Nuxx:7ed63101-cac9-4172-8760-226e1cd2df1b@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com

Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <7ed63101-cac9-4172-8760-226e1cd2df1b@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Well Done! Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 02:22:55 -0700 (PDT) References: <0d98876c-e050-4e91-bfda-139cb3270812@p39g2000prm.googlegroups.com>  <985aaddb-5e7a-49ec-bd70-65968171dfb2@a9g2000prl.googlegroups.com> <7g5604p5rfj9eb75us60r7pvdqbg42rfnn@4ax.com>   <4473a86a-eabf-45e9-8c77-f7a8b3d3bc08@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> <04f875e0-b2b7-4245-bee5-a22b9d4089c8@n1g2000prb.googlegroups.com> <757c4ca3-c32a-4d9f-977c-dd976c2d3417@s33g2000pri.googlegroups.com> Lines: 131 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 88.105.150.187 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1208337776 21263 127.0.0.1 (16 Apr 2008 09:22:56 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 09:22:56 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com; posting-host=88.105.150.187; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9b5) Gecko/2008032620 Firefox/3.0b5,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Bytes: 7700 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:647444

On Apr 15, 8:12=A0pm, Sir Jeremy  wrote: > On 15 Apr, 14:16, spindrift  wrote: > > > > > On Apr 15, 1:15=A0pm, Sir Jeremy  wrote: > > > > On 14 Apr, 21:23, "Just zis Guy, you know?"  wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 09:43:30 -0700 (PDT), Sir Jeremy > > > >  said in > > > > : > > > > > >Why did Which interview you about Safespeed? > > > > > They searched the web and usenet and noted that I had long exchanges=

> > > > with Smith, and had a detailed rebuttal of his one in three > > > > fatalities bullshit on my website. =A0They submitted it to their own=

> > > > statisticians for review, I believe, and they also looked at the > > > > 12mph comedy web page. =A0If any professional road safety researcher=

> > > > had ever dignified Smith with a published rebuttal, I am sure they > > > > would have called them instead, but the professional road safety > > > > community did not, as far as I can tell, ever take any notice of his=

> > > > argument, because it was not published in any peer-reviewed > > > > journals, and of course because it was complete bollocks. > > > > > Guy > > > > -- > > > > May contain traces of irony. =A0Contents liable to settle after post= ing.http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk > > > > > 85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Soun= d > > > > So they were looking to do a hatchet job and you provided some ready > > > made ammunition. > > > > For all the whining from such as yourself and Spindrift about > > > Safespeeds work not being peer reviewed (not that Brakes anal > > > dribblings are peer reviewed) it turns out that Which use the non-peer=

> > > reviewed anti-car and anti-driver bollocks from someone with personal > > > antipathy towards Paul Smith. > > > > I've had my doubts abouts the alleged research that Which do for a > > > while, but this shows their stuff is about as convincing as Alistair > > > Campbell's evidence for weapons of mass destruction which was also > > > ripped off the net- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > You have evidence that Which had a pre-determined conclusion? They > > have no axe to grind, they impartially review products and claims, in > > fact their reputation relies on their impartiality! > > > What is your evidence that memebers of staff at Which corruptly and > > dishionestly misreepresented anything please? > > > What evidence about speeding do Brake rely on that is not peer- > > reviewed please? > > > You may find this useful: > > > =A0http://www.brake.org.uk/index.php?p=3D488 > > > That's a list of the sources of Brake's data. > > > Your evidence that none of them is peer reviewed please.- Hide quoted te= xt - > > > - Show quoted text - > > I don't know that I can be bothered with your usual fuckwittery, but > you > show me where Brakes evidence is peer reviewed. Chapmans web-site is > his own opinion and isn't peer reviewed. Safespeed hasn't been peer > reviewed and is only attacked beacuse arseholes like you and Chapman > don't like facing (a) the truth and (b) the fact that your opinions > are unpopular and ignored by the poplace in general.

Exactly. They don't like what Safe Speed says because it conflicts with their motorist-hating, but they know it's true, so they start off with the conclusion that Safe Speed is bad, and work backwards to try to find any excuses they can to say that, no matter how irrelevant they are to the overall debate. Such excuses include:

- "Not peer reviewed" - despite the fact that they do not level the same accusations at Safe Speed's opponents.

- "Information that was once on the website about avoiding speeding tickets" - despite the fact that all the information was from news sites, and they do not level the same accusations at these sites.

- "So and so was once allowed to criticise the police on the Safe Speed forum" - despite the incredible amount of hateful rubbish that was written on sites such as Cycling Plus, often by Spindrift himself.

- "Safe Speed's forum is moderated" - despite the cycling forums also being moderated, and posters that disagree with the majority line being given *much* more leeway on Safe Speed's forum than the likes of Cycling Plus (where people really were banned just for their opinions). Oh, and don't forget that the Campaign for "Better" Transport's forum is *fully* moderated, but for some reason the trolls don't mind that. (In fact, they seem to like Campaign for "Better" Transport, which is odd, because CfBT are openly anti-motorist, whereas the trolls supposedly aren't any such thing.)

There are many, many more of course, and listing them all would take ages. Spindrift has a huge file full of them, and he happily copies and pastes them into his posts as a diversion whenever he feels that he's in danger of being made to debate the real stuff. The really laughable thing is that the trolls make out that they hate Safe Speed they already hated Safe Speed (because they exposed the truth about cameras, thus endangering the anti-motorist effort), and only then did they set about finding the above excuses for this hatred. It's a bit like the religious right: they start off being hateful, intolerant bigots, they scan through the bible for passages to justify this intolerance, then they make out that they're only intolerant *because* of what the bible says. They, like the trolls, are extremely dishonest and disingenuous.
 * because* of things like the above, when it's blatantly obvious that

It's an awful lot of trouble to go to just because you hate motorists. I still have no idea just why someone would devote so much of their time and effort to such a negative cause. If just one of the motorist-haters would tell me what it's all about, I would be very grateful.