Nuxx:D17510b1-b229-4815-99cb-aadb7b68563f@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com

Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Chapman: His Agenda Exposed Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 05:18:46 -0700 (PDT) References: <0f3fd3c5-7db2-47aa-bbd5-bbbae629d329@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> <6fg1d3FbcseoU1@mid.individual.net> <96o5941n82ql2iacpfcr2p051ck8u3shdl@4ax.com> <6fg9bhFbd4rmU1@mid.individual.net> <6c1e5822-7458-4945-bc56-d1ace894ef0f@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> <5b7fea88-8af0-423d-ba33-85d3e264d80e@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> <7df0840f-c77a-4ce1-a871-5e7c02ff94b0@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> <00a6e624-54d0-4d72-b441-5feeb7cf9575@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com> Lines: 113 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 88.105.145.93 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1217593126 5252 127.0.0.1 (1 Aug 2008 12:18:46 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 12:18:46 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com; posting-host=88.105.145.93; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-GB; rv:1.9.0.1) Gecko/2008070208 Firefox/3.0.1,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Bytes: 5991 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:660133

On Aug 1, 12:58=A0pm, spindrift  wrote: > On Aug 1, 12:53=A0pm, Nuxx Bar  wrote: > > > > > On Aug 1, 12:47=A0pm, spindrift  wrote: > > > > On Aug 1, 12:43=A0pm, Nuxx Bar  wrote: > > > > > On Aug 1, 12:11=A0pm, "Paul - xxx"  wro= te: > > > > > > judith wrote: > > > > > > On 1 Aug 2008 08:56:03 GMT, "Paul - xxx"  > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Question 2 is a personal decision. =A0If you'd read about GC = (all > > > > > > > freely available on t'net) you'd have already seen the reason= ing > > > > > > > behind it and wouldn't need to ask the question. > > > > > > > Where Question 2 is > > > > > > =A0Are you going to either substantiate or retract your > > > > > > accusation that I've been using other people's words? > > > > > > > You what? > > > > > > > What to do mean a personal decision? > > > > > > LOL, that's me getting something wrong ... I'd also just read Nux= x > > > > > asking about why GC's kids wear helmets ... and got the two mixed= up > > > > > for which I apologise. > > > > > Hallelujah. =A0A urc denizen actually admitting that they were wron= g, > > > > and even deigning to apologise. =A0Now we just need Crapman to do t= he > > > > same regarding his accusations about me using other people's words. > > > > And while we're at it, he can finally admit the bleeding obvious: t= hat > > > > his sole reason for supporting cameras is that he wants motorists o= ff > > > > the road, and he wants motorists off the road because he HATES THEM= .- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > Name the building I'm supposed to have caused to evacuate. You're > > > claiming I'm a "serious criminal" and have made threats somewhere. > > > Where? > > > I don't even know the name of the building, and if I did, I wouldn't > > post it here. =A0I know of the person whose workplace you threatened, > > however, and so do you. =A0Let's face it, it's not too much of a stretc= h > > for someone who conducted a vicious, personal and libellous smear > > campaign for several years against one person who dared to propagate > > the truth about your beloved, anti-motorist speed cameras.- Hide quoted= text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > What's their name? > > What are they claiming? > > You are saying someone told you I made a bomb threat or summat? > > Who? > > Where? > > What's your evidence, they told you?

You are only asking these questions because you don't want urc thinking that you're a psychopathic criminal. I don't see how it benefits me in the slightest to answer you, so I'm not going to. I don't need to prove anything to you, because we both know what happened. Besides, I don't know exactly how much you know already, and I don't want to accidentally reveal anything to you, bearing in mind what you're capable of.

As far as I'm concerned, it's your word against theirs. I trust them infinitely more than you, and you can't really blame me, can you?

> Someone told me they picked the fluff out of Kylie Minogue's bathroom > extractor, I treat that with the healthy =A0sceptisism I suggest you > should employ now and again, mouse killer.

I certainly treat what *you* say with scepticism. But there are people who I have known for a long time and I trust them a great deal. There are a lot of trustworthy, decent people on the anti- camera side, whereas there are precious few camera advocates who are like that. This is, of course, because it's not possible to learn much about cameras without realising that they don't save lives, and so anyone who supports cameras and has studied them in any depth is hardly going to be trustworthy and decent when they're supporting cameras despite knowing that they don't save lives. Would you trust yourself, or anyone whose outlook regarding cameras was "I know they don't save lives, but I still support them because they make motorists suffer, and I pretend to think that they save lives because that makes my support of them seem acceptable"?

Seriously, would you trust yourself? Honestly?

(Besides, if you're not a vegetarian, it's a bit hypocritical complaining about people killing animals.)