Nuxx:LAFfl.30973$S41.27901@newsfe04.ams2

Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!news4.google.com!feeder.news-service.com!69.16.177.242.MISMATCH!cyclone02.ams2.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!npeersf01.ams.highwinds-media.com!newsfe04.ams2.POSTED!7564ea0f!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: _  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Spindrift: "Vile Car-Hating Fanatic" (Not Said By Me) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 15:16:52 +0000 References: <30f5b32b-8ca4-4f1e-b146-08d44e210a28@41g2000yqf.googlegroups.com> <770a72c3-4ea5-4498-8bf3-1acdb05d240a@s1g2000prg.googlegroups.com> Lines: 101 User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <770a72c3-4ea5-4498-8bf3-1acdb05d240a@s1g2000prg.googlegroups.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.21.204.127 X-Complaints-To: http://netreport.virginmedia.com X-Trace: newsfe04.ams2 1233069483 82.21.204.127 (Tue, 27 Jan 2009 15:18:03 UTC) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 15:18:03 UTC Organization: virginmedia.com Bytes: 5588 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:684113

spindrift wrote: > Here's the link: > > http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=19269&st=0&sk=t&sd=a > > Posts on safespeed were highlighted that fantasised about killing > cyclists. > > No answer was given as to why the lack of cyclist accidents on > motorways "proved" that speeding near cyclists was safe. > > No explanation was given for Smith's manipulation of TRL research in > silly made-up graphs. > > > No explanation was given for how speed being reduced in Hull led to > fewer accidents. > > No explanation was given for how speed being reduced in Sweden led to > fewer accidents. > > > No explanation was offered as to why safespeed supporters say people > who disagree with them should die of Aids or cancer. > > A thread started to highlight the credibility issue of safespeed > supporters is probably not best served by linking to a forum used by > safespeed supporters who think a drunk driver killing someone is > funny. We've already had a post from here that claimed a cyclist > without lights deserves to get run over. That post remains on the > site, nobody here thought it deserved deleting. > > > Scratch a safespeed supporter, get a sociopath, but to what degree is > the campaign's credibility enhanced by its supporters fantasising > about killing other road users? > > Here's another safespeed supporter sharing his thoughts on me: > > I think I speak for most people on this site when I say I hope you die > of a seriously painful, uncurable slow death, like of cancer or aids, > so as not to darken any car enthsiasts web sites again! > > http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topi ... 9437&i=380 > > You see, it strikes me you want the best of both worlds. > > 31 pages in there's still been no response to the gaping flaws in the > campaign's logic. No explanation of the citing of motorways having no > accidents with cyclists thus "proving" speeding near cyclist is safe. > No credible defence of the campaign at all. Plenty of abuse, ad > hominem, evasion and bluster, cries of "troll" and accusations of > being ignorant but that's it. It's a blown chance for you, you could > have taken the initiative, distanced yourself from your more rabid, > not to say sociopathic, supporters, explained what you were trying to > achieve. Is that not what you want? > > End quote. > > The safespeed moderators have locked the thread and do not allow any > further posts from me. > > > So, safespeed pop up in the media and make lofty pronouncements on > road safety whilst pretending to be a charity. They invite comment on > their forum. If they don't like the comments or the questions are a > little awkward they censore the debate and silence the dissenter. > > That's their open forum policy, is it? > > Say that people should die of aids and cyclists should be killed- > that's fine. > > Point out the glaring errors is ss's logic and get banned. > > > What are they so scared of?

On the offchance that these are geniune questions and not simply a rant, I'd ask similar questions about this very newsgroup. I will start though by saying that I do agree with you that wishing someone cancer is more than a bit OTT (with the notable exception of Duhg, who whines on about animal testing of drugs and how he feels that people should just suffer with what they've got). But back on point, what you seem to have suffered there is the result of entrenched positions. Whoever you had issue with was adamant in his point, and unwilling to concede there even WAS an alternative view. Does that sound familiar yet?

Despite what some here believe, I'm not nuxx and I have plenty of easily verifiable history of online presence. I'm reasonably educated and an experienced professional in my business, so while I might well be contentious, I'm certainly not a dribbling moron. I also work in an environment where tolerance is an essential prerequisite, so what the hell happened that I should be so anti cycling? Thats a rhetorical question, by the way...

Aside from removing posts, which CANT be done here but definitely would were it possible, whats the difference between the hostility you got there by introducing reason and the hostility the posters here give to anyone who questions cycling? None that I can see.