Nuxx:D29f2383-7bec-4991-ba3a-8c4e62afdc44@e8g2000vbz.googlegroups.com

Path: num2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!num1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!number.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border3.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!e8g2000vbz.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.net.news.moderation Subject: Re: Moderated cycling group : posts rejected Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2011 14:08:43 -0700 (PDT) References: <445d27ea-cd2c-468c-88e1-f789c903e288@k9g2000yqi.googlegroups.com> <9060dtFkecU3@mid.individual.net> Lines: 43 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.71.49.124 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1302210524 22134 127.0.0.1 (7 Apr 2011 21:08:44 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2011 21:08:44 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: e8g2000vbz.googlegroups.com; posting-host=82.71.49.124; posting-account=WrLs9woAAAD151hWKA9yknAtxFHW4kE4 User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.16) Gecko/20110319 Firefox/3.6.16,gzip(gfe) Bytes: 3392 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.net.news.moderation:40523

On Apr 7, 3:35=A0pm, Tony Raven  wrote: > > > > You dare to have a different opinion to me (on politics or something > > similarly rage-inspiring)!?!!? Prepare for abusive phonecalls, > > frivolous complaints to the authorities and your employer, a lawsuit, > > or maybe turning up at your door to harass your family. And I'm not > > pulling those out of thin air, those are all things I've seen > > threatened online and in some cases enacted. In real life I have the > > option of seeing who my audience is before saying something that might > > set off the unstable. Online, that audience is anybody at all, from > > now on until the end of the internet. > > Ask Guy about it. =A0He's experienced much of it with pretty good evidenc= e > that it was one of the usual suspects doing it.

Here we go again. You've seen this evidence have you? Or are you just another one of the "I unquestioningly believe Chapman simply because I agree with him on road 'safety' matters" lot? As if I even have to ask.

The RAVEN (and the TlT) would appear to be GULLible. And have you ever wondered why, if Chapman's so creeped out by my "stalking", he and seems very unwilling to stop? You know as well as anyone else how deceitful Chapman can be, so why do you imagine that he wouldn't make all this stuff up about me in order to get sympathy and people onto his "side"? People like you and TlT may be gullible enough to fall for it (TlT was talking about Chapman above, at least in part, and guess what, he's seen none of this "evidence" either), but that's no great loss, and at least the saner ones like kat aren't so easily led.
 * still* regularly makes completely unprovoked digs in my direction,

> At least the law has caught up with harassment > on line though and a number of anonymous harassers have now been identifi= ed > and prosecuted.

But amazingly enough, I'm not among their ranks. You wouldn't credit it, would you?

Now please stop making such ridiculous and overblown accusations until if and when you get some hard, actual evidence to back them up. I fancy I'll be waiting a long time.