Nuxx:KnO3l.32229$Xy3.10660@newsfe01.ams2

Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!news3.google.com!news.germany.com!feeder.news-service.com!69.16.177.246.MISMATCH!cyclone03.ams.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!npeersf02.ams.highwinds-media.com!newsfe01.ams2.POSTED!7564ea0f!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: _  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Troll Drawings Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 15:29:29 +0000 References:      <222sk4106tmg9itd87v7v7072bm1m2lb72@4ax.com>       <6WL3l.68684$he4.20918@newsfe22.ams2>  Lines: 78 User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.18 (Windows/20081105) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To:  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: newsfe01.ams2 1229959786 82.21.204.127 (Mon, 22 Dec 2008 15:29:46 UTC) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 15:29:46 UTC Organization: virginmedia.com Bytes: 5302 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:681618

Chris Malcolm wrote: > _  wrote: >> Chris Malcolm wrote: >>> _  wrote: >>>> Chris Malcolm wrote: >>>>> _ <whos@prettyboy.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> _ wrote: >>>>>>> On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 13:18:13 +0000, Rob Ward wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Google groups shows exactly *one* post from >>>>>>> "robert.ward@sparrow.invalid.demon.co.uk". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A cynic might suspect (given the style, topic, newgroup, and previous >>>>>>> sudden appearances and disappearances of such "unique" posters) that this >>>>>>> is yet another nymshift by the troll. >>>>>> How, precisely, would that make the questions raised 'different'? If >>>>>> they are valid points, and on first blush they certainly *appear* so, >>>>>> there is no relevance on the person who raised them! Oh no, hang on, I >>>>>> forgot. Its a case of 'Your opinions are not valid purely on the premise >>>>>> that I dont like you'. >>>>>> Lemme tell you something - do with it what you will. I have *definitely* >>>>>> lowered my estimation of cycling and cyclists as a result of reading >>>>>> this group the last couple of months. >>>>> "I"? >>>>> >>>>>> I've no doubt that has translated >>>>>> into giving cyclists less consideration when I come across them on the >>>>>> roads. >>>>> "I"? >>>>> >>>>>> I'd *imagine*, but wouldn't wish to speak for them, that the same >>>>>> scenario is occurring to Nugent, Judith, and anyone else from 'outside' >>>>>> who happens to be reading here. >>>>> "I"? >>>>> >>>>> But "I" is one of a very large gang of "people" who suddenly appear on >>>>> this newsgroup from nowhere, with no posting history, to make a >>>>> comment, and then immediately disappear again. The comments are of >>>>> same style and content as those of a notorious troll. >>>>> >>>>>> That alone should make any rational >>>>>> cyclist here think that they must be doing something wrong, >>>>> As wrong as being silly enough to engage with "your" pathetic attempts >>>>> to resuscitate long dead arguments by pretending to be a new person? >>>>> >>>>> Despite your claims to logic you have failed to recognise that you're >>>>> employing arguments which depend on "I" being a real new >>>>> identity. It's very sad that the only way you can get people to pay >>>>> attention to you is by pretending to be someone else. >>>> This would be an amazing insight, were it not for the fact that I'm >>>> neither Judith nor Nuxx. Chapman will confirm that for you if needed. >>>> So, now we've established that, how about answering the question? >>> It doesn't matter who "you" in fact may be, and rather odd that "you" >>> should choose only to deny that you are one of two specific >>> trolls. > >> You said above "notorious troll". I took it to mean you were referring >> to one of those two posters (who I dont necessarily agree *are* trolls, >> by the way). Sorry, was I wrong there? > >>> All that matters is that if "you" really do have the kind of >>> reading history in this newsgroup that "you" claim, and are not a >>> troll, then "you" would be very well aware of the folly of such >>> effective troll mimickry. > >> Which elements of 'troll mimickry' are you referring to? Oh, sorry, you >> mean the definitive troll signature of 'failing to agree that cyclists >> are by definition always right'. Yeah, sorry, I cant disguise that one. > >>> It's not difficult to behave unlike a troll, unless of course you >>> suffer from the pathological compulsions of trollery. > > QED > How right you are - cyclists in this group would rather score cheap points off motorists than attempt to heal divides. No problem, just carry on whining each time you get cut up :)