Nuxx:Af19f5f8-9044-482f-bfd7-237aacafc609@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com

Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Don't feed Troll Nuxx Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 21:50:54 -0700 (PDT) References:   <72h044pr134t1el312ctrmfvtmkeoiq7f1@4ax.com>   <4tv144ha526emtvb58sfpmir4igs23hdd2@4ax.com>  <6m8844dfnf7d8v9uu06nllhar7b3d0bk1r@4ax.com> <6aka28F380n3gU1@mid.individual.net>     Lines: 94 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 88.105.217.66 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1212641454 28841 127.0.0.1 (5 Jun 2008 04:50:54 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 04:50:54 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com; posting-host=88.105.217.66; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9) Gecko/2008051206 Firefox/3.0,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Bytes: 6512 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:651971

On Jun 4, 1:08=A0pm, a...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Alan Braggins) wrote: > In article , JNugent wrote: > >Just zis Guy, you know? wrote: > > >> That would require that Nuxxy used a valid email address. =A0He lacks > >> the courage to do so. =A0Possibly because calling someone a murderer > >> in a public forum is actually actionable, even if it would be a > >> waste of time and money pursuing it. > > >I don't know about the other poster, but when I used a valid email > >address on usenet, my spam intake was astronomical. > > >Using a fake address (and changing email addresses) has helped quell > >that. I wouldn't advise anyone to use their real email address on > >usenet, and no aspersions should be cast on those that don't. > > There's a difference between not using a real unmunged address in > an easily harvested fashion, and providing no contact information > at all while making fuckwitted personal attacks. The former is fair > enough, but I see no reason not to cast aspersions on cowards doing > the latter.

On Jun 4, 1:08 pm, a...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Alan Braggins) wrote: > In article , JNugent wrote: > >Just zis Guy, you know? wrote: > > >> That would require that Nuxxy used a valid email address. He lacks > >> the courage to do so. Possibly because calling someone a murderer > >> in a public forum is actually actionable, even if it would be a > >> waste of time and money pursuing it. > > >I don't know about the other poster, but when I used a valid email > >address on usenet, my spam intake was astronomical. > > >Using a fake address (and changing email addresses) has helped quell > >that. I wouldn't advise anyone to use their real email address on > >usenet, and no aspersions should be cast on those that don't. > > There's a difference between not using a real unmunged address in > an easily harvested fashion, and providing no contact information > at all while making fuckwitted personal attacks. The former is fair > enough, but I see no reason not to cast aspersions on cowards doing > the latter.

On Jun 4, 1:08 pm, a...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Alan Braggins) wrote: > In article , JNugent wrote: > >Just zis Guy, you know? wrote: > > >> That would require that Nuxxy used a valid email address. He lacks > >> the courage to do so. Possibly because calling someone a murderer > >> in a public forum is actually actionable, even if it would be a > >> waste of time and money pursuing it. > > >I don't know about the other poster, but when I used a valid email > >address on usenet, my spam intake was astronomical. > > >Using a fake address (and changing email addresses) has helped quell > >that. I wouldn't advise anyone to use their real email address on > >usenet, and no aspersions should be cast on those that don't. > > There's a difference between not using a real unmunged address in > an easily harvested fashion, and providing no contact information > at all while making fuckwitted personal attacks. The former is fair > enough, but I see no reason not to cast aspersions on cowards doing > the latter.

Oh, cast fucking aspersions all you want. See if I care. Do you think I want the trolls from here to email me? Honestly? Why the hell would I?

Some of you may be just insignificant keyboard warriors who are all talk (as well as militant, holier-than-thou-just-because-I-cycle, deliberately irritating fuckwits on the road), but some of you are threatening someone at their business, with the result that they had to vacate the building for the safety of their staff. And talking of Spindrift, why not lay into him for being a "coward", considering that he hops from Internet cafe to Internet cafe in a desperate effort to avoid being identified? Once again, it's a case of the trolls being first class hypocrites.
 * very* nasty pieces of work. Spindrift has been responsible for

The bottom line is that Spindrift and probably others have made sinister threats, and have doubtless done other things that I don't know about. All of you trolls have shown that you support cameras in the full knowledge that they kill people: if you're prepared to campaign to kill road users that you don't even know for the sake of your nutty anti-car agenda, you're not going to think twice about bumping off one of your opponents. Why on Earth would I want to give you lot any of my contact details? You're all fucking psychopaths! You're extremist loonies who are prepared to kill to get what you want. You're no better than terrorists. I'd be mad to give you any way of getting hold of me.

Nice try though. Not.