Nuxx:9e6a4eae-be22-45b0-a64d-74becf6a1bf6@r27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com

Path: num2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!num1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!number.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!r27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <9e6a4eae-be22-45b0-a64d-74becf6a1bf6@r27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.net.news.config Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: delete newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2010 13:06:30 -0700 (PDT) References:  <52976119-fa72-4a29-89bd-452655daa940@x21g2000yqa.googlegroups.com> <89quq6Fnh2U1@mid.individual.net> Lines: 50 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.71.49.124 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Trace: posting.google.com 1278792391 2888 127.0.0.1 (10 Jul 2010 20:06:31 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2010 20:06:31 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: r27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com; posting-host=82.71.49.124; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.2.6) Gecko/20100625 Firefox/3.6.6 GTB7.1 GTBA,gzip(gfe) Bytes: 4018 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.net.news.config:61574

On Jul 10, 11:02 am, Paul - xxx  wrote: > Your/their repeated cries in URC that unless GC replied in a certain > manner you'd/they would decimate the group just because you/they think > he said or did something that you didn't like

I've never said I would "decimate the group". Are you talking about the Lou Knee post? If so then it would make you look a lot more honest and sincere if you admitted that you know as well as anyone that Chapman did it. Since everyone knows anyway, why does he not just admit it? Don't you see that it just confirms all our suspicions about him: that he is utterly deceitful and evasive, and even when he has lost an argument or he's bang to rights, he stubbornly refuses to accept it (e.g. in this case he has just refused to answer the "Did you post as Lou Knee?" question, though that didn't stop him lying and denying it).
 * implying* that it wasn't him and doing everything short of actually

If he's going to employ such underhand tactics over something as unimportant as Lou Knee, it's entirely likely that he would do exactly the same thing regarding more important matters, such as whether speed cameras kill people - and so the Lou Knee saga further strengthened my opinion that he was indeed advocating cameras despite knowing that they killed people. He has shown himself to be more than capable of such deceit.

It beggars belief that you and so many others continue to suck up to Chapman when he's so disingenuous so often. What is the problem with at least acknowledging that he almost certainly made the Lou Knee post, and that's why he won't answer? You don't have to condemn him, but refusing to accept that he did it just makes it look (accurately I think) as though you would never say he was wrong about anything, no matter how obvious it was. Such sycophancy does your cause no good whatsoever, like Clive George sucking up to the moderators.

> Why you continue to want to post there is a mystery as you're clearly > not wanted and you don't like what they talk about.

"Clearly not wanted" eh? So you admit that the rejections have been biased against us? You're OK with that, are you, even though URCM is not supposed to be a private club?

> The real problem is JMS/you and her/your socks causing trouble.

Just to be clear: you don't blame Chapman at all for the "problems" in URC? You think Ian Smith's excellent descriptions of Chapman wallowing in shit and then complaining about being covered in it were completely wrong? If so then you're just so deluded that it's not really worth struggling on with trying to persuade you of anything.

You've got to admit, you are a bit thick.