was, conformed to the general behaviour > of that unmoderated newsgroup and was less so and purely reactive to > abuse.

Only Bollen could simultaneously criticise others for abusing him, AND use it as an excuse to abuse others! I humbly submit the quoted sentence above as proof absolute that toomy isn't even in the same class as Bollen in terms of latent stupidity.

>>> which is now facilitated by automated corporate >>> harassment. >>> http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2009/46.html >> What on earth has that judgement to do with you and uk.transport? >> > Lots. Future attempts by your chums to censor others by making stupid > abuse reports to ISPs are likely to be met with some ISP reluctance, > or even censure, in view of that court finding. I have sent a summary > to uk.legal. > Dont flatter yourself, Duhg. We just like the 'poke the mong with a stick' game, thats all. Nobody *really* gives a shit whether you draw breath or not...